Talk:Penal laws against the Welsh

2011 comments

This article says that the Laws in Wales acts repealed the Penal Laws of 1402, but lurking in the back of my memory is the Petition of Right 1627-8 which I understood to be when they were finally repealed after an argument in England about Magna Carta. It bugged me so much I looked hard at the Laws in Wales Acts and I see no sign that they repeal the Penal Laws, they only suppress the Welsh laws - but I can not find an authorataive reference.DaiSaw (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/utk/wales/popup/penal.htm - says penal laws were repealed 1624DaiSaw (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam034/97033420.pdf - note 10 -" The Lancastrian Penal Laws against the Welsh, which had become a dead letter in 1536, were not formally repealed until 1624, while parliament had rescinded hostile English laws against the Scots in 1607. Stats 4&5 James I, c.1; 21 James 1, cc. 10, 28 section 1 ; Statutes of the Realm ( London 1819 ) vol iv, pp 1134 - 7, 1219, 1239.78.148.49.72 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I last commented I learned that there were subsequent penal laws passed in successive reigns and by 1624 they totalled " The Thirty Three Laws." I was going to contribute more sources to evidence and describe these but this project was laid aside several years ago pending discovering the materials. DaiSaw (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Editorialising

I do not believe the term apartheid should be in the lead in any form, but I strongly feel that linking the term "apartheid" to the "crime of apartheid" page is unnecessary editorialising, and breaches WP:NPOV. I believe this editorialising raises NPOV concerns for the whole page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the link you mentioned and added a further citation. Titus Gold (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I've also added a clarification of the sources stating that these are views of specific historians. Titus Gold (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

So now we have Multiple historians suggest that this essentially established an apartheid regime in Wales following the passing of the laws. I think this needs opinion from other editors. Why do we need to use the term "apartheid" at all? We are describing the laws. the reader can form their own comparisons. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I came across respected historian Martin Johnes very clearly using the word apartheid in a BBC documentary "It sounds to me rather like apartheid" https://martinjohnes.com/wales-englands-colony/

and did research on the laws following this. The inability to accept a similar view from multiple historians suggests a deviation from WP:NPOV. If you find sources dismissing this view or disagreeing, please include them. I haven't come across any historian dismissing this terminology. Titus Gold (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Which is editorialising for TV, and immediately followed by "It's a strong word, apartheid" and talk about using that word to put it in a "modern mindset". And that makes me wonder, because you added the book of this TV show as a second reference, but does the book use that word? Or is it only on TV? If the book, what is the page? What is the full quote?

And source reviews don't work like that. You look at how historians describe this and then you only use the "strong word" if it is clear that this is how historians are generally referring to it. NPOV means we describe this neutrally, the way historians do, avoiding "strong words". Again, what we need is more editor input, and possibly an RfC. These things usually end up in an RfC if an editor is insistent on using the strong terms. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The TV programme simply prompted me to research, I obviously haven't cited it. The pages are included in the citation. Titus Gold (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think if the Historian is mentioned and it is made clear this is the view of a historian (as well as there being multiple historians using the term) then the WP:NPOVis not in question. I've made an effort to make this as clear as possible in the text. Titus Gold (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think The phrase 'multiple historians', is, at best, misleading, even if it can be cited. 'Some historians' or 'a few historians' would be equally true, but give a very different impression. I believe that the overwhelming majority of historians have not agreed that 'this essentially established an apartheid regime in Wales', but of course it's a fairly extreme view, so they haven't needed to say it. In any case, claiming an 'essentially...apartheid regime in Wales' existed in Wales centuries before an apartheid regime existing anywhere is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, not merely the use of qualifiers like 'multiple historians suggest'. Llwyld (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I will amend. Titus Gold (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've amended the lead to a re-wording which you both might prefer. Titus Gold (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it the word 'apartheid' should not appear at all in the lead. It might have a place in the body of the article, but to include 'Some historians and authors have compared the laws to apartheid to various degrees' in the lead seems to me to try to support an outrageous claim by adding some weasel word qualifiers. Llwyld (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So are you disagreeing with the 4 authors that use the term apartheid in various ways? Titus Gold (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Not everything every historian says makes it into the lead. What goes in the lead is meant to be a balanced and neutral summary of the subject. The subject in this case is the Penal Laws, and the modern label of "apartheid" is a gloss on that. You don't need to say it in the lead to describe the laws, and the fact that you want to say it might suggest your edits are not entirely WP:INSCRUTABLE. As we have it now, two editors believe the term is not appropriate for the lead and one does. That is a small consensus in favour of omission. For now, it stays out.

Now I have repeatedly suggested you do a source review on this term. Instead you just keep adding sources for people that have used it in some sense. That is not sufficient, but let's look at the four you refer to:

• Jones, Gareth Elwyn; Smith, Dai (1999). The People of Wales. Gomer. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-85902-743-1.

Speaking of the reign of Elizabeth I: "The penal laws and the apartheid they sought were dead and buried."

Comment - So this term is not used to describe the imposition of the laws themselves, which are described in other terms, but it is used as a shorthand when the laws lose their effect. The chapter is an essay by a historian in a book of popular history essays commissioned by the BBC.

• Davies, R. R. (2013-09-03). Owain Glyndwr - Prince of Wales. Y Lolfa. ISBN 978-1-84771-763-4.

"To all intents an apartheid regime had been established in the wake of the laws."

Comment - So he does not call the regime apartheid but is saying that the regime was a legal regime that had the essential characteristics of apartheid. He is editorialising for the modern reader, putting the effect of the laws into a modern context that the reader would be familiar with.

The book is written by a respected historian but is a popular history.

• Johnes, Martin (2019-08-25). Wales: England's Colony. Parthian Books. pp. 54, 55, 67. ISBN 978-1-912681-56-3.

"The 1294-95 revolt even led to what was essentially a form of apartheid being introduced."

