Talk:Welsh independence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early comments

Luke, sorry my mistake I'm going to completely restart this page.Lenincymru2007 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Use the {{hangon|}} tag along with a reasonably valid reason to give notice that you contest the speedy deletion. I'll put this page on my watchlist to monitor its progress. If it progresses, it won't get deleted by an admin per CSD criteria. Luke! 00:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry Luke, I've tried to progress it as much as I can tonight, I hope changes have addressed your original problems - there is no longer any reference to Plaid Cymru or the blogs, it is simply a stub. Can you remove the request for immediate deletion?Lenincymru2007 00:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the CSD notice to allow you and other editors the chance to add additional content to this article. Consider adding content that can be verified through reputable sources to help establish a firm notability for the article's subject. I'll try do some copyeditting once there is more content. Luke! 00:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Luke, I hope this is a bit better. Still need more help - will email a few people to get them involved.Lenincymru2007

to do

I'd like to get involved in building this article - I can see one or two other (mainly the "founder"?) are adding to it. But some questions, what would be the main things to develop first - history, devolution, nationalism? Maybe if we can split the work up and each concentrate on one thing we can get it up and running quicker.

Also, anybody got references for the 60's Welsh bombings/sabotages? I know nationalism in Wales is not on an IRA scale, but I think its and intersting story. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye I have references for the bombing campaigns, let me know.

I too would like to get involved in building this article, I have no knowledge about the subject content, which is good as I can focus my efforts on it's layout. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note there exists a separate article on Welsh Nationalism which may be a better place for information about MG and the bombing campaigns and some of the other potential topics proposed. Normalmouth (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm yes, Welsh independence is the goal of the Nationilist party, so they will deserve a mention. However it may be the goal of other parties as well, so they will need fair coverage. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Righty, I've had a look at Scottish independence & United Ireland articles. From these I can gather we need a "History" section, then a "support" and "oppose" section. Obviously the last 2 need to be referenced and neutral. Also we should add this tag: {{Politics of Wales}} Ryan4314 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Laws in Wales Acts

repealing the Acts of Union between England and Wales in 1536 and 1543 just thought I would inform you all, these laws have been repealed. 82.11.223.222 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and well spotted on the Statute Law Database! Don't be shy to make changes like this yourself, though. We need edits by people who know what they're talking about! Pondle (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Info Box

Given this is an article about Welsh independence, it would surely be more appropriate to have the welsh dragon in the info box rather than the Royal symbol that is there? Any objections to changing it? --Snowded ^TALK 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, but the image is part of a wider template - Template:Politics of Wales - and it seems to be standard practice to use a coat of arms in a politics template rather than a national flag (see Politics of present-day states - I admit that I haven't checked all the articles, but as a relevant example, the Scottish version of the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom is used in Template:Politics of Scotland). The current Royal Badge of Wales was designed specifically for the National Assembly and appears on the cover of Assembly Measures.[1] Pondle (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. We should change the template instead. Daicaregos (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But as I said, if you look at the overwhelming majority of the politics templates, they use the appropriate coat of arms or logo rather than a flag. I've mentioned Scotland, here's Australia, France, Germany and the USA. I know that nationalists and republicans may dislike the Royal Badge of Wales, but it exists as an objective fact regardless of people's opinions of it. Airbrushing it out of Wikipedia would not seem particularly neutral to me. Pondle (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The examples you gave, Pondle, are different to each other - For Australia: Coat of Arms of Australia says: "The Coat of Arms of Australia (formally known as Commonwealth Coat of Arms) is the official symbol of Australia." The 'royal' badge is not the official symbol of Wales. For France: The template shows both the Logo de la République Française and Armoiries République Française. National Emblem of France says: (of the Armoiries République Française: "The current emblem of France has been a symbol of France since 1953, although it does not have any legal status as an official coat of arms." and (of the Logo de la République Française) "In September 1999, the French government adopted a unique official identifier for its communication, incorporating the Republican motto, the colours of the flag, and Marianne, the Republic's personification." So France use an unofficial symbol and an official identifier of the government. Wales' symbol is Y Ddraig Goch, and the Wales Assembly Government is too see this. For Germany: Coat of arms of Germany says: "The coat of arms of Germany is a sign of Germany; the coat of arms features an eagle. The colours of the coat of arms are similar to those of the flag of Germany (black, red and gold). It is one of the oldest extant state symbols of Europe and is among the oldest insignia in the world." So the symbol used for Germany is one that goes back into the mists of time. The red dragon, which is also "among the oldest insignia in the world." For USA: Great Seal of the United States says: "The design on the obverse of the great seal is the national coat of arms of the United States.[1] It is officially used on documents such as United States passports, military insignia, embassy placards, and various flags." Y Ddraig Goch is ubiquitous in Wales and is seen as the shorthand for all things Welsh. The only similarity between the above examples is that they graphically represent the relevant country. The Red Dragon does that job for Wales. The 'royal' badge does not. Daicaregos (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that the Royal Badge of Wales represents the country, simply that it's suitable emblem to represent politics and government in Wales on the Politics of Wales template. The new badge was designed to be a suitable emblem to mark the unique character of Assembly Measures as Welsh legislation. Acts of Parliament bear the Royal Arms of the United Kingdom, and this is used at Template:Politics of the United Kingdom rather than the Union Flag or the Westminster Portcullis emblem.[2] Acts of the Scottish Parliament bear the version of the royal arms used in Scotland, and this is used at Template:Politics of Scotland - even though the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament both use the saltire in their logo.[3][4] The Assembly and the Welsh Office both formerly used the old royal badge featuring the Red Dragon[5] on various types of official documents, but making this older image the symbol of contemporary 'politics and government in Wales' would seem anachronistic to me.Pondle (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

