Talk:Anglophobia

Glendower/Glwynwr

"per BRD" is hardly informative. May I ask why you objected to my edit? The English-speaking newspapers did, in fact call MG "the Sons of Glendower", and this is the English Wikipedia. The article on Munchen is called Munich. The article on Niclas Koppernigk is called Nicolaus Copernicus. The article on Sir Benfro is called Pembrokeshire. I don't understand why MG shouldn't also obey the rule of commun usage. BillMasen (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The Gruniad translated "Meibion Glyndyr" [sic] as "Sons of Glyn Dwr". Further the article on Owain Glyndŵr is entitled Owain Glyndŵr, so it is accepted by Wikipedia that Owain Glyndŵr is the usual use of the name. The purpose of the translation appears to be to translate 'Meibion'. Btw, my edit summary was significantly more helpful than yours - there wasn't one (and no-one calls him "Glwynwr"). Daicaregos (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, so one newspaper calls him that name. Tell me, if I find a larger number of citations with "sons of Glendower", are you going to accept that? Or is there any other objection, in line with WP policy, that you would care to elucidate before I go to the trouble? I do not take great pleasure from dealing with your petulant approach to "discussion", so I'd like to know whether I'm wasting my time; that is, whether you are going to revert it for some other reason in the future. BillMasen (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just 'one newspaper', it is the newspaper citation used as a reference for that paragraph. Forgive me, but as your original post said "The English-speaking newspapers did, in fact call MG "the Sons of Glendower"..." I assumed you were referring to the one you had used as a reference. As for my "petulant approach to "discussion" " - I responded to each of the points you raised without finding it necessary to resort to childish name calling. Please be WP:CIVIL in future. As you ask, even if you had not changed '(Owain) Glyndŵr' to 'Glendower', the change made (highlighting Meibion Glyndŵr's motivation from "cultural and economic concerns" to "partly by economic concerns") is not substantiated by either reference. Daicaregos (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Above discussion moved from User talk:Daicaregos#Glendower/Glwynwr. Daicaregos (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to start a discussion, how about you learn to spell Glyndwr? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.89.236 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

War of Jenkins' Ear

ANGLOPHOBIA ON WIKIPEDIA I was looking through the history section, when i came across the discussion tab for the War of the Jenkins ear, describing the English as bias, liars, and mocking English history, basically downgrading English military capabilities, i was wondering if an administrator or someone could please sort this out it has also been spreading across other historic pages, where certain users are targeting Britain more specifically England and rewriting battle results as indecisive or exaggerating defeats i thought that if i posted this comment on here it would come across more effectively, maybe i might be wrong but could some users please check it out, especially the Jenkins ear discussion. Your's sincerely David! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.224.47 (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain which article or articles you were looking at? It wasn't this one, because it doesn't have a History section and doesn't mention the War of Jenkins' Ear. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the directions to the first problem in the discussion section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_of_Jenkins'_Ear) Restoration Work sub that was written it shows some users using to a degree stereo typical comments to describe British people such as this section of a comment made by Cosialscastells "the british always hide the lost wars with anglocentric propaganda" this might offend some people if they read through it. --86.184.224.47 (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are comments made in 2009 on a talk page by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked - User:Cosialscastells. The guidelines for conduct on an article talk page are here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help it is much appreciated --86.184.224.47 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Irish History

Why is there an extensive section on the Irish Civil War, it seems inappropriate to me for an article on Anglophobia. Justin talk 11:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You could try asking User:Kingstowngalway, who added it a few days ago. I added the tags - if no refs can be found which specifically link it to "Anglophobia", it could be deleted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the link, so per WP:BRD I've removed it. He can bring the discussion here to justify its inclusion. Justin talk 11:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it should remain in the article. The references could be better, but I think some of the information is relavent and obviously Ireland is no more free from Anglophobia than Scotland or Wales. BillMasen (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've brought back some of it. Perhaps it should go in anti-British sentiment?