Comment - Johnes is a historian but this book is popular history, written for a TV programme. In that same programme he cautioned that the use of the term "apartheid" was a strong term, but that it brought the effect of the laws into a modern context. That is, he was clear that he was editorialising with the term. In the source he is also equivocal. He says "essentially a form of apartheid". So not apartheid, but something that can be understood to have all the essential aspects of a legal apartheid regime as the modern reader would understand it.

• Price, Adam (2018-12-20). Wales - The First and Final Colony. Y Lolfa. ISBN 978-1-78461-691-5.

"...which introduce a system of racial discrimination equal to apartheid"

Comment - This is a book written by a Plaid Cymru politician and not a historical treatise. He is leader of Plaid Cymru and his highest degree is a BA in European Community studies. He is not a historian. This source is very problematic.

So, we have three historians, not four, and not one of these is a full history of the penal laws nor of the Welsh revolt. Two are commissioned by the BBC for TV programmes. The other, (Davies, 2013) (I actually think that date is wrong), is also a popular history, lacking inline referencing etc. although it is by a historian who has written academic histories of the period.

What we don't have is how this is neutrally handled by historians. For that we would need a full source review. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've since removed mention of apartheid from the lead Titus Gold (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy I have made it clear in the body where the source comes from and how the author describes the laws so that the reader can make their own conclusions. Which source review process are you referring to? Titus Gold (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It is a matter of first establishing what the best WP:RS are for the subject, and then reading how they describe it. So the first question is: what are the WP:RS that are the best sources on this topic? Also, why are we choosing them? Knowing that will help enormously with writing the article. Once that is established, we can look to see what they say.

Although this is not a featured article, the guidance at Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC, particularly under the heading "Quality" is pertinent. We are looking for the best secondary sources on the subject.

I note that the best reliable sources for this page may not be the best for the other 3 pages where you assert this edit. Here we want the best sources on the penal laws. Elsewhere we want the best sources on the Welsh revolt, noting that this gives a different balance on each. Usually there is no benefit in copying the same text on multiple pages, as each page has a different subject and needs a different treatment. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, the only two sources of lower priority on the page include the "State of Wales" citation which I don't recall being one that I added, and needs replacing. The other less reliable source is the citation by Adam Price, who is a politician rather than an authority on Welsh history. For this reference, I made it clear of the origin and that these were the views and not necessarily a widely accepted interpretation. A basic review of the other secondary sources suggests that they are relatively reliable. Titus Gold (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Carradice and Marchant don't seem quite as reliable as the others either but these sources don't say anything new other than mention of Adam of Usk's interpretation, which seems similar to others. Perhaps another citation for Adam of Usk might be useful too. Titus Gold (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to flag up that it is no longer just the paragraph using the term "apartheid" at issue with neutrality now. The whole "effects" section is quite problematic, and this line too is clearly not a neutral point of view: The harsh laws caused significant ill-feeling among the Welsh people and formalised via statues of racist injustice, - I presume you mean "statutes of racist injustice", but no, you can't say that. Even "harsh" can be considered editorialising, although much less controversial. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've just tried to reflect what the source suggests (page 15): https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Ll%C3%AAn_yr_Uchelwyr/tX-vBwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

Original Welsh "Achoswyd cryn ddrwgdeimlad gan y deddfau penyd llym..." "...roeddent hefyd yn ffurfioli trwy statud hen anghyfiawnderau hiliol"

My effort at an English translation "The harsh penance laws caused great resentment..." "they also formalised via statute old racial injustices" (similar to what I put in the article) Titus Gold (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"ill-feeling" is probably the more literal translation Titus Gold (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So that book is:

• Johnston, Dafydd (15 April 2014). Llên yr Uchelwyr: Hanes Beirniadol Llenyddiaeth Gymraeg 1300-1525 (in Welsh). University of Wales Press. ISBN 978-1-78316-053-2. Retrieved 27 February 2023.

A critical history of Welsh literature which is an excellent source for the page Welsh-language literature (we already cite his 1994 English language work). It is less clear why this is the best source for this page. Surely one of the best sources for this page would be:

• Davies, R. R. (1995). The revolt of Owain Glyn Dŵr. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198205081.

Some of the things Davies says about these laws are: but Henry IV's first set of statutes after the revolt made it clear that the position of the English within Wales was to be a judicially privileged one. (page 287)

And:

Extensive as was the physical damage caused by the rebellion, it was ultimately less profound in its impact than the collective psychological trauma which Wales had suffered. The trust and the practices of coexistence which had been built between the Welsh and the English in Wales over the generations had, at least temporarily, been shattered. Furthermore, the two peoples were now formally and legally separated from one another, to the disadvantage of the Welsh, in a way which had not been so before, at least legislatively and on a country-wide basis. To Tudor commentators in Wales this was the overwhelming shadow which the rebellion had cast over the history of their country. They had little time for Glyn Dwr himself and condemned him as a contumacious rebel against his true sovereign lord; but the penal laws which Henry IV issued against the Welsh in the wake of the rebellion were criticized even more harshly by them. They were, said David Powel, 'more heathen than Christian'; to George Owen of Henllys, the Elizabethan antiquary, they had been devised 'not only for the punishment (of Welshmen) but to deprive them of good education and make them uncivil and brutish'. The charges are greatly exaggerated, deliberately so.

The statutes were one of the few pieces of legislative evidence about the state of Wales that Tudor writers could find, and they greatly inflated their importance and significance in order to highlight the benefits of Tudor rule in Wales. Yet when we have made due allowance for the undoubted exaggeration of the comments, the statutes and other supporting evidence provide valuable insight into one important dimension of the English reaction to the rebellion in Wales. (page 281)

And:

Most of the social and economic changes in the fabric of Wales that can be attributed, in some measure, to the revolt of Owain Glyn Dwr were no part of its intended purpose. One change can, however, be attributed directly to the revolt and seen as its inevitable by-product, the changed relationship between the English and the Welsh, especially within Wales. As we saw in an earlier chapter, the government responded to the revolt with a series of penal statutes against the Welsh, and these were in turn amplified by local, especially borough, ordinances.

