Talk:Treachery of the Blue Books

message: The link doesn't work, therefore please leave it off this page.  The previous link gives "Error The National Library of Wales has recently launched its new website. The link you have followed may no longer be valid. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause" --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Blue Books at National Library of Wales 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Treachery of the Blue Books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108172352/http://www.llgc.org.uk/index.php?id=thebluebooks to http://www.llgc.org.uk/index.php?id=thebluebooks
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There's a discussion in Talk:Wales#Blue Books/1847 Inquiry regarding multiple edits by  in deleting the words Treachery of the Blue Books  in many articles. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is about the appropriate terminology to use when referring to this inquiry in that article and is at Talk:Wales#Blue Books/1847 Inquiry. Discussions about how to use it in other articles should be on the talkpages of those articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Books/1847 Inquiry 

message: Should be the title of this entry. Thats what's being discussed. Obviously the alternative names should be given prominence and the reaction to the reports publication be covered. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing the article title would be controversial, so you would need to go through the WP:RM process.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

text: , I'd say there would be a strong case to leave it as it is per WP:COMMONNAME, with this title being very widely used in English-language publications by Welsh authors. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

text: ,  I totally get it would be controversial; it is however weird to be following a link to an Education Inquiry's report and having such a title mismatch. The reader's immediate reaction is going to be that they have landed up on the wrong page. There is the Report and then there is the controversy. The title as is values the controversy over the thing itself. I doubt that any publication uses the current title without explaining what it refers to. An indicator that it's not a common name?? Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A government report published 174 years ago, would, in itself, normally be unlikely to be sufficiently notable to justify a comprehensive article here.  What is most notable in this case is the reaction and response to its content, and the common name for that (in the English language) is "Treachery of the Blue Books".  To quote the (sadly, late) editor Daicaregos in an earlier thread: "John Davies notes in The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales that the name 'took hold of the public imagination to such an extent that ever since the report has been known by that name.'"  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  Thanks for your input. Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales 1847 

message: There seems to be some confusion as to what the scope of this article is.
Is it:
* As stated in the first sentence: ?
Or is it:
* As stated by  in their recent edit removing the "response" section-break: ?
I assumed the former as that's what it says at the top, but if I'm wrong then I'm sure the report itself is also notable enough to have an article of its own. What do the team think? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope? 

message: ,  Regarding the use of summarised primary source data. From my understanding (in this instance) it follows the WP:PRIMARY policy. Primary sources are allowed if they are used carefully. See also WP:CALC allows simple calculations. The fact that it's close to the event does not exclude its use.
:Seems acceptable. Cell Danwydd (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that gracious concession. I will now restore the deleted references. To be clear, we are not saying "there were 708 private schools in Wales" (or whatever), we are saying "the report surveyed 708 private schools in Wales" – something which is indisputably a matter of fact, and for which the report itself is the best evidence. GrindtXX (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Thanks. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Sources 

message: We’ve got a couple of spicy quotes from his book “Why Wales never was” 
So I was wondering who he is.
From his linked-in page…
He appears to be a specialist in Corporate Social Responsibility.
His academic positions have been in Business schools. 
His degree was in Geography.
 
These are (some of?) the papers he’s authored/co-authored
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Brooks%2C+Simon
Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore the weed eradication paper. That’s a different Simon Brooks. :) Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

text: , he's the subject of a Wiki article too, which  has heavily reworked since I fixed many issues in it, and tagged it as in dire need of further improvement if it was to survive as an article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I saw that page. I've ordered "A History of Education in Wales" by Gareth Elwyn Jones for the princely sum of £4.00 "He was 53 at the time and his reputation as the pre-eminent authority on the history of education in Wales was already unchallenged." https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/a-very-fine-scholar-exceptionally-3408187. Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , sounds interesting. :-) -- DeFacto (talk). 19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

text: That is indeed the common meaning: see Independent scholar. I can only assume that the use of the word by the cited source means that he writes and publishes outside the discipline (Business) in which he holds a formal post. Personally I think the term's misleading, and should be avoided here. "Interdisciplinary" might be better. GrindtXX (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair definition of 'independent', in this context. Done. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , you think being 'misleading' makes it suitable for inclusion? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

text: , as it's ambiguous I agree it could be misleading and so should be avoided. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I agreed with  that the word 'independent' should be avoided. Done and dusted. End of argument. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

text: ,  agreed that 'independent' should be avoided and removed one instance of it, I have now removed the other. TSventon (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

text: , , I have just read a review on the IWA website which says "it is to the detriment of Welsh academia that he is not in one of our Universities", which suggests independent may have meant not at a university, at least when (the Welsh edition of) the book was published. It is still confusing as he is now at a university. TSventon (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr Simon Brooks 

message: I've just had a chance to flick through a book, so for the record, and so that I don't forget which book it was, I thought I'd start a section here for notes.
* :
*: It doesn't use the terms "Treachery of the Blue Books" or "Treason of the Blue Books" at all, it generally uses the term of just "Blue Books", which it defines on first use in the section about them as "The Blue Books, the three-part Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales, had been published..." In its references section it only ever refers to them as "Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales ..." followed by the part number or other qualifier". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , okay, thanks, the more the better. But no need to be so, erm, unfriendly, about it. What use was it wherever it was (I remember seeing it somewhere, but cannot remeber where and your link was duff) and here, the talkpage of the article in question, is definitely the best place for it. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I see you have now fixed the duff link, but without adding the customary courtesy markup (as it had already been replied to) per WP:TALK#REPLIED. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference notes