Talk:Plaid Cymru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Wales (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Archives[edit]

Created Archives for dated discussions. Most topics prior to September seem to be dated and thus moved. If there is a discussion topic that should be updated, please feel free to link it to the archived history.

Page "Rewrite" Outline[edit]

I recommend updating the page to reflect more on current organizational structure, ideology, and policies and positions. Given the expanded History of Plaid Cymru page, I recommend a more concise history here, brief and to the point.


This is the proposed outline:

  • I. Introduction
  • II. Aims of the Party
  • III. Party structure
  • IV. Ideology and voter base
  • V. Recent policies and positions (in aphabitical order)
    • a) Devolution and independence
    • b) Economic policies
    • c) European Union
    • d) Foreign policies
    • e) Language
    • f) Legal policies
    • g) Social policies
  • VI. Concise history
  • VII. Electoral performance


I welcome comments on the proposed outline. Drachenfyre 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy for you to add in new sections on structure. I can see problems with a section on ideology and voter base. I'm opposed to "a more concise history" that will doubtless refer to your history of Plaid Cymru page since that page is flawed. As far as I can see you have relied almost exclusively on one secondary source (John Davies) to account for the party from inception until the late 90s (the other sources are from quotes from this section - you do not appear to have read them yourself).
There are some good sections in your (and I say your as it has nearly all been written by you) history of Plaid Cymru page, but it is also hagiographic in many places. So I'm opposed to it substituting for the history section on this page. The alternative is that I begin to edit your history page to inject the necessary NPOV into it. Normalmouth 05:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Your objects are duely noted.
Professor John Davies' history of Wales is universally hailed as the most comprehensive, unbiased, and thorough history yet published for Wales. He has contributed to BBC Wales on many occasions. He is a subject matter expert, so relying on his interpretation does not inject point of view into the material. If his material differs from your own it may be your own bias that is clouding your objectivity. Dr. Davies is currently living in South Wales, and his material remains very relevant.
'Tis funny as you have yourself used his material in the past. Of course I welcome more sources, and in point of fact I did add your source material where appropriate (the one's where you actually did add a source to). If you have source material that differs significantly to Dr. Davies, then it should be added and the differences noted on the page... noted where a subject matter expert differes from another. It should be sourced.
On the History of Plaid Cymru, all of the material there is directly attributable to subject matter experts, such as Professor John Davies, the BBC Wales, and local authorities. I am sorry that you feel these sources are biased in any way.
Drachenfyre 03:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


You misunderstand my points - perhaps willfully. I do not say that John Davies's account is biased or unreliable, merely that it is only one of several sources and that your article over-reliant on it. The POV problem arises from your selective use of that source. Example: your quote Ambrose Bebb's opposition to Hitler but decline to mention the section where Davies discusses "the readiness of prominent party members to see virtue in Mussolini and Franco".Normalmouth 05:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I will reread my notes on Plaid Cymru and WWII. If that quote is exact, then it should be included in context. Context is important because many Labour and Conservitive leaders also praised Stallin in WWII, yet arguably Stallin was as "evil" a person as Hitler and Mussolini. I readilly welcome you to add that to the History of Wales page, within context and sourced. In mean time, I will not be home for some hours yet and will look into my notes again.Drachenfyre 05:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Normalmouth, this is what I mean by context:

On Chruchill and Facism (from the Churchill wiki artical): "Furthermore, he controversially claimed that the Fascism of Benito Mussolini had "rendered a service to the whole world," showing, as it had, "a way to combat subversive forces" — that is, he considered the regime to be a bulwark against the perceived threat of Communist revolution. At one point, Churchill went as far as to call Mussolini the "Roman genius… the greatest lawgiver among men." (^ Picknett, Lynn, Prince, Clive, Prior, Stephen & Brydon, Robert (2002). War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy, p. 78. Mainstream Publishing. ISBN 1-84018-631-3. )

But dispite Churchill's statements hailing Mussolini's facism in the 1930s, you would not then further suggest that Churchill was sympathetic to Faciest Itally in WWII. By some of the way you were writting this section, you were linking directly Plaid Cymru with support for the Axis in WWII, which is patently not the case. This is where the main objects consisstantly arise

