Talk:Welsh Not/Archive 4

Let's do this the slow and painful way: Item (3) (The David Williams part)
,, , , , ,  (If you wish to be removed from this notification please tell me)

At the moment we have...

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

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

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

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 The web page has not been peer reviewed by historians.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

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

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

I will delete this in 24 hours time. Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This content is third or fourth hand, at best. There's no shortage of material so we don't need to resort to this kind of "popular" source. Deb (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, you're deleting Martin Johnes too? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just the David Williams part! :) Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , sounds good to me per WP:DUE and WP:RS. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Martin Johnes' comments are taken out of context; it's obvious that whoever used these two bits (from to seperate pages!) joined together on wiki into one sentence, and has not read the whole book. You're also mocking professional journalists. Are we now to change WP policy on using newspapers as sources? Let me say it straight: what you're suggesting here is wrong. My suggestion is to delete Martin Johnes' comments until we've all had a chance to read his book. Cell Danwydd (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Secondly, 'teachers would try and kill off the language...' is correct. It did happen. 'The purpose of the Welsh Not is completely different. 'However' separating both is nonsense and bad English! We have another chapter discussing the purpose. And the purpose was discussed elsewhere. All of the following are correct:
 * 1. to punish children. Why?
 * 2. to stop them speaking Welsh. Why?
 * 3. 'to teach English'. Why?
 * 4. to assimilate Wales / Welsh people into England. (This needs a whole new article).
 * Taking one out of context is misinformation. All 4 need to in the same paragraph.
 * Agreed? Cell Danwydd (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about the use of David Williams as a source of history, please address that topic here. If you want to question my interperation of Martin Johnes's comments then please create a new section, I will be happy to respond to any concerns you have there. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your deletion of this whole section with the request that you address the topic here. Cheezypeaz (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Belatedly, the cite to Martin Johnes was misusing the cited text. Johnes says that there was not an official policy to use the Welsh Not or to eradicate the Welsh language, but that individual teachers did so on their own initiative; he also specifically puts this in the context of the Welsh Not's history and significance.  The way he was cited here pulled that out of context and gave the impression that he was saying that no teachers ever used the Welsh Not in an effort to eradicate Welsh, which doesn't accurately reflect his opinion.  I see nothing in the cited text directly connecting the Welsh Not to the teaching of English - it looks like someone WP:SYNTHed up that interpretation by connecting the fact that the official policy was to teach kids English (a statement with no connection to the Welsh Not at all) with a later statement on a separate page that there was no official policy to use the Welsh Not or to eradicate Welsh.  The latter point we can and should include in the text (though with the additional context that, of course, it did happen due to the actions of individual teachers); the former seems to be pure synthesis. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * please create a new section and move this to it, this one is too long as it is - thanks Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

So I checked who made the entries we have wasted so much time over.
,, , , , , , ,  (If you wish to be removed from this notification please let me know.)

First let's start with this classic quote... "NPOV is arrived at by focusing on good reliable sources, as Llywelyn has said a hundred times." Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Adds a human skull

11 Sept 2021 adds human skull told how silly it is efforts to remove

did not participate in the discussion at all.

Adds modern day politicians' historical claims to a history article

11 September 2011 adds the views of Adam Price

11 September 2021 adds another quote from Adam Price

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

12 September 2021 then adds Michael Fabricant

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

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Welsh_Not#I'm_going_to_delete_the_politicians_section. Efforts to remove]

's participation in that long discussion is limited to this one sentence: "There was no consensus to delete."

Adds history sourced from experts in tourism

14 September 2021 Ethnic tourism

14 September 2021 Tourism management

Efforts to remove

did not participate in the discussion at all.

Adds history sourced from a journalist

13 September 2021 David Williams - sourcing historical claims from a journalist

Efforts to remove

Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This is somewhat personal. I may agree with you about some of the edits but you won't get anywhere by pointing the finger. Deb (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe he gets hauled off to detention and gets to wear the Welsh Not not? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This attempt to distract from the RfC and adding good content is pathetic ad hominem WP:NPA. I could write a long list of your edits Cheezypeaz but life is too short. Cell Danwydd (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I advise you delete this asap. Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cheezypeaz, very interesting. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "I could write a long list of your edits Cheezypeaz but life is too short." Go on, take the time. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I had to reply to which involved working out who had added the politicians and made the list. Then I noticed a pattern. So I checked the history of the other entries that had caused so much work to remove. I was genuinely surprised that when the pattern was broken and I saw that you had added the David Williams quote. The other thing that surprised me was that hadn't involved themselves in the discussions about the edits. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

- On 16 August 2021 brought it to our attention that you were: "{{tq| calling users conspiracy theorists, nationalists} WP:NPA, claiming their sources are 'fake' and deleting whole chunks from an article even after they've been told to resolve the issue here seems like a person who is looking to cause trouble.}}" He was dead right. HogynCymru asked for a 'a protection on the page to curb vandalism' on the 16th AUgust. it wasn't done. In that appeal, he noted that an user (you): "on this site decide things because he or she dislikes it because it portrays an 'ugly' view on Westminster. On the 19th August Hogyncymru started a thread explaining 'End of discussion for my contribution' that "I did not have the mental energy to carry on, I have to be real, It's taken a toll on my mental health. Llywelyn2000 immediately came into the discussion and asked you to stop. You didn't.

Bells should have rang; admins should have looked at your negative edits and bullying. They didn't, and you've carried on to destroy and bully since then.

As has said (1st October): "I have also noted increasingly personal attacks by Cheezypeaz and DeFacto on others in this discussion which makes me question as to whether I really want to be part of such an environment. It also makes me question what are the motives of some of the editors who have entered this argument. I work full time - unlike you and DeFacto and yourself who are obviously working (paid?) 24 hrs a day attempting to destroy this article because it portrays an 'ugly' view on Westminster.

