Talk:Wales: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards
imported>Matt Lewis
(→‎!: new section)
Line 13: Line 13:


::By the way, "exploitation" is a neutral word in political economy. I suppose it has some connotations in ordinary speech, which would not be entirely wrong either! --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 05:20, 9 November 2007 (CST)
::By the way, "exploitation" is a neutral word in political economy. I suppose it has some connotations in ordinary speech, which would not be entirely wrong either! --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 05:20, 9 November 2007 (CST)
== ! ==
Is this article about Wales or Scotland?! It seems like a comparative study! The first paragraph with the erroneous "regarded", "principality" and "instead" in i'm removing for the moment - the whole parag is miles off the mark. I know this isn't Wikipedia but I'm flabbergasted. This is my nationality!!!! --[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 01:39, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 00:39, 31 March 2008

This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A country of the United Kingdom that historically was considered a principality; population about 3,000,000. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Geography, History and Politics [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

The South

Is it really true, in all cases, to say that the reason that the south is more Anglicised is:

owing to the extensive exploitation of its natural resources, such as coal and gold, by the English in the 19th century.

This clearly has something to do with it, but I think it might be a bit simplistic and out-of-date to make such a blanket statement. Surely it also has to do with the economic and linguistic differences? John Stephenson 19:51, 7 November 2007 (CST)

I have changed "exploitation" to "mining" - I think the reader can infer it was exploitation. I think this is more even-handed. John Stephenson 20:10, 7 November 2007 (CST)
As a native of South Wales, I can assure you that the economic development of the region was entirely dependent upon exploitation by the English -- which developed substantial infrastructure such as railway lines and ports, but really left the region as a sort of economic "colony" for 150 years. This disappeared with deindustrialisation, starting in the 1970s with very high unemployment, now with more independent regional development.
The linguistic differences are caused by geography -- the mountain range {Brecon Beacons] separating North from South. Besides, the grammar and vocabulary of "North Welsh" are not that different from the south: the extent of its use as a native language is very different, though. This is bascially, I suppose, because North Wales was not of commercial interest to the English.
By the way, "exploitation" is a neutral word in political economy. I suppose it has some connotations in ordinary speech, which would not be entirely wrong either! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 05:20, 9 November 2007 (CST)

!

Is this article about Wales or Scotland?! It seems like a comparative study! The first paragraph with the erroneous "regarded", "principality" and "instead" in i'm removing for the moment - the whole parag is miles off the mark. I know this isn't Wikipedia but I'm flabbergasted. This is my nationality!!!! --Matt Lewis 01:39, 31 March 2008 (CDT)