When and where exactly was it decided that a Royal badge somehow represents 'Politics and governent in Wales'? (this is a genuine question).--Rhyswynne (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Politics of England has the cross of St George which is surely a more relevant precedent. --Snowded ^TALK 11:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:BOLD (i.e. no discussion) edit here (on Template:Politics of Wales). Discussion is needed on that Talk page. Daicaregos (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond on that talk page - I was going to suggest moving the discussion there, we've gone a bit off-topic here! Pondle (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Article re-write

Reading this article, it seems very bias and I'd like to re-write it.

For instance

'Welsh independence is a political ideal advocated by some people in Wales that would see Wales secede from the United Kingdom and become an independent sovereign state. This ideology is promoted mainly by the Welsh nationalist party, Plaid Cymru.[1]'

Is it promoted mainly through Plaid? There are a whole raft of organisations who promote Welsh independence.

'These conflicting sentiments were reflected in the relatively low turnout at the referendum and the narrowness of the victory for devolution campaigners.'

Why are we putting opinions in here?

I would like to spend some time rebalancing the article though will seek consensus before posting anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard, Plaid is by far the largest and most electorally-successful organisation to advocate Welsh independence, although I admit that they have equivocated in the past.[6] Other groups supporting independence are or were small fringe entities such as Cymru Rydd or the defunct Free Wales Army. We do need to include them in the article somewhere although they shouldn't be given undue weight. The second statement you criticise is not an expression of an editor's opinion, but a comment by respected Welsh political analyst Denis Balsom[7] in Balsom and Barry Jones, eds (2000) The Road to the National Assembly for Wales. This is a reliable source, and as the guidance says, "Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources". Pondle (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wales on Sunday poll

I was a bit confused reading this article to see one of the polls mentioned (the one from this WalesOnline article) showing vastly higher support for independence than all the others. Our article explains this by saying "the poll mostly interviewed people in North Wales where support for independence is strongest", but I don't see where this information comes from - it certainly isn't in the current version of the WalesOnline piece. I would guess that a more likely explanation is that the survey asked a different question to others, but I can't find any details at all about how the survey was carried out, other than "by phone". 80.2.62.193 (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The figures in the 2006 article are said to be 51% in north Wales, 53% in mid Wales, 45% in south west Wales and 40% in south east Wales. If the overall figure is 52%, there must - statistically - be a higher number of respondents from mid Wales than anywhere else. That is completely counter to the real population distribution in Wales, in which roughly two-thirds of the population are in the south east. Even if the regional figures are reported accurately, the correctly weighted overall figure for Wales, from that survey, would be more like 43%, not 52%. That survey also talks about independence "in your lifetime", rather than "immediately". In my opinion, completely unscientific straw polls like that one should not be mentioned in the article at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Polling

