Talk:Welsh Not

Use of Nots

Hello. I'm going to try and dig up some old notes and provide references to my observations about what the Blue Books actually said about the use of nots. If I can I'll also try and find some stuff from naval history on the use of similar stigma with the threat of corporal punishment. I think the idea that 'nots' were endorsed by the English state to stamp out Welsh is an anachronistic view of the language question and is by and large a myth. I think that's a fair comment not a calumny. All communities need integrative myths -'Dunkirk spirit', 'Norman yoke', 'freeborn Englishman', 'Scots wha hae wi' Wallace bled...' etc. Welsh was a minority language that was marginalised by the state but to over-emphasise any oppressive behaviour is to misrepresent history: C19th Wales was not C19th Poland.

Arguing a lack of oppression based on not being 19th century Poland (or Ireland and India for that matter) is seriously digging at the bottom of the barrel. There is no moral superiority to be had for somehow not pushing the oppression all the way to cossack charges on protests and military repression. Even then it's not like the british state was much better except in the realm of public relationships abroad. 216.252.75.220 (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment

"parents would not have paid to expose their children to such a brutal regime unless they sympathised with its aim."

Really? --MacRusgail 18:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikify or Remove

Presumably the contributor who says there are few references to the use of the 'Not' has a list (albeit short) of these references and will save the article by appending them. As a counter-argument (and it is only that, in this argumentative and fact-free article) I should point out that the "Not" was also used in schools in South Africa in the period after the Boer war, in order to discourage the use of Afrikaans. In fairness to the English, it was also used by both the French and the Portuguese in their African colonies. If the 'not' is a myth, it's an extraordinarily prevalent one. If something walks and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Perhaps the article should be re-written along these lines, without the anti-Welsh editorialising. As regards parents "not sympathising with this brutal regime", the fact is that their children didn't get educated. They had to choose between brutalisation and ignorance. Of course, modern parents would choose ignorance every time. And in the above comment "Welsh was a minority language". Welsh was spoken by 85% of the 19th century population of Wales. That's some minority!!LinguisticDemographer 15:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest. Give me a week or so and I'll tighten it up. My notes on the Blue Books are in my filing cabinet somewhere. Since the first census to record the number of Welsh speakers was in 1891 I'm curious as to where you derive your figures about the proportion of Welsh speakers in the rest of the C19th? I did mis-speak above, Welsh was a minority language in this period in the context of the adminstrative unit of England and Wales (despite being a principality, Wales wasn't administratively distinct until the later C19th and the Welsh office post dates WW2) but obviously not in Wales itself, and I should have made this distinction clear. To say the Welsh not is a potent myth is not to say it was never used, it is to say that the incidence of its use is exaggerated and that the essential point (that its use was tolerated and even endorsed by parents and local cultural leaders) is misunderstood by many commentators. Have a look at some of the historical myths I've referenced above. These things happened (ie. they're not fabulous or legendary) but they have become integrative discourses, historial artefacts in their own right (ie. they are mythical). Lack of strong evidence about the use of the not: my point I think? I've been looking in standard histories of Wales for 15 years and can't find much by way of strongly documented evidence. Take a look at the link off the page to the BBC website. This doesn't offer sources either but at least it talks about localities and timescales. You go and look for some references? 'Private venture' schools of the kind prevalent before compulsory education were often small and ephemeral organisations - often a former clerk, defrocked curate, limbless ex-NCO or a hard up scholar using a room in a cottage/. Fees were paid by the week and children could be and often were withdrawn at short notice to go to work, go to the school down the road etc. The curriculum was generally up for negotiation at any point. (Have you seen the depiction of the hedge school in Brian Friel's play Translations? That sort of thing.) For many parents, the point of sending their kids to school was for them to learn English, the Imperial tongue. My view is that this is why they endorsed corporal punishment - they didn't want to waste their money. It's anachronistic to view corporal punishment in schools in the C19th as being unusual, even if we think it's reprehensible today. C19th society was very violent. Servants, apprentices and junior workers all got thrashed by their superiors. I think Welsh nots provide plausible evidence of feelings of cultural inferiority in Welsh communities. The reading that it's all the fault of the evil English just isn't very plausible. Anglicization preceded state schooling rather than following it. The Welsh Board of Education was established in 1907, its civil servants were in fact fairly sympathetic to the language and were faintly embarrassed that their views about Welsh in education were in generally in advance of popular opinion on the teaching of the language. Perhaps it's hard for Welsh people to admit to this cultural cringe now because Welsh identity is resurgent. And a good thing too. By the way, I am Welsh (I've even voted Palid Cymru - my MP's trying to impeach Blair) and I'd like to do my little bit for the language by being clear and accurate about why it declined. If you'd prefer an account of C19th Welsh history with clearly defined goodies and baddies I'd suggest the novels of Alexander Cordell. Please feel free to bung in your observations about the use of nots in other contexts (with appropriate references of course). As I said, I was thinking about cross referencing the article with something about social stigma.

Roger

You obviously have very strong feelings about this. Taking your points in order:

• Pre-1891 sources of data. The first 3 censuses showed: 1891 54.5%, 1901 50.0%, 1911 44.7% of Welsh speakers in Wales as a whole. The trend is clear enough. And 54.5% is a majority, even after the enormous English immigration into SE Wales in 1860-1890. Pre-census sources are summarized in Dot Jones, Statistical Evidence relating to the Welsh Language 1801-1911,UoW Press, 1998, ISBN 0-7083-1460-0; G H Jenkins (ed) The Welsh Language before the Industrial Revolution, UoW Press, 1997, ISBN 0-7083-1418-X, and G H Jenkins (ed) Language and Community in the 19th Century, UoW Press, 1998, ISBN 0-7083-1467-8. In particular, a very good statistical survey by Ravenstein about 1871 showed 71.2%. Only the industrialised areas had "mixed" populations: in other areas the proportion of Welsh speakers was either 0-5%, or 95-100%. In 1801, the historically English-speaking areas (South Pembs, the Gower Peninsula, the vale of Glamorgan, SE Gwent, Radnor, SE Montgomery, Denbigh east of Wrexham, Maelor, coastal Flint) amounted to about 15% of the population of Wales - hence the 85% figure for pre-industrial Wales. Admittedly the figure might have been slightly lower 300 years before, when the Englishries were larger. But we're splitting hairs here; the point is, Welsh has only been a minority language in Wales in the 20th century.
• Wales didn't exist before the late 19th century. Yes it did - it's that bit sticking out the side of Britain - it's been there since the Devonian.
• Lack of Evidence - I agree entirely. That's why the article should be entrusted to somone who does have the evidence. No evidence, no article. What is the point of an article, the purpose of which is to explain the term to someone, but which simply says there was no such thing. Even if the term is purely an artifact of the mass imagination (which it plainly is not), it still exists, and NPOV requires that it be described "as imagined", without editorialising.
• Palid Cymru - a Freudian slip, perhaps.
• I agree with your opinion about Alexander Cordell: he was a writer of penny-dreadfuls, not a historian. No-one seriously interested in Welsh history would read such rubbish.
• Being clear and accurate about why the language declined. An admirable aim, on which a great many academics are currently working. The accuracy of a statement is the degree to which it is congruent with the objective truth. Read the above references for some clues to this. No-one is suggesting that the "Welsh not" was "responsible" for language decline: if it had been universally applied (instead of just in areas where language was an "issue") and if it had been at all effective, then Welsh would be extinct by now. Nor is anyone suggesting that it was an instrument of the English state - the English, then as now, couldn't care less about the Welsh language. The point is, then as now, whether Welsh people care about it.

LinguisticDemographer 23:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Thanks to SilkTalk's breaking the logjam here, I have removed remaining contentious propositions, and added a bit of (hopefully neutral) text and a reference, and so the {weasel} tag can come out, I hope. There's plenty of scope for re-expanding this article, if anyone has well-sourced examples of the use of the Welsh not. The BBC website is definitely NOT a good source! LinguisticDemographer 00:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words seem to be a big issue in this small article. Worse still, there's a bogus footnote to the comment "In the later decades of the 19th century, education was compulsory but the Welsh "not" was used only in a minority of schools, and after the school boards were absorbed by the county councils following the Local Government Act 1888, instruction in Welsh in elementary schools became the norm in Welsh-speaking areas." - Page 455 of Davies' A History of Wales doesn't substantiate this remark. All Davies mentions in this regard is:-

"To a certain extent, Welsh had been employed in the elementary schools before 1889; it is unlikely that the use of the 'Welsh Note' was as widespread as the mythology of the twentieth century maintains. Nevertheless, in most of the schools of Welsh-speaking Wales there were pupils whose main experience of education was a mechanical drilling in a language which they did not understand..."

It goes on to explain (p. 456), that the informal use of Welsh was largely only used in the process of teaching children English, and this was the only point of leverage available to The Society for the Utilisation of the Welsh Language (formed in 1885) for their campaigns directed at the education system.

As a matter of fact, Davies in his only other reference to the 'Welsh Note' (as he refers to it) on page 652 of his A History of Wales, squarely cites it has having been accountable to and on the conscience of the British state.

The editing of this article implies that Welsh medium schooling was broadly sanctioned - a nonsense considering the first designated Welsh Medium School didn't come about until 1947, in Llanelli. Homoproteus (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...

The article implies that the Welsh Not would have been gone by the beginning of the 20th Century or so. In August 2003 I visited St Fagans National History Museum, where there is an example of a Welsh Not. An elderly lady (60s or 70s) became tearful, recalling that it had been used in her own school, and on her. I know this is not "proof", but perhaps there are other personal stories of this kind? Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I was born in 1946 in Neath, South Wales, and went to a primary school in that town. I can recall being smacked for speaking Welsh in school (I was probably around five years old at the time) and being told that Welsh was "dirty" and nice people spoke English - so the Welsh Not may have gone by then, but the active suppression of our language certainly had not! Emartuk (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a very different experience. I was born in Cardiff in 1948 of Welsh English-speaking parents. I attended a primary school just outside Cardiff and we had weekly Welsh lessons from a lovely teacher called Mrs George. She taught us the National Anthem and the Lord's Prayer in Welsh, also a number of hymns and traditional songs, all in Welsh, which we performed at our St David's Day concert. At all times we were encouraged to be proud of Wales and the Welsh culture. Mrs George also gave us a good grounding in the basic grammar and vocabulary of the Welsh language and went I went up to secondary school in Cardiff in 1959, this stood me in good stead - we had Welsh lessons alongside Maths, English and History etc. Once again, all the beauty of Welsh culture was made available to us. A number of my classmates went on to take Welsh at O-level, but unfortunately languages have never been my strong point so I did not. However, I can still remember every word of the Anthem, the hymns and songs I learned (and can still recite the Lord's Prayer) and also bits and pieces of vocabulary. I shall always be so grateful to Mrs George and our enlightened teachers for giving us this knowledge of our beautiful language and an enduring pride in the culture and history of Wales. I wish that all Welsh children could have shared this and I am very sorry that Emartuk and the lady referred to by Gwaka Lumpa had such sad experiences. I thought it would be worth speaking about my experience to illustrate that some of us have been very fortunate in this regard and that there is another side to the coin. (Honeybunch44 (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia bans personal experience posts and forum-type material for a number of reasons. Can you think what they might be?

No? OK, I'll give you some ideas.

I have it on good authority from a number of people who were subjected to the late 20th century Welsh education system, that the boot is now very much on the other foot. Some children are sent to Welsh-medium schools against their will, and these English-speaking children are then subjected to humiliating punishments (litter-picking etc - they don't seem to have reintroduced the cane just yet) if they should accidentally use their mother tongue in their own free time. (lunchbreak etc).

So the Welsh Not is back... just it's the English Not now.

There's at least one source for this, though... about younger English-speaking schoolchildren not being allowed to go to the toilet because they didn't yet know how to ask for it in Welsh. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a source, only a claim. On a personal basis "boohoo the poor oppressed conquerors" fails to move me in any way shape or form. On an academic basis you are trying to do a tu quoque to justify what? Justifying edits to claim the beau role for the magnanimous, enlightened anglosaxons? The main justifications to reject the existence of the welsh not amount to personal opinion pieces by people with rosy eyed views of Britain (forgetting that there was nothing willing about the marriage of the last britons to England). Which is more or less what your claim on "the english not" amounts to. 173.176.137.97 (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Education Act of 1870

Currently the entry contains the following…

“The Education Act of 1870 called for education to be taught through the medium of English, and not through the medium of Welsh. This reinforced the class differences originally set within the Act of Union 1536, with the English language being linked to success academically and the Welsh language being seen as the opposite; spoken by those who are uneducated and lower class.”

The act does NOT call for education to be taught through the medium of English.

This is what the act does do… “It made provision for the elementary education of all children aged 5-13, and established school boards to oversee and complete the network of schools and to bring them all under some form of supervision.”

The text of the act can be read here (note the website domain name is misleading) http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/acts/1870-elementary-education-act.html

I will delete the cited text. It’s factually incorrect & makes unsourced claims.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Church of Wales conspiracy theory

Currently the text contains…

“In the early 19th century it became clear that the Church in Wales (which was under the control of Church of England at the time) manipulated their congregations by planting unsuited people to propagate anti-Welsh rhetoric towards their congregation by the means of eradicating the language, feeling alienated, the attendees abandoned the church and left the buildings deserted, this may have been one contributing factor for triggering the Rebecca riots.”

This appears to be the contributors summary of a this quote…

“ we must seek for causes that have been for many years in operation, the chief of which will be found to be the great neglect of the state of the Established Church in Wales, and the consequent almost universal increase of Dissent. Whilst the Church has been in many cases made the instrument of the futile and absurd attempt to eradicate the Welsh language, by filling its Pulpits with persons imperfectly acquainted with the language of a people who are passionately fond of popular oratory, and an animated style of preaching to their feelings."

Extracts from Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian, Glamorgan, Monmouth, and Brecon Gazette, July 22, 1843.[4]”

Issues.

1) the newspaper quote is from an anonymous correspondent to minor newspaper’s letter page cannot be described as a reliable source.

2) The selection of the newspaper quote is original research because no historian can be shown to have relied on it.

3) the newspaper quote makes an unsubstantiated claim about the Church in Wales being part of an “attempt to eradicate the Welsh language” which has no historical support.

4) the wiki contributors summary does not accurately reflect the newspaper quote.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz: Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I dug further and indeed, I found more evidence to back up that such alienation of the Welsh church was due to ignorance of the Welsh language, due to you, I was able to concrete the issue, thank you. Hogyncymru (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz: Historians don't know everything, sometimes, they miss out on articles.. Now that we have easy access to newspapers, research can be done by anyone, as long as the sources are correct, they count so to argue that historians haven't disclosed this information does not invalidate it.. Hogyncymru (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru: Please read WP:OR, since this seems to be a textbook example. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources (i.e. historians) have to say on the subject. Your private investigations may be published in a book, on a website or any other means, but not on Wikipedia. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Newspapers cannot be used as references? I thought they were?, it's not an investigation, it's using sources and highlighting them here, isn't that the point?Hogyncymru (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I just followed your link and came across this, my research isn't original because they were published by a 'Mainstream newspaper';

In general, the most reliable sources are:

• Peer-reviewed journals
• Books published by university presses
• University-level textbooks
• Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream newspapers

So I don't understand your position here. Hogyncymru (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

You've been around since 2015, you ought to know that your quotes do not reference "mainstream newspapers". Quoting mid-nineteenth century local newspapers w/o context is not covered by that. The sentiment in your above retort ("what the F... do historians know", paraphrasing) is not conducive to Wikipedia. WP:PRIMARY is perhaps another article you need to read. Kleuske (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I think you're misunderstanding, I never said that Historians know nothing and I never was aggressive towards anyone who is, I simply said that research is easier now so anybody can do it without doing an degree in it, it's just how times have changed and that technology is making things far more convenient.. as for the quotes, they are backed by 3 reliable sources and when it comes to Wales (which is a small country) 'Local' doesn't apply as these newspapers were read across North Wales and Liverpool, a local newspaper to Wales is; lets say 'Llŷn Peninsula', would be 'Llanw Llŷn' which is a completely different publication to the chronicles I added. Hogyncymru (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Having come here from ANI, I see nothing wrong with using contemporary newspapers to comment on contemporary issues. As Hogyncymru says, Llanw Llŷn is a better source than, say, the Liverpool Mercury. Other sources that might be worth invesigating are Banew and the North Wales Chronicle. Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots wow! This is clearly original research. Providing both primary source and secondary analysis. I’m astonished at your take. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz: - independent newspapers are not primary sources. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: the selection of an anonymous contributor on the letter page claiming there is a conspiracy to eliminate the welsh language *is* a primary source. Then constructing strong statements of fact based on that claim is primary research. This conversation is insane. Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz:Can we keep things civil please?Hogyncymru (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz: Original research is what we all do on Wikipedia, because the sources come from already published articles as we collect information to build articles on wikipedia, I think you may be confusing the terms, my contribution is not 'original viewpoints' they are merely a collection of data which are being gathered together to bring the topic to light, you argued your case and I further added more proof to show my research was indeed valid, would it not been for you, this article would have been less rich, so I thank you for bringing me back to this so that I could contribute more so Welsh history can be shown clearer to those who wish to learn. Hogyncymru (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

This chapter might be a useful source? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Indeed, this'll be added lower down the policy info to show the disconnection of the Church and the Welsh speaking churchgoers, diolch. Hogyncymru (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

1847 was pivotal, of course. And the converse re-action was the increased vigour by the Welsh-speaking non-conformist chapels to keep the language alive. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

And of course.. between 1820 and 1850, poverty and distrust was a growing within the heartlands, so not only were the churches alien, so was the government.. and this lead to a growth of national identity; Welsh societies in London and the Eisteddfodau were popular than ever. Hogyncymru (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru: you seem to be using terms in an unusual manner but WP:original research within the meaning of the term in our policy is not something anyone should be doing on Wikipedia. If you see anyone doing it please tell them to stop. Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• I share the concerns of Cheezypeaz and others about using a nineteenth-century local newspaper to support an assertion of fact in an article, particularly when it's an anonymous correspondent so we can't check to see whether they are any sort of authority on the matter. It might be an interesting quote to use to illustrate a point, but we should be relying on modern scholarship for assertions of fact in Wikivoice. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Girth Summit: I understand your concern, but these were not 'local', regional possibly, but not local, Like I said previously, the Country of Wales is small and 'regional' to Wales it is 'mainstream', you're thinking Britain rather than Wales.. and of course if you saw them as a British Newspapers, they may seem insignificant or small, like the example I gave, 'local' media in Wales would be 'Llanw Llŷn' to the Llŷn Peninsula.. but if you went by your reasoning of the newspapers I used as 'local' what would the most popular Welsh language newspapers be seen as? you'd probably see them as 'local', which shows that in these circumstances, the term is complex and cannot be used as a counter-argument of the invalidity of it being a reference, as for them being printed from the 19th century.. that's folly, these happened during the 19th century and the best evidence we have of such matters is through articles printed at this time, age of the article shouldn't even come into question unless those claims were later retracted or found to be inaccurate.. one great example would be much of Iolo Morgannwg's works which were thought to be true, but later found to be lies after his work had been assessed after his death. Also, if 19th century articles were not used as proof/references then Wiki would be riddled with such materials, which I doubt wiki would tackle. As for you saying 'we should be relying on modern scholarship for assertions of fact', well those modern scholarship for assertions were pulled from earlier references, so how can old materials be invalid if modern literature/media is wholly based upon old data?. Hogyncymru (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

    Hogyncymru, the question of whether it's local or regional is secondary to the question of its age. A nineteenth century newspaper source might be useful for adding interesting extra details, examples or quotes, but for something like this it would need modern scholarly sources. Our aim is to reflect what modern scholarship says about any issue, not what we're able to figure out for ourselves by piecing things together from old newspapers. This stuff must surely be discussed in modern histories of the period - we should go with what they say. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

    • @Girth Summit: could you point out where in Wiki rules does it state that old materials cannot be used as core references? this would be good to give weight to your argument, thanks. Hogyncymru (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

      Hogyncymru, it's in WP:RS. Of particular interest is WP:RS AGE and WP:SOURCETYPES. If there is modern scholarship about the subject, rely on that for the core content. Old newspapers might help provide additional detail or illustrative quotes, but modern scholarship should be the backbone where it's available - and for a subject like this, it's surely available? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

      • No, the problem is that Welsh history/culture is some-what overlooked so you have far less researchers/historians etc covering such topics, so often, many information is yet to be uncovered from old articles, so even though we do have some modern peer-reviewed papers or publications.. the scope of the topic is somewhat incomplete.. however even though I found a correspondent outlining the problems within the Churches in Wales, (which is also backed by a later dean (which would be the equated to the Bishop of Wales today) who addressed the issue), this is again confirmed through a paper published through Cambridge University; 'The Church and the Welsh Language' - 2020, By Enid R. Morgan . Hogyncymru (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

        Hogyncymru, I'd rely on that paper then for Wiki voice assertions, rather than the newspaper (but maybe use the newspaper as an illustrative quote, with attribution). Girth Summit _(blether) 17:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hogyncymru, I was a bit confused by the long quite being attributed to two separate newspapers: The Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian and the Glamorgan Monmouth and Brecon Gazette and Merthyr Guardian, July 22, 1843. I wonder could you clarify? Also, it might be useful to attribute that quote, even if it's only "Editorial" or "unknown correspondent", etc.? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Martinevans123: Oh that wasn't me who divided those, it's simply from one newspaper which has a very long winded title: 'Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian, Glamorgan, Monmouth, and Brecon Gazette' but I'll update with more info if I can trace that. Hogyncymru (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I know, it was me. That's what I assumed was meant, as they both have Wikipedia articles. Perhaps they merged to for, the one you have used? Meanwhile, I'll self revert. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you. Hogyncymru (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Deletion of un-supporting references

In the Effects section we have...

