Talk:Welsh people/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Only 100% Welsh people should be used

+Catherine Zeta Jones' mother is Irish so her picture shouldn't be used as she isn't the best example of a notable Welsh person.

+Shirley Bassey's father is Nigerian and her mother is English so again her picture shouldn't be used.

While it would be nice to have some women on there I don't think we should just slap them on there in the name of political correctness.

Also, Robert Owen should definitely be amongst the images as one of the founders of socialism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Showstopper87 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is not pure Welsh people (whatever that would mean), it's Welsh people in their entirety. Having an Irish mother does not make you non-Welsh. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you don't have to be 100% Welsh (if that's possible), however Shirley Bassey is not Welsh, she was born in Wales, she is British, Welsh is not a nationality, one cannot simply be born into it. Her official documents would say she is British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevewatto (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean it's not a citizenship (note, for example, that while "British citizens" have a right to abode in the UK, "UK nationals", as defined in British law, do not). In general, the term nationality is underdetermined, and both British and Welsh can be considered nationalities; in fact, a Welsh person's nationality could be considered either Welsh, or British, or both. garik (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nor, incidentally, is it even the case that you can "simply be born into" British citizenship. You have to have a parent who is themselves a citizen, or settled in the UK (in a specific legal sense). Whether or not someone is Welsh through virtue of being born in Wales is a moot point. There's no legal definition of what it means to be counted as Welsh, so different people use the term in different ways. Considering that Shirley Bassey was born and grew up in Cardiff, she would seem to have a pretty good claim to be counted as Welsh. I have no idea what she counts herself as. If we want to start being precise about our benchmarks for inclusion, what are we going to use? Birth? Parentage? Ancestry (how pure?)? Upbringing? Abode? Ability to speak Welsh? Self-identification? None of these are entirely satisfactory, and a couple would be very bad choices. Self-identification seems a good one, but what if someone was born to Welsh parents and lived their entire life in Wales, yet did not identify as Welsh? Or someone defined themselves as Welsh who had no connections with the place at all? As far as I can see, there's no clear-cut way to decide if someone's properly Welsh (or Scottish, or English, for that matter), so we're just going to have to opt for some arbitrary set of criteria that candidates have to fulfil some number of, or allow any individual who can reasonably be considered Welsh according to a somewhat blurry set of ill-defined criteria (which is not as unreasonable as it may sound). garik (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way - Dame Shirley Bassey is considered a Welsh singer by the outside worlds, eg The Scotsman [1], the Daily Mail [2], the BBC [3], a site searching for Welsh icons [4] (which calls here a Welsh legend here, etc. She was born and raised in Wales, she is Welsh. Dougweller (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is '100% Welsh'? Both parents? Grand-parents? Raised in Wales? Welsh speaking? If a person is considered 'Welsh' or would describe themselves as Welsh that should suffice. A big tent! --MJB (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't believe anyone's got any reasonable problem with any of the current choices, so let's leave this discussion be. garik (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how a news paper wishes to identify someone, being born in Wales simply doesn't make them Welsh. If the outside world considered her a Chinese singer does that mean we have to put her in the Chinese people page? This page itself describes Welsh as being an ethnicity, not a citizenship/nationality etc. If she was born in Rwanda would you say that she is a Tutsi, Hutu or Twa? No because those are specific ethnic groups. If she is born in Wales and not part of the Welsh ethnic group then (if their parents are legally settled and/or British) they are a British citizen, just like Shirley Bassey. However I do agree that the idea of 100% Welsh people should be used is ridiculous, but Welsh ancestry is obviousley necassery. stevewatto 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.250.46 (talk)

Famous Welsh Pictures

I'm afraid I haven't enough time today to sort through all the discussion page, but was there a consensus to remove the famous Welsh pictures? I'm just curious. I want to make sure no one blanked them out without consulting anyone, a recent problem on Sami people --Leodmacleod (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should aim to develop something like this which is under development for British People --Snowded (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the previous collage was deleted on 26 November 2008 here, because of uncertainty over copyright on the Tom Jones element of the image - see here. (And no-one noticed.... ?!) The deleted image also contained pics of David Lloyd George, William Jones, Dylan Thomas, George Everest, and Catherine Zeta Jones. We could certainly do with a new image, either using the same combination of people or a different group. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well we could look at options and categories (this is not really a proposal, more of a get started with different groups):

St David, Howel Da, Llywelyn (one of), Glwyndwr

Illustration from the Rebecca Riots, a Chartist, one of the preachers of the revivals, Mary Jones

Lloyd George, Nye Bevan

Gareth Edwards plus a boxer cyclist and (much as it hurts me as a Liverpool fan) Ryan Giggs

Dylan Thomas, R S Thomas, Gav as a druid, Anne Evans, Bryn Terfel

Richard Burton, Tom Jones, Catherine Zeta Jones

--Snowded (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Zeta-Jones. 2 reasons. 1)She's a terrible actress and lousy person (knowingly smoked while preggers) and 2) and most importantly, she's half Greek (it is Greek, right?). But hey, what about the current UK ambassador to the UN. Isn't he Welsh? Oh yeah, and where's the love for Python's Terry Jones? And what about Welsh born abroad, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Betty Davis, and (ug) Tom Cruise? I know there have to be some Welsh-Canadians and Australians we could use if they qualify. --Leodmacleod (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful to establish criteria for inclusion here first, before coming up with lists of names. For example, are we restricting ourselves to Welsh-born (which would exclude Lloyd George and, for example, Joe Calzaghe), and what are our criteria about "ethnicity" (for example, what about Shirley Bassey or Colin Jackson, both Welsh-born)? Do "Welsh born abroad" count? And, before people get too carried away with possibilities, we need to ensure that they do have free images available. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would go with the criteria for the national rugby team - grandparents who were welsh or born in Wales. I think we then need to agree the groups. --Snowded (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Zeta-Jones has a Welsh father and Irish mother. I have never heard anything about Greek ancestry. Keith Richards has paternal Welsh ancestry, so perhaps he could be included.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Help!

I'm frustrated that so many interesting and prominent Welshmen and -women have poor images, if any! No wonder the infobox image has stalled!

OK people, I believe most of the same camp of editors know I've been working on images for the British people, English people and Scottish people articles. Of course the Welsh deserve an image and it's scandalous that the team hasn't pulled together to make this happen - I'm even going to say its embarrassing for these nations, including the Welsh!

So, help me out here... I've put together this. How's it looking? Who are we missing? I believe we need more historical examples, but (just to throw a spanner in the works) I'm also concerned at some of the archives asking to slot in dark age Britons as Welshmen, which would pre-date Wales itself, so would ask kindly that we avoid those. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, not much response here. How would we feel about using this for the infobox? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a good source here which was run a year or so ago --Snowded ^TALK 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that support? Most if not all the names mentioned in that article are included in the image. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was a good choice. I would argue that Howel Da and Llewellyn the Great (or possibly the last) and these days Ray Gravell (whose funeral struck a national cord) should be in there as well. --Snowded ^TALK 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(<-)I was hoping to get Hywel Dda in there but there's no free-to-use image sadly. Llewellyn the Great was another obvious choice, but the only image on WP is him on his deathbed :S. Ray Gravell didn't come to mind if I'm honest, but, still, there's no free-to-use image sadly. I also would've liked Gareth Edward's photo to have been a little more stylish. :S

Just to clarify who I've put together:

• Top row, left to right:
  • Anthony Hopkins - Welsh film, stage and television actor.
  • Tom Jones - Welsh singer.
  • Dylan Thomas - Welsh poet.
  • George Everest - Welsh surveyor, geographer.
  • Ryan Giggs - Welsh association footballer.
  • Robert Owen - Welsh social reformer and one of the founders of socialism and the cooperative movement.
  • Michael Sheen - Welsh stage and screen actor.

• Middle row, left to right:
  • Mary Jones - Welsh girl associated with Bible dissemination.
  • William Jones - Welsh mathematician.
  • Kelly Jones - Welsh singer-songwriter, guitarist and the lead singer of the Stereophonics.
  • Bertrand Russell - Welsh philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, social reformer, and pacifist.
  • Gwyneth Jones - Welsh soprano.
  • Aneurin Bevan - Welsh politician, and agitator for the formation of the National Health Service.
  • Owain Glyndŵr - Welsh ruler and the last native Welsh person to hold the title Prince of Wales.

• Bottom row, left to right:
  • William Rees - Welsh poet and author.
  • Gareth Edwards - Welsh rugby union footballer.
  • Ruth Jones - Welsh actress and writer.
  • David Lloyd George - Welsh statesman and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
  • Rhodri Morgan - Welsh politician and the second First Minister for Wales.
  • Richard Burton - Welsh stage and screen actor.
  • Catherine Zeta-Jones - Welsh actress.

Most of these have been suggested throughout the archives, whilst one or two (like Michael Sheen) were just using intuition. Would these be of befitting quality and suitable notability and Welshness to warrent the infobox position???? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Go with it, good job --Snowded ^TALK 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we have a previous debate about whether Bertrand Russell actually considered himself to be English? I guess he was Welsh-born and features in the 100 Welsh heroes website.[5]Pondle (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably thought himself British - was the hight of the Empire and peak of Britishness. I'm confident he satisfies any reasonable definition of Welshness though, and source material verifies he is a Welshman.

Assuming there's no objection, I will work out the licencing and sourcing tomorrow for Wikimedia Commons and add the image to the page. Will be pleased to get this in place for the Welsh. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd still have preferred it if some criteria could have been drawn up beforehand, and I'm concerned that there are only 4 women (out of 21), and that there are no visibly ethnic minority Welsh-born people shown (Colin Jackson, Shirley Bassey etc). Also, Lloyd George was born in England as I'm sure you know. These things (and the Bertrand Russell / was Monmouthshire "Welsh"? question) will probably raise more questions in the future, but if you want to go with this version for now (certainly it's a lot better than nothing) that's fine with me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As an outsider, I agree with the points made just above. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. I know that may seem odd as I've spent so much time sourcing pictures and developing the image, but to be honest, the photographs of notable Welsh persons are quite poor, assuming they exist. This means we have images that I would see as second choices.

