User talk:Cheezypeaz

The Wikipedia Library
Hi, you should now have access to the Wikipedia Library at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ if you meet the criteria for automatic access:

500+ edits, 6+ months editing, 10+ edits in the last month, No active blocks. TSventon (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know! Cheezypeaz (talk)

Aquillion's changes
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) 21:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "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"
 * You claim that I misused a citation of the paper. I cited the book, not the paper. It clearly said this in the citation reference. I had never seen the paper before.
 * Your claim that Martin is limiting his statement to only those teachers who used the Welsh Not and wanted to eradicate Welsh from schools is refuted by both the book and by the paper you cite.
 * Yes he is talking about the Welsh Not generally but that does not limit the all encompasing nature of the claim "...neither the Welsh Not nor eradicating Welsh from schools..."


 * "the official policy was to teach kids English" This looks like a quote but it's not in the source you quoted nor in the book. I have checked every instance of the word 'policy' and 'policies' in both the book and the paper you cited and found nothing that supports the existance of anything like that quote. I doubt that Martin would say 'kids'. Also it isn't true.
 * "(a statement with no connection to the Welsh Not at all)". Yes it would, if it were true - which it isn't.

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 21:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a rewrite of your first message. So I'll ignore any claim already answered above.
 * I'll deal with the source argument in the next section.
 * " the current text inappropriately misuses that quote by cutting it in half and using only the first part."
 * Again, I have never seen this paper. I am not quoting from it in the article.
 * Your logic is, in any case, wrong. This quote from the paper "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." Contains several facts that can be legitimately extracted and used without changing their meaning. For example...
 * What is certain is that the Welsh Not was never official state policy but rather something down to individual teachers.
 * Eradicating Welsh from schools was never official state policiy.
 * Etc. (basically see the book)


 * "is vital context and we cannot cite him without including it".
 * It isn't context; it's just more information, both statements are valid separately. We can legitimately include either the 'state policy' bit or the 'symbol of the oppression' bit or both or neither. Given that the article is much longer than the short entry in the paper we most likely should put them in two different sections. For example: 'how it worked' and 'how it came to be seen'. (the current structure and article is a mess, I am trying to improve it).

Aquillion 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 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 22:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Professor of History at Swansea University Martin Johnes argues that the purpose of the Welsh Not was to teach English[6]: 100, 102  and there was no policy to kill off the Welsh language.[6]: 100

(I'm using kindle so the page numbers may be 1 page out.)


 * Citations that support the claim.
 * 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.


 * Martin Johnes himself edited that very sentence here and didn't change the thing you are claiming that I miss-represented.


 * Your analysis of the sentence.
 * " the goals of many teachers was to teach English".
 * The many in "many teachers recognised" is attached to teachers as a whole. It does not say "many English teachers".
 * The goal of all teachers was to teach English. That is what the schools were for.
 * "it implies that many teachers recognized that the Welsh Not was not intended to teach English".
 * So some teachers mistakenly thought it was to teach English? I think you have just agreed with me.

Please retract your claims on the talk page.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Welsh Not, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anglesea. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"Fragmentary" and "contradictory"
I'm not sure what he means by contradictory. The fact that different people used it differently isn't contradictory. In general I'm not keen on using the same words as a source unless you're quoting them, although of course paraphrasing can alter the meaning subtly. "Fragmentary" is okay, I guess, if it's the best term we can find. Deb (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , a Wikipedia talk post may not be as carefully worded as a planned twitter post, let alone a publication which has been edited. Perhaps he means nineteenth and perhaps twentieth century general descriptions, for example in books and the press, are sometimes contradictory. TSventon (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
Please do not use the V word about contributions to the Welsh Not article. Vandalism means deliberate damage to the encyclopedia, rather than a "misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, ... good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia". I know that other editors have misused the word, but that does not mean you have to. Misusing the word can violate the policy on No personal attacks. TSventon (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You have always offered me good advice. And I thank you for that. However since it turns out that Llywelyn2000 was an adult and a bureaucrat for Wales Wikipedia. He should have known and applied Wikipedia policies rather than behave like a child. Which I thought he was at the time. Or maybe some grumpy teenager. People in high up positions in Wikipedia should follow the policies of Wikipedia. All of them; including you know who (Deb, i'm talking about Deb here, Deb is also a wikipedia bureaucrat for Wales). I am trying to follow them. It amazes me that people don't. To be clear: A Wikipedia bureaucrat can be assumed to know wikipedia policies and if they don't follow them it's vandalism. No excuse, no defense. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * My advice, which you can reject if you wish, is to assume good faith on the Welsh Not page. I am sure that Llywelyn2000 thinks he was improving Wikipedia, even though I would disagree in many cases, so he is not a vandal.


 * By using vandalism rather than other terms such as disruptive editing you are contributing to making the discussion more adversarial than it needs to be. You could also be accused of Disruptive editing yourself. TSventon (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sir Charles Trevelyan
Thanks, I will research some more into this quote. One of the joys (!) of being taught in two different education systems (Irish / English) is the history they teach! Apologies for doing the change via rollback it leaves no room for explanation. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)