Talk:Owain Glyndŵr

message: This article does not specify how much support Owain actually had across the population of Wales (that presumably contained people of other origins). Neither does it explain the extent of Wales at that time (borders change).   FreeFlow99 (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The narrative is inevitably "national-ised" through a contemporary political lens, so I don't know how remarkable it would be to comment on the fact the majority of people in Wales at the time would likely have never even heard of him, as it was still a largely feudal society. But this is hardly unique of most historical figures, their legacy was much more limited than we might like to imagine now. Yr Enw (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extent of support in wales 

message: A new editor is attempting to make substantial changes to the page, without attempting to seek agreement from other editors.  Further discussion here, please.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that in this edit  marked Minor IagoHughes added as a ref a blog from a novelist  which I was about to revert when it was done for me by User:Ghmyrtle. Perhaps they need reining in by an admin?SovalValtos (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor's activities have been reported at WP:AN/EW.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Why don't you begin with using the talk page to write a draft with the references in place to gather a consensus. My immediate thoughts would be that Lawgoch was never officially crowned as the  Prince of Wales, in fact Dafydd ap Gruffydd would be the final native Prince of the House of Aberffraw, but the topic of native Prince is hotly contested, referring to Tudors of Penmynydd and the House of Tudor. And as for a first ever parliament, this is true, but similar gatherings had occurred since the era of the Kingdom of Gwynedd only under a different premise as royal gatherings of Princes and Lords. Maybe simply adding a sentence could work, but please show references. Cltjames (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noting that  is currently blocked from editing, for edit-warring.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I recently messaged  about the random changes to the article, please see User talk:AirshipJungleman29#Owain Glyndwr for the chat. I'd like to create a consensus to make sure the correct changes are made to this article, Glyndŵr is dear to my family and I and I wish to find the best option for this article... Please talk ! Cltjames (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to the specific changes can be found here. It was a while ago, but I believe the issues were resolved with removing unnecessary duplication of content, smoothening of lists into prose, the eradication of short sections per MOS:OVERSECTION, removal of trivia and popular culture information per MOS:TRIVIA and MOS:POPCULTURE, and more. Please ping me if you have any questions about my so-called "random changes". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random update consensus 

message: This edit  introduces talk of apartheid, a modern concept, and creates a link to the crime of apartheid page, which is unnecessary editorialising of this, and raises significant NPOV concerns. The subject is historical, and until a source review is completed, I do not believe the term "apartheid" should be used at all, but even if it is used in some nuanced form in line with the one source that uses that says the penal laws were "effectively" like apartheid, it is certainly quite wrong to wikilink the term to crimes of apartheid. That raises a significant WP:NPOV concern for the whole article. Rather than revert the edit a second time, I shall add an appropriate template. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is inappropriate here but if used it should be handled with care. The quality of the source should be examined as should be what the source actually says, something which is often lost in transferring to a WP article. I cannot read either source BTW. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorialising 

message: Is the location of the wedding incorrect? I believe the church was the  St Chad's at Hanmer not Holt. This would make sense as it is where the Hanmer estate is based and would be their family church. 2A00:23C8:6E08:7601:ED94:6BA:582D:84E1 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction made, thanks. Cltjames (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of marriage.