Talk:History of Wales

message: The article concerning Wales retaining its language needs much improvement. As a Welshman, I can tell you that English is the only language spoken by a significant number of the Welsh, particularly those who live in the South. In the South, where the Welsh language is not at all evident, Welsh is taught from scratch in schools as though it were a foreign language. Until the arrival of S4C, there was very little programming available in Welsh in Wales. Much is being done to restore Wales's mother-tongue. 86.19.113.92 (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Welshperson who's lived and worked in a wide area of South Wales, I can't say I agree with you that the Welsh language is "not at all evident" as you put it.  I know a lot of people who's first language is Welsh, but speak English in most places, because the English-only speakers (myself included) form such a majority.  (And the article is perfectly clear on the fact that Welsh speakers form a minority).  There are also plenty of (oversubscribed) Welsh medium schools in South Wales (although substantially outnumbered by English medium schools) which further belies your point about a lack of evidence of the Welsh language in the region.  Also your anecdotal "evidence" has no real place on wikipedia.  Cite some facts and figures from some reputable sources, and you might get listened to.  176.251.17.132 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Welsh Language 

message: Re History_of_Wales#Conquest:_from_the_Statute_of_Rhuddlan_to_the_Laws_in_Wales_Acts_1283_.E2.80.93_1542 and Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542
Does this, "it did for the first time define the England-Wales border " need to be clarified, on account of the Monmouthshire problem? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes (though I don't have the book that seems to have been used as the source for the statement).  Maybe state (in relation to the Laws in Wales Acts) that it "identified Wales as an area in which different laws on some matters were applied."  As well as the "Monmouthshire problem", it's also not true to say that either set of legislation was "the first" to define the border - Aethelstan established the Wye as the border between the English and Welsh in about 927.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording and the Monmouthshire problem 

message: a possible Iolo forgery. See Talk:Óengus_I#Mount_Carno. — LlywelynII 02:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 728 Battle of Carno

message: Would advise this section is moved, unsure as to where, but appearing at a point within an otherwise chronological sub-sections is random and confusing. Also would the colon in the title be against Wikipedia style protocols?
Cymrogogoch (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: DNA Research:

message: A recent edit  changed the very beginning of the lede from "pre-history of Wales" to "history of Wales". This has problems because the article goes on to describe many details of a period that is, technically, before history began ("The history of Wales begins with the arrival of human beings in the region thousands of years ago...").
I get it, though. An article usually starts out with a definition/description of the actual topic of the article, bolded. So starting out describing pre-history has its problems. My bold solution would be to strip out the pre-historic material from the lede. It is covered in depth in the actual article, though there may be some references in the lede that are not in the article body; I'd be sure to retain those.
I thought I'd solicit opinion from other editors before I went ahead with that.   signed, Willondon (talk)  23:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s incorrect. “History” per any dictionary definition is the study of the “past”, or variants of that. Just because we use the idiomatic phrase “pre-history” doesn’t mean it’s outside of the definition. And now because the article rightly covers pre-history but the lead doesn’t it fails to comply with WP:LEAD so have restored it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 07:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with .   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I love waking up after a good sleep to find the work's all been done. Looks good, all.   signed, Willondon (talk)  12:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of pre-history in article 

message: Could I draw editor attention to discussion here: Talk:Wales in the Middle Ages#Duplication. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: In this edit:  I deleted a population table. I place it here to make it easy for editors to find and revert if they disagree. My reasons for deleting, however, are as follows:
# It uses two quite different sources, and that looks like it has a potential for WP:SYNTH, although the figures look reasonable on the face of it.
# It only goes back to the 16th century and this article goes much further back
# It is a lot of detail for an overview article, considering we have child articles
# If we present this kind of data I would prefer some kind of histogram so that a reader can quickly see the shape of population growth as well as the range of the numbers.
# The text does describe population growth, so we are not losing information by removing it
Hope that is ok. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Table 

message: there are plenty of Welsh historiography and Welsh Historians from Martin Johnnes, John Davies, Stephen Thompson has welsh biking and sports. 
Kenneth O Morgan has many welsh historiography 
Paul O Leary has some cultural identity papers too.
Jamie Medhurts in his teaching and research has Welsh Television.
Gethin Mathews specialises in Welsh World War One 148.252.129.105 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historiography