"The practice and wider social changes of the nineteenth and the beginning of the 20th century saw many Welsh speakers come to view the speaking of Welsh as a disadvantage.[3]"

The only supporting statement in the linked reference seems to be this sentence. (Note: There were three commissioners and they didn't speak Welsh.)

"The commissioners saw the Welsh language as a drawback and noted that the moral and material condition of the people would only improve with the introduction of English."

Also in the Effects section we have...

"Although no direct correlation can be made to use of the Welsh Not and the decline of those speaking Welsh, the decline of its use well into the 19th and 20th century and the long term stigma attached to the use of the language, clearly shows it had an effect.[15"]"

The linked article (which is very interesting in itself) does not support the claims in this sentence. Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Language policy section

Cheezypeaz, Kleuske, Hogyncymru, Mjroots, Martinevans123, Girth Summit, I believe that the content of the Language policy section whould be better covered in its own article or the History of the Welsh language article. The section should be removed from the article because

• it is only tangentially relevant to the Welsh Not and is too long for this article, see the WP:COATRACK essay.
• it is mostly based on 100 year old sources (or unreferenced) rather than based on recent scholarship as discussed in the previous talk sections, see WP:AGE MATTERS.

List of references
BBC Old Book added recently Old Old Old Old Old Journal Old BBC Blog PhD thesis Old Blog Welsh Consumer Council Medical journal References

• the section on disabled children is referenced, but is based on a report from 2000, long after the period when the WN was used. TSventon (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

No objections. But I'm not convinced it is "only tangentially relevant to the Welsh Not". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon:, Even though the enforcement of the 'Welsh not' in schools finished long ago, the effects of it it rippled through time, much like Henry VIII's Welsh language law being a precursor of the Welsh not, so too with how medical professionals who told parents to stop speaking Welsh to their disabled children (without evidence) because they assumed speaking Welsh would be of a disadvantage to them. Hogyncymru (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon:, @Martinevans123:Both the Language Policy & Effects section should be trimmed down and then incorporated into the history section. I have already started this.Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz: I highly disagree, these are completely different segments of the article that highlights each respective inclusions, why on earth would you trim down the article with relevant information when each and every part is important?. Hogyncymru (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru: There was no policy: There didn't need to be. Everyone, Welsh parents, Welsh teachers, influential Welsh people in London, Parliament etc all believed that the main purpose of going to school was to learn English. So they didn't have to have a policy on language. Look as hard as you like you won't find a policy. Apart from annoying schoolchildren there were no effects. (Unless you can cite credible sources)Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru:, some of the subjects discussed in the section are important, but they are based on quotations from 100-year old sources, so the section needs to be rewritten from scratch with references to recent scholarship. It is easy to get the context of older documents wrong: I have just rewritten the introduction to a quote from a royal commission to make it clear that a clergyman in Wales is quoted, not a politician in Westminster. TSventon (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the 2000 case, as there is no connection to the 'Welsh Not' as described in the lead, and the source does not draw any connection. I think the policy section does belong here for now, as context and background for the use of the Welsh Not. I still think the article is inside out. I.e. it should be an article on Welsh Language Policy with a 'Welsh Not' section. I think that would solve a lot of the problems with it and allow for wider discussion of Welsh Language policy (e.g. the 2000 case would clearly belong in such an article). JeffUK (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

JeffUK what do you think the next step should be? I have suggested removing the section due to the poor sourcing, listed in the collapsed section above, but I am interested in other ideas. TSventon (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Deleting the Effects section

@TSventon:@Martinevans123:@Hogyncymru:

I'm going to delete the entire Effects section. Nothing worth saving. 1) Assertions with sources that don't back them up. 2) Boring discussion of unrelated statistics. 3) A weak admission at the end that everything written in this section was wrong. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz: I think you're misunderstanding the whole reason of discussion pages; to get to the point, this is the 3rd title you've published now outlining your dissatisfaction with the page, in future could you collect all your issues and compile them into one so that it doesn't become long-winded and confusing, how are people expected to follow your arguments if they keep migrating? like mentioned in earlier, these were indeed spoken within Westminsters and they were published under their parliamentary papers, this in term would be a policy, the difference between a policy and and act are different;

Policy: means goals or objectives set by the governments to achieve.

Act: means law i,e. any law is made on any particular matter by the parliament or state legislatures, after making of law that particular matter is regulated by that law.

As for you thinking certain pieces of the article is 'boring' or long-winded.. this is for readers to decide, I believe that it all conveys a step-by-step process of the control of the language under the church and state.. Hogyncymru (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz: PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE LARGE CHUNKS OF THE SITE, this is a further warning.. the reason for Talk is to resolve issues, not to add your opinion and to vandalise as you see fit.. you MUST resolve the issues first before taking drastic action!. Hogyncymru (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru: Historians have resolved the issue for us. Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz: Where, when? nobody here have come to a conclusion.. but you seem adamant to go against resolutions here!. Hogyncymru (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree the section should be removed. Para 1. The BBC article goes out of it's way to downplay the effects of 'The Not' yet it is used to justify an entire paragraph about the Welsh Language being stigmatised, the BBC article does not even imply that this stigamtisation was in any way an effect of the 'Welsh Not', only that it existed. Para 2 is at least honest "no direct correlation can be made to use of the Welsh Not and the decline of those speaking Welsh,"... so why is the following text in a section title 'Effects' "Clearly shows it had an effect" looks like WP:SYNTH to me? Para 3 onwards are just about the decline of the welsh language, with no reference whatsoever to the subject of the article. JeffUK (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Also the "Discouragement of use with disabled children" is an entire section which has nothing in it about the Welsh Not at all, talking about an incident that happened many decades after the Welsh Not was ever in use. This whole section belongs in the Welsh Language or History of the Welsh language article if anywhere at all. JeffUK (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

On reflection I think 90% of the article belongs as a section in one of the two aforementioned articles, or a new article Welsh Language Policy or Welsh Language Suppression. Then 'Effects' becomes 'Effects of the the policy' not 'Effects of the Welsh Not', "Discouragement of use with disabled children" makes some sense, 'Similar policies in other countries' works better. (The Welsh Not was not a policy, it was as stick..) etc. etc. JeffUK (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Place a protection on the page to curb vandalism

I have no issue with people arguing their case as to why parts of the site should be seen as.. but to have someone that isn't even a registered user on this site decide things because he or she dislikes it because it portrays an 'ugly' view on Westminster is absurd, they cannot simply go onto a rampage deleting most of the page just because they feel they are wronged without fist coming to a rational conclusion.. For example, if something sounds wrong or doesn't seem right, then let someone correct that part first before the whole site is butchered! if there's sources lacking.. why not add (citation needed) next to a claim?, if you think something doesn't sound correct.. why not edit it to make it sound better?, this is why talk exists, to come to a rational conclusion, to have most of the editors come to a level-ground and agree to meet people half-way and to better the site so that it is informal and correct. If someone's already warned, why are they then going against that and going against everyone? that doesn't sound like a rational person to me, this seems like someone who's got a vendetta, someone who is strongly invested in covering up the past.. this is why an user with a red name nor ip number should not be editing this page.. especially that it's a sore subject in Welsh culture. Hogyncymru (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hogyncymru I absolutely agree. Goodbye. Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hogyncymru, I would like to respond to some of your points. Cheezypeaz is a registered editor at Wikipedia, they had to register to create a username. They do not have to create a user page, which would turn their name blue.

They are allowed to remove chunks of text, that is an example of WP:BOLD editing, however they should not WP:EDITWAR by redoing reverted edits.

A WP:VANDAL is someone who wants to damage the encyclopedia. Disagreeing with your version of the article does not make an editor a vandal. TSventon (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Idk.. Calling users conspiracy theorists, nationalists} WP:NPA, claiming their resources are 'fake' and deleting whole chunks from an article even after they've been told to resolve the issue here seems like a person who is looking to cause trouble, yes some of the articles used may be from 19th century newspapers, but these are accepted as long as there are other stronger papers supporting them (which is why I added university papers to back them up), but to throw accusations in the air just to get their views across seems ridiculous to me. Hogyncymru (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cheezypeaz. I've left a note at your talk page about your edit here. Regards.Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: he's done it again.. I saw that another user threatened people with edit warring with a ban.. I really don't want this to happen, there is no final consensus even though he claims there is. Hogyncymru (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

End of discussion for my contribution

Thank you for everyone's time giving their opinion, I know I'm not really suppose to delete my old addition, but please, I beg you, just leave it be, I started something extra which I did not have the mental energy to carry on, I have to be real, It's taken a tole on my mental health, I just can't deal with the extra arguments, I'm done, my contribution to the discussion has ended, if you resurrect it, please note that it will push me over the edge.. I'm leaving this here to say thank you for everyone's contribution to the discussions, I was wrong in some instances and this is something I have realised, editors are here to make a difference, so carry on what you do, all the best. Hogyncymru (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I know the feeling, and I sympathise with you. Just want to say that I value your contributions over the years. It's difficult when you have a tsunami of editors coming in from England attempting to put their own spin on our history. The local paper you quoted is good; let's remember that national newspapers hardly existed at that time in Wales! This article has been plundered, as other articles have recently. But I value your work. Take a few weeks break (as will I), and see them for what they are: part of the dying embers of british colonialism. The truth will prevail. Email me for a chat any time. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahem, "a tsunami of editors coming in from England"? Whatever next. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ha! Mixed metaphor, bad poet! :-) Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I blame the abolition of tolls on 17 December 2018!! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Proper nouns

If Welsh Not is a proper noun, then surely Welsh Knot, Welsh Note, Welsh Lump, Welsh Stick or Cwstom are also all proper nouns? Or do we just follow the individual sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I'm not sure why 'Welsh Not' is being treated as a proper noun, but the OED does capitalise the "N" in its definition and when referring to it from other entries, however, it does not capitalise the first letter of the second word for any of the other variants (which I've underlined inthe quotes below):

Welsh Not n. (also Welsh knot, Welsh note) now historical a token fastened around a child's neck as a punishment for speaking Welsh (cf. earlier Welsh lump n. (b)).

Welsh lump n. †(a) a large brick capable of withstanding intense heat, used esp. to line furnaces and fireplaces; a large firebrick (obsolete); (b) a heavy weight fastened to a child's neck as a punishment for speaking Welsh (now historical and rare); cf. Welsh Not n.

I don't think we follow sources for style though, we should use WP:MOS for that, and MOS:CAPS covers it. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm very surprised. Perhaps that's OED house style. The word "not" is not usually part of a noun or noun-phrase, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, does the OED give an etymology for Welsh Not or when it was first mentioned? If so that could be useful for the article. TSventon (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It says this: "Welsh Not n. (also Welsh knot, Welsh note) now historical a token fastened around a child's neck as a punishment for speaking Welsh (cf. earlier Welsh lump n. (b)).

"[The precise origin of the construction is unclear, but it is likely to be a shortening of a full sentence such as ‘Welsh must not be spoken’ (compare quot. 1844). In form Welsh knot by association with the homophonous knot n.1; in form Welsh note by association with note n.2 I.]." First example given is: "1844 Rep. Commissioners Inq. S. Wales 102 in Parl. Papers XVI. 7: "he schoolmaster in my parish.., amongst the common Welsh people has a little toy on a little bit of wood, and on the wood is written, ‘Welsh not’; that is to say, they must not speak Welsh; it is a mark... The rule of the school is..that..if anybody speaks a word of Welsh he is to have the Welsh mark, which he is to carry about his neck.]" Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, do we have a reference for "The use of "The Not" was recorded as early as the 18th century"? I can't see what The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales says. TSventon (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I can tell you it's on page 942. And that's about all, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, do you have access to page 942 of The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales? It is odd that it seems to be the only source for the recorded use of the Not "as early as the 18th century". TSventon (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, p.942 says of the Welsh Not(e): "Other common names for it were the 'cwstom', the 'Welsh stick' and the 'Welsh lump' - a lump of lead, according to the traveller Richard Warner in the late 18th century". -- DeFacto (talk). 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

p.s. "Welsh not(e)" also listed in the index for page 919. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, p.919 is the 7th page of 9 of the article entitled "Wales, The history of". It's discussing the rights of Welsh-language speakers in the 19th century and says: "... and there were campaigns over the language's lack of status in schools, particularly over the use of the Welsh Not(e). Welsh was included in the curriculum after 1889..." -- DeFacto (talk). 11:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying. I'm assuming that means "the National curriculum" i.e. across the whole country. Or does it mean only in some schools? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, that's all it says in that paragraph, so I wouldn't like to say. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, searching the encyclopedia for curriculum 1889 finds p. 239, which mentions the Welsh Intermediate Education Act 1889, but I can only see half the sentence. TSventon (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It seems we do not have an article on the Welsh Intermediate Education Act 1889. But the full text is here, and the relevant clause seems to be: "The expression "intermediate education" means a course of education which does not consist chiefly of elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but which includes instruction in Latin, Greek, the Welsh and English language and literature, modern languages, mathematics, natural and applied science, or in some of such studies, and generally in the higher branches of knowledge, but nothing in this Act shall prevent the establishment of scholarships in higher or other elementary schools;" There's a analysis of the Act here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I created a stub for it at Welsh Intermediate Education Act 1889 and increased the number of links to it to 15. Please help to de-stubbify it if you feel inclined. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Good stuff. I guess we could add an External link to the original full text? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, thanks and linked to the original full text. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Shock & Horror

I've been reading "The Welsh language and it's social domains".

There is no legislation "restricting" the use of the Welsh language except for the Act of Union.

The Act of Union

The blog post it links too is wrong.

the blog says "Those who spoke Welsh would be prohibited from holding public office."

the act of union says...

"no Person or Persons that use the Welch Speech or Language, shall have or enjoy any manner Office or Fees within this Realm of England, Wales, or other the King's Dominion, upon Pain of forfeiting the same Offices or Fees, unless he or they use and exercise the English Speech or Language."

Historian John Davies says "English was to be the only language of the courts of Wales, and those using the Welsh language were not to receive public office in the territories of the king of England." https://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/periods/tudors_04.shtml

Which still tends to be misleading.

One aspect of the Act of Union upset a large number of people in Wales. The act stated that all people that were chosen to represent Wales as officials or Members of Parliament had to be able to speak English. It also stated that the law-courts in Wales had to use the English language. https://spartacus-educational.com/TUDactunion.htm

much better. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Above for Martinevans123 Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, much better sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC) p.s. "Above for all", lol

I would recommend caution in the use of the BBC blog. The person who wrote most of them is a close friend of mine and he does not write in-depth history but has been employed by the BBC to popularise historical topics. I realise that what I'm saying here is hearsay, but I can testify that he's a creative writer who would never expect the BBC website to be used for research purposes. Deb (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That's useful info. But he is billed as "Historian John Davies"? I think it was an improvement, but we can probably find much better. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I presume Deb means that most of the anonymous BBC blogs were written by her friend. I would also expect John Davies' books and academic papers to be (even) more carefully written than a blog post by him. TSventon (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. Yes, he's John Davies (historian). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I should have looked more carefully. Sadly, John Davies will not be writing any more... Deb (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Deb, we are using an anonymous BBC page as a reference, so your advice was relevant. TSventon (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I am also not convinced that Spartacus Educational is a "much better" source. TSventon (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, how about "slightly-marginally-better-source-because-it's-not-a-blog"? I'd agree something written by Davies, in book or high-end journal form, would actually be "much better". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

History of the Welsh language

Cheezypeaz, DeFacto, Martinevans123, would anybody be interested in taking a look at the History of the Welsh language article, which has been tagged as needing additional citations since 2015. The 19th century section is poorly referenced and relevant to this article. TSventon (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC).

Janet Davies's little book published by UWP will be useful for this. I'll have a look too. Deb (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Brain dump

Who here is actually reading the history, who here is tweaking the article?

---

New format (very rough may change)...

Summary

History

1) English language teaching in Welsh schools.

100% supported by parents

poor quality of schools

already happening prior to government involvement??? (grant schools?)

effect of the codes & pay to play & HMI?

Society for the promotion of welsh utilisation etc

HMI tries to promote welsh language 1890? parental opposition?

exclude ranting about blue books

2) Punishments in School

other examples for context

3) The welsh not

what is it?

lack of quantitative evidence?

Examples of use for illustration (contemporary reports only)

exclude my grandmother remembers type of stuff.

---

I hate the sidebars, they break up the narrative & lack context

---

lots of rubbish in current article

coat hanger for blue books rant

language wasn't main controversy in blue books

who cares what The Times said?

Schools in England as bad

stigmatise claims

effects section

---

Pointing to a 540 page book isn't a source.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)‎

Rough Draft. still needs work, not 100% accurate - comments , criticisms , encouragement?

History

Welsh schools and the English language.

In 1850 all schools in Wales taught English. The learning of English was demanded by the public, parents, teachers & schools. It was seen as the language of advancement, commerce, trade and science. The teaching of Welsh was left to Sunday schools.

The vast majority of the schools did not just teach English but also used English for all of their lessons. Some schools banned the use of Welsh in the classroom & playground in an attempt to force children to use and become proficient in English.

The government provided partial grants for building new schools for poor children but was otherwise uninvolved in teaching the nation’s children, it did not require children to go to school and was not involved in the running of schools.

Parents who wanted their children to go to school had to pay for it. Schools were set up and run by religious organisations, charities, or private businesses.

The 1847 educational report into Welsh schools found that the quality of schools was awful. Poor buildings, untrained teachers & an almost complete absence of suitable books. Many children did not go to school at all and those that did were often absent. The report found that some schools were attempting to teach English without translating from Welsh and as a result the children did not know the meaning of the words they were learning. They also came across one school using a Welsh Not. The report condemned its use as educational nonsense and something that would teach children to be dishonest.

The report was controversial because of the comments it made about Welsh society and, to a lesser degree, the comments it made about the Welsh language. However its support for the teaching of English in Wales was agreed with by the Welsh public.

Schools in parts of England were as bad.

The 1870 England and Wales education act created locally elected school boards who were tasked to supervise schools and ensure there were enough school places for their local children. They were also given the power to pass local laws to force children to go to school. The Act did not specify what subjects to teach or what language to use when teaching.

The Welsh Not

The Welsh Not was a token normally made of wood which was given to a child caught speaking Welsh in school. It would be passed to the next child caught speaking Welsh. The child still holding the token at the end of the day, or week, might be punished, detention and ‘flogging’ are mentioned in contemporary accounts.

How many schools used this device is unknown. Not all schools banned the use of Welsh.

Contemporary descriptions

““The school master in my parish, for instance, amongst the common Welsh people has a little toy on a little bit of wood, and on the wood is written “Welsh not” that is to say they must not speak Welsh; it is a mark, and they pass this mark one to another. The rule of the school is that there is no Welsh to be spoken in the school; if anybody speaks a word of Welsh he is to have the Welsh mark, which he is to carry about his neck, or to hold it in his hand. There is the greatest anxiety to catch one another speaking Welsh, and there is a cry out immediately, “Welsh not”.” November 1843. Inquiry for South Wales. Reverend R. Bowen Jones.

