Talk:Wales

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This clearly has something to do with it, but I think it might be a bit simplistic and out-of-date to make such a blanket statement.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)

Wales or Scotland?

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)

I can now see this article is entirely the product of a Write-a-Thon! Makes sense now why it was like it was - but it's made me a bit worried about Write-a-Thon's now I must say! It certainly didn't lead to this article being taken up after a few days. --Matt Lewis 17:25, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

I have reverted your edits, because I cannot see the justification for removing perfectly accurate history and language discussion from the article. On the other hand, you are welcome to rearrange material and contest the content -- preferably here, on the Talk page. I don't share your view that it is the result of a Write-a-Thon, especially as I contested or refined various issues on the page. Please express very clearly what you disagree with, and let's see where to go. From my point of view, the history of Wales's relations with England are central to understanding modern Wales, and you have simply excised them! So, let's improve the article, but not by fiat. BY the way, I am also Welsh. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:31, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

All the work on this article was over 3 days - starting on and then immediately after the last Write-a-Thon (7-10th Nov 2007)!! How can you contest that? It's certainly made me against Write-a-Thon's (for the same reason I was against the Core Contest on Wikipedia). So far Citizendium has been sub-impressive in my eyes - but I have to believe in it or I'll despair.

I will go through the article and list for you the many reasons why I made the edit I did. Please take me seriously. If this place turns out to be another Wikipeida I will truly despair! When I saw this article my heart sank to my shoes - it really did - to my shoes. I live and breathe in my country - why does it have to be a 'subject' to another? We only need to find the proper things to write about!

Wales is central to Wales - not England or Scotland!!! I fundamentally disagree with your above stated POV - and it is entirely your own original research, with barely a citation. I'm trying not to quote Wikipedias policy! --Matt Lewis 18:14, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

possible structure

I've tried this structure on Wikipedia (where the Wales article is currently horribly bland and pointlessly guarded with the usual "two bullying editors scaring everyone else off formula" you find over there... but anyway, I may as well follow it here if I can't over there. Wales is more famous for its geography than history, so I've began with that. I despise the formula that begins country articles with Etymology! Do we want readers?

  * Introduction
  * 1 Landscape of Wales
        o 1.1 Climate
  * 2 Travelling in Wales
        o 2.1 Welsh counties
  * 3 History
        o 3.1 Origins and history of the name
        o 3.2 Roman colonisation
        o 3.3 Medieval Wales
        o 3.4 Modern Wales
  * 4 Wildlife
        o 4.1 Flora
        o 4.2 Fauna
  * 5 Architecture
  * 6 Governance
        o 6.1 Law
        o 6.2 Economy
        o 6.3 Public health
        o 6.4 Military
        o 6.5 Demography
              + 6.5.1 Language
              + 6.5.2 Religion
  * 7 Culture
        o 7.1 Media in Wales
        o 7.2 Music and dance
        o 7.3 Literature
        o 7.4 Visual Arts
        o 7.5 Science
        o 7.6 Sports
        o 7.7 Food and drink
  * 8 Famous Welsh people
  * 9 Symbols of Wales
  * 10 Images of Wales
  * 11 See also
  * 12 References
  * 13 External links

The above was posted unsigned by User:Matt_Lewis

The structure is ok, although I am not sure why military issues are so prominent, The biggest problem is what to put into the Introduction, as this can only be a short summary of the most salient issues. There can be much dispute over what it should contain... Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:49, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

So did Wales win some sort of Rugby game? --D. Matt Innis 19:18, 31 March 2008 (CDT)