Jump to content

Talk:Nation.Cymru

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

Image of website

[edit]

I notice User:Martin Clintergate seems to make a number of deletions to elements of this page, and has recently insisted on removing the website snapshot. I'd like to raise a discussion here to prevent further edits of that nature. Martin's comments are that the website "has not cleared the use of the the pictures of the politicians on (the) masthead" and that the pictures are being "used in press released material may be used to promote his site".

Copyright issues for the website are between the copyright holder(s) and the website proprietor. But for Wikipedia purposes, WP:IUPC states screenshots of websites are non-free content, but are used frequently at low resolution when significant to the article being discussed, and must not be replaceable by a free content alternative. That all seems to be met here. Further, I'm concerned that Martin thinks the purpose of a screenshot on Wikipedia is to "promote" Nation.Cymru. The purpose of this article is to discuss the website and its work in a balanced and critical manner. If Martin feels the purpose of Wikipedia is to promote commercial work then I think he needs to read WP:NOTADVERTISING.

Further he states the website has a "pro Plaid Cymru agenda" because the editor has said he votes Plaid Cymru and that the individuals shown in the image may oppose being linked to it. Suggesting a website is beholden to a party because its editor has voted for it in the past would bring dozens or hundreds of UK publications into disrepute. We don't make the same accusations against the editors of the Times, Guardian or the Telegraph, instead we judge their content and writing.

I'm not sure what bad blood exists between the editor of Nation and Phil of The Eye Wales but clearly User:Martin Clintergate and User:80.189.151.94's edits lately have really come from some sort of disagreement, political or otherwise. Llemiles (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by dismissing allegations that I have any issues or allegiance to any of the parties suggested by Llemiles. I am totally independent and have no axe to grind either way. I am a long way from Wales and have not visited it this century. However I will admit that as a retired foreign television news editor for Reuters based in Thailand I have a deep interest in facts,accuracy of reporting and perceived bias.

I stumbled across this saga by accident a couple of weeks ago but the more I googled and researched the topic the more I became aware there is quite a lot inaccurate information published by Llemiles who confesses to “working on the railways “. For someone with such an occupation he spends an inordinate amount of time creating and editing Wiki.

He created the Nation Cymru entry.

I removed the Nation Cymru masthead on Wiki because it does not reflect the images on either the Nation Cymru website https://nation.cymru or the Nation Cymru Facebook site https://m.facebook.com/nation.cymru/ .

The photo montage that I removed is made up of an amalgam of an advert for a Welsh language course,a prominent picture of three Conservative MP’s with a headline ‘Tories who won Welsh target seats received ‘dark money’ donations’ and four non political stories. As such it appears to use Wiki to make an unbalanced political point.

There are a number of inaccuracies on the site that really should be discussed with independent editors with no alliances to Wales.

The paragraph cited 20 and 21 certainly warrants removal.

“The website's coverage has been praised as balanced, by Welsh political blogger Jac o' the North, initially praising the site for "one of the best political analyses I have read for a long, long time."[20] However, two years later Jac described the news service as turning into "a mouthpiece for Plaid Cymru".[21].”

Jac O’the North is Royston Jones a self confessed anti English ex supporter of the Free Wales Army. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Wales_Army

His blog is an anti English immigration slant on modern day Wales. https://jacothenorth.net/blog/

Certainly not a reputable site to quote.

Llemiles makes this point.

“Further he states the website has a "pro Plaid Cymru agenda" because the editor has said he votes Plaid Cymru and that the individuals shown in the image may oppose being linked to it. Suggesting a website is beholden to a party because its editor has voted for it in the past would bring dozens or hundreds of UK publications into disrepute. We don't make the same accusations against the editors of the Times, Guardian or the Telegraph, instead we judge their content and writing.” These are not funded with public money.

Nation Cymru claims it is supported by the Books Council of Wales which is a national body, funded by the Welsh Government. This is a charity and as such is not allowed to support an online website that is politically partisan. Ifan Morgan-Jones has published a picture on the Nation Website stating he was voting Plaid Cymru and his other editorials have supported a Welsh independence movement. His anti Conservative views are reflected in the photo montage which I suggest is removed.

Martin Clintergate (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I have removed the paragraph refering to Jac ‘O the North. This contains quotes from a private political blog and is not a respectable published magazine or newspapers.It has no relevance.

Please do not reinstate without further discussion on why it is important enough to cite.Martin Clintergate (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the picture underneath the masthead which is not used on either the Nation Cymru website or their Facebook pages. This picture montage was only used on the Wiki entry and I believe for political purposes. For those cyber tracking me I am now in Norfolk UK having escaped the ban on entry and exit from Thailand and Laos due to COV 19. More than happy for wiki to publish my IP address to counter allegations of sock puppetry.Martin Clintergate (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your problem is with the screenshot. It looks like a genuine screenshot of the website's main page. Or are you saying it's a fake? Sionk (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That masthead image only appears on Wiki. The Nation Cymru site https://nation.cymru and the Facebook account https://nation.cymru have simple black typeface punctuated by a red dot. Therefore the photomontage does not merit inclusion here. 87.74.152.191 (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)I forgot to log in before posting that comment above.Martin Clintergate (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we screenshot the current masthead then, and add that to the infobox instead? Capewearer (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon for articles about newspapers, or news websites, to include an image of the front page. Whether the image is used anywhere else is immaterial. Martin Clintergate's repeated removal of the image would have more credence if they didn't try and remove it for completely different reasons each time. Mind you, I tend to agree that the main headline on this screenshot is quite politically partisan. Sionk (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely fail to see the issue with the screenshot. If this was an article about the white nationalist website Stormfront, a screenshot would be just as valid. It’s evidence of a website’s content, and if people find that content disagreeable then even more reason to include it and provide material for objective discussion. The same could go for the Telegraph or the Sun, many would find their articles disagreeable or even offensive, but that doesn't mean we should avoid discussing it here. Clearly you have a political view of the funding of Nation Cymru Martin. I'd suggest as a journalist that you use your own resources to address your concerns rather than using Wikipedia, which is reserved for sourced and verifiable information and discussion. Please stop removing perfectly valid content. Llemiles (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph and Sun have simple mastheads as indeed does Nation Cymru on both its website and Facebook page. The photomontage only appears here on wiki and lacks political balance as it focuses on the Conservatives party. Wiki is not a place to promote politics. I agree with Capewearer that the simple Nation Cymru should be used.Martin Clintergate (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a quick look around other articles on news websites, and have found a few practices in wide use:
So there are no hard-and-fast rules of which to use, and that choice is evidently open to a consensus decision. Capewearer (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the photomontage is unnecessary. If it was part of their masthead then I would be happy with it. However if it was to stay, and given Nation Cymru’s claim they are a neutral news site, it should also have a picture of the other key party politicians. Labour has the majority in the Welsh Assembly and runs the government with Mark Drakeford being the First Minister.Therfore he should also be in any photomontage to give it political balance.Martin Clintergate (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Further to my comments above and having now seen the examples from the Telegraph and the Sun neither carry a story using three pictures from one political party. Therefore I suggest either change the photomontage to give balance or remove it.Martin Clintergate (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about just a thumbnailed screenshot of the current front page, under the masthead, like the Telegraph and Sun articles? Capewearer (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine as long as the banner adverts were removed.Martin Clintergate (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather show the website as it is. All news sources are biased, and when a source like The National or Nation.Cymru openly declare their bias for a political project then it's an encyclopaedia's role to document that bias, not to censor it. Capewearer (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a former Reuters journalist I have no problems with your suggestions.However Nation Cymru state they are unbiased hence my objections.Independant,neutral,un biased,non partisan are key words in the global lexicon. I have spent a long time in parts of Asia such as Thailand where Wiki is not allowed to state the truth.EG King of Thailand. I object to politics in a wiki entry for a small domestic issue in the UK. If wiki starts to be partisan it loses its objectivity.Martin Clintergate (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I a retired Reuters journalist I would like to cite an example where Wiki is no longer objective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajiralongkorn

Martin Clintergate (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current image in the infobox of this article isn't in breach of any Wikipedia policy, but you're welcome to propose an alternative image here. Capewearer (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the whole benefit of the screenshot is that it shows Nation.Cymru's approach to journalism. You may disapprove of it Martin, but we have to decide on the content of the article impartially. We can't say the screenshot makes political figures look bad so we shouldn't show it.
Removing the screenshot would paint Wikipedia in a bad light by suggesting we were selectively removing content to whitewash discussion about those same politicians. I'm not quite sure why you want Drakeford included in the image as a) it's an editorial decision by the proprietor not Wikipedia as archivists, and b) Drakeford was not accused of accepting 'dark money payments' as the story suggests, so it would be dishonest? Put simply, Nation.Cymru report on a lot of controversies as do all newspapers/sites, and replacing this screenshot won't produce a less controversial outcome. There is much on Wikipedia which is controversial, you merely need to look at articles on major politicians. But the content remains there because it is a source of debate and discussion. Llemiles (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omission

[edit]

I would be quite happy if Nation Cymru stated it was a a mouthpiece for Plaid Cymru.Ifan Morgan Jones has stated on Nation Cymru’s website he was voting Plaid Cymru in the past. However while using the Conservatives story on the photo montage as editor he omitted this story. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-51546063 which stated “Plaid Cymru has been fined £29,000 for failing to report cash it received from taxpayers' funds worth nearly £500,000. The Electoral Commission said over a two-year period Plaid had omitted 36 separate sums from quarterly reports. Plaid had failed to declare cash from the House of Commons authorities, and some cash from the Electoral Commission.” Please explain why Nation Cymru chose not to report that. As for the photomontage the logical approach would be to include the first minister,plus the two key leaders of the opposition. On a final note please explain why the Plaid Cymru fine deliberate omission should not be cited?Martin Clintergate (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can't add WP:Original research to an article. But if a WP:Reliable source has reported that Nation Cymru deliberately omitted that story, then we can certainly add that. Capewearer (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's non-news anyway, most news sources have a bias towards part of the political spectrum (often the Conservative end). Would anyone not expect a news site called "Nation Cymru" to lean towards Welsh nationalism?! Sionk (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot

[edit]

I've uploaded a screenshot of the site, taken today, and added it to a collapsible link in the infobox. As noted above, this is consistent with the conventions used in similar articles on other news sources. Capewearer (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Capewearer:. Appreciate your effort here but I see the image has been downgraded due to being non-free. As a result it's now so small, the text of the website is almost illegible. Can we consider whether we're better keeping the previous image? The new one would strike me as being of almost no analytical value at its present resolution. Llemiles (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omission (continued)

[edit]

That looks a lot more balanced to me .Thanks.

I still have issues with this ....

“The website states it is apolitical and will not support any particular candidate. It however rejects "the toxic politics of the far-right".[3] Supporters of the service however include Plaid Cymru's Mark Hooper, who says it serves as an opportunity for "Welsh news for Welsh readers",[7] as opposed to "the most read newspapers here in Wales, which are all controlled from the British capital, London, and the BBC, and they have very little Welsh content."[7]

The omission of the BBC story on Plaid Cymru needs inclusion to suggest that Nation Cymru site is not independent or unbiased. I think the Wiki entry needs to mention that it failed to report this ..”Plaid Cymru has been fined £29,000 for failing to report cash it received from taxpayers' funds worth nearly £500,000. The Electoral Commission said over a two-year period Plaid had omitted 36 separate sums from quarterly reports. Plaid had failed to declare cash from the House of Commons authorities, and some cash from the Electoral Commission.” Martin Clintergate (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a WP:Reliable source has reported that Nation Cymru deliberately omitted a story, then please cite it. Capewearer (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nation.Cymru&oldid=1206813030"