Statutes and ordinances might be nine-day wonders; suspicion and mistrust had a very much longer life-span. The revolt left a legacy of bitterness which was not eradicated for generations, especially in north Wales. The penal statutes against the Welsh were in fact reissued in 1431, 1433, 1444, and 1447, often at the specific request of the English people of Wales'. (page 322)

This is the kind of language and detail we should be aiming for. Davies does not use words like apartheid or racist (in fact, he specifically eschews the latter). Instead he presents the information in a more nuanced manner, and with much greater detail. I have only quoted sections here, but to write this page with the level of authority and depth of coverage it needs, I would suggest that a close reading of this text and others of a similar nature is required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reading that as well, it's a good source and good stuff there. I would have no qualm with adding any of that in. RR Davies also says in the book "Owain Glyndwr Prince of Wales", which is first published 14 years later (2009), "To all intents an apartheid regime had been established in Wales in the wake of the laws. That certainly was the opinion of observers in the Tudor period." Titus Gold (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

After reading more of Johnes' book and making further additions, it is very clear that Johnes considers the laws a form of apartheid. In addition to RR Davies' newer book and the description by Gareth Elwyn Jones, that makes three highly respected historians using the term. I've added additional context also, so all in all I think it's now appropriate to remove the neutrality banner. Titus Gold (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The neutrality template should not be removed from this page until there is a consensus that the tone of the article is neutral. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Silence and consensus since you replied about Wales being a colony but not this section so could only assume. Will leave the banner up until the consensus is clear. Titus Gold (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

There was no silent consensus, I have several times said that this whole section needs replacing, and my last comment to that effect was from yesterday. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fine then. Please raise any remaining matters you want to be addressed. Titus Gold (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, if apartheid has been deemed inappropriate here, it may have been copied to and still be at other articles such as Welsh rebellions against English rule, should those take the same approach? DankJae 00:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I though I had got them all! Yes, a consistent approach is called for, and I think there are much better ways to describe these discriminatory coercive measures. I'll make an edit. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Wales remained a colony of England"

Wales remained a colony of England. This appears to be the thesis of the TV programme this is coming from, but what are the actual quotes being relied upon? None of that should be in Wikivoice. The whole "effects" section probably just needs rewriting. Wales was not even one thing at this point. There was a principality, and there were the marcher lordships. The laws implemented an effective colonial rule, in that an English landed hierarchy effectively ruled as colonial overlords, but it wasn't constituted as a colony. Johnes is a problematic source as I said above, and doubling down and using it to extend this page is just extending the issues of balance and lack of a neutral point of view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I will allow your recent edits to stand although I disagree with removing the quote from the more recent RR Davies book and another citation from a Welsh language source. Wales was both one entity in one sense and two entities in another sense, "Pura Wallia" and "Marcha Wallia" (excuse potential spelling error). Denying that Wales was conquered and colonised is strange. Johnes book is a good source. There are plenty of others that use the colony terminology if you want added citations? Titus Gold (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no denial of anything. The point is to use appropriate language that does not mislead a reader, but provides the information as to what happened. "Apartheid" is a gloss. Colony is also, I suspect, a gloss. However, I asked for the exact quotation you are relying on as that one is unassessed. As for conquest, that is certainly a correct description, although that had already happened prior to the Welsh revolt. Again, the whole "effects" section probably needs rewriting from scratch based on the best historical sources, of which, I do not think the book of a TV programme qualifies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not misleading to quote a historian if you make it clear it's the historian's view and this book is as good as any. Johnes does cite quotations. I agree this quote is not essential for info on the laws but it does provide context. Titus Gold (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"According to author Dafydd Johnston, the laws were harsh and formalised racist injustice via statutes."

I disagree with the removal of this quote but will not re-add it unless a consensus is reached. Unsure why this has been removed as there doesn't seem to be apt justification. Titus Gold (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

So to be clear, that quote comes from a Welsh language source about medieval Welsh literature, and is based on your translation, but earlier in this discussion you admit that "racist" may not be the correct translation of hiliol. It's not. So you take a single line from a book on a different subject, referencing a single person and then you gloss "racial injustice" as "racist injustice". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hiliol means racist or racial. Either will do, happy for you to pick. I also included "This caused significant ill-feeling among the Welsh people and restricted nobles in Wales from improving their standing, unable to get a job in their local municipality." This is all about the Penal Laws and Dafydd Johnston is a professor. Titus Gold (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Dafydd Johnston was professor of Welsh. His specialism is medieval Welsh poetry. The question you are neither answering nor grappling with is this: what are the principal historical sources we should use for this.

If you want a balanced article, you first decide that question, then you read the sources, and then you write the article. It seems to me that you have started from a position of knowing what you want to say and then finding sources that agree with you. This is not how good history articles are written. The writer comes with certain biases, and it is incumbent on us to try to overcome those biases and present the topic as neutrally as possible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I added a single source and mention of apartheid, which you then removed. I then responded by adding multiple citations to show that it is a common interpretation of the effect of the laws. Since then, I have re-balanced the section with as much of a variety of views and points as I can, and feel like I have exhausted the vast majority of the sources. Your RR Davies contribution is a positive contribution. The section accurately reflects sources and further argument i think is wasting time. Only 3 sentences in over 20 mention "apartheid". Titus Gold (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

How does '3 sentences in over 20' compare to use of the term in the sources? How many sources don't use the term? It seems to me that the (anachronistic and emotive) term is over used in the article as it stands, and contributes to the apparent non-neutrality of the article.