Still, I'm comfortable (and I hope you can agree) that we have 21 people who satisfy any reasonable definition of Welshness. We can revisit the image at a later date should (on the off chance) this page go through a formal tier of assessment (GA, FA?). --Jza84 |  Talk  15:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Jones

I would propose that we change the picture of Kelly Jones with that of Richey James Edwards. A far more artistically noted and influental musician. The Manic Street Preachers themselves being highly notable within Welsh popular culture overall. Jacob Richardson (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wales Etymology

I've corrected the grammar in the brief etymology and given the usage of the walha terms rather than asserting a meaning. The reader can link to the walha page for more details. Unless I've missed something, a Germanic term meaning "non-Germanic" covers the same meaning as a Germanic term meaning "foreign". This avoids the risk that people will forget who the object of the walha term is foreign to. Wales would only mean foreign to people who spoke Anglo-Saxon. Wales doesn't mean foreign as an objective truth.203.161.75.138 (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Walha page makes it meaning as "foreigner" clear and readers should be able to understand that from the page without the need to use a pipline. the roman issue (while the word can mean roman as well) is not validated and is uncnecessary. Finally please read WP:BRD. If your edit is reverted then you discuss BEFORE you simply reinsert it. Discussion does not mean placing a comment here, it means allowing other editors to respond. --Snowded ^TALK 09:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There are, however, plenty of sources for the suggestion that the term "walhas" meant a specific type of foreigner, those who had adopted some aspects of Roman culture (such as Christianity, perhaps) - see Walha. The Saxons did not use the same term to describe the Picts, for example. Perhaps it's a question of finding the most authoritative source - an example might be here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. John Davies states (p69 of my Penguin edition): "It would appear that "Welsh" meant not so much foreigners as peoples who had been Romanized; other versions of the word may be found along the borders of the Empire - the Walloons of Belgium, the Welsch of the Italian Tyrol and the Vlachs of Romania - and the welschnuss, the walnut, was the nut of the Roman lands." Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with that qualification if its sourced (although arguably the saxons did not really encounter foreigners who were not part of the Roman Empire), but not with the removal of the definition. --Snowded ^TALK 09:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

John Davies is good enough for me. --Snowded ^TALK 10:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't follow protocol. I added "The term was applied to non-Germanic people and in particular Romanized people." Non-Germanic is equivalent to foreign(in Germanic), so with this format there is no need for a pipeline. All the information in the original text is still present. I realise its a little contentious but the term foreign hints the Welsh dont belong and is also contentious 203.161.75.138 (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to: The name "Wales", however, comes from the [[Germanic language|Germanic]] ''[[walha]]'', a term meaning "stranger" or "foreigner" which was applied particularly to peoples who had been Romanised.<ref>Davies, J. ''A history of Wales'' p. 69</ref> Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I want to change the edit to "...applied particularly to Romanised people." because I think it provides a more memorable label("Romanised people"). But what is the difference between foreign(in Germanic) and non-Germanic(in Germanic)?203.161.75.138 (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's best to use the specific terminology used in the ref - "peoples who had been Romanised". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

concur with Ghmyrtle --Snowded ^TALK 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Welsh citizenship?

Shouldn't the article refer to the fact that there is no separate Welsh citizenship or nationality in law? Irvine22 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead informs the reader that Wales is part of the United Kingdom. That is all that's needed. Jack forbes (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For everyones information, Irvine is asking the same question at Scottish people and English people. Jack forbes (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Our goal should always be to be as informative to the casual reader as possible. It follows from the fact that Wales is part of the United Kingdom that there is no separate Welsh citizenship and Welsh people are British citizens. I see no harm and some utility in specifying that. Irvine22 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's easy to assume the reader knows more than they do. DJ Clayworth (talk)

Goodness, do we need to act like simple wikipedia and draw a map for them? Wales being part of the United Kingdom tells it all. Jack forbes (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This article does not confine itself to a discussion of people who live, or have lived, in Wales. For instance, there are Welsh people - by culture, language, and genetic inheritance - in Patagonia. If the issue of citizenship in relation to Wales is to be raised anywhere - and I think there may be some value in doing so - it would be better done at the article on Wales itself, and/or at Politics of Wales, rather than in this article where it could add to confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but none of them - in Patagonia or elsewhere - will have Welsh citizenship, as there is no such thing. Worth clarifying, I feel. Irvine22 (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And practically none of them would receive Welsh citizenship if it existed, so where is the relevance there? Jack forbes (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If every article contained a description of things that its subject is not, the size of Wikipedia would be greatly expanded, without adding significantly to the sum of human knowledge. 19:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We are in fact deliberately not adding to the sum of human knowledge when we write Wikipedia. By policy we only write about things that are already known. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I find that many people outside the UK are unaware of the relationships between the UK and its constituents, even of things which UKians think are obvious. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Exactly right, DJ Clayworth. I am concerned that people reading this article might reasonably conclude that there is a Welsh citizenship and nationality in law, separate from that of the United Kingdom. That would be misleading, and if we can avoid it by adding a simple clarificatory sentence, we should surely do so. Irvine22 (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DJ Clayworth's point, but this is not the article where it should be clarified. This article does not deal with matters relating to "citizenship" - it deals with a cultural and/or genetic set of people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle that it does not belong in this article. Jack forbes (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we have to clarify the citizenship status of every ethnic group?--Pondle (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this page is for discussion of the article on Welsh People, not every ethnic group. The article presently references claims that the Welsh people belong to a nation, as well as an ethnic group. Casual readers might conclude that there is a separate Welsh citizenship or nationality in law, when there is of course no such thing.Irvine22 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A nation and a state are two separate concepts. I don't see anything in this article that implies that there's a 'Welsh citizenship'.--Pondle (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Pondle, Ghmyrtle & Jack --Snowded ^TALK 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Well, it implies that there is a Welsh nation to which Welsh people belong. We should be clear that, at present and for the foreseeable future, the Welsh nation (if such there is) is a constituent part of the United Kingdom, and Welsh people are British citizens. Irvine22 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wales, and the Welsh people and nation, are not necessarily coterminous. Some Welsh people are not British citizens. The poorly-informed casual reader might well find this initially confusing, but would no doubt become better-informed quickly, through reading this and other articles. We should be clear, but not over-simplify complexities in the way you propose. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have sources/examples for the assertion that "some Welsh people are not British citizens"? Irvine22 (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonable to assume that some are citizens of Argentina. For example.Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They would be Argentine people of Welsh descent, surely? Irvine22 (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's one possibility. But they may equally well define themselves as Welsh people who live in Argentina. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Or they may not. Sources would help here, if you have them. Irvine22 (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They may define themselves as "citizens of the world", or "Americans" (living, as they do, in the Americas). Who knows? Indeed, who cares? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Who cares about people of Welsh descent in Patagonia? Their mammies? Irvine22 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Irvine, by your reasoning all articles on peope born, for example in California should state that they hold American citizenship, and not Californian, just in case there's a reader out there, somewhere, who is confused as to what or where California is!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If there were an article about the Californian people which suggested that they belonged to a Californian nation, yes. Then we should certainly make clear that California is part of the United States and Californians hold US citizenship. (And Californian citizenship, as the U.S. constitution is clear that U.S. citizens are citizens of both the U.S. and of the state wherein they reside. Irvine22 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We should put that in the article Californian people. Oh no wait, that's a redlink redirects to an article about Americans, because there is not such thing as the Californian people. So clearly we don't need to explain that they are American.

Seriously, there are many people out there who do not understand that Wales is a part of the UK, and hence that there is no such thing as Welsh citizenship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A simple question - who are we writing this article for - those who already know about the Welsh people, or those who don't know about them? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Both - WP:AUDIENCE. The issue of citizenship of those Welsh people who live in Wales is addressed in the article on Wales. All articles are interlinked - we do not have to explain every conceivable detail of interpretation in every separate article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's surely slightly strange that the article on Wales addresses the question of citizenship, and not the article on the Welsh people. It's people who are citizens, after all! Irvine22 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, because Wales is a specific place that has citizens (of the UK), and "Welsh people" is a broader cultural/genetic term with a variety of interpretations. So, this article is not the right place to raise it - it would add confusion. Which, I am sure, you would not wish to do.  :) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to the language in the Wales article you feel addresses the question of citizenship? Thanks!Irvine22 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's covered by this - "Constitutionally, the United Kingdom is de jure a unitary state with one sovereign parliament and government in Westminster." - which links fairly easily (though the linkages could always be improved) through to British nationality law. Any further discussion of this issue is best dealt with at other talk pages - it is way off track for this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that language doesn't do it on citizenship for me. Irvine22 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't think that what "does it for you" is really relevant, you could always raise your concerns on the talk page over there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wales is physically a part of the UK and is the right place to explain it. There are "Welsh people" who are citizens of many nations per multiple comments above. --Snowded ^TALK 21:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely those would be people of Welsh descent? Irvine22 (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The point Irvine is that this article is not about citizenship --Snowded ^TALK 22:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Presumably these discussions will continue up to the point when he realises that we are stringing him along, rather than vice versa. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Could be, the number of blocks and warnings for provocative comments on Irish articles have resulting in a need for him to find another playpen, for the moment its this question on multiple pages. I've moved from irritation to pity over the last few months. --Snowded ^TALK 22:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I fully reciprocate the pity. I mean - Swindon? On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia...

Getting a little childish now, wouldn't you say, Irvine? Jack forbes (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say he is. Irvine22 (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that there's no consensus to add any information concerning citizenship. Jack forbes (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

History

The statement The people of what is now Wales were not distinguished from the rest of the peoples of southern Britain; all were called Britons and spoke the common British language, a Brythonic Celtic tongue. is doubtful - see Belgae. There is very little place-name evidence for a Brythonic language in south east Britain - see for example Celtic Place-Names. AJRG (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If no one has a reliable source to support this statement, I propose to delete it. AJRG (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference added. See Deceangli. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Deceangli lived in north Wales, not southern Britain... We still need a reference that supports the statement. AJRG (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Diversity

I added the following sentence to the lede - "They may also have diverse cultural heritage and ancestral origins from outside of Wales" - to summarize the fact, alluded to later in the article, that Welsh people may come from diverse ethnic backgrounds. This was reverted. I will reinstate, after a suitable period for comment here. More generally, I'm concerned about the ethno-centric tone of much of the article. Surely anyone who lives in Wales and self-identifies as Welsh would be a Welsh person? Mohammad Asghar, for example? Irvine22 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Myself, i don't think it is a necessary addition to the lead. The information given later in the article, in the History section, is adequately summarised already in the structure that the Welsh are "people who identify themselves as Welsh, and who are identified by others as Welsh. They may perceive themselves, or be perceived, as having a shared cultural heritage, or shared ancestral origins"; this implies clearly that they also may not have or be perceived as having the shared heritage or origins ~ in other words, they may be of other ethnic backgrounds. The cite given in that section (History) quotes Mohammad Asghar as self-identifying as Welsh, which is sufficient to be clear in the article. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 19:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lindsay - the article doesn't imply that Welshness is inherently 'racialised', or that the Welsh are somehow superior to other ethnic groups (which is how I read the accusation of ethnocentrism). It's important to remember that this is an article about an ethnic group - the Welsh people - and not an article about the people of Wales in a broader sense. In 2001, 33 per cent of the latter didn't self-identify as Welsh.[6]--Pondle (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

See also lengthy discussion up above. There are clearly different views on whether or not this article is, or should be, about an "ethnic group" (a highly contentious, divisive and flawed concept, in my opinion), and, indeed, about the definition of "Welsh people" more widely - but, on the question of whether or not Irvine's wording would be a helpful or necessary addition to the lead, I agree with Lindsay. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC

If the implication is as Lindsay suggests, and the intention here is to acknowledge in the lede that there may be Welsh people who do not perceive themselves as having a shared ancestral or cultural background, why don't we make it clearer and more explicit? It could be very simply done in the way I have suggested, by adding a single short sentence. An even briefer way would be as follows: "They may perceive themselves, or be perceived, as having a shared cultural heritage, or shared ancestral origins. Or they may not". Irvine22 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And an even briefer way would be to leave it exactly as it is. The word "may" in the sentence implies that they may not. There is no need to labour the point. I agree with Lindsay. Daicaregos (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly belaboring a point to make the implicit explicit. Daicaregos, can I take it you are in agreement with the aim of acknowledging in the lede that there are Welsh people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds? Because some of your comments above, in the prior discussion Ghmyrtle kindly linked to, might lead one to believe that you take a narrow, ethno-centric view of what it means to be a Welsh person. Irvine22 (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What, Irvine, is your view of what it means to be a Welsh person? So far, i am unable to exactly understand what it is that isn't already in the lead. It's an ethnic group? In there. A nation? In there. Auto-identification? In there. Hetero-identification? In there. Cultural origin? In there, shared or not. Just what is it that isn't in the lead? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 04:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My view - and I think it's consistent with Wikipedia practise - is that anybody who lives in Wales and self-identifies as Welsh is a Welsh person and part of the Welsh people or "nation" to the fullest extent that such a thing exists. Thus, Mohammad Asghar is every bit as Welsh as, say, Rhys Ifans. So, yes, it's the "or not" part of shared cultural origin I feel needs to be made explicit in the lede, and it can be done very simply and briefly as indicated above. Irvine22 (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Your view, Lindsay's view, and my view, are all equally irrelevant to this article. There are different definitions of "Welsh people", many of which would include Mohammed Asghar (or Shirley Bassey, Joe Calzaghe, or Colin Jackson, to give more examples) and some of which would exclude them. Wikipedia reports that complex reality, in a balanced way, and does not try to impose one definition over others as the "correct" one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and it is that balance that is missing from the lede, which seems to stress shared cultural heritage and ancestral origin. I don't think anybody who has commented so far has made the case that the lede should exclude mention of Welsh people of diverese ancestral, cultural and indeed religious origin, or worse, attempted to deny that there are such people. Lindsay and Daicaregos have argued that such diversity is implicitly acknowledged in the present language of the lede. I argue it needs to be made a bit more explicitly inclusive. But I'm curious - what would be a definition of Welshness that would exclude Dame Shirley Bassey? Irvine22 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"To be Welsh is to have exclusively ethnic Welsh paternal ancestry." (Along the lines of the Jewishness being transmitted by the mother.) I think that would do it, wouldn't it? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 16:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Where does that quote come from? Or is that your opinion? Irvine22 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Cyfraith Hywel has separate provisions for an alltud, a person from outside Wales who had settled there... AJRG (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify - the words quoted by Lindsay, and the Cyfraith Hywel, relate to Welsh law as it existed in the 10th century. They are hardly relevant to an article on Welsh people over a thousand years later, other than perhaps to be mentioned as a historical footnote. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The last case held under Welsh Law was heard in 1540, a little later than you suggest. LindsayH wasn't suggesting this as a current definition, merely as an example in reply to Irvine22. AJRG (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

So there is no suggestion that such a body of law, which such exclusive provisions, applies today? Irvine22 (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Irvine, you asked for "a definition of Welshness that would exclude Dame Shirley Bassey" and i gave you one, straight off the top of my head, as you seemed to be implying it couldn't be done, while i clearly thought it easily could. Maybe i shouldn't have tried to lighten up a bit. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so it wasn't a serious attempt to offer a definition of Welshness that would exclude Shirley Bassey. Ghmyrtle, did you say that there was such a definition? Irvine22 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not one that I would support, but you do get all sorts of wacky ideas turning up on WP. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sadly there seems to be a lot of racism around these issues. Irvine22 (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, or repeat, that i disagree that the idea of diversity is not clear in the lead. I don't hate the idea of adding something, but i don't see the necessity, so recommend that it not be done, as there is clearly not currently consensus to do so. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What language in the lead do you think directly addresses the diversity of the Welsh people? Irvine22 (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"The term Welsh people applies to people who identify themselves as Welsh, and who are identified by others as Welsh. They may perceive themselves, or be perceived, as having a shared cultural heritage, or shared ancestral origins." Can we please drop this now? Dragging this conversation out continually isn't reasonable.--Pondle (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no direct reference there to those who may identify themselves as Welsh, are identified by others as Welsh, but who do not perceive themselves has having shared culture or ancestry. You see our problem? Irvine22 (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No I do not. The current text is sufficiently vague. And there is currently no information on the 'racial' origins of people who say they are Welsh. The 2011 census will include two separate questions on ethnicity and national identity - so you will be able to say that you are, for example, Asian and Welsh or Black and English or whatever. Until info from this becomes available, I see no need for change. The consensus is clearly against you, so I suggest that we end this discussion.--Pondle (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"The current text is sufficiently vague"? Is "sufficiently vague" what we strive for in an encyclopedia? What about accuracy, clarity and precision? Irvine22 (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Cease and desist Irvine, you don't have agreement and it doesn't look like you will. --Snowded ^TALK 08:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

While I sympathise with your understandable frustration, to an American this might look like a threat of legal action. Assuming that this wasn't your intention, might you on reflection perhaps consider wording it a little differently? AJRG (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. What part of Snowded's post looks like a legal threat? Jack forbes (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This part: Cease and desist AJRG (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any conceivable circumstances under which any legal threat could be imputed by any reasonable person. --Snowded ^TALK 07:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic group or nation?

I have removed references to any "Welsh nation" from the lede. There may or may not be such a thing, but if there is, it is surely not coterminous with the ethnic-group this article seeks to portray as "the Welsh people". Irvine22 (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple citations to nation Irvine22 as you well know. I realise that Irish articles got "hot" for you with this type of petty minded editing and you are under various threats of permanent blocks and have only just come off probation. However repeating the same pattern on articles related to Wales will just lead to the same result. --Snowded ^TALK 08:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are citations that say there is a Welsh ethnic group that is coterminous with a "Welsh nation"? Where? Irvine22 (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The wording is "ethnic group and nation" Irvine --Snowded ^TALK 16:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, which suggests that the ethnic group is the nation. I have seen no citation supporting any such thing. And would Shirley Bassey be part of such a nation? Irvine22 (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a different grammar book in use in 1960s California? The phrase implies an overlap but no more. Shirley Bassey is Welsh, I remember her wearing a dress made of the Welsh Flag at the opening ceremony of the World Cup back in 1999 . Not sure why you ask.

Ok, so when the article says "the Welsh people are an ethnic group and a nation" it is implying there are two overlapping Welsh peoples, one of which is an ethnic group and another of which is a nation? Irvine22 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Overlapping but not congruent sets--Snowded ^TALK 17:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

But still - two sets of Welsh people, one an ethnic group, another a nation, overlapping but not congruent. Right? Irvine22 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) I see you reverted my addition of your own language, Snowded. I'm afraid it's not at all self-evident that the article is about two overlapping but not congruent groups of Welsh people - an "ethnic group" and a "nation". In fact, it reads as if the ethnic group is the nation. If that's the intent, let's be honest about it and not pretend that a more inclusive conception of the nation is mysteriously implicit in the exclusive language. Irvine22 (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear (the use of the word AND alone makes it self evident) although its interesting to see that you now have a new tactic; taking phrases from talk page comments and inserting them in the main text claiming talk page agreement. I'm open as always to a sensible rewording if other editors think its necessary, but suggest (i) proposing and (ii) gaining agreement here before posting. --Snowded ^TALK 06:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just being bold. Happy to discuss and propose the following clarificatory sentence to be added to the lede - "Not all Welsh people are part of the Welsh ethnic group, and the Welsh nation is not ethnically homogeneous." Irvine22 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Irvine, any editor with experience of you on these issues is not fooled by this stuff any more you know. For the sake of record I don't see the need for that addition. Lets see what other editors think.--Snowded ^TALK 07:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also oppose. It adds no value to the article. Daicaregos (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, as per earlier discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Would that be the earlier discussion in which you said "There are clearly different views on whether or not this article is, or should be, about an "ethnic group" (a highly contentious, divisive and flawed concept, in my opinion), and, indeed, about the definition of "Welsh people" more widely"?Irvine22 (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The one where no-one agreed with your opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you that the article being about an "ethnic group" is highly contentious and divisive. I'd go further and say that the article at present is deeply racist and reflects considerable discredit on Wikipedia and its editors. The difference is that I'm proposing solutions to the problem you identified. If you disagree with the solutions, by all means propose wording of your own. Irvine22 (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

