Talk:Welsh devolution

Roman history is not relevant to devolution

An era before any inkling of Welsh identity existed, or any notion of sovereign states as we know them today (states by/from which devolution is granted), is irrelevant; I don't believe you'll find any serious sources linking Roman history to devolution. It's WP:SYNTH. @TG11TG15: I've already removed it once with an explanatory edit summary, please don't restore it again. Jr8825 • Talk 19:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. Looking at sources, we should only really talk about pre-19thC history in summary to establish Wales' legal and cultural relationship to Wales.Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that Magnus Maximus devolved the command of northern celtic Briton (prehistoric Wales) to Coel Hen prior to 383. I cited this also. Please have a read about this devolvement and let me know what you think after re-considering. Thank you. TG11TG15 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is really about a specific thing, in my opinion, 19th-21st century devolution of governance from the United Kingdom/England. We are stretching the scope of the article too far to include Roman era local governance. As I said above, and is reflected in most sources, pre-19th century history is only given to establish Wales' relationship to England. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll stick to devolution following the Staute of Rhuddlan. TG11TG15 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio of Senedd website

This still isn't fully fixed, as Earwig's copyvio detector result shows. I don't have time to reword the sections tonight myself, if nobody gets round to it I'll try to resolve the last offending sections tomorrow. Jr8825 • Talk 19:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I re-worded when I added but clearly not quite enough. Some is technical legal language which is difficult to change. I've come back to it. If you could point out specific subheadings to re-word better that would be helpful. Thanks TG11TG15 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Cymru Fydd & David Lloyd George

Just FYI - Removed previous, unreferenced content. - Copied and adapted content (from David Lloyd George page) that I wrote myself, so no need for additional citation. TG11TG15 (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Splitting Page into: "History of Welsh devolution" and "Proposed further Welsh devolution"

I was considering splitting this page into "History of Welsh devolution" and "Proposed further Welsh devolution" because the page is now quite long. I was wondering if anyone else agrees with this or supports keeping the page as it is?? ThanksTitus Gold (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, in my opinion, I don't think those two new articles need to be made. The proposed devolution section could be moved to list of devolved matters in Wales under a "proposed matters" section, with a short summary here (I guess just a list with a sentence for each). Although that article you made has been nominated for deletion. The constitutional reform section (federalism and confederalism) can be shortened to just a sentence as they have their own articles, with the Independent Commission moved to the history section (alongside the other commissions). The history section should largely remain, the day-to-day affairs of devolution are not really mentioned in this article as that is for the devolved bodies articles' so this article is largely for the history anyway. Before your move, Scottish devolution (a similar article) was originally titled as History of Scottish devolution. Although the history section can benefit from some copyediting and some summarising. Many Thanks DankJae 12:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Will leave the pages as they are. Titus Gold (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tony-blair-neil-jenkins.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Close paraphrase and source issues

• This edit [1] introduces text that is a very close (probably too close) paraphrase of the source: In this period, there was neither a Welsh Office (created in 1964) nor any devolution for Wales. A total of 125 local authorities opposed the scheme and 27 of 36 Welsh MPs voted against the second reading of the bill (Cunningham 2007). It is, however, good to see reliable academic sources replacing one of the newspapers in the sourcing here.
• In the same edit, the Davies citation only mentions Plaid Cymru because that is the focus of his discussion and not Tryweryn, so consideration should be given as to whether it is due in the text here.
• I also notice in the paragraphs above that text appears to have been copied from elsewhere without adaption, so that there are various Davies op cit. references (I think 5 of them) but Davies has not been previously cited. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  That sentence has since been replaced. Titus Gold (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've also added the correct book for those citations. Titus Gold (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article review progress

Following a second failed good artilce review, it seems that different points for improvement have been made, which are all different points to the first review.Summarising them here for follow up:

• Expand on current areas of devolution
• Impact of devolution and how devolution has affected Wales (not just quotes)
• Cleanup of references
• (Potential move of section to new article on proposed further devolution): this would need discussion

Titus Gold (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, this article has a chance, but not right now. Agree with the summarised points above. This article should ideally discuss more on how devolution has operated, may be a bit more on government, the policy areas etc. The article also is mostly more pro-devolution and pro-more devolution, so may be not exactly NPOV.

Would support to a degree splitting off the proposed devolution section so the article is not slanted into the hypotheticals, although best to set up a formal split proposal and discussion for that, although at the same time, is such detail needed? and can it be summarised, removing/shortening a bunch of quotes as in the end they're opinions. Happy to help, although if this is a big task, won't be able to until early May.

Also I wonder, as this leans on the more-powers, pro-devolution side a bit, and that about 20% apparently want to abolish the Senedd, or the 38% in the other poll, should there be a small "scepticism" section? also mentioning the abolishment movement, in some detail, but not too much, and including pro-devolution responses to it. As Senedd is on the actual legislature and the argument usually centres on devolution itself, I find it more suitable here. DankJae 23:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm not entirely clear on what the article scope is supposed to be. Is it 1) the legal devolution of powers to the Welsh government that began in 1998—as suggested by the first sentence in the article—or 2) any legal differentiation between Wales and England, which began earlier? RS more commonly mean 1) so I believe information about 2) should be trimmed from the article. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe, I guess it combines legal devolution with general political national development and autonomy done prior. Than solely focusing on the existence of "devolution". I guess it kinda acts as a "Welsh autonomy" article (not supporting a move), but it should be just devolution ideally. Draft:Political history of Wales was attempted, as an alternative location, but was draftified, incomplete and suffered recentism, and was duplicated from this article.