Please review WP:BRD, it is more appropriate to have agreement to re-add material once challenged. I have slimmed it right down again to material that is germane. There needs to be a discussion on relevance, most of what you added was history, without adding context or improving understanding. Justin talk 14:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There's really no need to pull out the rule-book on a non-edit war exchange of views. I have no problem with the version as edited by you. BillMasen (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK but it wasn't pulling the rule book out, I was merely trying to avoid an unnecessary edit war over what could easily be solved by dialogue. Just a comment that text does not convey emotion at all well. Justin talk 16:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"context"

As long as there is no source establishing the relevance of the "context", it is editorialising on the part of a single editor. As far as the source is concerned, it says the motivation was Welsh people being driven out of their homes. True it doesn't explicitly mention the welsh language, but i can't imagine why you wouldn't want that in the article. If that part actually bothers you I'll take it out. BillMasen (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Its perfectly reasonable to provide context in an article of this nature. Also that text has been there so a long time so you are factually incorrect is saying that it is "editorialising on the part of a single editor". The source is very clear to qualify English with "cultural" and also "economic" which make it dubious as supporting material anyway, but if it is going to be there lets keep to the source. If we add in "decline" then we will need to create a context for that. --Snowded ^TALK 01:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no source establishing its relevance, it's as simple as that. It doesn't matter if you think it's the most reasonable thing in the world. Unless you find one, there's nothing to talk about. BillMasen (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you just don't like it. The material is easily verified --Snowded ^TALK 03:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am disputing its relevance to a few fanatics blowing up people's houses in the 20th century. Noone is suggesting that it didn't happen. All you have to do is establish the relevance of these laws to 20th/21st century anglophobia. Citing these statutes just isn't enough. BillMasen (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Its relevant to the Welsh section overall, and clearly appropriate. I note that you think the current citations are not enough and you are entitled to your opinion as always. I don't agree so lets see what other editors think. The second homes protest was not about blowing up people's houses by the way, some of the campaigners used arson as a tactic. Try not to exaggerate for effect it doesn't help the article or the response of other editors to your input. --Snowded ^TALK 12:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

They weren't bombed, they were firebombed. Well?

There really is no way around establishing its relevance with sources. See WP:OR and WP:Syn, as well as WP:V. I'll be interested to see what you come up with. BillMasen (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Arson Bill, and in the main care was taken to see the cottages were unoccupied at the time. We have had this debate before and we know that you have a strong POV based on your interpretation of personal encounters in Wales. As to the rest of your post, as I say its your opinion. I disagree, given that a lot of the issues relate to language and culture we need to be balanced in presenting the article. I have no intention of coming up with anything else at the moment, I'm waiting for other editors to get involved in the discussion.

This article is about Anglophobia, not about Meibion Glyndŵr. If you know of any reliable source saying that Meibion Glyndŵr blew up people's houses please provide it here, or add it to the article. Otherwise, I for one would appreciate it if you would restrain yourself from simply making things up to suit your POV. Either here, or on the article itself - where the 'exaggerations' have already been (rightfully) reverted. It would make for a much more pleasant environment were it possible to trust that the things other editors said were true. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the moral difference between using explosives and arson. And there were other nationalist groups that did use bombs. So while MG was conflated with other groups, I don't think it's appropriate to accuse me of "making things up". I don't think I ever said that I had bad personal encounters in Wales, so that attempt at ad hominem falls flat.

Given that the expansion of this article was obstructed every step of the way by asking for sources for the most obvious of statements, I don't think it's too much to ask that you source something obviously contentious. BillMasen (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I simply don't care where you see moral differences. I have zero interest in your opinions. This is an encyclopaedia. It has rules by which we have to abide. One of those rules is here. Please read it. The other nationalist groups that did use bombs to which you allude were decades before Meibion Glyndŵr, and they didn't blow people's houses up either. People's houses were not blown up. Saying that they were is lying. Is it so difficult for you understand? Please stop lying. If you know of any reliable sources saying that Meibion Glyndŵr blew up people's houses please provide it here. Otherwise, please keep your opinions about moral differences to yourself. Daicaregos (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You grow a little hot. Have a read of WP:civil. I can't help it if you don't like the fact that your nationalism is not actually as pure as the driven snow (and it may interest you to know that a militant group did place a bomb at someone's house). This is not a forum, and so far neither have you have done anything to establish the relevance of the text which I deleted. BillMasen (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I dislike liars. Saying someone is a liar when they are lying does not breach WP:civil.
Yes, it does interest me to know that a militant group did place a bomb at someone's house. That is why I have asked you (repeatedly and specifically) to provide a reliable source to confirm your assertion that Meibion Glyndŵr blew up people's houses. Which you have singularly failed to do. Why not? Daicaregos (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I mistakenly said that they bombed houses, when, in fact, the misunderstood angels firebombed people's houses. I don't particularly care if you think I was lying; I simply point it out for the benefit of others who might be reading. It amuses me that you are more offended by this than by, you know, burning down people's houses. (Mudiad_Amddiffyn_Cymru bomb in the garden of the local fascist oppressor (police constable)). BillMasen (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

