Talk:Politics of Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Peer review Politics of Wales has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


Contents

[edit] Expansion vandalised

Mais Oui! Please explain why you are vandalising my edit without discussion. If you have objections, list them here - don't just attempt to delete my edit unilaterally. Tbanks Normalmouth 10:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Every time you edit a page you keep destrying links and category hierarchies. Please desist from destrying the formatting of articles until you have read the Wiki style guidelines.--Mais oui! 10:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
So why remove my entire content? Please edit - don't vandalise. Normalmouth

[edit] An Idea

Would it be a good idea to try and set-up this page along the same lines as the Politics of Scotland page? TG312274 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Topics of Welsh Politics

With this section I have hopes that specific topics in Welsh politcs could be wiki-linked here, once these pages are developed. Any assistance here would be of great value. The issues with the Welsh NHS would be a fantastic starting point, how it works in Wales, and the poisitives and contraversies. Drachenfyre 14:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wold suggest we go down a more discursive route. i.e, a lot of the debate since 1999 has been the proposed need for more Assembly powers, but hospital waiting times have dominated, as has discussions of the performance of the Welsh economy in comparison to the UK as a whole. Also, Objective One etc. Normalmouth 08:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Of corse, a balanced and informative narrative would be best. But the scope might be rather cumbersom. I am open to someone tackling this if a balanced narrative mentioning the most important politician topics in Wales is addressed. As it stands now, it is a list of topics currently in the news on BBC Wales Today and Dragons Eye. Drachenfyre 08:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Thinking more on the subject, I am uncertin that a few narrative paragraphs would be sufficient to flesh out these topics. Each of these topics deserve a page of their own. Drachenfyre 09:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main political parties

I have added a section giving a biref description (and where applicable a link to the main article) of each of the five main political parties in Wales (theese are the only five with representation in Westminster, the Assembly or the European Parliament). I'll add more to the Lib Dem and Forward Wales bits when I get a chance. Normalmouth 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved the polticial parties section to where it already was on the outline. Wedged between national insitutions and the Assembly information looked too awkward and out of place. the artical reads more smoothly now when you transition from the set up of institutions to what those institutions actually are. Drachenfyre 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is way too far down the article. It is a more significant element in the politics of Wales than as listed and sets the scene for discsionss about the Assembly etc. Normalmouth 08:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved it further up the outlineDrachenfyre 09:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National institutions

I'm not at all sure what is meant by the 'success of Lloyd George and Bevan lead to a social movement demanding political institutions'. Lloyd George, like many such politicians at the time, was far more concerned with disestablishment and Bevan was one of the most stridently anti-home rule politicians ever to have gained prominence in Wales. This needs to be redrafted. Normalmouth 08:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the form of words used here. The point is not that Wales is in close proximity to England - it always has been - but that Welsh identity has survived (and latterly thrived) despite very high levels of integration with the English economic, cultural, political and legal systems. I'd also like some changes as per the point above. I'll embark on a rewrite later today. Normalmouth 09:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The success of Welsh politicians in the first half of the 20th century, whatever their politicial strips, is the direct result of growing Welsh cultural and national movements (per Historian and Author John Davies). Reverted as your edits did not add any clarifications only ambiguity that is discussed elsewhere. Drachenfyre 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