On the I August you were deleting whole chapters, good cited facts here and the 'Effects' here of the Welsh Not, without consensus on Talk. You have continued to do this until the present. Last night you deleted another whole Chapter ('References by politicians to the Welsh Not '), with no consensus to do so: here. In Welsh we would call your actions 'the pulling of hair from someone's nostril' - and you did that, once again, with no consnsus. You're an expert on deletion and going against all policies WP have on respecting editors and deleting continuously with no consensus to do so.

On 17 September Contributions here by Cheesy and DeFacto verge on vandalism I brought this to the Community's attention. Nothing was done. Both of you have vandalised this article (and the Treason of the Blue Books article), and have been given free reigns to do so. I've had enough. As Hogyncymru said 'It's taken a toll on my mental health.' Good bye!

NB - when you have full time editors paid by the British Government to 'level up' Wikipedia, your policy of reaching a consensus by the community doesn't work, The community is invaded from the outside, from other conquering, triumphant nations, who rewrite the community's history. The majority consensus works, the winner, the nation with the sharpest sword takes all, which means goodbye to diversity and minorities. History on Wikipedia is written by the majority, by paid editors. But, at one time, it was a fine dream you had.

Cell Danwydd (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify which editors are paid by the British Government (I think I know who you mean, but I'd like to be sure)? And can you provide some evidence to support that claim, so that appropriate action can be taken, given that paid editing is generally frowned upon? Llwyld (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * { You're wasting your time, Cell doesn't have any evidence. Instead there is a band of people who he edits with who randomly pop up on an article and accuse everyone else of POV, bias, vandalism and bullying and make sensational claims about other editors. All why making out that one cannot change anything that they've done, even if it is irrelevant and POVing itself and threatening to ban every user who disagrees with them and becoming more and more obnoxious and bully themselves (just read this whole page for anyone in doubt for example of this). I would like him to strike the comments but he won't and stop this behaviour, which he won't, as they are turning people off from editing. Games of the world (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * there have been an awful lot of allegations on this page, but I prefer to assume good faith about everyone's contributions - so I've asked for clarification and diffs on several occassions (as you will have seen above). This is the first time any allegation of paid editing has been made, so I think it is worth waiting for to respond before considering my time wasted. Llwyld (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You can read about the process of reporting paid editing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Reporting_undisclosed_paid_editors . It is a serious matter, and it seems it would be worth following up. Llwyld (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

A great loss to Wikipedia! has created thousands of articles on the Welsh Wicipedia and has persevered here to combat anti-Welsh madness. He and Llywelyn2000 have been bullied here by DeFacto, Cheasy and others. This is a really sad day for Wikipedia. Monsyn (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You have never come up with any evidence to back up these allegations. Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Monsyn, remember WP:TPNO? There will likely be another 'great loss' if you persist with these unsubstantiated personal attacks. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There has been lots of discussion backwards and forwards, certainly, and different opinions on the inclusion of of the various pictures and various quotes etc, but I am at a loss to identify anything as 'anti-Welsh madness' - I would really appreciate it if you could point out some 'anti-Welsh' edits so I can understand better. Similarly, some diffs to show bullying would be helpful - robust argument does not bullying make. I note that has made quite a serious claim of paid editing above, which is still awaiting evidence. Does your statement 'A great loss to Wikipedia' mean that  and  have ceased contributing to Wikipedia or something else? (Sorry if I'm not properly understanding your edit). Llwyld (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the meaning of 's statement stands for itself, that he/she is fed up of all of the edit wars on this page, and is either giving up editing on en.wikipedia or from wikipedia as a whole, and as has been stated, he has created thousands of articles on cy.wicipedia. I don't know why thinks that there is a random band of people making accusations of bias etc.. This is his first edit, and I note that does not have a contribution history of additions to articles on Welsh subjects. In addition I note that  was blocked for several days for edit wars on this WelshNot article, but has come back and done exactly the same thing afterwards. His previous contributions have been confined to one topic only, that of Boer War concentration camps, with contributions to two articles. I am non competent to judge the relevance of his contributions there, but I can see the effect of his contributions to this article. If by doing this he is driving away experienced and competent editors, then something needs to be done. My first comment here was concerning my increasing disbelief at the trivial nature of so many of the comments made, with most of them being by . I also note that  is a much more experienced editor. However a perusal of his contributions page also reveals a distinct lack of interaction with Welsh issues until this one, and that his comments talk of 'miltant Welsh nationalism'. The question remains therefore, as to why these two editors have come to this page, and made so many edits, resulting in other experienced editors being ground down by the number of edits. I do most of my editing on other wikipedias rather than en.wikipedia so I have not had to deal with this problem. If an article has been 'hijacked' by so many edits, most of them on trivial grounds, (with one of them at least having a track history of doing so) what is the procedure for blocking these offending editors?Brwynog (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You have just over 50 edits on en wiki and zero interest on this article. So why have you come here. I'm calling out exactly what is true. John Johns, Cell and a couple of others are well known to gang up and bully other editors and goad them into being blocked. You're trying the exact same behaviour. Wind it in. What my editing interests are, are irrelevant to this discussion. Getting a bit desprerate to keep the moral high ground are you. Games of the world (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All of my en wiki edits have been on Welsh topics, whilst none of yours were about Wales. I have also done some editing for cy wikipedia. Your allegations about John Jones, Cell Danwydd etc are pure speculation. Well known indeed! The only bullying I've seen is the constant editing and changing of this article by an editor that received a block for this same offence.Brwynog (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * could you please provide a link to the Wikipedia policy (or even guideline) that says editors must edit in several related areas? Editing about a group of topics (in this case Welsh topics) does not give an editor particular rights in all those topics, nor does it mean an editor who has not contributed to other related topics has a lesser right to contribute to any of the constituent topics, as far as I know. Again, a link to a policy or guideline that contradicts that would set me right. Llwyld (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * !!!  did not say 'that says editors must edit in several related areas'! You are putting words in his mouth! How very uncivil of you! John Jones (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We have lost good editors, and I agree that the bullying through misinformation continues.
 * The hounding of Welsh editors until destruction continues (at least two have resigned out of mental exhaustion).
 * I also agree with Brwynog and with everything said by . It's a sad day for common sense. John Jones (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * did say ' of that their "contributions page also reveals a distinct lack of interaction with Welsh issues until this one,"  " does not have a contribution history of additions to articles on Welsh subjects." and that  "previous contributions have been confined to one topic only, that of Boer War concentration camps". What am I to infer from that other than only those who have contributed to Welsh topics should contribute? - after all  did note their own extensive contribution to  cy.wicipedia (the Welsh language wikipedia). Anyway, thanks for the answer,, but as it was a question of asked of , I will look forward to their answer. Llwyld (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * given that you are answering questions, on 27 September you said "Two editors here have suggested that the Welsh Not didn't exist." asked about that claim at the time, but it seems to have been lost amid other discussion, so let me ask now - Which two editors, and where? Many thanks Llwyld (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not a full time editor (and didn't join wikipedia to become one), and I suspect that most, if not all of the other editors who are active of cy.wicipedia are in the same boat. I wouldn't have the first idea on where to look for all of thse policies that some editors have been quoting so often. All I know is what I have seen here. I don't doubt that some of the amendments made by and  were positive and in good faith. However the sheer number of edits, I am sure there are 500 or more, and deletion of whole chapters before agreement has been reached (happening several times over) by an editor who has received a block for 'edit wars' amounts to unfair practise in my view. Taking it through one amendment after the other is not the point. It is the sheer volume of edits and the lack of censensus being reached before major editorial decisions have been effected that is the question. Therefore I would appreciate (as an inexperienced editor) what your opinion is on the following points:
 * [1] Does it concern you that editors have left the discussion quoting their mental health as a reason? Does wikipedia have a policy about editors' mental health in regard to situations like this?
 * [2] Should editors who have been blocked for conducting an edit war be allowed to continue contributing to the same page afterwards?
 * [3] accuses some editors of being 'well known' for goading other people into getting themselves blocked. Do you think this has happened here?
 * [4] I also note an bizarre 'offer' by . Is this usual practise on wikipedia? Brwynog (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My opinions are as follows - [1] it does concern me. I have lamented their departure several times on this very page. [2] Yes, they should, once the block is completed. We should forgive others for transgressions. Hopefully they've learned from past mistakes. [3] As no one has been blocked in recent time, no. [4] I always noticed the offer as strange, as you will see by my response, and asked if it had a basis in policy. I further note that there is no policy-based requirement for editors participating here to have previously contributed to Welsh topics. Llwyld (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * some more opinions. Most en wiki editors don't edit full time and don't know all the policies. If you want an overview Help:Introduction is a good start, but I think most people just learn through their mistakes. Wikipedia's policies can be found on the internet so not everyone who quotes policy is an expert. Editors are encouraged to be bold, rather than discussing every edit, but another editor can revert the edit. The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is one way to manage this.
 * [1] Wikipedia has a Civility policy, "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." If editors on this page could treat each other with respect, that would be better for everyone's mental health. TSventon (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 100% CORRECT, Brwynog.
 * why have you arrived at this Talk page? I note that you and DeFacto have been cooperating on quite a few Talk pages over the years. Coincidence?
 * Lastly, I agree with CellDanwydd's swan song to . The winner in political arguments like this isn't the truth, (found in dependable, reliable academic citations), but rather he who understands the rules of Wikipedia. That seems to be the deciding factor. And DeFacto / Cheasey certainly understands the rules. The loser is Wikipedia. Monsyn (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can say the same for you. You haven't editing EN wiki since 2018, randomly started editing in June for a day and made two further edits on other articles at the end of June before coming here, when argument was already in flow. You have made 50 edits to this page, with 42 specific to the talk page, making verious unfounded claims, which you have made another one above. So why did you come here? Where you encouraged on Welsh Wikipedia or off Wikipedia to disrupt conversation and to accuse others to to keep a POV? I simply came here as I am fed up of the likes of you starting on good faith editiors. Games of the world (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But clearly understood the rules of Wikipedia - he'd explained and enforced them several times in the RFC discussion, albeit often to the consternation of others. He certainly helped me understand the process. Llwyld (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2021 (UT


 * I wasn't asking the meaning of 's statement, I was asking the meaning of 's statement - but thank you for answering for one or both of them. I've now read the statement on 's page ('Resigned. Gone... mentally exhausted by bullying. '), so I guess that clears that up - but we'll never now what the perceived 'bullying' was, or who the full time editors paid by the British Government are. I'm sad to see him go. Llwyld (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What Cheasey and Defacto have done here is nothing short of WP:GRIEFING: 'chronically causing sudden annoyance to other members... intentionally disrupting...' The diffs for this statement has been given over the last 6 weeks by several ofus, but as yet, ignored. Monsyn (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Another statement that is unfounded. Could almost apply it to yourself. Games of the world (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

, Are there any specific quotes or diffs you wouild like me to explain? Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

,, , , , , , , , , Hi, you are included on this special offer because you voted in support of the latest version of the image. I earlier made this offer to which sadly they have failed to respond to. I have decided to extend this offer to all supporters of the image for 48 hours as a special one time only deal. It appears that there were a spectrum of punishments associated with the Welsh Not from no punishment, to detention to some sort of physical punishment involving hitting. To be clear this was punishment of children by Welsh people. My issue with the image is simple; is it WP:OR or not? If it isn't WP:OR then do we wish to emphasise the worst sort of punishment meted out by Welsh people to children or should we tone it down? I'll leave that up to you. So if any of you wish me to change my vote from oppose to support please reply to this comment with this exact text. "I wish to emphasise the cruelty of Welsh people to children and would like you to support the latest image." If anyone of you does this I will change my vote to 'Support'. If two of you respond then I will change to 'Strong Support', If three then 'Super Strong Support'. It's almost as though the consequences of this vote weren't thought about. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , are you inviting people to WP:CANVASS you? Please don't, it's disruptive. WP:SARCASM can be disruptive too. TSventon (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not WP:CANVASS because these editors are already part of the vote, indeed they have already voted. As for WP:SARCASM it's a genuine offer. I honestly don't think these people know what they voted for or have thought about the issues involved. Cheezypeaz (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It might however be in the wrong place, should I move it to the image discussion area? Cheezypeaz (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * could you please provide a link to a Wikipedia policy (or guidelines) which permits such 'special one time only deal's to be made? It seems to me that such bargaining is ultimately going to be detrimental to the article. If it was sarcasm.... well, that's probably going to be detrimental to the article as well - we've lost good contributors here (sadly before they've answered important questions) because they have considered some of the discussions to date to be bullying. Llwyld (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Life is a "special one time only deal". I'm finding it very hard to match your concerns here with what has actually happened and is fully documented on this page. Cheezypeaz (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I guess there doesn't need to be a policy for everything we do. And the amount of sarcasm is surely overwhelmed by other stuff on this page. Llwyld (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Church of Wales conspiracy theory
Currently the text contains…

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

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

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

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

Issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historians don't know everything, sometimes, they miss out on articles.. Now that we have easy access to newspapers, research can be done by anyone, as long as the sources are correct, they count so to argue that historians haven't disclosed this information does not invalidate it.. Hogyncymru (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR, since this seems to be a textbook example. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources (i.e. historians) have to say on the subject. Your private investigations may be published in a book, on a website or any other means, but not on Wikipedia. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

In general, the most reliable sources are:
 * Peer-reviewed journals
 * Books published by university presses
 * University-level textbooks
 * Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
 * Mainstream newspapers

So I don't understand your position here. Hogyncymru (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You've been around since 2015, you ought to know that your quotes do not reference "mainstream newspapers". Quoting mid-nineteenth century local newspapers w/o context is not covered by that. The sentiment in your above retort ("what the F... do historians know", paraphrasing) is not conducive to Wikipedia. WP:PRIMARY is perhaps another article you need to read. Kleuske (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Having come here from ANI, I see nothing wrong with using contemporary newspapers to comment on contemporary issues. As says, Llanw Llŷn is a better source than, say, the Liverpool Mercury. Other sources that might be worth invesigating are Banew and the North Wales Chronicle. Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * wow! This is clearly original research. Providing both primary source and secondary analysis. I’m astonished at your take. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - independent newspapers are not primary sources. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * the selection of an anonymous contributor on the letter page claiming there is a conspiracy to eliminate the welsh language *is* a primary source. Then constructing strong statements of fact based on that claim is primary research. This conversation is insane. Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we keep things civil please?Hogyncymru (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

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


 * This chapter might be a useful source? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this'll be added lower down the policy info to show the disconnection of the Church and the Welsh speaking churchgoers, diolch. Hogyncymru (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1847 was pivotal, of course. And the converse re-action was the increased vigour by the Welsh-speaking non-conformist chapels to keep the language alive. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And of course.. between 1820 and 1850, poverty and distrust was a growing within the heartlands, so not only were the churches alien, so was the government.. and this lead to a growth of national identity; Welsh societies in London and the Eisteddfodau were popular than ever. Hogyncymru (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * you seem to be using terms in an unusual manner but WP:original research within the meaning of the term in our policy is not something anyone should be doing on Wikipedia. If you see anyone doing it please tell them to stop. Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I share the concerns of Cheezypeaz and others about using a nineteenth-century local newspaper to support an assertion of fact in an article, particularly when it's an anonymous correspondent so we can't check to see whether they are any sort of authority on the matter. It might be an interesting quote to use to illustrate a point, but we should be relying on modern scholarship for assertions of fact in Wikivoice. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but these were not 'local', regional possibly, but not local, Like I said previously, the Country of Wales is small and 'regional' to Wales it is 'mainstream', you're thinking Britain rather than Wales.. and of course if you saw them as a British Newspapers, they may seem insignificant or small, like the example I gave, 'local' media in Wales would be 'Llanw Llŷn' to the Llŷn Peninsula.. but if you went by your reasoning of the newspapers I used as 'local' what would the most popular Welsh language newspapers be seen as? you'd probably see them as 'local', which shows that in these circumstances, the term is complex and cannot be used as a counter-argument of the invalidity of it being a reference, as for them being printed from the 19th century.. that's folly, these happened during the 19th century and the best evidence we have of such matters is through articles printed at this time, age of the article shouldn't even come into question unless those claims were later retracted or found to be inaccurate.. one great example would be much of Iolo Morgannwg's works which were thought to be true, but later found to be lies after his work had been assessed after his death. Also, if 19th century articles were not used as proof/references then Wiki would be riddled with such materials, which I doubt wiki would tackle. As for you saying 'we should be relying on modern scholarship for assertions of fact', well those modern scholarship for assertions were pulled from earlier references, so how can old materials be invalid if modern literature/media is wholly based upon old data?. Hogyncymru (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , the question of whether it's local or regional is secondary to the question of its age. A nineteenth century newspaper source might be useful for adding interesting extra details, examples or quotes, but for something like this it would need modern scholarly sources. Our aim is to reflect what modern scholarship says about any issue, not what we're able to figure out for ourselves by piecing things together from old newspapers. This stuff must surely be discussed in modern histories of the period - we should go with what they say. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * could you point out where in Wiki rules does it state that old materials cannot be used as core references? this would be good to give weight to your argument, thanks. Hogyncymru (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's in WP:RS. Of particular interest is WP:RS AGE and WP:SOURCETYPES. If there is modern scholarship about the subject, rely on that for the core content. Old newspapers might help provide additional detail or illustrative quotes, but modern scholarship should be the backbone where it's available - and for a subject like this, it's surely available? Girth Summit  (blether)  17:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is that Welsh history/culture is some-what overlooked so you have far less researchers/historians etc covering such topics, so often, many information is yet to be uncovered from old articles, so even though we do have some modern peer-reviewed papers or publications.. the scope of the topic is somewhat incomplete.. however even though I found a correspondent outlining the problems within the Churches in Wales, (which is also backed by a later dean (which would be the equated to the Bishop of Wales today) who addressed the issue), this is again confirmed through a paper published through Cambridge University; 'The Church and the Welsh Language' - 2020, By Enid R. Morgan . Hogyncymru (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'd rely on that paper then for Wiki voice assertions, rather than the newspaper (but maybe use the newspaper as an illustrative quote, with attribution). Girth Summit  (blether)  17:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hogyncymru, I was a bit confused by the long quite being attributed to two separate newspapers: The Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian and the Glamorgan Monmouth and Brecon Gazette and Merthyr Guardian, July 22, 1843. I wonder could you clarify? Also, it might be useful to attribute that quote, even if it's only "Editorial" or "unknown correspondent", etc.? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh that wasn't me who divided those, it's simply from one newspaper which has a very long winded title: 'Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian, Glamorgan, Monmouth, and Brecon Gazette' but I'll update with more info if I can trace that. Hogyncymru (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, it was me. That's what I assumed was meant, as they both have Wikipedia articles. Perhaps they merged to for, the one you have used? Meanwhile, I'll self revert. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hogyncymru (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

reinserted this text on 3 October 2021 The background should include this crucial bit on the Church, more important than Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542| even

I have reverted his deletion here Undid revision 1047918236 by John Jones (talk) This has already been discussed at length in the talk area under Church of Wales conspiracy theory


 * John Davies agrees with the first part (A History of Wales; p. 298) where he refers to the Church of England in Wales:
 * ".. under the Hanovarians its higher ranks became totally English. All the bishops were Englishmen... They cherished the culture of London... unprepared to tolerate 'regional' peculiarities... [The Welsh Clergy] rarely advanced beyond the most modest offices, a cause of great bitterness among Welsh intellectuals."
 * I would say that insisting that only English bishops were appointed, in a country where at that time 70% spoke only Welsh was certainly (directly or indirectly) an “attempt to eradicate the Welsh language”.
 * Secondly, the Church in Wales didn't exist at that time. We could however say 'the Anglican Church' or the 'Church of England in Wales'.
 * Third, as Martinevans123's link says: 'there was a general contempt for the Welsh language and the church was alienated from Welsh speaking communities'. (Source: https://www.cambridge.org).
 * This is essential context, which needs to be rephrased and added in the article as background information. I have great respect for for his work on this article. Diolch i ti am dy holl waith, gyfaill. John Jones (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "I would say that insisting that only English bishops were appointed, in a country where at that time 70% spoke only Welsh was certainly (directly or indirectly) an “attempt to eradicate the Welsh language”."
 * Wikipedia doesn't care what you think or what I think. See WP:NOTRIGHT Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the politicians section.
,, , , , , , , , ,  (If you wish to be removed from this notification please let me know.)

Reasons for deletion.

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

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

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

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

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


 * Keep. Politicians make no claims about being historians. Mention by politicians demonstrates currency and significance in modern political debate. You're not totally wrong - (1) may be partially correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's sneeking in historic claims via a backdoor. Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also wikipedia's policies are meant to be applied by the editors and not the readers. We do not leave the readers to judge WP:BESTSOURCES or WP:FALSEBALANCE Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see how fully attributed and sourced comments are "sneaking in historic claims via a backdoor." The subject matter is political; political comments are relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Accepting for a moment your premise: It's hard to see that any of these comments are, in fact, current. The most recent comment by a politician was in 2015 and that one was accidently deleted from this article by who accidently typed in "delete non-neutral pov by entrepreneur" for some reason that I am sure is not connected to what the politician said...
 * "Welsh entrepreneur, writer, and former local government Conservative politician, John Winterson Richards wrote on the website of the Institute of Welsh Affairs: "... the ‘Welsh Not’ did not come from oppressors in London but from educators in Wales who, rightly or wrongly, believed honestly and sincerely that the children in their charge would fare better in life if they mastered English."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1044998666&oldid=1044942109
 * Now I'm just guessing here. (So give me some slack.) But think that if we fact checked the statement by that entrepreneur & ex-politician he'd pass with flying colours but perhaps a certain top notch important politician wouldn't do so well. So I'm thinking we should follow the lead of our star editor and they should all be deleted. Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In the context of something that started may have started about 1789, I'd say 2015 was pretty recent. And yes, flying colours, certainly. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Trim Remove. I think the quote by Adam Price is relevant and should stay - he is an important politician in Wales, and he is clearly making a case for the Not as a significant illustration of what he sees as the historic relationship between the two countries.  However, the quotes by the other politicians do not add anything at all of significance, and should be removed.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's all or nothing. I'll assume you mean nothing. Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not "all or nothing". Keep the Price quote, which is relevant in the modern Welsh context, but remove the others.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Adam Price's claims are the most problematic, for example in his speech he claims that "1870 Education Act made English compulsory." Which is, as we all know, entirely false. His claim that "the WN is an early example of the effects of teacher's performance related pay." is strange in that the Revised Code appeared in August 1863 and the Welsh Not certainly existed prior to that. If he meant that the Code lead to more use of the Welsh Not then that should be left to historians to discuss (and they do).
 * To keep Adam Price's views in this article and delete the rest would be favouring one politician over the others.
 * If he is an important politician then the leaders of the two larger parties in Wales are more important. We should add their 'more important' views to the article and perhaps their election results so that the reader will know which view is more important that the others. We would need to keep this updated when there are new elections.
 * If his claims on this topic are important and should be included in this article then his views on other topics are also important and should be added to other wikipedia articles. Why stop there? Shouldn't Boris Johnson's various statements on historical topics also be given prominence on wikipedia? Why do we need historians anyway?
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I edited the above to change the date from 1963 to 1863 Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't care enough to argue over this. Removing the whole section would be better than keeping it.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify a little further. Fabricant's comments (28 years ago) do not relate to the article subject so should be discounted.   The comments from Lord Maelor are from 54 years ago, somewhat tangential, and based on his own interpretation of evidence - they should carry little if any weight.   The quote from Susan Elan Jones also should not carry much weight - they are simply a description of what she believed to be true.   The quote from Adam Price (12 years ago) is more relevant as he places the Not in some context, but it is not evident whether the second sentence of his paragraph is simply commentary - without some clarification it should be removed.   The 1931 quote from "the writer's mother's experiences" again needs to be placed in context, but she is presumably not a "politician" so it is in the wrong section and could if necessary be incorporated elsewhere in the body of the article.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Two editors here have suggested that the Welsh Not didn't exist. When MPs recognise the severity of this implement, it needs to be said here on Wikipedia. You use the word 'repetition', I'd say 'confirm'. You say 'new unchallanged  claims', I say: then let's hear them! Maybe we need more meat on the body of this article, not less! And 24 hours time - sounds like a gun at our heads!  John Jones (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @John Jones, can you provide diffs please, to support your assertion that "Two editors here have suggested that the Welsh Not didn't exist". -- DeFacto (talk). 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I can! Here's one of them: you! You added this quote: Ford discusses the paucity of evidence that the 'Not' existed. On a Wikipedia article! What are you doing? The author isn't even a historian, he's a popular fiction writer for children, and an ex UKIP Councillor! John Jones (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @John Jones, that's an outrageous misrepresentation of my addition - did you even read what I added? 1) I didn't "suggest" anything, all I did was add sourced content. 2) 'paucity' does not mean none, it means only a small quantity, so there is some evidence that the 'Not' existed. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Citing an outrageous minority held view, like this, is a clear reflection of the editor: the quality of a Wikipedia editor can be defined by the quality of their citations. John Jones (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @John Jones, are you going to try again then to support your assertion that "Two editors here have suggested that the Welsh Not didn't exist"? Or are you now going to apologise and strike it out? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @John Jones, are you going to try again then to support your assertion that "Two editors here have suggested that the Welsh Not didn't exist"? Or are you now going to apologise and strike it out? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe Wikipedia needs a "TalkNot" token that could be hung round an offending editor's User page?? I'd recommend a CGI image (based on a book cover, naturally)... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed the reasons for deletion I stated above. Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Monsyn (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote. It's a chance for you to address the reasons I gave for deletion. Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Michael Fabricant section should be removed - it does not reference the Welsh Not at all. I'm not particularly convinced the others add anything of substance to the article, but they do show that the Not was/is considered a bad thing. Llwyld (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By saying, " "Even during the last century, speaking Welsh in schools was an offence for which a pupil could be beaten." Fabricant implies that the device exists, and that's worth saying. I do think all these politicians add to the article, and shows, as we have several parties, that the rights of children is apolitical. Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How does being "beaten" relate to the subject matter of this article? In those days, children would have been beaten for all sorts of reasons. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By saying, "... speaking Welsh in schools was an offence for which a pupil could be beaten" Fabricant implies only that there were implements to do the beating and teachers willing to administer that punishment. Not that there was any Welsh Not device? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


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

Thank you all for input and the resulting discussion. Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to delete. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , as new content which was challenged, a consensus to keep it is required, without that it can be deleted. Do you think a keep consensus was achieved? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It says Keep, it says Trim, it says Strong keep twice. That's pretty clear is it not? DeFacto - you've supported Cheesy every single time, with just one exception. Odd! And nearly all your edits are an attempt to belittle the Welsh Not. Please concentrate on adding reliable, neutral, rich information to this article. Cell Danwydd (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I clarified my opinion yesterday - "Remove", rather than "Trim". There is no evidence that any editors are trying to "belittle" anything, though clearly there are different opinions.  The animated nature of some of the discussions on this page over the last few weeks makes me think that there would be some merit in getting opinions from uninvolved and experienced editors, perhaps via WP:RFC.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cell Danwydd, a consensus relies on policy-based rationales and arguments, it is not simply a vote - have you read WP:CONSENSUS? So no, there is no clear consensus to keep this content. What do you think is odd about anyone supporting policy-based rationale? Also, please give diffs to support your assertion about my edits, without them it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation - which fails WP:TALKNO. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I clearly stated that this wasn't a call for consensus. So complaining that there was no concensus is illogical. You didn't bother to respond., &  failed to engage with the reasons for deletion nor did they offer any  reasons why wikipedia policies either didn't apply or that I was applying them incorrectly so I ignored their responses. The following editors ,  and  gave useful responses which I replied to. If any of them want to dispute the deletion further then that is something I would reasonably respond to. Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , consensus is how Wikipedia works. A consensus is needed to keep new content if it is challenged. If a consensus cannot be achieved to keep it, then it should not be included. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is old content. I'm trying to avoid edit wars by explaining why the edit is required and by giving people time to discuss the edit before I do it. The reason I say 'this is not a call for consensus' is to preserve my right to be WP:BOLD. However this relies on people rationally engaging in the discussion and the stated reasons for the edit. Cheezypeaz (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cheezypeaz, but I thought it was added recently, in the last 2 or 3 weeks, and contested ever since. If it's established content, and its removal is challenged, then you do need a consensus to remove it. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I moved all of the politicians together a while ago, they were littering the article in various places. I wanted them all in the same place to warn readers they were politicians and so that when the time came to delete them I could discuss the whole section rather than bits of the article. I'm building a concensus. I used one WP:BOLD edit to test the waters and see what objections remained. Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a mixture of "old" and "new" content. At the end of July, before  became involved (and the hundreds of later edits), the article looked like this.  It contained the quote from Susan Elin Jones, and "the writer's mother's experiences", but, so far as I can see, not the other quotes by politicians.  So, there is no simple answer to 's point about whether the content is established or not.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose the simple answer is that the Susan Elin Jones bit, as being established, needs a consensus to remove it, whereas the rest, being new and contested needs a consensus to keep it. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * states we need a 'clear consensus to keep this content'. says 'this wasn't a call for consensus'. NOW -which one is it? WP:EDITCONSENSUS states 'A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections.' That didn't happen. There were concerns, and they were voiced. I said, 'When MPs recognise the severity of this implement, it needs to be said here on Wikipedia... Maybe we need more meat on the body of this article, not less! ' :Now, regarding your 'resons' for deletion:
 * 1. It his highly unusual for this type of article to include a list of what politicians have claimed about an historic phenomena. That is your personal opinion, which I disagree with. Even if it was, it's no reason to delete the list. No Policy was suplied by you, only your pov.
 * 2. I agree with : 'Politicians make no claims about being historians. Mention by politicians demonstrates currency and significance in modern political debate.' Further: you cite WP:BESTSOURCES to back up 'repeat claims already in the article, which is repetitious, or introduce new unchallanged claims'. WP:BESTSOURCES does not mention repetition. Which claims (in the sources) are unchallenged? Not only is vague but misleading. No wonder one editor just said 'Strong keep': your argument does not hold fast. Deleting this verifiable, reliable list of quotes gives WP:FALSEBALANCE. Cell Danwydd (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cell Danwydd, if it was stable established content and its removal was contested, then consensus is need to remove it. If, on the other hand, it is new content or its inclusion has been contested since it was added, then it needs consensus to keep it. I think its the latter - can you show otherwise? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