“My attention was attracted to a piece of wood, suspended by a string round a boy’s neck, and on the wood were the words “Welsh stick”.This I was told was a stigma for speaking Welsh. But in fact his only alternative was to speak Welsh or to say nothing. He did not understand English, and there is no systematic exercise in interpretation. The Welsh stick, or Welsh, as it’s sometimes called, is given too any pupil who is overheard speaking Welsh, and may be transferred by him to any schoolfellow whom he hears committing a similar offence. It is thus passed from one another until the close of the week, when the pupil in who’s possession the Welsh is found is punished by flogging. Among other injurious effects, this custom has been found to lead children to visit stealthily the houses of their schoolfellows for the purposes of detecting those who speak Welsh to their parents, and transferring to them the punishment due to themselves” Reports of the commissioners of inquiry into the state of education in Wales 1848 Page 452

"Endeavoured to compel the children to converse in English by means of a piece of wood. Offenders to be shut in after school hours.” Extract from the Llansantffraid Board School log book. 8 February 1870.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 10:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz my first question about this draft, as with the July version of the Language policy section, is: is it based on reliable sources? WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". TSventon (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Everything will be referenced Cheezypeaz (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz I am a bit concerned about neutral point of view. Scholars have different views of the education commission and I think that should be reflected clearly in the article. Also the Welsh schools in 1847 section only uses one recent source and is therefore largely based on one scholar's point of view. TSventon (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon I agree. Not only is it relying on one scholar (a distinguished one I believe) it is also relying on my reading & selection. Which I hope I have done in a neutral fashion. But we have moved on from zero scholars to one scholar and that's an improvement. Having said that all scholars will be dealing with the same evidence - The Report and I've not seen anything by any serious writer that would disagree with what I have written ( except for the phrase "to a lesser degree" I've seen that somewhere but can't find the quote for now - I will remove it if I can't find the source) Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz I have increased the number of schools to 1656. This is because the figures omitted 229 schools with English books and Welsh explanations and 8 schools with unknown language out of a total of 712 schools analysed on page 93. TSventon (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon Thank you. I completely missed that line, I have checked, you are correct. It is difficult to read sideways and the blank line & the way it was labeled fooled me. I have been wondering what the classification means. Page 53, first paragraph, of the report gives some details. Although L says "No specific attempt is made to teach English." He then goes on to describe them learning English words. So I'd say these were Welsh medium schools teaching English but in a rather primitive form. Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz I have copied your sentence about the number of schools to the article on the inquiry and added a table. TSventon (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon Cool. caveat : I don't believe they inspected all schools, Lingen? notes a cutoff of some sort. Which is why I was careful in my phrasing Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz I also have had problems with reading sideways and even upside down, but have now saved thev report as a pdf, which can be rotated and thus read more easily. I was confused by the figures on page 93, as it didn't have a prominent total like the other summaries. Page 1 said the total was 712 so I looked for the missing 237. Pge 93 had figures for Welsh only and English only so I assigned the 229 to English and Welsh. Page 1 also said that as a general rule Lingen excluded those schools from his inquiry where the lowest terms exceeded 6d a week. I used your phrasing so hopefully it is clear that the figures are for schools covered by the inquiry. TSventon (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz I have found some alternative totals for the report Out of 1,657 day schools in Wales, 1,336 conducted their teaching in English. Just 3 were held in Welsh, with the rest mixed. They made me double check my figures and realise that I had mislabled the rows of the table I added to the TOBB article. TSventon (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

References

TSventon Thanks. Also that book is very relevant to the whole topic. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz according to an Amazon review, Ford is a former UKIP councillor, not an academic, so his views may be fringe. TSventon (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC).

TSventonYes, was just looking at that. Best not to use as a source. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto I see you have referenced Martyn Ford, I would recommend at least mentioning his background. TSventon (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, "Martyn Ford formerly served as a councillor on a local authority in Swansea. He has recently acquired an M.A. in history from Swansea University, and obtained a first degree at Aberystwyth University in 1976".[1] How much of that is relevant do you think - 'A Welsh academic and former local councillor'? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto perhaps 'Welsh author and former local councillor'? Academic would imply he worked for a university rather than studying at one. TSventon (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, perhaps we need a new discussion on how we choose and how we describe sources, because there is no consistency at the moment. This is a very controversial topic, with some strong opinions and prejudices involved, as well as the politics, myths and untruths surrounding it. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto I think WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies here, which says "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution" and we can certainly discuss how to apply it. TSventon (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, I fully agree with that. I think we need to list all the authors, and agree how to attribute the content sourced to them. WP:INTEXT doesn't seem to expect anything more than their name, but in this article it would seem we might need more than just that (we've seen nationality, mother-tongue, political allegiance, employment history, education background, etc., etc. raised), to enable readers to evaluate the weight of their opinions. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon I'm concerned that I know too much about Welsh schooling in the 1800s. Cheezypeaz (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon How did I get dragged into this? :) Cheezypeaz (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz on knowing too much about Welsh schooling in the 1800s, I feel your pain, the essay WP:EXPERT may help. I don't know what dragged you in, but you definitely played a part in dragging me in. TSventon (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Chapter

Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I see it there in your original edit. I think I filled it out correctly? I can see it in the pop up. The pop up isn’t very readable. Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Which edit was that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, this one, I think. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, the chapter name was given, but not its page numbers, they were added in this edit after I added the tag, but my tag was not removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

So page numbers are all now valid in those refs? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, page numbers have been added and the tags removed. TSventon added the numbers, so I guess they took them directly from the book. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, Cheezypeaz I added page numbers to the reference to chapter 15 of The Welsh Language and Its Social Domains, but I didn't remove the pages needed tags because I thought more specific page numbers would still be useful. TSventon (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, thanks for clarifying that. I agree that the page numbers could be more specific; I guess an {{Rp}} at the end with the particular pages in it would make it easier for readers to verify. Have you found a freely accessible online version of this publication by any chance? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, I saw the first few pages online somewhere. I think the section should use more than one source as that would help with the NPOV of the section and not rely on access to one book for verification. TSventon (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, I agree, but I wanted to see what was in that one. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, there seem to be online versions of the book, but unfortunately I don't know whether they are legitimate. TSventon (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, I'll keep trawling, thanks. ;) -- DeFacto (talk). 15:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Government Policy Section

DeFacto, TSventon, Martinevans123

Will replace the "welsh language restriction section"

Keep the Henry VIII stuff? (I'm leaning towards removal, arguments for keeping it?)

There was no government policy mandating English medium education.
 Revised Codes 1863 introduced English testing for schools receiving government grants
  - Did they bringing pressure on remaining welsh medium schools?
  - but only for schools receiving grants.
  - They were all teaching English anyway 
  - Few Welsh medium schools
  - Not an issue at the time.
Governance of schools remained local. 1860 act. school boards etc 
What about grant schools before that?
  Society of for the Utilisation of the Welsh Language
  Changing HMI policy 1890 for more Welsh language in schools - parental opposition

Just to be clear, this is a 'heads up' and not a call for consensus. Feel free to agree and disagree etc suggest changes etc Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess there's a large overlap between the topic of the "Welsh not" and a longer, larger article, not yet written, called "Suppression of the Welsh language"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, or should that perhaps be "Promotion of the English language in Wales" as that was apparently the motivation? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I would support spinning out an article on "the Welsh language in the nineteenth century" or similar once the material to do so is sufficient and reasonably NPOV. Cy Wikipedia has cy:Hanes siaradwyr, tiriogaeth a statws y Gymraeg, the history of the speakers, territory and status of the Welsh language. TSventon (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, well spotted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, DeFacto, TSventon The Welsh population had clearly decided that the English language should be taught in schools prior to 1847. So if there is some government policy to suppress the welsh language it must be before that. The only thing the government is doing before that is providing grants to help build schools and sending out inspectors (HMI) to ensure that the money was being spent properly. This seems to start about 1840. So if there is a 'smoking gun' it must be prior to 1847. I haven't found it. Have you? the document attached below does give some details of what the HMI were doing and the dates. The funding of school masters / mistresses happens about 1850? so that can't be it. The establishment thinking clearly was that English should be taught BUT that was already being done. They were pushing at an open door. The attitude of HMI inspectors was anti-Welsh teaching but in this they were in tune with the Welsh population. They became more pro-Welsh in 1890 but had then to contend with the Welsh population. Parliament seems to get the blame for NOT promoting the Welsh language in schools. And maybe the 1863 Code. There seems to be a big local component to all this. The Welsh were running their own schools, when the Education Act came into being it set up local school boards which were elected. Apart from the HMI it was all local. Am I missing something? Cheezypeaz (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, Wikipedia articles should represent the different views published on a topic. For example to quote a paper referenced in the article: Historically, the Welsh were conquered by the English; their language and culture deliberately suppressed; their economic life made to serve London's, not local, requirements. The current Welsh cultural resurgence can only be understood as a reaction to attempted cultural destruction by the English.

References

Unfortunately I don’t have access to the paper. How does he say their language was suppressed? (He doesn’t seem to be an historian, but I’d be interested in his take.) Cheezypeaz (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon Also - and it's just a guess - I assume this is a paper on a topic that is in his area of expertise which includes background info on an area which he isn't an expert in and that's what's being quoted. Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon I've found a copy Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz I access JSTOR via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, for which you need 500 edits. You could read some articles you are interested in and do some copyediting to help you reach 500 edits. I quoted that paper as a different viewpoint to the one in your post at 09:57 today. Both view points should be given WP:DUE weight in relevant Wikipedia articles. TSventon (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon I’m still at 162 edits so that will take a long time :) Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless you make as many spelling mistakes as I do, I recommend a couple of spare hours running Dispenser's Reflinks or Refill2 across articles at random! You'll soon get there. You wouldn't want to be seen as a die-hard WP:SPA, would you? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz you may find that editing a controversial article which requires a lot of discussion on the talk page builds up your edit count surprisingly quickly. TSventon (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon current stats: 311 edits ;) and £10.75 spent on books. Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon Bud says: "In 1870, England built a national system of education. The 1870 Education Act, among other things, set up compulsory elementary schools in Wales and made English the sole medium of instruction in those schools..." Didn't happen. He's not an historian. This is just a polemical introduction to his sociology paper. I'm not sure he even intends us to treat it as history since it is followed by "The above points are some of what the present generation of Welsh-men remember." No new Information. Zero value. This would be WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE Welsh academic historians vs American sociology professor. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz I gave that paper as an example of academic opinions that should be given WP:DUE weight in the article, I am not telling you or other editors what weight to give it. TSventon (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Resources

DeFacto, TSventon, Martinevans123

https://microform.digital/map/guides/R97305.pdf

please add more! Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Why Welsh usage has declined : https://nation.cymru/opinion/education-the-decline-of-welsh-and-why-communities-matter-more-than-classrooms/ Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• https://www.jstor.org/stable/3443088 Cultural Regeneration and the School: An Anthropological Study of Welsh-Medium Schools in Wales (via Wikipedia library)

• http://www.cvhs.org.uk/PrkSch/bns.html

• OM Edwards description of the Welsh not in his memoir https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10020272/1/Elfed-Owens,%20P%20Vol.1.pdf

• https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C101 Department of Education history pre 1899

• https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/2012%20Distinctive%20and%20Inclusive%20-%20The%20National%20Society%20and%20Church%20of%20England%20Schools%201811%20-%202011.pdf

Wording of its purpose

Do we really need to use the verbatim quote of an editorialised comment on a BBC webpage to push a particular pov on the purpose of the Not?

Watch this earlier sequence of edits...

• edit 1

  −

  +

  Its purpose was to encourage pupils not to speak Welsh

• edit 2

  −

  Its purpose was to encourage pupils not to speak Welsh

  +

  Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh

• edit 3

  −

  Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh

  +

  Its purpose was to encourage pupils not to speak Welsh

• edit 4

  −

  Its purpose was to encourage pupils not to speak Welsh

  +

  Its purpose was to 'force Welsh children to speak English at school'

Sure we could balance it with a verbatim quote from another article editorialising it the other way, but wouldn't it be better to accept the concise neutral wording resulting from edit 2 above - Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC) ... see below

It's immediate raison d'être was to force pupils to stop speaking Welsh. This is physical punishment, and the word 'encourage' is too mild, and would be non-neutral pov. Once again, we should turn to sources for our answer: the BBC source is neutral and reliable and should stand until 'encourage pupils to speak English' can be cited by a reliable, neutral citation. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, it seems from the article that the main purpose was to support the desire of the communities to increase the use of English in schools, nothing else. Let's look at more sources and hope for more contributors to chip in here with their views. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Deb recommended "caution in the use of the BBC blog" earlier on this page, so I would support finding better sources. TSventon (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: -NO! Any desire by communities came later. Not much desire during the flogging period. On what do you base this assumption?

You're attempting to give child abuse a positive spin! Absolutely incredible! I never edit political stuff and have never come across such political pov on Wikipedia!

Here are the 10 first mentions of the Welsh Not on Google (check it yourself!). I searched for WHY was the WN used and couldn't find one single citation which says: 'Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh' - an incredible spin to the negative physical punishment given!

DeFacto is looking for 'neutral wording' on child abuse! He is trying to hide the fact that children were flogged. Is this neutrality or an editor's non neutral pov? The latter! Let Wikipedia speak freely of what happend and say it as it is. It's not up to DeFacto to decide, it's up to the sources. And here is what they say:

1. Report by David Williams / Institute of Welsh Affairs: 'The days of the Welsh Not – when teachers would try and kill off the language...'

Purpose / use: to kill off the language.

2. Guradian article by Dawn Foster: The Welsh language is not nearing extinction, but it needs to be put to use: 'the days of the Welsh Not, when schoolchildren who spoke Welsh had a wooden plaque hung around their neck, and were beaten daily from straying from English.'

Purpose / use: to beat children

3. Visit Wales website (a very neutral site!) by Charles Williams, author Broadcaster: the ‘Welsh not’, used to discourage 19th century schoolchildren from speaking Welsh.

Purpose / use: discourage schoolchildren from speaking Welsh

4. Gweirydd Davies, Head of Welsh Language (Golley Slater): The Welsh Not was a practice (started around 1840-1940) where school children would be punished for speaking Welsh in school.

Purpose / use: to punish children for speaking Welsh

5. Article The role and importance of the Welsh language in Wales’s cultural independence within the United Kingdom by Sylvain Scaglia, UNIVERSITE DU SUD TOULON-VAR FACULTE DES LETTRES ET SCIENCES HUMAINES MASTER RECHERCHE : CIVILISATIONS CONTEMPORAINES ET COMPAREES: 'What will later be called the Welsh Not was a rule – even though not official – created to discourage children from speaking Welsh. Purpose / use: to discourage children from speaking Welsh

6. RCAHMW: 'The Welsh not was a means of forcing Welsh children to speak English at school during the 19th Century.'

Purpose / use: forcing Welsh children to speak English

7. [http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/6710/ The Role of Welsh-language Journalism in Shaping the Construction of Welsh Identity and the National Character of Wales; PhD thesis 2017, by Robert Glyn Môn Hughes: 'Children were punished for speaking Welsh' in schools.'

Purpose / use: Children were punished for speaking Welsh

8. Regressive History and the Rights of Welsh Speakers: Does History Matter? by Gwenllian Lansdown (Cardiff University): 'The ‘Welsh Not' is another example of the language's marginalisation and a powerful symbol of English oppression. Although this was never a government policy, children who spoke the language in school (particularly so in West Wales) were castigated for so doing and forced to wear a piece of wood with the words ‘Welsh Not' carved into it.'

Purpose / use: Children castigated ... and forced to wear the WN

An attempt to balance the BBC website with you own pov is not on and should be reported to Jimmy Wales asap. Monsyn (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well those 8 sources certainly support a much stronger description. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn, thank you for your research on this subject, and for your considered opinion. Did you by chance, whilst reading all those sources, discover why the schools and their supporting communities wanted so desperately to stop their children from speaking the Welsh language at school, and yet tolerated them speaking it at home, at church and everywhere else? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Monsyn (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn, don't you think it'd be weird though, that parents and communities throughout Wales were paying school teachers to forcibly prevent their children from speaking Welsh in school just for the sake of it? Are you saying that none of the sources you've found have explained the motives behind this apparently irrational behaviour? Do you suppose our readers will be happy to leave it at that - ah, the Welsh people just paid teachers to thrash the Welsh language out of their children for no apparent reason. Let's do a bit more research perhaps, and see if there was any excuse or motive behind that behaviour. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

We'll have none of your thrashing here, thank you, remember? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

How much input did "supporting communities" actually have to school regulations? I suspect not a great deal. For many families, speaking Welsh at home and singing in Welsh in chapel would not need to be "tolerated", it was just the normal thing to do? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with everything said by Monsyn and Martinevans123. Cell Danwydd (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd

I'm still reading my new books but I don't think I'll find anything that drastically changes my current understanding...

• Schooling wasn't compulsory until 1880, the earlier 1870 act allowed local by laws to make it compulsory. But even after it was compulsory you still had to pay for another 20??? years
• There were schools set up by concerned locals (often pushed by their local CofE vicar) to educate poor children. These were subsidised by charitable donations ( normally subscriptions from well-off locals). But parents still had to pay a school fee.
• Parents saw the purpose of day Schools as teaching English. They didn't want to pay for the teaching of Welsh - the children already knew how to speak Welsh and could learn to read and write Welsh in Sunday school at no cost.
• Welsh people saw English as the language of 'getting on' of material advancement So they wanted their children to speak English as well as Welsh. This appears to have started with the industrial revolution?? and continued until after WW2
• Punishment of children for not obeying school rules (whatever they were about) were not uncommon.
• I've used this phrase in the article: "Some schools banned the use of Welsh in the classroom and playground in an attempt to force children to use and become proficient in English."
• Today Welsh medium skills have the same issue but the other way round https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/playground-english-ousts-welsh-1907579

We should be reading Welsh history written by historians. I have...

• "A history of education in Wales" by Gareth Elwyn Jones. (was the Professor of Education in the University of Wales) Paperback £4.00 (very good value) on Amazon - delivered to my local yellow box thingy to get free postage. :)
• "Wales:England's Colony?" by Martin Johnes (History Professor) - Kindle version includes page numbers!!!
• "The Welsh language and its social domains 1801-1911" the chapter on the Blue Books is written by Gareth Elwyn Jones.

The current wikipedia articles - both for the Welsh Not and the Blue Books - seem to rely on too much stuff that doesn't come from reliable sources. I'm still reading my new Welsh history books so I will do some more updates later. Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, thanks for that. I agree that we need to be very careful to pick reliable sources. We also need to realise that being reliable does not imply neutrality. Wiki content needs to be neutral as well as reliably sourced, and that may mean, not only the careful attribution and contextualisation of opinion, but the addition of discussion on the various points of view found in reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Wales: England’s Colony? was a 2019 book and BBC television series exploring the relationship between Wales and England. It was intended to challenge its audience to reconsider Wales’ historical relationship with England and its place in the world. Both episodes of the TV programme can be viewed at Martin Johnes' website here. He's Professor of History at Swansea. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 thanks for posting that link Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A corporal punishment?

Is the Welsh Not a corporal punishment - along with all these'? Defined as "physical punishment, such as caning or flogging" on Lexico.[2] In the article it says "the pupil in possession [of the Welsh Not] at the end of the day was subjected to corporal punishment or other penalty...", but that's not the same as saying it is a corporal punishment, is it? I've heard of children getting a beating for having cigarettes, their teacher's spectacles, dirty books, or chewing gum in their possession - are all those therefore corporal punishments too? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the dirty books probably count as self-abuse. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The 'Welsh Not' is not only a description of the slate, stick or whatever devise used, it also encompasses the whole process involved, physical and political, including the colonial mentality behind it. 'Chewing gum' is chewing gum. The use of the Welsh Not and 'chewing gum' are slightly different, DeFacto. Secondly, under category:Corporal punishments we can see other examples such as S v Williams (1995), which are not corporal punishments, but certainly are very related to the corporal punishment category. Others include: Political mutilation in Byzantine culture, Emily M. Douglas, Murder of Laree Slack, 'but that's not the same as saying that the Murder of Laree Slack is a corporal punishment, is it?' Are you trying to 'play down' the nastiness, the brutality behind the WN, DeFacto? Many of your edits are an attempt to do so, as are your edits on changing the Treachery of the Blue Books to something rather milder (Inquiery... or Commission...).

Secondly, many of the sources do use 'corporal punishment' (here, here, here and here) and Wikipedia should reflect those sources, not sensor them. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, I'm just trying to keep it all W:DUE and WP:NPOV.

This article isn't about the politics or policies surrounding the use of languages, there are other articles covering that. This article is about a device that was used as an attempt to reinforce local preferences and aspirations. None of those obscure cherry-picked sources you cite declare that the 'Not' is a form of corporal punishment, they all portray it more as a way of selecting pupils for punishment, a bit like a marker or flag, or entry in a log of 'culprits'. If you can demonstrate that the consensus amongst the quality reliable sources that have covered the 'Not' characterise it as an actual form of corporal punishment then please do.

As for the other articles in the category, they're of no relevance here, and may also need reviewing

But without that consensus amongst sources, I propose removing it from that category per WP:CATVER as it implies that the 'Not' was a form of corporal punishment, and that is not supported in the article. . -- DeFacto (talk). 08:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be compared to the dunce hat although, as that doesn't have its own article, it has no Categories directly linked to it. Was the WN associated more often than not with corporal punishment? I don't know, but I suspect not. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto - are you on the same page as us? Llywelyn's second point lists 4 sources; all refer to the fact that the WN was a form of corporal punishment. The category isn't 'Category:List of devices used for corporate punishment' it's anything to do with corporal punishment. I'll move them into the body, shortly as it needs to be said. Cell Danwydd (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd I think DeFacto is arguing the category is 'Category:Corporal punishments', so it should only contain examples of corporal punishments. There could be another category 'Category:Corporal punishment' to contain articles related to corporal punishment. Could you find a better reference than the Morning Star? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says the Morning Star "is a biased and partisan source. All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed. Take care to ensure that content from the Morning Star constitutes due weight in the article". TSventon (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, from my reply to Llywelyn2000 above: "None of those obscure cherry-picked sources you cite declare that the 'Not' is a form of corporal punishment, they all portray it more as a way of selecting pupils for punishment, a bit like a marker or flag, or entry in a log of 'culprits'". Caning, whipping, beating, smacking are corporal punishments - labelling an individual is not. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Human Skulls ;)

Llywelyn2000 Lolz

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=next&oldid=1043566455

Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You think that wearing a skull around your neck is a laughing matter? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000 the use of a skull looks like a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, which should only be included in Wikipedia if supported by multiple high-quality sources. According the reference the evidence for what happened in the 1850s is the recollections of an "old man of eighty-eight", recorded in the memoirs of another man in the 1920s and published in 1981. TSventon (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, TSventon Yes, amazing claim. Second hand. Can you imagine the conversation after school?

Mum: "How was school today Mary?"