Majority of historians acknowledge racial discrimination and three mention the word apartheid. The term apartheid should not be presented as a general fact but could be briefly referred to as a comparison made by some historians. The main focus should be response to rebellion, racial discrimination psychological and effects and effect on gentry and the re-affirmation of laws later. Please go ahead Sirfurboy🏄, Llwyld and perhaps DankJae if he would like to weigh in with any amendments you see fit, as long the important info is not removed.Titus Gold (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to note: I've moved any mention of apartheid to a "modern interpretations" heading which can be used for any content which could be used for more modern responses to, and effects of the laws. Titus Gold (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

(I've found another reliable source which also uses the word "racist" and I was surprised as to how strongly worded it is. There is a resounding majority of historians mentioning racial elements so this is not controversial, but essential inclusion in the article.) Titus Gold (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"essentially established an apartheid or legal apartheid regime in Wales following the passing of the laws. Davies adds that the laws aimed to strengthen English administration in Wales and widen the separation of the Welsh from the English"

I disagree with the removal of this quote since the source is reliable. Valuable information can be included from both of RR Davies' books, particularly when this one is from the more recent publication (which could potentially be more informed). Titus Gold (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You want to quote Davies' popular history, but Davies' own full history provides what I replaced that with, which is a fuller and complete description of the actual effect of the laws, when he says the English and Welsh "were now formally and legally separated from one another, to the disadvantage of the Welsh, in a way which had not been so before, at least legislatively and on a country-wide basis." We don't have to compare that with apartheid, because that description does exactly describe the situation and the reader can make that inference themself; whereas adding the association is certainly editorialising, and takes the reader down a blind alley in that they may make associations with the actual apartheid regime that were not, in fact, the case (as you seemed to intend when you linked the word to Crime of apartheid). Despite making this case repeatedly, and despite removing this passage, you still have three instances of calling this apartheid in the effects passage. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy You're saying "editorialising" but I'm saying that showing the views of various historians is valid. Think we need a third editor to weigh in. For now, could you move any text you're unhappy with into the talk page please so that the neutrality banner can be removed? Titus Gold (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The neutrality issue lies in the whole Effects section, because rather than looking at the histories and fairly summarising and describing the effects following some well chosen sources, the section has been written from a certain point of view, characterised by the existence of the quote from politician, Adam Price, that "that the memory of the race laws have been affected by a collective amnesia." It appears that there is a certain amount of righting great wrongs going on here. But I don't want to gut the article by simply deleting 50% of the text. Better to flag the problem and hopefully attract some editor attention. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I've moved any mention of apartheid to a "modern interpretations" section. Hope this makes a fair compromise. I've also added other sources and views about the effects of the laws. There is quite a few reliable sources used now. Titus Gold (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Page moves generally need discussion

This page was moved to Penal Laws against Wales, losing the date because the date of 1401 is also mentioned (that is, some penal laws were enacted by parliament in 1401). It may well be that 1402 is too specific, but it has some claim to being the common name. As some of the laws were passed in 1401, there is also a case for 1401-1402, but the common name is, in any case, not well established. We have "Penal Laws against Wales" but "Welsh Penal Laws" is also used. Bold page moves should not be attempted where there is likely to be controversy over the title, and Wikipedia:Article titles should be considered too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. I did not think it was controversial. Titus Gold (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Best Source

I would contend that the best source for the information on this page remains (Davies, 1997). I quote from the book review of (Brough, 2017):

That role [i.e. the entry point into the subject] will remain best filled by R. R. Davies’s volume The Revolt of Owain Glyndŵr (Oxford, 1997) for the foreseeable future. Whereas Davies’s volume was a very precise and guarded Anglo-Welsh study, grounded firmly and carefully in exactly what we may know with certainty from the evidence at hand, Brough’s book feels like a youthful and enthusiastic tour through the subject, constantly pushing speculatively at the boundaries of what we may reasonably infer from the evidence.

[1]

That is, reviewers state (and Stevens, here, is not alone in saying this), that Davies provides a thorough NPOV history, whereas Brough tends to go beyond the evidence at times.

The relevant pages in Davies are roughly 280-284 and 321-324. There may be small mentions elsewhere, but those are his primary treatment of the penal laws. We don't have to follow Davies exactly, and it would be plagiarism to do so too closely, in any case. However, I think we should be very careful about any significant divergence from Davies. And at the moment, our divergence is large. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree that Davies is a good source, he is. To put a neutrality banner up you should specify if there are any issues and what exactly they are, rather than vague requests to re-write. All the sources in the Effects section are reliable; please make very specific suggestions or please make specific edits. There doesn't seem to be any issue at the moment. Titus Gold (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I really thought this was all up above, but here goes:

1. The term apartheid is controversial and source selection to assert the wording has been selective and deliberate;
2. This history article is quoting a Welsh Nationalist politician (who is not a historian) in support of the terminology;
3. The article is put together piecemeal without having first established the best sources, and is largely following a televised history programme;
4. The article lead has They [the laws] were designed to establish English dominance in Wales. That dominance was, in fact, established with the conquest of Wales, and this article makes it look like the laws were a new thing, novel in their formulation. They weren't;
5. The lead has: The laws were reaffirmed in 1431, 1433 and 1471 which is true, but is POVy because it does not really reflect the reality on the ground. Have a read of Davies on that; and
6. There is a big "Effects" section which is largely editorial. I have repeatedly suggested that needs root and branch rewriting. Again, have a read of Davies and see, even though he uses some of the same examples, whether you recognise one from the other.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Thank you, this is far better. Please do something like this straight away in the future.

Here are my responses just to note:

1. I have moved this into the modern interpretations heading. Are you saying the word should not be mentioned at all in any context?
2. I can't find a unionist politician mentioning the laws. Are you saying you want this removed completely?
3. I don't think it's wise to dismiss a book by a reputable historian because there is a programme associated with it and no inline citations (quotes are cited). Are you suggesting completely removing valuable insight from this book, which is actually dedicated to the relationship between England and Wales?
4. This is what the source says and this was the purpose of the laws. I'm happy for a sentence alongside this giving a context of the conquest.
5. There any many mentions that the laws were inconsistently applied in the effects section. This section is puerly legal. Go ahead with re-wording if you like.
6. Again, this point is too vague and therefore I cannot act on this. I have been true to the sources. If you want any change on this point I would suggest that you go ahead yourself.