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


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


 * To address your point (2):
 * To clarify. My reference to WP:BESTSOURCES relates to the "new unchallenged claims" not to "repetitious".
 * You ask "Which claims (in the sources) are unchallenged?" My answer: Any factual claim that disagrees with reputable historians or cannot be verified by reputable historians as true should not be in this article.
 * One of objections was on the issue of "currency and significance in modern political debate" I pointed out that you had deleted the most recent ex-politician's pronouncements on the issue and strangely enough the only one that took a different line to the other politicians listed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1044998666&oldid=1044942109 the next most recent one was in 2010 which is 11 years ago. Not current. Not a debate. By deleting that entry you have demonstrated that you don't care for either debate or currency.
 * The actual selection of quotes from the politicians in the article has been done to make actual historical claims they have not been selected to illustrate any debate.
 * Another of objections was that "Politicians make no claims about being historians" Which I take to mean that people will know not to trust anything they say. If that is so why are they being used to make factual statements on wikipedia?


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

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

Strong keep. Monsyn (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC) It's not a vote. It's a chance for you to address the reasons I gave for deletion. Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC) And in your revert of my deletion you stated: Reasons and opinions were given to keep this part.

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

,, , , , , , , , ,  I feel this discussion is drawing to a close. If anyone has anything else to add please do it soon. I'll make a second attempt at deleting this section in 24 hours time. Thanks! Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Strong keep - Whether or not it's 'unusual' to list politicans' quotes matters not; show me the policy where this is frowned upon! Repetition (to some degree) is quite acceptable eg the header repeats facts within the body, and in this case too. If the politicians had spoken in favour of parties, or policies etc I would agree with you, but in this case, their opinion, or acknowledgement of the Welsh Not is important. Quotes by politicians are acceptable, and don't need reviewing by historians! Quotes by politicans is practice throughout Wikipedia, or are you going to delete Thatcher or Churchill's quotes? Best of luck! As someone has already mentioned WP:BESTSOURCES is irrelevant. You have causedWP:FALSEBALANCE by deleting these valuable quotes. John Jones (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To address your points...
 * "Whether or not it's 'unusual' to list politicans' quotes matters not" If it's unusual then it might be an indicator that this article isn't conforming to wikipedia standards.
 * "Quotes by politicans is practice throughout Wikipedia" - show me a similar example please.
 * "their opinion, or acknowledgement of the Welsh Not is important." Why?
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Da iawn ti! Mor rhyfedd fel y mae dyn y caws wedi dysgu'r holl reolau mor sydyn! Absolutely correct John! All I want to say is that the reasons given by Cheesyaz are excuses as the editor doesn't like them. Readers have a right to know what they have said over the years. Secondly, a blanket approach like this is unacceptable and unworkable. Monsyn (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To address your points...
 * "Readers have a right to know what they have said over the years." I'm sure they do. But that isn't wikipedia's role. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Readers come here to find out factual information about a topic. Wikipedia requires us as editors to fairly summerise what the expert opinion thinks on the topic. In this case historians. Not politicians.
 * "Secondly, a blanket approach like this is unacceptable and unworkable." They all have the same problem.
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Your 3 points :
 * 1. It indicates that the WN is unique. Saying that this article doesn't conform to Wikipedia Standards is a generalisation, and is only your personal opinion. Please cite the exact policy whereby a list of quotes by politicians of all parties are prohibited.
 * 2. You brought all the quotes under one heading in order to delete them all at once. Obviously, you knew exactly what you were doing. I suggest you put them back where they were, or keep them as they are. You ask for examples on other articles; you can take a look at this one or this one. We could also name the section 'Criticism' like this one or 'Aftermath' such as this one which basically is a list of quotes from politicians! Many articles have sections called 'Public opinion' like this one, so it's not only the views of historians that are listed! You can also a whole list article of reactions by politicians such as this one or this one.
 * 3. Politician's 'opinion, or acknowledgement of the Welsh Not is important' because it brings an indepenant, unattached perspective to the subject in question and confirms that the device existed and was used. Please asked this same question on all the above articles, if you would like further information as to why politicians are cited throughout Wikipedia . John Jones (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify. The history of the list...
 * created the list and added 3 entries
 * deleted one politician who was not on the list.
 * I moved the remaining politician on to the list.

Detail history of the list
 * 12 September 2021 creates the "Legacy" section and adds Susan Elan Jones


 * 12 September 2021 then adds Michael Fabricant


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


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


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


 * 18 September 2021 deletes one politician not in the list


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


 * 19 September 2021 moves Adam Price into the list


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

To address your points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

has reverted my deletion of the section. With this message [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1047777022&oldid=1047526134 NO CONSENSUS WAS REACHED IN THE TALK PAGE. YOUR EDITS ARE VERY DISRUPTIVE.]

This discussion started on 10:34, 27 September 2021

You made your first comment and I replied.

Strong keep. Monsyn (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Monsyn It's not a vote. It's a chance for you to address the reasons I gave for deletion. Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You gave no reasons for retaining this section. I deleted the section more than a day later at 21:56, 28 September 2021

You then reverted my first attempt at deletion with this message: Reasons and opinions were given to keep this part

You had given no reasons. So I asked...

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

You at last gave your reasons.

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

My reply to your reasons...

