Talk:Y Wladfa

Naming of article

I feel the naming of this article is wrong. It is an interesting article, mainly about Welsh immigration. I therefore suggest moving it to Welsh settlement of Argentina. I have some expansion I want to do on this, including on Trevelin, Malacara, etc. Chubut Valley should either be a redirect to River Chubut or an article about the area around the river. I prefer the former. Mtiedemann 18:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Though it would be good to do the River Chubut (Chubut River) before we do this, so we don't leave a redirection to a non existing page. -Mariano 11:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Cwm Hydref" query

The article gives the translation "October Valley". Is this what it actually is? Since "hydref" is also the name for "autumn", and that sounds like it makes more sense, to me.--193.195.185.254 03:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"Hydref" in Welsh can mean both "October" (usually as "mis Hydref") and "autumn". However the Spanish version of the name uses "Octubre", so I suspect it does refer to the month - the colony in this area was set up on the 16th October. Rhion 16:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Not forgetting, of course, that in Argentina October is in the spring, not the autumn! -- Arwel (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Welsh colonization of the Americas

The name of the article should be Welsh colonization of the Americas. I'll soon change it if nobody cares. --VsA 20:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad move. This article is exclusively about the colony in Argentina, specifically in Patagonia. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Welsh settlements elsewhere in the Americas e.g. Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont or indeed all over the US and Canada, apart from which the rename makes the first sentence incorrect "Welsh colonization of the Americas began in the 19th century." - no it didn't, that began in the 17th century. Please move it back. -- Arwel (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Arwel - the article is specifically about one colony. Perhaps there is room for a "Welsh colonization of the Americas" article, but this isn't it. Rhion 18:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same before seeing German colonization of the Americas, it only talks about one colony in Venezuela. And, if the time is a problem, then please see Danish colonization of the Americas, when the colonial empire begins in the 18th century. But the article's name is irrelevant, and I won't start an edit war for this. Cheers. --VsA 20:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It could be merged with Welsh Tract and become Welsh colonization of the Americas? Robdurbar 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Prince Madoc

Even though it's only a legend, shouldn't there be at least a brief mention of Prince Madoc here?--Caliga10 13:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. Even if he ever existed, Madoc was never within 5000 miles of Argentina. -- Arwel (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual area in area conversion

500,000 acres is not 5,000 km². There are 247.1 acres to a km². I don't know which figure needs fixing. Olborne 10:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure which is right - the acres sounds more likely though as it equates better to irrigation along an 80 km stretch. If this means the total fertile cropland of Chubut, it may be the higher figure, given that the River is a lot longer than this 80km length mentioned. Martín (saying/doing) 10:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to 500,000 acres/5,000 km². It is difficult to know which is right as it is not clear exactly what the figure represents. It can be put back if somebody is able to verify it. Rhion 11:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel Heinze

Removed the statement about Gabriel Heinze being able to speak Welsh - there's a lot of doubt on Talk:Gabriel Heinze about this, especially as he appears to hail from Entre Rios state which is a looooong way from Chubut! It appears an anon may have put this "fact" in his article in late 2004, then it's been picked up by various football websites and Sky Sports and we've all gone into a feedback loop quoting each other - even the Manchester United site mentions it... -- 01:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot about Hainze being also in this page. Well done. Mariano(t/c) 08:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The title "Welsh" isn't welcomed by many Cymries

Note the term "Welsh" is generally not always a good word to name our people, because some of us "Welsh" people in Wales object to the term in times, was used to offend and insult others in Great Britain (like "to Welsh them up" or "Welshing them") had violent meanings to promote ethnic and regional tensions against the "Welsh". Many of us preferably self-named ourselves Cymry, Cimries or Camries from an earlier source in our language (consult the Wikipedia article on Welsh people). I'm not suggesting do away with the term, but in a political correct world we live in (Wikipedia has focused on what may accidentally offend or disparage groups of people), the terminology of "Welsh" send horrifying mental images of some historic level of prejudice and discrimination against us Cymries for over hundreds of years. The major reason why many Cymries left Wales in the 18th and 19th centuries to North America, Australia and South Africa (even into Northern France, where thousands of older local residents has family in Wales) was to preserve our language and culture. The issue was when the culture was endangered by an approaching British conformity, anything "Welsh" was treated an unfavourable act and legal penalties were inflicted by English authorities for anyone who did "Welsh" cultural behaviours. I knew in the mid 1800s, Wales school houses punished students for openly speaking the language around instructors or teachers, and were rigourously disciplined for doing so. The children set at the corner or by the chalkboard had wore an embarrassing sign "Welsh Not" for English speaking children to observe how "those bad unpatriotic Welsh kids" are having a different culture. The Argentine-Welsh community struggles to preserve their cultural integrity in the year 2006, but the anti-British and nationalist mood during the Falkland Islands war (1982) made several thousand of people from the region emigrate to Canada and/or Chile. I never heard of the Argentine people adopted the term for reasons as a pejorative, but be in mind in part of ethnic sensitivity on the usage of "Welsh".63.3.14.1 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Falklands War