I would strongly encourage you to just go ahead with making the changes you see fit and then remove the banner yourself. Otherwise, this could drag on unnecessarily. (I have saved the content to my sandbox, so please just go ahead.) Titus Gold (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy I have addressed points 1,2, 4 and addressed point 5 in the lead only since second mention is related to law only, not the effects.

Point 3: Too vague and this is just one valuable source used

Point 6: Too vague and has already been re-written being more strictly adhered to sources and discussing multiple factors and effects. Titus Gold (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Per Template:POV, you should not be removing an NPOV template until There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. However I was about to say, before you removed it last night, that in view of your removal of the clearest issues, I was content to remove the template and deal with the other issues over time. Regarding point 3, I disagree it is vague. The issue here is that the article appears to have been written, in the words of Stevens (about another writer) as a youthful and enthusiastic tour, but not as a measured, careful and neutral history based on what the best sources are saying. Still, without the POVy language, that is a broader and deeper content issue but less about neutrality, and so not justification, in itself for the template. The effects section is something I will no doubt be looking at soon. I had mentiond I was busy, having a deadline yesterday. Now I need to do some extra reading on this subject, because I don't want to deal with one POV issue by introducing a new one of my own. History articles need a lot of reading time. Finally, just to say - thank you for removing the language that was the core issue here. That is appreciated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Another excellent source:

• Williams, Glanmor. (1987) Recovery, Reorientation, and Reformation: Wales C.1415-1642: 3 (History of Wales). Oxford: OUP.

I have this in my attic (box 20 allegedly :) we will see if my filing system works) so will retrieve it tomorrow. I won't make any updates before re-reading that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that point, but also allowed to remove the template if any of the other points apply according to Template:POV. You're welcome to make any additions or sensible re-wording but I would appreciate a discussion before anything significant is removed. Again I think you're being vague about point 3. In future, more specific requests would bring more clarity to discussions and help bring conclusions to discussions earlier.

Thank you for allowing neutrality banner to be removed. If you have any specific requests for edits please let me know as I am willing to address or compromise when these are made. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I have completed a major rewrite of this, based primarily on Williams and Davies as discussed here. I have also retained the Effects section but updated that too. This has taken me quite a large number of hours of reading and drafting, so I would appreciate if you could give the text due consideration before taking a hatchet to it. Happy to discuss it here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Per your regrouping and new headings, the history is everything up to the effects section. The effects is repetitive of some of the history, focusing on effect, and thus a new section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You've made some valuable additions, but removed a small amount of valuable text which I've re-added. The references do need to be tidied though. Titus Gold (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I've tidied SFN referencing also but can't seem to connect the "Cross & Loades" citation to the bibliography for some reason Titus Gold (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Reinsertions

Thanks. I fixed the Cross & Loades reference (missing date). On the other matters, you re-inserted material I had cut or rewritten. Here are my thoughts on those reinsertions.

Welsh people negotiated for and purchased charters from 1504-1507 to lift some dues, Bondmen were enfranchised and tenure of land was allowed via fee simple or fee tail. There remained doubt about their legal validity.

This takes a sentence from a passage about the charters of Henry Tudor. The context here is lost, and this is half the issue. It reads as a fragment, not clearly connected to the remainder of the text. I had left Henry Tudor out in the interests of brevity, but perhaps these should be covered. I will look at including something on these charters, and why they were deemed insufficient by later Tudors who pushed for the Laws in Wales Act.

Many were relieved by the Laws in Wales Acts which was perceived to end the discriminatory system.

This is just wrong and I cannot find where Johnes makes this claim. All were swept away by the Laws in Wales Acts. Those acts obsoleted the penal laws. This should just go, as this is already covered in the history.

...These included 14 penal laws against the Welsh people by Henry IV of England. Although this had been promised to the Welsh in 1536, laws were not expunged from the statue books until 1624.

The reference added to support this addition is (Watkin, p162). The novel claim here is that repeal was promised. I do not have the source by any means. What is the quote that supports this claim?

The laws weighed heavily on the Welsh and were a reminder to the Welsh of their inferiority and insecurity despite multiple exemptions. The laws stayed on the statute book and were resented by the Welsh people.

This is used to remove and replace my:

The principal effect of the penal laws, whether enforced or not, was to reduce the status of the Welsh to that of second-class citizens in their own land.

Which made use of one of your sources: (Jenkins, 2007). Most of what you have in there is, in any case, repetitive. You add (Roberts,1969) to support "The laws weighed heavily on the Welsh", a statement that should not require citation under WP:BLUESKY, but "weighed heavily" is editorial that you perhaps wanted to bolster with a citation. I don't have Jenkins, and I suspect you don't either because I was able to search just enough of it to establish that neither "weighed" nor "heavily" (nor weigh, nor heavy) appear on page 256 or much anywhere else in the volume. I think my text is superior, without forcing people to locate an out of publication 54 year old work to verify and justify editorialisng in wikivoice.

Adam of Usk says that the laws were "harsh" English decrees against Anglo-Welsh marriage.

Adam of Usk is a primary source, with all the problems associated with quoting primary sources. We already mention the issue regarding marriage and incorporating this view without commentary gives it undue weight. It does not lend to the understanding of the subject.

The racist penal code of 1401-2 applied subordinate, second-class citizen status to the Welsh and there were no new rebellions against the English crown. A deep sense of anger remained, but hope of a united independent Wales led by a native Welsh prince had faded away. English administrators reminded the Welsh of the price to pay for rebellion against the Crown.

