Talk:Welsh Development Agency

message: Article needs meat!
Is there anyone out there who'se an expert on the WDA? Perhaps a former insider, or of course just anyone who knows something. This body was pretty central in Welsh Public Life- and certainly in the 1980s and 90s under the Tory Secs of State it was prominent. Indeed it would be interesting if we could have something here on it's history under different Governments, Secs of State and of course the coming of the assembly, didn't it merge with other QUANGOs in about 1990s, (DBRW, and the Land Authority??), and of course the relationship between it and the Assembly/WAG and it's eventual abolition and intergration into the Civil Service. There's quite a dramatic story really!
Seems to me the article is a bit POV, (unintentionally I would say) in it's use of superficially neutral language, and not mentioning the controversies over it's time.
WDA was in fact a very controversial body, (well not so much the existance of the organisation itself, (at least not until devolution)- but it certainly attracted controversy for much of it's history)- I suppose it was always going to be because of it's central place in Welsh Public Life- that really should be reflected in the article.
Weren't there corruption scandals, I vaguely recal something to do with Holiday Homes and Concorde flights in the 1980s????? 
The political controversy about it's place in the Quango state, of course I would argue needs to be mentioned- this was part of the debate about why we needed an Assembly.
Indeed describing it as an ASPB is of course only partly true since it of course for most of it's existence it was Welsh Office Quango. I wonder if anyone knows where we could some good images. One thing I remember was a big semi electronic advert in Paddington Station  where a display showed the amount of money being invested in Wales that changed every second! Of course the removal of the Website by the WAG doesn't help from that point of view!
Comentate (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs meat 

message: Sirfurboy (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2011(UTC)
Vested interests please avoid POV
I have today edited the aricle again. I have removed more very POV stuff from an anonymous contributor who appears to be the subject of the information he was changing. The result was to turn a factual article into an opinion piece. I have removed questions asked of the reader. The place for that discussion is here on the discussion page. The issue raised is the controversy over the registration of a company under a similar name to take over the rights of the WDA. As the WG holds the trademarks and IP rights on the name, any such claims are untested and the article must continue to make it clear that the claim is untested, The modificaction of my text "claims to give him the right" to "This gives him the right" is POV and against wikipedia TOS. If this is reverted I will raise a dispute on the page.
I have tried to be fair on this issue, Mr David. I have kept all substance of your claim in the artcile, and it is given much more space than all the previous work of the WDA, which is disproportionate! But to turn this into a pgae about your venture is frankly illegitimate.
Sirfurboy (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2011(UTC)
Undoing this text: −	
"But of course the Welsh Government can't trade under the WDA name or brand as the company is now privately owned." Wikipedia is about presenting factual information, and the place for discussion is this page. The fact is the IP rights on the name rest with WG, and in any case the WG is not a trading body so the point is moot. The article is about the WDA and not mr David's private company.
Sirfurboy (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2012(UTC)
This text should be here on the talk page. Mr David wrote:
" It has to be said though ownership of this name and brand are probably worthless. They (WG) do not own the present company and as said the dragon logo is generic. Anyone can use a version of it, which begs the question why did the original WDA spend a reputed £200,000 + on it! It should also be noted that translating the Welsh name into English is in keeping with WG policy.The reader shouldn't have much difficulty in observing this a hollow and fatuous threat coming from a rather childish governing regime."
It is clearly POV and has no place in the main article. As I have said before, Mr David's remark is untested and thus not "factual". I have left in some less POV description of the action by the WG to protect its mark.
: Even that is unsourced.  In fact, the entire section about the private company is unsourced, unencylopedic, non-notable, violates NPOV, COI, possibly BLP.  I've removed the whole section - I note the user in question (who seems to be an SPA regarding Mr David?) has reverted, and so I've removed it again.  I ask the IP user to explain how their additions help the article and abide by Wikipedia policies before adding it back in again. Fosse8 (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at the history of the user in question, I've raised this in a thread at Editor Assistance. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Welsh Development Agency". Thank you. Fosse8 (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Fosse8. Coincidentally I checked the article today and was just looking up how to raise a dispute myself having seen the latest round of NPOV edits! I agree with your deletion of that section, but I had left it in before because. I did not want to unduly delete good faith edits - although I suspect the SPA is the subject of the information he added. Whilst the action to protect its mark was uncited (I raised a ciation rquest on it), it is presumably of some current interest. On the other hand it is disproportinate considering how little actual information on the work of the WDA is presented here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirfurboy (talk • contribs) 10:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  undid vandalism  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirfurboy (talk • contribs) 20:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello Fosse8 and Sirfurboy. I just wanted to point out that whatever the contents of the IP's edits, if they are reverting their changes back into the article without first discussing them on a talk page somewhere, then it is against our policy on edit warring. As the policy says, "do not edit war even if you think you are right". The IP has been warned now, so if they add the content again we should report them at the edit warring noticeboard, so that they can be blocked. (And yes, I agree that the content is obviously problematic.) Let me know if you have any questions about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 22:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  He seems to be at it again, adding nonsense and reverting Sirfurboy's undo, and the text of the edits does suggest it's Christopher David himself doing this.  Blocking and protection may be the way to go here. Fosse8 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