I reverted changes to the polling section as they added commentary which interprets the source. They also added in one comment about 'daft' which while cited had no evidence its representative or notable. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The polling section should only include surveys conducted by BPC members that use appropriate sampling and weighting. Poll conducted by a website was added on 6th May 2019 that can not be treated the same as other polls listed as it was a survey of readers. There is no information on whether it was an Open-access poll. It should be removed, but in the meantime I have added notes saying 'Survey of readers without sampling or weighting'.

Additional source

Is this source okay to be placed in the last sentence of the support section [8]? I see there is one but just in case I think an additional one would be better, specially regarding that 3 percent mentioned in both sources. (N0n3up (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC))

Material only needs to be sourced once - multiple sources tend to be needed when material is contested----Snowded ^TALK 04:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Welsh independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071119193059/http://www.ndad.nationalarchives.gov.uk/AH/6/detail.html to http://www.ndad.nationalarchives.gov.uk/AH/6/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Informal/Non-professional opinion polls

I don't think that the recently added WalesOnline and North Wales Live opinion polls are suitable for inclusion in this article. As much as it might please me to see majorities for independence, these polls were conducted anonymously online with no demographic weighting and their inclusion in the article - especially in the graph - gives a false impression of a swing to yes.

The WalesOnline article itself says:

...it is really important to bear in mind that this is not a reflective sample of the whole of Wales. The survey was open to anyone and is therefore likely to attract people who care very deeply about the issue.

These results are also not the definitive view of people in Wales, they are just a reflection of what the people who completed the survey think.