At the moment you are the only person who is advocating a change Irvine22, so unless there is more engagement the matter is probably closed. Accusations of racism are serious, especially if you are directing them at any editors on this page. I suggest you strike that or clarify it. --Snowded ^TALK 19:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's very serious and I think I was quite clear: in my opinion the article is racist, as it conflates the Welsh "ethnic group" with the "Welsh nation" viz "The Welsh people are an ethnic group and nation". It's up to you and others who have reverted more inclusive language to explain why you have done so. Reading some of the previous discussions above, I have concluded that certain editors have approached the article with an ethnic-nationalist mindset, and it's short hop from ethnic nationalism to racism. Irvine22 (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't conflate the two and the language is very clear. If other editors are similarly confused then I am sure everyone is open to reasonable amendments, by which I do not include the convoluted statements you inserted. You have now made a general accusation against "certain editors". As only a small number of editors, all of good standing are involved there is an obvious implication that you are making the accusation against one or more of that group. I would hope that this is not your intention. If you are saying that the article is racist, then the implication is that you think the "short hop" has been made. Such accusations are pernicious in nature and can not be allowed to stand. If you have a specific complain you know where to lodge it (your having accused other editors of racism in the past), if you are not prepared to do that on this occasion then you should withdraw it, otherwise you are guilty of a serious breech of WP:AGF--Snowded ^TALK 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Incomers are an ongoing problem in Wales. The English colonists (the vast majority are from England) don't tend to integrate or learn the Welsh language and are obviously far more likely to be unionist, voting in favour of so called British issues rather than Welsh ones and further eroding the Welsh culture and way of life" was a statement made by Daicaregos in a previous discussion above. It is a classic scapegoating statement, exactly the sort of bile one would expect Nick Griffin (a good Welsh name there, no?) to be spewing around Barking & Dagenham in the coming weeks. With the ethnicity of the scapegoated "incomers" changed, of course.Irvine22 (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Three things: 1. I did not make that 'statement' on this page. 2. Talk page guidelines are that comment should be on the content not on the editor. 3. What is your point? Daicaregos (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the comment is above for anybody to see who cares to look at such stuff. Do you stand by the sentiments you expressed there? Irvine22 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please answer the question Irvine. Are you saying that Daicaregos is editing in a racist manner, or any other editor for that matter.--Snowded ^TALK 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Daicaregos, yourself, Lindsay and others have consistently reverted attempts to introduce more inclusive language to the lede, or to more prominently feature the contributions of Welsh people whose ancestry is from outside of Wales - Welsh People of Pakistani descent for example. The very Welshness of Shirley Bassey (a national icon if ever there was one) has been questioned above - repeatedly and long before Ghmyrtle brought her name up in our most recent discussions. Applying the duck test, I hear some real quacks. Irvine22 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think ducks are quaking then have the decency to be honest about it. Are you saying that Dai, Lindsay, myself and others have been editing in a racist manner. Yes or no, if no then withdraw the innuendo. --Snowded ^TALK 19:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You have attempted to keep references to the ethnic diversity of the Welsh people out of the lede, and sought to minimize mention of the contributions of Welsh people whose ancestry is from outside of Wales. That is clear to me, and to anyone who cares to look at the history. Your motives are known only to yourselves. The effect is an article that is (as Ghmyrtle put it)highly contentious, divisive and flawed. And (as I put it) racist and a disgrace to Wikipedia and its editors. Irvine22 (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly did not say that this article is "highly contentious, divisive and flawed". I said that, in my opinion, the concept of "ethnic group" is "highly contentious, divisive and flawed". That is my opinion - but I recognise that my opinion is only one of many, and there are other opinions equally relevant to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you said the concept of a Welsh "ethnic group" was highly contentious, divisive and flawed, and this article is about the "Welsh ethnic group" - says it right under the title! Irvine22 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I repeat the question Irvine, and I suggest you consider your response with care. Please state which editors you are accusing of making racist edits, and provide the diffs to support that, Or withdraw and apologise. Its your call which route you take and I'm happy to leave it overnight to see which stance you take. If you intend to persist with the accusation then it will go to ANI. --Snowded ^TALK 20:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the classic scapegoating statement by Daicaregos is above. You have reverted attempts to introduce more inclusive language to the lede, most recently here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welsh_people&action=historysubmit&diff=354471835&oldid=354428154. Your intent and motives are known only to yourself. The effect of your actions is to leave in place language that is exclusionary and, yes, racist. Irvine22 (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said I'll leave it until the morning UK time before taking any further action on this. You have made a very serious accusation and I think you should be given time to consider if you really mean it. --Snowded ^TALK 20:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I first read the article two weeks or more ago I said (above) that I was concerned about the ethno-centric tone. That concern has only grown as our discussions progressed, and as I read prior discussions around these issues - including a bald and frankly racist assertion that Shirley Bassey should not be used as an example of a prominent Welsh person as her father was Nigerian!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Welsh_people#Only_100.25_Welsh_people_should_be_used . I have arrived at the conclusion that the article is racist in tone and spirit and a disgrace to Wikipedia and its editors (including myself, which is why I have been trying to improve it). That's my considered view, and it's not about to change overnight. Irvine22 (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You have made specific accusations of racist editing against named editors Irvine. As it happens none of them were involved in the six month old discussion about Shirley Bassey that you reference. As I say its your call, you can leave the accusations as they stand in which case I will, following consultation, lodge a ANI report on your accusations. If you withdraw them and apologise then I will happily not take that action. --Snowded ^TALK 21:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Racist editing" is a phrase you have used and I haven't. I have said, and will happily repeat here or at ANI, that you and Lindsay have consistently reverted attempts to introduce more inclusive language to the lede, or to more prominently feature the contributions of Welsh people whose ancestry is from outside of Wales, like Mohammad Asghar, while Daicaregos has made a classic scapegoating-of-incomers statement of the sort Nick Griffin himself might make. I will further repeat that the effect of your actions here has been to leave an embarrassingly bad and unpleasantly racist article intact. Irvine22 (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I suppose there must be some planet on which saying the effect of peoples edits is racist, which does not involve accusing them of racist editing. Your call what you do --Snowded ^TALK 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that a philosopher such as yourself is unfamiliar with notions of double-effect or unintended consequences. I can't judge the intent of your editing, only the result. In the case of this article, the result is to preserve language I view as exclusionary and racist. Irvine22 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also agree that it is not necessary. In fact, it seems a very curious sort of an addition to suggest; what would it add? Nothing, so far as i can see. I have to go back to a comment i made in the previous Diversity section: "So far, i am unable to exactly understand what it is that isn't already in the lead", what is it that is lacking, Irvine? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 07:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

He played similar games on various Irish Pages Lindsay, until a series of blocks, a probationary period and final notice of a permanent ban provided too much of a threat. We now see exactly the same practices on Welsh related pages, even the same tactics. A bright editor of considerable potential who wastes his and everyone else's time playing trivial games. My view is to AGF as far as possible, but not to get sucked into long strands and edit wars which appear to be his bread and butter. --Snowded ^TALK 09:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to them? What became of the people we used to know?

Whatever happened to the montage of photos of Welsh people? I thought it brought a lot to the article. Jack forbes (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed in this edit - there were copyright concerns over some of the images used. It would be good if someone could construct a new one, with non-copyright images. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If I had the know how I would do it myself. Any volunteers? Jack forbes (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ps. Do we know which ones did and did not infringe copyright? Jack forbes (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the deletion may have been caused by a typo that appeared in the infobox, which then led to a bot suggesting that the image did not exist. I could be wrong - but, in the meantime, I've reinstated the image (or, what I think was the image). Checking back, the copyright problem was in the previous collage, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Ghmyrtle. Big improvement to the article. Jack forbes (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Welsh Brazilian?

Apparently there are 26,000 Welsh people in Brazil. Sadly, this fact is uncited so we cant check. It was amended today from 6,000 (also uncited). Obviously, we could add a "citation needed" tag, but ... the original edit was made here, part of a series of spurious amendments by an IP, most of which were reverted. Looks like this one was overlooked. I have deleted the infobox entry for Welsh people in Brazil as it seems so unlikely. If it turns out there is a significant population of Welsh people in Brazil it can be reinstated. If it is cited, of course. Daicaregos (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

Given this article is about Welsh people, it seems a bit strange that we're listing the UK then sub-list Wales! Wouldn't a list like [Scottish people] be better? Any objections if I change it? --Richardeast (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No objection here. Daicaregos (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

At the moment we're just citing the population of Wales at the 2001 census. But as we all know, 25 per cent of the population was born outside Wales and not everyone self-identifies as Welsh. I can find easily the national identity results for 2001[7] but I know that this question is regularly asked in the Labour Force Survey, can anyone find more up-to-date stats?--Pondle (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found it. I'm going to make a bold edit with this stat.[8]--Pondle (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've re-ordered the population table in the infobox. Largest to smallest. Also, I removed the UK figure, which firstly, had no decent source, and secondly, did not add up following the change to Wales Welsh. On that point: Are we confident that those stating a "non-Welsh identity" from the quoted source would not consider themselves Welsh too, if for example, that "non-Welsh identity" was British? The stats now show a higher Welsh population in the USA than in Wales. Are we just as confident that those 1.9m people share no "non-Welsh identity". Further, the figure of 16m Welsh people worldwide looks a little dubious, if we are only including those who self-identify as exclusively Welsh, rather than those with obviously Welsh DNA. Daicaregos (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we're in some danger of seeing some significance in the fact that a particular apple is bigger than a particular pear - the stats don't all necessarily measure the same thing. Personally, I think the whole issue of "ethnicity" or "identity" is so fraught with complexity and differences of meaning that any attempt to use statistics to measure them is in danger of being misleading. (Refs to a strange thing called "Welsh DNA" in my view don't help - "Welshness" in any sense must surely be related to culture and language rather than DNA.) I'm not certain what the answer is, and we should follow whatever guidance exists, but I think that it would be unencyclopaedic to put an over-reliance on bald statistics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My comment using the phrase Welsh DNA relates exclusively to the reliable source (?) for the figures of Welsh people worldwide. That is their figures derive from the number of people worldwide who have Welsh surnames. Do you think that 'helps'? As to the inclusion criteria for this article I have no firm view either way. What is the existing guidance to which you allude? Re-reading your post ... are you really suggesting that only Welsh speakers should be included? Sounds rather drastic. Daicaregos (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting anything - I was noting the difficulties. If there is any guidance on figures in infoboxes, there should be someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups who could point the way - but it looks to me as though that project, unfortunately, is fairly moribund. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflating names with ethnicity is problematic. The author of the WAG report on surnames admits that "at the level of the individual it is not possible to infer ethnicity... just from his or her name." He says that many Americans with a Welsh surname are probably black. I'm Welsh with four Welsh-born grandparents but I have an English surname. In the English border counties, some surnames were formed from Welsh personal names and became heriditary long before surnames became common in Wales - examples include Meredith (1191), Morgan (1221) and Owen (1221). I think we should cite the 16 million figure, perhaps just in the narrative, making it plain that these are simply people with a Welsh surname rather than Welsh ancestry. All of these ethnic group articles are horribly messy - we've been talking about something similar at Scottish people. But questions of identity are usually messy.--Pondle (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Pondle. While one of the Wikipedia principles is WP:V not truth, I think the 16m figure is unsafe, at best and downright misleading, at worst. By all means add it to the main article, with the caveat, but it should be removed from the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nationalist Bias

'It is uncertain how many people in Wales consider themselves to be of Welsh ethnicity, because the 2001 UK census did not offer 'Welsh' as an option; respondents had to use a box marked "Other".' This states that one 'had to' use a box marked 'Other', thus implying that White British was not an acceptable option. Admittedly, the next sentence, to an extent, would resolve this dispute, but I raise the issue because of the wording rather than anything else. Surely, a more unbiased approach to this issue would be to remove the phrase 'had to'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.191.50 (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the point made (though I wouldn't have used the title you gave to this thread). It seems to me that the NPOV position would be to remove the words after the semi-colon. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Welsh-ness or Welsh identity

I came to this article because I was trying to find some sort of definitive Wikipedia understanding of 'Welsh-ness'. There have been debates on other Wiki biographical articles about who is 'Welsh' and who isn't - for example some people are born in Wales but move away, others are born elsewhere but have strong connections with Wales, through residency, work, playing for national sports teams etc. Though it is interesting to read the VAST amount of research cited here into the ETHNIC roots of the Welsh race, there is little to generally explain Welsh IDENTITY in general. Should there be a separate article on Welsh Identity, or 'Welsh-ness'? To identify people as Welsh solely on the basis of their ethnicity excludes anyone whose ancestors were not Welsh, but identify themselves as Welsh. Sionk (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

'21st century identity'