er, that's not what your revision says (which incidentally lacks any citations of its own). So I've reverted it. I#ve explained why I object to your version. please tell me why you are unhappy with mine, other than claiming (wringly) it is discussed elsewhere. Normalmouth 07:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The "National Institutions" entry is not ment to review the Anglo-Welsh Annexation, rather to outline the movement (cultural and political) of national institutions. When I write that the subject is mentioned elsewhere, it is under the Contemporary Welsh Laws. I feel that the statements are outside of the topic. Not 'every' paragraph needs to link Wales and England. The topic of National Institutions is about Welsh national institutions. Drachenfyre 08:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But to describe the emergence of Wales's national institutions without refering to what they emerged from (i.e a highly unitary state unusuited in many ways to their development) would be like describing the Marshall Plan without mentioning the need for the post-war reconstruction of Europe. If you are going to talk of the transformation of Wales, you have to put it in context, i.e what it transformed from. Besides, the point about integration is not one simply about the legal system. Normalmouth 08:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't propose to amend it, but I'm curious as to why you have removed 'highly' from the part about E&W's integration. Until 1964 there was no distinction in administration or government between the two and no territorial authority for Wales. Until the last few years the delivery of core public services have been virtually identical in scope and approach, while even today economies of the two countries are inextricably integrated, as is the infrastructure, nearly all media and broadcasting, and much else that is less tangible such as culture, values etc. If this isn't 'highly integrated' I don't know what is. Please remember, we're trying to describe what is/was, not what people think ought to be. Normalmouth 10:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Contemporary Welsh Law

This section is not mentioning anything about Wales's new Law making powers. This section should not be so mis-leading and should be labelled "English law". I would suggest though someone change this section to talk about the new powers of the National Assembly for Wales and none of this misleading contexts. Amlder20 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodri Morgan.jpg

Image:Rhodri Morgan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Edits by Normalmouth

I object Normalmouth to you removing valuable sourced infomration. You remove sourced information with each edit that you do, whereas everytime you have a source to add I incorporate that into the text. Please do not remove sourced information. If you have text which offers a varient viewpoint, then it should be included alongside with the other text, and the reader can determin the difference.Drachenfyre 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ive asked for peer review. Drachenfyre 04:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have asked for outside viewpoints, Normalmouth, in the spirit of working together, please do not remove sourced information. If you have anything sourced to add, by all means do so. But every edit you complete removes SOURCED information. Which is the point of Wikipedial.Drachenfyre 14:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You've since reverted sourced information of mine, so your complaint has been rendered meaningless. Just because John Davies has written something, it doesn't mean it has to be included. We are supposed to be using our critical judgment here.Normalmouth 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Any sourced material that you have should be added, I agree. However your edits consistantly removed complete sections of sourced material. You critized Dr. John Davies as being bias, however, Lord Morgan is himself a labour party member and contributor of the Labour party, as his his wife. Drachenfyre 20:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I value his publications and material, and you should add it to the artical. However, not at the expense of removing other sourced material... if there is a dissagreement between Davies and Morgan on a particular point then both should be presented, and let the reader determine the difference. Drachenfyre 20:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Lord Morgan is himself a labour party member and contributor of the Labour party"

That must be why you have completely ignored his historical works. Or perhaps you simply haven't read them. Or anything else other than Davies. I have, and numerous others besides, which is why I feel the urgent need to edit your sloppy, skewed and superficial reading of the history of Wales's politics.

And I say again, simply because you have sourced a comment it does not ringfence it. The comment must actually add sonething to the discussion. Most of yours don't. Now, kindly address my points below.Normalmouth 20:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


Tis funny you would consider my contrabutions sloppy, as I was trained as a journalist. I understand how to properly write an artical.

This is why you credit source within the artical itself:

When a source is needed

  • Quotations – When quoting published material, the quote should be attributed in the text and a citation placed after it.
  • Data and statistics – Data and statistics need sources.
  • Counter-intuitive statements – Statements likely to surprise the reader should be cited.
  • Opinions – Opinions should be cited and attributed in the text.
  • Contentious statements about living people – Biographies of living people are held to a high standard. Contentious material must be cited or removed immediately.


As for Lord Morgan, I welcome you to contribute and add any material, and properly source them, to the artical. As you can see, just by viewing any edits Ive dealt with regarding your contrabutions, I have always included your sourced material.

However, you consistantly do not source your material, delete other sourced material, or ignore complete passages.