But that isn't wikipedia's role. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Readers come here to find out factual information about a topic. Wikipedia requires us as editors to fairly summerise what the expert opinion thinks on the topic. In this case historians. Not politicians. ::*"Secondly, a blanket approach like this is unacceptable and unworkable." They all have the same problem. ::Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Your objections were irrelevant to the issue.

You had another 3 days to challenge my reply or raise new objections. Which you failed to do.

It is now 16:50 2 October 2021

That's over 5 days since the start of this discussion.

You need to engage with the discussion and use rational arguments. You can't simply keep reverting my edits.

I will make the deletion again. If you revert it again I will consider it disruptive editing.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:EDITCONSENSUS states 'A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised'. You, Cheezypeaz, have not done so. Consensus has not been reached.

You have two reasons for deletion. The first 'highly unusual' is not a policy=based rational, and does not therefore stand. You said: 'If it's unusual then it might be an indicator that this article isn't conforming to wikipedia standards.' Your argument is not policy based rational. As I said, 'Saying that this article doesn't conform to Wikipedia Standards is a generalisation'. Half your 'reasons' therefore have fallen down.

Your second reason is that the quotes introduce new unchallenged claims. Both of your reasons ARE BASED ON A SINGLE WIKIPEDIA policy WP:BESTSOURCE, which contains one paragraph only:

Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk.

All the politicians' quotes do actually come from reputable books and journal articles, and some are themselves 'unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available'. Adam Price's book, for example, is a published academic work. If one of these pass this test, in your words, 'It's all or nothing.' Ghmyrtle was correct (and I agree the following): 'he (Adam Price) is an important politician in Wales, and he is clearly making a case for the Not as a significant illustration of what he sees as the historic relationship between the two countries.'

It was asked: "Which claims (in the sources) are unchallenged?" Your answer was: Any factual claim that disagrees with reputable historians or cannot be verified by reputable historians as true should not be in this article.' Well, this is not in WP:BESTSOURCE. You've reworded the policy!! Misworded the policy. Every one of these quotes are supported by reputable historians. Give me one quote which isn't! Until you list which ones are at fault and why, consensus is not reached. As yet, you haven't listed one.

You say that only recent quotes are acceptable. Which Wikipedia policy says that? Every quote is relevant in the time it was said, it's historic. Will you also delete Churchill's speech about "fighting them at the beeches" etc because they're not relevant today? That has already been asked, and you are yet to answer. On 29 September, you said:

John Jones To address your points... Your comments are not based on Policy, and should be disregarded. I say to you that including the quotes conforms to WP:BOLD and WP:BESTSOURCE.
 * "Whether or not it's 'unusual' to list politicians' quotes matters not" If it's unusual then it might be an indicator that this article isn't conforming to Wikipedia standards.


 * "Quotes by politicians is practiced throughout Wikipedia" - show me a similar example please, you asked. I listed 7, but you looked only at the first. Your comment on the first was that 'Quotes by politicians are relevant in this case because they indicate their attitude to future developments. ' On what policy do you base this remark?! So, is the Churchill beach quote relevant for the same reason (because it indicates his attitude to future developments)? I await the reasons why you discount the other 6 articles which contain lists. On 30 sept. I also asked:  Please cite the exact policy whereby a list of quotes by politicians of all parties are prohibited. I'm still awaiting this information from you.


 * I said "their opinion, or acknowledgement of the Welsh Not is important." Your only answer here was 'That's what historians are for.' We can, and we need both perspectives, in sensitive matters like the Welsh NOT. Politicians speak on behalf of their constituents, and this is a part of the 'sum of all knowledge'. As Cell Danwydd said on 30 Sept: 'Deleting this verifiable, reliable list of quotes gives WP:FALSEBALANCE'.

quite correctly reverted your deletion, as you have NOT used policy-based rationale.

Feel free to add other politicians which support your attitude towards the Welsh Not, and that attitude is very clear from your 2 months of negative edits against Wales and playing down the cruelty of the Welsh Not. I support a tag on the neutrality of this article. Your deletion is nothing less than an attempt to sensor information as in WP:CENSOR: 'Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link.' The text is appropriate. The chapter should stand until you have a consensus to delete. John Jones (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe the weight of the discussion above is to remove the Fabricant quote, as it says a pupil could be beaten for speaking Welsh (which I acknowledge is a bad thing, of course), but does not mention the Welsh Not, while the other three quoted politions refer to it. It would be entirely possible for a pupil to be beaten without any involvement of the Welsh Not at all, and it is quite possible for the Welsh Not to have been used and not to result in corporal punishment. In the absence of any evidence that Fabricant was referring to the Welsh Not, I will delete that quote. Llwyld (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing original research: "found themselves adrift"
The Blue Books article.

First version

" the monoglot, more agrarian Welsh were left to struggle along in an unfamliar legal system and against an economic system weighted heavily against them.'

One of the intermediate versions

"the Welsh farmers of remoter districts found themselves adrift in amidst a legal and economic system whose language and focus were unfamiliar to them"

The current version "the majority of the population could have found themselves adrift amid a legal and economic system whose language and focus were unfamiliar to them."

The Welsh Not article

added as this...

The majority of the population would have found themselves adrift amid a legal and economic system whose language and focus were unfamiliar to them."

I added a citation needed tag.

The tag was removed and the 'report' claim added, with the message "add what was said in the note"

We now have...

"The report mentions that many Welsh epeakers found themselves adrift amid a legal and economic system whose language and focus were unfamiliar to them."


 * The citation needed tag should not have been removed.
 * The unreferenced text was original research in the article it came from.
 * The text was changed from could to would when it was copied over.
 * If by report it means the 1847 education report. I can't find the word 'adrift' in the report.

So I'm going to delete it. Cheezypeaz (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That seems the right approach. (Unless the report referred to can be better identified... even so, the 'adriftness', and the number of people so effected, seems to have been escalated over time). Llwyld (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * REWORDED REPLY: It must have been very quick to add to the article. It certainly took a long time to build a case for it to be removed. Cheezypeaz (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)