Talk:Welsh Not/Archive 5

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


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


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


 * Editor or someone else needs to explain why Martyn Ford isn't an authoritative, reputable source. I'm guessing it would be fairly simple to do.
 * If he is an authoritative, reputable source then we can just take what he says as gospel.
 * If he isn't an authoritative, reputable source then what he says is worthless. However if he has given his sources then we can potentially use those ourselves.
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * your alternatives are too simplistic Reliable sources says . TSventon (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "your alternatives are too simplistic" If he's done original research then it's a history book we can use as a source. If he's just giving his opinion of what historians say then we should use those historians directly. I haven't got a copy so I don't know. We haven't got many sources as it is so we could use another source. Jones & Davies hardly mention the Welsh Not. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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


 * I did a quick search on the internets :)
 * "Martyn Ford formerly served as a councillor on a local authority in Swansea. He has recently acquired an M.A. in history from Swansea University, and obtained a first degree at Aberystwyth University in 1976."
 * https://www.amberley-books.com/author-community-main-page/f/community-martyn-ford.html
 * His book is published by Amberley_Publishing Amberley's tagline "Leading the way with local and specialist history" They seem like a legitimate publisher (not a vanity publisher) specialising in UK history.
 * He's an ex UKIP Councillor as has been discussed before and seems to get some bad book reviews on that basis.
 * I haven't read the book.
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He's an ex UKIP Councillor as has been discussed before and seems to get some bad book reviews on that basis.
 * I haven't read the book.
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the book.
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's not a vanity, or self-published book, and doesn't fall foul of any of the no-nos mentioned in WP:QUESTIONABLE, so would pass as a reliable source per WP:RS. Remember too, per WP:BIASED, that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" and "sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject".
 * I have skimmed through the book, and noted that the bases for his arguments were well referenced - the book has more than 300 references in its footnotes section at the back.
 * Given all that, I support using this source in this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * The publishers (and author) are WP:QUESTIONABLE: may sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires. They print books and e-books across many subject areas of such as transport, industry, general history, sport, military and niche specialist interests and are not a authoritative, reputable source. They have no significant coverage in reliable sources, especially secondary sources. The book For Wales, See England: Language, Nationhood and Identity is advertised by the publishers with the following marketing text: [The Welsh language] has all but disappeared as a living language outside of a handful of communities in the west and north of Wales. NB There are >700,000 Welsh speakers!' Are they taking the piss? In no way should this publisher (which specialises in stuff on tanks and lorries) be counted as reputable. I'm gobsmacked that says otherwise. This book is not a peer-reviewed publication, and I've yet to find any reviews by reputable historians of the book itself.