Liam McM 11:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

By reverting the page back to edit 987815966, it has removed genuine polls by reputable Pollsters such as Yougov, for which data tables have been included. Jonith1 (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm combining this with the section above, for reasons that I think are obvious. User:Liam McM, if you check the recent history I think you'll understand why I reverted and semi-protected. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure, but polls like the 26 October – 29 October 2020 YouGov, Welsh Barometer Poll - as well as some of the other polls in the same series that have also been removed - are genuine polls (unlike the Wales Online online newspaper survey, which are typically not included in things like this for not being reliable and is what User:Liam McM was complaining about) which have been been removed due to the reversion and should be included. Data tables for them were provided, and YouGov is a reputable pollster, being a member of the BCP. Past polls in the series have also been included. Is there a reason that they have not been? Jonith1 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • My revert was based only on what I saw from the disruptive edits in the article history. As an administrator I really have no opinion on the quality of the content. I don't know which polls you are talking about; I assume these were introduced without any explanation by IP 81.129.21.154, where the sourcing is from "yougov.net" and "cloudfront.net", and some Cardiff blog--not exactly references that inspire a lot of confidence. I reverted back to Liam McM's version, since at least they had an argument for their edit. And please click "Show preview" before you post something, so that I don't run into edit conflicts because you tweaked your message after posting it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, those introduced by 81.129.21.154 1. The Cardiff blog was Cardiff University, who are one of the Commissioners of the YouGov Welsh Barometer Polling, not some random blog. 2. Those are the typical format for Yougov Polling Data Tables, as can be seen even from the links to other polls already on the page. The reason they were added is because they were polls on this issue that had not already previously been included. I have now provided a reason for why they should be included. Therefore, please can these be returned. Jonith1 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
        • If a consensus of editors says so, here on the talk page. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper--there is no need to rush this. BTW if that blog was from one of the pollsters, then there was no secondary sourcing at all for any of these polls, if I read those diffs correctly. That makes it even worse. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
          • More proof that they are all genuine polls. All of their data tables, which are what was already linked as the source for the ones you removed, can be found here, on the polling companies website https://yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/explore/place/Wales(popup:search/YouGov%20%2F%20ITV%20Welsh%20Barometer%20Results). So you're complaining that the cloudfront.net links, which are where the official data tables from the polling company are hosted, isn't good enough, but also the commissioner of the poll reporting on it isn't good enough. So what should be included? (Also if they're not good enough, why is that how all the other polls still on the page are sourced?) Jonith1 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Jonith1, I need you to be a better reader. I didn't revert because I think it's not good enough, I reverted because there were many unexplained edits inserting questionable content, and there was edit warring over that content. What I am telling you here about that content is NOT that it's not good or whatever, cause I don't care, but that it's PRIMARY sourcing. Again, I don't care about Welsh independence or polls, but I am TELLING you that content that has only primary sources is not likely to be accepted by a consensus of editors--at least not by editors who know what it is that we are doing here, which is writing an encyclopedia. For clarity's sake: see WP:SECONDARY. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • But I need you to understand, as I keep saying, that they have the exact same types of sources as all the other polls on the page. So why would a consensus of editors accept those ones then, as they would also all be primary sourcing? You can also see the same thing on every page that compiles polls, for example Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, where if you go to the talk page they explicitly even state that "the preferred source for individual opinion polls has always been the data tables, where available" as has been linked here. So the problem clearly isn't primary sources with regards to polls, as that is what is preferred Jonith1 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't care about the other polls. There are other polls? They are irrelevant: I semi-protected the article because there was edit warring--and you were a party to it. Whatever else is in the article is not directly relevant to the matter at hand. But all your deflections are really just that, and they don't matter. This needs to be discussed between editors who have knowledge and interest. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Drmies, Jonith1, and Liam McM: The general consensus for opinion polling articles is that for a poll to be included, the pollster must be a member of the British Polling Council and abide by its rules. You can see here that YouGov fulfils this criteria. The preferred source is the data tables, and although these are primary sources, they are only used for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, per WP:PRIMARY. Nothing is interpreted from them (like discussing trends in party support) without referencing to appropriate secondary sources. With this in mind, I see no reason to prevent to the polls being restored to the article. If Drmies or any other editor wishes to further discuss the use of primary sources in opinion polling articles, I would suggest doing so on Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, where it would be more visible to relevant editors. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with PinkPanda272, YouGov is an acceptable source for British polling data as a member of the BPC (and we use it widely elsewhere, such as for Scottish independence polling and general election polling). Regarding the polls that Drmies reverted, I think the recent YouGov Yes/No poll and the independence vs. no devolution poll should be included, but I don't think the polls about abolishing the Senedd are relevant to Welsh independence (they belong in an article on the Senedd, if anywhere). The Wales Online and North Wales Live polls should obviously be excluded as they were unweighted. Jr8825 • Talk 10:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There were also a few other older YouGov Yes/No poll's that have previously not been included that were also reverted too that I think should be included (the 5 done between January 2020 and October 2019). Regarding the abolishing the Senedd polls, As a potential reason they should be, a large part of the article does regard Devolution, to which they are relevant to. They also provide added context on the included polls on Independence vs Abolishing the Senedd, as well as the Devolution Extent polls. However you're right that they're potentially not relevant so maybe shouldn't be included, because they're more indirectly related to independence. Jonith1 (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Jr8825, PinkPanda272, thank you for your contributions. I posted on a few project pages--maybe that's how you got here--and I propose we leave this open for a day or two. After that, feel free to implement whatever consensus y'all see here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Should polls where the data tables do not seem to have been published yet, and the secondary sources have excluded Don't Knows, be allowed in the table before data tables are published? Jonith1 (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the latest poll it seems that its actually alot closer