This appears to be a rather close paraphtrase of "The map of Wales remained unchanged, and the Welsh, now condemned to a subordinate status by penal legislation, had once more been cowed into obedience, even though a deep well of acrimony and anger still remained. Virtually all hope of establishing a united, independent Wales under the leadership of a native prince had disappeared. There were to be no further major uprisings of this kind against the power of the Crown."(Jenkins, 2007:118). You also slip in the word "racist" which is actually in the next section of Jenkins. "It is difficult to over-emphasize the impact on Welsh sensibilities of the overtly racist penal code of 1401–2". This section therefore has multiple issues. The paraphrase is too close in my opinion, and where it differs in the first sentence, you have subtly changed the meaning of the quoted material and glossed it with the term "racist" in wikivoice. All of this information here is already elsewhere so it would be better to drop it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@@Sirfurboy🏄

Welsh people negotiated for and purchased charters from 1504-1507 to lift some dues, Bondmen were enfranchised and tenure of land was allowed via fee simple or fee tail. There remained doubt about their legal validity.

Ok, feel free to expand and provide more context here.

Many were relieved by the Laws in Wales Acts which was perceived to end the discriminatory system.

I think you might've misunderstood my wording here. The Laws in Wales were perceived to end the the discrimination of the penal laws, so were welcomed in one sense by the Welsh people.

The laws weighed heavily on the Welsh and were a reminder to the Welsh of their inferiority and insecurity despite multiple exemptions. The laws stayed on the statute book and were resented by the Welsh people.

I'm happy to reword the first part.

Adam of Usk says that the laws were "harsh" English decrees against Anglo-Welsh marriage.

I think including a source from the period gives insight into the response of chroniclers in Wales at the time. Happy for this to be tweaked or given further context explaining that it is a source from the time. I would suggest it's actually a secondary source, with the laws themselves being the primary.

"The map of Wales remained unchanged, and the Welsh, now condemned to a subordinate status by penal legislation, had once more been cowed into obedience, even though a deep well of acrimony and anger still remained. Virtually all hope of establishing a united, independent Wales under the leadership of a native prince had disappeared. There were to be no further major uprisings of this kind against the power of the Crown."(Jenkins, 2007:118), "It is difficult to over-emphasize the impact on Welsh sensibilities of the overtly racist penal code of 1401–2" I did not "slip" in the term racist as the word was in my original contribution. I am happy to reword a little more distantly from text but this piece provides valuable insight into the effects on political ambition and why the Glyndŵr revolt was the last.

Titus Gold (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the implementation section needs better paragraphing (and flow). I feel that we're now getting closer to a succinct, varied and high quality article now. Titus Gold (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I agree that things are moving forward. Also agree there is a sentence that is abrupt in implementation (the one ending in denizenship), and will see if that can be improved. To the outstanding issues above:

1. I have added a paragraph about Henry Tudor.
2. My problem is the word "perceived" that suggests to this reader that it was perception and not reality. The Laws in Wales Acts obsoleted the penal laws. The Laws in Wales act finally ended discrimination and made the Welsh citizens, with the same rights as the English.
3. I took it all out because I did not think it adds anything we have not already said. The second part is also problematic because you have The laws stayed on the statute book and were resented by the Welsh people. cited to (Williams, 1993:13-14). But Williams does not say that. Those pages are all about the resentment that led to the pressure on Henry to enact the Laws in Wales Acts. There is nothing about ongoing resentment after that fact that the obsoleted laws remained on the statute book. Just prior to repeal there was a lot of talk about the fact the laws were still on the books, but that was whipped up so as to enact the repeal, and not an expression of any kind of ongoing deep seated outrage. In any case, that discussion is not in that source. At least, not on those pages.
4. You moved Adam of Usk to the list of laws so I have deleted it. It certainly does not belong there. Adam of Usk is describing his lived experience (as a Welshman, by his own admission, but, incidentally, one of the many who seems to have avoided being denied office etc. by these laws). This is very definitely a WP:PRIMARY source. If including his voice, why not all the others? He is certainly quoted in the sources we use, but we don't need to quote him directly. His evidence is analysed and placed in context and we are using that. Part of the problem comes in passages in the likes of Davies and Williams, which say (and this is from memory) things like "Adam of Usk, if we can believe his accounts, tells us that there were even designs to..." (and although I recall what the designs were, I shall leave that out, because in my opinion, the unsubstantiated writing of a single primary source does not belong here, and if I quote exactly I expect we will be disagreeing about that inclusion too!)
5. What I meant by "slip in" was that your passage was a very close paraphrase of a section in Jenkins, but where the paraphrase diverged it was at the start, with the words "racist penal code" (in wikivoice), and although Jenkins does use the word racist, it was in the next section. In any case, it does not belong in wikivoice. I have removed it. We have made it very clear on the page that the penal laws discriminated against Welsh people and made them second class citizens in their own country. Let the reader come to their own view about this being racist.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That's ok for now. Titus Gold (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Name Discussion

Further to the discussion above about the bold move of this article, I agree that the current title could be improved, but we need to find the best name for this article. Davies uses Penal Laws of Henry IV, Williams uses Penal statutes of Henry IV. I am pretty sure Williams also uses Penal statutes of 1401-2, and Davies also uses 1401-2. Although not a heading, Davies talks of the "penal laws which Henry IV enacted against the Welsh". So, some candidate names:

• Penal laws of Henry IV against the Welsh
• Welsh penal laws of Henry IV
• Penal Laws against Wales 1401-2 minimal change
• Penal statutes of Henry IV against the Welsh
• Welsh penal statutes of Henry IV