Additionally, Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor also himself made comments seemingly praising Hitler in 1936, but you would not then say that Lloyd George was then a faciest or agreed in totally with Hitler and Facism. So, when Lewis and Bedd made those comments in the 1930s, they were in line with many main-stream U.K. politicians of the time. But clearly Plaid Cymru, and its leadership, did not support a faciest programme, did not support the Axis in WWII, and more to the point aided the U.K. government in the War Effort.Drachenfyre 06:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting aside, but I fail to see what either Churchill or Lloyd George have to do with providing a balanced account of the early leadership of PC and its attitudes to Europe's totalitarian regimes. If you wish to amend the respective articles, please do so. Here were are talking about Plaid Cymru. As Kenneth Morgan says "[Plaid's early politics were complicated and compromised by the apparent neo-fascism of its charismatic first President, the poet and dramatist Saunders Lewis, and the sympathy for fascist-style corporatism shown by him and other Roman Catholic leaders of the party." (Morgan, K O, Welsh Devolution: the Past and the Future in Scotland and Wales: Nations Again? (Ed. Taylor, B and Thomson, K), (1999), University of Wales Press). Or you might want to turn to what G A Williams says: "During the 1930s Plaid became even more of a right wing force. It’s journal refused to resist Hitler or Mussolini, ignored or tolerated anti-Semitism and, in effect, came out in support of Franco. In 1941 Saunders Lewis’ pamphlet "The Church and the World" explicitly rejected the war against Nazi Germany while in 1944 Ambrose Bebb condemned the plot to assassinate Hitler." (Williams, G A When Was Wales?, (1985), Penguin). These two authors, together with Davies, make up the panoramic historians of modern Welsh politics. You have ignored them all. You have also neglected D Hwyel Davies' The Welsh Nationalist Party 1225-1945 which examines in detail the leadership’s views on international affairs, which were inevitably dominated by the rise Europe’s fascist dictators.
On your suggestion that that it does not warrant a mention, particularly as other party leaders in some way acted similarly, I would say that to include Bebb's opposition but not other leaders' sympathies is clearly unbalanced. It is also clear (as shown above) that PC had a distinctive position which, in effect, meant that they condoned fascism more forcefully and for longer than these other examples. A more comprehensive survey of the available historiography than you have undertaken would help you to see this. Normalmouth 07:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I never suggested they did not warrent mention... if it is based on a reliable and unbiased subject matter expert then its inclusion should be made part of the text.
Those sources are agreable and should be included, yes, on the History of Plaid Cymru page as well. It should be pointed out where the different emphasis lies however. As demonstrated by Churchill and Lloyd George's comments through out the 30s, it does not necessarily follow that just because there was some support in the 30s that they were then in favor of the Axis during WWII. There is more evidence to suport Plaid Cymru members chose to suport the War Effort then hinder it.
Ambrose Bedd shifted his prespective as sympathetic towards some aspects of faciestism towards wholely supporting the War Effort against the Axis (his not supporting a political assination does not demonstrate support for Hitler).
The portion which mentions Bedd is during the 1939-1945 section. This is section where he is in support of the War Effort. Additionally, the party's views did change during the war. Though I am not a subject matter expert, it would follow that as Lewis stepped down as party leader in 39, so did other of the "old guard" who shared simular views prior to the War.
So yes, add these elements to the History of Plaid Cymru page. But there should be a disclaimer with some of the sources, as Lord Morgan is a member of the Labour party (and we know of the animosity some have in each party for the other) and was created a life peer in 2000. Some sources could have political agendas, and it should be so noted somewhere in the artical. Same holds true for John Davies.... but he has treated all the parties the same and in fact you could find much information on Labour too (though this was not what I was looking for)
So, in context I welcome you to add to the History of Plaid Cymru page, but do not take away sourced information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drachenfyre (talkcontribs) 09:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the additional infomraion under The Lewis Doctrine and criticism 1926-1939, where it fits most appropriatly. I need the source for this quote "During the 1930s Plaid became even more of a right wing force. It’s journal refused to resist Hitler or Mussolini, ignored or tolerated anti-Semitism and, in effect, came out in support of Franco" to attribute it correctly. Drachenfyre 10:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

'Regionalism' as an ideology?[edit]