 * As spelt out, Ford wrote the book in question with only a BA in history, therefore can not be called a reputable historian in any way! He is not notable, does not have an article on Wikipedia, and Ford's other books include: The Imagination Box ('It all starts when Professor Eisenstone, scientist and inventor, creates a box that's supposed to turn whatever you imagine into reality'), The Imagination Box: A Mind of Its Own ('There was a sabre-toothed tiger in the playground.'), Get Around In English (co-author; 'The How to be British'!!! 'Ye Olde Loos, Ye Olde Castle, Us in a Bus'). John Jones (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * John Jones, I said Ford's "book has been published by a reputable publisher" and "better sources may be available". I don't support a blanket ban on non-historians as sources. Amberley Publishing seems to be a mainstream publisher whose books can be considered for use as Wikipedia sources. I could be wrong. Do you have evidence that it is WP:QUESTIONABLE i.e. "with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight"? TSventon (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I know what you said. I want to know why you say that (yet, not really sure yourself). The onus is on you to prove and verify that as per WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, otherwise it comes down. I've given you my reasons for deletion. John Jones (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Not that that matters but it's an M.A. not a B.A. in history. There is however more than one Martyn Ford, the cartoon guy is a different Martyn Ford. I support the removal of bad sources, but not selectively to push WP:POV. We can't keep the quotes we like and delete the one's we don't. For example. Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Martyn Ford not reliable source
I tend to agree that this is not a reliable source. It's true that Amberley is a reputable publisher, but that doesn't mean that every book it publishes is to a high standard. In fact, they are very much a publisher of "popular" content, and I know people who have written for them who have no claim to genuine learning whatsoever. (No names, no pack drill.) The quotation that John Jones provided shows without doubt that the book is at best outdated and is not a source that should be used. Cheezypeaz believes that if someone has credentials as a historian, "we can just take what he says as gospel", but that is never true. Remember Hugh Trevor-Roper and the Hitler Diaries? Deb (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Deb, the quotation that John Jones provided isn't from the book, it's from the publisher's blurb publicising the book on their website here. It's a subjective opinion, and depends on what you mean by a "living language", or understand it to mean, I suppose. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay - but the blurb is often provided by the author and always approved by him/her. So I remain unconvinced. Deb (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s. this is the same Martyn Ford, UKIP candidate, "who distributed a leaflet condemning diversity and the notion of a multicultural society" in 2014? We really want to quite from someone who printed leaflets saying: "Islamic terror. Abuse of our children. The consequence of multiculturalism."?? Or perhaps this doesn't matter. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123, do you think we should base our choice of sources on the political history of their authors? If we eliminated all authors that had belonged to any of the other political parties nested under Category:Nationalist parties in the United Kingdom, I wonder what we would be left with. ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 15:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder. Of course it was all so long ago, he's probably a reformed character by now, eh? And UKIP are just like all the others anyway, aren't they (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a difficulty here in that, if we treat him as a reliable source, we can't say anything like "Anti-Muslim politician Martyn Ford says..." because that would be WP:SYN. I think it would be much less problematic to leave out this source but of course there needs to be consensus. Deb (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The full quote is: "If he is an authoritative, reputable source then we can just take what he says as gospel.". An "authoritative, reputable source" is absolutely not the same as a "someone has credentials as a historian".
 * What I meant by the statement is that so long as the person in question is "authoritative, reputable source" who agrees with the consensus of authoritative, reputable sources on the topic then we should present the information in WP:VOICE.
 * If he is an "authoritative, reputable source" and disagrees with the consensus then it cannot be WP:VOICE but may be presented as his views.
 * These are the Wikipedia policies we must follow. I am trying to follow them. Please let me know if I am in error.
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, but no one was more of an authoritative, reputable source than Trevor-Roper. He wasn't going against consensus - but he still got it wrong. Deb (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Two points:
 * There was no consensus about the Hitler diaries, he was the only one to have looked at them. So no WP:VOICE it would have been presented as his opinion as an expert in the subject matter.
 * Wikipedia does not care about correctness or truth. WP:NOTRIGHT.
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of the above statements are incorrect (the second one originates from an essay, not a guideline or policy), and both are irrelevant to my point. Deb (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was working from memory regarding Hugh Trevor-Roper, yes another historian Gerhard Weinberg also looked at the documents ("partly persuaded by Trevor-Roper's endorsement"). So the second part of my statement was wrong ie "he was the only one to have looked at them". However the salient point "At the press conference both Trevor-Roper and Weinberg expressed their doubts at the authenticity, and stated that German experts needed to examine the diaries to confirm whether the works were genuine." So consensus? Not a sign of it.
 * Yes WP:NOTRIGHT is not a Wikipedia policy (Did I claim it was?) a but a discussion of the effects of actual Wikipedia policy.
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * None of this makes any difference whatsoever to the point I was making. My patience is now wearing thin. Can we please focus on the matter in hand, i.e. whether this is a reliable source or not? Deb (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * None of this makes any difference whatsoever to the point I was making. My patience is now wearing thin. Can we please focus on the matter in hand, i.e. whether this is a reliable source or not? Deb (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

How about taking it to WP:RSN?
Rather that wasting more days and weeks going round in circles here, how about taking it to WP:RSN? Fresh blood and a formal close might reduce the edit warring. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem is that some people here don't follow Wikipedia's rules. The rules require us to accurately summarise the opinons of relevant experts in the field. In this case historians, specifically Welsh historians because they are the only ones writing on this subject. People don't want that. They are afraid of what they will find. I've been trying to eject whole categories of crap that doesn't follow the rules and quite frankly it's been a pain in the bottom. Until we all follow Wikipedia's rules then we are all doomed. Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The answer is right here...
 * 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."
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , if that's the answer, please interpret it wrt to Ford's book - is it an RS or not? We know that whichever way you call it, others will disagree - and that is because it is subjective and dependent each of our personal opinions (personal bias?). At least by taking it to RSN, we potentially get uninvolved views and could get a declared consensus to cite in support of future removal or use. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * He is clearly not the best, not the most reputable, nor the most authoritative source available on the topic. You wouldn't compare him to Martin Johnes or Gareth Elwyn Jones and think "I'll take his word over theirs".