"against the..." is a bit wordy, and Wikipedia likes concise titles, but theoretically "Welsh penal laws" could suggest erroneously that the subject is about Welsh law. "against Wales" instead of "against the Welsh" is more concise, but sources largely speak of these as against the Welsh, not Wales, and arguably rightly so. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I would go for "Penal Laws against the Welsh" as it allows scope for all penal laws applied against Welsh people and is not restricted to a particular timeframe if we come across ones that are explicitly described as being passed beyond the 1401-2 timeframe. The laws generally apply to Welsh people rather than Wales as a country (with the exception of Englishmen married to Welsh women) and this is usually how they are described. Titus Gold (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

if we come across ones that are explicitly described as being passed beyond the 1401-2 timeframe... Surely if we are writing a history of this matter, we must already be familiar with all the statutes? We shouldn't be surprised by any others. Moreover, the page as it stands is particularly about the penal statutes that were enacted at the beginning of the Welsh Revolt. All statutes are occasioned, and the occasion for these was the revolt. Should we include the 1407 statutes? Probably not. There are only two of them, and their occasion was a little different. Both Davies and Williams particularly refer to 1401-2 for the penal statutes. Yet as they were enacted under Henry IV, all my title suggestions include them (if necessary) except the minimal change one. Having no date or context makes the page unfocussed, subject to scope creep and imprecision. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Some references refer to the statues of the early reign of Henry IV without specifying the exact dates. Have you come across a good source for the 1407 statutes? Titus Gold (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Bowen, I. (1908) The Statutes of Wales. London: Unwin.

The penal statutes are the ones from the early reign. Henry IV reigned 1399-1413. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know, was just wondering if there were any others from outside the 1401-2 period. Thanks, will have a look at that source. Titus Gold (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I have limited access to that source, unfortunately.

This seems like a good summary below, although not a reliable source in itself. Penal Laws against Welshmen seem to start in 1400 with the last in 1536 and formally ending in 1624. There are some reaffirmations here not mentioned in the article which I think should be detailed.

I think it would be strange not to include detail of reaffirmations. Perhaps something like "Penal Laws against the Welsh 1400-1624" would be more reflective of the content.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Statutes_of_Wales_(1908)/Introduction#cite_note-12 Titus Gold (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Although Bowen shows the session 1400-1401, please note that no laws were issued in 1400. The penal laws are specifically those laws imposed as a coercive measure against the threat of the Welsh Revolt. Although they were re-asserted at later dates, those did not add new laws. This page is not about every law that affected wales, it is about the penal laws of 1401-2. That is the title used in the sources, along with the penal statutes of Henry IV. 1400-1624 has no support in any source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Jenkins uses "penal code of 1401-2", so the sources allow descriptors:

• penal code, penal statutes or penal laws

And the framing is either:

• 1401-1402, 1401-2, or of Henry IV

The context is harder to discern from the sources as they are all already about Wales, but if we have a context, I think the laws are against the Welsh rather than against Wales, so:

• Welsh penal..., ... against the Welsh, or [no context]

That gives a dizzying 27 possible combinations (36 if you want to consider "against Wales"), so I won't list them all. Just looking for convergence on one suitable name. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards "Penal Law against the Welsh 1402" Titus Gold (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

But there are laws, not just one, and 1401-2 is the date range of the laws. What about: "Penal laws 1401-2 against the Welsh"? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer "Penal laws against the Welsh 1401–2" DankJae 23:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Do we have a consensus, or should I put that up as a requested move? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That title does not seem very controversial as it is not too different from the current, so it could be boldly moved (Ofc, if reverted then made into a RM). A RM could be made if more editors are really needed, but as said this title is not too different so probably can be done without a RM as it had been discussed here. DankJae 11:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

happy with that Titus Gold (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have performed the move. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think there should be an RM (or, failing that, more discussion here); according to MOS:DATERANGE the dates should be written 1401–1402 or (possibly) 1401–02, and the existence of another article titled Penal Laws against Irish Catholics raises the question of whether to capitalise the first letter of "laws". Interesting that that page was once titled Penal Laws (Ireland); Penal Laws (Wales, 1401–1402) could be a possibility, but perhaps only if the other article reverted to that earlier title. Both article titles would probably have to be considered together in the RM. Perhaps unhelpfully, I'm not quite sure which title I would advocate. Ham II (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. So yes, it seems the matter is not settled, and more discussion is required. 1401-2 is what is commonly in the sources, but as you point out that the date range should be written in full, per MOS:DATERANGE then a new discussion is in order. I don't object to that at all. The capitalisation is another question. I noticed the Penal Laws (Ireland) was using that capitalisation, but my feeling is that it is that article that his this wrong. MOS:CAPS prefers lower case over title case, so it would only be Penal Laws if the sources use that capitalisation, treating the whole noun phrase as proper nouns. I have not investigated sources for the Irish penal laws, but I have my doubts that they will treat it as such. Certainly the Welsh sources do not capitalise laws. As per the discussions above, they don't even all call them laws. They are penal laws, penal statutes and the penal code. None of them are proper nouns, so laws should not be capitalised, per MOS:CAPS. Looks like we will nee an RM after all though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:DATERANGE does prefer –02 or –1402 which I am fully fine with too. There was a discussion at Talk:Penal law (British)#Requested move 10 January 2018 over some standardisation, but did not gain consensus or include Wales in its proposal. If it is not capitalised in sources' text, then yes it should not be capitalised here. Largely supported capitalising initially for consistency with Penal Laws against Irish Catholics so that may minimally be de-capitalised too, unless a wider discussion of its name is needed. DankJae 13:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Okay I have just proposed a move of Penal Laws against Irish Catholics to be moved to Penal laws (Ireland). I would like to see how that one progresses before proposing to move this article. If there is consensus for that new name, I think I would propose the move here to Penal laws (Wales, 1401–1402) or just Penal laws (Wales), in line with those articles, although I note that the Irish and British penal laws articles are all about laws to coerce membership of the Anglican church, whereas the Welsh penal laws were different. Thus we need not follow suit. If the Ireland article does not gain consensus for the move, we will evaluate the arguments there to see if they affect the title here. I think that order of business reduces the risks of a trainwreck. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Sirfurboy: Impressively swift work, and well thought through – thank you! Ham II (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Penal laws against the Welsh. Consensus is that Penal laws against the Welsh more accurately describes the laws. (closed by non-admin page mover) MaterialWorks (contribs) 18:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Penal laws against the Welsh 1401–2 → Penal laws (Wales) – Discussion above pertains, but we now have three penal laws articles and the other two are:

• Penal law (British)
• Penal laws (Ireland)

This requested move would take the title for this page in line with the other two. It is the most concise title, whilst clearly describing what it is about. It is "laws" not "law" because there were a number of statutes enacted over 2 years. It is lower case "l" because the term is not used as a proper noun in sources. Sources use "penal statutes" and "penal code" as well as "penal laws" but "laws" fits with the other two articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Titus Gold, DankJae, Ham II - contributors to former discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support - for consistency. DankJae 09:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. BD2412 T 13:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing support, on further consideration. Penal laws (Wales) would imply that any person in Wales would be subject to these laws, but in fact they were neither uniformly applicable within Wales, nor restricted to conduct in Wales, since a Welsh person was prohibited under the laws from purchasing land elsewhere in England. BD2412 T 23:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Penal laws against the Welsh is what I have suggested since the 13th March, which more accurately describes the laws. Penal Laws (British) and Penal Laws (Ireland) both relate to the Anglican church. The Penal Laws against the Welsh were very different to the content of those two article. Titus Gold (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I fully accept that the purpose and intent of the Welsh penal laws were different, and said on 23 March that we don't have to follow suit with the other articles, but I am not clear why we shouldn't. WP:TITLE says Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. This proposal is the most concise and most consistent. In what way would it be imprecise, unnatural or unrecognisable? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Penal laws against the Welsh is more recognisable, natural, precise and similar wording is also used in literature. Consistency is not necessarily as relevant since the laws pertain to very different purposes. Titus Gold (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Support because I hate dates in titles. Oppose But I am not sure "Penal Laws (Wales)" is right, as it suggests it was laws passed in Wales or for Wales. These were laws passed in the English parliament, and not a separate Welsh assembly or legislature (unlike in Ireland). I am not going to embrace "against the Welsh" yet, as I'd like to first see exactly what language of the legislation actually uses. I might revise my vote. Walrasiad (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's also worth noting that the Anglican Church promoting penal laws also applied to Wales which could confuse things.

  @Sirfurboy and myself have come across a variety of sources that refer to the 1401-2 laws whilst building the page.

  "against the Welsh" seems to be one of the most common ways of phrasing.

  References that use this phrase include but are not limited to;

  1. https://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam034/97033420.pdf
  2. Davies, R. R. (1995). The revolt of Owain Glyn Dŵr. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198205081 (page 281, 322, 322)
  3. "14 penal laws against the Welsh people"

  "anti-Welsh" is a another phrase often used.

  I would not be opposed to maintaining the current title either, as this better describes the laws than "Penal laws (Wales)". Titus Gold (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not so fast! There is no "most common" as the penal laws very rarely get a headed section all their own, but are described in the context of the material in the sources. The way they are described is all over the place. I note that source 1 and 3 above are not used on this page, and appear to be cases where you have found the phrase with Google. The most impressive reference for "against the Welsh" is indeed Davies, an excellent source, that does use that term (not exclusively and he calls them statutes when he does).

  1. Bowen (1908) uses "coercion Acts" He also specifies the dates and notes under Henry IV.
  2. Carr (2017) uses “penal laws against Welshmen” and “lancastrian penal laws”
  3. Davies (1995) as I say above, uses, “the penal laws which Henry IV issued against the Welsh” and the “penal statutes against the Welsh”
  4. Jenkins (2007) uses "penal code of 1401-2"
  5. Johnes (2019) uses "Penal Laws" (capitalised) and "penal codes"
  6. Watkin (2007) - no idea. I will have to go to the library again to consult that one. My notes don't specify.
  7. Williams (1993) uses "penal statutes," "penal statues of Henry IV," and "penal statutes of Henry IV against Welshmen."

  These are all the major sources that we are using.

  So no, there is no clear consensus in sources. The question here is, per MOS:TITLE whether the proposal is sufficiently precise. The issue of legislature is pertinent, and if that causes this RM to fail, we can look for an alternative that works. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Took a look at the statutes. It is definitely "against the Welsh" or "against Welshmen" rather than "Wales", as many of the laws actually pertain to towns in England. So switched to "Oppose" for now. (There are also some minor errors in the article text about them, but not of any consequence). However, I am not sure "Penal laws" quite fit. I am seeing "repressive laws", and other adjectives more frequently than "penal laws" in other literature. Seems to be a latter-day attempt to apply the well-known name of the Irish laws to Wales, rather than the common name per se. Walrasiad (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with the comments by both @Sirfurboy and @Walrasiad Titus Gold (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Penal laws against the Welsh or at least some title that follows MOS:DATERANGE (which has an exception for two-digit ending years but not for single-digit ones). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal, the laws did not restrict to conduct in Wales. Instead Move to Penal laws against Welshmen. --Nagsb (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good article nomination

I am considering nominating this article for a good article nomination since it has improved vastly since February. The content of the article has been stable for the last two weeks, but I would not consider a nomination until after the requested move comes to a conclusion. Would any editor like to suggest any improvements before a potential nomination? Titus Gold (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a thought, you might want to attend to the article you already (re) nominated for Good Article status, where I left some discussion at Talk:Welsh devolution. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. Titus Gold (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd hold off for a bit. There's a few mistakes in the "acts" list, as their content is not separated as suggested (e.g. some are contained in the same act). I was planning to fix them with references to the actual statute citations. Walrasiad (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Walrasiad could you be more specific? You're welcome to go ahead if there are genuine corrections to be made, particularly if you outline them here on the talk page as well. Thanks for your time Titus Gold (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)