The section called '21st century identity' starts with an explanation of the 2001 Census problems, then there are five meaty paragraphs which return to the question of Welsh ethnicity, then the section returns to talk about the 2001 Census. Why? Hasn't the 'ethnic' question been dealt with earlier in the article? If not, shouldn't the five paragraphs be relocated to the appropriate place? Secondly, the Census question about identity is about identity, not ethnicity (seehere). Let's now stick too the facts and talk about identity please, as the title of the Section suggests :) Sionk (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Timothy Dalton

If Scottish people can have an image of Sean Connery (justifiable), English people have an image of Daniel Craig (Roger Moore would have been a better choice) and Irish people have a photo of Pierce Brosnan (unjustifiable - he cares not for being Irish, why is there no photo of Timothy Dalton - he is widely regarded as one of their best actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorylyng (talk • contribs) 11:03, 10 July 2013‎

Is he really so notable an actor that in some way he "deserves" an image, or are you just trying to get a consistent approach to Bond actors? That's not a good reason. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Even more importantly, Timothy Dalton may have been born in Wales, but his parents aren't Welsh, he left before he was four, and he doesn't even consider himself Welsh. If Manchester-born Lloyd George was Welsh (and he clearly was), then Timothy Dalton isn't. garik (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

image deletion warning

Please note that the lead image is up for deletion at Commons because it contains a copyvio image. This needs to be blanked/replaced or the image will be gone soon. --Denniss (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@ Denniss, To which of the 21 images are you referring? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The image that's missing in the source gallery, Aneurin Bevan, 2nd row, 2nd from right. --Denniss (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I am clueless when it comes to image rights. Is this image, or a cropped version of it, acceptable in its place? Bevan was an important figure and it would be a shame to have to find an image of another person. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell

Really, Bertrand Russell was 'Welsh'? I think it's pretty hard to consider Bertrand Russell as Welsh in any sense. The man came from a long line of English nobility; his father and grandfather were both distinctly English. That is, they were born in England, of English ethnicity, and lived in England; Bertrand's grandfather was twice prime minister, representing an constituency in England. It's hard to see that Bertrand Russell considered himself anything but British (and likely English), due to his parents, ancestry, and indeed English name. He was undoubtedly born in Wales, and lived there for some of his life, but can that truly constitute Welshness?

Perhaps someone can provide a citation that Russell considered himself explicitly Welsh (rather than simply British or specifically English). It is hard to see how he identified with Welshness in a cultural, ethnic, or nationalistic sense. To be quite frank he was sufficiently liberal-minded not to concern himself too much with any of these things. Also of note is that fact that most of sources (indeed the categories to which his personal page belongs!) label him as British or English. This is most correct I think.

Please feel free to disagree, though I feel without hard evidence it's problematic to argue he was Welsh in any meaningful sense.

Noldorin (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been much discussed on various pages, including his own page, on which he is currently stated as British (which is undeniably true). He was certainly born in a place that is now in Wales. Whether that makes him "Welsh" is really a matter of how you define the word. In my view, the definition used in this article should not require him to have been Welsh "in a cultural, ethnic, or nationalistic sense", or that those senses are the only "meaningful" senses of the word - although, in the past, references to an interpretation of "Welsh people" in a wider sense, as including anyone living in Wales, have been removed from this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

His entry in the Encyclopedia of Wales states that he was born and died in Wales, but "can hardly be called a 'Welsh philosopher'". However, he did feature in the list of 100 Welsh Heroes.Pondle (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem we have is an inconsistency between his inclusion in the infobox image, and the opening text which states: "The Welsh people are an ethnic group and nation native to Wales and associated with the Welsh language.... The term Welsh people applies to people from Wales and people of Welsh ancestry perceiving themselves or being perceived as sharing a cultural heritage and shared ancestral origins." But, there is no evidence that Russell perceived himself as falling within that definition of "Welsh people" - unless, perhaps, there is a comma missing after "..people from Wales..". If the text were widened to add something like - "The term is also used to include all people born in, or living in, Wales" - there would be no problem. I strongly favour that more inclusive approach, rather than the view that says that the only people who can be defined as "Welsh people" are those who are of Welsh ancestry or perceive themselves as sharing a cultural heritage. Different people will have different oipinions on that and no doubt sources can be found on either side. But, whichever way it goes, the article as it stands is inconsistent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Very well spotted, Gh. I've taken the trouble of clearing up the inconsistency in the introduction: I think it reads much more like someone would expect it too now. I've evenly-balanced the focus on the Welsh language, which was the focus of the intro as I found it. However I do find that the inclusion of Russell's image is a kind of 'Mormonism'. I think it is rather akin to re-baptising someone after they have died. It's happening a lot at the moment, and we vigilant Wikipedians need to keep on top of it. Remember - a credible, honest and well-written encyclopedia comes above all! Matt Lewis (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at this and immediatly said "WTF". Certainly a English nobleman is not Welsh! I find it terrifying that since this misinformation has been up on Wikipedia it is slowly spreading through the internet with a few pages from 2012/11 showing him as Welsh. I reccomend we replace his photo with Bonnie Tyler, although as I didn't make the image I can't enact the change myself.--Frozenport (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not "misinformation", but it is based on an interpretation of the definition of "Welsh people" in the image which is different from the interpretation in the article text. Russell was undeniably born in what is now Wales (and what was, more debatably, Wales at the time he was born). The issue is whether or not that fact makes him a "Welsh person", and there are different opinions on that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is really a matter of defining what counts as Welsh. Under some very reasonable definitions of Welsh (e.g. being born and—at least partly—raised in his family estate, which was located in Wales) he was Welsh. This is hardly misinformation, even taking into account the somewhat ambiguous status of Monmouthshire at the time, which was really the result of a centuries-old administrative error than anything else. garik (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That said, I have no doubt that he could also be considered English under some very reasonable definitions of the word. And since we don't seem to know (unless someone happens to have evidence at hand?) how he self-identified—which, if unambiguous, would trump everything else—I'm inclined to think we should replace him here with someone more unambiguously Welsh. garik (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Who would count as "unambiguously Welsh"? Lloyd George (born in Manchester), or John Prescott (born in Prestatyn)? I think if we restrict the image to those who are unambiguously Welsh, we would exclude many people who, by some if not most definitions, are considered to be Welsh. What we need to do is ensure that the text reflects the various definitions of Welsh people - including the one of having simply been born in what is now Wales - which are reflected in the image. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is precisely that, in spite of being born in England, David Lloyd George was pretty unambiguously Welsh (note I said "more unambiguously Welsh" in my earlier post; it's often hard to eliminate all ambiguity), while Bertrand Russell remains a somewhat problematic case in spite of being born in Wales. In other words, birthplace is easily trumped for most people by other factors. That said, I think you're right that we're better off with broad criteria, and I certainly don't object to including Russell here. garik (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As to the question of misinformation, I would like to echo the excellent point mentioned by Pondle: the sources say that he was not Welsh! Wikipedia isn't the place for original research and application of a novel definition of the Welsh identifiy. I would hope that it would be possible to give a definitive citation for every portrait, anything else is original research. We expect facts to be backed by citations not our extrapolations.--Frozenport (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources provided by Pondle do not say that at all. One counts him as a "Welsh hero", the other states that he was born and died in Wales, but "can hardly be called a 'Welsh philosopher'" - which is not quite the same as saying that he was not Welsh. He was born in what is now Wales, but probably did not consider himself to be Welsh. So, it's not clear-cut, which is why we are having this discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

And it's worth that "born in what is now Wales" doesn't mean Monmouthshire wasn't Wales then. It just had an ambiguous status. garik (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell would turn in his grave if he could. He was hugely cynical of this level of nationalism. To be called 'ethnically Welsh' would make him shudder. He was one of the countless British people of his age that simply had to be born somewhere. We still exist, we are just more rubber-stamped now. Where is the sense of irony and taste? Unlike someone like Dawn French, Russell's not around to complain - and the time-honoured rule of the covetous nationalist is that if someone doesn't specifically dictate what they are not interested in, then they belong to them. I think that this clearly-extreme level of nationalism depletes everything that is good and actually-needed in life. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-white welsh people

There must be some. One should be added to the list of famous Welsh, to show the inclusiveness of Welsh identity.64.189.66.76 (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The most obvious choice would be Shirley Bassey. garik (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The image does include Ryan Giggs (grandfather from Sierra Leone). Other possibilities are Colin Jackson, or Mohammad Asghar. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

And (almost) Toby. Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea, incidentally, why I wrote "most obvious choice" when I had in mind something like "first name that springs to mind". garik (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it depends what age you are. My dad, aged 91, is a big fan of hers.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Bassey's a better centrepeice than a famous Brit who didn't seem to consider himself Welsh at all. I don't see the need for pictures to be frank. Most things to the right of the introduction are usually divisive and problematic if you ask me. Infoboxes and the like containing religion etc: all the memories come flooding back. I thought Wikipedia was moving away from over-using images? I think they look tacky to be frank, and they couldn't be more subjective.

What tickles me too is how few of the 'Welsh icons' speak Welsh, yet the intro focuses completely on the language. The unbalanced approach to the language is another thing that doesn't really square up. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

'Dubious' tag

A tag has been added within the opening sentence of this page, alleging that the text is dubious. The sentence in full reads “The Welsh people (Welsh: Cymry) are an ethnic group and nation indigenous to Wales and its language, which was once the predominant language spoken throughout Wales.” The tag was placed after the word 'indigenous', which I assume is the alleged problem. The OED defines the word 'indigenous' as “1. a. Born or produced naturally in a land or region; native or belonging naturally to (the soil, region, etc.). (Used primarily of aboriginal inhabitants or natural products.)”. I am at a loss to understand why this would be disputed. Please explain the nature of the dispute, as noted in the template documentation. Daicaregos (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I added the tag and also reworded the opening sentence. We don't describe people as being indigenous to a language. And there is the question as to whether people who descend from migrations from the Iberian peninsula and elsewhere can properly be described as indigenous. But the overrarching nature of my concern is related to the concerns raised above by Ghmyrtle and Matt Lewis and may be summed up as follows: is this article about ALL people born or resident in Wales, or about the portion of them who may be identified as "ethnically" Welsh, who may speak Welsh, or who have Welsh surnames? Is it the intention that the article should draw a distinction between Welsh people and the people of Wales, with the former a subset of the latter? Because that is how it reads at present. Urs Etan (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a suggested opening sentence. Daicaregos (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Welsh people are people born in, living in, or otherwise associated with Wales" would be my suggestion. I think the important issue of language as an aspect of Welsh identity should be addressed in sentence two. The "otherwise associated with" bit is to accomodate the article's later inclusion of information about the diaspora. Urs Etan (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I would support that wording, perhaps with a slight tightening up, such as "Welsh people are people born in, living in, or culturally associated with Wales". As I said at the start of the previous thread, the claim in the opening sentence that Welsh people are "indigenous to" Wales excludes many people who fall within many of the possible definitions of Welsh people (such as, those people now living in or born in Wales), but whose cultural and/or genetic heritage derives from areas other than Wales. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure we want to loose ethnic group or nation or any reference to the fact that the language was once universal. Why not just get rid of indigenous?----Snowded ^TALK 10:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I certainly have more of a problem with the the grammar of the current wording, and with the word "indigenous", than with the words "ethnic group" - though it is debatable, at least, whether it is the people, or the place, which constitute the "nation". It may be relevant that the article is titled "Welsh people", not necessarily "The Welsh people". How about:

Welsh people (Welsh: Cymry) are an ethnic group native to or otherwise associated with Wales and the Welsh language. The language was historically spoken throughout Wales, with its direct ancestor Old British once spoken throughout most of the British mainland. While Welsh remains the predominant language in parts of the country, English is the most widely spoken language in Wales as a whole.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In welsh cynefin implies people, place and history but english is a less poetic language! I'm happy with that draft ----Snowded ^TALK 12:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

'Indigenous' seems a succint way of saying the same thing. But I'm not opposed to the new wording – perhaps adding comas before and after 'or otherwise associated with'. Go ahead, make the change. Daicaregos (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, done. I'm sure that further improvements are possible but I'll hold back for now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good so far - don't hold back! Urs Etan (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"..an ethnic group and nation indigenous to Wales..."