May be the split initially proposed above Talk:Welsh devolution#Splitting Page into: "History of Welsh devolution" and "Proposed further Welsh devolution" be considered to improve scope, although Political history of Wales rather than History of Welsh devolution, and that done with more research than the prior attempt. This article then expanding more on the present situation since 1998 and the few commissions/referendums prior. DankJae 00:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that the 19th century home rule and disestablishment movements are not typically called devolution, and if you search Welsh devolution on Google Scholar for instance the sources are about 1998–present. So, if these earlier movements are not part of the article topic they should not be covered in depth in this article (mentioned as background, yes). (t · c) buidhe 01:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

And indeed there is other history that is not relevant here, but when I attempted to pare that back, it was reverted back in [2]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy the summary was a Wikipedia:POV concern and did not provide adequate context. Have another go if you want. Titus Gold (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we could move parts to Draft:Political history of Wales Titus Gold (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

To me, I find how pro-devolution and pro-further devolution the article is to be the more major POV concern than adding extra Welsh history details pre-devolution. Don’t mind if that history is removed or kept although if Political history is made into an acceptable article would be more suited there. DankJae 16:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to make additions to bring more balance. Titus Gold (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to see more criticism of devolution and analysis of devolution added to the article as a GA review suggest for the latter.

I would consider moving large amounts of text to Proposed further Welsh devolution but I'm not sure this would benefit the reader.

A split could be considered to something like:

History of Welsh devolution and Future of Welsh devolution/Proposed Welsh devolution, as previously mentioned. Titus Gold (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

the summary was a Wikipedia:POV concern how are removal of statements like "Llywelyn the Last was killed in an ambush by an English soldier in 1282." form an article about Welsh Devolution a POV concern? If you want to establish context, you only need a sentence or two. Something like:

Wales was conquered by Edward I of England and was annexed to the realm. The Laws in Wales act of Henry VIII created a unitary state with a defined Welsh border, and the unitary state persisted with the union of Scotland and later Ireland into the Inited Kingdom.

This still may be too much or not ideal wording, but all we need to establish here is that the UK is a unitary state. Indeed, we could just say that and omit the conquest altogether. Instead you have text that is copied from and to several other pages. This exact text is on Politics of Wales and comes from (but adapted from) Wales in the High Middle Ages but also has been found on Wales in the Middle Ages and Welsh History. It was also on the now merged English rule in Wales as well as Welsh rebellions against English rule. You also have it on Welsh independence and I am willing to bet it is on other articles I haven't yet found.

There is a POV concern here, and that is that this article seems to begin with grievance and to establish a context of devolution as the end of a long struggle for independence, by which this then looks like a half way measure. This is somewhat ahistorical, but more importantly, it is irrelevant in this article. This article is about devolution, so we don't need to know about Llywelyn, nor any of that rather detailed history section. This is in the same way we don't include it in the Welsh Revolt or Owain Glyndŵr pages. Does it leave that section too brief? Sure it does. So remove the section, which rather incongruously sits before the history section. The context can go in the history section, probably non-linearly. Again, the only context required is that the UK is a unitary state.

A final point: I agree we should not have a separate Proposed further Welsh devolution page at this time. I think this should be a section on this page. I prefer to see a page grow organically, and where a part of the page becomes overweight, and is not usefully cut back, then a split will propose itself. I don't think we are there yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

After reading your comment I have since made a page, Proposed further Welsh devolution but have now realised I misread your support, so apologies for that.

Nevertheless I actually think it all sits well with a reader and I have made a summary of proposed further devolution on this article to replace the content I moved over. The move seems to address any concern about too much devolution proposals in this article

Pinging @DankJae and @Sirfurboy Titus Gold (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps take it back to draft for now? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the sensible suggestion, but it doesn't seem like it needs to be draftified as it looks. As long as there is no opposition to this bold split after having a look at both pages as they stand? Titus Gold (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Overall neutral on the split, while it would be greater long term to have it all in one article, the pre-existing section did give excess weight to proposals, and I believe more detail can be added to the proposals which would overload this article, so don't mind it, and am fine with it. DankJae 23:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Correct Welsh name

Is it "Datganoli i Gymru" (what this article says) or "Datganoli Cymru" (title of the cywiki article)? (t · c) buidhe 01:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It is both. The difference between devolution for Wales and Welsh devolution (pretty much… !). The latter is a tad better, more concise and consistent with Welsh Wikipedia, as you point out, so I changed it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"Datganoli i Gymru" = "Devolution to Wales" or "Devolution for Wales"; "Datganoli Cymru" = "Devolution of Wales"

Both correct. Titus Gold (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting article for insight additions

Some suggestions as to why the majority in the '98 referendum was relatively narrow: https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2021-07-20/worries-language-mafia-almost-cost-victory-in-welsh-devolution-referendum Titus Gold (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a news report which picks up on one comment from one person and makes a headline out of it. We don't want pages that are following newspapers. There must surely be much better secondary sources analysing that referendum. What can we learn from them? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Just thought it might add a bit more depth and variety to the understanding of the factors influencing the referendum. Titus Gold (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Might also be a valuable addition to 1997 Welsh devolution referendum Titus Gold (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Update needed: Constitutional Commission

https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2024-01/independent-commission-on-the-constitutional-future-of-wales-final-report.pdf

There are various secondary sources to look at in the news, all published today. Titus Gold (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)