 * My view of him is based on my understanding (which may be faulty) that he has not become the 'go to' subject matter expert because he has done extensive research into this particular topic and is widely quoted in historical journals.


 * If he has merely given his view on the research of others then there are better historians to ask for their views on that research.


 * So as a source of history he should be removed. Just like Adam Price or Simon Brooks. Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cheezypeaz, do you think it is only a reliable source for his views then, and not for assertions of fact? The follow-up question might be: are his views notable though? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that's a good question. My opinion: Other history articles don't have 'views's or politics on them, they just tell the reader about the topic. If we have views we will just end up arguing about who to include or not. Personally I'm close to giving up careing about it so long as we don't pretend they are history experts and add them in as sources of history. If they say "the Welsh Not was a bad thing" it's much less damaging to the article than them saying "the Welsh Not existed between 1456 and 1920" which is an historical matter best left to historians. So feelings not facts. and preferably not at all Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also. Since my latest edit the Purpose section is redundant and should be deleted. You don't need to keep anything in it. Thanks. Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Martin Johnes on the Welsh Not.
This edit does not reflect the source. Nowhere that I can see on pages 100 or 102 does Johnes say anything remotely resembling the idea that the purpose of the Welsh Not was to teach English; it simply isn't there. Since this is a new addition it shouldn't be restored until a specific, unambiguous quote can be found. Furthermore, while he says that both the Welsh Not and the eradication of Welsh were not official policy, they were left to individual teachers (a more accessible version of the text is here, but both the book and that paper say essentially the same thing.) He says he Welsh Not certainly existed but how widespread it was is uncertain. What is certain is that neither the Welsh Not nor eradicating Welsh from schools were ever official state policies but rather something down to individual teachers. This is not the same as saying it didn't happen; the current text inappropriately misuses that quote by cutting it in half and using only the first part. Similarly, further down, he says that Imagined or otherwise, the Welsh Not has remained a powerful symbol of the oppression of Welsh culture and it continues to feature prominently in identity displays at St Fagan’s, now known as the National History Museum. This is vital context and we cannot cite him without including it. Finally, it is completely inappropriate to put this in the "Device and method" section, when Johnes is talking about how it is perceived. --Aquillion (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm looking, give me a few minutes. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly the phrase came out of this conversation. The "argues" part wasn't me I don't think. Professor Martin Johnes has already corrected my edit. :) and didn't object to that part.


 * Just to be really clear regarding point (2). Take the sentence "Moreover, many teachers recognised that punishing children for speaking Welsh did not actually work in helping them with their English". This sentence is in a history book by a well know history professor of some standing. He does not give it as an opinion, he does not say 'probably', he does not say 'most people think' he states it as a FACT. As editors we must assume that it is factually correct unless we have a good authoritative source that conflicts with it. In this particular instance we are are comparing it with a claim by a journalist on a blog which is not backed up by any analysis. There is no comparison. Given that there are no known authoritative disputes we can use the essential facts contained in this sentence as WP:WIKIVOICE so it's ok to state that "some teachers thought punishing children for speaking Welsh helped them with their English" Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that that doesn't say that the purpose of the Welsh Not was to teach children English. If anything, it says that while the goals of many teachers was to teach English, they recognized that punishment (in the form of the Welsh Not) did not serve that goal.  (Also note "many", not "all"; again, his point is that the Welsh Not was used only by some teachers and was not official policy.)  In other words, to the extent that it says anything, it says the opposite of what you're citing it for - it implies that many teachers recognized that the Welsh Not was not intended to teach English and was therefore counterproductive.  We certainly can't turn around and cite it to say something that amounts to "the Welsh Not was always used to try and teach English", which is the opposite of what the source says on every single point.  All that aside, the sentence doesn't mention the Welsh Not at all.  Is there a quote that mentions it specifically? --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all is the article now as you intended? or did you mean to leave the Martin Johnes quote at the bottom? Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I absolutly agree that Martin Johnes does not explicitly state that the purpose of the Welsh Not was to teach English. The claim that he did is an artifact of previous edits which if we lived in a sane world would have been removed. Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the weight of the chapter is to state that it was used to teach english. For example
 * page 102 on the possibility of having welsh as a seperate subject in school. "The main reason given for opposition was the desire of parents to see their children learn english and the teachers' feeling that the best way to achieve this was to discourage the use of Welsh."
 * P100 "Excluding Welsh from the classroom...parents...wanted their children to learn English".
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are other historians who talk about immersion learning of english. Cheezypeaz (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your analysis of this sentence: "Moreover, many teachers recognised that punishing children for speaking Welsh did not actually work in helping them with their English".
 * So bit of background: All schools were teaching english. the 'sole object' of setting up the day schools in Wales was to teach english. for refs see the Blue books page.
 * You seem to be implying that some schools used the Welsh Not and also didn't have the goal of speaking english? "the goals of many teachers was to teach English," out of 1600 odd schools for the labouring classes surveyed in the 1847 report 80% were english medium and 99.8% taught english. there is only one school that we can be certain of didn't teach english.
 * The "many" is attached to "many teachers recognised" not to the teaching of english.
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "eradication of Welsh were not official policy" nor an unofficial one. Some people thought that it would be better off dying but Welsh parents who paid for their children to go to school certainly didn't want or intend that. There was no eradication of welsh as the result of the teaching of english. welsh speaking school children spoke welsh outside school, at their home, at chaple etc.