A garden is not 'people's houses'. MAC is not Meibion Glyndŵr. Just can't stop yourself, can you? It's pathetic. Daicaregos (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Firebomb is a kind of bomb. This one was outside his house; the intent is the same. I know you'd really like me to shut up about a topic which you WP:own, but it's not up to you. BillMasen (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to carry on as far as I'm concerned, as long as what you say is true. Just stop making things up. You have no idea how close to the house the bomb was. His garden, and the article (not a reliable source, by the way, which you still haven't provided) said it was in a garden, not planted in a house, could have been 500m long for all we know. Now you're making up stuff about intent. How do you know what the intent was? Maybe they didn't like carrots. The incident with MAC and the arson by Meibion Glyndŵr were decades apart, and you've established no connection between the two. Just stick to the facts, as verified by reliable sources, then no-one will accuse you of lying - because you won't be. Daicaregos (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Don't let him provoke you Dai. He's got a point of view and he wants to craft the words to support that. He is not worth the effort other than correcting the facts. Bill, the relevance of the Welsh Not and the elimination of Welsh from the courts is clearly relevant to actions and attitudes. You don't think so fine, but you are not the final authority (thank God given your editing style). Lets see what other editors think. --Snowded ^TALK 14:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My view is that some context and background is helpful to readers. However, I'm not sure that the sentence "Throughout the centuries with the suppression of the Welsh language in almost every public sphere, including in schools with the use of the Welsh Not, the Welsh speaking population was gradually Anglicised and reduced to a linguistic minority of roughly 20 percent of the total population of Wales today" is actually helpful in the context of this article. It expands upon the previous sentence about the use of the language, but it doesn't tie it any closer to the specific topic of "Anglophobia", which is what this article is about. Diminished use of a language cannot be assumed, without evidence, to be directly linked to any form of xenophobia, and I think that sentence is unnecessary and could be deleted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The citation for that sentence includes "This period is associated with that most hated symbol of English cultural oppression, the Welsh Not, or Welsh Note, a means of forcing Welsh children to speak English at school." Is that not enough? Daicaregos (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to modifying the language, just opposed to removing it to create a context free and thus biased perspective --Snowded ^TALK 15:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the part of that ref which is left out of the article - that the Welsh Not was seen as a "most hated symbol of English cultural oppression" - is actually more relevant to this article than the text which is in the article. I don't think that the ref to Tudor actions on the use of the language is particularly relevant, as the article doesn't link it in any way to xenophobia or hatred. So, perhaps I would reword the sentence along the lines of: "The Welsh language was suppressed in almost every public sphere, with, for example, the use of the Welsh Not in schools being seen as a hated symbol of English oppression."[1] Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me, much more apposite --Snowded ^TALK 15:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well done, that establishes the relevance of the Welsh Not. Now, what about this part: The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 also known as the "Acts of Union", passed by the Parliament of England, annexed Wales to the Kingdom of England, and replaced the Welsh language and Welsh law with the English language and English law. cited only to the statute database. That only establishes that the act happened, nothing else. BillMasen (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It establishes necessary context for the sentences that follow, and should remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think all contentious material should be sourced. However, at least now part of it is sourced, and I'm sick of arguing. BillMasen (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

'Stop Anglophobia' Leicester Protest

Regarding deletion of Anglophobia in England section by Snowded, reason stated Inadequately sourced, what sources would be required to include this incident and protest? (New to wikipedia, so on a learning curve, your assistance would be appreciated, thanks). Æthelred (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:RS to get an idea. You used a web site from a partisan group, that is never enough --Snowded ^TALK 17:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Snowded for the link and information. I will edit and include the topic as an assertion from the English Shieldwall website, as per 'Documenting your sources' (Some Sources Apply Only in Specific, Limited Circumstances). Æthelred (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You will have to show notability as well, its not going to be enough without a newspaper report at least --Snowded ^TALK 19:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find any newspaper links (online at least) - the only evidence is from the Shieldwall website, the YouTube video and the Facebook event page. Is there no other way to include it that I am overlooking? It is relevant to the page, and is the only protest of its nature I can find.

Aside from that, I could simply use the Leicester Mercury link regarding burning of the St George's flag and racial abuse of the pub landlord as an example of Anglophobia in England providing that is viable.. Æthelred (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If its not even reported in a newspaper then its not notable. The Leicester Mercury does not support the wording you originally reported and to be honest a pub landlord reporting that he was racially abused in a provincial newspaper is not notable either. You need to focus on getting some real evidence to insert the material and two of the articles you have created have no real references either. As you are a newbe editor I haven't nominated them for deletion, but without some reliable sources soon they will be, --Snowded ^TALK 20:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)