Talk:Treachery of the Blue Books

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to Blue Books at National Library of Wales[edit]

The link doesn't work, therefore please leave it off this page. The previous link gives "Error The National Library of Wales has recently launched its new website. The link you have followed may no longer be valid. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause" --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Treachery of the Blue Books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Blue Book" is not the same as "Treachery of the Blue Books "[edit]

@Daicaregos: The "Treachery of the Blue Books" was a characterisation of the Blue Books. It was not a name for them, any more than the "stupidity of Donald Trump" is a name for Donald Trump or the "genius of Beethoven" is a name for Beethoven. I'm not sure what you think is "inaccurate" about that. jnestorius(talk) 23:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to the Talk page. Three points: 1. the edit changed the Lead to imply it is only 'Welsh speakers and language advocates' who call the reports the 'Treason of the Blue Books'. I don't believe this to be so and if you have any evidence of that it should be cited. 2. John Davies notes in The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales that the name 'took hold of the public imagination to such an extent that ever since the report has been known by that name.' 3. The edit also changes the opening sentence to say it was 'a negative description by Welsh speakers and language advocates...'. While we may, or may not, share that opinion it is contrary to WP:NPOV to provide editor opinion in articles. It is far better to allow the reader to form their own opinion: res ipsa loquitur (English: the thing speaks for itself). Daicaregos (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than "..the name given in Wales...", how about "...the description given in Wales...."  ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the Encylopaedia of Wales, numerous reliable sources say that is how the report is known e.g.:here, here, here and here, or that it is called the Treason of the Blue Books (e.g. St Fagans) alone. Daicaregos (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources say "The report was known as..." and some say "The furore was known as..." No source says, e.g., "The Treason of the Blue Books was published in 1847". To my mind, "Blue Books" is the document, "Treason of the Blue Books" is the historical event; plenty of sources support that:
Prys Morgan, 'From long knives to Blue Books', in Welsh society and nationhood: historical essays presented to Glanmor Williams p.199:
The Treason of the Blue Books is an expression which every Welsh schoolboy knows. He might also know that the reports of three commissioners sent by the government to look into the state of education and the moral condition of the common people of Wales in 1846 were published the following year in the form of Blue Books, and that their publication caused a great furore. David Owen ('Brutus') observed in the Anglican journal, Yr Haul, in 1847 that Wales had never seen such a rumpus before, and it was then only beginning. The 'Blue Books' have always remained controversial.
How about something like:
The Treachery of the Blue Books or Treason of the Blue Books (Welsh: Brad y Llyfrau Gleision) was the publication in 1847 of the three-volume Report of the Commissioners of Enquiry into the State of Education in Wales, which caused uproar in Wales for disparaging the Welsh working class, Welsh speakers, and nonconformists.
jnestorius(talk) 13:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the report wasn't known as the Treason of... on publication but many, including some of those noted above, say 'it became known as the Treason of... ', which is now the report's common name. In my initial respose above (2) I quoted The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales saying that the name 'took hold of the public imagination to such an extent that ever since the report has been known by that name.' (my emphasis). Nevertheless, I would support your suggested Intro up to the Welsh, to give:
The Treachery of the Blue Books or Treason of the Blue Books (Welsh: Brad y Llyfrau Gleision) was the publication in 1847 of the three-volume Report of the Commissioners of Enquiry into the State of Education in Wales, which caused uproar in Wales for disparaging the Welsh; being particularly scathing in its view of the Welsh language, nonconformity and the immorality of the Welsh people in general.BBC
Daicaregos (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine to me. I am always happy to avoid quibbling over minor points. jnestorius(talk) 22:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've made the change. Daicaregos (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Books/1847 Inquiry[edit]

There's a discussion in Talk:Wales#Blue Books/1847 Inquiry regarding multiple edits by DeFacto in deleting the words Treachery of the Blue Books in many articles. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about the appropriate terminology to use when referring to this inquiry in that article and is at Talk:Wales#Blue Books/1847 Inquiry. Discussions about how to use it in other articles should be on the talkpages of those articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales 1847[edit]

Should be the title of this entry. Thats what's being discussed. Obviously the alternative names should be given prominence and the reaction to the reports publication be covered. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the article title would be controversial, so you would need to go through the WP:RM process. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheezypeaz, I'd say there would be a strong case to leave it as it is per WP:COMMONNAME, with this title being very widely used in English-language publications by Welsh authors. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle, DeFacto I totally get it would be controversial; it is however weird to be following a link to an Education Inquiry's report and having such a title mismatch. The reader's immediate reaction is going to be that they have landed up on the wrong page. There is the Report and then there is the controversy. The title as is values the controversy over the thing itself. I doubt that any publication uses the current title without explaining what it refers to. An indicator that it's not a common name?? Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A government report published 174 years ago, would, in itself, normally be unlikely to be sufficiently notable to justify a comprehensive article here. What is most notable in this case is the reaction and response to its content, and the common name for that (in the English language) is "Treachery of the Blue Books". To quote the (sadly, late) editor Daicaregos in an earlier thread: "John Davies notes in The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales that the name 'took hold of the public imagination to such an extent that ever since the report has been known by that name.'" Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle, DeFacto Thanks for your input. Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English translation of Brad y Llyfrau Gleision[edit]