These words have recently been reinstated in the opening sentence, despite - as pointed out in an earlier thread - being inconsistent with the inclusion of some of the figures - specifically Bertrand Russell - in the montage of portraits. There seem to me to be at least two ways of defining Welsh people - or for that matter any group of people living in any area. Firstly, it can include those who identify as part of an ethnic group (and/or nation) within that area. Alternatively, it can simply include all those who live in the area, regardless of what they see as their ethnicity. There is a very great overlap between the two, but there are differences. Bertrand Russell was born in what is now (and at the time of his birth was widely considered to be) part of Wales, but there is no evidence that he ever considered himself to be of Welsh ethnicity. Should this article include all those who were born in, or live in, Wales; or should it explicitly exclude those who define themselves differently (at the same time as including those such as David Lloyd George who were born outside Wales but considered themselves to be Welsh)? Whichever is decided, the article as it stands is inconsistent, and fails to address the issue clearly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no view on those who should or should not be included in a montage and have not contributed to (or read) that discussion. Nevertheless, that Welsh people are an ethnic group is noted on the ONS' guidance What is the recommended ethnic group question for use on a survey in Wales?, which shows one of the ethnic group options as White: Welsh / English / Scottish / Northern Irish / British. Btw, the articles Scottish people, English people and Irish people all say they are an ethnic group in their opening sentences and this article should too. Would you care to propose some wording that would be more inclusive? Daicaregos (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Before I do that (basically because I don't have time at the moment, and would like to hear comments from others), there are some interesting points made here - "...Wales is itself a multicultural nation, that ‘the Welsh’ include people of Jewish, Afro-Caribbean, Somali, Indian etc. descent, and that ‘Welshness’ signifies a whole range of cultural practices....". My point is simply that there is more than one definition of what "being Welsh" means, and the article should reflect that, rather than asserting a single definition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

My comments here are purely technical regarding the construction of the opening sentence. It now carries some incorrect grammar and confusion. Firstly, the Welsh people is (not are) an ethnic group. The Welsh people is not a language.

Suggestion: The Welsh people (Welsh: Cymry) is an ethnic group and a nation whose indigenous language was once the predominant language spoken throughout Wales. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Three things on that:

1) I agree with the confusing grammar. It's trying to cram in people, ethnic group and nation when you only need the one: two at the most. And "ethnic group" is simply offensive in my opinion. Ethnicity in the UK has always meant race: I am not a different race to the rest of my British family, who were born all over the UK. We are ostensibly British people, as are 90% of those who I talk to in Wales. On Wikipedia - that's different of course.

2) The three-fold duplication makes it look like people from Wales are somehow genetically different from other British people, as well as differing 'culturally' (though not by much compared to all over Britain it could be argued: we all share far more than we differ). Where did this "ethnic" nonsense start on Wikipedia? I find it bewildering I really do. All it is going to do is mislead or confuse people. Why would anyone want to do that?

3) I wonder why the first line should even include the Welsh language? Why not the second line? Being part of the United Kingdom (now missing again, sigh) is the most important first-line point surely. It's brass tacks. Especially on an ambiguous negative too - ie Welsh was "once" spoken by the majority. Also, we really we should supply some stats if we are putting so much weight on what frankly is the 'older' indigenous language. The English we recognise has always been spoken to varying degree, and national boundaries have changed over time as well. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree the overall triple-lock wording is a bit trowelled-on at the moment and the combined effect of "ethnic group .. indigenous to" reads slightly uncomfortably. I also agree we need to be as broad and inclusive given that such terms, descriptions and classifications are used in different senses – indeed I'd probably prefer the vaguer "are a people associated with .." formulation. Also, I'm not sure a person or group of people can be described as "indigenous .. to [a] language" (I'm assuming some to and fro editing has, as ever, left something nonsensical behind). That said, picking up on a couple of the more specific points raised above: "people are" is fine grammatically, indeed it sounds more natural surely that "people is"; the term "ethnic" these days is surely increasingly used in a cultural sense and I'm not sure it carries quite the connotations being suggested in terms of genetics that it might once have done. Finally, we seem to have the ever-present infobox numbers problem where we've mixed up people who might actually "be" Welsh with the much broader group who might simply claim Welsh ancestry (among other ancestries): are there really nearly 2 million actual Welsh people in the US, almost as many as there are in Wales? N-HH (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point noticing that the word "indigenous" actually adds to the effect. It's huge overkill: and it's four similar and grating terms really. The introduction should not use the phrase "it's language" regarding Welsh either. I regard English as "its" language before Welsh. So why go there? It's about just using words and terms that will provide this information fairly: currently it's the other way around.

I'm wondering if this new use of the term 'ethnic group' isn't perhaps more used in America perhaps? I just haven't heard it like this in the UK, where it used to be used a lot for non-Caucasian people. The problem is that even by this 'new' definition, there is more than one single ethnic group in Wales. People from Anglesey are as different from the people from Cardiff as either are from people from England, for example. It just doesn't logically stack up any way you look at it. It feels to me like it is expressing a totally unfounded Welsh vs British dichotomy.

My personal identity is British Welsh - which is just like most people in Wales if you asked them specifically - otherwise many if not most would indeed just say 'Welsh'. Why wouldn't they? Importantly, and to some degree a bit differently than many if not most in Wales, I would just say "British" - but I'm still Welsh. But without any mention of the United Kingdom, Britain or Britishness (as the introduction currently stands) - all those people I've mentioned are effectively excluded from the article. Basically, this particular 'Welsh People' article isn't really for Welsh people at all it seems to me. I think it's more about Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever our personal views about the term "ethnicity", the fact is that WP usage (based primarily, perhaps, on US practice) does allow the term to be used in these circumstances, to reflect shared identity more than genetic heritage, and we should continue to reflect that fact. It is also true that the use of the Welsh language is seen by many in Wales as a core element of "Welshness" and of "Welsh people". Again, we may have personal views on that, but those views are irrelevant. My suggestion would be to break the first sentence in two; to refer to the language in the second sentence rather than as part of the first; and to add a rider that the term "Welsh people" can now be used (and is used) simply to refer to all people in Wales, regardless of whether they identify as Welsh in any particular or general cultural or "ethnic" sense. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

My views are not 'irrelevant' on this. You cannot just dismiss them as 'pov'. I am a Welshman living in Wales explaining something with very sound reasoning. I've told you how I feel the term is inherently divisive and actually estranges people: I've also explained why, and why it doesn't logically stack up too. There are simply better alternatives. I'm confused here though - are you basically saying the word has to stay? Even though you admit this particular use for the term probably isn't even British? Or are you willing to use something like "people" instead? Matt Lewis (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, it is now standard currency in academic writing on these topics, AFAIK, which would often include the Welsh as a distinct "ethnic group", whatever else might in turn distinguish different sub-groups and different areas of the country. I'd agree with splitting the language point off. As for the wider proposal floated here, although an improvement in some ways, including in how it deals with the language point, I'm not sure I like the "national home" phrasing – to me it suffers from the same broader problems raised here (oh, plus it should be "whose" not "who's", surely?). N-HH (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback on this, and some encouraging words about my suggested change too (you link to it above). I understand why you might things its worth isolating or separating the "ethnic" issue, but I think it's all too connected. My use of "national home" is in a way a replacement for "ethnic group" - ie for the people who want to see that kind of cultural 'vibe' (I've been very conscious of that in what I've come up with). I don't personally see too much wrong with describing the Welsh as a people who's national home is Wales, and I'd say that it's just got to be better way of describing us all than as an 'ethnic group'. Yes, it is similar in what it conveys: but the main thing for me is that it's better. It's not confusing, and it's not offensive (I'm sorry people but I genuinely do find "ethnic group" in this setting and context both divisive and offensive). I don't think that 'cultural vibe' as I call it is ever going to go from Welsh articles btw. Various people here are going to want to keep of hold of "ethnic group", and at best I think will accept something as similar to it as we can possibly get.

My problem with the 'academic' thing is that I just can't see any serious British academic calling all Welsh people a distinct "ethnic group", as Wikipedia currently does in this introduction. Do you know of an example of one actually doing that? People in the UK basically know how diverse Wales is. The logical hole is that of you look at ethnicity that way, then Wales has two clearly distinct 'ethnic groups' within it, because there has always been what people call the 'North - South divide' in Wales - a bit crudely perhaps, but it has most certainly always been here. I tend to use Anglesey 'vs' Cardiff as an example: people have said before that we are like two different peoples in one nation. The "ethnic group' term is nothing but problematic imo because of its still-existing racial connotations too. People still do use the term to donate racial difference, though it's slowly became politically incorrect I would guess. Ultimately I'm saying; why use a problematic term like this when we don't have to? It seems to be against the philosophy of Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If Matt wants comments on his suggested wording, he should post it here. Best to start with the existing wording and tweak it a little, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be nice to start like that, but regretfully I disagree. One of the number of reasons for my immediate anger here is that I know all too well that these discussion pages just become impossible to work on. Some people just say "No." to everything, no matter how needed or well-argued. I have thousands of examples I could cite of that from years gone by - time that I'll never get back. I'm not prepared to see my careful work completely pared-down into someone's new 'proposed version' then see that new version voted on by the same old faces as some kind of new 'consensus'. The eventual edit to the introduction ends up being no different to what we have now. I've just seen it too many times.

