# Talk:Mari Lwyd

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mari Lwyd/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 12:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a really interesting topic. I'm happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"First recorded in 1800, a number of accounts testifying" This doesn't work- it was was the practice first recorded in 1800, not the "number of accounts"
I've changed this sentence to "The custom was first recorded in 1800, with subsequent accounts of it being produced into the early twentieth century." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
"The tradition has also inspired depictions in artistic performs, for In the work of both the painter Clive Hicks-Jenkins and the poet Vernon Watkins." All over the place
Oh my, how did I miss that. I've amended this passage! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's a link to Watkins' poem if you want to use it: [1]. It was first published in London by Faber and Faber in his Ballad of the Mari Lwyd, and other poems (1941). It was his first published book. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Martin; MBW, I'd be inclined to think that a passage from the poem in a quotebox of some kind would be a great addition! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. The first five lines might do. Or maybe lines 393-408? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Married Black Woman?? 
I've now added the quotebox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
"besom broom" This will not be familiar to many readers; our article besom suggests that merely "besom" (though I think a link would be necessary) would be sufficient.
Agreed and changed. 20:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
"while Judy brushed the ground, house walls, and windows, with a broom" The comma after "windows" needs to go, I think; I'd remove the one after "walls", too, but I'll leave that up to you
I'll leave that after "walls" is that's okay (I'm very fond of the Oxford comma!) although will remove that which appears after "windows". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
"that during the Medieval" Can you use "Medieval" like this?
I have seen it used like this, but I'll rephrase it to the more familiar "Medieval period". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
You link hoodening and East Kent twice. Personally, I'd be inclined to say that it may not belong in the description section (though I see the advantage to keeping it in terms of paragraph lengths)
That's odd, I can no longer find these extraneous links. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I've made a change. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
"while the latter was found largely in North Wales and the former largely in the South" This doesn't read quite right to me
I've changed this to "Further casting doubt on this idea is the fact that there is no known historical link between the Mari Lwyd, which was found in South Wales, and the Morris dance, which was instead concentrated in the north of the country". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I assume that Festival of the Ass is the same as the feast of the ass? If so, a link/redirect would be appropriate.
Yes, that's great, thank you.  I was surprised that Festival of the Ass didn't like to anything, but that explains things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
You've talked a lot about Peate before you provided a redlink. He should probably be linked at first mention (some people are not keen on redlinks to names, but I'm certainly not opposed)
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, there's a bit of an issue with File:Mari Lwyd at Llangynwyd.jpg. If it's non-free, it's too big, and, in any case, probably does not meet NFCC#3 and NFCC#8. However, I am fairly sure that it is PD in both the US and UK; IANAL, but I think {{PD-old-70}} applies to both providing Evans died over 70 years ago. If it's this British photographer called Frederick Evans, he did.
Many thanks; I've added the PD tag. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Given the first record, I think "Nineteenth century" should be renamed "Eighteenth and nineteenth century"
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Not a massive deal, but the last paragraph of the section doesn't really seem to say what the changing social conditions were. What changed? Why?
Unfortunately the source doesn't specify. That was something that I picked up on when I first read it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Is "Graig Penllyn" the same as Penllyn, Vale of Glamorgan? If it's a village in its own right, it should be redlinked.
It certainly seems to be (although I'm far from an expert on this part of Britain). I've added the link in the article. 21:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It's actually a separate hamlet, about a mile further up the hill. It has an old chapel: [2]. Here's the Barley Mow. But I'm not sure how much added value there is in adding a red link for it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Is Lois Blake definitely male? I've never heard of a male with that name.
I think that that is simply my error. I've changed it to female pronouns. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
"giving the custom a new expressive life" A bit rhetorical; do you have a source saying this?
I agree, it is too rhetorical; and no, I have no source, this was a piece of text that I inherited from older versions of the page, I believe, and which I left as it was. I have now removed it, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
"In 1919, H. W. Evans recorded the existence of a similar custom which had existed in Solva, Pembrokeshire circa 1840, during his mother's childhood. He described it as a "Mari Lwyd" and provided a drawing of it using his mother's recollections as a basis, although was unaware of how it had been used." This needs attention- you seem to alternate between the Mari Lwyd qua custom and Mari Lwyd qua hobby horse.
I've made some prose edits here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
That video is pretty fantastic. I wonder if you should make more of a fuss about it in the article.
Yes, it is a great video. If only more Wikipedia articles on folk customs had them. However I'm unsure how I could make more of it in the article itself to be honest, given that we don't have reliable sources discussing that particular video itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm just thinking aloud, so please just go with whatever you think is best, but I wonder if you could move it to the lead; perhaps you could lead with a historical photograph and a contemporary video? I'm not really sure, just some ideas. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd be a little hesitant about putting the video in the lede as I feel that a crisp picture of the Mari Lwyd serves a better purpose (those with poorer, slower internet connections, particularly in developing countries, might not be able to view the video, for instance). However we could go for a historical photograph in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be missing a location on your Prat source.
Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you could neaten up the recordings section a little? I think it's valuable (it reminds me of the traditional encyclopedia articles which list publications of likenesses) but it's a bit messy right now. The external links section could be a bit neater, too.
I've tidied up the Recordings section a little, although without any specific citation formats for audio recordings it probably lacks the neatness of the other citation sections, unfortunately. I shall also tidy up the External Links section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
A great read and a fascinating topic- thanks for putting the time into this article. I'm happy with the sources and images other than those points I have already mentioned. (GAC is not the place for formatting quibbles.) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Josh - I'll get around to dealing with the last few when I can grab the chance (which will probably be next week now). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I've responded to all of your points now, Josh. Do let me know if there is anything else that jumps to mind. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, great, I'm happy with how the article's looking, and I'm happy to promote at this time. Great article and a fascinating topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm this is such a good article, but many would need help pronouncing the Welsh term Mari Lwyd. Kortoso  (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation (IPA) now added. -- Picapica (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if the main author ever intends to take this to FAC but, if they do, Fred Hando wrote quite extensively on the tradition in a number of his articles for the South Wales Argus, in the period 1922 to 1970. I have the sources if they would be of any help. KJP1 (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, he's mentioned in this blog from "Usk Chimps", dated 19 Jan 2014, which shows his 1951 drawing of the painting on Llanover Post Office, depicting a visit by the Mari Llwyd. Some other interesting links and pictures there also. More than one of Hando's book pieces (Hando, 1944, p.101, and Hando, 1951, pp.22-28) covered the Mari Lwyd, so maybe he deserves a mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hogyncymru - I'm struggling a bit with the recent additions to the article by User:Hogyncymru. In brief, they don't seen to make much sense. The quotebox from the Hereford Times appears to be part of a sentence and to be missing something. The paragraph on the visit of the Prince of Orange, also sourced to the Hereford Times, is even more confusing:

"In 1860, under the care of Lord Llanover, William, Prince of Orange visited Abergavenny" - was the Prince ill? Was Lord Llanover a doctor? I think it means "while a guest of", but can't be sure.
"through his journey, he visited one of Lord Llanover's inns" - aside from the use of "visited" twice in seven words, what purpose is "through his journey" serving? And the reference to Lord Llanover's inn raises more questions than it answers. Lady Llanover was a noted abstainer. Was this one of her Temperance inns?
"he became fixated by a painting of Mari Lwyd. his intention upon learning of this was to promote it" - aside from the poor grammar, this is incomprehensible. What did the Prince learn? What did he intend to promote and how?
I understand every article on Wikipedia can be improved, but I think particular care should be taken with GA/FA articles. I'm really not sure that the recent additions are an improvement to this GA. KJP1 (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have an account, you can access the original at britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk. It looks like the report was on pages 9 and 10, but you need a subscription to read it. Seems it was indeed Llanover's temperance hotel.  86.187.169.23 (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
indeed Hogyncymru (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I don’t have such an account. However, the onus is on the editor who includes the material to make sure that it is clear, and grammatically correct. KJP1 (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
This is fine, however, what I continuously find on wiki are editors who are quick to delete content instead of re-editing the content to make it sound better, removing very important details that could benefit the content, thus; give readers a better understanding of historical events, I wished more editors would ask politely for content and if they do not have access to a site via a paywall, that other editors supply them with a screenshot so that they can look through it and write a better conclusion.
https://i.imgur.com/H4WDrSF.jpg please check this link to read the whole article.. I made some edits to it (green highlight for certain activities, orange for the Mari Lwyd section.. it's also been dissected to make it easier to read).. however, nothing has been omitted. Hogyncymru (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let me go through a few things.