[edit] Normalmouth's attacks

Normalmouth wrote about my sourced contrabutions:

sloppy, skewed and superficial reading of the history of Wales's politics

Tis funny Normalmouth your calling my work "sloppy, skewed, and superficial" because this is what you wrote of my contrabutions when I fist addressed this page:

Excellent work on the Politics of Wales article. You have improved it immeasurably. I have some minor suggestions, but I think this is a really solid piece of work. Normalmouth 06:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So, what conclusions should we draw from this? Prehaps when editors agree with Normalmouth we will not be attacked by him?


Additionally, NM points to minor spelling mistakes as cause of my inability to contribute to the arical:

p.s there is no such word as "unelective".Normalmouth 15:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The word should have been unelected...

However, Normalmouth appears to make simular mistakes himself, witness this statement:

sloppy, skewed and superficial reading of the history of Wales's politics

Wales' not Wales's

We all make minor mistakes in grammer, Normalmouth. Drachenfyre 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, not sure what points you're trying to prove here. You did a good piece of editing, which I praised. Then you did a bad piece of editing, which I criticised. That's what collaboration is all about.
And Wales's is just as valid as Wales'. No error there.Normalmouth 07:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Drachenfyre

Your edits are over-reliant on one source, too wordy and POV. When I reove sourced information it is for these reasons. Also stylistically, it is wrong to constantly refer to the source (i.e "according to Dr Davies") in the text. That is the point of a citation.Normalmouth 08:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s I invite readers to look at Drachenfyre's revisions prior to mine. In his entire history of the politics of Wales the Conservative party (who governed in Wales for over 70 years of the 20th century) do not get a single mention while Plaid Cymru (who formed no part of any government until 2007 and did not return an MP until 1966) get mentioned eight times (three more than Labour who managed to command a majority of votes and seats at every General Election since 1922). Given this extraordinarily skewed version of events it's probably not even worth mentioning that the Liberals (who could be said to have been a somewhat significant force in Welsh politics prior to 1922) don't get a mention either. That is why additional source material is needed, not to mention other editors.Normalmouth 09:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time out

Hi, both (and any other potential edit-warrers). I've put page protection on for 24 hours to give you both a chance to review your approach. Just remember 2 things: 1. Compromise is always the best solution. 2. It is never "wrong" for someone else to edit a page or to change something you've written unless they are not acting in good faith. Hwyl. Deb 15:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


I've placed my reasoned objections to D's edits above. His response was to revert without discussion. It's hard to know how to begin a dialogue under those circumstances. The argument that "the information is sourced" does not mean it cannot be edited, particularly if it is a) trivial (e.g listing the dates of of the General Elections) b) used selectively (Davies's description of the growth of PC in the 60s).

D hyperlinks references to PC to his own history of PC page and not the main PC page - that is wrong. He constantly double references (e.g "according to Dr Davies" followed by a citation) - that is wrong.

This page is supposed to be about the politics of Wales, not simply the growth of Plaid Cymru. I've demonstrated how slanted the existing version is, which is not surprising considering D has only read one book about Welsh hiistory, from a respected but nonetheless partisan historian. All the other references on the page are from sources supplied by me.

Until D is prepared to address this grievance (and I mean more than adding in a single reference to the Conservatives) I will be obliged to edit for the sake of balance.

I appreciate your efforts to intercede, but merely page protecting the article for 24 hours will not sort things out. D resolved to embark on a rewrite of this page, using the same paper-thin scholasticism he has applied to his History of Plaid Cymru page (i.e a single generalist source). If he is not prepared to accept my edits then you and other Admins should uphold my rights to do so. Normalmouth 15:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s there is no such word as "unelective".Normalmouth 15:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may comment on this - without wishing to aggravate you as I think you make some valid points - you are using very emotive language here, eg. implying that Drachenfyre has "only read one book" about Welsh history. It isn't fair to assume ignorance on the part of another editor, and even if you had reason to say that, it only inflames the situation. Why not just accept that you have different opinions and try to find a compromise wording that you can both agree on? Deb 20:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Happy to try - but there has to be an acceptance that the subject is about more than the growth of Welsh nationalism, as depicted by one historian.Normalmouth 20:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The other thing that needs to change is this suggestion that anything sourced cannot be edited, not matter what. D is applying double standards here, as he tried repeeatedly to edit triple-sourced references of my edits on other pages.Normalmouth 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This is why you credit source within the artical itself:

When a source is needed

  • Quotations – When quoting published material, the quote should be attributed in the text and a citation placed after it.
  • Data and statistics – Data and statistics need sources.
  • Counter-intuitive statements – Statements likely to surprise the reader should be cited.
  • Opinions – Opinions should be cited and attributed in the text.
  • Contentious statements about living people – Biographies of living people are held to a high standard. Contentious material must be cited or removed immediately.


I value collaberation, however not at the expense of removing sourced information from a highly respected historian and author. In every instance that Normalmouth has offered sourced material, I have included in the spirit of cooperation and non point-of-view. This can be seen on the History of Plaid Cymru page, and elsewhere.

However, Normalmouth has repeatedly attacked everyone who has had any edit difference with himself, his conflicts can be seen on the Plaid Cymru archived page to no end. Articals should be non point-of-view, yet on his articals regarding Plaid Cymru and his edits on other sources always is to paint the picture in a favorable light towards Labour, indeed, he has consistantly removed sourced material that better explains the angst the Labout party held in the 50s and 60s regarding suport for home rule in Wales. Drachenfyre 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try to work with Normalmouth, but serious attention needs to be made regarding his complete point of view attacts on anyone that does not agree with him, and on his lack of proper sourcing or presentation of dissenting points of view within the artical itself.Drachenfyre 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never been anywhere near your History of Plaid Cymru page. And to work collaboratively, you have to avoid wholesale reversions, which is what you did this morning and what has triggered this impasse. So, no you have not accepted my edits, sourced or otherwise.
But let's go through the edits you will not accept:
  • Retitling "Establishing National institutions with "the emergence of a Welsh polity"

Just common sense. The section is blatantly about more than the institutions, it is about the boarder climate in which devolution came about (that, by the way is only part of the story of Welsh politics in the past century, but we'll leave that for now)

Agreed, I would accept a "An Emerging Welsh Polity"Drachenfyre 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Good.Normalmouth 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Replacing the first (or many) JD quotes with the sentiment it expresses.

Well, look at the guidelines you have posted above. Opinions should be cited - they do not need to be quoted. I'd go even further and say that what JD says is not even counter-intuitive.

I disagree here, when the quote offers the best and most concise explination.Drachenfyre 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Re-read the guidelines you postedNormalmouth 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Removing a pointless JD quote and replacing it with the fact

See above. Endless quotes of factual statements are pointless. I have not changed the meaning.

In many cases you have, indeed. Drachenfyre 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

give your example, or withdraw that.Normalmouth 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


  • excising the double citation of K O Morgan.

He is footnoted - why mention him in the text. Half a dozen other historians express the same sentiment (Try Gwyn Alf, Kevin Morgan, Chris Williams, Dai Smith and so on)

If there is quote worthy material for this sentiment, they they should be added.Drachenfyre 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You miss the point; they may be cited but do not need mention in the text. That is a double reference.Normalmouth 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


  • "Responding to a lack of Welsh dimension to U.K. politics in the 1920s, Plaid Cymru was founded in 1925."

It's just not true. PGC was formed as a Welsh-language pressure group with almost no interest in getting involved in UK politics. See Butt Phillip, McAllister, D Hwyel Davies, K O Morgan etc, etc. I have cited B-P in the main Plaid Cymru section.

According to John Davies, it is true. Both viewpoints can be expressed, however. But you consistantly remove it without showing both sides of the position.Drachenfyre 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


As I say, B-P is cited in the PC article. Normalmouth 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Linking to the History of Plaid Cymru page instead of the Plaid Cymru page.

A simple breach of Wikipedia policy. The reference is to the party.