Mary: "The teacher caught me speaking Gaelic in class so I had to wear a human skull around my neck all day"

Mum: "That's interesting dear, it's your 5th birthday party on Saturday and you must remember to invite all your friends".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 13:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

That would have been like Mhairi, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 Indeed Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Source check please

I don't have access to a copy of the "Gwyddoniadur Cymru" source, so could someone who does, please confirm whether it supports any of the assertions it's been added against in this edit by Llywelyn2000 please. I have seen the English version of the same book, "The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales", and all it says is "It had parallels in other countries, such as Ireland, Brittany and Kenya". If that is the case in the Welsh version, then it adds nothing and is an redundant. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

When does nitpicking every detail become bullying?

Welsh version (Gwyddoniadur Cymru) is the same as the English version.

Fact 1: You added 4 x Cn (citation needed) tags.

Fact 2: I expanded the chapter and included the Gwyddoniadur Cymru citation immediately after the country name.

Fact 3: You came along and deleted them all and explained in the edit box why you deleted them with 'tried to make this intelligible but, gave up in the end'!!!

I then thought to myself, "OK, let me compromise: I'll place the Gwyddoniadur Cymru ref with the other refs, at the end of the sentence. All together, so that the sentences would be clearer, more intelligible".

Lastly, having two / three citations together does not make an overkill! This is what WP:OVERKILL / WP:OVERCITE says: A good rule of thumb is to cite at least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged or is likely to be challenged, or for direct quotations. Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided.

In all my years on WP, and having made 434,473 edits, I have never before been accused of WP:OVERCITE for adding three citations to what is obviously, for you, a very controversial article.

As I said, take care. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, sure, when none of it was sourced I added 'cn' tags, you then added sources, yes. But as well as adding sources for the details of the various devices, which was exactly what was required, you also added the same source (Gwyddoniadur Cymru) to just some of the place names.

That didn't seem necessary as the names were in the main refs snyway, so I removed them, yes. As you then, but without giving a reason, re-added them, but this time at the end of the sentences, I wondered if they were adding something that the other refs did not (I'm not sure what you meant above by 'compromise' when adding unnecessary cites at the end rather than in the middle). I checked them in an English version of the cite, and seeing nothing but the country names there, wondered if the Welsh version contained more detail - so posed the question here.

Thanks for confirming that they add nothing, so we can reasonably remove them per WP:OVERCITE. Superfluous cites are just unnecessary clutter. For controversial subjects you need sufficient cites, yes, but redundant and valueless cites just make it difficult and tedious for readers to verify the facts that need verifying. We need a good NPOV and verifiable article, don't take it personally when that is being confirmed. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

What? You say: 'you also added the same source (Gwyddoniadur Cymru) to just some of the place names.'???

Are you trying to confuse readers with this? I only added Gwyddoniadur Cymru to the three named countries in the source. That's exactly what needed to be done.

You say: 'details of the various devices'. No! This article is about both device and the system of physically punishing children, of which this device was part.

You say: 'Thanks for confirming that they add nothing' - I did nothing of the sort. I've already quoted the relevant part of WP:OVERCITE which agrees that citing two or three citations is NOT WP:OVERCITE!

Please try not to distort editors' words, and remain calm.

You delete citations to Gwyddoniadur Cymru, and then you say 'We need a good NPOV article'! What on earth is non-neutral about adding a citation to the most reliable source on Welsh history (Gwyddoniadur Cymru / Encyclopaedia Wales)? What you state here is that this source is not neutral! Do you have anything at all to back that up? Once again, this statement of yours shows your own non-neutral pov in these matters. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, you have missed the point, and misunderstood what I did and said - and are overreacting. That source added nothing over what the other sources gave, It added nothing worthwhile to the article, it was redundant.

Let me quote everything in that cited source wrt the this section: "It had parallels in other countries, such as Ireland, Brittany and Kenya." Please describe which different POV that supports and what it adds that the other sources lack. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The Gwyddoniadur Cymru citation confirms that all 3 countries had similar procedures.

My question to you, I note, remains unanswered: What on earth is "non-neutral" about adding a citation to Gwyddoniadur Cymru? I'll bolden the question, as you seemed to have missed it.

I think that bringing this discussion to the Talk page is overreacting. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, show me the diff of where I used that phrase when deleting those citations - this diff of the change that I think you must be referring to shows the summary as: "removed redundant cites per talk" The only time I recall using that phrase you mentioned was in my explanation on this talkpage above of why I wanted those citations checked - I didn't want to delete them if they added anything towards the goals of NPOV and verifiability. It turned out that they didn't add anything, just clutter. This is exactly what the talkpage is for, per WP:TALKPAGE: "where editors can discuss improvements to articles or other Wikipedia pages". I'd have though that after "434,473 edits", you would have appreciated that. Have you come across the WP:AGF guideline before? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mention diffs. Read it again. I said: 'You delete citations to Gwyddoniadur Cymru, and then you say 'We need a good NPOV article'!' and nb the small word then. You said it at 06:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC). Now, what on earth is "non-neutral" about adding a citation to Gwyddoniadur Cymru? That implies that the Encyclopaedia of Wales is biased. Can you give one reason why you question their neutrality? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, please explain the logic or train of thought you are using to insist that I said there was something '"non-neutral" about adding a citation to Gwyddoniadur Cymru'. Especially as you know, and as I have already explained, that is neither what I said, implied, or meant. It is clear to any rationale observer that, in adding nothing, the addition of that source could not be described as non-neutral. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Some things that should not need saying

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb (You have all been added simply because you have recently been active)

1) The ONLY sources of history we should be using here are historians.

2) Statements by historians are FACTS unless there is a dispute between historians.

3) Blog posts by journalists, speeches by politicians should NOT appear on this page as sources of history. If they aren't relevant then they need to be deleted as cruft.

4) Academic papers which are not published in history journals should NOT appear in this article as sources of history. Reason: They have not been reviewed by other historians and are therefore not reliable.

5) I'm happy with some primary sources being used so long as they are only used to illustrate what historians have already stated.

6) The "mother was a lively child" should be deleted as it's not contemporary.

7) I can't believe there is a dispute about the purpose of the welsh not.

Martin Johnes. Welsh historian Professor of History at Swansea university:

Throughtout his whole discussion of the Welsh Not he's talking about teaching English. It's perverse to pretend the Welsh Not wasn't about teaching English. Take this statement...

"Moreover, many teachers recognised that punishing children for speaking Welsh did not actually work in helping them with their English"

8) Does anyone disagree with this statement: "Some schools banned the use of Welsh in the classroom and playground in an attempt to force children to use and become proficient in English." ?

If you disagree with any of the above please let me know. I will be basing my future edits on the above criteria. Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

As per my edit here, that's not a fact, it's Johnes' opinion. The educated opinion of a Professor of History, but an opinion nonetheless. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

How can the Welsh Not be about teaching English? It may be about removing perceived obstacles to teachers who have to teach children whose first language is Welsh through the medium of English, but it isn't a method of teaching English and, as far as I can see, Johnes doesn't say that it is. Deb (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Deb,Martinevans123 It was about forcing them to practice what they had learned in the classroom. (I don't care if we use the word 'teaching' or not.) Why do you think Cllr Cemlyn Williams has a concern here? How would you describe his concern?

"Cllr Cemlyn Williams, the portfolio holder for education, spoke of the experiences of teachers at one Caernarfon school, who had noticed a “clear reduction” in the use of Welsh outside of the classroom. He added, “Children, first language Welsh, often speaking English in the playground, which I find quite profound and a cause for concern." Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, there are two sides to history: the hard incontrovertible facts and the opinions or analyses of motives, results, social impact, etc.

The hard facts need nothing more than a good RS, if that, and are inherently neutral.

The opinions and analyses are more of a problem, they can legitimately be biased and be from biased (but reliable) sources, may be fringe, may be politically or otherwise motivated, etc. They, at least, need to be evaluated for due weight and be reliably sourced before being used and very accurately attributed and contextualised if they are used, and balanced with any equally valid alternative views or opinions. Due weight sources of opinion will probably substantiate their views by providing their rationale and the evidence (duly referenced) that they rely on, be peer-reviewed, or at least be published by a publisher with a good reputation for its editorial oversight and quality of output. Undue sources will include unsubstantiated one-liners from political speeches, sensationalised newspaper articles, political opinion pieces in newspapers or political pamphlets, etc.

Our problem, I suppose, as Wiki editors, is to, whilst always assuming good faith, try our best to achieve a good NPOV and verifiable article out of all this, and using the talkpage to get consensus before inserting content if it is disputed. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto Just to be really clear regarding point (2). Take the sentence "Moreover, many teachers recognised that punishing children for speaking Welsh did not actually work in helping them with their English". This sentence is in a history book by a well know history professor of some standing. He does not give it as an opinion, he does not say 'probably', he does not say 'most people think' he states it as a FACT. As editors we must assume that it is factually correct unless we have a good authoritative source that conflicts with it. In this particular instance we are are comparing it with a claim by a journalist on a blog which is not backed up by any analysis. There is no comparison. Given that there are no known authoritative disputes we can use the essential facts contained in this sentence as WP:WIKIVOICE so it's ok to state that "some teachers thought punishing children for speaking Welsh helped them with their English". Cheezypeaz (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, yes, incontrovertible facts are facts. My answer to the question in your newly numbered point no. 8 is that, yes, I agree that it is a straight fact too. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, you are asking seven Wikipedia editors whether they agree to an eight point statement about a controversial issue, so you are unlikely to get agreement. I would recommend reading the policy on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and the guideline on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. TSventon (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon Hi, I'm not asking for agreement. I'm asking if anyone disagrees. Which items do you disagree with? Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, I disagree with the approach of making an 8 point statement about a contentious topic and would recommend starting with Wikipedia policies instead. I wholly or partially disagree with all 8 but I don't think it would be a good use of my time explaining every detail. For example no. 2 says "Statements by historians are FACTS", but there are different interpretations of statements by historians: an early 20th century example I am familiar with is R. G. Collingwood's description of statements by historians as "reconstructions" in The Idea of History. TSventon (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon OK, one by one it is :) Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, I think your chances are a lot better one by one, particularly if you can quotr Wikipedia policies. By the way, I regret not having any more recent author on historiography to quote at short notice. TSventon (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon I think you are correct (again) grrrrr :) Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you trying to change Wikipedia Cheesy?! I disagree with 7; you're wasting our time. The 1st hand evidence by a child at that time, is worth more than a history Prof from Cambridge. NPOV is arrived at by focusing on good reliable sources, as Llywelyn has said a hundred times. Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, which "1st hand evidence by a child" is that, and in which source? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, DeFacto Is this a reference to (6)? Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Little knowledge is a dangerous thing! Every Welsh school child would know! Cell Danwydd (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's do this the slow and painful way. Starting with item (4)

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb (If you wish to be removed from this notification please tell me)

4) Academic papers which are not published in history journals should NOT appear in this article as sources of history. Reason: They have not been reviewed by historians and are therefore not reliable.

I intend to delete the following...

a) Susan E. Pitchford (Part time sociology lecturer, Liberal Studies Program, University of Washington Bothell Campus) has claimed in an ethnic tourism paper...

b) Pritchard and Morgan (both from the School of Hospitality, Leisure & Tourism, University of Wales Institute) add, in a tourism management paper...

Reason for deletion: They are NOT historians and the papers have NOT been published in history journals and so cannot be relied on for peer review by historians.

This is not a call for consensus. It's a chance for you to tell me how wrong I am.

I will delete them in 24 hours time. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I would have to agree that those two papers seem somewhat tangential to the subject of the article, not to mention non-noteworthy in themselves. Deb (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Deb I skimmed through the ethnic tourism paper, my reaction was - Don't do it Wales! Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, I support deletion, they've been tagged, and there has been no attempt to defend them. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto Thanks for your input, I will give it the full 24 hours to wait for any other responses Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No objection to deletion. But hey, I guess these things have become "tourist attractions" these days (like this and this). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that tourism journals are not good sources for statements about history and therefore with deletion. TSventon (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, TSventon Thanks for responding Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted the content discussed above Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld. Editor Cell Danwydd has reinstated the content discussed above and also removed the text that describes the qualifications of the people making the statements, what types of papers they are and where they were published. The description of their edit is "Reinstate facts in academic papers which have been censored by vandalism". Cell Danwydd Please engage with the arguments above and also please explain why you think my edit was vandalism. Thanks Cheezypeaz

My edit to remove the content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1044890848&oldid=1044637331

Cell Danwydd edit to reinstate https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1044941496&oldid=1044909630

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld. Cell Danwydd Repeating notification because I didn't sign it properly. I keep doing that grrrr. Please see my response above. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted Cell Danwydd change and asked that they address the changes here Cheezypeaz (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's do this the slow and painful way: Item (3) (The David Williams part)

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb (If you wish to be removed from this notification please tell me)

At the moment we have...

Journalist David Williams writing on the IWA website[clarification needed] claims that "teachers would try and kill off the language by hanging a piece of wood around the neck of pupils who spoke Welsh"[6] however Professor of History at Swansea University Martin Johnes argues that the purpose of the Welsh Not was to teach English[7]: 100, 102  and there was no desire to kill off the Welsh language.[7]: 100, 102  

url: https://www.iwa.wales/agenda/2010/10/has-a-welsh-knot-replaced-the-welsh-not/

Reason for deletion: (Deletion of the David Williams part, the Martin Johnes part will stay!)

David Williams is not an historian. The web page has not been peer reviewed by historians. The claim is not backed up by any analysis or references to published history.

We would be better off asking a random person on the street for their opinion because that random person might just turn out to be an historian specialising in Welsh history. Which David Williams isn't.

This is not a call for consensus. It's a chance for you to tell me how wrong I am.

I will delete this in 24 hours time. Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This content is third or fourth hand, at best. There's no shortage of material so we don't need to resort to this kind of "popular" source. Deb (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Um, you're deleting Martin Johnes too? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 Just the David Williams part! :) Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, sounds good to me per WP:DUE and WP:RS. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Martin Johnes' comments are taken out of context; it's obvious that whoever used these two bits (from to seperate pages!) joined together on wiki into one sentence, and has not read the whole book. You're also mocking professional journalists. Are we now to change WP policy on using newspapers as sources? Let me say it straight: what you're suggesting here is wrong. My suggestion is to delete Martin Johnes' comments until we've all had a chance to read his book. Cell Danwydd (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Secondly, 'teachers would try and kill off the language...' is correct. It did happen. 'The purpose of the Welsh Not is completely different. 'However' separating both is nonsense and bad English! We have another chapter discussing the purpose. And the purpose was discussed elsewhere. All of the following are correct:

1. to punish children. Why?

2. to stop them speaking Welsh. Why?

3. 'to teach English'. Why?

4. to assimilate Wales / Welsh people into England. (This needs a whole new article).

Taking one out of context is misinformation. All 4 need to in the same paragraph.

Agreed? Cell Danwydd (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd This discussion is about the use of David Williams as a source of history, please address that topic here. If you want to question my interperation of Martin Johnes's comments then please create a new section, I will be happy to respond to any concerns you have there. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd I have reverted your deletion of this whole section with the request that you address the topic here. Cheezypeaz (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Having received no objections to my proposed deletion of the David Williams claim I have gone ahead and deleted it. Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Which bit of my objection did you not understand? I said: You're also mocking professional journalists. Are we now to change WP policy on using newspapers as sources? Let me say it straight: what you're suggesting here is wrong. That's an objection. I will revert. Cell Danwydd (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that the source (an IWA review by Williams of his own The Welsh Knot, with Dr. Gwyn Lewis, Leighton Andrews and Professor Colin Baker), says this: "The Welsh Knot is a Presentable Production for BBC Wales. David Williams, who both presents and produces the programme, is a Welsh speaker. In this article he is expressing his own personal views." Although he's not described exactly as "a journalist" there, the programme he's made seems pretty relevant to this subject. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

David Williams' article is about the Welsh language in the 21st century, so the part of a sentence on the Welsh not quoted here is not a high quality source and should be deleted. TSventon (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

That article is really about the one-hour 2010 television documentary programme The Welsh Knot from Presentable Ltd. Have you watched it? Yes, that is "about the Welsh language in the 21st century". Perhaps the reference ought to be to that programme itself? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC) p.s. there's a version which has been uploaded to YouTube by britishdocs since 24th October 2010. Assume it's a copyvio.

Martinevans123, I think it was reasonable to comment on David Williams' article having read the article, but not seen the programme. I have now seen it: it was interesting on the 21st century, but didn't discuss the Welsh not in depth, so I don't think it is any better as a source for this article. TSventon (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd You did not seem to be addressing the reason for the proposed deletion.

• You alleged bad faith editing regarding Martin Johnes.
• Mocking professional journalism, even if true, is an observation not an objection.
• You asked what I took to be a sarcastic question about using newspapers as sources.
• You suggested removing the authorative source and keeping the opinion of a journalist.
• The fact that you, I, or anyone else believes something to be true is irrelevant. It's what the subject matter experts in reliable sources tell us is true that counts, in this case historians in published books, peer reviewed journals etc.
• You then discussed the purpose of the Welsh Not

It appears I missed what could be construed as a relevant objection. Your statement "Are we now to change WP policy on using newspapers as sources?"

No we are not trying to change WP policy. The ability to use some newspapers in some circumstances as sources in wikipedia should not override other more basic Wikipedia policies.

For example here are 3 reasons we should not be quoting David Williams.

WP:BESTSOURCES 
"Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources."

David Williams is a journalist not an historian. He is neither reputable nor authoritative on the subject matter. He might be reputable and authoritative if the subject matter was journalism or producing tv programs.

WP:FALSEBALANCE
"currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." 

Comparing the David Williams claim (who is neither reputable nor authoritative on this topic) with a history written by a reputable and authoritative historian is false balance.

WP:NEWSORG
"Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics." 

Note: The IWA website is't even a news organisation. Nor does it have a reputation for fact checking. It can't be compared to The Times newspaper. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that editor Cell Danwydd has been busy editing today and has now re-instated the David Williams quote. I will remove it. Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

NB

The Martin Johnes quote (above by Cell Danwydd) has not been addressed:

Martin Johnes' comments are taken out of context; it's obvious that whoever used these two bits (from to seperate pages!) joined together on wiki into one sentence, and has not read the whole book

If this community was neutral, it would have found the sources and responded. Monsyn (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn I asked him to create a new section for that discussion...

"Cell Danwydd This discussion is about the use of David Williams as a source of history, please address that topic here. If you want to question my interperation of Martin Johnes's comments then please create a new section, I will be happy to respond to any concerns you have there. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)" 

I haven't seen it yet. Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Contributions here by Cheesy and DeFacto verge on vandalism

Cheezypeaz and DeFacto's contributions to this talk page, and to much of the article are on the verge of vandalism. A lot of political gas. Please stop it both of you. Cell Danwydd (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, please supply diffs and a rationale to substantiate your allegations. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Nearly all your edits, one by one. Cell Danwydd (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, are you saying that Cheezypeaz and DeFacto's editing is Wikipedia:Vandalism, i.e. "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose"? "Political gas" sounds like a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, which the policy lists as an example of things that are not vandalism. TSventon (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've said two things. Both are correct. Cell Danwydd (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, I am sure Cheezypeaz and DeFacto will answer for themselves, but I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Vandalism and withdraw what you have said in this section. TSventon (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Read what I said: on the verge of vandalism; non-neutral pov taken to the extreme is vandalism. Cell Danwydd (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I read the section header that you created "Contributions here are nothing less than vandalism". Yes, you said 'on the verge of vandalism' in the next line, but the header is there in big print. It's doesn't seem to be good faith, nor does the claim "a lot of political gas". Llwyld (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, per WP:WIAPA, "Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links". I asked for them above, it is your duty to supply them in support of your words. Diffs are easy, why wouldn't you supply them if you are behaving in good faith here? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article has been hijacked by Cheesy and DeFacto. I agree with Cell Danwydd. Monsyn (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you please provide examples of the article not being neutral, and diffs supporting the allegation of 'hijacking' the article's neutrality? There's been a lot of editing of this article in recent weeks, it would good to see where the it is going astray. Llwyld (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Llwyld You may want to read the two conversations above which both start with "Let's do this the slow and painful way" They explain the rational for my edits. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have read above. There is clearly a disagreement, but I don't see any evidence of vandalism and the hijacking of the article's neutrality that Cell Danwydd has claimed (and Monsyn has agreed with). Llwyld (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Llwyld, I think that Cell Danwydd disagrees with the changes in article content since Cheezypeaz started editing on 1 August this year, which they view as "non-neutral pov taken to the extreme", but that is a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute rather than Wikipedia:Vandalism. TSventon (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn, please supply diffs and a rationale to substantiate your allegations. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's do this the slow and painful way. Unexpected bonus item: Source check please regarding cultural genocide

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld (If you wish to be removed from this notification please tell me)

From the Department of "You Didn't See That Coming"

Currently we have...

"Some Welsh people have described the use of the Welsh Not as a 'weapon to create cultural genocide', others welcomed the use of it because they believed that it was a method which helped children learn English.[5]"

I don't have access to this book and it seems an odd thing for an encyclopedia to say.

• When I do a text search on that exact phrase in google "weapon to create cultural genocide" only one result is returned and it's the Welsh Not page.
• When I do a 'search inside' on the following google books link it returns one result for "genocide" which appears to be something to do with Roman Britain and zero results for "cultural genocide"

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Welsh_Academy_Encyclopaedia_of_Wales/-ZEUAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=The%20Welsh%20Academy%20Encyclopaedia%20of%20Wales

So what does the "The Welsh Academy encyclopaedia of Wales" Say about "cultural genocide"?