So I'm not going to come here with any other change unless I have something I know appears acceptable to a broad base of reasonable people. I've had some really useful feedback so far. I'm going to the appropriate 'opinion pages' too (I'm still a bit rusty and have forgotten what they are called at the moment). Basically I'm entitled to do it. I can't completely avoid cabals of course, or the various editors who make them up, but I can avoid getting completely bogged down in some of the concentrated areas where many angels fear to tread. I've just spent to much time in them, at it's advice I would give to every newcomer to Wikipedia. Try not to flog a dead horse: if you really know you are right, look elsewhere. Wikipedia is a huge place, and actually caters for a lot more than I think most people realise. I've done the angry bit - from now on I'm going to try to use Wikipedia's resources as best as I can. That's all I need say about it. Wikipedians can sit on controversial entrances like dragons sit on gold. This article shouldn't be a problem for people at all. It's just finding the right words. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

(I missed the above section on the same subject, so I've removed my new section heading - please do not replace it.)

Do people have any idea how creepy "Welsh people are an ethnic group and a nation" reads to a typical Welsh person? Never in my life have I heard the word "ethnic" used in this way. To say 'ethnic group' AND 'people' AND 'nation' (in one sentence for God's sake) suggests there are genetic differences beyond any significant (or otherwise) cultural ones. I think it's Wikipedia at its very worst, and the prevailing on-wiki anti-British sentiment taken to its decidedly non-democratic extreme too.

Never in my life I have heard this word used for Welsh people (or any similar), and I've lived in Wales for the 43 years of my life. It makes me feel ill that people would want to use this word alongside 'people' and 'nation' in one sentence for people like us. It's beyond overkill in my view. I don't care what the Wikipedia "ethnicity" article currently says - EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT "ETHNIC" ISN'T USED THIS CASUALLY, FULL-STOP! This has the sheer vulgarity of 1930's Germany about it in my eyes, and I find it beyond reproach.

Oh and Ghmyrtle, why don't you ever look for sources for the new text instead of one of your curt "removing POV" complete-deletions. I'll provide them myself later on: well done on getting a complete 1RR in though. Like much of this article, what I included is simply common knowledge. It's funny how so much of the other text in this article remains unsourced isn't it?

As a useful background (per my content edit, since reverted)

Everyone living in Wales knows that Welsh-learning is just not being taken up by people here the way the Welsh Assembly hoped. It is highly contentious right now that they are spending even more to promote and encourage it when there is so-little money in the pot. The 'demand' - I'll be very generous there - to learn Welsh quickly levelled-off, then steadily declined. It's just the way it is: people already use the language of the western world. So the "Assembly government targets" are missed year after year. It was never going to become a fully-bilingual country, and there's no cultural precedent for creating that out of a situation that is remotely similar to hours.

Every Welsh-speaker in Wales (and they remain a real minority) also speaks fluent English, and they all use English a lot of the time: I'm afraid they simply have to as too few people speak Welsh. The vast majority of those properly-bilingual people are perfectly HAPPY using both languages. But other impressions are nearly-always given on Wikipedia. I almost never see any balance, just constantly biased and thinly-veiled nation-promoting. It's so thick and obvious that there is no point at all pretending to attempt AGF on this: that's simply not possible to do in this instance. I would just sound sarcastic and absurd. I mean - Welsh are an ethnic group and people and a nation? In one sentence? For God's sake. We couldn't be more mixed in the UK. It's like the pseudo-scientific Wikipedia-only 'Celtic Nations TM' and 'Modern Celt' stuff. It's what I call a 'Wikipediaism' - something purely of this place. Outside in the light it's all breezy fluff, here in the darkness of ring-fenced Wikipedia it's all carefully-honed "ethnicity".

And Bertrand Russell hated nationalism for crying out loud - he was one of those Brits who simply happened to be born somewhere (goodness me!), namely Wales. Unfortunately we all have to be born on some pre-named patch of earth. Oh were that not the case. It's the first time I've heard that one too - ie about Russell's 'sleeping' identity. It's just so embarrassing, it really is.

If some Welsh people have the courage to stand up and support me, I promise I'll help develop some Welsh articles. They'll be balanced and (as far as I can aid in it) well-written though: you need to accept that with me. I've actually written professional blurb for the Welsh Tourist Board in my past. (for my 'sins' I feel a lot of the time). Matt Lewis (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The use of "indigenous to Wales" is also contradicted later in the article when it says the Welsh were among the Celtic peoples who arrived in Britain from the Iberian peninsula. Urs Etan (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that. It says that, according to two authors, “... most Welsh people, like most Britons, descend from the Iberian Peninsula, as a result of different migrations that took place during the Mesolithic and the Neolithic eras, and which laid the foundations for the present-day populations in the British Isles, indicating an ancient relationship among the populations of Atlantic Europe.” Daicaregos (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, and if they migrated from the Iberian peninsula, they are not indigenous to Wales. Urs Etan (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course they are. The Welsh have produced their own culture, language, customs since they moved to the area now known as Wales. If we take your understanding of indigenous to its logical conclusion then only the areas of Africa where humanity began can be classed as indigenous. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Is everyone born in Wales indigenous to Wales?Urs Etan (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I also think that indigenous can be removed from the opening sentence, I was just sticking a pointy needle into your argument that the Welsh as a mass are not indigenous to Wales, just because they originally came from elsewhere. Every nation on the planet came from elsewhere at some point. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, just as anyone born in the United States is indigenous to the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.42.240 (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I note and appreciate your agreement that indigenous can be removed from the opening sentence. It is a loaded word. It seems to me that anyone born in Wales is indigenous to Wales, whether their ancestor was a Celt who arrived from the Iberian peninsula thousands of years ago, or a Basque who arrived in the 1930s as a refugee from Franco. Urs Etan (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It does not say Welsh people migrated from the Iberian penninsula. It says they “descend from … ” those who did. Furthermore, it is noted as the opinion of two cited authors, rather than undisputed fact. Daicaregos (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so we have sources that say Welsh people descend from migrants from the Iberian peninsula. Do we have sources that say they are aboriginal or indigenous to Wales? Urs Etan (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The OED, which defines the word 'indigenous' as “1. a. Born or produced naturally in a land or region; native or belonging naturally to (the soil, region, etc.). (Used primarily of aboriginal inhabitants or natural products.)”. Daicaregos (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a definition of indigenous, but it doesn't refer to Welsh people, or help us decide if Welsh people are properly described as indigenous in the article. Which is to say, it's not really a source for present purposes.Urs Etan (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

OK ... the OED again: Welsh (definition): “2. a. Of, from, or belonging to Wales or its people; (of a product, item, etc.) manufactured in Wales; of a material, pattern, or design typical of Wales.This sense originated as a spec. use of sense A. 1a [British] in contexts referring to Britons inhabiting the geographical area that is now Wales; compare the very gradual formation of the concept of Wales as a geographical, ethnic, and political unit” Daicaregos (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No use of the "i" word there, I notice. I think it is becoming clear that "indigenous" is both problematic and unsourced. Urs Etan (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see "indigenous" as problematic. According to the OED definition, indigenous means belonging to or from; and the OED defines Welsh as of, from or belonging to Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the OED seems to say that when "Welsh" is used of people, it is in contexts referring to Britons inhabiting the geographical area that is now Wales. The "of, from or belonging to" formulation doesn't seem entirely applicable to people. I suppose a person can be "of" a country in the sense of having been born there, and "from" a country in the sense that they live there now, but how can a person "belong" to a country?Urs Etan (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Mark Thomas

I'm not going to get involved with this article, but [9] discusses Thomas's research, which I think may be given undue weight here. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph containing Sykes and Oppenheimer's views comprises 294 words in the article. The paragraph containing Thomas' quotes has 47, which does not appear to be undue weight. They are, as Mathisen and Shanzer's book notes, opposing views. Both should be noted. Daicaregos (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, however, the actual count is just over 150. The text is "Gene scientists at the University College of London (UCL) have claimed that the Welsh are the "true" Britons and are remnants of the Celts that were pushed out by Anglo-Saxon invaders after the Roman withdrawal in the fifth century. The genetic tests suggested that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out. In 2001, research for a BBC programme on the Vikings suggested a possible strong link between the Celts and Basques, dating back tens of thousands of years. The UCL research suggested a migration on a huge scale during the Anglo-Saxon period.[32] "It appears England is made up of an ethnic cleansing event from people coming across from the continent after the Romans left," said Dr Mark Thomas, of the Centre for Genetic Anthropology at UCL. "Our findings completely overturn the modern view of the origins of the English."[32]" I'd suggest dropping the quote, but more importantly, keeping the material in some form of chronological order, not having this be the last thing the reader sees. It's older than most of the other sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, so it is. I didn't connect the “Gene scientists at UCL …” paragraph to the Thomas quote. But that is still 294 words for Sykes and Oppenheimer's views and 150 for Thomas'. Both Sykes' Blood of the Isles and Oppenheimer's The Origins of the British were published in 2006. In May 2007, National Museum Wales said of the Celts in Great Britain, “It is possible that future genetic studies of ancient and modern human DNA may help to inform our understanding of the subject. However, early studies have, so far, tended to produce implausible conclusions from very small numbers of people and using outdated assumptions about linguistics and archaeology.” In my view, the competing theories deserve similar weight. I have no objection to changing the order so that the Sykes and Oppenheimer paragraph is shown below the Thomas paragraphs - as you say, in some form of chronological order. The quote, however, should stay, as it is a good summation. Daicaregos (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Images in infobox

This has been raised at User talk:Ghmyrtle#Welsh people. In my view the number of images that User:Joci Bach wishes to include is absurdly large. Any further comments from editors are welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to become involved in discussions on which people should be represented in the images section. However, it is self-evident that only Welsh people should be included. That would exclude Alan Turing, who appears to have no Welsh connection. Nevertheless, I have reverted, as WP:BRD should be respected. Daicaregos (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In agreement with Ghmyrtle's observation. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Ghmyrtle's comment - the number of images is similar to those for the Scottish People and Irish People sections. Perhaps what Ghmyrtle dislikes is the nature of the people Joci includes – a quick check of Ghmyrtle's posting history indicates he is a british nationalist and unionist.

Of the 30 Welsh people included about 14 of them are involved in show-business (~50%) and 6 involved in sport (20%). This isn't a good balance – especially when you compare it to similar selections in wiki.

Furthermore, Alan Turing was born in England and died in England and was brought up outside Wales: his inclusion in a list of famous Welsh people is obviously vandalism.

I'd also argue that Owain Glyndwr should be included in the place of Bonnie Tyler.

Where are the Kings, poets, theologians, warriors, saints, etc. that similar articles in wiki include?

Interestingly or rather tellingly, there are almost no Welsh people included pre-1282.

