Content deleted Content added
Titus Gold (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 99:
:::::::::A split could be considered to something like:
:::::::::[[History of Welsh devolution]] and [[Future of Welsh devolution]]/[[Proposed Welsh devolution]], as previously mentioned. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 01:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|the summary was a Wikipedia:POV concern}} how are removal of statements like "Llywelyn the Last was killed in an ambush by an English soldier in 1282." form an article about Welsh Devolution a POV concern? If you want to establish context, you only need a sentence or two. Something like: {{tqb|Wales was conquered by Edward I of England and was annexed to the realm. The Laws in Wales act of Henry VIII created a unitary state with a defined Welsh border, and the unitary state persisted with the union of Scotland and later Ireland into the Inited Kingdom.}} This still may be too much or not ideal wording, but all we need to establish here is that the UK is a unitary state. Indeed, we could just say that and omit the conquest altogether. Instead you have text that is copied from and two other pages. This exact text is on [[Politics of Wales]] and comes from (but adapted from) [[Wales in the High Middle Ages]] but also has been found on [[Wales in the Middle Ages]] and [[Welsh History]]. It was also on the now merged [[English rule in Wales]] as well as [[Welsh rebellions against English rule]]. You also have it on [[Welsh independence]] and I am willing to bet it is on other articles I haven't yet found.
::::::::::There is a POV concern here, and that is that this article seems to begin with grievance and to establish a context of devolution as the end of a long struggle for independence, by which this then looks like a half way measure. This is somewhat ahistorical, but more importantly, it is irrelevant in this article. This article is about devolution, so we don't need to know about Llywelyn, nor any of that rather detailed history section. This is in the same way we don't include it in the [[Welsh Revolt]] or [[Owain Glyndŵr]] pages. Does it leave that section too brief? Sure it does. So remove the section, which rather incongruously sits before the history section. The context can go in the history section, probably non-linearly. Again, the only context required is that the UK is a unitary state.
::::::::::A final point: I agree we should not have a separate [[Proposed further Welsh devolution]] page at this time. I think this should be a section on this page. I prefer to see a page grow organically, and where a part of the page becomes overweight, and is not usefully cut back, then a split will propose itself. I don't think we are there yet. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 07:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
== Correct Welsh name ==
| |||