In the lead we have it given as either "Treachery of the Blue Books" or "Treason of the Blue Books", or as either "Treachery of the Blue Books" or "Conspiracy of the Blue Books". Should we just give it as either "Treachery of the Blue Books", "Treason of the Blue Books", or "Conspiracy of the Blue Books"? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We keep it as it is. That's what the sources have said for the last 100 years and more. 'Reports of the Commissioners of Enquiry into the State of Education in Wales' does not need to be in bold, as it was until a few weeks ago when an avalanche of edits came in by new editors; I suggest you take a Wikibreak. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, I wasn't talking about the bold things, I was asking about the two different versions of the translation we have (each giving a different message) and what we could do about it to give a single coherent message. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said: 'We keep it as it is'. Or did you miss that? My answer to you was to keep it exactly as it has been, as described by sources. As a guess, 80% of the sources say "Treachery of the Blue Books", which is why the title is called by that name. 20% of the time it's also called "Treason of the Blue Books". Show me one example of 'Conspiracy of the Blue Books', if it exists, then most probably your academic, reliable source is Google Translate. Your attempt to confuse issues, over the last 3 weeks, is noted. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, did you misunderstand my question perhaps?
  • In the first sentence it says:
    "The Treachery of the Blue Books or Treason of the Blue Books (Welsh: Brad y Llyfrau Gleision)..."
    Thus implying "Brad y Llyfrau Gleision" = "treachery" or "treason"
  • In the second sentence it says:
    "The Welsh sobriquet Brad y Llyfrau Gleision (meaning treachery or conspiracy of the Blue Books)..."
    Thus implying "Brad y Llyfrau Gleision" = "treachery" or "conspiracy"
Each of the two sentences gives a different second translation for the same Welsh phrase. Are there three different translations in use? If not then it needs correcting. If there, then it would be clearer if they were all listed in just the one place. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't misunderstand in any way, my good friend; as I say: keep it as it is. Please read the lead again, for you haven't understood the difference between the term "Treachery of the Blue Books" (and "Conspiracy of the Blue Books") in the first sentence (the first ingrained in every language and every source for more than 150 years), and the 2nd sentence, which refers to the name of a play. The nearest English translation of 'brad' in this case is 'treachery'; but 'brad' has a wider meaning eg in law it is translated to 'treason'. The stem of the word is Old Celtic; the Old Irish is mrath' and Old Bretton is Brat' etc. 'Brad' can also be translate in English to 'betrayal' or 'deciet' (see:The Dictionary of the Welsh Language'; Uni. of Wales). All these terms should not have undue weight; the established term, by most sources, in English, in this context is "Treachery". Please stop trying to change the name of this article, let the sources speak! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, thanks for your patience here, and please forgive my persistence in trying to ensure that this article is factually accurate. Are we saying that as the title of the play Brad y Llyfrau Gleision means something different to what it does when that play's title is used as the nickname for the reports then? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the solution is simply to put all three possible translations into each mention - ie have (meaning 'treachery', 'conspiracy' or 'treason' of the Blue Books). It probably does a disservice to the topic to have inconsistent translations, even though they are translations of different instances of the same Welsh phrase. Llwyld (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed conspiracy from the lead for simplicity and moved the explanation in the play section to its own paragraph. It is normal that words can have multiple different translations in another language. TSventon (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the official name 'significant'?[edit]

It now appears that we need to try to reach a consensus as to whether the official title of these reports is significant enough, per MOS:BOLDSYN, to qualify to be bolded in the lead.

My view is that as the official title has been referenced in other en.Wiki articles, is one of the redirects to this page, and that as it appears more than five times as often as "Treachery of the Blue Books" in the books indexed by Google Books, that it's an emphatic yes it is. Should we bold it? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've scanned through the last few weeks of editing, and I've read all the Talk page. I think it's time for you to move on to another article about another nation. It doesn't seem that you've listened at all, and you're not listening to other editors. Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cell Danwydd, I'm not biting again for now, sorry. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto - please use the terminology used in Wikipedia, rather than using your own, often slanted terms such as 'official', 'controversial name' or 'nickname'. As explained to you here:
  • 'Treachery of the Blue Books' is the Common name (see: WP:POVNAMING) or sometimes called the 'short name'; it has stood the test of time, and overwhelmingly used in reliable sources (not a Google count!).
  • 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales...' is one of the alternative names we have, and is an incomplete quote of a fuller description (for that is what it is). Hardly used in the sources.
Second point, your continual use of Reports of the commissioners of inquiry into the state of education in Wales is deceiving. As I mentioned here, that alternative name only appears 3 times in the 11 sources used on the article. In Wikipedia, you've attempted to insert this term around 20 times into other articles. The phrase is also incomplete, and any description on Wikipedia needs to reflect that; hence my use of ellipsis (the triple dots). Another way would be to state something like "part of the original title of the report was: 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales, or better still , the version you removed: Reports of the commissioners of inquiry into the state of education in Wales: appointed by the Committee of council on education... which gives the reader something nearer the truth. From that use in the lead, any reference to the actual paper report should be the Blue Books report (singular, as the 3-parts made up one report), as per reliable sources. In other pages, the following could be recommended: the British Government's 1845 Blue Books report into education in Wales or the British Government's 1845 Blue Books inquiry into education in Wales - depending on the context, of course.
As mentioned on the Neutral point o view Talk page here, the (further) use of the alternative name (what you called 'official title') in other pages should be avoided:
  1. WP:UNDUE comes into play here. We have to assess how prevalent the various alternative names are in source usage. Alternative names that are rarely used by sources (even if they seem more “neutral”) can be omitted.., and
  2. it would be both non-neutral and UNDUE to substitute some other (potentially more “neutral”) alternative - yes, we might mention the alternatives (in passing) in the primary article, but in other (related) articles we probably would use only the POVNAME., and you were corrected:
  3. No, we would not omit a COMMONNAME, even if that name is potentially Non-Neutral. This would apply to any article.
DeFacto - Can you now confirm that you understand this consensus in the NPOV Talk page, and that you will remove past edits where you've either deleted the common name or replaced it with the alternative name?
Does the alternative name need to be in bold? No. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, you cannot escape the clear fact that "Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales" is very prevalent in sources (did you try the book search?) and a term likely to be used if searching for this article. "Blue books" alone is ambiguous as it is the generic name for all government reports bound in blue covers, not just this one.
Please don't use the term "reliable sources" to refer only to you cherry-picked selection of sources. Source after source that I've looked through when researching this subject, including academic journal articles, newspaper articles, academic books, popular history books, history websites, etc. use the name we are talking about here, with the books inexed in Google Books using it in a ratio of more than 5:1 compared to "Treachery of the Blue Books".
Also, please don't misrepresent the NPOV discussion as being support for your view here, it is not.
You have not convinced me that this name does not have a high enough status to be rendered in bold per MOS:BOLDSYN. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article scope?[edit]