User IP 131.251.134.131 has added Regionalism as an ideology for PC. I don't think the party considers Wales a region, so I think it's incorrect. The same user changed the Politics of Wales article so that 'Constituent countries of the UK' was changed to 'regions of the UK'. I think it's a blatant POV and reverted changes in the other article, but haven't done so here in case others had different views.--Rhyswynne 10:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw that too, and was wondering whether to change it back (I don't know enough about Welsh politics to comment!) I've tagged the IP with {{sharedipedu}} for future reference: it's a Cardiff University machine, according to WHOIS ("University of Wales College of Cardiff"). BencherliteTalk 10:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've temporarily protected the page so that only registered users can edit it. I hope this will help a bit. Deb 11:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've undone the changes, as there's no way of asking the unregistered user for reasoning behind the changes and he/she hasn't left any here either.--Rhyswynne 12:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree that it's not a fair description of PC's ideology (though they did have the briefest of flirtations with describing Wales as a "National Region" in the European context - this oxymoron was soon dropped). Neither should Wales be described as other than as a nation in the Wales page. Normalmouth 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
As the same edits were coming from the same IP on three occasions, I've left a message about this discussion on the IP's talk page in the hope that it is a relatively static IP and that editor might see it. BencherliteTalk 20:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

DrFrench targeting Plaid Membership Images[edit]

DrFrench is targeting Plaid membership images for deletion, even though they are from Crown Copyright and free use for Encyclopedia uses. He does this without even posting flags and posting in discussion pages, which is the standard proceedure.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply posted to Talk:History of Plaid Cymru. DrFrench (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

DrFrench already deleted Adam Price's image from Wikicommons that he or his office had posted up, even though it met all requirements! It was done recently. I will rewrite Mr Price to have his office reupload the image.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have not deleted any images - I have removed images from article pages where they violate copyright. Before any image is deleted, an admin would look at it and decide accordingly. You can see the deletion log for the Alan Price image here. The image as posted on the Commons gave the source of the image as news.bbc.co.uk - and thus copyrighted. If the copyright in the iamge belonged to Alan Price, then why was it not attributed as such? In any event, Commons only accepts free media - so the image would have to have copyright released into the public domain, or licensed using a suitable GFDL or Creative Commons licence in order to be uploaded to the Commons. Please do not accuse me of things that I have not done. Please do not accuse me of being politically motivated, as you have elsewhere. I have bent over backwards in trying to be friendly and helpful in this matter - when I could have reported you for repeated copyright and WP:3RR violations - which would have meant you getting blocked. I haven't reported you as it was clear that copyright is not an area of your expertise and I was assuming good faith. However, now I have repeatedly made you aware of the issue and explained at some length why these images cannot be allowed. So plaase show me the same courtesy that I have shown you. DrFrench (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are removing these images truely in good faith, and in accordance with wiki policy, for some reason that they do not meet wiki standards, then I sincerly apologize for my rash rush to judgement. I am not offering this as an excuse, but the pages for Plaid have been vandalized and vandalized often, with much misinterpertation. Because you did not post any warning boxes, which seems standard, it raised alarm bells at a questionable motive.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr French's interpretation is indeed correct. Crown Copyright images are considered as Fair use by Wikipedia and must follow Wikipedia:Non-free content and related policies. The specific point in this case is:
"Unnaceptable uses:
12. Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images."
If you have a reason why Wikipedia policy should not apply in this case, please discuss it here before reverting again. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Drachenfyre, thank you for your apology which is accepted. I hope you agree that we are all working with the goal of improving Wikipedia - although we all have different interests and skills. You, for example, have knowledge of the subject matter - whereas I tend to do things like finding and improving citations and checking that media is used correctly. I hope we can put any unpleasantness behind us and work together to ensure that only appropriate images are used. Thank you. DrFrench (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of free photos Versus Use of photo with copyright restrictions=[edit]

I do not understand why Lucy Marie et al. insist on using photos with copyright restrictions when alternatives with a completely free/open license exist. eg. the photo of Dafydd Iwan as an example.

--Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Darren, as I made mention on your talk page, can you offer guidence on the other images? I defer to you, as I have seen you post images before and trust your insight.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 14:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I can't offer you advice on the 'crown copyright photos' and leave that up to more experienced wikipedians. The photos I have personally taken and contributed to Wikipedia (via Wikimedia Commons) are all licensed in a way that they may be freely re-used within Wikipedia articles... perhaps we should write to the people concerned and ask them to contribute a photo ? You mentioned this previously in a different discussion. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have a bunch of photos that Plaid sent me when I had asked them before, but Alun Evans (Plaid Press Secretary) sent me a blanet statement authorizing them for use on Wikipedia. Once I added them, they were deleted because blanket statements were not good enough. I shall rewrite him again and ask if he could give me a statement each for each of the many photos he gave me. Adam Price (or someone in his office) had contacted him after I had contacted Adam Price about his own entry on Wikipedia.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It can be rather complex, but this is how I see it (unless someone can provide a link to Wikipedia policy which indicates otherwise). The images in questions are taged as Crown Copyright. If an image is Crown Copyright, then Plaid are in no position to offer any waivers. If the copyright is held by Plaid, then they should upload the image themselves using a GFDL-compatible license. In any event, Wikipedia does not accept limited waivers such as 'for educational use' or 'for use on Wikipedia' as free licences - any images released under restrictions like that are deemed as non-free images. And we're back at square one; non-free images require a fair-use rationale template to be completed for each and every article that the image is used in - and as images of living people are deemed by Wikipedia policy to be replaceable, it's not possible for to create a valid fair-use rationale.
Let me use a rather silly example to illustrate it the problem; as similar issues often arise when dealing with photos of actors, etc. A BBC publicity photo of David Tennant dressed-up as Doctor Who (or a screen-grab of him from an episode of Doctor Who) would probably qualify as fair-use if used in an article on Doctor Who or the Tenth Doctor - as it would be virtually impossible for a similar free image to be obtained. But the same image would not qualify as fair-use if used in David Tennant's own article, as a free image of him could reasonably be obtained. This situtaion is no different. DrFrench (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The root of the problem is that the Wikipedia policies were largely written by Americans and reflect the easy availability of government photos there (indeed there are some politicians from other countries where the only available free images are from their visits to the US) and also that for many of the lower profile politicians the different campaign methods means it's usually easy to ambush them with a camera. It is generally much harder to come by free images of British politicians or to get replacement ones than the policy seems to assume. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Category for Plaid Cymru members that are not politicians[edit]

I've just started an article for J. Gwyn Griffiths, as far as I can tell, an important member of the Plaid Cymru movement in the 1950s, which I would like to categorise, but can't seem to find a slot. Is there a category for those who fought for the party but did not become a politician? Thanks, FruitMonkey (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you fight for a political party you are a politician. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dafydd Iwan in the info box[edit]

I have tried corrected the info box to show that Dafydd Iwan is the Chairman/ President, however it shows on the edit page, but not on the article page. Can anyone with a little more expertise at editing info boxs sort it out please? regads Ijanderson (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

English translation[edit]

I know Plaid Cymru uses the slogan The Party of Wales, but wouldn't a more accurate English translation be Welsh party, or something like that? YeshuaDavidTalk • 22:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"(Adjective) (Object)" and "(Object) of (Noun form of adjective)" are fairly interchangeable forms for most translations as well as in English and translation is not an exact process, especially on such subtleties. If there is a difference what is the direct translation of "Party of Wales" in Welsh? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it it's not a slogan, their official name is "Plaid Cymru — The Party of Wales" --Killing Vector (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
IIRC, I believe historically the name always was Plaid Cymru, but there was some Parliament act or change which stated that there had to be an English translation in the name too, and IIRC they simply added 'Party of Wales' so that they were in compliance with the English name in elections. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 14:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
My recollection is that it was actually a branding decision in the late 1990s designed to make Plaid more attractive to non-Welsh speaking voters in south Wales. This was around the time of the party registration act, but it was certainly billed as being for other purposes. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Plaid Cymru actually means (The) Party of Wales anyway. "Welsh party" would be "Plaid Cymreig". -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Electoral representation[edit]