Was there a backlash against the Welsh in Argentina during the Falklands war, or were they not viewed as British? Lofty 20:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They regard themselves as Argentines, not British - as some visitors from Wales found out at the time when they referred to the "Falklands" rather than the "Malvinas".Rhion 23:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I think it was reported that the pilot of the plane which bombed the Welsh Guards on the Sir Galahad was a Hughes... -- Arwel (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Y Wladfa and Caernarfon

Hi all - I was in Caernarfon a few months ago and I came across a chapel with the following plaque:

"GWLADFA PATAGONIA - Mewn ystafell yn y Capel hwn, yn 1856, y trafodwyd gyntaf yng Nghymru y syniad o Wladfa Gymreig ym Mhatagonia" [plus the date of dedication] ("Patagonian Colony - In a room in this chapel in 1856, the idea of a Welsh colony in Patagonia was first discussed")

I can't see any Caernarfon connection in the article as it stands, so is there something to this? The plaque (I'll upload a photo of it when I can) looks rather official and well kept (it was dedicated nearly forty years ago), so I'm assuming the events in this chapel must have been significant enough. Any thoughts people? Rob Lindsey 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Minority?

Would it be more accurate to say that the welsh 'ceased to have an overall majority', or is there another group which is larger than the welsh?IceDragon64 (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Flash floods and not enough rain?

The last paragraph of the first settlers section says that flash floods destroyed all of their crops, and then the next sentence says their crops failed because there wasn't enough rain. How could both be true? Sounds like they had too much rain, not a lack of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.246.217 (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Subject