Thanks! Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, the English version of TWAEoW contains around 3300 articles, and one of them is entitled "Welsh Not(e)" and contains two paragraphs and is about 300 words long. It's second paragraph starts with the following sentence: "Welsh patriots view the Welsh Not(e) as an instrument of cultural genocide, although it was welcomed by some parents as a way of ensuring that their children made daily use of English." -- DeFacto (talk). 20:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto Thanks! Case Closed!!!! Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Very strong keep. Your non-neutral pov is equally as strong, to question the use of cultural genocide by an academic encyclopaedia. Read: WP:BIAS. Cell Danwydd (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep, obviously. Presumably the page number given, p. 942, is correct? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, Martinevans123 It was kept because it comes from a reputable authoratative source. You can see I kept it by looking at my edit "Better synonym for the original 'instrument' is 'implement' so changed from 'weapon'. Also added ref because it's so striking & so won't get split up in case of future edits" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1045112719&oldid=1045089322

This was done 12 hours before your reply here Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

So, would you like me to now strike out or remove my comment? Perhaps you could have amended this thread to reflect your edit? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 Absolutely not. I took no offence whatsoever from your comment. My "case closed" clearly wasn't clear to everyone. I regarded my edit as minor housekeeping to avoid future editors from questioning the quote. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, p. 942, yes. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a gaping hole in the account

Reading through the article, there is a big gap in the history of the device: when was it first introduced, by whom, and what was the reasoning behind it? We see that there was an account of it being used in the 1790s - is that when it was first introduced? Who asked for it - politicians, schools, clergy, parents, business owners?

I think we need to concentrate on trying to answer those questions next. Any ideas? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto I think we need a section on when it was used & the extent of usage. This would be fairly easy to do because Martin Johnes does address the topic. Though it will be somewhat vague given that he says it's basically impossible to know. I'm assuming the Welsh encyclopedia makes some comment on it and also John Davies in a A History of Wales (I'm still waiting for my library to get this book in.) Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto Warning this is me speculating, not history: The Welsh Not appears to be something thought up by individual teachers(???). This is indicated by the variety of names & ways it was used. We have tended to homogenise it by giving it one name and leaving out any examples that don't fit. For example Johnes relates someone's experience of schooling which said the teacher just hit them for any using welsh, turning round in class, whispering etc. So that's not an example of the Welsh Not but it's the same thing! He also gives another example of a school rewarding children for not speaking welsh. All the teachers were trying to teach english. It's just common sense that forcing the children to USE english as much as possible would improve their english ability. The only way of enforcing this would do either use a punishment or reward. How did they fix on a token?? I have no idea. Maybe there are other examples of tokens in use? The dunce's hat? Maybe an example appeared in a newspaper story and spread like that? Do any historians cover this topic? Sometimes there are just gaps in history. Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely rediculous! Cheezypeaz deletes my new Chapter title Purpose, with NO REASON! Next thing DeFActo starts this thread which is about the purpose of the Welsh Not. Both of you are working in tandem, together. What follows is abosloute rediculous, and tells me that you don't know anything about Welsh History. It is nothing less than an attempt to rewirte history. And because both of you understand the rules, they are being bent left right and center, and some of the community actually think that what you're doing here is fine! It's not. You are bringing in Martin Johnes and ignoring the other 20+ historians who have written on this subject for over 150 years. Wikipedia is now so, so BIAS. Cell Danwydd (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

When did the Welsh Not first appear? Perhaps one or more of those "20+ historians who have written on this subject for over 150 years" could tell us? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC) p.s. not sure those two editors have even got a bike, let alone a tandem.

Cell Danwydd What history books should we all refer to? Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd These are the books I have...

• A history of education in Wales, available on amazon uk £4.00 - it does not refer to the Welsh Not - (well no mention in the index and I've just read/reading the early chapters up to the end of the 19c).
• The Welsh Language and its social domains. Does mention the Welsh Not - You can download it somewhere.
• Wales:England's First Colony? I bought mine on kindle about £4.70 it includes page numbers
• I've ordered a history of Wales - Davies from my local library - still waiting for that

Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto I think your addition to the lead "When or by whom it was first introduced is not known, and it has no documented use before the 1790s and little evidence of use after the end of the 1840s" needs to be based on referenced content in the article body. The BBC blog says "There is strong evidence of the Welsh Not in Carmarthen, Cardigan and Meirionnydd before 1870" so the 1840s is probably too early a date for the Not's disappearance. TSventon (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, the lead is supposed to be a neutral introduction, and summary of the most important bits of the rest of the article. In summarising the article, I payed attention to the weight and quality of the sources too. That piece, supported by the blog, persuaded me to write "little" rather than "no" in: "... and little evidence of use after the end of the 1840s". But you are, of course, free to tweak it as you see fit, as I did. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

PS: countering it we have "The Welsh Not had virtually ceased being used by the time the government's state of education in Wales inquiry "Blue Books" reports were published in 1847", "Ford discusses the paucity of evidence that the 'Not' existed", '"it is unlikely that the use of the 'Welsh Note' is was as widespread as the mythology of the twentieth century maintains"'. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, thank you for pointing to the first sentence in your PS, which does support what you added to the lead. Could you quote what TWAEoW says about when use of the Not ended? I agree there is a "paucity of evidence", but that seems to be an issue throughout the history of the Not. I posted in this section because answering your questions at the beginning of the section would give better information to summarise in the lead. TSventon (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, all that TWAEoW seems to say about when it was used is: "It was already in use when the authors of the notorious education report of 1847 came to Wales". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, TWAEoW seems to support the wording before your edit of 11:02, 14 September. What does Martyn Ford say? I could only find a discussion of whether there is evidence it existed at all, rather than after 1847. TSventon (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC).

TSventon, from a skim through it, there's a generously referenced section in Ford's book in which he discusses, at great length, the 'Blue Books' reports and the relationship between the Welsh and English languages and the perceived desire that despite Welsh being the mother tongue, that English should be the language of education. In the discussion about the challenge of using English for education he poses the question: "What of the ‘Welsh Not’? Looking for evidence of its use at the time, he says "The problem, however, is that the evidence for such a practice is hard to come by". He describes how "in a major study, one historian [Sian Williams] failed to find a single example of its use in the industrialised western part of Monmouthshire in the nineteenth century" and of the examination of 19th century school log books, in which teachers recorded "issues of note" daily, "three schools in Welsh areas of south Wales, namely Rhigos, Pontardawe and Cadoxton near Neath, the results cast serious doubt on whether the ‘Welsh Not’ even existed". He then discusses a later (1880s?) examination of the logs for a school in a Welsh-speaking area where he says "this would be a community where the ‘Welsh Not' should have been used widely", and "yet during the years 1876 to 1880, there is not a single example of the practice." He singles-out one place where in the logs "there is reference to chastisement, for lateness, truancy and fighting, but none for speaking Welsh" and another where "its books between 1863 and 1870 make no mention of the ‘Welsh Not’, although it often refers to punishment for ‘deceit and lying’, or theft". He concludes that "the ‘Welsh Not’ has served as a useful means of propaganda for a mixed bag of anti-imperialists, left-wing historians, and misguided nationalists".

DeFacto, the article reference is to Ford's chapter 6. I have read what is available through Google books, including what you summarised, and Ford seems to be arguing that his research suggests the Welsh Not was little used, not that it had "virtually ceased being used by ... 1847" which you added here using Ford as a reference. TSventon (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, I was trying to balance the sourced opinions we have without totally disregarding any of them. I guess it could have been more tightly worded - feel free to replace it. We have a few sources now which are sceptical about its prevalence, and even suggesting it's use has been exaggerated for 'political' purposes. We also need to be careful how we interpret 'contemporary' accounts given a lifetime after the fact. Perhaps we need to try and better collate what we've got and try to cover it all, with due weight and attribution. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, thank you, I will look for a statement by a reliable source on when the Welsh Not declined. It may be that there are several different estimates. I broadly agree with your other points. TSventon (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, I notice you removed the lack of a whom from the lead; do you have any reliably sourced clues as to who might have introduced the 'Not'? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Does Davies blame the British state?

I removed this recent addition:

"John Davies in his A History of Wales (Penguin; 1994) lays the blame for The Acts of Union, the Welsh Not and the Treachery of the Blue Books on the British State."

It was sourced to page 652 of Davies's book which, in relation to 1960s British government spending on Welsh arts says:

"It almost seemed as if that state was experiencing a fit of remorse and was paying compensation for the defeat of Llywelyn, the Act of 'Union', the English bishops, the 'Treachery of the Blue Books' and the 'Welsh Note'".

Was I right to remove it, or was it a neutral and fair summary of that sentence? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

No you were not.

To translate the actual words into simple English, Davies is saying that 'paying for the arts in Wales was the British state's way of saying sorry for past wrongs....'

Saying sorry means they were wrong in Davies' mind; guilty of the three examples.' Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, his invocation of Llywelyn (13th century), the Act of 'Union' (16th century), and the English bishops confirms it in my mind as a tongue in cheek/sarcastic/flippant/ironic way of praising the generosity of the late 20th century British government and not as a a way of blaming them for things that happened in the distant past, even centuries before the UK was even formed. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto Interesting question. Was the arts funding very generous? Seems like a figure of speach to emphasise that? Strange that if he meant it literally that it would be in the context of arts funding. He must have dealt with these topics in other chapters, what he says there would be more relevant. So I'm guessing you are correct but I'm still waiting on the library for that book. Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto Google books "Welsh drama, the National Eisteddfod and bodies such as the Welsh academy...were heavily dependent upon the patronage of the British State. It almost seemed..." Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, maybe grudgingly praising it? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

'Does Davies blame the British state'?

Of course he does! He's talking about the British State.

That' exactly what he says, regardless of what he says elsewhere! Guilty! Monsyn (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn, do you think he blames a 19th century phenomenon for something that happened in the 13th century? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto,Monsyn,Cell Danwydd This is a very interesting question. Perhaps we can request an experienced wikipedia history editor to advise us? I don't know how to do that but if everyone is agreeable then we could explore that option. Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Not needed. The words speak for themselves. Cell Danwydd (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, there's a Wiki history project - it might be worth asking about it on its talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto,Monsyn,Cell Danwydd. I've been waiting for at least a three of weeks for this book from the library with a £1.00 reservation fee. So I just bought the kindle version for £1.99 and looked this quote up so could understand the context. Unfortunately for £1.99 they did not include a page number file. Grrrr. But I think I have found the quote and you can imagine my surprise.... And it's gone! (to quote Southpark). That claim no longer exists in the 2007 edition.

"The Welsh Arts Council was established in 1967, an important milestone in the history of culture in Wales. By 1979, the council was receiving an annual grant of £3.8 million; specifically Welsh-language activities received only a small part of the grant, but by the late twentieth century Welsh drama, the National Eisteddfod and bodies such as the Welsh Academy (founded in 1959) were heavily dependent upon the patronage of the British state. It has already been suggested that by the 1950s the Welsh economy was the most socialistic in Britain. A decade or two later, Welsh culture, in particular its Welsh-language aspects, was equally socialistic." (from "A History of Wales" by John Davies) 

Case closed! Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

My statement was still correct (note the date): "John Davies in his A History of Wales (Penguin; 1994)... but if he decided to take it out, then let's do the same. Cell Danwydd (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd Cool. Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, good work! I wonder what else he's changed. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto No idea. I just downloaded it and did a quick search. :) Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

What historians say about the extent of usage and timescale of the welsh not

Just a quick scan of the books...

Martin Johnes in Wales:England's Colony? page 96-103: education report only found one usage suggesting it's use wasn't widespread in the middle of the 19 century, earlist record of it in the 1790s, quantifying how widespread it was is impossible. majority of accounts come from the mid 19c. wider evidence suggests it was in decline after the middle of the 19c. by late 19c contemporaries were speaking of it as a curiosity of the past. example from Anglesey in 1875 for older children only, type of punishment not recorded. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: Martin Johnes is creating an interactive map of first hand reports of the usage of the Welsh Not.

Davies A History of Wales "Talks about the Welsh language getting grant status in the 1880s & existance in primary schools prior before 1889 "it is unlikely that the use of the 'Welsh Note' was as widespreat as later mythology maintains." - (He doesn't seem very interested in the topic.)

A history of education in Wales doesn't seem to mention it at all.

That's original research. Stick to facts collected by historians please! Gwyddoniadur Cymru (p. 954) states that people were writing about their experiences of the WN in the 19th and 20c. Cell Danwydd (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd I don't understand your response. Please clarify. I was simply listing out what the history books I had access to said about usage and timescale. Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Gathering info on individual schools as you say Martin Johnes is doing, and including your research on wiki is not on. The period is already stated in the Encyclopaedia of Wales /Gwyddoniadur Cymru and other more authoritative works. Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd Martin Johnes can do exactly what he pleases. I merely mentioned it out of interest. The fact that he is doing it implies that no one has done a comprehensive survey of usage before. When he finishes it may contribute to our understanding of how extensively the Welsh Not was used and over what time period. Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd what do more authoritative works say about the period of use? I understand that the Encyclopaedia of Wales /Gwyddoniadur Cymru mentions "Richard Warner in the late 18th century", and says "It was already in use" in 1847. TSventon (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon The end period is mentioned in the Encyclopaedia of W. I have the Welsh version. It mentions that it was around during the Treachery of the Blue Books inquiery, and that many people wrote in the 19th and 20th their recollections on how they had suffered by the WN punishment. I'm sure DeFacto will give it to you verbatim as he has an English copy. Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd thank you, I had seen that somewhere, but someone writing in the 20th century could have been recalling an experience 70 years earlier, so it is not very specific, I will continue looking. TSventon (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The Welsh Language and it's Social Domains.

• Page 471: The Revised Code of 1 August 1863 lead to more widespread use of the Welsh Not
• Page 485: The evidence of school log books, such as the those of the school at Trap ... suggests ... short time period only ..."
• Page 486: "... most common in the period before 1870"

Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's do this the slow and painful way: Martyn Ford is not a historian, he's a what???

The community decided to delete information by Journalist David Williams writing on the IWA website. We have two quotes from Martyn Ford who is not a renowned or notable historian. I will delete these if there's no objection. Cell Danwydd (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd If he's not a reputable authoritative source on the subject matter then he shouldn't be used as a source of history. Who is he? Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld per Cheezypeaz, Cell Danwydd, are you allowing 24 hours for this? I have said earlier on this page that I am sceptical about Martyn Ford as a source. I would argue that work by academics of language or education would also be relevant. My problem with David Williams wasn't that he was a journalist, but that he had made a programme and then written an article about Welsh in the 21st century and mentioned the Welsh Not once in each, so it wasn't obvious how much research underlay that mention. TSventon (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon Editor Cell Danwydd or someone else needs to explain why Martyn Ford isn't an authoritative, reputable source. I'm guessing it would be fairly simple to do.

• If he is an authoritative, reputable source then we can just take what he says as gospel.
• If he isn't an authoritative, reputable source then what he says is worthless. However if he has given his sources then we can potentially use those ourselves.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz your alternatives are too simplistic Wikipedia:Reliable sources says Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment. TSventon (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon "your alternatives are too simplistic" If he's done original research then it's a history book we can use as a source. If he's just giving his opinion of what historians say then we should use those historians directly. I haven't got a copy so I don't know. We haven't got many sources as it is so we could use another source. Jones & Davies hardly mention the Welsh Not. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

NO! If nothing of substance is found regarding his bona fide, then I'll delete his citations! I'll give this another 24 hours just in case someone can. I've failed. Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I did a quick search on the internets :)

"Martyn Ford formerly served as a councillor on a local authority in Swansea. He has recently acquired an M.A. in history from Swansea University, and obtained a first degree at Aberystwyth University in 1976."

https://www.amberley-books.com/author-community-main-page/f/community-martyn-ford.html

His book is published by Amberley_Publishing Amberley's tagline "Leading the way with local and specialist history" They seem like a legitimate publisher (not a vanity publisher) specialising in UK history.

He's an ex UKIP Councillor as has been discussed before and seems to get some bad book reviews on that basis.

I haven't read the book.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a vanity, or self-published book, and doesn't fall foul of any of the no-nos mentioned in WP:QUESTIONABLE, so would pass as a reliable source per WP:RS. Remember too, per WP:BIASED, that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" and "sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject".

I have skimmed through the book, and noted that the bases for his arguments were well referenced - the book has more than 300 references in its footnotes section at the back.

Given all that, I support using this source in this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say his book has been published by a reputable publisher, so it can be used as a source, however he is not a university historian, so better sources may be available in some cases. TSventon (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This person wrote the book following his BA in history! He is not a professional historian.' Publishers commission provocative quasi-factual stuff in order to sell their books not for them to be taken as academic thesis or godspell! Reading this Talk page makes me wonder am I on Wikipedia or MakeItUp-Pedia. Monsyn (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Strong delete. Pathetic source! An MA in history and he's notable? OMG! John Jones (talk)

The new image.

Cell Danwydd is concerned that I deleted this image and left this message on my talk page...

Your deletion here of a very relevant image needs a full expalnation. The Template:Image requested, on the page, requests an image. The Talk page also requests an image. The image you deleted is not only relevant to the device but also to its application. Please expalin fully, otherwise your deletion will be viewed as a very biased edit. Cell Danwydd (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

A CGI image. A rather obvious CGI image. Poor quality. We already have a nice image. So I deleted it. There's enough fakery on this page already.

Historical accuracy: Is she suppost to be Somali? Because the Somali sailers didn't arrive until after 1869 and only started to bring their families over in the 1960s https://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/wales/w_se/article_2.shtml The Somali comunity lived in english speaking Cardiff - Lingden reports that english was the mother tongue for most of the southern coastline in 1846.

In any case, immigrants = port towns; port towns = english speaking.

Hanging something around the neck of a black child in a CGI fantasy is poor taste.

The image requested template on the talk page has been there since 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Welsh_Not&diff=905777305&oldid=791794402

DeFacto added a nice image on 20 August 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1039719903&oldid=1039717568

We still have an image requested template. I assume that's why another image was added

Does anyone else have an opinion? Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I find the image crudely made, poor quality and in poor taste. But it is an illustration of how the Welsh not *might* have been used, even if it is, as pointed out above, likely historically inaccurate. I would hope that a better illustration could be found and this one deleted in due course. Llwyld (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the potential historical ethnicity anomalies or offence to Welsh heritage alluded to above, but think the image has value in that it gives a visual clue as to how the thing might have been worn. I'm not sure that the block would have been precision moulded or cast, or machined out of a solid block as it appears in that image either. The images on the website of National Museum Wales make them look very homemade - with the lettering scratched or chiselled into a small scrap of wood. But I don't really have any strong opinion as to whether it should be kept until something more realistic turns up or removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto I was concerned that it might be offensive to people of African heritiage given the history of slavery and the iconography of the image: the plain undecorated dress, the downturned head, the message board worn around the neck, the dark background implying imprisonment, etc. Was this image repurposed from something else? Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz - your notes on ethnic people in Wales astound me! I hadn't realised that she was black until I read your stuff. I also agree with DeFacto and Llwyld that it shows how the Not would have been worn. Keep! Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

(Aside: how many black children were there in Welsh schools in the 1700s and 1800s? Or in any schools at that time, for that matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC) )

(Martinevans123, Black Welsh people is just a list, but according to 1919 South Wales race riots Cardiff's black or Asian population in 1911 was around 700. TSventon (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC) )

Thanks for the info. But my question(s) still stand(s). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The ethnicity aspect is a red herring. The image is fictitious, poorly made and in bad taste, and should be removed, and not allowed to return. -- The Anome (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

She got braids, dude. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the Anome that it is a poorly made fictitious image and should be removed, but it seems at least plausible that it has been drawn that way deliberately, to evoke images of slavery, which are very misplaced here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It's illustrative and shows how the WN was worn. Why do you say 'poorly made' Ghmyrtle? I say keep, well made. We could also request a white child, of course! No policy for excluding computer graphics on real world articles as far as I know! Please prove me wrong. Monsyn (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

We could request a real child (family permissions permitting)? Or would that be considered child exploitation? (Whites only, of course.) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn - There may be no policy against using computer graphics, but they have the potential to be seriously misleading, as in this case (skin tone, hair style, apparently machined wood block, etc.) and in my view should be avoided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was a promo still for the new video game WelshFortNot. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: how rediculous! Are you saying that that skin tone and hair style did not exist in Wales at that time?!!! Until you come up with a better one this should stay. At least it shows how the WN was worn. More pluses than minuses. Monsyn (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It's extremely unlikely that pupils with that (dark) skin tone and that (braided) hair style were punished at that time for speaking Welsh in schools. The image is, at best, uncharacteristic, unnecessary and misleading, drawn from imagination, and appears to be deliberately provocative by seeking to associate the punishment with slavery. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Your remark regarding connecting the image with slavery is a step too far, and is in fact an accusation. Withdraw. John Jones (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle Whether it's unlikely matters not! It was possible, and we need to decolonise pages like these! I'll ask the artist for a white girl, just for you! Is blond ok? Or do you prefer red? Interesting that you connect a black girl with slavery! Rediculous! Tread carefuly please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Cell Danwydd (talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. We do not illustrate what may be "possible", we use illustrations that are relevant and add encyclopedic value. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Presumably you'd be happy with a picture, CGI or real, showing a Chinese girl or an Aboriginal Australian boy wearing the WN? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest they would have been in a very tiny minority. And would have been very much less likely to be Welsh-speaking. But I guess we'd have to research further (e.g. [3]), to get more precise numbers? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 Thanx for the link there to the NLW list! Wonderful content, which I was not aware of! Cell Danwydd (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I've marked the creepy child punishment images for deletion on Commons. Let's not post them on here, please. -- The Anome (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

We're not allowed to see "creepy" images? Perhaps we'll have nightmares? Surely you mean "strikingly realistic"? I'm not saying they are suitable here. But that seems a bit harsh. I see that your rationale over there is: "CGI fantasy image being used to illustrate article; real images exist, and this is in poor taste." But do any real (copyright-free) images exist of any child wearing the WN? It seems they have yet to be tracked down for use in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The Anome You should not delete whilst there's an ongoing discussion, regardless of what's happening on Commons. Do it a third time, and I'll get an admin to ban you. John Jones (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

John Jones I see you have posted a new image. Sorry but I still don't like it. I just don't think CGI is appropriate for this type of thing. I'd suggest improvements but I think I'd be wasting your time because even then I wouldn't like it. Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

John Jones Still reminds me of a slave girl, this time a Roman one. Also you should not unilaterally change the image whilst there's an ongoing discussion. Please revert your change.Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

A dubious parallel

There is a parallel included "Scotland – A maide-crochaidh ("hanging stick") was placed round the child's neck, if heard speaking Gaelic. In the 1850's at Camaghouran, "any boy or girl caught speaking Gaelic during school hours was punished by having a human skull suspended round the head for the rest of the day.Children speaking Gaelic were often "belted and faced further corporal punishment if they did not give up the names of classmates they had been talking to.""