There seems to be some confusion as to what the scope of this article is.

Is it:

  • As stated in the first sentence: The Treachery of the Blue Books or sometimes the 'Treason of the Blue Books' (Welsh: Brad y Llyfrau Gleision) or just the 'Blue Books' are the three-volume 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales' published in 1847...?

Or is it:

  • As stated by Cell Danwydd in their recent edit removing the "response" section-break: ... the whole of this article is about response to the report. I'll start a subsection on the report later?

I assumed the former as that's what it says at the top, but if I'm wrong then I'm sure the report itself is also notable enough to have an article of its own. What do the team think? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now this: this article is not about the printed report, it's about the response to its publication.... -- DeFacto (talk). 19:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV discussion[edit]

There's a discussion on the pov of this article here. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Llywelyn2000, no, the discussion is about whether there are NPOV policies/guidlines etc. related to the neutrality of the terms used to link to articles with non-neutral names. And note that the discussion is not about the acceptability of non-neutral article names as they are perfectly acceptable and covered by WP:COMMONNAME. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase: there's a discussion relevant to this article here. Ultimately, as you have shown over the last few weeks, your aim is to change the standardised term 'Treachery of the Blue Books' (what you've called a common nickname!) used to link to this article into your preferred, clinical term (albeit insourced!). Then you will come back and demand using bold script on your nonchalent, sanetized alt report name, in the header, and when all that is done, you will attempt to change the name of this article!" I do think my original remark was actually correct! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, I have no interest in changing the article name - why would I if that is the common name? As for calling that the nickname for the report - that is a fact isn't it? Welsh history sources refer to it as a "sobriquet" or "nickname" ([1], [2], [3], the Brockliss, Carradice and Prys books used as refs in the article, for example). -- DeFacto (talk). 19:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not one used common nickname; not one. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, I think that question indicates that you have run out of wiggle room on this one! Clearly, I am using the word "common" to mean a nickname that is often used. That's the argument for using it as the article title isn't it - as in WP:COMMONNAME? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, the word 'common' has many meanings. And please don't be personal. I'll repeat:
There's a discussion on the pov of this article here. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, you may be trying to hi-jack it to be that, but I'll repeat that the discussion was started to find out whether there are NPOV policies/guidlines etc. related to the neutrality of the terms used to link to articles with non-neutral names.
If you want to discuss that, why don't you start a thread at the appropriate notice board, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and stop wasting people's time at the NPOV policy talkpage? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of article title[edit]

DeFacto - you've mentioned on the Neutral point of view talk page that the words 'treachery' and 'treason' are 'non-neutral', and you've continuously attempted to delete their use in other articles. I've asked you the following question, which you still have not answered:

So, you believe that 'treachery' and 'treason' are offensive? If so, against who? Who is offended? The Welsh? The church clerics? The British establishment? In my view, both terms are completely neutral; but please, I'm very interested to hear your opinion.

As a Welsh person, certainly I'm not offended. It would hurt me to think that these two words, on Wikipedia, would hurt anyone. At last we may come to understand the reason you've spent the last 2 or 3 weeks trying to delete 'treachery' and 'treason' on Wikipedia articles. I await your cool, rational, academic, and unbiased response with great eagerness. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first restate, to avoid any misunderstanding about this side-track this discussion, that I do not challenge the article name itself, it is clear per WP:NPOVNAME that names may contain non-neutral words if that is the common name "in a significant majority of English-language sources". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't side-track. I wasn't referring to the article's name change; you know that! I'm referring to the many articles where you've deleted the words 'Treachery of the Blue Books. WP:NPOVNAME is NOT relevant to other articles. You still haven't answered my question. Now to whom and why is the use of 'Treachery' non-neutral and offensive? If you're unable to answer this, your deletions will be viewed as nothing less than political pov. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, as I said in my edit summary when I added that precautionary comment above, intended to avert side-tracks such as this one you've just created, I am working on it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, of those two words, no, I have definitely not “continuously attempted to delete their use in other articles” or “spent the last 2 or 3 weeks trying to delete 'treachery' and 'treason' on Wikipedia articles”, that is a gross mischaracterisation of what I’ve been doing. I have merely attempted to supplement them or replace them in a few articles in an attempt to make those articles intelligible to readers visiting the subject for the first time because I do not believe that the use of "Treachery of the blue books" as an alias for the "Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales" is reasonable, especially without any explanation or context given.
And no, I do not believe that either of the words “treachery” or “treason” is inherently offensive, although I’m sure that some people might take offence at being accused of one or the other for giving an honestly held personal opinion about something.
Yes, I did decline to engage in a discussion about the neutrality of those words on talkpages or in discussions where that would have been out of scope or off-topic, and would potentially side-track the specific discussion topic, and advised you to start a topic in an appropriate place to discuss it (which I’m glad to see you, with a little help from me, have done here).