This article was written about the Welsh settlement in the Chabut province of Patagonia, Argentina, known as Y Wladfa. For reasons undiscussed, the article's subject was changed (here) from being about the settlement to (apparently) about the people who settled there. However, the focus of the article remains on the settlement, rather than on the settlers; only the introduction was changed. I propose the introduction be reverted to note the article's focus, and that the article be renamed "Y Wladfa", which is how the Welsh settlement in Argentina is known. Daicaregos (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Welsh Argentine → Y Wladfa — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC) This article is about the Welsh settlement in the Chabut province of Patagonia, Argentina, known as Y Wladfa. The article's introduction was changed on 9 July 2010 from being about the settlement to say it was about the people who settled there. However, the focus of the article remains on the settlement, rather than on the settlers; only the introduction was changed. I propose the introduction be reverted to note the article's focus, and that the article be renamed "Y Wladfa", which is how the Welsh settlement in Argentina is known. No response was received to the previous proposal posted here on 17 November 2010. Daicaregos (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support, as proposer. Daicaregos (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Although in general I don't favour using other languages on English wikipedia, the expression "Y Wladfa" is in common use, whilst "Welsh Argentine" is essentially a made-up term, and ambiguous to boot. Deb (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Tentative oppose this title, support move to a different title. I'm the one who reworded the introduction to be about Argentines of Welsh extraction; I did so after the article had been moved from "Welsh settlement in Argentina" to "Welsh Argentine". This was necessary as (1) the move was not followed by any further cleanup (the article title wasn't even changed in the lead), and (2) "Welsh Argentine" is clearly an inappropriate title for an article on a settlement. I support a move away from "Welsh Argentine", but if we want the article to be about the settlement, is there anything wrong with a descriptive title like "Welsh settlement in Argentina", "Welsh settlement in Patagonia", etc.?--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Whilst I understand the sentiments, I am concious that this is the English Wikipedia and that it is extremely unlikely that most visitors here would know to search for "Y Wladfa" (let alone spell it). I think it is fine on the Wicipedia Cymraeg but I have always taken a general presumption against Welsh names here, not from any linguistic concerns , but simply because of the utility of this site as an encyclopaedia for the English speaking world. Where Ordnance Survey lists Welsh names as equal with English I am happy to use the Welsh name (as I did when creating Ynys Llanddwyn). In this case we don't have such a neat guide as Ordnance survey. I do agree that the current alternative is poor but I am certain a better title could be found such as The Welsh colony in Patagonia or something similar  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Question: Any data to demonstrate that the proposed name is the WP:COMMONNAME? I did a quick review and the current name, or English variants thereof, are pretty widely used.[1]--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have found some. As you probably noticed when you looked at the results of your Google search, no more than half a dozen actually relate to Welsh Argentine. Most are results of Argentine and Welsh appearing in the same text.
Among the books that use 'Y Wladfa' are: 1 Land of my fathers: 2000 years of Welsh history, by Gwynfor Evans, 2 Encyclopedia of Canada's peoples, by Paul R. Magocsi, Multicultural History Society of Ontario, 3 A Welsh Song in Patagonia, by William Casnodyn Rhys, 4 Will Britain Survive Beyond 2020?, by David Melding, 5 The Use of Welsh: a contribution to sociolinguistics, by Martin John Ball, 6 The Australian people: an encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins, by James Jupp, 7 Mimosa, the life and times of the ship that sailed to Patagonia, by Susan Wilkinson, 8 The Celtic revolution: a study in anti-imperialism, by Peter Berresford Ellis, 9 Language of the land: the Mapuche in Argentina and Chile, by Leslie Ray, 10 Britain and Latin America: a changing relationship, by V. Bulmer-Thomas, Royal Institute of International Affairs, [2] Rough guide to Wales, by Mike Parker, Paul Whitfield, 12 Celtic dawn: the dream of Celtic unity, by Peter Berresford Ellis, 13 Connections: Liverpool Global Gateway, by Arabella McIntyre-Brown, Guy Woodland, Fiona Shaw, 14 Conserves: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases by Inc Icon Group International.
It still makes the news occassionally: The Independent, The Western Mail.
The National Archives confirm the Welsh colony in Patagonia, Argentina is called Y Wladfa. The National Library of Wales have these: 'Framed Address presented to the Reverend D. D. Walters by The Union of Free Churches, Y Wladfa, on his departure for Wales', 'Twenty five post cards of various views of the Wladfa', and 'Electronic copies made at NLW from photographs of the Welsh community in Y Wladfa, Argentina, …' The Welsh Assembly Government call the settlement Y Wladfa.
And, by the way, the people who live in Y Wladfa are Welsh Argentinians and not Welsh Argentines. Daicaregos (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Move proposal sounds sensible, but "Argentine" is the correct word. The Celestial City (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• The topic of the current article is the History of Welsh settlement in Argentina. — AjaxSmack 18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And the Welsh settlement in Argentina is known as Y Wladfa. I'm not convinced the topic is the settlement's history. Its history may comprise the article's current content, but it is not its topic. The settlement is extant, and there is every likelihood that the article will be expanded to include more information on the current settlement. Just as a by the way, several of Wikipedia's other language projects call their articles 'Y Wladfa'. Daicaregos (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I said above, I'm the one who rewrote the intro, but I did so only to cleanup after a move from the original title of Welsh settlement in Argentina. When the page was moved to Welsh Argentine, the article title wasn't changed in the intro, and no other changes were. I think the article should definitely be moved and refocused on the settlement, but I think a descriptive title like "Welsh settlement in Argentina" or "Welsh settlement in Patagonia" may be preferable. Looking around, I think that all taken together, descriptive names like that may be the most common way of referring to the settlement in English-language sources. For instance here the National Library of Wales refers to it as "The Welsh settlement in Patagonia". Glyn Williams' book on the settlement is titled "The Welsh in Patagonia". John T. Koch's Celtic Culture encyclopedia barely mentions either Wladfa or Gwladfa (and generally only within citations to other works), though it has substantial sections on both Welsh emigration and Patagonia. Again, though, I do support a move to focus the article on the settlement rather than "Welsh Argentines".