Primary sources - you've taken a primary source, which we are advised to use only with care;
No original research - you've then attempted to interpret the source, which we are explicitly told not to do; "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself";
In my interpretation, you've completely misunderstood it. The relevant part says: "Here H.R.H.'s attention was attracted by the curious painting of the "Mari Llwyd," at Lord Llanover's temperance inn, the Pen Ceffyl, and on hearing the object it was intended to promote, he graciously entered the kitchen, where a respectable Welsh party were preparing tea..." I am pretty confident that the word "promote" relates not to the Mari Llywd, but to the Pen Ceffyl, and that the section actually means something like, "Then, H.R.H visited Lord Llanover's temperance inn and was struck by its painting of the Mari Llwyd. Lady Llanover having informed him of the inn's objective, namely the promotion of abstinence, he agreed to go inside where he encountered some respectable Welsh people enjoying tea" (as opposed to disreputable Welsh people getting drunk).
You've then taken your misinterpretation and written this; "under the care of Lord Llanover, William, Prince of Orange visited Abergavenny, through his journey, he visited one of Lord Llanover's inns called "Pen Ceffyl" ('Horse's head'), whilst there, he became fixated by a painting of Mari Lwyd. his intention upon learning of this was to promote it." It's not completely clear what you meant that to say, but a rough translation would be something like; "H.R.H became so obsessed by the image of the Mari Llwyd that he subsequently worked to promote it". Which, as outlined above, isn't at all what the primary source you've used said.
It is, of course, possible that my interpretation of the source is completely wrong, and that yours is right. Or that we are both wrong, and there is a correct, third, interpretation. That is exactly why we shouldn't be using primary sources in the way that you've done.
The encyclopaedia of everything - Finally, we're not attempting to be the encyclopaedia of everything. We're supposed to use a summary style and  "avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information". Your approach leads to Gwrych Castle, which is an unreadable dog's breakfast of badly written, and poorly sourced, trivia.
As I'm keen that this Good Article doesn't go down the same route, I'm proposing to delete your additions. I'll hold off for a few days as there may be other views. The above is rather blunt and will likely offend you. I'm sorry for that but I really think that your additions make this article worse rather than better. KJP1 (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that interpretation. In which case, this single unattributed painting of a Mari Llwyd, in the Nag's Head in Llanover, is wholly incidental to the newspaper report. This article need not enumerate all the paintings of the Mari Llwyd that existed in pubs 180 years ago, whether Prince William of Orange saw them or not. 86.187.232.13 (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Why bring Gwrych into the conversation, at no point did I include that into this article, also why are you insulting other editors?.Hogyncymru (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent addition as they are contentious; they can be restored should consensus emerge here at the Talk Page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I can respect this, KJP1's attitude towards other editors are to be desired, but as long as the consensus is to not include them, then so be it, regards. Hogyncymru (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

My edit to remove two sentences from the summary was reverted by User:Midnightblueowl for WP:BRD. The sentences were:

Although the custom was given various names, it was best known as the Mari Lwyd; the etymology of this term remains the subject of academic debate. The folklorist Iorwerth C. Peate believed that the term meant "Holy Mary" and thus was a reference to Mary, mother of Jesus, while the folklorist E. C. Cawte thought it more likely that the term had originally meant "Grey Mare", referring to the heads' equine appearance.
As it is quite a large chunk of text I removed, User:Midnightblueowl suggested opening this talk page discussion for consensus.
I made this edit for WP:DETAIL and WP:BECONCISE, as per the etymology sub section, there is no consensus on the derivation of Mari Llwyd, and the summary text then goes on to present both the Peate and one of Cawte's suggestions without mentioning any other etymologists, the problems with the suggested derivations or even the issues brought up by both Peate and Cawte. Both writers discuss the Holy Mary derivation, which may suggest that this is favoured and that Cawte is merely questioning an orthodoxy, which is not the case.
The Etymology section itself does a great job of explaining that Cawte's work notes a number of competing derivations (not just the one presented in the summary), is well sourced and does a good (if necessarily brief) job of explaining the phonology and morphology of Welsh. As per my edit, I feel that if the summary is to mention etymology (and I'm not sure it really adds anything for the quick article reader) it should just say the etymology is contested, without offering a partial list of options. Other than the number of bytes removed, I really can't see this as a contentious deletion so maybe I am missing something? Happy to discuss further. Cymrogogoch (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not quite seeing the issue. The lead offers a summary, the body goes into more detail. That's generally how they work. Given the oddity, and the interest, of the name, I would expect to see some coverage in the lead. I think the suggestion is that the lead in some way oversimplifies/mischaracterises the debate, but I don't think I'd agree. It clearly explains it's a matter of debate/discussion and details a couple of the possibilities. These are then more fully discussed, along with others, in the Etymology section. KJP1 (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi User:KJP1, the summary presents two etymologies and ignores four discussions that are presented in the body of text, this is poor and misleading for quick readers. The article would surely be improved by removing all mentions of etymology in the summary, or reducing it to "the etymology of this term remains the subject of academic debate" and letting the etymology section do the rest. Cymrogogoch (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Highlighting Peate is particularly problematic as he's obviously a well-known and prolific folklorist, but his opinion changed from essay to essay. In his 1935 work that is used as a source, "A Welsh Wassail-Bowl: With a Note on the Mari Lwyd" he credits TH Parry-Williams as the expert he is indebted too and only repeats his assertion that the name means "Holy Mary" without discussion or a derivation. However in another Peate essay ("Mari Lwyd", again sourced and discussed in the etymology section), he lists four etymologies and states that while "Holy Mary" is the explanation he "tended to accept in the past" he is no longer of this mind by 1939.
The summary text not only mischaracterises the debate between academics, but also the life work of at least one of the two academics presented.
Cymrogogoch (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
If the summary contained every point within the body, it wouldn’t be a summary. To suggest it mischaracterises the life work of anybody is seriously exaggerated. And I do not think removal of any mention of the name’s derivation would “surely” improve the article. So, we disagree. Let’s see what others think. KJP1 (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)