I expressed my opinion that those words are not neutral in this context, yes, but have never used that as a reason to remove them from articles - as I explain above. In my view reports or ‘blue books’, as inanimate objects, cannot commit treachery or treason. Yes, some small part of the reports do contain or summarise the frank views of various members of communities in Wales at the time, and sure they would have been biased or tainted for idealistic, religious, political, or whatever reason. But, in my opinion, the fact that other members of those same Welsh communities took offence at some of those remarks does not justify the assertion, in Wiki’s voice, that those reports represent treachery or treason.
I’m sure that could all be written more eloquently, but I hope you understand my personal opinion on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto - We're getting closer! And I'm certain that we can find a compromise; one that the community will also agree with. Both of us agree that you've deleted and replaced the words 'Treachery / Treason of the Blue Books' many times on WP articles. We don't agree as to why you did this.
There are 2 disagreements:
1. Clarity and Reliability. I say, links in other articles should use reliable sources; you say, make links in other articles intelligible to today's reader. I think we can do both, whilst keeping the every-day term 'Treachery / Treason of the Blue Books' (similar to your recent edit here rather than this one, and this one), and without being long-winded and confusing!
2. Neutrality in the eyes of the reader. You say the term 'Treason of the Blue Books' is not neutral, I say it is. I ask, offensive to whom? I ask you to state your reasons. You say that the term was offensive to the Welsh community, over a hundred years ago. I still await a full answer, please, relevant to today's reader. The whole of your above answer deals with neutrality / offense taken over 100 years ago (people accused of treason / treachery, members of communities in Wales at the time and other members of those same Welsh communities took offence).
'Neutrality' in WP articles refers to the present reader of Wikipedia; not whether it was offensive 100 years ago. WT:NPOV refers to the neutrality of content to the reader 11 times and is 100% written in the present tense. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, firstly, no I do not agree with your characterisation that I "deleted and replaced the words 'Treachery / Treason of the Blue Books' many times on WP articles." I explained that above.
Of your two points:
  1. This isn't a one-solution-fits-all, it surely depends on the article in question. If the article mentions the report in the context of government or education policy, etc. then it makes sense to use the official name and link to the redirect without necessarily even mentioning the Welsh nickname for it. If, on the other hand, the reaction to it is being discussed, it might be appropriate to introduce it and link it by its nickname followed by the explanation of the report that it is denigrating.
  2. My view is still that using a pejorative nickname is not neutral, and it therefore needs explaining, attributing, and contextualising if used in an article. You can read my reasoning above, the points in my penultimate paragraph are not time dependent.
Yes, NPOV expects WP to present opinions neutrally, whether they were opinions given yesterday or 150 years ago. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered Llywelyn2000's question why is 'Treason of the Blue Books not neutral?' 3rd or 4th request, from what I see. Please answer fully. You've been told on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#WP:POVNAMING is also relevant to other articles. Correct? that names like the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate. You've also been told that "No, we would not omit a COMMONNAME, even if that name is potentially Non-Neutral." so stop deleting the use of 'Treason / Treachery of the Blue Books' on Wikipedia articles.
You have also been told: I think we need to be clear that a name which may have a non-neutral term or phrase in it, but which has been readily accepted among reliable sources for a sufficiently long time so that COMMONNAME applies, is not a non-neutral title. Eg: the Teapot Dome scandal will always be called the "Teapot Dome scandal" in references from other articles because it clearly is the accepted name for the event, even though that "scandal" is a non-neutral term. Cell Danwydd (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cell Danwydd, granted this talkpage has been difficult to keep up with recently, but I did answer Llywelyn2000's question, right here at 07:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC).
I'm not sure what you're getting at when you say "You've been told" this or that. You seem to be cherry-picking the opinions of some others in a discussion. I "told" them things too, as did other contributors, so what do you mean exactly?
You also said "so stop deleting the use of 'Treason / Treachery of the Blue Books' on Wikipedia articles". If you supply diffs of where I've done that, then we can look at them and decide if that is a reasonably framed request. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of the lead[edit]