the first pageJudeobasquelanguage (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi TG11TG15, please see my edit summary for my explanation of why I reverted your major additions. My main objection is to the large historical summary, which was partly WP:SYNTH as it didn't directly relate to the modern Welsh independence movement, and it was written like an essay (i.e. not as a neutral summary) in some places. To my understanding, some of the historical content you added (e.g. Hywel Dda's laws) is frequently tied to the concept of Welsh independence, so if you have sources which discuss this connection please feel free to re-add these parts. However, most of the content was too detailed for this article. Most of the content you added on recent history seems to relate more to devolution. This should only be summarised briefly in one section, so that the article remains focused on its topic, Welsh independence. See Scottish independence for comparison. A lot of the content seems to have been copied from other Wikipedia articles without attribution. Please take a look at the policy on how to copy within Wikipedia correctly. Also, there are some sections of the manual of style you should probably review, such as MOS:SECTIONTITLE. I hope this helps clarify things, Jr8825 • Talk 04:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image of this article at present is simply an image of the Flag of Wales. Should this be changed to an image of a march, similar to the lead image of Scottish independence? I am aware there is an image of a march already in the article, but I feel it would make more sense to include it or another image of the same or different march as the lead image instead, as it is more relevant and better suited to an article about Welsh independence than the Welsh flag. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, the replacing of the first image with the flag was performed with this edit by @Titus Gold on 16 June 2022. For the past few months (maybe years) the first image was a march (specifically this image I think), support reinstating the march image to the lead. – DankJae 16:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

A few examples:

• 
  Option A
• 
  Option B
• 
  Option C
• 
  Option D
• 
  Option E
• 
  Option F
• 
  Option G
• 
  Option H

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I prefer these (purely because its sunny XD; and I guess less crowded),

• 
  This one (1),
• 
  or this (2),
• 
  or the one previously used (0)

but is it just simpler to use the one already in the article? Although if others contribute here, happy to have a vote. If I had to choose out of yours, I'd pick A. – DankJae 20:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd go for 1 Titus Gold (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd advocate for keeping the flag. It’s more of a universal symbol and easy to recognise and associate with the movement. Helper201 (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've changed it now. Feel free to choose a different image or to revert. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Questionable source

A website WalesOnline has been used for citing material in this article. It itself says [9] "DO NOT RELY ON INFORMATION ON THE SITE The content on the Site is provided “as-is” and for general information only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on the Site. We make no representations, warranties or guarantees, whether express or implied, that the content on the Site is accurate, complete or up to date and we do not accept any responsibility for any of such content." That does not give confidence that it checks the facts, and suggests that it lacks meaningful editorial oversight and therefore should not be used.SovalValtos (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting point, the article does reference WalesOnline around 14 times, so quite a bit. There aren’t many Wales-wide media outlets so I would be generally supportive to keep it, but would make more sense to be more critical on WO’s content rather than take it at face value. The YouGov poll article could hopefully be backed by at least a source from YouGov itself.

I believe that section of the T&Cs are shared with most other Reach plc publications such as the Daily Mirror, Liverpool Echo, Chronicle Live and other local publications etc. (Daily Express has different T&Cs). There was no consensus on the Daily Mirror’s reliability which also has the disclaimer WalesOnline has. So likely question WO’s articles on a case-by-case basis.

Maybe for now a better source needed tag or additional citation needed tag should be added if you determine a section of its cited text to be concerning.

But there aren’t many Wales publications, so unless WO makes outstanding claims, I believe it can be kept or at least used as an alternative source. Although referenced text may need to be reworded. WalesOnline has been used on other Wales-related articles (including a bit at Wales) so would apply to those too. DankJae 11:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Arguments against independence section

I'm not too knowledgeable with this topic but I'd like to suggest the creation of a section outlining arguments against Welsh independence, similar to the Scottish independence article. I think it would be better offering both sides, since currently the article seems to be pretty heavily weighted towards pro-independence, with hardly a mention of anti-independence sentiment despite the opinion polling results. Thanks, Golem08 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree, the article has been expanded over the past few months, but largely from a pro-independence point of view and by mainly one editor. Unlike Scottish Independence, this article does not state any opposing arguments, so I'm not sure whether it needs a POV or Unbalanced template. Many Thanks DankJae 12:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps an Unbalanced template would be appropriate. Golem08 (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have updated a couple of bits but all in all it needs quite a bit of work overall.

I don't feel experienced enough to do this as I think it might prove controversial. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)