They should be linked to the primary party artical then, but you did not do this with your edits, instead you abjectly removed all reference.Drachenfyre 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


This makes no sense. PC are the topic, so the link is to the PC page.Normalmouth 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • “responding to Welsh nationalism”

No source for this one. And it isn’t true either. Pro-devolutionist Labour MPs such as D R Grenfell, W H Mainwairing, George Daggar and Jim Griffiths were far more instrumental. (nb. Why you feel the need to repeat the entire paragraph is beyond me)

Its is sourced, at the end of the sentance. I can move the source closer to the phrase however.Drachenfyre 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


It's not. The source article does not reflect what you claim it does.Normalmouth 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • “With Plaid Cymru expanding its influence further into the industrial south-east constituencies, the UK government gave in on small concessions towards devolution”

In fact, JD says “[Labour’s] readiness to advocate a substantial measure of administrative devolution arose ‘’in part’’ from the realization that PC was winning a degree of support…in 1959 its candidates obtained quite respectable results in some of the constituencies of the industrialised south east” (nb. Those results amounted to no more than 8 and 9% shares and third places in Aberdare and Caerphilly, and there is scant evidence that anyone in Labour took much notice).

So you have misrepresented JD here, who himself has over-egged it (as well as going on to attribute PC’s modest growth to a paucity of Liberal candidates and discontent with Labour’s social and economic policies, none of which you mention).

I replaced that section with a factual description of the rise of PC’s vote during the 1950s.

I disagree that is was over represented, however I am willing to re-edit this passage.Drachenfyre 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK.Normalmouth 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Removal of references to Labour’s embrace of devolution

For reasons which can only be POV you edit this out and attribute it all to Gwilym Prys Davies’s pamphlet. Again, trivia born of superficial understanding.

  • When you edited out the origional text, you replaced it with unsourced text. I reverted to sourced text. GPD pamphlet is not "trivia born out of superficial understanding." But based in sourced accounts. Drachenfyre 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


but there is so much more to it than GPD's pamphlet! You have given it far too much prominence because you are over-reliant on a single source which, as demonstrated, you have over-interpreted.Normalmouth 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You say you wish to collaborate. Perhaps you can address these specific points. Tks Normalmouth 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your attacks Normalmouth are very discouraging. Drachenfyre 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to see a point-by-point critique of your work as attacks that is up to you. I am attempting to demonstrate why I object to so much of what you have done in the last few days. You must, must begin to see the article as more than your personal property, or as a precis of a single text.Normalmouth 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your characterisation is way off the mark, and your attitude is belligerent at best. How can anyone trust your cirticism in good faith? Drachenfyre 23:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't hide behind etiquette, and alleged breaches thereof. I am interested in dealing with the meat of the article here. If you wish to do so - as you claim - then let's get on with it. If not, you are wasting both our time.Normalmouth 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how anyone can be so hostile to other editors and continue to be part of Wikipedia. Drachenfyre 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this your stratigy Normalmouth, to bludgeon other editors into fustration until only your belicose point of view remains? Drachenfyre 23:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

YOU WIN! Congradulations! Ive asked Dev to "give you the artical." All yours. Your hateful and spiteful words have driven me away from contributing, how you can expect others to have faith in your point of view is truely amazing! I stand struck at your ability to insult other editors, get away with it, and continue to "contribute" Drachenfyre 00:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of winning or losing, Drachenfyre. A few days ago, you opted to rewrite part of the article. I have very serious misgivings about both the factual basis and objectivity of your edit. I have presented in some detail, and with no little repetition, my reasons for those objections. Again, if you are prepared to engage on the substance of that I am sure we can collaborate fruitfully. It is utter nonsense to talk of "hateful and spiteful words" (which itself constitutes the most serious breach of etiquette).Normalmouth 07:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry to say that I think this could have been resolved much better if both contributors could have walked away from the article for 24 hours. Obviously it's not for me to "give" the article to anyone. I hope Drachenfyre will eventually decide to bury the hatchet and return to editing. Deb 16:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)