Cell Danwydd, the lead is not the place to work on new article content, the place for that is your sandbox or the talkpage. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is is for "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph". So I'd suggest that when you've developed the new content you add it to the article body first, then, if appropriate, summarise it into a sentence or two for the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is too short, and needs a couple of paragraphs in order to summarize the main points (the content) of the article. I've started this with:
"According to the historian Simon Brookes, the Blue Books are regarded today as "colonial dictat", and are "the most important ideological intervention by the British state in Wales in the 19th century."
with full citation to one of Wales' most respected historians, Simon Brooks.
In a nutshell, he introduces to the reader why the books received such an overwhelming response. This is also an overarching view of the political intervention by the British government in Wales in that century. If this isn't what "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" is about, I'll eat my hat!
I'll develop this paragraph further off-wiki, and bring the rest to the table, shortly. Thanks for such a great suggestion.
PS The Brockliss' citations don't have page numbers. You say it's an e-book, but the citation is not. Even e-books have page numbers! Correct, add page numbers or delete. Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cell Danwydd, the thing is, there should be no need for citations in the lead because it summarises article content that has already has citations - see MOS:LEADCITE. So add it to the article body first, along with its citations, then summarise its main points in the lead.
Secondly, I'm not sure about the use of the Brookes book anyway. It is described on the UoWP website as "Written as an act of protest in a Welsh-speaking community in north-west Wales, Why Wales Never Was combines a devastating analysis of the historical failure of Welsh nationalism with an apocalyptic vision of a non-Welsh future".[4] It sounds to be partisan per WP:PARTISAN, and representing an extreme position. And Brookes is described on the same webpage as an author, not a historian.
As the lead needs to be balanced and not give just the militant nationalist view of this piece of history, I'd suggest moving it back to the 'Legacy' section and when that section has been developed and balanced, then summarising it into the lead.
As for the Brockliss reference, the page numbers in e-books are not static, there are no page numbers in it, page numbers may be added by the reading device, but they depend on the font size you use and the size of your screen. Either way, the chapter is cited, so there is no question about its validity as a cite. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can have citations when the information has been disputed so many times by you and others! Read: MOS:LEADCITE: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.. If I hadn't added verifiable citations, you would have deleted my text!
Simon Brook' book (please note the spelling; not 'Brookes') Why Wales Never Was (published by The University of Wales Press, is an academic book, very relevant. The book was shortlisted for Wales Book of the Year award in the non-fiction category.[1] The English edition was published in 2017.[2] It was already used on the article by Figaro-ahp a few years ago, and been there since. It seems to me that your edits are very anti-Wales and are very biased. Please temper your edits and accusations that this author is either a "militant nationalist" or that his views represent "extreme position". Cell Danwydd (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Cyhoeddi rhestr fer gwobr Llyfr y Flwyddyn 2016". BBC Cymru Fyw. May 19, 2016.
  2. ^ http://www.uwp.co.uk/book/why-wales-never-was-ebook-pdf/ [bare URL]
Cell Danwydd, that about citations in the lead only applies when, despite being accepted, present and cited in the main body, citations may still be a good idea to fend off challenges. That is not the case here, so does not apply.
Ah yes, it's "Brooks" on the UoWP website, but "Brookes" in this article and you say "Brook". Do those accolades for it mean it's not partisan or representing an extreme or fringe opinion then?
And saying that trying hard to improve the coverage and neutrality of the article is anti-Wales, does, I think, say more about your motives here than mine. Compare the article from before I arrived to just before your latest counter-action, and I think you'll see what I mean! -- DeFacto (talk). 19:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I've made a bold edit to the 1st sentence, in line with the 'Encyclopaedia of Wales'; as the term has multiple meanings.[edit]

Boldly added the Encyclopaedia of Wales' introduction (first 4 or 5 words):

"The Treachery of the Blue Books is a play by R. J. Derfel..."

as that is the primary meaning of Brad y Llyfrau Glesision, as as the 'Encyclopaedia of Wales' is the neutral, respected sources we have on Welsh history.

I've also added the alt terms in bold including the official title (or part of, as the full title is too long (?) - which I've added in full under 'The report'. This is my compromise, and I do hope that our visiting friends will also see this as a compromise.

Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Llywelyn2000, I see some improvements there, yes. I also see a departure from the Wiki guidelines on the writing a good article though, the most obvious one being the content of the lead. Ideally, the lead should be a summary of the most important content of the article, and as such would not include the clutter of citations - they would be in the article body where the detailed content should live.
Also, I wouldn't expect to see its normal official title include the details of who appointed it or why it was called for. I would cut it as the "Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales". -- DeFacto (talk). 06:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, reading through the additions in more detail, they did introduce a worrying increase in non-neutral language and insufficiently attributed and unbalanced POV too. I'm tweaking them here and there to try to fix that. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the Encyclopaedia starts with that, then we should follow its example.
And it doesn't seem the official name was "Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales", after all! Did you know this DeFacto? If you did then you have lead us all astray. Revert to Llywelyn2000's longer version, which shows that it's only a part of what was on the original document.
DeFacto: which bits contain 'non-neutral language'? Please list fully. Cell Danwydd (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cell Danwydd, why cherry-pick that source to copy after 15 years? This article is about the reports, not the play - theirs might be about the play, but so what?
The long name you're thinking of includes the reason and authority for commissioning it - we don't need to worry about that as a title because the common official name will do, which seems to be the one we were using.
Let's start another topic for the non-neutral discussion, it might distract attention from the other important stuff here. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden scope change after more than 15 years![edit]