 * Can't see the context linkage you stress.


 * The section is badly labled.
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with that Martin Johnes did not clearly say that the purpose of the Welsh Not was to teach English so that statement shouldn't be sourced to him. Can we take that out until a better source is found? TSventon (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Have you got a copy of the Book? To prevent me having to type out whole paragraphs ;) Cheezypeaz (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have the book, but at the moment I can see the text about the Welsh Not via Google books, but not the page numbers. Typing out whole paragraphs would be against Wikipedia copyright policy. TSventon (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've responded on my to the editor concerned on my talk page. talk page, too much noise here. The answer you want is at the bottom. Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As requested: list of negative edits showing a bias against Wales, the Welsh language and playing down the WN
asked on 2 October 2021: 'I would really appreciate it if you could point out some 'anti-Welsh' edits.' DeFacto also asked for diffs. Well here they are.

In the following table, the + in the + / - column means that the edit was positive towards Wales (there is ONE!), pro-Welsh-language or described the Welsh Not (WN) as per reliable sources as a marker for physically punished children. Whether or not the amended edit, by the user, was correct or not is irrelevant: their edit was negative, against Wales ie anti-Welsh and anti-diversity of languages and culture. The avalanche of negative edits show that there was (and is) a concerted attack on the Welsh identity, its people, language and on this article, by users with an anti-Welsh bias. There are too few editors of minoritized languages to counter the tsunamis of full time editors from large languages such as English, and sovereign states. 18th century colonial attitudes and linguistic bullying on Wikipedia continue today.

Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Cool, can you add an extra column for our responses? Thanks Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, not cool. A list accusing other editors of having edited in a biased manner is not in the spirit of WP:CIVIL please retract the accusation that I removed content because it was 'embarrassing to English users' my edit summary details exactly and entirely why I made the edit that I did, referencing Wikipedia policy.  Please let's not spend time dissecting why edits may or may not have been made in the past; I don't see how this helps us build consensus about what should be in the article. JeffUK (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Llywelyn2000, I asked you for diffs twice: once @19:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC) related to the removal of citations and once @14:15, 30 September 2021 related to an image being political. I can't see either of those requests satisfied here. All I can see is a stream of bad faith, irrational, and unsubstantiated claims that my edits to improve the accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability of the article are "anti-Welsh"! What is your agenda here? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Ahem, if our Welsh User feels they have a legitimate case then why not go through official channels on WP? What purpose does this serve here? PS we do not use emotional language to describe historical events on an encyclopaedia… I expect that from some of my history textbooks, but not here. I want neutral and clearly laid out wording. People actually *read* Wikipedia for pleasure or to learn a few facts here and there… ) not that I have any interest in Wales, being a dastardly Englishman.) 92.40.194.164 (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand why the anon Englishman 92.40.194.164 does not see the content of this article as controversial. However, there are no "official channels" where a lack of understanding of minority languages can be challenged. Reading about the mere existence of the "Welsh Not", even if it had occurred only in one school, would be enough to upset any person whose first language is Welsh. Imagine if English speakers in England had been punished by some imaginary larger and more powerful group for speaking English instead of, say, Esperanto. Would you find an article on that subject equally unworthy of discussion? Strong feelings have been aroused here for reasons that are obvious to polyglots, and that shouldn't be dismissed as if it just didn't matter. Deb (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the Welsh Not should go in the summary.
The purpose.

