This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
I see there is a claim in the lead that St Davids is traditionally considered the ecclesiastical capital of Wales - a claim which is also given in the St Davids article. Are there any reliable sources that support this? I've tried googling it and can find no reliable references for the claim. A search of google books comes up with one book from 1837 that says St Davids was considered "the ecclesiastical capital of South Wales" and one modern book that says it was considered "one of the ecclesiastical centres of the medieval world". Richerman(talk) 16:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only tourist board, so probably not useable, but this repeats the phrase [1]. It's here also [2]. Pembrokeshire Council refers more generally to ecclesiastical roots [3]. Meanwhile, the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historical Monuments (blogspot) refers to St Davids Cathedral as the holiest site in Wales [4] – not sure that's the same thing. Vision of Britain says this [5]. I took the statement for Bishops Palace from St Davids Wiki article when I was reviewing and trying to construct a lead, so I'm guilty there for not checking original sources. Archbishop of Wales mentions – in relation to disestablishment – that: 'Precedents were sought in the early history of Christianity in Wales, with St David's having a debatable pre-eminence among the sees'. If it's debatable, it might be safer to say 'considered by many to be the ecclesiastical capital', perhaps? Or, safer still, 'among the most important ecclesiastical sites in Wales' - this story might be useful for evidence of that [6]. Libby norman (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the websites is that they may have copied that phrase from the wikipedia article on St Davids. I'm sure it was the ecclesiastical capital before the move to Abergwili but I'm not so sure it still is. I think 'among the most important ecclesiastical sites in Wales' would be better. Could I also suggest that the article would flow better if the paragraph on 'Site signficance' was moved below the one entitled 'Establishment of the palace'? Then the reason for the building of the fort and defensive wall would have been given and sentence beginning 'Today, much of the town wall remains...' would follow on from that. Richerman(talk) 21:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people do use Wiki as a resource (ahem!). I think 'among the most' would cover all bases. To me, ecclesiastical capital is quite a broad phrase – it can mean most holy or primary religious hub/centre – and St Davids certainly isn't the only claimant to either title, although clearly it has status. Also agree that the Site significance para would be better moved below Establishment of the palace. Libby norman (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