I find it very unlikely that an actual human skull would be hung around the neck of any schoolchild...and reading the reference that supports this, it seems to be a second or third hand anecdote unsupported by any other sources. "a man from Rannoch...recalled an older neighbour telling him how children who spoke Gàidhlig in their school were treated by the schoolmaster." I can't find any other similar claims, bar copies of that article posted elsewhere.

I propose to remove this supposed parallel. Thoughts? Llwyld (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the use of a skull looks like a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, which should only be included in Wikipedia if supported by multiple high-quality sources. According the reference the evidence for what happened in the 1850s is the recollections of an "old man of eighty-eight", recorded in the memoirs of another man in the 1920s and published in 1981. It was discussed earlier on this page without reaching a conclusion. The maide-crochaidh ("hanging stick") needs a better reference.

Incidentally the quoted source seems to be copied from another page on the same website https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/12/04/education-and-the-colonisation-of-the-gaidhlig-mind-2/.

I have found Transactions of the Gaelic Society of Inverness, Volume 51 on Google books at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gi8tAAAAIAAJ and most of the quoted passage is visible via snippet view "sternly discouraged in the early fifties, for an old man of eighty-eight, Duncan Cameron, now living next door to me here at Druimchruaidh, told me that when he was going to school at Camaghouran, any boy or girl caught speaking Gaelic during school hours was punished by having a human skull suspended round the head for the rest of the". TSventon (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and decolonise by adding a poorly made CGI rendered image of a child of non-european ancestry eating a haggis whilst wearing a human skull around their neck. Just kidding, the haggis isn't important and would be an offensive stereotype - no need to actually identify the child as Scottish - however it would be important to convey the idea of English oppression so perhaps include Jacob Reese-Mogg in his top hat and tails in the background looking sinister. To sum up my thoughts: remove for WP:PRIMARY, WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Image 2: changed as per recommendations by the community

This is a new image, white skinned, European young girl with new Welsh Not block of wood. Discussion please. I think all the above comments were taken aboard. John Jones (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

This glossy faux-realistic CGI image of a child being punished conveys nothing which cannot be read in the text of the article, does not depict any real-world event, and is of no encyclopedic merit. What motivates you to create images like this? -- The Anome (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

This excellent cg image of a child about to be punished, with face hidden, illustrates what's in the article. It depicts the real-world event in good taste and is of encyclipaedic merit. What motivates you The Anome to try and censor / delete this illustration? Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with sharing "the sum of all human knowledge". Strong keep! Monsyn (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It's repulsive. It represents someone's fantasy of a child being punished, and they are apparently motivated enough to produce version after version of the same image until they get it published here. While Wikipedia is not censored, it is only for material of encyclopedic merit, and this isn't it. -- The Anome (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

"Being punished" or "about to be punished"? If this was an image of a real child, with a real WN, posing in a similar way, would that be any less repulsive for you? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It is less bad than the first image, but the hand position (appearing to push someone away) seems to be editorialising, which we should avoid. I agree with The Anome that it has little encyclopedic value. It may be better to ask whether any of the images in the National Museum of Wales (here) could be made freely available. It's not obvious to me how that should be approached, but clearly they have made other images available. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Approaching the National Museum of Wales seems like a good way to go. -- The Anome (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Although they don't show how it was worn (if that's really needed, of course). Just to note, there are some "graphic" images at caning and at Paddle (spanking). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

'Excellent new image: very sensitive approach to child abuse.' Thanks! Strong keep.

Ghmyrtle's point regarding other, actual images is correct, but off the point. Both would be good. This one shows not only the device, but also the application of the WN as a form of punishment. John Jones (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Great image. And, yes, it's encyclopaedic! Cell Danwydd (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep I find this image slightly better than the one it replaces, given that the Welsh not appears less refined than the earlier image (although the string seems particularly crude and unrealistic,m and the posing contrived), but I consider it, like the earlier one, in poor taste. That someone has taken time to produce such a stylised CG image makes me somewhat uncomfortable - but perhaps that is my issue rather than the creator's. Nevertheless the image is an illustration of how the Welsh not *might* have been used. I really hope that a better illustration can be found and this one deleted in due course. Llwyld (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove, I don't think that a CGI image of a child is useful in this article for the reasons given in the discussion of the first CGI image. The time spent on this discussion could have been better spent on improving the text. TSventon (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon 100% agree with that thought. Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Ammended image

Hand lowered as requested. The strap is a leather strip. I could thicken it. Thanks all for your encouragement! John Jones (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The Museum images do not show any strap. But the article currently says "threaded onto a loop of string"? Not sure if the The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales uses the word string. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Horrible. Please delete. Cheezypeaz (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful! To repeat: keep and use!. Re: string / twine / strap - the image illustates that it suspends the 'stick' perfectly. There are several book covers with similar artistic illustartions. Cell Danwydd (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Really? Do you have any links? Do they also use CGI? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Just Google. Most are from books. this one added on this article, here, a few weeks ago was deleted within days - not fair use. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hard to tell there, I'd say. Might be string, might be a bootlace. (So the original title is Pren a Chansen ("Wood and Cane"??)). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 for what it's worth, there are quotes in the article about "a cord, and a heavy chunk of wood" (O. M. Edwards) and "a piece of wood, suspended by a string" (the Blue Books). TSventon (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead was also used, as the weight of authority. Any of these images are good, in my opinion, and yes, they do illustrate a difficult concept. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Ammended image 2

Just standing. John Jones (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks better. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

A humble compromise. Good work. Cell Danwydd (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent! Monsyn (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't count your CGI chickens, folks. Someone will say she looks like she's been handcuffed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 You just did. ;) Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

She's holding a surprise bunch of daffs for her teacher. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I'm not certain the artist has quite captured an accurate likeness of a Welsh schoolgirl of the period. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/archive-lifts-lid-life-school-9957515 Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not sure a girl would ever have been seen with bare arms at school. At least it's a white dress? We also have the question of gender bias? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I think the Victorians would have considered that dress to be underwear Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost certainly. And very skimpy underwear at that. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Surely John Jones has produced enough of these child abuse images to choose from now? Llwyld (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

We are trying to find images that are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Invented CGI images are a form of original research, in my view, and shouldn't be included, though some are obviously marginally better than others. (I'm not denying that there is a level of skill involved that I don't have.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not WP's view! There are 1000s of CGIs on WPias. Take look at the Commons Category:Computer-generated images for starters. Monsyn (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of invented images

Regardless of whether you find the the CGI images of children being inserted into this article repellent (which I do), there is already a simple policy-driven reason for removing them that will suffice. As Ghmyrtle says, they consitute original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia's rules. The attempted crowdsourcing of ideas for the images here make this worse, not better, by making the original research process obvious (for example, the discussions about ethnicity, hand position, sleeves, etc.) I've accordingly removed the image from the article. -- The Anome (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The Anome, Ghmyrtle Killer argument! Case closed. Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes. But had the article been about e.g. oxbow lakes or piston rings, I suspect the outcome may have been different. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

We can find real photographic images of oxbow lakes or piston rings, but not of 19th century school pupils in Wales being chastised. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. And there are also real oxbow lakes and piston rings that we can base illustrations upon. -- The Anome (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but doesn't stop home-made diagrams and drawings being added? Maybe CGI is a special case? Maybe the human form is a special case? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The image is based on this book cover, therefore no orignial research has been made in any way by myself. The Anome - you have been asked not to delete images, and sadly, you have done so again, for the 4th time.

Secondly, regarding The Anome and Ghmyrtle's comments on original research: the OR policy says: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments... NOW, if you believe that my images contarvene the original research policy, take it up on Commons, not here. Until you prove that my image goes against original research policy, it should illustrate the article. John Jones (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realise you had based it on an image in a published work; thanks for making that clear. So, to the extent that it resembles the published image, it's a copyright violation, and to the extent that it doesn't, it's original research. Again, it gets removed. -- The Anome (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@John Jones:

1. What source was used for the clothing on the image in question - it does not resemble the clothing on that book cover?
2. What appears in this article should be discussed here, not Commons, as the EnWiki OR policy does not apply to Commons, it has its own policies.

-- DeFacto (talk). 11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto The Anome That's not how copyright works! An image 'based' or 'resembling' another does not constitute a 'copyright violation' (you can not copyright ideas!). Take it to Commons! Request deletion there! The OR policy is on Commons, not WP! And the concensus so far is that we need an illustration showing how it was worn.

Martinevans123 I said 'based' - meaning she did not lean on the table, she wears simple attire, her face is hidden and a simple background. You can not copyright ideas like these! John Jones (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess a black girl with braids dressed in a tracksuit might be "based" on that cover. I wasn't talking about "ideas", I was talking abut an exact CGI copy. But sorry if this is just a straw Welsh girl. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The magic words here are "substantial similarity". You find yourself in a dilemma. To the extent that your image is substantially similar, it's a potential breach of copyright. To the extent that it's not substantially similar, it's original research. -- The Anome (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@John Jones, you addressed your post to me, but didn't answer my question - what source was used for the clothing on the image in question - it does not resemble the clothing on that book cover?

Also, Commons is not the right place to discus OR in this article. Commons has different policies of its own, and OR is not one of them. OR does not apply to Commons. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Um, that girl on the book cover looks like a drawing to start with? What happened to the hands clasped in front? and the long-sleeved dark shirt under the white pinafore? Also - if the CGI was copied exactly from the book cover, wouldn't that breach copyright? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Strong keep - and by the way, the above quote allowing Original Research on images (quoted by JJ) is from en-wiki! IT IS ALLOWED! Monsyn (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Monsyn: you missed the "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" part of that quote. The clothing, ethnicity, and other aspects of that image are all unpublished ideas that have been originated either in John Jones' mind, or from discussion here in this list. -- The Anome (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with The Anome that there is a WP:OR issue with the image and for that reason, specifically WP:IMAGEOR, agree that the image should not be used. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Please list any 'unpublished ideas or arguments' in the following new image

Image 4 in this Talk discussion

I've listened to your points regarding hands behind back and that she needed Victorian looking clothes (rather than 18th century, simpler, pre-uniform clothes). Now, tell me exactly what part of the image, if any, are 'unpubished'? You say that "clothing, ethnicity, and other aspects of that image are all unpublished ideas."

1. Clothing. The new image (Image 4) is from the Victorian period, non-contentious, neutral, non-pov.
2. ethnicity - You wanted a white Welsh person. Here's exactly what you requsted - non-contentious, neutral, non-pov.
3. other aspects of that image - now please tell me what do you mean with 'else'?

I've listened to you, I've amended the image, and you've done nothing but find faults. I find the negativity of the 3 new editors very strong. I have been very patient. Please be constructive as well. Just like text, we can reach a concensus. Unless of course you don't want to illustrate a Welsh child wearing the Welsh Not. And that would be a very, very biased pov. John Jones (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop. Stop. Just stop. Every single aspect of this image is either generated from your own mind, or from the discussions above here with other Wikipedia editors, and is thus clearly unpublished by any WP:RS. You are clearly hell-bent on getting some version of this image into Wikipedia, one way or another, but it has been explained to you in detail how this image constitutes original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. The WP:IMAGEOR policy is black-letter law, and is unlikely to be changed to suit you. -- The Anome (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent image! Thanks!

The Anome - Please stop. Stop. Just stop rambling and answer John Jones' question. Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Please read above: "Every single aspect of this image is either generated from your own mind, or from the discussions above here with other Wikipedia editors, and is thus clearly unpublished by any WP:RS." -- The Anome (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

'Every aspect' in my view, isn't specific enough. Please list which aspects and how they are 'unpublished'. Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The Anome It would be courteous and cool if you listed how it conflicts, rather than make sweeping statements. Good image! Schools ar that time would have been very dark places. Monsyn (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Compared to the book cover, the WN looks much smaller and less distinct. I suppose it's also slightly in shadow here. But if the whole idea of a home-made CGI image is WP:OR, then we just can't use it, no matter how "good" it looks. It's a shame, as I'm sure you're only trying your best to improve the article. You've been very receptive to other editors' suggestions here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC) p.s. had you thought of a career in book-cover design?

It seems that John Jones producing more and more refined child abuse images is not going to address the concerns raised regarding OR. Clearly, user created illustrations are used in many wikipedia articles. Praising each child abuse image shared doesn't help. Citing WP:IMAGEOR doesn't help either - John Jones is illustrating a concept that is described in this article. I don't like any of these images, and would prefer them not to be included, but that is not a policy based argument. Llwyld (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Llwyld (+ Martinevans123) - you mention 'the concerns raised regarding OR'. There are no concerns regarding OR and this image, as you can see on the WP:IMAGEOR Talk page, where I've raised this matter. As is said there: "If there is agreement that the device is accurately depicted - appearance, how it was worn, and size relative to a child - I cannot see how then the OR claims around the appearance of the CGI-based child and clothing matter as long as those are "close enough" - eg we're not showing this with a child wearing an Indian sari or a Chinese robe."

Three (non-Welsh) editors editors, DeFacto, The Anome and Cheezypeaz have said very loudly that the image goes against OR, yet are unable to list exactly why or how! They have, in my opinion, worked together like a group, sometimes shouting at editors such as this one, yesterday that they are correct. I'm now going to add the image, as OR doesn't seem to be at all relevant. By the way, do suggest further improvements to the image: the more illustrative the image, the better the reader will understand the article. Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you adding back an image that the majority of editors here consider contentious will make you very unpopular. User:Ghmyrtle has also raised objections. As I've already suggested, I'm not sure whether "any" improvements would solve the issue. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this Martin123. I'm not here to be popular, I edit Wikipedia as I belive it should be neutral and informative. Ghmyrtle has not listed his objections to the recent image, and his objections of OR has now been crushed on the the WP:IMAGEOR Talk page. Other editors have voiced their agreement in such an image, including John Jones, Llwyld, Monsyn and Llywelyn2000. Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

NB The image is on br.wikipedia.org, es, eu, fr, ja, pl, sc, zh and Wikidata. Serious questions will be asked if it's disallowed on the ENGLISH Wikipedia. Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Serious questions are fine by me. I'm sure no-one's asking you to be popular, just not to be very unpopular. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd If you think I have voiced my agreement with this or any other of John Jones' child abuse images you have seriously misread what I wrote. I have repeatedly said I don't like them and I don't think they should be included in this article. Unfortunately, I cannot come up with a policy based argument to NOT have them. I am not convinced by the OR angle. But please, please do not not claim me to be 'in agreement' (whatever that means) in the proposed illustration. Llwyld (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd Furthermore categorising editors as 'non-Welsh' is unhelpful - and as others have pointed out, potentially inaccurate. Implying that such editors are working together to present a particular POV is even more unhelpful. Please don't. Llwyld (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cell Danwydd,

1. I've never divulged my nationality or ethnicity, so why are you asserting that I am "non-Welsh"?
2. I've never "said very loudly that the image goes against OR", I haven't commented on this image - at all!
3. I've never "worked together like a group" with anyone here, have you?
4. I've never been "shouting at editors", yet you seem to shout quite frequently.

You need to focus on the article content rather than on attacking other editors, and perhaps on your own behaviour too. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This is of no relevance whatsoever to the substantive argument, but I can point out that I live in Wales and, in DNA terms, I'm apparently 85% Welsh. Editors should refrain from making unwarranted assumptions about motivation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't live in Wales (but I have fond memories of my visits) but my DNA analysis says my family was likely to come from "Wales and West Midlands" although I have a surprising amount of Scandinavian in me at 24%. Perhaps Cell Danwydd is a pure blood? Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The short discussion on the Original Research Talk page shows that this image is good, and no objections have been raised here. The image is educational, illustrative, sensitive and a positive addition. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000, there are objections here - I've just read them directly above, and one editor's opinion on another talkpage does not 'show' that this image is good, and does not trump the discussion here. The image needs a consensus to add it here, on this talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have missed the objections to this image; can you list them please? That would be helpful. Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, goto here, and read everything from there down. You won't miss them then. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent image. DeFacto You've been proved wrong on the OR Talk page. Can you at least admit that? Otherwise we're getting nowhere! All the above objections you refer to refer to OR. Not one relevant objection has been given to this new image, as far as I can see. Not including this image, with no valid reasons, calls for a POV template. The truth is censored. Monsyn (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Monsyn, "proved wrong"? About what - this image? Where - a diff would help? So you agree that there are "above objections". And OR objections are valid. What 'reason' would you put on the POV template you mention? Which truth do you think "is censored"?

If you think there is a POV issue in the article or some compelling reason to include this latest image, I think you need to provide a policy-based rationale for that view and try to avoid misrepresenting other editors' comments and avoid using inflammatory language. That way we might all be able understand your position better. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: so far, not one valid reason has been given why the latest image should not be included. DeFacto, you ask a lot of questions yet haven't given a single reasonable objection so that 'we might all be able understand your position better.' Cell Danwydd (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cell Danwydd, I haven't supported or opposed the latest image, I'm still processing the rationales from the keep and oppose camps. I have only asked you two questions on this matter (@18:00, 28 September 2021) - are you going to answer them or respond to my other comments in that post? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

British parallels

"Lancaster believed that ‘few youth do wrong for the sake of it’. Nevertheless, punishments were initially the responsibility of the monitors looking after them. Monitors admonished pupils silently - they were given a card such as ‘I have seen this boy idle’ or ‘I have seen this boy talking’. Wearing this card around the neck was not a badge of honour as it may be viewed today; rather it was seen as shameful among the pupil’s peers."

https://britishschoolsmuseum.org.uk/media/1677/carrot-and-stick-exhibition-booklet-lo-res.pdf

"Teachers noted that the most effective forms of punishment were often non-physical, especially those that involved an element of ‘naming and shaming’ – whether that meant a child wearing a dunce’s hat or a sign around their neck."

https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/class-warfare-day-life-victorian-schoolchild/

"... making the child stand on a platform with the word truant posted on him, precisely the sort of ritual humiliation that the 'Welsh Not' involved." For Wales See England Chapter 6

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/For_Wales_See_England/2sx5DAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

Cheezypeaz, thanks for these, it would be interesting to see if any reliable sources have noted the parallels. Please remember to sign your posts. TSventon (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon Checkout the last image on this page https://britishschoolsmuseum.org.uk/learning/ Cheezypeaz (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, TSventon... you must learn! lol Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

They look like pretty obvious parallels to me. But then I'm not a professional historian. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Contemporary https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jul/17/school-makes-pupils-wear-signs-if-uniform-doesnt-meet-standards Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

New York use of the Lancastrian system - "badges of disgrace" : http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/cul/texts/ldpd_6316626_000/ldpd_6316626_000.pdf

complete text of Lancaster's 1810 booklet - "lables of disgrace" "badges of disgrace" http://www.middlestreet.org/mshistory/lancastrian.htm

Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the politicians section.

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld, The Anome, John Jones, Ghmyrtle (If you wish to be removed from this notification please let me know.)

Reasons for deletion.

1) It his highly unusual for this type of article to include a list of what politicians have claimed about an historic phenomena.

2) They either repeat claims already in the article, which is repetitious, or introduce new unchallanged claims. This goes against wikipedia's policy of using WP:BESTSOURCES. Politicians are not historians and cannot be considered reputable or authoritative on the subject matter. The places where these quotes have been published are not peer reviewed by historians. It is not acceptable to leave them in the article and challenge them since this would go against wikipedia's policy of WP:FALSEBALANCE.

This is not a call for consensus. It is a chance for you to tell me how wrong I am.

Please note that both reason 1 & 2 are separately reasons for deletion. Objecting to one will not invalidate the other.