Welsh language and it's social domains. Wales: England's colony?
 * P438: "Criticisms of the educational method, however, carry a wider signifigence. Debate still rages as to the advisability of the total immersion method of language teaching; in the context of teacher ignorance of the English language on this scale...a method which wholely excluded use of the Welsh language was almost completely counter productive... in such a context, Johnson regarded the use of the infamous Welsh Not as positively harmfull..."
 * P444:"...because the kind of total immersion in English that the parents and teachers desired was itself ineffectual. Some kind of bilingual approach was essential..."
 * P102 "Moreover, many teachers recognised that punishing children for speaking Welsh did not actually work in helping them with their English".
 * The "did not actually work" part means they intended it to work and it failed.
 * The Welsh Not was only used as an instrument of punishment for speaking Welsh. It wasn't used for any other purpose.
 * Therefore it's correct to say that the Welsh Not was used for helping them with their English.
 * A teacher helping children to learn a language is called teaching. We may not like the idea of punishment to inforce a total language immersion teaching method but that's what it was.


 * P100 "In this example [of the use of a Welsh Not], it is also notable that it was only for older children, which again illustrates the growing realisation of the need to use Welsh to teach English"
 * So they stopped using the Welsh Not for younger children because it wasn't working to teach English.

It's purpose was to enforce a method of teaching English.

The Welsh Not exists to teach English.

I think that's important and should go in the summary.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * We are in danger of straying from the topic, however. I feel that this article should be pared down a bit/ a lot and should not become an article about how to teach English to Welsh people. I don't think it's correct to say that the Welsh Not was used for helping them with their English, and in any case that would be WP:SYNTH. And of course then you would get into the territory of why it was thought necessary to do that and whether a monolingual education is desirable. The truth is probably that in some cases the teachers couldn't speak Welsh themselves and didn't approve of children potentially sharing a private language. Although the use of the Welsh knot died out in the last century (as far as I know), it's well-attested that 20th-century children were sometimes discouraged from speaking Welsh at home, as well as at school, in order to make it easier to teach them through the medium of English. But we don't want to start talking about that topic here either. Deb (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

All those dreadful names :(
Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi DeFacto,

Noooooo... :)

No one has used those names in years, I think we should spare the readers from having to read them all in the summary. They are hardly the meat of the article.

The history books I've read just call it the Welsh Not (or Note in Davies' book - which is an exception).

Cheers

Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Cheezypeaz, I think they are regional names for similar devices, and various books do mention them. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Do those books use the regional name without referring to what appears to be the common name 'Welsh Not'? Are you putting them there so they get indexed? I just think it reads horribly, as in forcing the readers to read that long list before they actually get to the information they came for. Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed per MOS:FIRST - "Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is why content is best discussed here, you get more eyes on it. ;-) Thanks for that . -- DeFacto (talk). 12:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , Good edit, fixes the problem of readability. Thanks.Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Everybody please calm down - NO MORE personal attacks
, please stop with the personal accusations now. You've made your point and you've made some real improvements to the article. Let's continue with that instead of trying to single out those you perceive as evildoers. ,, , , , , I spend a lot of time on English wikipedia and I don't see any real reason to assume anti-Welsh sentiment here. It's a disagreement on content that has been aggravated by a lack of understanding of national and cultural issues - sadly common but there is far worse going on around the place. I don't see bullying - I see excessive zeal on the part of an individual. Plus one previously uninvolved person who has a track record of troublemaking and arrived here on 2 October with the apparent intention of keeping up that record.
 * Statement: Any dispute that is not about content should be taken to ANI. The next editor who makes a personal attack can expect a block. Deb (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wind it in Deb, you just undermined any authority you have by making making a thinly veiled PA against me, with ZERO evidence. Perhaps you should block yourself? It is completely unacceptable for any of the users you tagged above to go around claiming anti Welsh this that and the other and threatening to get others blocked. Considering you have not said anything until now is extremely disappointing and you should look at your own actions in encouraging and enabling this disgraceful excuse of a talk page to develop instead of assuming bad faith of others. There are several others here who you have tagged who are here to cause just to trouble, but once again you only attack me. Please either strike or apologise your remarks. Games of the world (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you believe you recognise yourself from the description. I recommend you take a long hard look at your behaviour, stop the personal attacks and stop stalking User:John Jones, from whose talk page you were previously banned. There are plenty of other articles where you could be contributing usefully. As a result of the above tirade, I have ample reason to block you from this talk page too, and I will if there's one more personal attack from you. Deb (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You've made my point entirely in that one post. Thanks Debs. Games of the world (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: fast approaching removal from my watchlist. Might come back next year if things have calmed down. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Enjoy!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "This article handmade in artisan kettles" Bedigedig!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123 welcome back, beware, popcorn can contain high levels of salt and sugar. TSventon (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Penigamp!! "A right ruddy Royal pissing pantomime" (... as they say in Ystradgynlais) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Propose change opening to 'The Welsh Not was a system of punishment."
I think the Welsh Not was both a system of punishment and a specific item used in that system.