text: There is a reliable source mentioning Mr David here: "A private company was incorporated in May under the translated Welsh name for the Welsh Development Agency – a move which allows it to trade using the English language version.  The company, chaired by former IBW executive Chris David, is working on a strategy – for a private sector led approach to inward investment.  However, the company is not advocating the reintroduction of former quango the WDA, but instead a private sector vehicle working in collaboration with the Welsh Government to drive inward investment projects into Wales.  Someone close to the company said: “They still see a positive value in the WDA brand, which they want to extract for the benefit of Wales and the Welsh Government.  It is certainly not about creating a WDA 2. However, the WDA brand is still highly regarded, especially overseas. It remains one of the most instantly recognisable of all Welsh brands.”  The rights to the name the WDA, the Welsh Development Agency and its distinctive logo are owned by the Welsh Government, The relevant trademarks don’t have to be renewed with the Intellectual Property Office until 2014."  That could form the basis of an explanatory sentence here.  Readers may come to this article expecting to see something about the "current WDA" - given efforts by Mr David to promote it, such as here and here, and I would argue that we have some responsibility to present a brief and neutral explanation here - obviously, without his personal involvement.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd take a different view on the notability of that, as I suppose is obvious - the reason I came to the article was because of a flurry of stories in the Welsh press talking about how the WDA needed to be revived.  Mr David seems to have opportunistically registered a company with the same name, fair enough, but the company doesn't actually do anything, and the only source of information for any of its activities is Mr David writing press releases about what he'd like to do with it (as cited in the Media Wales piece you linked to); nobody other than Mr David has ever mentioned it.  The IP's edits regarding the Welsh Government's response, and xis increasingly unencylopedic reaction to that response, are totally unsourced.  If it absolutely must be included, I'd suggest that it merits at most a one-line explanation ("in 2011, businessman Christopher David founded a company called (Welsh translation) and claimed this gave him the right to trade as the WDA, but this has not been recognised as a continuation..." or something), but frankly my personal opinion is that it's not even notable enough for that. Fosse8 (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Fosse8. Although I did write a paragraph along the lines of the abobe (I mentioned the IP rights belonging to the WG), I have been researching this company ever since I wrote that. Despite being nearly a year old, Mr David's company has no website, does not seem to have published anything and is unknown to anyone I have asked about it. He only seems to have come to the attention of the WG when he contacted them directly - thus his claim they are taking legal action to protect their mark. Even this legal action is not widely known. We only have his word for it. I think this qualifies as not notable. However I think we might wish to revisit this if the legal action actually attracts any press attention. If that happens then a short section in the controversy section may yet be appropriate. Of greater public interest just now may be the more recent scrutiny from the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee that suggests investment opprtunities have  been missed since the WDA was scrapped. I will try to put together a paragraph on that (unless someone else beats me to it. I am not quick :) )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirfurboy (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK with me.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

text: PS: There is some background information, posted by Mr David, here.  "Some may say the whole story is no more then trivia", he says.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I think the first problem, is that you think your company has 'taken over' the Welsh Development Agency and so think you are entitled to THIS article. You haven't - you have created a new company with a similar name (I say similar because it's in welsh) If your company meets the notability guidelines at WP:CORP, then you can create an article about your company, but, you would have a huge Conflict of Interest and so should probably either go through Articles for creation or WP:Requested articles. - Happysailor (Talk) 18:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to echo this sentiment. There is no such thing as 'the new ownership' of this agency. This agency doesn't exist anymore. A company with a similar name, which claims the right to trade under the same name does exists, but it is not the subject of this article. It also looks like that company fails our notability guideline for organisations. If there are independent reliable sources that give us enough coverage to write something about the controversy within this article, (keeping in mind not to give undue weight obviously) but I don't think there are. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd also add for the purpose of total openness that I do not "work for the Welsh Government", and the firm I work for has no contracts with *any* public sector body.  I worked at the WDA (as a temp!) for a few months back in 2004 while I was saving up to go to law school, but that's the sum total of my direct involvement with any of the parties.  My interest in this article was purely as a long-time editor concerned at the increasingly unencylopedic edits being made by the IP.  No conspiracy theories here.  Fosse8 (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributions by IP 86.10.11.16 