I will delete the section in 24 hours time. Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Politicians make no claims about being historians. Mention by politicians demonstrates currency and significance in modern political debate. You're not totally wrong - (1) may be partially correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 It's sneeking in historic claims via a backdoor. Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 Also wikipedia's policies are meant to be applied by the editors and not the readers. We do not leave the readers to judge WP:BESTSOURCES or WP:FALSEBALANCE Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how fully attributed and sourced comments are "sneaking in historic claims via a backdoor." The subject matter is political; political comments are relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 Accepting for a moment your premise: It's hard to see that any of these comments are, in fact, current. The most recent comment by a politician was in 2015 and that one was accidently deleted from this article by Cell Danwydd who accidently typed in "delete non-neutral pov by entrepreneur" for some reason that I am sure is not connected to what the politician said...

"Welsh entrepreneur, writer, and former local government Conservative politician, John Winterson Richards wrote on the website of the Institute of Welsh Affairs: "... the ‘Welsh Not’ did not come from oppressors in London but from educators in Wales who, rightly or wrongly, believed honestly and sincerely that the children in their charge would fare better in life if they mastered English."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1044998666&oldid=1044942109

Now I'm just guessing here. (So give me some slack.) But think that if we fact checked the statement by that entrepreneur & ex-politician he'd pass with flying colours but perhaps a certain top notch important politician wouldn't do so well. So I'm thinking we should follow the lead of our star editor Cell Danwydd and they should all be deleted. Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

In the context of something that started may have started about 1789, I'd say 2015 was pretty recent. And yes, flying colours, certainly. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Trim Remove. I think the quote by Adam Price is relevant and should stay - he is an important politician in Wales, and he is clearly making a case for the Not as a significant illustration of what he sees as the historic relationship between the two countries. However, the quotes by the other politicians do not add anything at all of significance, and should be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle It's all or nothing. I'll assume you mean nothing. Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not "all or nothing". Keep the Price quote, which is relevant in the modern Welsh context, but remove the others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle

• Adam Price's claims are the most problematic, for example in his speech he claims that "1870 Education Act made English compulsory." Which is, as we all know, entirely false. His claim that "the WN is an early example of the effects of teacher's performance related pay." is strange in that the Revised Code appeared in August 1863 and the Welsh Not certainly existed prior to that. If he meant that the Code lead to more use of the Welsh Not then that should be left to historians to discuss (and they do).
• To keep Adam Price's views in this article and delete the rest would be favouring one politician over the others.
• If he is an important politician then the leaders of the two larger parties in Wales are more important. We should add their 'more important' views to the article and perhaps their election results so that the reader will know which view is more important that the others. We would need to keep this updated when there are new elections.
• If his claims on this topic are important and should be included in this article then his views on other topics are also important and should be added to other wikipedia articles. Why stop there? Shouldn't Boris Johnson's various statements on historical topics also be given prominence on wikipedia? Why do we need historians anyway?

Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I edited the above to change the date from 1963 to 1863 Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I really don't care enough to argue over this. Removing the whole section would be better than keeping it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify a little further. Fabricant's comments (28 years ago) do not relate to the article subject so should be discounted. The comments from Lord Maelor are from 54 years ago, somewhat tangential, and based on his own interpretation of evidence - they should carry little if any weight. The quote from Susan Elan Jones also should not carry much weight - they are simply a description of what she believed to be true. The quote from Adam Price (12 years ago) is more relevant as he places the Not in some context, but it is not evident whether the second sentence of his paragraph is simply commentary - without some clarification it should be removed. The 1931 quote from "the writer's mother's experiences" again needs to be placed in context, but she is presumably not a "politician" so it is in the wrong section and could if necessary be incorporated elsewhere in the body of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Two editors here have suggested that the Welsh Not didn't exist. When MPs recognise the severity of this implement, it needs to be said here on Wikipedia. You use the word 'repetition', I'd say 'confirm'. You say 'new unchallanged claims', I say: then let's hear them! Maybe we need more meat on the body of this article, not less! And 24 hours time - sounds like a gun at our heads! @Cell Danwydd: John Jones (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  @John Jones, can you provide diffs please, to support your assertion that "Two editors here have suggested that the Welsh Not didn't exist". -- DeFacto (talk). 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia needs a "TalkNot" token that could be hung round an offending editor's User page?? I'd recommend a CGI image (based on a book cover, naturally)... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

John Jones You haven't addressed the reasons for deletion I stated above. Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Monsyn (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn It's not a vote. It's a chance for you to address the reasons I gave for deletion. Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Michael Fabricant section should be removed - it does not reference the Welsh Not at all. I'm not particularly convinced the others add anything of substance to the article, but they do show that the Not was/is considered a bad thing. Llwyld (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

By saying, " "Even during the last century, speaking Welsh in schools was an offence for which a pupil could be beaten." Fabricant implies that the device exists, and that's worth saying. I do think all these politicians add to the article, and shows, as we have several parties, that the rights of children is apolitical. Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

How does being "beaten" relate to the subject matter of this article? In those days, children would have been beaten for all sorts of reasons. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

By saying, "... speaking Welsh in schools was an offence for which a pupil could be beaten" Fabricant implies only that there were implements to do the beating and teachers willing to administer that punishment. Not that there was any Welsh Not device? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Llwyld It appears these quotes have been selected to discribe the Welsh Not rather than to condem it. None of them actually discribe it as a bad thing. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for input and the resulting discussion. Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, as new content which was challenged, a consensus to keep it is required, without that it can be deleted. Do you think a keep consensus was achieved? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It says Keep, it says Trim, it says Strong keep twice. That's pretty clear is it not? DeFacto - you've supported Cheesy every single time, with just one exception. Odd! And nearly all your edits are an attempt to belittle the Welsh Not. Please concentrate on adding reliable, neutral, rich information to this article. Cell Danwydd (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I clarified my opinion yesterday - "Remove", rather than "Trim". There is no evidence that any editors are trying to "belittle" anything, though clearly there are different opinions. The animated nature of some of the discussions on this page over the last few weeks makes me think that there would be some merit in getting opinions from uninvolved and experienced editors, perhaps via WP:RFC. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cell Danwydd, a consensus relies on policy-based rationales and arguments, it is not simply a vote - have you read WP:CONSENSUS? So no, there is no clear consensus to keep this content. What do you think is odd about anyone supporting policy-based rationale? Also, please give diffs to support your assertion about my edits, without them it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation - which fails WP:TALKNO. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000 I clearly stated that this wasn't a call for consensus. So complaining that there was no concensus is illogical. You didn't bother to respond. Monsyn, John Jones & Cell Danwydd failed to engage with the reasons for deletion nor did they offer any reasons why wikipedia policies either didn't apply or that I was applying them incorrectly so I ignored their responses. The following editors Martinevans123, Ghmyrtle and Llwyld gave useful responses which I replied to. If any of them want to dispute the deletion further then that is something I would reasonably respond to. Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, consensus is how Wikipedia works. A consensus is needed to keep new content if it is challenged. If a consensus cannot be achieved to keep it, then it should not be included. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto This is old content. I'm trying to avoid edit wars by explaining why the edit is required and by giving people time to discuss the edit before I do it. The reason I say 'this is not a call for consensus' is to preserve my right to be WP:BOLD. However this relies on people rationally engaging in the discussion and the stated reasons for the edit. Cheezypeaz (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz, but I thought it was added recently, in the last 2 or 3 weeks, and contested ever since. If it's established content, and its removal is challenged, then you do need a consensus to remove it. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto I moved all of the politicians together a while ago, they were littering the article in various places. I wanted them all in the same place to warn readers they were politicians and so that when the time came to delete them I could discuss the whole section rather than bits of the article. I'm building a concensus. I used one WP:BOLD edit to test the waters and see what objections remained. Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a mixture of "old" and "new" content. At the end of July, before Cheezypeaz became involved (and the hundreds of later edits), the article looked like this. It contained the quote from Susan Elin Jones, and "the writer's mother's experiences", but, so far as I can see, not the other quotes by politicians. So, there is no simple answer to DeFacto's point about whether the content is established or not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I suppose the simple answer is that the Susan Elin Jones bit, as being established, needs a consensus to remove it, whereas the rest, being new and contested needs a consensus to keep it. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto states we need a 'clear consensus to keep this content'. Cheezypeaz says 'this wasn't a call for consensus'. NOW -which one is it? WP:EDITCONSENSUS states 'A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections.' That didn't happen. There were concerns, and they were voiced. I said, 'When MPs recognise the severity of this implement, it needs to be said here on Wikipedia... Maybe we need more meat on the body of this article, not less! ' :Now, regarding your 'resons' for deletion:

1. It his highly unusual for this type of article to include a list of what politicians have claimed about an historic phenomena. That is your personal opinion, which I disagree with. Even if it was, it's no reason to delete the list. No Policy was suplied by you, only your pov.

2. I agree with Martinevans123: 'Politicians make no claims about being historians. Mention by politicians demonstrates currency and significance in modern political debate.' Further: you cite WP:BESTSOURCES to back up 'repeat claims already in the article, which is repetitious, or introduce new unchallanged claims'. WP:BESTSOURCES does not mention repetition. Which claims (in the sources) are unchallenged? Not only is vague but misleading. No wonder one editor just said 'Strong keep': your argument does not hold fast. Deleting this verifiable, reliable list of quotes gives WP:FALSEBALANCE. Cell Danwydd (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cell Danwydd, if it was stable established content and its removal was contested, then consensus is need to remove it. If, on the other hand, it is new content or its inclusion has been contested since it was added, then it needs consensus to keep it. I think its the latter - can you show otherwise? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd It was not a call for consensus. It was an opportunity to discuss the reasons for my edit prior to me carrying out the edit.

To address your point (1): Again you fail to engage with the problem. What would be the rational for this article to include a list of historical factual claims by politicians? What makes this article different from all the others on wikipedia?

To address your point (2):

• To clarify. My reference to WP:BESTSOURCES relates to the "new unchallenged claims" not to "repetitious".
• You ask "Which claims (in the sources) are unchallenged?" My answer: Any factual claim that disagrees with reputable historians or cannot be verified by reputable historians as true should not be in this article.
• One of Martinevans123 objections was on the issue of "currency and significance in modern political debate" I pointed out that you had deleted the most recent ex-politician's pronouncements on the issue and strangely enough the only one that took a different line to the other politicians listed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1044998666&oldid=1044942109 the next most recent one was in 2010 which is 11 years ago. Not current. Not a debate. By deleting that entry you have demonstrated that you don't care for either debate or currency.
• The actual selection of quotes from the politicians in the article has been done to make actual historical claims they have not been selected to illustrate any debate.
• Another of Martinevans123 objections was that "Politicians make no claims about being historians" Which I take to mean that people will know not to trust anything they say. If that is so why are they being used to make factual statements on wikipedia?

Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn You need to engage with the debate and give rational reasons based on wikipedia policies why this content should be kept. So far your contribution is this...

Strong keep. Monsyn (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn It's not a vote. It's a chance for you to address the reasons I gave for deletion. Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

And in your revert of my deletion you stated: Reasons and opinions were given to keep this part.

What reasons? Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld, The Anome, John Jones, Ghmyrtle I feel this discussion is drawing to a close. If anyone has anything else to add please do it soon. I'll make a second attempt at deleting this section in 24 hours time. Thanks! Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Strong keep - Whether or not it's 'unusual' to list politicans' quotes matters not; show me the policy where this is frowned upon! Repetition (to some degree) is quite acceptable eg the header repeats facts within the body, and in this case too. If the politicians had spoken in favour of parties, or policies etc I would agree with you, but in this case, their opinion, or acknowledgement of the Welsh Not is important. Quotes by politicians are acceptable, and don't need reviewing by historians! Quotes by politicans is practice throughout Wikipedia, or are you going to delete Thatcher or Churchill's quotes? Best of luck! As someone has already mentioned WP:BESTSOURCES is irrelevant. You have causedWP:FALSEBALANCE by deleting these valuable quotes. John Jones (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

John Jones To address your points...

• "Whether or not it's 'unusual' to list politicans' quotes matters not" If it's unusual then it might be an indicator that this article isn't conforming to wikipedia standards.
• "Quotes by politicans is practice throughout Wikipedia" - show me a similar example please.
• "their opinion, or acknowledgement of the Welsh Not is important." Why?

Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Da iawn ti! Mor rhyfedd fel y mae dyn y caws wedi dysgu'r holl reolau mor sydyn! Absolutely correct John! All I want to say is that the reasons given by Cheesyaz are excuses as the editor doesn't like them. Readers have a right to know what they have said over the years. Secondly, a blanket approach like this is unacceptable and unworkable. Monsyn (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn To address your points...

• "Readers have a right to know what they have said over the years." I'm sure they do. But that isn't wikipedia's role. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Readers come here to find out factual information about a topic. Wikipedia requires us as editors to fairly summerise what the expert opinion thinks on the topic. In this case historians. Not politicians.
• "Secondly, a blanket approach like this is unacceptable and unworkable." They all have the same problem.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Your 3 points Cheezypeaz:

1. It indicates that the WN is unique. Saying that this article doesn't conform to Wikipedia Standards is a generalisation, and is only your personal opinion. Please cite the exact policy whereby a list of quotes by politicians of all parties are prohibited.

2. You brought all the quotes under one heading in order to delete them all at once. Obviously, you knew exactly what you were doing. I suggest you put them back where they were, or keep them as they are. You ask for examples on other articles; you can take a look at this one or this one. We could also name the section 'Criticism' like this one or 'Aftermath' such as this one which basically is a list of quotes from politicians! Many articles have sections called 'Public opinion' like this one, so it's not only the views of historians that are listed! You can also a whole list article of reactions by politicians such as this one or this one.

3. Politician's 'opinion, or acknowledgement of the Welsh Not is important' because it brings an indepenant, unattached perspective to the subject in question and confirms that the device existed and was used. Please asked this same question on all the above articles, if you would like further information as to why politicians are cited throughout Wikipedia . John Jones (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

John Jones To clarify. The history of the list...

• Llywelyn2000 created the list and added 3 entries
• Cell Danwydd deleted one politician who was not on the list.
• I moved the remaining politician on to the list.

Detail history of the list

• 12 September 2021 Llywelyn2000 creates the "Legacy" section and adds Susan Elan Jones

• 12 September 2021 Llywelyn2000 then adds Michael Fabricant

• 12 September 2021 Llywelyn2000 changes the title from "Legacy" to "Reference to the WN at Westminster"

• 14 September 2021 Llywelyn2000 adds Lord Maelor to the list and changes the name to "Reference to the WN at Westminster and the Lords"

• There are now 3 politicians in the list and 2 not in the list.

• 18 September 2021 Cell Danwydd deletes one politician not in the list

• There are now 3 politicians in the list and 1 not in the list.

• 19 September 2021 Cheezypeaz moves Adam Price into the list

• 19 September 2021 Cheezypeaz renames the list to "Reference to the Welsh Not by politicians"

To address your points.

1) My original point was "If it's unusual then it might be an indicator that this article isn't conforming to wikipedia standards." The only comment you make that seems to address this is "It indicates that the WN is unique". It's an article covering the history of something that happened over 100 years ago. There are many historical articles on wikipedia. It clearly isn't unique as far as wikipedia is concerned. It's just another article on historic events.

2) " You ask for examples on other articles" no I asked for "a similar example" You have given me 7 examples. I'll take the first example, presumably your best. It's a current affairs section of the article about what will happen to the future of "Freetown Christiania". Quotes by politicians are relevant in this case because they indicate their attitude to future developments. If the Welsh Not was still in use today then quotes by politicians would be relevant to this article. It isn't, they aren't. You have failed to give me a similar example.

3) "Politician's 'opinion, or acknowledgement of the Welsh Not is important' because it brings an indepenant, unattached perspective to the subject in question and confirms that the device existed and was used." That's what historians are for.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now deleted the section (again) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1047526134&oldid=1047391263

I previously deleted it here... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1047077549&oldid=1047045829

Monsyn reverted that deletion here... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1047145416&oldid=1047144062 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 07:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

POV Tag

Editors are censoring information on this article eg dissallowing of educational info, illustrative images etc = pov. Bias towards a minority creed that the WN is trivia. Deletion of image is a very political, anti-fact, anti-source, anti-Welsh statement, with NO REASONS GIVEN. Monsyn (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Monsyn, the POV template doc says: "An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant." So to help editors address your concerns here, can you explain:

1. Which, if any, "perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources" you believe are not being represented.
2. Which, if any, "mainstream views" you believe are not being presented as "mainstream" views, and which "minority views" are not being represented as "minority views".
3. Which, if any, "personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public" you believe are present.

Clear answers to these questions will help the community to know how best to react to this tag. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I certainly agree with this tag, that's why I've spent time here trying to correct the imbalance. John Jones (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@John Jones, perhaps you can answer those three questions then, to give editors a feeling for where you think they need to concentrate their efforts. Just saying you support the tag isn't very useful without giving an idea of where exactly you think the problem lies. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

All I can say in this debate is:

• The ref to Martin Johnes is right at the top; and is a minority view. See WP:Ballance and WP:Weght. To ballance this, the Adam Price quote AND Brooks' 'linguistic subjugation' AND 'cultural genocide' (Enc. of Wal) needs to be in the same sentence. This is the majority view, and 3 - 1 would be a fair ballance. Others who say it came from the establishment need to be added lower down, as that is also the majority view bu historians. Not sure why this sentence is under 'device and method'!
• 'The use of the Welsh Not appears to have decreased with the introduction of compulsory education' (whole paragraph) needs a citation, and does not agree with the sources.
• Ford, Martyn's quote is politics, not history, and should be removed. This is not 'high-quality, reliable secondary source'. Actually, the same is implied in the next paragraph by Wales' main historian in the 20th c. John Davies.
• It's a good read: in general, yes, "minority views" are being over represented, usually by Angicised historians.
• It's hard to understand why someone would NOT want an image.
• I can't see any 'personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public" present.'

So, does the article need a POV tag? Ask someone with more Wikipedia experience than myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sioned Llyfr a Gwin (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)‎

The above comment was added by Sioned Llyfr a Gwin It seems that the tweet by https://twitter.com/RobLlwyd/status/1443265938653171712 is already paying dividends. Llywelyn2000 What do you think of this latest development? Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to English Wikipedia Sioned Llyfr a Gwin, I see this is only your second ever edit on it - your first being to the Welsh Not article 30 mins earlier. I notice though that on Tuesday morning you were very busy - spending 50 minutes adding John Jones's CGI depiction of the 'Not' being worn, to 9 different language Wikis, starting about 20 minutes after the image was updated to its current version - good work! ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Sioned Llyfr a Gwin - croeso cynnes i Wici Saesneg a diolch am olygu!

DeFacto - This is how you welcome a new editor? You believe that pointing out her small number of edits on en-wiki actually gives her confidence in herself? You may want to take a look how many exits she has on other language wikis. Or was the purpose of your contribution to bully the new user? I think her comments are valuable and you need to appologise to her. Now. Monsyn (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Monsyn, thanks for your interest in the welfare of other editors, but there is no need to worry about my motives here. When a new editor pops-up out of the blue like that I thought it courteous to welcome them, clearly it could seem weird to them though if I hadn't given the reason that I felt they needed welcoming.

Now that is clear, why not answer the outstanding questions to you just above asking for substantiation and support for your, rather rash in my opinion, assertions? Presumably you can substantiate and support them with a reasoned rationale. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000 How would you assess this claim by Sioned Llyfr a Gwin ?

"The ref to Martin Johnes is right at the top; and is a minority view. See WP:Ballance and WP:Weght. To ballance this, the Adam Price quote AND Brooks' 'linguistic subjugation' AND 'cultural genocide' (Enc. of Wal) needs to be in the same sentence. This is the majority view, and 3 - 1 would be a fair ballance. Others who say it came from the establishment need to be added lower down, as that is also the majority view bu historians. Not sure why this sentence is under 'device and method'!" 

I'm really interested in your viewpoint. Please enlighten us all. Is Martinjohnes Professor of History at Swansea University a minority viewpoint and should we refer to the things called WP:Ballance and WP:Weght? Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on including a computer-generated image

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)

Any discussion should be under the Discussion section.

Support (image)

• 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)
• 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)
• Support - Don't understand the opposition reasoning. Deb (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Oppose (image)

• 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)

• 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)

Neutral (image)

• 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)
• 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)

Discussion (image)

• 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)

I agree with Hipocrite. The photo is not OR. Thanks for your valued contribution. Monsyn (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

  @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)

  Done! [4] Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Hipocrite, thanks! -- DeFacto (talk). 13:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: WP:NOR/N § RfC: Computer-generated image as OR   --Mathglot (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

To get a good cross-section of views, should we publicise this RfC elsewhere - on some projects perhaps.

• WT:WikiProject Education in the United Kingdom  Done
• WT:WikiProject England?
• WT:WikiProject English Language?
• WT:WikiProject History  Done
• WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom?
• WT:WikiProject Schools  Done
• WT:WikiProject United Kingdom  Done
• WT:WikiProject Wales?  Done

Anywhere else? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

@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)

DeFacto Sadly that may be true. Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• This has also been notified to interested folks on twitter - https://twitter.com/RobLlwyd/status/1443265938653171712 . That seems to be a bit beyond the guidelines - I don't think the tweet could really be considered 'neutrally worded' (Google translate works if your Welsh is not that good). Llwyld (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Llywelyn2000 Really? I have attached a copy of the original image below that was strongly defended by Cell Danwydd, Monsyn and John Jones With John Jones threatening to "get an admin to ban you." to an editor who removed the image. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

What was the reason for deleton? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

@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)

@Cell Danwydd I'd also like to know the answer to that question. Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

• @Cell Danwydd, there might not have been any objections on the OR talkpage, but so what? The WP:No original research/Noticeboard is the correct place for that discussion, and not the OR policy talkpage.

