This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Wales is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations.
If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
I feel like the current use of units for dimensions in this article is a little weird. It flips between metric first and imperial first with almost every measurement. Is there a reason it doesn't stick to one being presented first or is it just the way sources differ? XeCyranium (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there are curiosities in the UK, where distance is still expressed in miles, and area can be acres (historically) or hectares, and heights can be in feet (historically) or metres. They could be changed to be more consistently expressed, but I don't see a pressing need; it's rather a touching idiosyncracy. Tony Holkham(Talk) 20:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elmidae:@Eopsid: it strikes me that neither this nor this actually reflects the point made in the source. It's not really about "genuinely Welsh" or Welsh-speaking areas. According to the source, what Danny Dorling's research (and we can wikilink link him rather than saying who he is) found was that English retirees in Wales were a reason leave was in the majority, contrary to expectations. We should just say that. DeCausa (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that would probably be preferable - fewer assumptions involved either way. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An interesting fact from that source which I don't think we have in the Demographics section is that the English make up 21% of the Welsh population. DeCausa (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done for now: Our article currently uses the 2021 census figure. The 900,000 figure is from the Annual Population Survey, which, per your link should probably not supersede the census - "We consider the census of population to be the key source of information to measure the number of Welsh speakers in Wales." If you have a compelling argument why the APS number should be used instead of the census one, please provide it here and reopen the request then. Cannolis (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, just regarding your revert here , could we maybe then use a different term than "national identity" ? I'm not sure to which bit you're referring later on, because there's no mention of "national identity" until Tryweryn in 1965? Yr Enw (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC) Tony Holkham(Talk) 08:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first point is that the statements in the lead do not need citations because there should not be anything in the lead that is not supported in the body of the article, and cited there. Secondly, there is a section on National identity under demography, which also refers to the Culture of Wales article. There is also a section on National symbols and identity, referring to a main article on that topic. I hope this answers your question. Tony Holkham(Talk) 08:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for the reply. I understand the first point and agree. Thanks for clarifying. I still have an issue with the second aspect, though. My point is that the lead sentence mentions: "Welsh national identity emerged among the Celtic Britons after the Roman withdrawal from Britain in the 5th century, and Wales was briefly united under Gruffydd ap Llywelyn in 1055". But the section to which you refer doesn't mention national identity emerging at this time, and neither does the linked article on Welsh culture (apologies if I'm just missing them). And, as far as I can tell, no source in the article supports that assertion either. Given the general scholarly consensus is that nations and nationalism are a much more recent phenomenon, what I'm proposing is replacing the term "national identity" with "culture", because the former term is misleading when applied so far back in time. Cofion gorau. Yr Enw (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, apologies to Yr Enw for re-factoring your comment. It just becomes a bit tricky to follow a conversation if there are indents in individual posts. On the substantive points, we're all agreed on the first. On the second, I share the concern. The key point is that the statement in the lead, "Welsh national identity emerged among the Celtic Britons after the Roman withdrawal from Britain", should be amplified and sourced in the body. As far as I can see, it isn't. The Post-Roman era section makes no reference to "national identity". If Yr Enw is right, and I think they likely are, we shouldn't have a statement in the lead that is not supported, or indeed covered at all, in the body. KJP1 (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to add I support the change: "national identity" is an anachronism during this time period. Cultural commonality is much more relevant concept. DeCausa (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a problem across so many articles, but I guess we can only really change it when we encounter it. It gets more confusing when you've got historians using the term uncritically, as well (as with English national identity). Yr Enw (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should say what Wales was united as under Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (a kingdom), the word united on its own is vague for readers.
To make this suggestion useful you would need to produce multiple accounts, and uses, in modern academic sources, of such a definition for the lands controlled by Gruffydd ap Llewelyn. As far as I know there are none. If you cannot produce any, this question is not helping to build a better encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, the modern academic source I would use is the book “The Last King of Wales: Gruffudd ap Llywelyn, c.1013-1063” written by two Welsh PHD historians Dr Michael Davies, and Dr Sean Davies. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I will provide more quotes and sources below -
Dr Rhun Emlyn is a medieval historian at Aberystwyth University, he stated “There were a number of kings and princes during the period who controlled most of Wales but he (Gruffydd ap Llywelyn) was the only one who ruled the whole of what we now know as Wales” he said.
The late Rhondda -born historian John Davies recognised Gruffudd’s achievements as a warrior in his book A History of Wales, writing: “From about 1057 until his death in 1063, the whole of Wales recognised the kingship of Gruffudd ap Llewelyn. For about seven brief years, Wales was one, under one ruler, a feat with neither precedent nor successor.”
“Gruffudd ap Llywelyn killed Gruffydd ap Rhydderch in battle in 1055 and retook Deheubarth.
He marched on Hereford in the same year and around the same time he also seized Morgannwg, which was between the Afon Llwyd and the River Towy, and Gwent. He also took extensive territories along the border.
In 1056 he was victorious over another English army in Glasbury, Powys.
He was now recognised as the King of Wales”.
“His name was Gruffudd ap Llywelyn and he was the last, and the most formidable, King of Wales”.
“Gruffudd, meanwhile, gathered a huge army and marched to a pre-ordained meeting point with Ælfgar near the mouth of the River Wye. This was the heartland of Gruffudd ap Rhydderch’s domain, and the latter was killed by his northern rival and namesake, Gruffudd ap Llywelyn thereby becoming the only man to unite and rule all the lands that comprise modern Wales”. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What’s the issue? It already says Wales was briefly united, and “united” isn’t remotely “vague”. More importantly, has anyone asked for a Checkuser on this obvious sock? If not, I’ll do so. KJP1 (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no issue, I’m only suggesting to add that it was united as a “kingdom” because it was, and because it adds more context and information. Richard Keating requested credible sources and quotations which I have provided. I have come to the talk page respectfully to avoid an edit war. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have provided quotations which do not support your point, some from sources that are evidently unreliable, and you are pushing your original research. I hope for a quick resolution from the sockpuppet investigation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The quotations and sources are from books and articles published by Welsh historians with PHD degrees, they are reliable sources and clearly state that Wales was unified under one Welsh king, Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, therefore they do support my point. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A source that incorrectly asserts that Gruffydd was "recognised as the King of Wales" certainly isn't reliable on that point. Your comments are not helping to build an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s not incorrect, Gruffydd was recognised as the King of Wales by Edward the Confessor, King of England. Here’s a source from the early 1100s to prove it followed by the page numbers and quotations - The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester, with the Two Continuations; Comprising Annals of English History, from the Departure of the Romans to the Reign of Edward I. Translated from the Latin, with Notes and Illustrations by T. Forester : Page 158 “Bishop Aldred and the earls of Leofric and Harold afterwards reconciled Griffyth, King of Wales, with King Edward”.
Page 157 “Meanwhile, after an interchange of messages, Griffyth, Algar, and Harold met at a place called Biligesteagea, and peace being proposed and accepted, they contracted a firm alliance with eachother”. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.