Talk:Welsh Not

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

Request for comment on including a computer-generated image[edit]

NO CONSENSUS
In this discussion, editors discussed the potential for introducing a computer-generated image to the article in order to demonstrate an inividual child wearing the Welsh Not sign. This discussion was significantly tainted by canvassing/meatpuppetry and CU-confirmed socks, which led to four of its participants being blocked. And, when the contributions of blocked sockpuppets are fully discounted, editors achieved no consensus to include the CGI image in the article.

Policy discussion largely focused around WP:IMAGEOR, a part of the No Original Research policy that pertains to images. Editors in opposition to the inclusion of the image (both outright and weakly) noted concerns that the image's creation was the result of editorial decisions on how to depict the child with the Welsh Not. These included the particular emotion displayed, the shading, and the child's sex. Editors in support of the inclusion of the image described an absence of a visual depiction in the article as harming the quality of the article, and argued that because no photographs were easily accessbily of the Welsh Not in use, that the CGI graphic would be appropriate for inclusion. Some editors in support said that the arguments of those opposing the image's conclusion would apply to pretty much all images (with some asking how this was different from a child model posing for a photograph). Some editors, both those in support and those that are neutral, said that a CGI image may be appropriate when there are no existing photographs that are appropriate for use.

Unfortunately, the significant effect that canvassing and sockpuppetry had on this discussion renders it in many ways irreparably tainted in a way that significantly affected the ability of the discussion to attain a consensus on the central issue. After fully discounting the contributions of the editors who engaged in sockpuppetry, noting the strong evidence of twitter canvassing, and understanding that both sides make policy-based arguments seem to have some legitimacy, there is no consensus that can be ascertained from this discussion on the inclusion of the particular CGI graphic proposed for inclusion. However, there appears to be enough here for a rough consensus that CGI graphics do not, per se violate WP:IMAGEOR. And, given that the disruption from socks/meatpuppets/canvassing is one of the principal reasons for the finding of no consensus, it would be more than proper to launch another discussion in light of the limited rough consensus achieved in one with respect to CGI graphics to see if editors can achieve a consensus on image inclusion absent the sort of disruption that occurred here. In the meantime, until a consensus is reached, the page should remain as it was in the status quo ante RfC.

(non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for comment: including a CG image to illustrate how the Welsh Not and how it was worn by a child.
The image to be included is this one on the right, or a very similar image. Cell Danwydd (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion should be under the Discussion section.

Support (image)[edit]

  • Strong support I support including this image as it is educational, encyclopaedic and illustrative, showing how the Welsh Not was used. This is a difficult subject on what today would be considered child abuse, yet the image itslf seems neutral and sensitively done. There were no 'Original Research' (OR) objections when discussed on the OR Talk page. The deletion of this image has created a non-neutral article. Similar images are found in books and on covers of books, but none have an open licence. Cell Danwydd (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the reasons give by Cell Danwydd. Also because we need to bring back the neutrality of this article as per all relevant, reliable sources. Monsyn (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Don't understand the opposition reasoning. Deb (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Earlier versions of the image were wholly inappropriate for various reasons, but those reasons have now been addressed. The current version seems to align with WP:OI - "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" - which is a new one on me, but seems to be accepted policy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. No reasonable objections have been given for deleting this image. To a newcomer to the article, it gives a lot of information in an instant, and I agree with Cell Danwydd that it's 'educational, encyclopaedic and illustrative'. John Jones (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support.I think such images help to understand how the use of a language was punished at a time when photograpy wasn't invented. It may be useful for illustrating articles on language submersion.Gorkaazk (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (coming from other noticeboards where this debate was posted). The OR issues would be specific to the imagery of the Welsh Not (size, shape, how it was worn, etc.) and as long as editors agree that is accurate to how sources describe or depict it, that gets over most of the issues - we allow user-created versions of maps and other figures that come from reading of reliable sources as long as we include no intepretation of that. As to the image of the girl, as long as its clear that the girl represents someone that may be Welsh and from the time period that the Welsh Not would have been used (rather than, say, someone of Indian or Chinese heritage, or wearing contemporary clothes), then that fine - we could argue forever what features would be needed to be 100% clear what a Welsh girl would need to be but that's getting far into nitty gritty that's not needed when the focus is on the Not. I also appreciate the discussion to avoid introducing any significant emotion or distress from prior attempts and just show the humility associated with wearing the Not (as sourced in the article) in the pose selected as to avoid possible OR/POV. I think the claims around the figure of the girl being OR here are something that are reasonable to think about, but in the end this specific image address fairly well to be beyond OR. --Masem (t) 13:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My only concern is that it should include a warning clarifying on the file by the license that it is a computer generated picture. Otherwise, as pointed above by Masem, any objection to the picture should only be aimed at discussing the details and accuracy of the picture, as a paradigm of the situation depicted. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (summoned by bot) Is this a sensitive topic? Yes. Upon reviewing the image I can't find anything that would prevent this from being a depiction we use. I understand the caution, but I don't see a problem here. TheSavageNorwegian 15:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. It's really sad that an RfC was needed here. There was an image request tag on the article for 2 years, so this should have been straight forward. Alas, to some people having an image was too political, and those editors should now take their bias elsewhere. I support this image, and any similar on the grounds explained by so many, above, especially Cell Danwydd. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. I've just read through all of the arguments presented on this page with increasing disbelief. So much pettifogging nitpicking, and what seems to me some pretty unhealthy comments about child abuse, and spurious comments about Wp:OR, which frankly could be made about every image ever made. The image is clear, without bias, and is a helpful addition to the article. Brwynog (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. It's shocking to me that this article is about a physical object without having any kind of image of that object to depict what it looks like. If a properly sourced non-CG contemporary photograph could be provided, it would likely be better, but lacking one, I see nothing wrong with using CG here. Fieari (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The problem is that we don't have a free image available of a child wearing the Welsh Not or not even a close up of the actual thing, so this is a good alternative.Cwmcafit (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nothing more to say. Oraina (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (image)[edit]

  • I oppose for the following reasons...
    • The image was constructed for this page and with the feedback from the editors of this page. Which seems to me to be the very definition of WP:OR.
    • Editorial decisions have been made in the choice of sex, posture and lighting. It is not just a child wearing a Welsh Not. Whether you agree or disagree with those editorial decisions they have been made and that is WP:OR
    • Do we really need to show a sign hanging around a neck? Will our readers really not know how that would look?
The image has improved since the first rather strange attempt. It got off to a bad start and it may not recover from that. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very clear example of WP:IMAGEOR -- the details of the image have been driven solely by discussion here, not by anything in any published source, and is, as Cheezypeaz says above, the very definition of OR, and that should suffice to conclude the argument, no matter how many supporters the image has. Moreover, adding this sort of imagery to pages is in bad taste, and not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. If ever there was a case for Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, this is it. -- The Anome (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very clear example of WP:IMAGEOR - but somewhat more importantly IMO, one can hardly see the 'not' at all beacause of size and low lighting, until the image is magnified on a bigg-ish monitor. Having no prior knowledge of what a 'not' was, I first thought that some kind of dress or shift was the subject of the article and image. The image is merely a CG forlorn female child, head and eyes downcast. Would not an image of the 'not', even a CG one, better inform as to what the item was. Anyone who was ever punished by being made to 'stand in the corner', or similar, can easily imagine the shame/annoyance/anger attached to wearing this item. Pincrete (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (image)[edit]

  • On the fence. I think there are valid arguments on both sides. In my view policy on the use of CGI images in articles such as this, is not sufficiently clear and WP:OR is too open to interpretation. Even if allowed by policy, it will be difficult to find an image that everyone will "like", e.g. does the girl in this image look non-Welsh? does that matter? It's of course very unlikely we'll ever get an actual photograph of it being used for real. I suspect if there was a contemporary artwork by a noted artist, there would be no problem, but again not likely. Is the depiction of humility or shame, as opposed to outrage or brandishing a badge of honour, also a political statement? I'm also unclear on how or why a CGI image should be treated differently to a photograph of a posed real child model. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also on the fence (leaning towards weak oppose). I agree that there are arguments both ways. I take the view that the CGI should be included only if there is no reasonable prospect of finding an image that can be attributed to a notable source. If not a contemporary artwork by a noted artist, then how about modern artwork from a noted source? Specifically, I am wondering about the cover image from the book "Under the Welsh Not" by Myrddin ap Dafydd (ISBN 1845276833) if the publisher (Gwasg Carreg Gwalch) is willing to give permission for copyright purposes. (Important: "Fair use" would not be valid in this context.) This could then be included with suitable attribution. It is not entirely far-fetched that they might consent to this, and it would be worth somebody asking them, in my opinion. --Dani di Neudo (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as Dani; on the fence, leaning towards weak oppose. I suspect images like this, as CGI constructions, go beyond what WP:IMAGEOR as there are significant editorial decisions involved that could introduce OR or POV issues, and while I agree that an image is required, I'm not sure that this image is required. In particular, some Welsh Not's survive till today, and are held by - and occasionally displayed by - various museums. I would think that the most appropriate image to include would be a photograph of one of these surviving artefacts. BilledMammal (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (image)[edit]

  • The photo is not OR. Specifically, to be OR, facts would contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Unless the individuals believing the photo is OR could describe the conclusion reached or implied, one cannot infer that a conclusion is reached or implied. No opinion on the photo vs. the existing. Hipocrite (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot) PS: specifically, "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. Hipocrite (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hipocrite. The photo is not OR. Thanks for your valued contribution. Monsyn (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Thanks Cheezypeaz for your 3 points. Point 1- 'The image was constructed for this page..' - not relevant; this isn't a criteria of OR. Point 2 - Take a look at what I said: "There were no 'Original Research' (OR) objections when discussed on the OR Talk page.' I agree with Hipocrite above. If you dispute that, then raise it on the Original Research Talk page. Point 3 - you asked: 'Do we really need to show a sign hanging around a neck?' Answer: 'yes' in order to illustrate the device and its usage. Otherwise, are you going to delete all depictions of crucifixes, from all WP articles? That would be censorship, and so would this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cell Danwydd (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cell Danwydd, I think Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard is the correct place, and not the policy talkpage, for requesting input on possible original research and for asking for advice regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Did you put a notice there about this RfC as suggested on the RfC instruction page? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done! [1] Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hipocrite, thanks! -- DeFacto (talk). 13:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: WP:NOR/N § RfC: Computer-generated image as OR   --Mathglot (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To get a good cross-section of views, should we publicise this RfC elsewhere - on some projects perhaps.
Anywhere else? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto I think it's just a policy issue. Is it WP:OR or not? So I would say not to bother them. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cheezypeaz, that will depend on one's personal POV though, so the more views we can attract, and from the widest cross-section of editors the better - no? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto Sadly that may be true. Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that WT:WikiProject Wales has already been notified by the creator of the RfC, so I've marked it as done. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these suggestions, some of which I've taken aboard. Wikiprojects based on politics and English have been left out as they're not relevant, in my opinion. DeFacto - can you explain why you've added politics, here, or have I missed something? Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • The Anome, Llwyld There is a "Request for comment on including a computer-generated image" on the Welsh Not talk page you might want to contribute to. Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheezypeaz, are you aware of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. I suggest pinging all editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic, not just two. TSventon (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon They were, if i've read the thread correctly (and I probably haven't), the other people who were objecting because of WP:OR If they saw the opinions of the other editors about it not being WP:OR then I'm guessing they would withdraw their objections and we could move on. Given the size of the discussion it would take too long to workout who had and who had not been notified. Perhaps it would have been a good idea if Cell Danwydd had done that at the start? And no, I wasn't canvassing. As you can probably deduce from my edit at 15:02. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Llwyld Yes that's not exactly seeking wikipedia policy advice on WP:OR. My google translate phone app says "The longstanding argument is over the inclusion of a child photo with the WN about his neck, but we seem to be winning the battle, from the end: <wiki url> . It's a wonder that the picture is in the wiki of 8 other languages, but not on the English! Sigh up! Welsh flag x3. Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Llwyld, that looks like a clear case of inappropriate canvassing to me. The WP:Canvassing guideline is very clear that: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior". If it was done by someone involved in this discussion they would need to be warned, I think. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto I believe that the tweet was by someone involved in this discussion. The twitter account doesn't mention the wp account name. The wp account name doesn't link to the twitter account. Both link to the same real name, and given the overlap of interests, I think there is close to zero chance that the same person is not behind both accounts. Would it be outing to name the account concerned? Llwyld (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llwyld, DeFacto The tweet is certainly not neutrally worded, but even though I personally am at best ambivalent about the use of the CGI image (on the grounds of OR - I'd be fine with something attributable), it should be said that the !votes in favour of the image pre-date the tweet so I couldn't reasonably claim that the tweet has skewed the discussion. It is probably not worth worrying about unless there is actual evidence that people have showed up to support the image after the tweet was posted. --Dani di Neudo (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llwyld, DeFacto, Dani di Neudo The tweet however appears to have paid dividens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Welsh_Not#POV_Tag Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate! The user did not vote! Trying to score points here? I suggest you discuss the image, not valuable new editors. Monsyn (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]


  • Deb I've added a copy of the original image below. I think you will understand how we got into this dispute. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheezypeaz -My good friend! I think it's my favourite of all the 10 or 11 images made. But why confuse this RfC? This is about the latest image! And by the way, this is the image you, and others described as being too black and looking like a slave! Fyi - welcome black women in Wales and in WP. Monsyn (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Monsyn You're not concerned that it might be considered offensive by a person of african heritage? Cheezypeaz (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
African people lived in Wales and many spoke Welsh. The offensive part is punishment for speaking a certain language! Equally offensive is that WP editors are attempting to sensor information (WP:BIAS) on Wikipedia. A black African person would say: "I love Wales, I feel their pain. What was done with the Welsh Not was very, very wrong. Now, get that cg image on that article now, so that the whole world can see how children were treated at that time." Monsyn (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Monsyn Reality check, the sentence ends: "...so that the whole world can see how children were treated at that time by Welsh people." Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Given the feedback of the other editors it seems that this might in principle be ok. I'll be interested to hear the opinion of The Anome and Llwyld. However my concerns about the posture and lighting remain; and does she have a skin disease? Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Just to remind people of the original image that I removed to cries of outrage and bias which caused this debate. This is suppost to be a Welsh Girl from the 1800s. She looks like a slave girl of african heritage in a prison.
    CGI simulation of a child wearing a Welsh Not
    This was one of the earlier versions, for comparison
And here are some pictures of actual Welsh School children from the Victorian era. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/archive-lifts-lid-life-school-9957515
Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is evidence (as mentioned in the article) that the WN was used on Welsh children half a century before the Victorian Era!!! And your linked image would have been c. 1885!!! That's around a HUNDRED years later! Confusing the RfC once again! Monsyn (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I don't think Cheezypeaz is confusing the RFC by sharing this image. The Welsh Not article says the Not was used until the end of the 19th century - and c.1885 certainly is before the end of the 19th century. No image would properly cover "between the 1790s and the end of the 19th century" but the image does cover part of the period when the Welsh Not was used. It is certainly a worthwhile consideration. You claim that Cheezypeaz is confusing the RfC again... I think there's plenty of confusion in this RfC, but I don't think it's fair to say the image is confusing the RfC, and that the confusion there is is not necessarily Cheezypeaz's fault. Llwyld (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not !voting (for the moment, at least) in this RFC. I do not think this (or similar) child abuse image should be included in this article. HOWEVER, that is my opinion and that view is not based on wikipedia policy. I do have doubts about the image creators interpretation of details, but consider the image to be probably good enough, and not enough to sway me to oppose. (And that is not a request for anyone to produce further similar child abuse images).Llwyld (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Reply to Also on the fence, Dani di Neudo: I think it's unlikely, but might be worth a try. Has Gwasg Carreg Gwalch ever done anything similar? There might be legal limitations arsing from sub-contract with the artist. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it may be that the attribution would give publicity to the book, so they would have something to gain from it. In addition, the author might just be glad to increase public understanding of a subject that he cared to write a book about in the first place (and although it's probably up to the publisher, I see that publisher was founded by the author himself). These two things are behind my suspicion that it is worth a try - although I don't want to second-guess what legal limitations there might be. --Dani di Neudo (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created a section in the article "In literature" just to add a mention of the book. But this is a bit speculative. It's just a novel, which I've not read, and I can't find any RS reviews. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this exact book cover (File:Under the Welsh Not by Myrddin ap Dafydd.png) was uploaded by Llywelyn2000 here, and subsequently deleted. Cell Danwydd (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
What was the reason for deleton? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion log says "violates non-free use policy". Well, if it was uploaded under an assertion of "fair use" or similar then I'm not surprised. That would only be valid in the context of a critical discussion of the image, not merely for identification purposes or to illustrate the subject of this article. This is all clearly explained at Wikipedia:Non-free content. This is precisely why I said that if the image was to be used, then permission would need to be obtained from the publishers. --Dani di Neudo (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Any valid release for upload will involve a determination of who holds the copyright for that image. In my experience, that process can be quite tortuous and frequently fails. Sorry to be such a wet blanket. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, it seems that Cell Danwydd's dedicated housekeeping of this RFC has inadvertently resulted in removing a question I posed to Llywelyn2000 regarding his support vote. I'm not sure how moving questions out of context is expected to make things clearer, but defer to Cell Danwydd understanding of the process. In any case, I therefore ask Llywelyn2000, could you provide diffs to support your assertion that 'to some people having an image was too political'? I can't find editors claiming any of the proposed images was 'too political'. Llwyld (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Llwyld - just refer to it in the usual way. You've pinged him in so he should see the question in due course. Cell Danwydd (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Many thanks Cell Danwydd. I have now, but my original question did not ping Llywelyn2000- it was simply a direct response to that editor's !vote - so I assumed there was no need to ping. When you moved my question, it lost the context - there was no indication who I was asking the question of. Given that you've been doing a lot of 'moving to the correct place' it would probably be worth ensuring that no context was lost in the process. Llwyld (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cell Danwydd, are you following a Wiki policy or guideline for RfCs by moving all the discussion away from from its original context, or is it your own initiative? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cell Danwydd I'd also like to know the answer to that question. Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested format on the RfC page#Separate votes from discussion (Separate votes from discussion) does detail the correct way of different sections, with one specifically for 'Discussions'. I've done that, exactly as recommended. Cell Danwydd (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Formatting should be made clear at the start of any discussion - not by changing it around in the middle of the discussion. As others have said, the context of comments needs to be retained. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cell Danwydd, it's not "The suggested format" though, it's one of "multiple", and they are described as: "There are multiple formats for Requests for comment. Some options are shown here. All of these formats are optional and voluntary". The format you seem to have chosen is, IMHO, the least appropriate for this problem, that page says: "Don't use a "voting" style when you want to encourage comments and collaboration". Surely we need collaboration with this? It then described as: "This style is normally used only when a majority vote matters, and only when the quality of the arguments is relatively unimportant" - the quality of the arguments is the most important when trying to reach a consensus. Either way, the options weren't discussed, and the 'rules' were not made clear from the start, hence the shambles we have ended up with - with discussions ripped apart. New readers won't realise that 'votes' were challenged, or that clarification was asked for, as the questions and comments have been moved away from their true context. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle and DeFacto The format was chosen by myself, and is 'the suggested format' for this RfC. It was chosen right from the start. Having a Discussions section, means that editors place their discussions there, at the bottom, in accordance with on the RfC page#Separate votes from discussion. Nothing was 'changed' in the middle of the discussion; but a sentence was added to clarify as some editors did not respect / or had not seen the 'Discussion' section. Please respect other editors choice.
DeFacto If discussions have been ripped apart, then the editor who placed them in the wrong section can easily rectify their mistakes. Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Whether the format was chosen by yourself or not, it is not your role to reformat responses according to your idea of tidiness. No individual "owns" the process. If there was a problem, you should have contacted those editors and explained it to them, so that they could correct any errors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I would have left your discussion in the 'Support' or 'Oppose' sections, and asked you to move it to the correct place, what would you have done? Exactly what I did: you would have moved it to the Discussion section. By doing it myself I saved you time and bother. I really can't understand why you didn't place the comment in the 'Discussion' section in the first place. Just take a look at similar RfCs elsewhere. Cell Danwydd (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle You said: 'Formatting should be made clear at the start of any discussion - not by changing it around in the middle of the discussion. ' Can you now confirm that that had actually happened. Here's the link, once again. Cell Danwydd (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Cell Danwydd, no, you should not rip them apart in the first place! It's a time sink repairing them, and so unnecessary. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And can you please explain why you think this image is required to ensure a neutral article. The answer to this question is important as it could help the closer of this discussion to determine the quality of it as an argument per WP:DETCON which says: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". -- DeFacto (talk). 11:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: Neither were there any objections on the WP:No original research/Noticeboard. They have been asked to comment here, and as you can see, the consensus is that the image contains NO original Research. Cell Danwydd (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Cell Danwydd, as far as I can see, that is not a "fact" as there is no evidence at all of it having ever been discussed on the WP:No original research/Noticeboard (which is the correct place for discussion od disputes over NOR in articles). All I can see there is Hipocrite's notification of this RfC made there after this RfC was under way, and following my earlier comment here that they had not been consulted or invited. If I missed it and it is a "fact", as you claim, then please supply a link to the discussion on that notice board. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto A link wa added to the WP:No original research/Noticeboard is a fact. They are aware of this RfC. It happened, and some have arrived here, left comments that there is no OR in the image. On top of that the Wikipedia talk:No original research also confirmed that there is no OR in the image. To me that's good enough and perfectly clear. Cell Danwydd (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Cell Danwydd, the fact is that this was not discussed on that noticeboard where you implied it had been. That notification you mention was added by someone else after my prompt, and after this RfC was started. And no, the opinion of that one other editor on that other talkpage cannot be characterised as "On top of that the Wikipedia talk:No original research also confirmed that there is no OR in the image"! This is all very misleading. I notice too that you tried to "votestack" that known supporter here. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Request for Comment on the image. I've explained why I think an image is needed. Can you tell me why an image is NOT needed? Cell Danwydd (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Cell Danwydd, I have never claimed that an image is not needed, and indeed it was me who added the first image to this article just a few weeks ago.
The question you have avoided, is the one I asked you about the discussion you included with your support 'vote' above, and the question you moved and buried down here (where you assert that discussion should be) and where no-one will know the context where it was originally asked.
I wanted you to explain why you think this particular image (the only image which is the subject of this RfC) is required to ensure a neutral article. And as I said, I think the answer to this question is important as it could help the closer of this discussion (assuming they find it down here and realise why it was asked) to determine the quality of it as an argument per WP:DETCON which says: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy".
Perhaps you will now address it, bearing in mind that the article had an image before (the one I added) and that the image you show above has raised a lot of controversy. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Llywelyn2000, can you give diffs please, showing what led you to believe that "to some people having an image was too political". This would help an uninvolved closer to understand the weight of that assertion. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn2000 diffs please! Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Having "an image request tag on the article for 2 years" doesn't mean whatever is suggested can be added with no discussion and consensus? If the tag was there for 20 years, it doesn't mean "just add whatever you want"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC) This reply used to relate to something. If you can you work out what it was, you win Tonight's Star Prize!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Brwynog thankyou for your input, it's good to have fresh eyes from an uninvolved editor on this topic. Could you please clarify which contributions you see as 'pettifogging nitpicking'? Also 'what seems to me some pretty unhealthy comments about child abuse' - I hope we all think that child abuse is unhealthy, don't you? Llwyld (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, although by now the size of this thread makes is nigh impossible for anyone who has not been involved from the beginning to have any meaningful input. I regard that most of the comments about the images to be pettifogging. I have read many posts arguing about the colour of skin, direction of lighting, angle of the hands, style of dress etc. and thickness of the cord holding the WN when the major issue is would it be made clear that this was a mock-up, in which case I would regard all of the previous comments as being irrelevant. Secondly the comment I objected to was 'John Jones' images of child abuse'. This is personalising the inclusion of the image, and implying that the image is one of many, and that he would condone the inclusion of child abuse images on wikipedia, whereas we all know that the image, whilst showing a child, would by no means be regarded as illegal by the police, and I would contend that the phrase 'John Jones' child abuse images' implies that. I have also noted increasingly personal attacks by Cheezypeaz and DeFacto on others in this discussion which makes me question as to whether I really want to be part of such an environment. It also makes me question what are the motives of some of the editors who have entered this argument.Brwynog (talk) 15.57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Brwynog Did you miss these accusations of vandalism or this accusation of colonialism? Whenever the accusers are asked to provide evidence they refuse to respond. I'm sure there are many other accusations I could source - all personal. Which I have not answered because they are ridiculous. I am trying to get this article to be based on what Welsh historians say. Just Welsh historians, no one else. Would you have supported the original image that in my opinion would have made the article look silly? I really don't care about the new image, it represents how Welsh people treated their children, do you want to imply the worst punishment meated out by Welsh people to their children? My objection is on principle; is it [WP:OR] or not? If not then I think we should tone the image down because there were other punishments, writing lines, detention etc. However if you Brwynog want to emphasise how cruel Welsh people were to children then who am I to disagree? Tell me which way to vote and I will do it. FYI The Anome, Monsyn, Llywelyn2000. Cell Danwydd. If Brwynog tells me to switch my vote I will strike out the old entry and make a new entry in the support section and you Cell Danwydd are not allowed to edit my new entry. Hope that helps towards reaching a consensus. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brwynog - you say you objected to the phrase 'John Jones' images of child abuse'. All the images are created by John Jones and that user has uploaded nine images of a child wearing the Welsh Not to commons. Those two things are indisputable, which leaves the child abuse aspect: the Not has been referred to as child abuse by Monsyn (13 September), Cell Danwydd (25 September) as well as me (27 September). The police may not regard it as child abuse, but at least three editors here do - none of whom have voted to exclude the image. Llwyld (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cell Danwydd I accept that you have moved threaded questions and comments to fit with your preferred format of keeping the discussion in one place. However, many of the !votes include commentary and detail which doesn't directly support the editor's vote - for instance, I've just commented on Brwynog's support vote - which included that they "read through all of the arguments presented on this page with increasing disbelief. So much pettifogging nitpicking, and what seems to me some pretty unhealthy comments about child abuse...". Claim's of Brwynog's own disbelief, observations of pettifogging nitpicking and Brwynog's assumption of unhealthy comments are in no way supporting the support comment. It is discussion or commentary, and, if discussion is to be included only under discussion, such comments should be moved there. (Brwynog's vote commentary is by no means unique - this is not a particular comment on that vote). Llwyld (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved this here, as it's related to your comment to Brwynog, and not to deletions by DeFacto. I'm not sure what you want me to do other than that. If you don't like this format, then please take it up on the RfC Talk page. I'm sure they will advise you. Don't shoot the messanger! Cell Danwydd (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I've changed it to a seperate point, as I want to make sure the question (not comment) to Brwynog is not lost in a mass of discussion. While it is not specifically related DeFacto's deletions, it is related to your housekeeping of this RfC, which is what I took that discussion to be about. What I would like you to do is clarify if discussion or commentary is permitted within a !vote. I won't be taking it up on the RfC talk page, because it seems to be specific to this RfC and you are the one housekeeping/administering/managing this RfC. I'm not shooting the messenger, I'm asking a question. Llwyld (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Llwyld You would like me to 'clarify if discussion or commentary is permitted within a !vote'? I haven't found anything to suggest it is disallowed, can you? In fact there's an example of voting + Discussion here, in the same RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Separate support and oppose opinions. Cell Danwydd (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for your help Cell Danwydd. No, I couldn't find anything to suggest it is allowed or disallowed - that is why I asked you, as the initiator and housekeeper of this RfC. It does seem inconsistent that one form of commentary/discussion is allowed, and another isn't, but I defer to your knowledge and interpretation - this is the first RfC in which I've participated. Llwyld (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there a reason the depiction is of a person wearing the Welsh Not, which introduces all sorts of editorial decisions that could cause POV or OR issues, rather than a simple depiction of the Welsh Not, similar to the non-free photographs provided for the purpose of example above? I'm reasonably confident that a caption stating "it was worn around the child's neck" would allow our readers to understand how it was worn. BilledMammal (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned discussion points[edit]

Due to Cell Danwydd's enthusiastic curation, there are now quite a few orphaned discussion points here that have no apparent context. How can we restore the integrity of this RfC to give any uninvolved closer a fair chance of evaluating "the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" to help them decide whether a consensus exists?

Or even to help mere mortals like myself to make their mind up which way to cast my 'vote', as I am undecided pending the replies to questions I'd asked in context, but which are now lost and unanswered in the big 'Discussion (image)' section. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No! Cell Danwydd moved the discussions to the Discussion section. Cheezypeaz then came along and made a pig's ear of things! Created confusion as they were loosing the vote!!! [Apologise for shouting, but this is crucial in the timeline of the madness that has occurred, as a result of what has been described as the Sabotage of the RfC, by DeFacto and Cheezypeaz. John Jones (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Llywelyn2000 confirmed by CU. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

This has all gone pear shaped. Is the discussion about wikipedia policy or the image? The movement of the comments seems to have annoyed a lot of people - including me, it has the appearance of an attempt to bury discussion. And of course we have that doggy tweet. And no mention of the history of the image. I'm not sure why certain editors with Welsh names want to have such a harsh image to depict a Welsh child about to be beaten by a Welsh school master at a school their Welsh parents are paying to send their child to. Cheezypeaz (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheezypeaz, this is an RfC, and the question we are trying to reach a consensus on is whether we should be: "including a CG image to illustrate how the Welsh Not and how it was worn by a child. The image to be included is this one on the right, or a very similar image".
From the RfC page: "An RfC leads to a discussion on the page that hosts the RfC. This "RfC discussion" is an ordinary Wikipedia discussion that follows the normal rules and procedures, including possible closing. Closing the discussion, in which an uninvolved neutral editor declares the discussion finished and summarizes its conclusions, is often of particular value in an RfC, as the purpose of an RfC is usually to develop a consensus about some disputed point.
And: "If, for example, the editors of a certain article cannot agree on whether a certain fact should be included, they can use an RfC to find out what the community thinks and, if a consensus emerges, that usually resolves the dispute".
Then, if discussion dries-up without a clear agreement, an uninvolved close is usually asked for, in which a determination of consensus should ideally be made.
The consensus policy says: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines".
And: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy".
So basically, my interpretation is that we are trying, by the use of sound Wiki-policy-based arguments, to drive the consensus one way or the other as to whether that image (or a very similar image) should be added to the article. Does that make sense? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto It seems to me there are two different questions. Is a cgi image created by the editors [WP:OR] or not? And if it is not [WP:OR] then is this a suitable image to use? We are mixing up the two in the discussion. Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will note that this does seem improper; while I have no strong view on the RfC at the moment (probably because I can't be bothered reading through the mess of discussion above), it is clear that it shouldn't be a vote, and further splitting it into a vote removed context from people's discussion could actually be a WP:TPO violation. I would strongly suggest that the editor who originally split the discussion remerge it. I also note with concern the off-site canvassing, and wonder if this RfC should be closed as no-consensus and re-held with broader input. BilledMammal (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happens now?[edit]

Given that the instigator of this RFC, Cell Danwydd (and/or Llywelyn2000 - that remains unclear), has ceased contributing, how does this RFC get resolved? The weight of numbers certainly indicates 'include' but many questions remain unanswered, and discussion on this talk page seems to have moved on from the RFC question. Llwyld (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Llwyld, the 'instigator' doesn't own the RfC, and it doesn't matter if they disappear, for whatever reason. Guidance on ending it can be found here: WP:RFCEND. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Llwyld and DeFacto: the instigator has actually been indeff blocked and it's interesting to note the large number of other participants who have also been blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung, I asked the SPI closer if we should strike through the contributions of the blocked users, and they advised not to strike anything out, but to rely on discussion closers discounting those contributions. Do you have any further advice? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't offering any advice. I was just pointing something out because AFAIK, most users don't bother to turn on the preference that shows blocked user names in italics and struck through, so it won't always be obvious. One of them has even voted several times. Like the SPI closer said, how the discussion gets closed is up to the closer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Kudpung. I didn't know about that preference though - it does the trick nicely! Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which gadget is that, sorry? Might have been useful.... for past 10 years or so. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123, yes! "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" in the "Appearance" section. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hoorah!! Thanks. I knew this Talk page was good for something. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kudpung Llwyld (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has certainly died down on the RfC. I think consensus is clear, but there is some disagreement. I've requested a 3rd party formal close at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Welsh Not#Request for comment on including a computer-generated image. We may need to wait a little longer on seeing it close, as these requests often take a few weeks. Or maybe we'll get lucky and someone will stop by sooner? Anyone not involved in the argument can do the closure. Fieari (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not quite parallels?[edit]

The (current) opening of the article says "The Welsh Not was a token used by teachers at some schools in Wales...". It was a token moved from student to student who spoke Welsh, with the student left with it at the end of the day/week punished in some way. The Not was effectively a transferable punishment which allowed a student to avoid punishment by identifying another student to take the Not (and ultimately the punishment) in their place.

Some of the given parallels follow this - the Basque country, Japan and Kenya. The examples of Brittany and France might (although I believe that would be a extraordinary claim), but the supposed parallels of Canada and Ireland do not - there was no chance of transferring the punishment to another.

I wonder if the clear 'parallels' would be better moved to a 'see also'? In any case I think there is no reason to keep the Canada and Ireland at all. Llwyld (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a bit like sadistic "pasio'r parsel" with added jeopardy. Don't be caught, with the Not, when the school bell finally rings. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think any reliably sourced use of a token for language suppression in schools is a parallel, given the uncertainty about how the Welsh Not was used. The first mention of the Welsh lump, which has just been removed, does not mention any punishment beyond wearing the lump.[1] The Canadian stick was apparently hung around the neck, like the Welsh stick. TSventon (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Warner, Richard (1800). Second Walk Through Wales (2nd ed.). R. Cruttwell. p. 262. Retrieved 25 August 2021.
Thanks TSventon. The uncertainty about how the 'parallels' work, makes me think they would be better included in a 'See also' rather than claiming each of them as a parallel, however most of them are not notable enough for their own articles. Llwyld (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of them do include some sort of device to mark out students who were caught using the wrong language, so I think it's WP:Relevant. Agree that 'See also' might work better 'a parallel' JeffUK (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's relevant and I feel that sentence could be left as it is. Personally I'm not very keen on "See also" sections because it's often unclear what the connection is with the article. Deb (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems relevant to talk about these as 'parallels'. See also lists rely on links, and not all of these other things have an article about them that would make a suitable link. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seddon has boldly removed the parallels section, on the basis of it being Original Research. On reflection, that is the correct approach - in the absence of a source noting a parallel between the Welsh Not and the various other language-behaviour-modifiers, they were solely included on the basis of the opinion of Wikipedia Editors, and therefore Original Research. Llwyld (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that User:Seddon could have checked first, and he would have found sources like this:
  1. " It was at this time that the Welsh Not , which had its counter - parts in Scotland (the maide crochaidh) ..." Linguistic minorities in countries belonging to the European community : summary report. Luxembourg Washington, DC: Commission of the European Communities European Community Information Service distributor. 1986. p. 184. ISBN 9789282558508.
  2. "such as the punishment stick: the Welsh 'Not', the batascoir (Ireland), the maide crochaidh (Scottish Highlands) and the symbole (Brittany and elsewhere in France..." Coakley, John (2012). Nationalism, Ethnicity and the State : Making and Breaking Nations. London: SAGE Publications. ISBN 9781446291511.
  3. "tally sticks (bata scóir and maidecrochaidh), wooden gags (préaslach), wooden cows (vuoc'h koad) and wooden halters (Welsh Not) made them tangible and painful symbols of the subservient status of all the Celtic tongues."Jenkins, Geraint (1998). Language and community in the nineteenth century. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. p. 16. ISBN 9780708314678.
  4. "Its counterpart in Wales was the 'Welsh Not', a kind of wooden placard worn by ... firmly condemning the use of 'le symbole'"Ferguson, Gibson (2006). Language planning and education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 75. ISBN 9780748626588.
It could be argued that these are tangential to the topic, and we should just create a new page Language teaching in Wales as a sub-page of Language education in the United Kingdom (which is currently very Anglocentric). Deb (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"wooden halter"? That sounds a bit different and more severe. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It could be argued that these are tangential to the topic, " That's exactly what 'See Also' is for (if an article exist about such tangentential topics) so I have re-added Symbole and Dialect Card into see-also, with slightly more see-alsoey descriptions. JeffUK (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JeffUK, See the responses above to your previous suggestion that "See also" is adequate in this case. Deb (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image Request[edit]

I've re-added the image request to the talk page, with some specifics. There may even be some kind editor watching this talk page in Wales who can make a trip their local museum and take a good photo of a real Welsh Not! JeffUK (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I know of that would really provide what we need is the one shown in the image here. To use that we'd need permission from St Fagans. There is a Wikipedia representative at the National Library who might be able to help us - User:Jason.nlw. Deb (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone please do, so hard to see the thing in the current image! --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization errors…[edit]

“Not” in “Welsh not” shouldn’t have a capital n.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mitchell of The Goodies, this was discussed in August at Talk:Welsh Not/Archive 2#Proper nouns and the OED and The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales both capitalise the "Not", so the article wasn't moved. TSventon (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That other encyclopedia is also wrong because there is no way in heck that not in Welsh not is a proper noun.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early 20th century[edit]

Stub Mandrel has added the early 20th century to the lead with a reference to wrexham-history.com and I have moved the reference to the Overview section. However wrexham-history.com seems to be a personal website so I am posting here in case a page follower has a better reference for or against the use of the WN in the 20th century. TSventon (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Welsh_Not&oldid=1208998144"