--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• The examples shown above of its use in English are not unique. (see here) Although some authors seem to prefer to use 'Gwladfa' to 'Y Wladfa', among them John T Koch (see Celtic culture: a historical encyclopedia, R. Bryn Williams Gwladfa Patagonia: the Welsh colony in Patagonia, 1865-1965 and Will Kaufman, Jérôme Elie Britain and the Americas : culture, politics, and history : a multidisciplinary encyclopedia), 'Gwladfa' is a more generic settlement rather than the specific settlement in South America (see: in general or, in particular: Anne Kelly Knowles Calvinists incorporated: Welsh immigrants on Ohio's industrial frontier) In his work The search for Beulah Land: the Welsh and the Atlantic Revolution, Gwyn A. Williams says: "And from the 1860s, there was a serious attempt to create a Gwladfa in Patagonia in the Argentine ... So successful was it that the very word Gwladfa acquired a precise geographical location." (i.e. Patagonia), The Cambrian, volume 18 1898 says, "Wales over the sea. or the Welsh Colony in Patagonia, is called Gwlad- fa." Even The Spectator magazine, (who are not exactly renouned for their love of things Welsh) said (volume 244 part 1 1980) "In particular, there was the passion for a 'Gwladfa', a national home, a Zion in the wilderness for the Welsh-speaking, … In the end, the only Gwladfa to survive was in the remote wastes of the Chubut valley in Patagonia"
  In summary, it is shown that 'Y Wladfa' is the WP:COMMONNAME in English. As was shown above, 'Y Wladfa' is used in books, magazines, newspapers, the Welsh Assembly Government, etc., etc.,. Its use is summed up well (here) "A new scheme to strengthen the link between Wales and Patagonia is to start in the new year. This document refers to the areas were the Welsh settled as 'Y Wladfa', rather than Patagonia as the latter refers to a huge area of Argentina and also encompasses much of southern Chile." Daicaregos (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nearly all of the sources quoted are the Welsh talking about the Welsh (albeit in English). Both the Knowles example and Knowles and Elie are interesting as they both use the word Gwladfa in italics as an obvious acknowledgement that they are quoting from the Welsh. There is a strong temptation living in Wales (as I have done for more than 40 years) to accept the views espoused locally, even amongst the political, artistic, literary and historical experts, doyens and academics, that the local view that will have resonance with the much wider English speaking audience of this encyclopaedia. I believe, and believe strongly, that they will not. I do not believe that the references quoted do establish Gwladfa or its mutated form satisfy the requirements as English language common names.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Who else is going to talk most about (or read about) the Welsh in Patagonia? Well surprisingly, John T. Koch (who is American), for one. His Celtic culture: a historical encyclopedia uses 'Gwladfa'. These are some of the encyclopedias to use 'Y Wladfa': 1 Encyclopedia of Canada's peoples, edited by Paul R. Magocsi, 2 The Australian people: an encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins, by James Jupp, 3 Britain and the Americas : culture, politics, and history : a multidisciplinary encyclopedia by Will Kaufman, Jérôme Elie, and of course 4 The Welsh Academy encyclopaedia of Wales, John Davies, Nigel Jenkins and Menna Baines. Although Welsh (which apparently shameful nationality disqualifies his work from being a reliable source), the AM David Meldingis a Tory, yet he still uses 'Y Wladfa' in his Will Britain Survive Beyond 2020?. These books don't seem to be the Welsh talking to the Welsh: Leslie Ray Language of the land: the Mapuche in Argentina and Chile, Royal Institute of International Affairs Britain and Latin America: a changing relationship, by V. Bulmer-Thomas, Carl Bridge and Kent Fedorowich's The British world: diaspora, culture, and identity, Rough guide to Wales, by Mike Parker, Paul Whitfield, Arabella McIntyre-Brown, Guy Woodland and Fiona Shaw's Connections: Liverpool Global Gateway, Inc Icon Group International's Conserves: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. The London (English speaking) media use the phrase: The Independent, The Telegraph, The Spectator magazine, (as above). And finally, if it's good enough for John Davies (Wales' formost historian) to use 'Y Wladfa', it should be good enough for Wikipedia. Daicaregos (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Where suddenly has 'shameful nationality raised its head. To whom is this comment applied? It is wholly improper to draw inferences from no evidence whatsoever. My clear point is that the vast majority of the English speaking world will have no knowledge of the Welsh and the Welsh language. as this is the English Wikipedia, my proposal is that we choose a title that is likely to reflect the experience and expectation of the great majority of Englsih speaking Wikipedia users. If the phrase shameful nationality is aimed at my previous edit, then I believe I deserve an explanation ans a full apology.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Dai's point is well made, "Wladfa" is certainly used in English. But I still think it is easier to find sources that don't use it (or Gwladfa), or that do so only in passing, but say something like "the Welsh settlement in Patagonia" or "the Welsh in Argentina", etc. "Welsh+Argentina" returned 24,000 hits on Google Books. Nearly all the ones I checked discuss the settlement. By contrast "Wladfa" returned a little over 1,000 hits. As such I think our readers would be better served by locating the same information under a descriptive title. Obviously Wladfa and Gwladfa should be redirects and discussed in the text.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)