message: Some may suggest the writers here that condemn information being published regarding the now privately owned WDA (ADC) are acting in an undemocratic way.  Pomposity, a sense of being above the law and a feeling of little people puffed up there own self granted self importance comes across.  They haven't discussed anything with the people that have edited the WDA page (I've checked with them)giving information on the new company. They behave in an ill informed and dictatorial manner. They even claim to know what the new company management think and does.  There are also grounds to suspect that at least one of the self appointed editors works for the Welsh Government! so not only undemocratic but subversive. Some of the comments are personal and give opinions on the strategy, actions and motivation behind the new company- very revealing and what's called "shooting oneself in ones foot"  All this undermines the integrity and objectivity of Wikipedia and supports those that argue Wikipedia has little real foundation. The fact is the WDA (as ADC) is now privately owned.  The new owners are far more informed that the writers here in respect of the current position.  It is important the current position is recorded and its recognised its moving. I suggest that those interested in the truth agree a form of words with the management of the new company.  That's surely in keeping with policy, courteous and avoids any legal entanglement that may come as a result of certain actions be taken by certain bodies.  Wikipedia is not above the law.  Nether are the writers here. Discuss, debate and make truth and fairness your objectives.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awdurdod (talk • contribs) 11:45, March 1, 2012‎
: I think the first problem, is that you think your company has 'taken over' the Welsh Development Agency and so think you are entitled to THIS article. You haven't - you have created a new company with a similar name (I say similar because it's in welsh) If your company meets the notability guidelines at WP:CORP, then you can create an article about your company, but, you would have a huge Conflict of Interest and so should probably either go through Articles for creation or WP:Requested articles. - Happysailor (Talk) 18:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to echo this sentiment. There is no such thing as 'the new ownership' of this agency. This agency doesn't exist anymore. A company with a similar name, which claims the right to trade under the same name does exists, but it is not the subject of this article. It also looks like that company fails our notability guideline for organisations. If there are independent reliable sources that give us enough coverage to write something about the controversy within this article, (keeping in mind not to give undue weight obviously) but I don't think there are. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd also add for the purpose of total openness that I do not "work for the Welsh Government", and the firm I work for has no contracts with *any* public sector body.  I worked at the WDA (as a temp!) for a few months back in 2004 while I was saving up to go to law school, but that's the sum total of my direct involvement with any of the parties.  My interest in this article was purely as a long-time editor concerned at the increasingly unencylopedic edits being made by the IP.  No conspiracy theories here.  Fosse8 (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy; on the question of. 

message: I have added a starter for 10 on the Welsh Affairs Committee report, including a reference to the report. There is obviously more to be said - but I think stuff about Edwina Hart being called "discorteous" and such like would maybe unbalance the article again unless we can flesh out the details on previous activity too. My feeling (happy to be corrected) is that this section should focus on those functions of the WDA that the committee argues should be resurrected in a new body. Whilst the new body may not be called the WDA, it is clear that in many ways it is envisaged as a successor.
Also in this article a while ago I put in the text that the WDA was a QUANGO. Whilst that is correct, I am not sure if a term like "executive agency" would be less politically loaded. If another editor wants to improve that, it would be welcomed by me.
User:Sirfurboy 10.22, 24 February (UTC)
I have fleshed out history and controverst sections now too. Also added additional refeences and fulfilled the citaion requests. Restructured the cntent slightly.
Sirfurboy (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest the information in the 'Controversy' section, where individuals are named, is well cited to a good reference. There is more detail given here than what is provided in the Independent "Quangowatch" article, from what I can see. Sionk (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reference got deleted in a previous edit. I have discussed with the editor concerned and now put back the reference and rewordked the material in question, so all should be good now. Thanks. 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh Affairs Committee Report