This article is more about the Welsh Not as a 'system of punishment' rather than the actual 'token' itself (which is, as per the lead, not actually a specific thing at all, but some sort of token of some shape, size and composition used as a small part of the system of punishment as a whole). As such I think the opening should be changed to:

'The Welsh Not was a system of punishment...' ,

This is consistent with Dialect card and is consistent with the article exploring the policy of punishing students for speaking Welsh within schools more broadly than with a specific type of token applied in a specific way. and consistent with the body of the article talking about the background to Welsh language policy. The 'Parallels' are all parallel systems, not things hung around people's necks.

This is supported by https://www.wrexham-history.com 'A system of punishment' https://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/language_education.shtml "a means of forcing Welsh children to speak English at school."

"The use of the 'Welsh Not' or 'Welsh Stick' or 'Welsh Lead' was established as a form of punishment..." [Tracing Your Welsh Ancestors, Beryl Williams] etc.

I have changed this once but the change was lost within other edits, I think it should be agreed by consensus because it does make quite a difference to what is 'relevant' for this article.

JeffUK (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It was me wot did it. I am the guilty party. Update introduction: Shorter, snappier and more impactful, less names that no one has ever heard of, also removed Jesus comparison with stigmatise I thought the phrase "system of punishment" was a bit ponderous and it would be as quick to actually describe the system. Also I think it's important to include in the summary what it was for. Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy with 'The Welsh Not was a form of punishment' if it's less ponderous. The point being it would be a major change, changing the the subject of the article from 'the stick'  to 'the use of the stick'. I should have probably discussed it here before making the change the first time!  I do think 'System' is technically more correct. JeffUK (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have to take the opposite view. The topic of the article is an object, not some indefinable system. Yes, the form of the object could vary, but essentially it's the stick we are talking about, with the use of it being a subsidiary topic. Any overriding "system" is absent, as we know that the nature of the punishment varied considerably. We can't even agree on its ultimate objective. Deb (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's see how this goes for a little while, but if this is the consensus then hopefully makes it a little clearer what is WP:Relevant  e.g. 'The subjugation of the welsh language' in general is 2-steps removed from 'The item' (but only one from 'the system') the 'Brittany' example is not a parallel because it was a system of punishment not involving any particular item.  I think it does follow that 'the purpose' of the Welsh Not by the 'item' definition, is 'To mark a child as having spoken welsh when it was forbidden'.  The purpose of the system is to dissuade the child from speaking Welsh.  JeffUK (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Deb that the article is about an object and that we can't agree on its objective. Brittany appears to be a parallel because the Symbole was used there, even if not mentioned in the current version of this article. TSventon (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Deb. Hardly "a system". The dunce's hat wasn't ever "a system", was it?Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . The article is about an object, the origin and purpose of which is not certain. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I get the intention, and am somewhat sympathetic, but I agree that the article is about the Not itself, not the system/practise around it. Llwyld (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Beware the feedback loop. Ill reply more later, need some food. Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
,, , ,

Some thoughts... Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In case anyone hadn't seen this sockpupet investigation (I only discovered it by accident when it was all over). Odd that no one had informed me given that I was one of the victims.
 * You should recuse yourself from editing this article given the issues raised over the last week or so and the positions you have taken.
 * Wikipedia articles tell the reader what the item being discussed was for.
 * The only valid opinions are those of editors that have read "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available..." If you haven't been reading sources like that then you don't have an opinion. I am very happy to be challenged on my interpretation of the sources by people who have actually taken the time to read them. I can be as wrong as anyone. I would be delighted to be corrected, please do so.