From day 1 of the article on 31 December 2005 until, erm, 04:40 (GMT) this morning (for more than 15 years) this article was about the Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales, but this morning, and without any prior discussion, here on Wikipedia at least, Llywelyn2000 changed the scope to be about "a play by R. J. Derfel", with the only explanation being in the edit summary thus: ""opened with 'The Treachery of the Blue Books is a play by R. J. Derfel,' as per Encyclopaedia of Wales""! So as there was no discussion or consensus to change this so radically, I have changed it back. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the only explanation being in the edit summary ..??? No! Read his full explanation (earlier on this morning) why he did so. It follows Talk:Treachery of the Blue Books#For clarity, I've made a bold edit to the 1st sentence, in line with the 'Encyclopaedia of Wales'; as the term has multiple meanings. If this is correct, then we should follow. It's not up to you and me as which of the three meanings we should chose, and the Encyclopaedia of Wales should be followed. Cell Danwydd (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cell Danwydd, sorry (and sorry Llywelyn2000, I've now moved this up here and struck out my mistake) yes, I hadn't read that properly and didn't realise or even imagine the consequences!
And no, It's up to community consensus, not an external source, to decide what our article is about, and for 15 years that consensus has been for the article to be about the reports, not the play. To change that we need a formal discussion to decide it. So for now, per WP:BRD, the consensus is that this article is about the reports. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the Treachery of the Blue books have 4 constituents. I didn't realise that until the past few days, reading the tropism of discussions inspired by you and Llywelyn2000. They are:
  1. (Primarily) the name of a play
  2. (most offten) The intense reaction to the publishing of the Blue Books
  3. The actual paper reports
  4. A benchmark of time (e.g. "between the Treason of the Blue Books and the turn of the 20c".)
I've listed them in order of popularity and usage.
Yes, the community needs to decide, and will. But at the moment, I think we need to refer1- 3 in the lead, and the 4th mentioned in the text. Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cell Danwydd, not 4 constituents, but possibly 4 different meanings. But as Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, we don't need to cover them all in one article. This article covers no. 3, the reports. I think no. 1, the play is probably notable enough to have its own article too, and to be honest, I was seriously considering creating one for it to allow space to describe the play as a work in its own right, rather than as the nickname for some government reports. That leaves no.2 and no. 4. If either are notable, then they should probably have an article of their own. If they're not notable, but common use of those phrases with those meanings in English sources can be shown, then perhaps work them into both the (new) play article and the reports article as appropriate.
The next problem then would be agreeing article titles. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cell Danwydd's 4 meanings are helpful, and I agree that all four merit mention both in the lead and the body of the article. However, the play title is only "primary" in the chronological sense, as the origin of the sobriquet. In the wider context of the report and the reaction to it, it is secondary: it should certainly be mentioned in the lead, but shouldn't be made the subject of the initial definition. A separate article sounds like a good idea. But if you stopped the average Welsh person in the street and asked them to tell you about the Treachery of the Blue Books, would they start by talking about the play? I don't think so.
The primary meaning of the term "Treachery of the Blue Books" is #2, the reaction to the report – or to be exact, the wider context of the commissioning, researching and publication of the report, and then the reaction to it. That is what this article is about.
I disagree with using the term "Treachery of the Blue Books" as a synonym for the paper reports themselves. They were the Report of the Commissioners of Enquiry ..., colloquially known as the "Blue Books". But to refer to the reports as the "Treachery of the Blue Books" is grammatical nonsense. Nobody ever said "The Treachery of the Blue Books was published in 1847", or "If I may refer you to vol. 2, p. 133 of The Treachery of the Blue Books". I accept that there are sources that do refer to the books themselves, rather than the circumstances of their publication, as the Treachery of the Blue Books (probably more so in Welsh than in English), but it's irrational and highly confusing to the reader. This was discussed at length in 2018 (#"Blue Book" is not the same as "Treachery of the Blue Books " above), and consensus reached on a form of words for the lead sentence ("The Treachery of the Blue Books or Treason of the Blue Books (Welsh: Brad y Llyfrau Gleision) was the publication in 1847 ..."). Unfortunately that has now been abandoned.
Definition 4, of the Blue Books as a "benchmark of time", seems fine, as long as we can find references to back that up. GrindtXX (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of GrindtXX's contribution, as well as his statement I disagree with using the term "Treachery of the Blue Books" as a synonym for the paper reports themselves. I can't see where Cell Danwydd said this. A few minutes ago, I added a few remarks here, where I suggest:
[apart from the full mention of the alternative name in the lead], any reference to the actual paper report should be the Blue Books report (singular, as the 3-parts made up one report), as per reliable sources. In other pages, the following could be recommended: the British Government's 1845 Blue Books report into education in Wales or the British Government's 1845 Blue Books inquiry into education in Wales - depending on the context, of course.
When describing a report, it's essential that we inform the reader: who commissioned/published it? When? What's it about? I will look further into what text is used in reliable sources, in the next few days.
The first sentence in Encyclopaedia of Wales should not be disregarded. The article is about all 3 meanings, and yes, the 4th should also be mentioned, but not in the lead. This could easily sit under the Chapter 'Etymology' - which DeFacto removed without explanation. Understanding the etymology of the common name is absolutely essential in this article. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, do not misrepresent my edits. I did not remove that "without explanation", you gave a diff of my edit and we can all see that there was an explanation for moving (not deleting) the content there. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No! The Chapter was deleted, without explanation. Not 'the text of the chapter', not 'the whole chapter', but the chapter. It was deleted by you. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, ah, just a section header! That was because there's no need for a section header if there's no text in the section, sorry, I assumed that that was obvious. I'd moved the text to a more appropriate section because "the play was one of the reactions, and quite a late one at that and those publication details are of the play and not of the report, which is the subject of this article". -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources[edit]

Cell Danwydd, GrindtXX Regarding the use of summarised primary source data. From my understanding (in this instance) it follows the WP:PRIMARY policy. Primary sources are allowed if they are used carefully. See also WP:CALC allows simple calculations. The fact that it's close to the event does not exclude its use.

Seems acceptable. Cell Danwydd (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that gracious concession. I will now restore the deleted references. To be clear, we are not saying "there were 708 private schools in Wales" (or whatever), we are saying "the report surveyed 708 private schools in Wales" – something which is indisputably a matter of fact, and for which the report itself is the best evidence. GrindtXX (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Simon Brooks[edit]

We’ve got a couple of spicy quotes from his book “Why Wales never was”

So I was wondering who he is.

From his linked-in page… He appears to be a specialist in Corporate Social Responsibility. His academic positions have been in Business schools. His degree was in Geography.