There have been some additions to the infobox - graphically noting Plaid Cymru's electoral representation in various institutions. As Plaid does not stand outside Wales, does the outcome accurately represent Plaid's electoral support? For example:
#1 - House of Commons: Plaid - 3; total - 646, which if shown relative to Welsh consituencies, would be seen as House of Commons: Plaid - 3; total - 40.
#2 - European Parliament: Plaid - 1; total - 72. There are actually 736 seats in the European Parliament (72 is the number of UK seats) viz Plaid - 1; total - 736. As Wales is a European Parliament constituency, with 4 available seats, a more informative graphic would show - European Parliament: Plaid - 1; total - 4. Thoughts ... Daicaregos (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to keep the Commons figure as it is. While it doesn't reflect the proportion of seats contested by PC it does show their relative strength at a UK level and their power within Parliament. Showing 3 out of 40 for the Commons would imply a 7.5% control of Parliament, which is inaccurate.
For the European Parliament I think the total number of seats should be shown. Again the strength of the party within the body as a whole should be represented. In Europe they get 1 vote out of 736, not 1 vote out of 72 or even 1 vote of 4.
The figures for the Welsh bodies show a higher proportion and would allow a reader to see quite quickly that PC has strong representation within Wales, but has little direct influence over the two parliaments. Road Wizard (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

'Drive-by' tagging[edit]

I've removed the 'drive-by' neutrality tag which says “please see the discussion on the talk page”. As there has been no discussion it is unclear as to what the dispute involves. I have also removed the word nationalist from the first line of the intro, on the basis of WP:BRD. The day before a general election is hardly the time to add WP:POV edits and then complain about neutrality. Daicaregos (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Too right! Deb (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationalist party?[edit]

Discuss the issues here please people, don't edit war on the main page. And please remember, on Wiki its the quality of the points you make, not the numbers involved that decide the outcome. Thank you. - Galloglass 09:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss the issues, is it? What are the issues? How can we address any concerns relating to the POV tag if the editor who placed it there refuses to engage? Please self-revert. Daicaregos (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If no-one notes the nature of the POV issues here I will remove it. Daicaregos (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The issue appears to be whether or not Plaid is a Nationalist party or not Daicaregos. It would be useful if the involved parties could address this point here, rather than conducting edits wars on the main page. From my position (which is I don't have a view either way on this issue) none of the editors here so far has even tried to engage the other parties involved to find out the reasons for their views. That needs to change. - Galloglass 09:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Tag, you really need to ask the person who placed the tag there why they did so before removing it, without knowing those reasons. Thats of course only common courtesy, but its always a good idea to be polite to editors with whom you appear to be in dispute. - Galloglass 09:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There is only one editor trying to push the 'N' word, Galloglass, and s/he has been involved in multiple edit wars elsewhere, as noted on his/her talk page, ANI and the 3RR noticeboard yesterday. I requested that the editor engage on the talk page, but the only response was bad faith edit summaries. What do you suggest if the editor refuses to engage, as in this case? Should the tag stay there in perpetuity? It is not necessary to define Plaid Cymru as a nationalist party. The Conservative party is not defined as a unionist political party, despite their full name being the Conservative and Unionist Party. That is because they have other policies too and it would be giving undue weight to the fact that they are a unionist party, which would lessen its NPOV. The same is true of Plaid Cymru. The following sentence says “It advocates the establishment of an independent Welsh statewithin the European Union.” Therefore noting them as a nationalist party is redundant anyway. Daicaregos (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As someone who passed by and removed some repeated text from the article, it is very clear that there is no NPOV issue here. The "nationalist" bit is clearly not required when the next sentence states that it "It advocates the establishment of an independent Welsh statewithin the European Union". I will remove the tag again - this is a non-issue. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • That Plaid is a nationalist party is beyond rational dispute. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, either - any more than it is wrong for the Scottish Nationalists to be a nationalist party. It is unfortunate that the execrable BNP have given nationalism something of a bad name in the political arena. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that Plaid Cymru have a nationalist policy. However, the point is that there is no reason to say they are a nationalist political party and then say that they advocate an Independent Welsh state etc in the following sentence. And their ideology is noted as Welsh nationalism in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not just about independence though it's also about "cultural" and language politics. It's nationalism. If you don't like the word, maybe you shouldn't go around blindly following identity politics instead of Orwellian hiding mentions fo the word. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you all know I've stuck 24-hour protection on the article, for obvious reasons. Deb (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Good move. Daicaregos (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
i can't see any objection to the word, but its unnecessary when immediately afterwards the Party's intent for independence is made clear. Its certainly not an NPOV issue anyway, its a style one. Also placing a tag and not explaining why on the talk page is not acceptable - under those circumstances anyone is in their rights to delete it--Snowded TALK 12:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


