Talk:Welsh Not/Archive 3

Government Policy Section
, ,

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)
 * , 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)


 * ,, 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)
 * , Wikipedia articles should represent the different views published on a topic. For example to quote a paper referenced in the article:

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)
 * 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)
 * I've found a copy Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I access JSTOR via 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * current stats: 311 edits ;) and £10.75 spent on books. Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * , 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)


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

,,. 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)
 * Cool. Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , good work! I wonder what else he's changed. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No idea. I just downloaded it and did a quick search. :) Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:38, 20 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)


 * 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)


 * 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! deletes my new Chapter title Purpose, with NO REASON! Next thing 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.
 * What history books should we all refer to? Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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).
 * , 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".
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)

, 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)

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)

The new image.
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)
 * 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)


 * - 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 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)
 * - 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)

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)
 * 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. ), to get more precise numbers? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


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

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

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)
 * Ammended image
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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 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 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)
 * , 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. - you have been asked not to delete images, and sadly, you have done so again, for the 4th time.
 * Secondly, regarding and '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:
 * What source was used for the clothing on the image in question - it does not resemble the clothing on that book cover?
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * I agree with 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
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! 
 * - 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)
 * 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 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 - 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)


 * (+ ) - 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,, and  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. has not listed his objections to the recent image, and his objections of OR has now been crushed on the WP:IMAGEOR Talk page. Other editors have voiced their agreement in such an image, including, ,  and . 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)
 * If you think I have voiced my agreement with this or any other of ' 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)
 * 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,
 * I've never divulged my nationality or ethnicity, so why are you asserting that I am "non-Welsh"?
 * I've never "said very loudly that the image goes against OR", I haven't commented on this image - at all!
 * I've never "worked together like a group" with anyone here, have you?
 * 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  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)
 * , goto here, and read everything from there down. You won't miss them then. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent image. 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)

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)
 * 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
,, , , , , , , , ,  (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  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 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  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)

,, 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)
 * 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)
 * That's the Welsh people calling the government idiots. Cheezypeaz (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair comment,, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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. claimed to have chosen the voting style at 14:03 UTC. Then, at 14:10 UTC  changed 's comment to note that " did. It's his RfC.". It's odd that  would first erroneously claim that it was his own choice. And doubly odd that  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)


 * - 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 . 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 . 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
 * 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, is harassment.
 * 'Holds no water'? My 3-part summary is watertight. Now, appologise or retract. Monsyn (talk) 12:35, 2 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:
 * Which, if any, "perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources" you believe are not being represented.
 * 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".
 * 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: 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 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.'


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


 * - croeso cynnes i Wici Saesneg a diolch am olygu!
 * - 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)
 * This is bullying by

at its most refined. This is WP:BITE and WP:BULLY, and an attempt to make her look and feel inferior. Had she continued to edit, I'm certain that WP:HOWNDING would have happened as you hounded CellDanwydd and Llywelyn2000. Your satire was meant to hurt. The policy says that at the very least you should now apologize. Monsyn (talk) 14:39, 2 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)

How would you assess this claim by ? "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 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)