These are (some of?) the papers he’s authored/co-authored https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Brooks%2C+Simon

Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the weed eradication paper. That’s a different Simon Brooks. :) Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheezypeaz, he's the subject of a Wiki article too, which Cell Danwydd has heavily reworked since I fixed many issues in it, and tagged it as in dire need of further improvement if it was to survive as an article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto Yes I saw that page. I've ordered "A History of Education in Wales" by Gareth Elwyn Jones for the princely sum of £4.00 "He was 53 at the time and his reputation as the pre-eminent authority on the history of education in Wales was already unchallenged." https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/a-very-fine-scholar-exceptionally-3408187. Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheezypeaz, sounds interesting. :-) -- DeFacto (talk). 19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Llywelyn2000, DeFacto, I saw your discussion via edit summaries about whether Brooks is an independent academic, please could you explain what independent means here. I would have wrongly guessed it meant not employed by a university. TSventon (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the common meaning: see Independent scholar. I can only assume that the use of the word by the cited source means that he writes and publishes outside the discipline (Business) in which he holds a formal post. Personally I think the term's misleading, and should be avoided here. "Interdisciplinary" might be better. GrindtXX (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair definition of 'independent', in this context. Done. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000, you think being 'misleading' makes it suitable for inclusion? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GrindtXX, as it's ambiguous I agree it could be misleading and so should be avoided. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto - My last statement referred to the statement by User:GrindtXX preceding it, which was: 'that the use of the word by the cited source means that he writes and publishes outside the discipline (Business) in which he holds a formal post. Personally I think the term's misleading, and should be avoided here.'

I agreed with GrindtXX that the word 'independent' should be avoided. Done and dusted. End of argument. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto, Llywelyn2000 agreed that 'independent' should be avoided and removed one instance of it, I have now removed the other. TSventon (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, Llywelyn2000, I have just read a review on the IWA website which says "it is to the detriment of Welsh academia that he is not in one of our Universities", which suggests independent may have meant not at a university, at least when (the Welsh edition of) the book was published. It is still confusing as he is now at a university. TSventon (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics[edit]

Cheezypeaz and others, the statistics section includes a breakdown of the schools surveyed by language of instruction and region, which I added on 27 August based on information added by Cheezypeaz to Welsh Not. I have just added one more school which was inconsistently summarised in the original 1847 report. Cheezypeaz has asked on my talkpage whether the table can be compressed by removing the regional breakdown. I think the regional breakdown is useful, but the rows and columns should be flipped for consistency with the following table. Any other opinions? TSventon (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you had taken some effort, and only recently, to check my numbers & create the table so I thought it best to warn you first. So rather random but here are my thoughts...
  • Yes it's the wrong way round and hard to read.
  • It doesn't fit on my mobile phone and if the current table was rotated on the web page it would be even worse because of the width of the column headers.
  • The grouping is rather arbitrary and an artefact of commissioners assigned areas rather than anything useful. Am I wrong? north vs middle vs south etc. South is so mixed. I think people today would be interested in the data for their own county than the arbitrary grouping caused by the report. Think of the school children! :)
  • The data isn't spacial enough ( is that the correct word? the Welsh only column has only 2 schools) to justify breaking out by area.
  • I think there is a case for a table "by county" it would be only 13 lines long and if the words in the column headers were kept short (so browsers could wrap them) then it would be compact enough. For example county, Number of schools, % good schools, % good equipment, % children going to school, % English only etc. All percentages would have to be lifted off the report. I haven't checked that this information exists! Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon I'm still hopeless at the notifying thing Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheezypeaz I added the information because I think that the information is useful. My thoughts on your points are

  • 1 My table could be flipped as necessary.
  • 2 Accessibility is important, but as far as I can see Wikipedia doesn’t commit to making tables work well on mobile phone.
  • 3 I think the north vs middle vs south vs Monmouth works well for language "The Welsh Language and its Social Domains" and "For Wales, See England" discuss figures at regional level.
  • 4 The Welsh column with only 2 schools is the most interesting one, so I think the figures work sufficiently well as a table.
  • 5 I think you would need to build a county table to see what columns worked and which are available. In advance I think counties may be too much detail and generally prefer numbers to percentages as not all schools were in scope of the inquiry. TSventon (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon Thanks for your feedback. Cheezypeaz (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheezypeaz I see you have made a start on a table. For headings I would put toilets rather than loos and total rather than both (male and female). I am not going to check everything but shouldn't the average (male and female) attendance for Carmarganshire Carmarthen be 17.5% rather than 17.7%? TSventon (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon Just playing with it at the moment. I've realised that some things can't go on the same table or they will imply a relationship that isn't there. Also I want it to be easy to understand so that it won't be misleading. I think there is a case to have a trained / untrained teacher table because that's one of the main findings. However my book has been delivered and I'll read that first before doing anything else. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference notes[edit]

I've just had a chance to flick through a book, so for the record, and so that I don't forget which book it was, I thought I'd start a section here for notes.

  • Brooks, Simon (2017). Why Wales Never Was: The Failure of Welsh Nationalism. University of Wales Press. ISBN 978-1-7868-3012-8.:
    It doesn't use the terms "Treachery of the Blue Books" or "Treason of the Blue Books" at all, it generally uses the term of just "Blue Books", which it defines on first use in the section about them as "The Blue Books, the three-part Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales, had been published..." In its references section it only ever refers to them as "Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales ..." followed by the part number or other qualifier". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carradice, Phil (2011). "c.51 - The Treason of the Blue Books". Snapshots of Welsh History: Without the Boring Bits. Headline. ISBN 1908192445.:
    This one uses a chapter title of "The Treason of the Blue Books" for its coverage and introduces them in the first paragraph in the the first sentence thus: "In the year 1847 the British government commissioned a report into the state of education in Wales" and then then calls them the "Report of the Commissioners of Enquiry [sic] into the State of Education in Wales". The second paragraph starts: "The Report, known throughout Wales as The Treason of the Blue Books" and then uses either the "Report" or "the "Blue Books" for the rest of the chapter, except for the last sentence where it describes how "the sobriquet Treason of the Blue Books" came from the title of Derfel's play of seven years later. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brockliss, Laurence W. B.; Eastwood, David, eds. (1997). A Union of Multiple Identities: The British Isles, c.1750-c.1850. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719050464.:
    Introduces them in the "Early Victorian Wales" chapter and explains how a "Royal Commission to look into the state of education in Wales" was demanded and that it had produced a vast report in three parts and in blue covers, and then talks about them as "the reports" or "the report". After describing their content and the attacks on them and the responses, it then starts calling them the "Blue Books". It then says that the "furore took on the sobriquet of 'Treason of the Blue Books'" after Derfel's play written "only when the quarrel was subsiding". After that it goes back to calling them the "Blue Books" for the rest of the chapter. Indexed solely as "Blue Books". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ford, Martyn (2016). "ch. 6 - A Vast Drawback to Wales". For Wales, See England. Amberley Publishing. ISBN 1445658941.:
    Covered in the chapter called "A Vast Drawback to Wales", the reports are introduced as "Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales" and said to be "known to posterity as the 'Blue Books'". They are then referred to in the rest of the chapter as the "Blue Books", with neither "Treachery" nor "Treason" being mentioned. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jones, Gareth Elwyn; Roderick, Gordon Wynne (2003). A history of Education in Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. ISBN 070831807X.:
    Indexed as "Report of the Commissioners into the State of Education in Wales (1847)" and with an index entry for "Blue Books" saying "see Report of the Commissioners into the State of Education in Wales (1847)" Neither treachery or treason are indexed. It is first mentioned as "report of the commissioners into the state of education in Wales" and throughout as either that or the "Blue Books". -- DeFacto (talk). 07:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morgan, Prys (2008). The Tempus History of Wales. History Press. ISBN 075249631X.:
    Introduced as "... the commission on Welsh education in 1846, reporting in the famous Blue Books of 1847", and thereafter, generally as the "Blue Books". It doesn't generally mention "Treachery of the Blue Books", but does say "Nonconformists dubbed this commission 'The Treason of the Blue Books'" and "The sobriquet ‘Treason of the Blue Books’ did not appear until 1854 when Robert Jones Derfel wrote a Welsh play of that title satirising the government commissioners and their Welsh witnesses,..." -- DeFacto (talk). 08:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davies, John; Baines, Menna; Jenkins, Nigel; Lynch, Peredur I., eds. (2008). The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. ISBN 9780708319536.:
    One of its ~3300 articles is about the reports and their reception - it is titled "Treason of the Blue Books, The" and is indexed as that and as "Blue Books, see Treason of the Blue Books", starts by describing that it was a play satirising the "government's 1847 report on education in Wales", then proceeds to discuss the report. When the report is referenced in other articles in the encyclopaedia, it is mentioned according to context ("the education report of 1847...", "the 1847 education commissioners...", "the three authors of the Blue Books...", etc. and immediately followed by "(see Treason of the Blue Books)" as a redirect to its article. I don't see the word "treachery" used with reference to it at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This was done a few days ago by Llywelyn2000, and posted Using non-neutral terminology in an article..., as you well know. Here it is:

There are 11 sources on the page. In order:

  1. BBC - Not once is 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales' used. However, Treachery of the Blue Books is used.
  2. Snapshots of Welsh History - The relevant chapter is called The Treason of the Blue Books. The book also contains the words: The Report, known throughout Wales as The Treason of the Blue Books... but no mention of DeFacto's 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales'
  3. A Union of Multiple Identities - Not once is 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales' used, other than once in the article's notes. However, Treachery of the Blue Books is used 3 times in the book's text.
  4. The Tempus History of Wales - Not once is 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales' used. However, Treason of the Blue Books is used 5 times.
  5. National Library of Wales - Article Heading is Brad y Llyfrau Gleision (Treachery or Treason of the Blue Books). Mentions the report's heading once and The Treachery of the Blue Books and Blue Books twice each.
  6. Geoffrey of Monmouth and the English Past - no mention of either
  7. The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales - I have a signed copy by all three editor, Welsh version, so the English translation of this book might be different. Main chapter title: Treachery or Treason of the Blue Books. Mentions the title of the report once, and 'Blue Books' throughout.
  8. For Wales, See England - Not once is 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales' used. However, it does mention, "Published in 1847 and popularly known as the Treachery of the Blue Books (Brad y Llyfrau Gleision), the report portrayed Wales as an immoral, unclean and backward nation"
  9. 'Presenting Saunders Lewis - I can't access this book.
  10. Llanellen's almost forgotten hero of the Welsh language - Not once is 'Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales' used. However, it does say: The "Blue Books" (published in 1847) were the official reports of a government enquiry into the state of education in Wales. And Blue Books mentioned 7 times.
  11. 'Why Wales Never Was: the failure of Welsh nationalism - I can't access this book; requested from library.

That will save you some time! Cell Danwydd (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Danwydd, okay, thanks, the more the better. But no need to be so, erm, unfriendly, about it. What use was it wherever it was (I remember seeing it somewhere, but cannot remeber where and your link was duff) and here, the talkpage of the article in question, is definitely the best place for it. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cell Danwydd, I see you have now fixed the duff link, but without adding the customary courtesy markup (as it had already been replied to) per WP:TALK#REPLIED. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • History of Wales by John Davies (Penguin; 1994). Refers only to "Treachery of the Blue Books" . Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Treachery_of_the_Blue_Books&oldid=1210753028"