  • All the parties have a nationalist agenda. The big three just believe in a British nation state. Difference?--Fishshaw (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • So call Plaid Welsh nationalist then, that's what almost every source calls them. Not all parties are nationalist, Greens and Trotskyites are usually internationalist in their outlook, and I suggest you'd be hard pressed to find sources describing the Lib Dems as "nationalist". Fences&Windows 16:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
And call the Lib Dems British unionist then if it makes you happy... --Fishshaw (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The BBC refers to Plaid Cymru and SNP as the Welsh nationalists and Scottish nationalists respectively. Welshleprechaun 22:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that people interpret the words "national" and "nationalist" differently. Furthermore, when it is used in the names of political parties, it is meant in different ways. For instance, the British National Party and Scottish National Party have rather different agendas. Given the description of the former party as "nationalist", then one could imagine that supporters of the SNP or Plaid Cymru would take offence at being described as "nationalist", even though they are in a technical sense. --RFBailey (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that nationalist is accurate and non-perjorative, like any political creed or ideology it has negative and positive examples in history. However there have been debates on the article on Nationalism as some editors want to paint it in a negative light. Given the ambiguity I think the balance of the argument comes down in favour of the current wording which makes the nationalist policy clear. --Snowded TALK 18:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

1970s[edit]

I assume the bit about drugs and free love is vandalism.... even if not it has typos. Can someone with a bit of knowledge sort it out? Epeeist smudge (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I edited it out for now as it isn't cited and thus should not be there/is vandalism, and rephrased the segment, but I am no expert in the field, thus if anyone else has a better version of the text to use in the article please post it here. --Taelus (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

More Needed[edit]

Daniel Pickford-Gordon here. Use Encyclopedia Britannica etcetera. Has popularity been decreasing? At what rate? It has a number of MPs, and demands more devolution type things, so it needs to be discussed. I have an amount of information, on the Topix United Kingdom Forum, i've made a number of posts: List Of Posts http://www.topix.net/forum/world/united-kingdom/T367RKHF7P0991G1C 62.249.253.113 (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon

Unfortunately, this isn't a place for discussion of the party, only for discussion of the article. Blogs and forums are not generally considered reliable sources. Deb (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ieuan Wyn Jones[edit]

Changes to the Ieuan Wyn Jones' position in the Assembly are a bit previous. According to the BBC, he “... is to stand down from his Ynys Mon seat.” He has not done so yet. According to Betsan Powys “He'll start his new job in July but won't stand down as an Assembly member until his successor is elected.” The recent changes have been reverted. Daicaregos (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

When I made the edit, the BBC article read "...with immediate effect" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22990696 obviously there seems to be some contradiction between the BBC article and what Betsan has heard. However the National Assembly webiste no longer lists Ieuan Wyn Jones as a member http://www.senedd.assemblywales.org/mgMemberIndex.aspx?FN=PARTY&VW=LIST&PIC=0 and http://www.assemblywales.org/memhome/member-search-results.htm?constituency=40 . So I think he has stood down and maybe Betsan's information is out of date? --Welshsocialist (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The situation does seem a little confused. However, if the National Assembly no longer consider him a member, then I guess that's that. I'll reinstate the changes now. If anyone finds more recent evidence showing he remains an AM, please share it here. Daicaregos (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"Centre-left" vs "left-wing"[edit]

The article currently describes Plaid as a "centre-left" party. I am wondering what the metric for "centre" is in this context. I think the truth of the matter is that there are both "centre-left" and more stridently "left" factions within the party. If anything it would seem that the "left" faction is ascendant: Leanne Wood, the party leader, has participated in "Communist University" events, and recent Plaid adverts have described their desire to build a "co-operative Wales," i.e. shifting ownership of the means of production within the country. Thoughts on how this can be better reflected in the article? aliceinlampyland (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC).