Talk:Welsh Not/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Education Act of 1870

Currently the entry contains the following…

“The Education Act of 1870 called for education to be taught through the medium of English, and not through the medium of Welsh. This reinforced the class differences originally set within the Act of Union 1536, with the English language being linked to success academically and the Welsh language being seen as the opposite; spoken by those who are uneducated and lower class.”

The act does NOT call for education to be taught through the medium of English.

This is what the act does do… “It made provision for the elementary education of all children aged 5-13, and established school boards to oversee and complete the network of schools and to bring them all under some form of supervision.”

The text of the act can be read here (note the website domain name is misleading) http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/acts/1870-elementary-education-act.html

I will delete the cited text. It’s factually incorrect & makes unsourced claims.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of un-supporting references

In the Effects section we have...

"The practice and wider social changes of the nineteenth and the beginning of the 20th century saw many Welsh speakers come to view the speaking of Welsh as a disadvantage.[3]"

The only supporting statement in the linked reference seems to be this sentence. (Note: There were three commissioners and they didn't speak Welsh.)

"The commissioners saw the Welsh language as a drawback and noted that the moral and material condition of the people would only improve with the introduction of English."

Also in the Effects section we have...

"Although no direct correlation can be made to use of the Welsh Not and the decline of those speaking Welsh, the decline of its use well into the 19th and 20th century and the long term stigma attached to the use of the language, clearly shows it had an effect.[15"]"

The linked article (which is very interesting in itself) does not support the claims in this sentence. Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Language policy section

Cheezypeaz, Kleuske, Hogyncymru, Mjroots, Martinevans123, Girth Summit, I believe that the content of the Language policy section whould be better covered in its own article or the History of the Welsh language article. The section should be removed from the article because

• it is only tangentially relevant to the Welsh Not and is too long for this article, see the WP:COATRACK essay.
• it is mostly based on 100 year old sources (or unreferenced) rather than based on recent scholarship as discussed in the previous talk sections, see WP:AGE MATTERS.

List of references
BBC Old Book added recently Old Old Old Old Old Journal Old BBC Blog PhD thesis Old Blog Welsh Consumer Council Medical journal References

• the section on disabled children is referenced, but is based on a report from 2000, long after the period when the WN was used. TSventon (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

No objections. But I'm not convinced it is "only tangentially relevant to the Welsh Not". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon:, Even though the enforcement of the 'Welsh not' in schools finished long ago, the effects of it it rippled through time, much like Henry VIII's Welsh language law being a precursor of the Welsh not, so too with how medical professionals who told parents to stop speaking Welsh to their disabled children (without evidence) because they assumed speaking Welsh would be of a disadvantage to them. Hogyncymru (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon:, @Martinevans123:Both the Language Policy & Effects section should be trimmed down and then incorporated into the history section. I have already started this.Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz: I highly disagree, these are completely different segments of the article that highlights each respective inclusions, why on earth would you trim down the article with relevant information when each and every part is important?. Hogyncymru (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru: There was no policy: There didn't need to be. Everyone, Welsh parents, Welsh teachers, influential Welsh people in London, Parliament etc all believed that the main purpose of going to school was to learn English. So they didn't have to have a policy on language. Look as hard as you like you won't find a policy. Apart from annoying schoolchildren there were no effects. (Unless you can cite credible sources)Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru:, some of the subjects discussed in the section are important, but they are based on quotations from 100-year old sources, so the section needs to be rewritten from scratch with references to recent scholarship. It is easy to get the context of older documents wrong: I have just rewritten the introduction to a quote from a royal commission to make it clear that a clergyman in Wales is quoted, not a politician in Westminster. TSventon (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the 2000 case, as there is no connection to the 'Welsh Not' as described in the lead, and the source does not draw any connection. I think the policy section does belong here for now, as context and background for the use of the Welsh Not. I still think the article is inside out. I.e. it should be an article on Welsh Language Policy with a 'Welsh Not' section. I think that would solve a lot of the problems with it and allow for wider discussion of Welsh Language policy (e.g. the 2000 case would clearly belong in such an article). JeffUK (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

JeffUK what do you think the next step should be? I have suggested removing the section due to the poor sourcing, listed in the collapsed section above, but I am interested in other ideas. TSventon (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Deleting the Effects section

@TSventon:@Martinevans123:@Hogyncymru:

I'm going to delete the entire Effects section. Nothing worth saving. 1) Assertions with sources that don't back them up. 2) Boring discussion of unrelated statistics. 3) A weak admission at the end that everything written in this section was wrong. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz: I think you're misunderstanding the whole reason of discussion pages; to get to the point, this is the 3rd title you've published now outlining your dissatisfaction with the page, in future could you collect all your issues and compile them into one so that it doesn't become long-winded and confusing, how are people expected to follow your arguments if they keep migrating? like mentioned in earlier, these were indeed spoken within Westminsters and they were published under their parliamentary papers, this in term would be a policy, the difference between a policy and and act are different;

Policy: means goals or objectives set by the governments to achieve.

Act: means law i,e. any law is made on any particular matter by the parliament or state legislatures, after making of law that particular matter is regulated by that law.

As for you thinking certain pieces of the article is 'boring' or long-winded.. this is for readers to decide, I believe that it all conveys a step-by-step process of the control of the language under the church and state.. Hogyncymru (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz: PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE LARGE CHUNKS OF THE SITE, this is a further warning.. the reason for Talk is to resolve issues, not to add your opinion and to vandalise as you see fit.. you MUST resolve the issues first before taking drastic action!. Hogyncymru (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru: Historians have resolved the issue for us. Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz: Where, when? nobody here have come to a conclusion.. but you seem adamant to go against resolutions here!. Hogyncymru (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree the section should be removed. Para 1. The BBC article goes out of it's way to downplay the effects of 'The Not' yet it is used to justify an entire paragraph about the Welsh Language being stigmatised, the BBC article does not even imply that this stigamtisation was in any way an effect of the 'Welsh Not', only that it existed. Para 2 is at least honest "no direct correlation can be made to use of the Welsh Not and the decline of those speaking Welsh,"... so why is the following text in a section title 'Effects' "Clearly shows it had an effect" looks like WP:SYNTH to me? Para 3 onwards are just about the decline of the welsh language, with no reference whatsoever to the subject of the article. JeffUK (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Also the "Discouragement of use with disabled children" is an entire section which has nothing in it about the Welsh Not at all, talking about an incident that happened many decades after the Welsh Not was ever in use. This whole section belongs in the Welsh Language or History of the Welsh language article if anywhere at all. JeffUK (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

On reflection I think 90% of the article belongs as a section in one of the two aforementioned articles, or a new article Welsh Language Policy or Welsh Language Suppression. Then 'Effects' becomes 'Effects of the the policy' not 'Effects of the Welsh Not', "Discouragement of use with disabled children" makes some sense, 'Similar policies in other countries' works better. (The Welsh Not was not a policy, it was as stick..) etc. etc. JeffUK (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Place a protection on the page to curb vandalism

I have no issue with people arguing their case as to why parts of the site should be seen as.. but to have someone that isn't even a registered user on this site decide things because he or she dislikes it because it portrays an 'ugly' view on Westminster is absurd, they cannot simply go onto a rampage deleting most of the page just because they feel they are wronged without fist coming to a rational conclusion.. For example, if something sounds wrong or doesn't seem right, then let someone correct that part first before the whole site is butchered! if there's sources lacking.. why not add (citation needed) next to a claim?, if you think something doesn't sound correct.. why not edit it to make it sound better?, this is why talk exists, to come to a rational conclusion, to have most of the editors come to a level-ground and agree to meet people half-way and to better the site so that it is informal and correct. If someone's already warned, why are they then going against that and going against everyone? that doesn't sound like a rational person to me, this seems like someone who's got a vendetta, someone who is strongly invested in covering up the past.. this is why an user with a red name nor ip number should not be editing this page.. especially that it's a sore subject in Welsh culture. Hogyncymru (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hogyncymru I absolutely agree. Goodbye. Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hogyncymru, I would like to respond to some of your points. Cheezypeaz is a registered editor at Wikipedia, they had to register to create a username. They do not have to create a user page, which would turn their name blue.

They are allowed to remove chunks of text, that is an example of WP:BOLD editing, however they should not WP:EDITWAR by redoing reverted edits.

A WP:VANDAL is someone who wants to damage the encyclopedia. Disagreeing with your version of the article does not make an editor a vandal. TSventon (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Idk.. Calling users conspiracy theorists, nationalists} WP:NPA, claiming their resources 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, yes some of the articles used may be from 19th century newspapers, but these are accepted as long as there are other stronger papers supporting them (which is why I added university papers to back them up), but to throw accusations in the air just to get their views across seems ridiculous to me. Hogyncymru (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cheezypeaz. I've left a note at your talk page about your edit here. Regards.Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: he's done it again.. I saw that another user threatened people with edit warring with a ban.. I really don't want this to happen, there is no final consensus even though he claims there is. Hogyncymru (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

End of discussion for my contribution

Thank you for everyone's time giving their opinion, I know I'm not really suppose to delete my old addition, but please, I beg you, just leave it be, I started something extra which I did not have the mental energy to carry on, I have to be real, It's taken a tole on my mental health, I just can't deal with the extra arguments, I'm done, my contribution to the discussion has ended, if you resurrect it, please note that it will push me over the edge.. I'm leaving this here to say thank you for everyone's contribution to the discussions, I was wrong in some instances and this is something I have realised, editors are here to make a difference, so carry on what you do, all the best. Hogyncymru (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I know the feeling, and I sympathise with you. Just want to say that I value your contributions over the years. It's difficult when you have a tsunami of editors coming in from England attempting to put their own spin on our history. The local paper you quoted is good; let's remember that national newspapers hardly existed at that time in Wales! This article has been plundered, as other articles have recently. But I value your work. Take a few weeks break (as will I), and see them for what they are: part of the dying embers of british colonialism. The truth will prevail. Email me for a chat any time. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahem, "a tsunami of editors coming in from England"? Whatever next. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ha! Mixed metaphor, bad poet! :-) Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I blame the abolition of tolls on 17 December 2018!! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Proper nouns

If Welsh Not is a proper noun, then surely Welsh Knot, Welsh Note, Welsh Lump, Welsh Stick or Cwstom are also all proper nouns? Or do we just follow the individual sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I'm not sure why 'Welsh Not' is being treated as a proper noun, but the OED does capitalise the "N" in its definition and when referring to it from other entries, however, it does not capitalise the first letter of the second word for any of the other variants (which I've underlined inthe quotes below):

Welsh Not n. (also Welsh knot, Welsh note) now historical a token fastened around a child's neck as a punishment for speaking Welsh (cf. earlier Welsh lump n. (b)).

Welsh lump n. †(a) a large brick capable of withstanding intense heat, used esp. to line furnaces and fireplaces; a large firebrick (obsolete); (b) a heavy weight fastened to a child's neck as a punishment for speaking Welsh (now historical and rare); cf. Welsh Not n.

I don't think we follow sources for style though, we should use WP:MOS for that, and MOS:CAPS covers it. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm very surprised. Perhaps that's OED house style. The word "not" is not usually part of a noun or noun-phrase, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, does the OED give an etymology for Welsh Not or when it was first mentioned? If so that could be useful for the article. TSventon (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It says this: "Welsh Not n. (also Welsh knot, Welsh note) now historical a token fastened around a child's neck as a punishment for speaking Welsh (cf. earlier Welsh lump n. (b)).

"[The precise origin of the construction is unclear, but it is likely to be a shortening of a full sentence such as ‘Welsh must not be spoken’ (compare quot. 1844). In form Welsh knot by association with the homophonous knot n.1; in form Welsh note by association with note n.2 I.]." First example given is: "1844 Rep. Commissioners Inq. S. Wales 102 in Parl. Papers XVI. 7: "he schoolmaster in my parish.., amongst the common Welsh people has a little toy on a little bit of wood, and on the wood is written, ‘Welsh not’; that is to say, they must not speak Welsh; it is a mark... The rule of the school is..that..if anybody speaks a word of Welsh he is to have the Welsh mark, which he is to carry about his neck.]" Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, do we have a reference for "The use of "The Not" was recorded as early as the 18th century"? I can't see what The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales says. TSventon (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I can tell you it's on page 942. And that's about all, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, do you have access to page 942 of The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales? It is odd that it seems to be the only source for the recorded use of the Not "as early as the 18th century". TSventon (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, p.942 says of the Welsh Not(e): "Other common names for it were the 'cwstom', the 'Welsh stick' and the 'Welsh lump' - a lump of lead, according to the traveller Richard Warner in the late 18th century". -- DeFacto (talk). 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

p.s. "Welsh not(e)" also listed in the index for page 919. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, p.919 is the 7th page of 9 of the article entitled "Wales, The history of". It's discussing the rights of Welsh-language speakers in the 19th century and says: "... and there were campaigns over the language's lack of status in schools, particularly over the use of the Welsh Not(e). Welsh was included in the curriculum after 1889..." -- DeFacto (talk). 11:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying. I'm assuming that means "the National curriculum" i.e. across the whole country. Or does it mean only in some schools? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, that's all it says in that paragraph, so I wouldn't like to say. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, searching the encyclopedia for curriculum 1889 finds p. 239, which mentions the Welsh Intermediate Education Act 1889, but I can only see half the sentence. TSventon (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It seems we do not have an article on the Welsh Intermediate Education Act 1889. But the full text is here, and the relevant clause seems to be: "The expression "intermediate education" means a course of education which does not consist chiefly of elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but which includes instruction in Latin, Greek, the Welsh and English language and literature, modern languages, mathematics, natural and applied science, or in some of such studies, and generally in the higher branches of knowledge, but nothing in this Act shall prevent the establishment of scholarships in higher or other elementary schools;" There's a analysis of the Act here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I created a stub for it at Welsh Intermediate Education Act 1889 and increased the number of links to it to 15. Please help to de-stubbify it if you feel inclined. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Good stuff. I guess we could add an External link to the original full text? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, thanks and linked to the original full text. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Brain dump

Who here is actually reading the history, who here is tweaking the article?

---

New format (very rough may change)...

Summary

History

1) English language teaching in Welsh schools.

100% supported by parents

poor quality of schools

already happening prior to government involvement??? (grant schools?)

effect of the codes & pay to play & HMI?

Society for the promotion of welsh utilisation etc

HMI tries to promote welsh language 1890? parental opposition?

exclude ranting about blue books

2) Punishments in School

other examples for context

3) The welsh not

what is it?

lack of quantitative evidence?

Examples of use for illustration (contemporary reports only)

exclude my grandmother remembers type of stuff.

---

I hate the sidebars, they break up the narrative & lack context

---

lots of rubbish in current article

coat hanger for blue books rant

language wasn't main controversy in blue books

who cares what The Times said?

Schools in England as bad

stigmatise claims

effects section

---

Pointing to a 540 page book isn't a source.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)‎

Chapter

Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I see it there in your original edit. I think I filled it out correctly? I can see it in the pop up. The pop up isn’t very readable. Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Which edit was that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, this one, I think. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, the chapter name was given, but not its page numbers, they were added in this edit after I added the tag, but my tag was not removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

So page numbers are all now valid in those refs? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, page numbers have been added and the tags removed. TSventon added the numbers, so I guess they took them directly from the book. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, Cheezypeaz I added page numbers to the reference to chapter 15 of The Welsh Language and Its Social Domains, but I didn't remove the pages needed tags because I thought more specific page numbers would still be useful. TSventon (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, thanks for clarifying that. I agree that the page numbers could be more specific; I guess an {{Rp}} at the end with the particular pages in it would make it easier for readers to verify. Have you found a freely accessible online version of this publication by any chance? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, I saw the first few pages online somewhere. I think the section should use more than one source as that would help with the NPOV of the section and not rely on access to one book for verification. TSventon (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, I agree, but I wanted to see what was in that one. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, there seem to be online versions of the book, but unfortunately I don't know whether they are legitimate. TSventon (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, I'll keep trawling, thanks. ;) -- DeFacto (talk). 15:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Resources

DeFacto, TSventon, Martinevans123

https://microform.digital/map/guides/R97305.pdf

please add more! Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Why Welsh usage has declined : https://nation.cymru/opinion/education-the-decline-of-welsh-and-why-communities-matter-more-than-classrooms/ Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• https://www.jstor.org/stable/3443088 Cultural Regeneration and the School: An Anthropological Study of Welsh-Medium Schools in Wales (via Wikipedia library)

• http://www.cvhs.org.uk/PrkSch/bns.html

• OM Edwards description of the Welsh not in his memoir https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10020272/1/Elfed-Owens,%20P%20Vol.1.pdf

• https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C101 Department of Education history pre 1899

• https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/2012%20Distinctive%20and%20Inclusive%20-%20The%20National%20Society%20and%20Church%20of%20England%20Schools%201811%20-%202011.pdf

History of the Welsh language

Cheezypeaz, DeFacto, Martinevans123, would anybody be interested in taking a look at the History of the Welsh language article, which has been tagged as needing additional citations since 2015. The 19th century section is poorly referenced and relevant to this article. TSventon (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC).

Janet Davies's little book published by UWP will be useful for this. I'll have a look too. Deb (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Shock & Horror

I've been reading "The Welsh language and it's social domains".

There is no legislation "restricting" the use of the Welsh language except for the Act of Union.

The blog post it links too is wrong.

the blog says "Those who spoke Welsh would be prohibited from holding public office."

the act of union says...

"no Person or Persons that use the Welch Speech or Language, shall have or enjoy any manner Office or Fees within this Realm of England, Wales, or other the King's Dominion, upon Pain of forfeiting the same Offices or Fees, unless he or they use and exercise the English Speech or Language."

Historian John Davies says "English was to be the only language of the courts of Wales, and those using the Welsh language were not to receive public office in the territories of the king of England." https://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/periods/tudors_04.shtml

Which still tends to be misleading.

One aspect of the Act of Union upset a large number of people in Wales. The act stated that all people that were chosen to represent Wales as officials or Members of Parliament had to be able to speak English. It also stated that the law-courts in Wales had to use the English language. https://spartacus-educational.com/TUDactunion.htm

much better. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Above for Martinevans123 Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, much better sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC) p.s. "Above for all", lol

I would recommend caution in the use of the BBC blog. The person who wrote most of them is a close friend of mine and he does not write in-depth history but has been employed by the BBC to popularise historical topics. I realise that what I'm saying here is hearsay, but I can testify that he's a creative writer who would never expect the BBC website to be used for research purposes. Deb (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That's useful info. But he is billed as "Historian John Davies"? I think it was an improvement, but we can probably find much better. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I presume Deb means that most of the anonymous BBC blogs were written by her friend. I would also expect John Davies' books and academic papers to be (even) more carefully written than a blog post by him. TSventon (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. Yes, he's John Davies (historian). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I should have looked more carefully. Sadly, John Davies will not be writing any more... Deb (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Deb, we are using an anonymous BBC page as a reference, so your advice was relevant. TSventon (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I am also not convinced that Spartacus Educational is a "much better" source. TSventon (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, how about "slightly-marginally-better-source-because-it's-not-a-blog"? I'd agree something written by Davies, in book or high-end journal form, would actually be "much better". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

A corporal punishment?

Is the Welsh Not a corporal punishment - along with all these'? Defined as "physical punishment, such as caning or flogging" on Lexico.[1] In the article it says "the pupil in possession [of the Welsh Not] at the end of the day was subjected to corporal punishment or other penalty...", but that's not the same as saying it is a corporal punishment, is it? I've heard of children getting a beating for having cigarettes, their teacher's spectacles, dirty books, or chewing gum in their possession - are all those therefore corporal punishments too? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the dirty books probably count as self-abuse. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The 'Welsh Not' is not only a description of the slate, stick or whatever devise used, it also encompasses the whole process involved, physical and political, including the colonial mentality behind it. 'Chewing gum' is chewing gum. The use of the Welsh Not and 'chewing gum' are slightly different, DeFacto. Secondly, under category:Corporal punishments we can see other examples such as S v Williams (1995), which are not corporal punishments, but certainly are very related to the corporal punishment category. Others include: Political mutilation in Byzantine culture, Emily M. Douglas, Murder of Laree Slack, 'but that's not the same as saying that the Murder of Laree Slack is a corporal punishment, is it?' Are you trying to 'play down' the nastiness, the brutality behind the WN, DeFacto? Many of your edits are an attempt to do so, as are your edits on changing the Treachery of the Blue Books to something rather milder (Inquiery... or Commission...).

Secondly, many of the sources do use 'corporal punishment' (here, here, here and here) and Wikipedia should reflect those sources, not sensor them. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, I'm just trying to keep it all W:DUE and WP:NPOV.

This article isn't about the politics or policies surrounding the use of languages, there are other articles covering that. This article is about a device that was used as an attempt to reinforce local preferences and aspirations. None of those obscure cherry-picked sources you cite declare that the 'Not' is a form of corporal punishment, they all portray it more as a way of selecting pupils for punishment, a bit like a marker or flag, or entry in a log of 'culprits'. If you can demonstrate that the consensus amongst the quality reliable sources that have covered the 'Not' characterise it as an actual form of corporal punishment then please do.

As for the other articles in the category, they're of no relevance here, and may also need reviewing

But without that consensus amongst sources, I propose removing it from that category per WP:CATVER as it implies that the 'Not' was a form of corporal punishment, and that is not supported in the article. . -- DeFacto (talk). 08:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be compared to the dunce hat although, as that doesn't have its own article, it has no Categories directly linked to it. Was the WN associated more often than not with corporal punishment? I don't know, but I suspect not. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto - are you on the same page as us? Llywelyn's second point lists 4 sources; all refer to the fact that the WN was a form of corporal punishment. The category isn't 'Category:List of devices used for corporate punishment' it's anything to do with corporal punishment. I'll move them into the body, shortly as it needs to be said. Cell Danwydd (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd I think DeFacto is arguing the category is 'Category:Corporal punishments', so it should only contain examples of corporal punishments. There could be another category 'Category:Corporal punishment' to contain articles related to corporal punishment. Could you find a better reference than the Morning Star? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says the Morning Star "is a biased and partisan source. All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed. Take care to ensure that content from the Morning Star constitutes due weight in the article". TSventon (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, from my reply to Llywelyn2000 above: "None of those obscure cherry-picked sources you cite declare that the 'Not' is a form of corporal punishment, they all portray it more as a way of selecting pupils for punishment, a bit like a marker or flag, or entry in a log of 'culprits'". Caning, whipping, beating, smacking are corporal punishments - labelling an individual is not. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Human Skulls ;)

Llywelyn2000 Lolz

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=next&oldid=1043566455

Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You think that wearing a skull around your neck is a laughing matter? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000 the use of a skull looks like a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, which should only be included in Wikipedia if supported by multiple high-quality sources. According the reference the evidence for what happened in the 1850s is the recollections of an "old man of eighty-eight", recorded in the memoirs of another man in the 1920s and published in 1981. TSventon (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, TSventon Yes, amazing claim. Second hand. Can you imagine the conversation after school?

Mum: "How was school today Mary?"

Mary: "The teacher caught me speaking Gaelic in class so I had to wear a human skull around my neck all day"

Mum: "That's interesting dear, it's your 5th birthday party on Saturday and you must remember to invite all your friends".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 13:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

That would have been like Mhairi, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 Indeed Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Wording of its purpose

Do we really need to use the verbatim quote of an editorialised comment on a BBC webpage to push a particular pov on the purpose of the Not?

Watch this earlier sequence of edits...

• edit 1

  −

  +

  Its purpose was to encourage pupils not to speak Welsh

• edit 2

  −

  Its purpose was to encourage pupils not to speak Welsh

  +

  Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh

• edit 3

  −

  Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh

  +

  Its purpose was to encourage pupils not to speak Welsh

• edit 4

  −

  Its purpose was to encourage pupils not to speak Welsh

  +

  Its purpose was to 'force Welsh children to speak English at school'

Sure we could balance it with a verbatim quote from another article editorialising it the other way, but wouldn't it be better to accept the concise neutral wording resulting from edit 2 above - Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC) ... see below

It's immediate raison d'être was to force pupils to stop speaking Welsh. This is physical punishment, and the word 'encourage' is too mild, and would be non-neutral pov. Once again, we should turn to sources for our answer: the BBC source is neutral and reliable and should stand until 'encourage pupils to speak English' can be cited by a reliable, neutral citation. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, it seems from the article that the main purpose was to support the desire of the communities to increase the use of English in schools, nothing else. Let's look at more sources and hope for more contributors to chip in here with their views. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Deb recommended "caution in the use of the BBC blog" earlier on this page, so I would support finding better sources. TSventon (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: -NO! Any desire by communities came later. Not much desire during the flogging period. On what do you base this assumption?

You're attempting to give child abuse a positive spin! Absolutely incredible! I never edit political stuff and have never come across such political pov on Wikipedia!

Here are the 10 first mentions of the Welsh Not on Google (check it yourself!). I searched for WHY was the WN used and couldn't find one single citation which says: 'Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh' - an incredible spin to the negative physical punishment given!

DeFacto is looking for 'neutral wording' on child abuse! He is trying to hide the fact that children were flogged. Is this neutrality or an editor's non neutral pov? The latter! Let Wikipedia speak freely of what happend and say it as it is. It's not up to DeFacto to decide, it's up to the sources. And here is what they say:

1. Report by David Williams / Institute of Welsh Affairs: 'The days of the Welsh Not – when teachers would try and kill off the language...'

Purpose / use: to kill off the language.

2. Guradian article by Dawn Foster: The Welsh language is not nearing extinction, but it needs to be put to use: 'the days of the Welsh Not, when schoolchildren who spoke Welsh had a wooden plaque hung around their neck, and were beaten daily from straying from English.'

Purpose / use: to beat children

3. Visit Wales website (a very neutral site!) by Charles Williams, author Broadcaster: the ‘Welsh not’, used to discourage 19th century schoolchildren from speaking Welsh.

Purpose / use: discourage schoolchildren from speaking Welsh

4. Gweirydd Davies, Head of Welsh Language (Golley Slater): The Welsh Not was a practice (started around 1840-1940) where school children would be punished for speaking Welsh in school.

Purpose / use: to punish children for speaking Welsh

5. Article The role and importance of the Welsh language in Wales’s cultural independence within the United Kingdom by Sylvain Scaglia, UNIVERSITE DU SUD TOULON-VAR FACULTE DES LETTRES ET SCIENCES HUMAINES MASTER RECHERCHE : CIVILISATIONS CONTEMPORAINES ET COMPAREES: 'What will later be called the Welsh Not was a rule – even though not official – created to discourage children from speaking Welsh. Purpose / use: to discourage children from speaking Welsh

6. RCAHMW: 'The Welsh not was a means of forcing Welsh children to speak English at school during the 19th Century.'

Purpose / use: forcing Welsh children to speak English

7. [http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/6710/ The Role of Welsh-language Journalism in Shaping the Construction of Welsh Identity and the National Character of Wales; PhD thesis 2017, by Robert Glyn Môn Hughes: 'Children were punished for speaking Welsh' in schools.'

Purpose / use: Children were punished for speaking Welsh

8. Regressive History and the Rights of Welsh Speakers: Does History Matter? by Gwenllian Lansdown (Cardiff University): 'The ‘Welsh Not' is another example of the language's marginalisation and a powerful symbol of English oppression. Although this was never a government policy, children who spoke the language in school (particularly so in West Wales) were castigated for so doing and forced to wear a piece of wood with the words ‘Welsh Not' carved into it.'

Purpose / use: Children castigated ... and forced to wear the WN

An attempt to balance the BBC website with you own pov is not on and should be reported to Jimmy Wales asap. Monsyn (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well those 8 sources certainly support a much stronger description. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn, thank you for your research on this subject, and for your considered opinion. Did you by chance, whilst reading all those sources, discover why the schools and their supporting communities wanted so desperately to stop their children from speaking the Welsh language at school, and yet tolerated them speaking it at home, at church and everywhere else? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Monsyn (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn, don't you think it'd be weird though, that parents and communities throughout Wales were paying school teachers to forcibly prevent their children from speaking Welsh in school just for the sake of it? Are you saying that none of the sources you've found have explained the motives behind this apparently irrational behaviour? Do you suppose our readers will be happy to leave it at that - ah, the Welsh people just paid teachers to thrash the Welsh language out of their children for no apparent reason. Let's do a bit more research perhaps, and see if there was any excuse or motive behind that behaviour. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

We'll have none of your thrashing here, thank you, remember? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

How much input did "supporting communities" actually have to school regulations? I suspect not a great deal. For many families, speaking Welsh at home and singing in Welsh in chapel would not need to be "tolerated", it was just the normal thing to do? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with everything said by Monsyn and Martinevans123. Cell Danwydd (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd

I'm still reading my new books but I don't think I'll find anything that drastically changes my current understanding...

• Schooling wasn't compulsory until 1880, the earlier 1870 act allowed local by laws to make it compulsory. But even after it was compulsory you still had to pay for another 20??? years
• There were schools set up by concerned locals (often pushed by their local CofE vicar) to educate poor children. These were subsidised by charitable donations ( normally subscriptions from well-off locals). But parents still had to pay a school fee.
• Parents saw the purpose of day Schools as teaching English. They didn't want to pay for the teaching of Welsh - the children already knew how to speak Welsh and could learn to read and write Welsh in Sunday school at no cost.
• Welsh people saw English as the language of 'getting on' of material advancement So they wanted their children to speak English as well as Welsh. This appears to have started with the industrial revolution?? and continued until after WW2
• Punishment of children for not obeying school rules (whatever they were about) were not uncommon.
• I've used this phrase in the article: "Some schools banned the use of Welsh in the classroom and playground in an attempt to force children to use and become proficient in English."
• Today Welsh medium skills have the same issue but the other way round https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/playground-english-ousts-welsh-1907579

We should be reading Welsh history written by historians. I have...

• "A history of education in Wales" by Gareth Elwyn Jones. (was the Professor of Education in the University of Wales) Paperback £4.00 (very good value) on Amazon - delivered to my local yellow box thingy to get free postage. :)
• "Wales:England's Colony?" by Martin Johnes (History Professor) - Kindle version includes page numbers!!!
• "The Welsh language and its social domains 1801-1911" the chapter on the Blue Books is written by Gareth Elwyn Jones.

The current wikipedia articles - both for the Welsh Not and the Blue Books - seem to rely on too much stuff that doesn't come from reliable sources. I'm still reading my new Welsh history books so I will do some more updates later. Cheezypeaz (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, thanks for that. I agree that we need to be very careful to pick reliable sources. We also need to realise that being reliable does not imply neutrality. Wiki content needs to be neutral as well as reliably sourced, and that may mean, not only the careful attribution and contextualisation of opinion, but the addition of discussion on the various points of view found in reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Wales: England’s Colony? was a 2019 book and BBC television series exploring the relationship between Wales and England. It was intended to challenge its audience to reconsider Wales’ historical relationship with England and its place in the world. Both episodes of the TV programme can be viewed at Martin Johnes' website here. He's Professor of History at Swansea. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 thanks for posting that link Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Source check please

I don't have access to a copy of the "Gwyddoniadur Cymru" source, so could someone who does, please confirm whether it supports any of the assertions it's been added against in this edit by Llywelyn2000 please. I have seen the English version of the same book, "The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales", and all it says is "It had parallels in other countries, such as Ireland, Brittany and Kenya". If that is the case in the Welsh version, then it adds nothing and is an redundant. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

When does nitpicking every detail become bullying?

Welsh version (Gwyddoniadur Cymru) is the same as the English version.

Fact 1: You added 4 x Cn (citation needed) tags.

Fact 2: I expanded the chapter and included the Gwyddoniadur Cymru citation immediately after the country name.

Fact 3: You came along and deleted them all and explained in the edit box why you deleted them with 'tried to make this intelligible but, gave up in the end'!!!

I then thought to myself, "OK, let me compromise: I'll place the Gwyddoniadur Cymru ref with the other refs, at the end of the sentence. All together, so that the sentences would be clearer, more intelligible".

Lastly, having two / three citations together does not make an overkill! This is what WP:OVERKILL / WP:OVERCITE says: A good rule of thumb is to cite at least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged or is likely to be challenged, or for direct quotations. Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided.

In all my years on WP, and having made 434,473 edits, I have never before been accused of WP:OVERCITE for adding three citations to what is obviously, for you, a very controversial article.

As I said, take care. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, sure, when none of it was sourced I added 'cn' tags, you then added sources, yes. But as well as adding sources for the details of the various devices, which was exactly what was required, you also added the same source (Gwyddoniadur Cymru) to just some of the place names.

That didn't seem necessary as the names were in the main refs snyway, so I removed them, yes. As you then, but without giving a reason, re-added them, but this time at the end of the sentences, I wondered if they were adding something that the other refs did not (I'm not sure what you meant above by 'compromise' when adding unnecessary cites at the end rather than in the middle). I checked them in an English version of the cite, and seeing nothing but the country names there, wondered if the Welsh version contained more detail - so posed the question here.

Thanks for confirming that they add nothing, so we can reasonably remove them per WP:OVERCITE. Superfluous cites are just unnecessary clutter. For controversial subjects you need sufficient cites, yes, but redundant and valueless cites just make it difficult and tedious for readers to verify the facts that need verifying. We need a good NPOV and verifiable article, don't take it personally when that is being confirmed. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

What? You say: 'you also added the same source (Gwyddoniadur Cymru) to just some of the place names.'???

Are you trying to confuse readers with this? I only added Gwyddoniadur Cymru to the three named countries in the source. That's exactly what needed to be done.

You say: 'details of the various devices'. No! This article is about both device and the system of physically punishing children, of which this device was part.

You say: 'Thanks for confirming that they add nothing' - I did nothing of the sort. I've already quoted the relevant part of WP:OVERCITE which agrees that citing two or three citations is NOT WP:OVERCITE!

Please try not to distort editors' words, and remain calm.

You delete citations to Gwyddoniadur Cymru, and then you say 'We need a good NPOV article'! What on earth is non-neutral about adding a citation to the most reliable source on Welsh history (Gwyddoniadur Cymru / Encyclopaedia Wales)? What you state here is that this source is not neutral! Do you have anything at all to back that up? Once again, this statement of yours shows your own non-neutral pov in these matters. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, you have missed the point, and misunderstood what I did and said - and are overreacting. That source added nothing over what the other sources gave, It added nothing worthwhile to the article, it was redundant.

Let me quote everything in that cited source wrt the this section: "It had parallels in other countries, such as Ireland, Brittany and Kenya." Please describe which different POV that supports and what it adds that the other sources lack. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The Gwyddoniadur Cymru citation confirms that all 3 countries had similar procedures.

My question to you, I note, remains unanswered: What on earth is "non-neutral" about adding a citation to Gwyddoniadur Cymru? I'll bolden the question, as you seemed to have missed it.

I think that bringing this discussion to the Talk page is overreacting. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, show me the diff of where I used that phrase when deleting those citations - this diff of the change that I think you must be referring to shows the summary as: "removed redundant cites per talk" The only time I recall using that phrase you mentioned was in my explanation on this talkpage above of why I wanted those citations checked - I didn't want to delete them if they added anything towards the goals of NPOV and verifiability. It turned out that they didn't add anything, just clutter. This is exactly what the talkpage is for, per WP:TALKPAGE: "where editors can discuss improvements to articles or other Wikipedia pages". I'd have though that after "434,473 edits", you would have appreciated that. Have you come across the WP:AGF guideline before? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mention diffs. Read it again. I said: 'You delete citations to Gwyddoniadur Cymru, and then you say 'We need a good NPOV article'!' and nb the small word then. You said it at 06:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC). Now, what on earth is "non-neutral" about adding a citation to Gwyddoniadur Cymru? That implies that the Encyclopaedia of Wales is biased. Can you give one reason why you question their neutrality? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, please explain the logic or train of thought you are using to insist that I said there was something '"non-neutral" about adding a citation to Gwyddoniadur Cymru'. Especially as you know, and as I have already explained, that is neither what I said, implied, or meant. It is clear to any rationale observer that, in adding nothing, the addition of that source could not be described as non-neutral. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Rough Draft. still needs work, not 100% accurate - comments , criticisms , encouragement?

History

Welsh schools and the English language.

In 1850 all schools in Wales taught English. The learning of English was demanded by the public, parents, teachers & schools. It was seen as the language of advancement, commerce, trade and science. The teaching of Welsh was left to Sunday schools.

The vast majority of the schools did not just teach English but also used English for all of their lessons. Some schools banned the use of Welsh in the classroom & playground in an attempt to force children to use and become proficient in English.

The government provided partial grants for building new schools for poor children but was otherwise uninvolved in teaching the nation’s children, it did not require children to go to school and was not involved in the running of schools.

Parents who wanted their children to go to school had to pay for it. Schools were set up and run by religious organisations, charities, or private businesses.

The 1847 educational report into Welsh schools found that the quality of schools was awful. Poor buildings, untrained teachers & an almost complete absence of suitable books. Many children did not go to school at all and those that did were often absent. The report found that some schools were attempting to teach English without translating from Welsh and as a result the children did not know the meaning of the words they were learning. They also came across one school using a Welsh Not. The report condemned its use as educational nonsense and something that would teach children to be dishonest.

The report was controversial because of the comments it made about Welsh society and, to a lesser degree, the comments it made about the Welsh language. However its support for the teaching of English in Wales was agreed with by the Welsh public.

Schools in parts of England were as bad.

The 1870 England and Wales education act created locally elected school boards who were tasked to supervise schools and ensure there were enough school places for their local children. They were also given the power to pass local laws to force children to go to school. The Act did not specify what subjects to teach or what language to use when teaching.

The Welsh Not

The Welsh Not was a token normally made of wood which was given to a child caught speaking Welsh in school. It would be passed to the next child caught speaking Welsh. The child still holding the token at the end of the day, or week, might be punished, detention and ‘flogging’ are mentioned in contemporary accounts.

How many schools used this device is unknown. Not all schools banned the use of Welsh.

Contemporary descriptions

““The school master in my parish, for instance, amongst the common Welsh people has a little toy on a little bit of wood, and on the wood is written “Welsh not” that is to say they must not speak Welsh; it is a mark, and they pass this mark one to another. The rule of the school is that there is no Welsh to be spoken in the school; if anybody speaks a word of Welsh he is to have the Welsh mark, which he is to carry about his neck, or to hold it in his hand. There is the greatest anxiety to catch one another speaking Welsh, and there is a cry out immediately, “Welsh not”.” November 1843. Inquiry for South Wales. Reverend R. Bowen Jones.

“My attention was attracted to a piece of wood, suspended by a string round a boy’s neck, and on the wood were the words “Welsh stick”.This I was told was a stigma for speaking Welsh. But in fact his only alternative was to speak Welsh or to say nothing. He did not understand English, and there is no systematic exercise in interpretation. The Welsh stick, or Welsh, as it’s sometimes called, is given too any pupil who is overheard speaking Welsh, and may be transferred by him to any schoolfellow whom he hears committing a similar offence. It is thus passed from one another until the close of the week, when the pupil in who’s possession the Welsh is found is punished by flogging. Among other injurious effects, this custom has been found to lead children to visit stealthily the houses of their schoolfellows for the purposes of detecting those who speak Welsh to their parents, and transferring to them the punishment due to themselves” Reports of the commissioners of inquiry into the state of education in Wales 1848 Page 452

"Endeavoured to compel the children to converse in English by means of a piece of wood. Offenders to be shut in after school hours.” Extract from the Llansantffraid Board School log book. 8 February 1870.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 10:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz my first question about this draft, as with the July version of the Language policy section, is: is it based on reliable sources? WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". TSventon (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Everything will be referenced Cheezypeaz (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz I am a bit concerned about neutral point of view. Scholars have different views of the education commission and I think that should be reflected clearly in the article. Also the Welsh schools in 1847 section only uses one recent source and is therefore largely based on one scholar's point of view. TSventon (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon I agree. Not only is it relying on one scholar (a distinguished one I believe) it is also relying on my reading & selection. Which I hope I have done in a neutral fashion. But we have moved on from zero scholars to one scholar and that's an improvement. Having said that all scholars will be dealing with the same evidence - The Report and I've not seen anything by any serious writer that would disagree with what I have written ( except for the phrase "to a lesser degree" I've seen that somewhere but can't find the quote for now - I will remove it if I can't find the source) Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz I have increased the number of schools to 1656. This is because the figures omitted 229 schools with English books and Welsh explanations and 8 schools with unknown language out of a total of 712 schools analysed on page 93. TSventon (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon Thank you. I completely missed that line, I have checked, you are correct. It is difficult to read sideways and the blank line & the way it was labeled fooled me. I have been wondering what the classification means. Page 53, first paragraph, of the report gives some details. Although L says "No specific attempt is made to teach English." He then goes on to describe them learning English words. So I'd say these were Welsh medium schools teaching English but in a rather primitive form. Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz I have copied your sentence about the number of schools to the article on the inquiry and added a table. TSventon (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon Cool. caveat : I don't believe they inspected all schools, Lingen? notes a cutoff of some sort. Which is why I was careful in my phrasing Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz I also have had problems with reading sideways and even upside down, but have now saved thev report as a pdf, which can be rotated and thus read more easily. I was confused by the figures on page 93, as it didn't have a prominent total like the other summaries. Page 1 said the total was 712 so I looked for the missing 237. Pge 93 had figures for Welsh only and English only so I assigned the 229 to English and Welsh. Page 1 also said that as a general rule Lingen excluded those schools from his inquiry where the lowest terms exceeded 6d a week. I used your phrasing so hopefully it is clear that the figures are for schools covered by the inquiry. TSventon (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz I have found some alternative totals for the report Out of 1,657 day schools in Wales, 1,336 conducted their teaching in English. Just 3 were held in Welsh, with the rest mixed. They made me double check my figures and realise that I had mislabled the rows of the table I added to the TOBB article. TSventon (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

References

TSventon Thanks. Also that book is very relevant to the whole topic. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz according to an Amazon review, Ford is a former UKIP councillor, not an academic, so his views may be fringe. TSventon (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC).

TSventonYes, was just looking at that. Best not to use as a source. Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto I see you have referenced Martyn Ford, I would recommend at least mentioning his background. TSventon (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, "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".[2] How much of that is relevant do you think - 'A Welsh academic and former local councillor'? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto perhaps 'Welsh author and former local councillor'? Academic would imply he worked for a university rather than studying at one. TSventon (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, perhaps we need a new discussion on how we choose and how we describe sources, because there is no consistency at the moment. This is a very controversial topic, with some strong opinions and prejudices involved, as well as the politics, myths and untruths surrounding it. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto I think WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies here, which says "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution" and we can certainly discuss how to apply it. TSventon (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon, I fully agree with that. I think we need to list all the authors, and agree how to attribute the content sourced to them. WP:INTEXT doesn't seem to expect anything more than their name, but in this article it would seem we might need more than just that (we've seen nationality, mother-tongue, political allegiance, employment history, education background, etc., etc. raised), to enable readers to evaluate the weight of their opinions. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon I'm concerned that I know too much about Welsh schooling in the 1800s. Cheezypeaz (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

TSventon How did I get dragged into this? :) Cheezypeaz (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz on knowing too much about Welsh schooling in the 1800s, I feel your pain, the essay WP:EXPERT may help. I don't know what dragged you in, but you definitely played a part in dragging me in. TSventon (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Some things that should not need saying

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb (You have all been added simply because you have recently been active)

1) The ONLY sources of history we should be using here are historians.

2) Statements by historians are FACTS unless there is a dispute between historians.

3) Blog posts by journalists, speeches by politicians should NOT appear on this page as sources of history. If they aren't relevant then they need to be deleted as cruft.

4) Academic papers which are not published in history journals should NOT appear in this article as sources of history. Reason: They have not been reviewed by other historians and are therefore not reliable.

5) I'm happy with some primary sources being used so long as they are only used to illustrate what historians have already stated.

6) The "mother was a lively child" should be deleted as it's not contemporary.

7) I can't believe there is a dispute about the purpose of the welsh not.

Martin Johnes. Welsh historian Professor of History at Swansea university:

Throughtout his whole discussion of the Welsh Not he's talking about teaching English. It's perverse to pretend the Welsh Not wasn't about teaching English. Take this statement...

"Moreover, many teachers recognised that punishing children for speaking Welsh did not actually work in helping them with their English"

8) Does anyone disagree with this statement: "Some schools banned the use of Welsh in the classroom and playground in an attempt to force children to use and become proficient in English." ?

If you disagree with any of the above please let me know. I will be basing my future edits on the above criteria. Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

As per my edit here, that's not a fact, it's Johnes' opinion. The educated opinion of a Professor of History, but an opinion nonetheless. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

How can the Welsh Not be about teaching English? It may be about removing perceived obstacles to teachers who have to teach children whose first language is Welsh through the medium of English, but it isn't a method of teaching English and, as far as I can see, Johnes doesn't say that it is. Deb (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Deb,Martinevans123 It was about forcing them to practice what they had learned in the classroom. (I don't care if we use the word 'teaching' or not.) Why do you think Cllr Cemlyn Williams has a concern here? How would you describe his concern?

"Cllr Cemlyn Williams, the portfolio holder for education, spoke of the experiences of teachers at one Caernarfon school, who had noticed a “clear reduction” in the use of Welsh outside of the classroom. He added, “Children, first language Welsh, often speaking English in the playground, which I find quite profound and a cause for concern." Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, there are two sides to history: the hard incontrovertible facts and the opinions or analyses of motives, results, social impact, etc.

The hard facts need nothing more than a good RS, if that, and are inherently neutral.

The opinions and analyses are more of a problem, they can legitimately be biased and be from biased (but reliable) sources, may be fringe, may be politically or otherwise motivated, etc. They, at least, need to be evaluated for due weight and be reliably sourced before being used and very accurately attributed and contextualised if they are used, and balanced with any equally valid alternative views or opinions. Due weight sources of opinion will probably substantiate their views by providing their rationale and the evidence (duly referenced) that they rely on, be peer-reviewed, or at least be published by a publisher with a good reputation for its editorial oversight and quality of output. Undue sources will include unsubstantiated one-liners from political speeches, sensationalised newspaper articles, political opinion pieces in newspapers or political pamphlets, etc.

Our problem, I suppose, as Wiki editors, is to, whilst always assuming good faith, try our best to achieve a good NPOV and verifiable article out of all this, and using the talkpage to get consensus before inserting content if it is disputed. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto 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) 07:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, yes, incontrovertible facts are facts. My answer to the question in your newly numbered point no. 8 is that, yes, I agree that it is a straight fact too. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, you are asking seven Wikipedia editors whether they agree to an eight point statement about a controversial issue, so you are unlikely to get agreement. I would recommend reading the policy on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and the guideline on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. TSventon (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon Hi, I'm not asking for agreement. I'm asking if anyone disagrees. Which items do you disagree with? Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, I disagree with the approach of making an 8 point statement about a contentious topic and would recommend starting with Wikipedia policies instead. I wholly or partially disagree with all 8 but I don't think it would be a good use of my time explaining every detail. For example no. 2 says "Statements by historians are FACTS", but there are different interpretations of statements by historians: an early 20th century example I am familiar with is R. G. Collingwood's description of statements by historians as "reconstructions" in The Idea of History. TSventon (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon OK, one by one it is :) Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, I think your chances are a lot better one by one, particularly if you can quotr Wikipedia policies. By the way, I regret not having any more recent author on historiography to quote at short notice. TSventon (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

TSventon I think you are correct (again) grrrrr :) Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

Cell Danwydd, which "1st hand evidence by a child" is that, and in which source? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, DeFacto Is this a reference to (6)? Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Little knowledge is a dangerous thing! Every Welsh school child would know! Cell Danwydd (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's do this the slow and painful way. Starting with item (4)

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb (If you wish to be removed from this notification please tell me)

4) Academic papers which are not published in history journals should NOT appear in this article as sources of history. Reason: They have not been reviewed by historians and are therefore not reliable.