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

• @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)

Llywelyn2000 diffs please! Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Orphaned discussion points

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)

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)

@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)

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)

• 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)

cy.wiki article

Editors may be interested to look at the equivalent Welsh wiki article: Welsh Not. There's quite a large section at "Newid agweddau" ("Changing attitudes"). I also see it has, in Further reading: "EG Millward, 'The Old Cursed System', Opinion , April-May, 1980" which might be worth hunting down? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 That's brilliant!!! We should copy the English translation from there and replace all the crap on this page!!! Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Not

A modest proposal

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld, The Anome, John Jones, Ghmyrtle (If you wish to be removed from this notification please let me know.)

We should delete everything on the English language Welsh Not page and replace it with an English translation of the Welsh language version of the Welsh Not page.

The Welsh version is of far higher quality.

Everything on the English version of the page is complete rubbish.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Not

Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Large parts of that Wicipedia Cymraeg article are not directly related to the Welsh Not, and large parts are not referenced. It is certainly not of higher quality than this article. Where there is useful and referenced text in that article, it should be incorporated into this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ghmyrtle. It's a well-written article, but I think it's serving a slightly different porpoise over there. "Everything on the English version of the page is complete rubbish" lol, whatever are you saying?! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz, I agree with Ghmyrtle too. We are doing a good job of evolving this into something good - you only need to look back at it from a few weeks ago to see that. It'd be a shame to abandon it now and have to start again by importing back in many of the problems we've already ironed out. Especially now we've got the professor on the team. ;-) I think the distraction with the images has held us back a bit, but once that's out of the way, we should continue where we left off, and maybe add anything that's relevant and worthy from the Welsh article, but as an addition, rather than replacement, to this article. And like Martinevans123 said in the thread above, there might be some useful info in the The Old Cursed System, if it can be found anywhere. We still don't know where or when the 'Not' was introduced, or whose idea it was. Keep reading those books! -- DeFacto (talk). 20:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, Martinevans123, DeFacto We have a lot of well referenced rubbish.

• Device and method Does anyone care about all those names? We can't even decide what it is for even though historians tell us what it is for!!!
• Background It's trying to tie the Welsh Not into the Laws in Wales Acts. The top people in Wales already spoke Welsh, English, French & Latin before the acts. That's why well off Welsh children went to grammar school. Grammar school is for learning Latin grammar. They learned English, then Latin then French prior to the acts and they continued to do so after. They wrote in Latin and French and spoke Welsh and English. But less French after the acts :). Do any historians claim it was all about the acts? We inherited a claim added by who knows who for for propaganda purposes and we have build an entire 'go no where argument' upon it.
• Contemporary reports of use All primary sourced rubbish. Wouldn't make it into a real article.
• Reactions and impact What is this section for? There wasn't any reaction and there was no impact. The decline in the numbers of Welsh speakers is due to better communications (trains, tourism), the industrial revolution, immigration, emigration and media.
• The 1847 'Blue Book' reports I wrote it and it needs deleting. More relevant to the Blue Books page. Government: you Welsh people really should learn English. Welsh people: we already are idiots [idiots = referring to the government]. Government: look it's just a report, we are not actually going to help because of these religious nuts.
• References by politicians to the Welsh Not Already done to death above. Feel me?
• Parallels in other countries and languages Sole purpose to mention the British Empire. Should be a See Also to actual articles.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz Do you think your contributions are helpful? This is not the place to fool around with negatives like Welsh people: we already are idiots., is it? Or are you trying to infuriate an already volatile discussion? Cell Danwydd (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd That's the Welsh people calling the government idiots. Cheezypeaz (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fair comment, Cheezypeaz, but maybe could have been phrased better. The present article isn't all bad. The article in Welsh isn't all good. Worth soldiering on. Deb (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Deb We spend our time arguing about things that should be obvious; heaven help us when we get to the difficult stuff of trying to summarise the views of actual historians. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I have this Talk page on my watchlist, so no need to notify me any more about anything. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 will do. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ditto (in my case, along with 18,232 other pages....). Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle No problem. I'll just stop the broadcast in future. It'll be just me and the idiots. :( Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Added "[idiots = referring to the government]" to avoid confusion. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm currently writing a book about the Welsh Not so seeing this discussion was fascinating! If it's any consolation, this is not an easy topic to look at. 19th century education was decentralised and constantly changing so practice varied hugely. Even within a single school teachers could do different things. Some teachers who used the Welsh Not celebrated and loved Welsh. Others had no love at all for Welsh but did not use the Welsh Not. The evidence from the period for the WN is scattered, buried in obscure places, contradictory, fragmentary and very difficult to interpret. People writing their memories of it were often vague. People in the 19th century and early 20th century were also unsure about how widely it was used. People who had experienced it often assumed everyone had; people who had not often assumed no one had. Historians and other academics have made claims about the Welsh Not that they have simply not evidenced or justified. Then and now the issue was emotional. Then and now, the Welsh Not has been used by people, both pro and anti Welsh, to make political points. It's been both exaggerated and played down. All this is why there is no good history of the WN and why there is so much confusion about it. It's just very hard to write about with any certainty. This talk page reflects all these problems! Sorry, my book isn't finished. It's taking a long time for all the reasons above. Martin Johnes (Swansea Uni) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.110.176 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)‎

Hello Martin, thanks for introducing yourself! Perhaps you will be able to share some of your sources with us to help us fill some gaps. (And don't forget to logon though when you use Wikipedia (I assume that mod to the article by 'Martinjohnes' was you logged on) and please close your posts with '~~~~' (four tildes), which will automatically add your 'signature' - user name + time & date to the end of your posts). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That was the real Martin Johnes. Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

If he hasn't been involved with Wikipedia much before, I do hope he realises that the level of engagement and (sometimes) animosity on this page is somewhat unusual !! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss, Talk rather than just delting content

Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I've called an RfC. I've chosen a format with a section at the end called Discussion. That's where all discussions take place. You've been told this several times on the Talk page, but as your edit here show you're not keeping to the preferd format. Please be respectful, and play the game fairly and according to the rules. Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cell Danwydd, it is unreasonable to insist that we can only use your preferred format, especially when it is so obviously inappropriate for the RfC in question, and was not discussed or agreed up front. That it is inappropriate is clear from the number of times you've had to break up threads and destroy the context to enforce your view. It has now got to the point where your disruption of the threads may lead to the procedural integrity of the whole RfC being challenged. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Using one format is perfectly reasonable. What you are doing here is playing games and trying to mess things up. I've followed the suggested format, and you don't like the result. Even moving my requet to you from your Talk page to here is an attempt to complicate things. Really sad day for Wikipedia. Cell Danwydd (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cell Danwydd, you haven't explained why you ignored the advice given for choosing that format, my talkpage was the wrong place for this discussion about this page content, and you are disrupting the RfC by moving people's comments around and thus destroying their context and making it impossible for readers to follow the threads. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Pardon? Please explain: 'ignored the advice given for choosing that format'? What advise and by who?

I left a message on your Talk page as you were discussing how people had voted in the wrong place. I was asking you nicely not to do that. I had asked here, with no effect.

You are obviously trying to sabotage this RfC,and making a fool of yourself at the same time. Please stop harrassing me like this. Cell Danwydd (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cell Danwydd, the advice that you said, in the RfC above, that you were following from WP:Requests for comment/Example formatting and which I questioned your adherence to in the RfC here - and which you never addressed.

Specifically the bit about the "voting" format you seem to have chosen which says: "Don't use a "voting" style when you want to encourage comments and collaboration". Surely we need collaboration with this? It then described it thus: "This style is normally used only when a majority vote matters, and only when the quality of the arguments is relatively unimportant" - well we all know that the quality of the arguments is the most important thing when trying to reach a consensus in a complex and controversial OR-related dispute such as the one we are referring to here.

Now is your opportunity to explain why you ignored that advice. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not advise. Why I chose the voting style? I didn't. Cell Danwydd did. It's his RfC. We had tried to arrive at a consensus for 3-weeks, with no luck. It was chosen, now just live with it, rather than attempting to sabotage this RfC. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I did, and it was the right choice in my opinion. A majority vote mattered. The quality of the arguments as to OR had reached an impasse. Cell Danwydd (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Something strange is going on here. Llywelyn2000 claimed to have chosen the voting style at 14:03 UTC. Then, at 14:10 UTC Cell Danwydd changed Llywelyn2000's comment to note that "Cell Danwydd did. It's his RfC.". It's odd that Llywelyn2000 would first erroneously claim that it was his own choice. And doubly odd that Cell Danwydd would effectively edit another user's post (which is bad form, as I understand it). Could either or both of you explain what happened? Llwyld (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I discussed the RfC with Llywelyn, I think he was trying to clear me, as DeFacto is attacking which format was used. It was my decission, not his. And as for the list against him (see below), he's taking advise. Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that adequately explains it. Why, if Llywelyn2000 was trying to 'clear' you, would he say "Why I chose the voting style? Because we had tried to arrive at a consensus for 3-weeks, with no luck. It was chosen, now just live with it, rather than attempting to sabotage this RfC." It sounds like your words, but it came from Llywelyn2000's account. You also haven't addressed why you changed Llywelyn2000's response without signing it yourself - you amended Llywelyn2000's response in Llywelyn2000's voice. Llwyld (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: - so just to summarise:

1. You placed comments in the wrong place

2. Cell Danwydd moved them from the Vote section to the appropriate Discussion section.

3. You blame Cell Danwydd for YOUR mistake.

Incredible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsyn (talk • contribs) 08:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Monsyn, your premise is flawed - it relies on an assumption that is very subjective. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to summarise as objective and impartial as possible the three concrete steps that actually happened. Monsyn (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Monsyn, I'd respectfully suggest then, that that is a reflection of either your judgement or of your motives. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You're now attempting to attack me and my motives! Whatever fancy language you want to use, the 3 steps stand. You were wrong doing what you've done here and even worse passing on the blame onto Cell Danwydd. You have brken some of the most important rules of Wikipedia, especially those on respecting editors, attempting to avalanche an article with trivialities and unneeded questions. I would like an Admin to look at your conduct here. Monsyn (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Monsyn, please supply diffs with each allegation to help me (and others maybe) to know what you are interpreting that way. Without them, these are just unsubstantiated allegations. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

1. You placed comments in the wrong place - in the 'Support' section, rather than under 'Discussion'.
2. Cell Danwydd moved them from the Vote section to the appropriate Discussion section. You deleted them again
3. You start this thread in order to blame Cell Danwydd for YOUR mistake: 'unreasonable to insist that we can only use your preferred format, especially when it is so obviously inappropriate...the number of times you've had to break up threads and destroy the context to enforce your view.

Whow! This is ad hominem and very nasty. Now where are your diffs that Cell Danwydd destroyed context by moving discussion content to the appropriate place? Monsyn (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I've also emailed this and the next thread to Llywelyn2000 as I think this, and the next one are too personal and he and Cell Danwydd should take this further. Monsyn (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Monsyn. I will not be commenting further until advise is received. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000, advice received about what and from whom? About how not to disrupt a properly threaded discussion? You can find advice about that at WP:TALKO: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Monsyn, eh? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Monsyn, your point no. 1 makes the subjective assertion that I put my comment in the wrong place - WP:INDENT & WP:THREAD suggest otherwise - as do more than one other editor here who also added their comments in context as I did. So given that false premise, your point no. 2 and no. 3 hold no water. The diff you gave for your point no. 2 shows Cell Danwydd destroying the context - he took my comment away from its context! -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

1. You placed your comment in the wrong place. Fact! A Request for Vies has a different model to the two ploicies you quote. WP:INDENT, WP:TALKO and WP:THREAD are all about ordinary Talk pages NOT RfC which has a separate section soley for discussion.

2. Destroying content means deleting content. It does NOT mean moving content into the correct place. Retract. CellDanwydd (in this thread) asked you nicely

'Please stop harrasing me!' Playing with words in this manner, DeFacto is harassment.

'Holds no water'? My 3-part summary is watertight. Now, appologise or retract. Monsyn (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

So I checked who made the entries we have wasted so much time over.

DeFacto, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld, The Anome, John Jones (If you wish to be removed from this notification please let me know.)

First let's start with this classic quote...

"NPOV is arrived at by focusing on good reliable sources, as Llywelyn has said a hundred times." Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000 Adds a human skull

11 Sept 2021 adds human skull told how silly it is efforts to remove

Llywelyn2000 did not participate in the discussion at all.

Llywelyn2000 Adds modern day politicians' historical claims to a history article

11 September 2011 adds the views of Adam Price

11 September 2021 adds another quote from Adam Price

12 September 2021 creates the "Legacy" section and adds Susan Elan Jones

12 September 2021 then adds Michael Fabricant

12 September 2021 changes the title from "Legacy" to "Reference to the WN at Westminster"

14 September 2021 adds Lord Maelor to the list and changes the name to "Reference to the WN at Westminster and the Lords"

Efforts to remove

Llywelyn2000's participation in that long discussion is limited to this one sentence: "There was no consensus to delete."

Llywelyn2000 Adds history sourced from of experts in tourism

14 September 2021 Ethnic tourism

14 September 2021 Tourism management

Efforts to remove

Llywelyn2000 did not participate in the discussion at all.

Cell Danwydd Adds history sourced from a journalist

13 September 2021 David Williams - sourcing historical claims from a journalist

Efforts to remove

Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This is somewhat personal. I may agree with you about some of the edits but you won't get anywhere by pointing the finger. Deb (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe he gets hauled off to detention and gets to wear the Welsh Not not? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This attempt to distract from the RfC and adding good content is pathetic ad hominem WP:NPA. I could write a long list of your edits Cheezypeaz but life is too short. Cell Danwydd (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz I advise you delete this asap. Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz, very interesting. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd "I could write a long list of your edits Cheezypeaz but life is too short." Go on, take the time. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd I had to reply to John Jones which involved working out who had added the politicians and made the list. Then I noticed a pattern. So I checked the history of the other entries that had caused so much work to remove. I was genuinely surprised that when the pattern was broken and I saw that you had added the David Williams quote. The other thing that surprised me was that Llywelyn2000 hadn't involved themselves in the discussions about the edits. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd More advice? The full text of that quote above is...

"Are you trying to change Wikipedia Cheesy?! I disagree with 7; you're wasting our time. The 1st hand evidence by a child at that time, is worth more than a history Prof from Cambridge. NPOV is arrived at by focusing on good reliable sources, as Llywelyn has said a hundred times. Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)" 

Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz - On 16 August 2021 Hogyncymru brought it to our attention that you were: "calling users conspiracy theorists, nationalists} WP:NPA, claiming their sources are 'fake' and deleting whole chunks from an article even after they've been told to resolve the issue here seems like a person who is looking to cause trouble." He was dead right. HogynCymru asked for a 'a protection on the page to curb vandalism' on the 16th AUgust. it wasn't done. In that appeal, he noted that an user (you): "on this site decide things because he or she dislikes it because it portrays an 'ugly' view on Westminster. On the 19th August Hogyncymru started a thread explaining 'End of discussion for my contribution' that "I did not have the mental energy to carry on, I have to be real, It's taken a toll on my mental health. Llywelyn2000 immediately came into the discussion and asked you to stop. You didn't.

Bells should have rang; admins should have looked at your negative edits and bullying. They didn't, and you've carried on to destroy and bully since then.

As Brwynog has said (1st October): "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. I work full time - unlike you and DeFacto and yourself who are obviously working (paid?) 24 hrs a day attempting to destroy this article because it portrays an 'ugly' view on Westminster.

On the I August you were deleting whole chapters, good cited facts here and the 'Effects' here of the Welsh Not, without consensus on Talk. You have continued to do this until the present. Last night you deleted another whole Chapter ('References by politicians to the Welsh Not '), with no consensus to do so: here. In Welsh we would call your actions 'the pulling of hair from someone's nostril' - and you did that, once again, with no consnsus. You're an expert on deletion and going against all policies WP have on respecting editors and deleting continuously with no consensus to do so.

On 17 September Contributions here by Cheesy and DeFacto verge on vandalism I brought this to the Community's attention. Nothing was done. Both of you have vandalised this article (and the Treason of the Blue Books article), and have been given free reigns to do so. I've had enough. As Hogyncymru said 'It's taken a toll on my mental health.' Good bye!

NB Jimbo - when you have full time editors paid by the British Government to 'level up' Wikipedia, your policy of reaching a consensus by the community doesn't work, The community is invaded from the outside, from other conquering, triumphant nations, who rewrite the community's history. The majority consensus works, the winner, the nation with the sharpest sword takes all, which means goodbye to diversity and minorities. History on Wikipedia is written by the majority, by paid editors. But, at one time, it was a fine dream you had.

Cell Danwydd (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd Can you clarify which editors are paid by the British Government (I think I know who you mean, but I'd like to be sure)? And can you provide some evidence to support that claim, so that appropriate action can be taken, given that paid editing is generally frowned upon? Llwyld (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

{Llwyld You're wasting your time, Cell doesn't have any evidence. Instead there is a band of people who he edits with who randomly pop up on an article and accuse everyone else of POV, bias, vandalism and bullying and make sensational claims about other editors. All why making out that one cannot change anything that they've done, even if it is irrelevant and POVing itself and threatening to ban every user who disagrees with them and becoming more and more obnoxious and bully themselves (just read this whole page for anyone in doubt for example of this). I would like him to strike the comments but he won't and stop this behaviour, which he won't, as they are turning people off from editing. Games of the world (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Games of the world there have been an awful lot of allegations on this page, but I prefer to assume good faith about everyone's contributions - so I've asked for clarification and diffs on several occassions (as you will have seen above). This is the first time any allegation of paid editing has been made, so I think it is worth waiting for Cell Danwydd to respond before considering my time wasted. Llwyld (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd You can read about the process of reporting paid editing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Reporting_undisclosed_paid_editors . It is a serious matter, and it seems it would be worth following up. Llwyld (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

A great loss to Wikipedia! CellDanwydd has created thousands of articles on the Welsh Wicipedia and has persevered here to combat anti-Welsh madness. He and Llywelyn2000 have been bullied here by DeFacto, Cheasy and others. This is a really sad day for Wikipedia. Monsyn (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn You have never come up with any evidence to back up these allegations. Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Monsyn, remember WP:TPNO? There will likely be another 'great loss' if you persist with these unsubstantiated personal attacks. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

There has been lots of discussion backwards and forwards, certainly, and different opinions on the inclusion of of the various pictures and various quotes etc, but I am at a loss to identify anything as 'anti-Welsh madness' - I would really appreciate it if you could point out some 'anti-Welsh' edits so I can understand better. Similarly, some diffs to show bullying would be helpful - robust argument does not bullying make. I note that Cell Danwydd has made quite a serious claim of paid editing above, which is still awaiting evidence. Does your statement 'A great loss to Wikipedia' mean that Cell Danwydd and Llywelyn2000 have ceased contributing to Wikipedia or something else? (Sorry if I'm not properly understanding your edit). Llwyld (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the meaning of Cell Danwydd's statement stands for itself, that he/she is fed up of all of the edit wars on this page, and is either giving up editing on en.wikipedia or from wikipedia as a whole, and as has been stated, he has created thousands of articles on cy.wicipedia. I don't know why Games of the world thinks that there is a random band of people making accusations of bias etc.. This is his first edit, and I note that does not have a contribution history of additions to articles on Welsh subjects. In addition I note that Cheezypeaz was blocked for several days for edit wars on this WelshNot article, but has come back and done exactly the same thing afterwards. His previous contributions have been confined to one topic only, that of Boer War concentration camps, with contributions to two articles. I am non competent to judge the relevance of his contributions there, but I can see the effect of his contributions to this article. If by doing this he is driving away experienced and competent editors, then something needs to be done. My first comment here was concerning my increasing disbelief at the trivial nature of so many of the comments made, with most of them being by Cheezypeaz. I also note that DeFacto is a much more experienced editor. However a perusal of his contributions page also reveals a distinct lack of interaction with Welsh issues until this one, and that his comments talk of 'miltant Welsh nationalism'. The question remains therefore, as to why these two editors have come to this page, and made so many edits, resulting in other experienced editors being ground down by the number of edits. I do most of my editing on other wikipedias rather than en.wikipedia so I have not had to deal with this problem. If an article has been 'hijacked' by so many edits, most of them on trivial grounds, (with one of them at least having a track history of doing so) what is the procedure for blocking these offending editors?Brwynog (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

100% CORRECT.

Games of the world why have you arrived at this Talk page? I note that you and DeFacto have been cooperating on quite a few Talk pages over the years. Coincidence?

Lastly, I agree with CellDanwydd's swan song to Jimbo. In addition may I add that the winner in political arguments like this isn't the truth, (found in dependable, reliable academi, reliable citations), but rather he who understands the rules of Wikipedia. That seems to be the deciding factor. And DeFacto / Chesay certainly understand the rules. The loser is Wikipedia. Monsyn (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)