 * , the only people I pinged in my initial sockpuppet post were the ones I had quoted. I wanted to submit as neutral a nomination as possible and obviously didn't know what it would turn up.
 * Deb, I welcome your contributions to the article. It is easier to achieve NPOV if editors bring a variety of POVs and are prepared to work together. TSventon (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How very shocking. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123, sorry if you are feeling left out. TSventon (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a local article for local sockpuppets. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Indef? Well I guess I'm going to be waiting a while for those comments above to be retracted then; can the whole '..list of negative edits..' section be removed within WP:TPOC? It certainly doesn't add any value and I think it's beyond 'merely uncivil' JeffUK (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no value in retaining the table of supposed negative edits. If it can't be deleted, perhaps it could be archived early? Llwyld (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TPOC, I guess all their contributions to this page can be struck through, including those to the image RfC. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked the SPI closer about this, and they advised not to strike anything out, but to rely on closers discounting their contributions. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * While strongly supported - and sought to excuse the behaviour - of the sockpuppet/meatpuppet editors at the sockpuppet investigation, I don't think she need be asked to recuse. Llwyld (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nor am I planning to, unless a topic ban is imposed on me (which of course Cheezypeaz or anyone else is free to request). I sought to resolve the situation and to explain the behaviour of the meatpuppets, not to excuse it. I quote from my own comments: "I won't argue with the statement that Llywelyn2000 may have behaved unwisely, and indeed he should have declared his connection with the other users as he'd been told to do. Nor am I suggesting that his actions in failing to do so should go uncensored."
 * And I continue to believe that the blocked users are not socks, they are all real people. Some of them have been co-editors of mine on the Welsh Wikipedia for many years, editing a huge range of articles; others are relative newcomers. Some are male, some are female. None of them are frequent contributors to the English Wikipedia, and some will have been unfamiliar with the guidelines. At the time the accusation was made, I was completely unaware that they regularly carried out informal editathons at Llywelyn2000's home; this is not surprising, since he lives around 200 miles from me. They are all Welsh speakers who felt strongly about the topic, but they went too far. Deb (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cheezypeaz, WP:BESTSOURCES is talking about the role of good research in helping to achieve neutrality, and the full quote is "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements". I'm not sure it means "If you haven't been reading sources like that then you don't have an opinion". -- DeFacto (talk). 08:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify. Any opinion [by an editor] as to historical fact which is not based on reliable sources is worthless because it fails to follow Wikipedia policy. I have provided a quick breakdown here of the relevant policy. If I might just quote "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." If I've misunderstood the policy please, as ever, feel free to correct me. Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cheezypeaz, we need to be clear on the difference between a fact and an opinion. Facts need a reliable source, sure. But opinions need more than that - they need to be reliably sourced and attributed as to whose opinion they are, and they also need to be duly balanced with alternative opinions. IMHO, the difficult bit is judging the weights of alternative opinions so as to present the correct balance. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) To clarify my clarification. ;) I have added "[by an editor]" to my comment above. (2) So to be clear: People saying that we editors can't decide what the Welsh Not was for are barking up the wrong tree. The question is: have the historians decided what it was for? If editors are witholding agreement without quoting reliable, authoritative sources then that is in violation of wikipedia policy and disruptive editing. Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cheezypeaz, yes, for stuff that is not an incontrovertible fact, I think editors should strive to present a duly weighted balance of mainstream opinions. In discussions to establish a consensus of what that balance is, "withholding agreement" has no bearing as, per WP:DETCON, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy - thus an objection or non-agreement, without a reasoned supporting rationale, is worthless and, IMHO, should be simply disregarded. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Background and purpose
I found a certain amount of duplication between the "The Welsh Not" and "Purpose" sections, so I've combined these and renamed the "Background" section as "Historical context". I believe this makes the article more succinct and readable. Deb (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's far worse in terms of readability.
 * That new source is unacceptable. More history being quoted from non historians. We've been through this with Llyweyln2000. This goes against wikipedia policy.
 * You've changed "The teaching of English in Welsh schools was demanded by " to "The teaching of English in Welsh schools was considered desirable by" Why?
 * You've changed "During the 19th century the primary function of day schools in Wales was the teaching of English" to "During the 19th century a primary function of day schools in Wales was the teaching of English." Why?
 * What on earth is "Language planning" when it's at home?
 * You've downgraded historical consensus to an opinion. This goes against Wikipedia policy.
 * My response:


 * 1) It's far better in terms of readability. I removed the duplication, put the sections into a more logical order and improved the paragraph headers.
 * 2) There's nothing wrong with the additional source. How can the Cambridge Social History of Britain, an academic work of the highest standard, possibly be unacceptable?
 * 3) It wasn't demanded. If the source says it was, you should add a quote to that effect into the ref, but that's still an opinion.
 * 4) Because, whilst it was a primary function, it wasn't the only one, nor have you provided any citation that says it was. The basics of a primary school education were the three Rs, just as in the rest of the UK.
 * 5) "Language planning" is planning how people will learn and use a language or languages, something governments and education authorities did and still do and which was referenced in the source you removed.
 * 6) There is no "historical consensus" on this topic. That's the crux of the problem. Deb (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I could now get other people's opinions on the edit that Cheezypeaz reverted wholesale. Deb (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that wholesale revert. I agree with all the changes you made, for the sound reasons given. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 2) I was referring to the quote from Language Planning. Which you have used in WP:VOICE to tell the readers that there was some sort of 'language planning' during that time period. That there was a plan for teaching English by the state is explicitly denied by historians. The claim comes from a book on linguistics. The author is not an historian. The author also seems to be under the impression that the 1870 act required Welsh children to learn English and all schools in Wales banned Welsh. This is also wrong.
 * 6) You claiming that there is no consensus is worthless unless you can back it up with evidence. Garath Elwyn Jones, Dr W. Gareth Evans & Martin Johnes all disagree with you.
 * What history books have you read on this topic? Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Incorrect on both counts. I've read numerous books on Welsh history. I've even written four myself. Deb (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Incorrect on both counts. I've read numerous books on Welsh history. I've even written four myself. Deb (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the whole background section could be removed. it is background to language policy in wales and at least 3-times removed from our little wooden token.  It belongs in Welsh or, better yet, adding a history section to Welsh-medium education .  The opening sentence to 'The Welsh Not' section provides ample background.
 * 'Purpose' is a poor duplicate of that opening sentence and could be removed.
 * "The 1847 'Blue Book' reports" section would also be more relevant in one of the above articles. JeffUK (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have just removed the blue books section, and was about to remove the purpose section but I see you are editing. So will wait to see your changes. So agree, blue books & purpose sections. Background section sort of agree, anyway be BOLD! Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Please me know when you are done editing. Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I am happy with 's edit. Both sections were removed or partially removed by and  yesterday, so I suggest that they should be reverted and Deb's edit redone.
 * Usage diff
 * Purpose diff TSventon (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I moved the facts provided by the 'usage' section into the 'Overview' section. "There have been no comprehensive studies to determine how many schools used the Welsh Not or when it was used" adds no information to the article at all and was unsourced (who says there have been no studies? Who cares!). "The 1847 Inquiry into Schools in Wales reported on only one school using it" is misleading, One school is mentioned by name, nothing in the source says 'only one school' applied it.  The rest was basically a literature review of the sources that state when it was in use.  JeffUK (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the lack of comprehensive studies: Martin Johnes told us on this page. Also if you had read the history you will notice how vague the historians are on this topic. None of them has told us when it was most popular or can tell us the extent of usage or when it stopped being used. As such the data we have is probably misleading and should be declared to the reader as such. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * However I have just seen the result of your edit and it's an accurate summary. So I approve. Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you're happy with 's edit because it goes against wikipedia policies regarding sourcing, false balance and voice. Did you see the objections I made above to responses labled 2 and 6? Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am glad you are not gobsmacked, as that would be painful.
 * 2) A book on linguistics can be a useful source for linguistic history. I wasn't commenting on the quote from Language Planning, as that was added earlier and then moved in the 19:51 11 October 2021 edit.
 * 6) I am not sure exactly which changes this refers to, but I regard interpretations of fragmentary evidence by historians as opinions, although they may be the best opinions available. TSventon (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You will be glad to hear my gob is holding up. Even though it has been smacked several times over the past few weeks ;)
 * 2) It would be a useful resource for linguistic history if it were written by a historian rather than a fool, idiot, asshat linguist who thinks that "In Wales during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (following the Education act of 1870), Welsh children were not only required to learn English in school, but were prohibited from speaking Welsh at school." see. This dross was written in 1997 so we can't even blame wikipedia.
 * 6) The historians seem to stacking up behind the whole immersion teaching thing. Per WP:VOICE that becomes fact.
 * Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree that the source paragraph is debatable (perhaps Welsh children means some Welsh children rather than all Welsh children) and so is Deb's use of it (describing the Not as a "form of language planning" makes it sound like state policy).
 * 6) The edit changed "what we would now call total immersion" to "a form of total immersion", which I think is an improvement, as we wouldn't call techniques like getting children to read the Bible in a language they couldn't understand "total immersion" today. Alternative terms like folly and idiocy come to mind. TSventon (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)