I intend to delete the following...

a) Susan E. Pitchford (Part time sociology lecturer, Liberal Studies Program, University of Washington Bothell Campus) has claimed in an ethnic tourism paper...

b) Pritchard and Morgan (both from the School of Hospitality, Leisure & Tourism, University of Wales Institute) add, in a tourism management paper...

Reason for deletion: They are NOT historians and the papers have NOT been published in history journals and so cannot be relied on for peer review by historians.

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

I will delete them in 24 hours time. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I would have to agree that those two papers seem somewhat tangential to the subject of the article, not to mention non-noteworthy in themselves. Deb (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Deb I skimmed through the ethnic tourism paper, my reaction was - Don't do it Wales! Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, I support deletion, they've been tagged, and there has been no attempt to defend them. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto Thanks for your input, I will give it the full 24 hours to wait for any other responses Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No objection to deletion. But hey, I guess these things have become "tourist attractions" these days (like this and this). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that tourism journals are not good sources for statements about history and therefore with deletion. TSventon (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, TSventon Thanks for responding Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted the content discussed above Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld. Editor Cell Danwydd has reinstated the content discussed above and also removed the text that describes the qualifications of the people making the statements, what types of papers they are and where they were published. The description of their edit is "Reinstate facts in academic papers which have been censored by vandalism". Cell Danwydd Please engage with the arguments above and also please explain why you think my edit was vandalism. Thanks Cheezypeaz

My edit to remove the content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1044890848&oldid=1044637331

Cell Danwydd edit to reinstate https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1044941496&oldid=1044909630

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld. Cell Danwydd Repeating notification because I didn't sign it properly. I keep doing that grrrr. Please see my response above. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted Cell Danwydd change and asked that they address the changes here Cheezypeaz (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Contributions here by Cheesy and DeFacto verge on vandalism

Cheezypeaz and DeFacto's contributions to this talk page, and to much of the article are on the verge of vandalism. A lot of political gas. Please stop it both of you. Cell Danwydd (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, please supply diffs and a rationale to substantiate your allegations. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Nearly all your edits, one by one. Cell Danwydd (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, are you saying that Cheezypeaz and DeFacto's editing is Wikipedia:Vandalism, i.e. "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose"? "Political gas" sounds like a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, which the policy lists as an example of things that are not vandalism. TSventon (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've said two things. Both are correct. Cell Danwydd (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, I am sure Cheezypeaz and DeFacto will answer for themselves, but I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Vandalism and withdraw what you have said in this section. TSventon (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Read what I said: on the verge of vandalism; non-neutral pov taken to the extreme is vandalism. Cell Danwydd (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I read the section header that you created "Contributions here are nothing less than vandalism". Yes, you said 'on the verge of vandalism' in the next line, but the header is there in big print. It's doesn't seem to be good faith, nor does the claim "a lot of political gas". Llwyld (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, per WP:WIAPA, "Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links". I asked for them above, it is your duty to supply them in support of your words. Diffs are easy, why wouldn't you supply them if you are behaving in good faith here? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article has been hijacked by Cheesy and DeFacto. I agree with Cell Danwydd. Monsyn (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you please provide examples of the article not being neutral, and diffs supporting the allegation of 'hijacking' the article's neutrality? There's been a lot of editing of this article in recent weeks, it would good to see where the it is going astray. Llwyld (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Llwyld You may want to read the two conversations above which both start with "Let's do this the slow and painful way" They explain the rational for my edits. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have read above. There is clearly a disagreement, but I don't see any evidence of vandalism and the hijacking of the article's neutrality that Cell Danwydd has claimed (and Monsyn has agreed with). Llwyld (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Llwyld, I think that Cell Danwydd disagrees with the changes in article content since Cheezypeaz started editing on 1 August this year, which they view as "non-neutral pov taken to the extreme", but that is a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute rather than Wikipedia:Vandalism. TSventon (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Monsyn, please supply diffs and a rationale to substantiate your allegations. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's do this the slow and painful way. Unexpected bonus item: Source check please regarding cultural genocide

DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld (If you wish to be removed from this notification please tell me)

From the Department of "You Didn't See That Coming"

Currently we have...

"Some Welsh people have described the use of the Welsh Not as a 'weapon to create cultural genocide', others welcomed the use of it because they believed that it was a method which helped children learn English.[5]"

I don't have access to this book and it seems an odd thing for an encyclopedia to say.

• When I do a text search on that exact phrase in google "weapon to create cultural genocide" only one result is returned and it's the Welsh Not page.
• When I do a 'search inside' on the following google books link it returns one result for "genocide" which appears to be something to do with Roman Britain and zero results for "cultural genocide"

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Welsh_Academy_Encyclopaedia_of_Wales/-ZEUAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=The%20Welsh%20Academy%20Encyclopaedia%20of%20Wales

So what does the "The Welsh Academy encyclopaedia of Wales" Say about "cultural genocide"?

Thanks! Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, the English version of TWAEoW contains around 3300 articles, and one of them is entitled "Welsh Not(e)" and contains two paragraphs and is about 300 words long. It's second paragraph starts with the following sentence: "Welsh patriots view the Welsh Not(e) as an instrument of cultural genocide, although it was welcomed by some parents as a way of ensuring that their children made daily use of English." -- DeFacto (talk). 20:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto Thanks! Case Closed!!!! Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Very strong keep. Your non-neutral pov is equally as strong, to question the use of cultural genocide by an academic encyclopaedia. Read: WP:BIAS. Cell Danwydd (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep, obviously. Presumably the page number given, p. 942, is correct? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, Martinevans123 It was kept because it comes from a reputable authoratative source. You can see I kept it by looking at my edit "Better synonym for the original 'instrument' is 'implement' so changed from 'weapon'. Also added ref because it's so striking & so won't get split up in case of future edits" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1045112719&oldid=1045089322

This was done 12 hours before your reply here Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

So, would you like me to now strike out or remove my comment? Perhaps you could have amended this thread to reflect your edit? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 Absolutely not. I took no offence whatsoever from your comment. My "case closed" clearly wasn't clear to everyone. I regarded my edit as minor housekeeping to avoid future editors from questioning the quote. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, p. 942, yes. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)