The present list needs to be amended to reduce the number of show-business celebs and increase the number of people involved in other areas of Welsh life and history. --86.158.10.207 (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not prepared to discuss anything with someone who seriously thinks I'm a "british nationalist and unionist". LOL. Read WP:AGF, take it seriously, and I'll get back to you. Diolch. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@ IP 86.158 Please strike your comment attibuting motives to an editor. It is an unnecessary personal attack and detracts from any validity your argument may have. Daicaregos (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I propose we add Henry Morton Stanley and Henry Morgan to the infobox. Are you happy now, Snowded? 1982vdven (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think we have enough, so from my perspective you should propose some to remove if you feel strongly. Other editors may have other opinions however and I'm sure you will be happier if you give them a chance to engage ----Snowded ^TALK 18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose we remove one of the two boxers (it was I who added Winstone in the first place, I should be allowed to remove him to make room) and the least famous female singer. 1982vdven (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm relaxed about that if other editors agree, although I don't buy the 'I put it in so I can remove it' argument :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose we include Dafydd ap Gwilym - the omission of one of our greatest poets needs to be remedied. Also, did George Everest and John Rowlands view themselves as Welsh? 86.158.14.43 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Was there any explanation for removing Bonnie Tyler and John Rhys-Davies? --Steverci (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Welsh people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050308030551/http://www.stats.govt.nz:80/census/change-in-ethnicity-question.htm to http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/change-in-ethnicity-question.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090605113311/http://www.statistics.gov.uk:80/cci/nugget.asp?id=449 to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=449
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070527093513/http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca:80/ecp/content/welsh.html to http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/welsh.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090214052603/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/wales/southeast/halloffame/historical_figures/john_hughes.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/southeast/halloffame/historical_figures/john_hughes.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Welsh people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722081718/http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm to http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Bassey and Stanley

She is not an ethnic Welsh, her mother was English. This article isn't about nationality. Also there was no given reason for removing Henry Morton Stanley so he should be put back in her place. --130.126.255.237 (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Very few people are ethically anything in the UK. She is a icon in Wales, represents the dock culture of the Cardiff City and is well known. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha! Just noticed your lovely spelling error there, Snowded! Freudian slip, anyone? Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Welsh people. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://man121208a.wales.com/en/content/cms/English/International_Links/Wales_and_the_World/Wales_and_Argentina/Wales_and_Argentina.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041001034334/http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/cag to http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/cag
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060326213734/https://www9.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html to https://www5.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.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) 04:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Welsh people. 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/20080724064804/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924150012/http://www.ligtel.com/~wales/waleshistory.html to http://www.ligtel.com/~wales/waleshistory.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) 14:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Number of Welsh in Wales

The infobox claims that there are 3 million Welsh people in Wales, equal to the entire population of Wales. Yet the section on identity makes clear that only two-thirds of people in Wales consider themselves Welsh at all. Should the number in the infobox be changed to 2 million? Adda'r Yw (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed the number to 2 million. Adda'r Yw (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. However, I think you should get a reliable source to confirm that, to avoid what I think will be a disputed change by you. Bare census data is usually used as a secondary source, but it is not, it is primary. Somebody else writing about the census results might make the statistics a secondary source, depending on how the data is reported. However, even without a citation I think we should use the census data of 2m rather than the 3m population because it is common sense to do so. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

That is not "common sense". The number of people in Wales who self-identify as Welsh is merely one possible definition of "Welsh people in Wales". By other criteria, everyone living in Wales is a "Welsh person". The opening sentence of the article makes clear that the subject of the article is people "native to, or otherwise associated with, Wales". By that definition, everyone living in Wales is Welsh - whether they self-identify as Welsh, English, Scots or something else. So, in terms of the infobox, the figure should be 2-3 million - depending on whichever definition you choose to use, and the context. (I was born in England of largely Welsh ancestry, and now live in Wales. Does that make me "Welsh" or not? I would say that it depends on who is asking me, and in what context.) There is no unarguably "correct" or "common sense" answer - it's complicated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right that "Welsh people" can refer to the entire population of Wales if "Welsh" is used in the simple sense of "pertaining to Wales"; that is already covered by Demographics of Wales. The opening sentence of the article also states "The Welsh (Cymry) are a Celtic nation and ethnic group"; I would argue that this is the primary usage, since the land was named after the people (in both English and Welsh), not the other way around, as in Brazil(ian) and Australia(n). To me, having this article seems redundant if it is not to refer to a specific nation or ethnic group. A definition of Welsh people based on residence renders some of this article meaningless or contradictory, e.g. "Over 300,000 Welsh people live in London alone."

The 2011 census had two-thirds of the population considering themselves Welsh (including combined with other national identities), and a third considering themselves anything but Welsh. It seems very misleading, if not patronising, to insist that all people in Wales are Welsh, even when they reject that label. (I also notice the articles on English people and Scottish people both use the stats for self-declared identity or ethnicity. Many other articles also make the distinction between ethnicity/identity and citizenship/residence, e.g. Germans, Turkish people.) I therefore argue for the infobox to note that 2 million Welsh people live in Wales, with the 2011 census as source. Adda'r Yw (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

What were the options given for nationality in the census? Are we counting people who did tick any boxes as non-Welsh? Was British given as an option? We need more information to begin with. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The details of the 2011 census concerning identity are given in the article. Here is what the reference (ONS summary of key stats relating to Wales) says:

"Individuals could identify themselves on the census questionnaire as having more than one national identity; for example a person could record that they had both Welsh and British national identity. In Wales, 66 per cent (2.0 million) usual residents reported a Welsh national identity (either on its own or combined with other identities). Most usual residents of Wales (96 per cent, 2.9 million) reported at least one national identity of English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, or British.
Of the 66 per cent (2.0 million) of usual residents who considered themselves to have a Welsh national identity in Wales in 2011, 218,000 responded that they had Welsh and British national identity. Just under 17 per cent (519,000) considered themselves to have a British national identity only."

Adda'r Yw (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Welsh Ancestry in the Lead

I challenged the inclusion of "Welsh Ancestry" in paragraph 1 of this article yesterday because the same text is in paragraph 2 of the lead. My diff is here:[10]. My change has been reverted but WP:BRD indicates that bold additions that are reverted should be discussed before they are put back into the article. I am thus beginning this talk section to discuss this change. I note that versions of this change have been reverted by several editors, and that the editor in question has been adding citations and changing the link to try to make his addition acceptable. It is a small change but it still needs consensus and does not yet have it.

I see several problems with inclusion of the bolded text in paragraph 1 of the lead here: "The Welsh [...] are a Celtic nation and ethnic group native to, or otherwise associated with, Wales, Welsh culture, Welsh history, Welsh ancestry[15][16] and the Welsh language." These are:

1. As I said in my edit summary, we already summarise the Welsh ancestry part in paragraph 2 of the lead which says in the last sentence: "The term "Welsh people" applies to people from Wales and people of Welsh ancestry perceiving themselves or being perceived as sharing a cultural heritage and shared ancestral origins." (emphasis mine). As the lead summarises the main, we already have an adequate summary and should not be repeating the summary as that is not succinct.
2. The inclusion now has two inline citations for no apparent reason to the reader. This is because of the history of the edits, where the editor was hiding an ancestry link to Ancient Britons and reverts by another editor suggesting he should source his material. However, it is not clear what "claim" the two citations are supporting and this is just confusing to the reader. WP:OVERCITE pertains. We should particularly avoid overcitation in the lead
3. The second citation (Koch) does not verify. The editor has restored that citation but not my verification failed template. I looked up the citation and it was just a chapter about Ancient Britons, not about Welsh Ancestry at all.
4. The first citation is on subject, but it is a whole book of documents originally published in 1900 containing some good information and some very outdated information on Welsh Ancestry and roots. It is a good source but again, not clear what claim it is verifying here. However, the very same source is also cited in paragraph 2, which is fuller. This is because, as I have said, paragraph 2 repeats the information being inserted in paragraph 1 so it, and the source, are unnecessary in paragraph 1.

I will now removed the challenged material again. WP:BRD is clear that we must have consensus in talk before the material may be put back in. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The other information about Welsh ancestry in the second paragraph, but there is no reason why ancestry cannot be included in the brief summary of the whole article provided by the first sentence. Welsh history, geography, culture and language are all discussed in the second paragraph as well, but they are still included in the introductory sentence. Why are you singling out removal of ancestry then from the first sentence? You have made a fair point about the source by Koch though. Human Taxonomist (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The three paragraph lead is the summary of the article, not just the first paragraph. You must consider the whole lead together. Please also see the issues about this hanging citation. A reader has no idea what that is doing there. Remember, we are writing for a third party reader and not for each other. — Sirfurboy (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

What? I am considering the whole lead together. I already removed the Koch citation. The one by Davies is fine to be kept. How does this justify you singling out the removal of ancestry from the first sentence? Your reason was that it was redundant because it is mentioned in the second paragraph. Well, geography, history, language and culture are discussed in the second or third paragraphs too, but are also kept in the introductory sentence. Thus, their mention in the first sentence is redundant too isn't it? I find this to be really pedantic. The fact you re-verted - again - shows you are not following WP:BRD either, so stop banging people over the head with that. Human Taxonomist (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - You may wonder why other editors have not entered into this discussion. Sometimes it is better to step away for a day or two (or even a week or two), then wonder whether what was being disputed was really that important. Just a thought. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• I second what Tony Holkham has said. This needs to stop. Human Taxonomist, i know you think you're right; Sirfurboy, i understand that HT is changing things without waiting for consensus. It doesn't matter. I seriously considered requesting full protection to stop this warring back and forth, but i haven't, instead, i'm strongly suggesting you both wait and help a consensus develop. A lot of people are active in Welsh subjects and watch this page; let's have some outside input. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I am waiting for this other user to explain why he is choosing to remove one part of the opening sentence, but not the other, based on his reasoning. It is silly. I've already compromised with him. Frankly, he is being obtuse in this specific conflict. Human Taxonomist (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

LindsayH This has once again been reverted by Human Taxonomist yet again, still without consensus. I will not continue this. I have made an argument for the removal because it has created something unwieldy but I am not going to get into a full edit war over this. I would point out that I did indeed sit back for over 48 hours before making any changes. The initial too and fro that created a two word edit with two curious inline citations was with other editors, and when I made the change I did, I spent half an hour or more writing a reasoned basis for its removal. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)·

You yourself have reverted without consensus, but more importantly, you still have not effectively explained why you are removing ancestry from the opening sentence. Your original reason was that it was redundant because of its mention in opening paragraphs, yet you kept other redundant terms in the opening sentence. So, your explanation is insufficient, and it doesn't make any sense. Human Taxonomist (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with the comments here from Tony and Lindsay. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

{od}Sirfurboy, if you get someone doing this give them a 3RR warning and report if they persist, don't get sucked in! A solution is to take the wording of the last sentence of the second paragraph and use it to replace the contentious sentence in the first paragraph which already looks unwieldy.-----Snowded ^TALK 13:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Good advice and proposal from Snowded. Noticed there was no ping so thought I should send you this one. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)