Talk:Welsh nationalism

Twentieth century

Shouldn't reference be made to the first referendum for Welsh & Scottish self government along with the 1997 one?

Old, unsectioned comments

Very much a bare bones entry because this had been requested 2 years ago and was still not done. Needs fleshing out pre-20th Century (Owain Glyndwr himself probably needs more mention), translations of the names of the two pre-Plaid organisations and any information adding about further organisations. Google suggests there may be a Welsh Republican Army but then again it could just be a wannabe teenage Davyd with too much time on his hands. Meibion Glyndwr have an active website it seems (but I doubt it's worksafe and I haven't delved into it).

• Done a bit more to it now!

Thanks very much for doing the work and having the first go on writing this article. The article is fine as a beginning, but I think that it does need some tidying up. Meibion Glyndwr were not involved in the bombings associated with the 1969 Investiture, they were associated with the names of two organisations - Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru (also known as MAC) and the Free Wales Army (also known as the FWA). Meibion Glyndwr were associated with the burning of holiday homes from 1979 and through the 1980s. I will write this up soon. I also think we need to distinguish between political nationalism, which did not exist before the ninteenth century, and the revolts which occured between the conquest and the annexation of Wales, including that of Owain Glyn Dŵr. I'll see what I can do and whether you agree with me or not. But thanks for getting things going. Lyndafis 00:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The 4IM link

Is there any need to keep this link? Their Wikipedia article was deleted as non-notable... --Telsa 16:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Gareth 23:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree 4IM is a political group that is trying to gain independece for Cymru and so desereves a note in an article such as this one. I also think that another 4IM page should be created in Wiki as the party has since its deletion recieved media coverage (the main reason for its deletion) http://www.cornwall24.co.uk/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=682.--Rhydd Meddwl 17:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war

I'm going to list the differences between the 'old' version and the 'new' version proposed by User:Normalmouth, and indicate where I think it's valid, and where it's clearly POV or wrong. Gareth 23:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OLD: gradually became a global phenomenon in the twentieth century.

NEW: throughout the world in the twentieth century.

No problem here. Gareth

NEW: Around 1 in 10 people in Wales support the cause of Welsh independence, according to opinion poll evidence [1].

Fine with this. Gareth

OLD: Until its conquest in 1282 Wales' national aspirations were centred on its princes,...

NEW: Wales has never been an independent nation. At its conquest in 1282 the territory of Wales was divided among its princes,...

Not happy with this change. Wales was clearly independent in the Dark Ages and had its own set of laws (see Howell the Good, Rhodri the Great). Gareth

NEW: ...Welsh aristocrat Owain Glyndwr...

'Aristocrat' clearly has negative connotations. The word adds nothing to the article. Gareth

OLD: This excluded most native Welsh from any formal office unless they adopted English to some degree or other.

NEW: (deleted).

I see no reason for deleting this phrase. Gareth

OLD: Plaid Cymru has been increasingly successful in elections since the 1970s and from 1997 until 2005 was the second Welsh party in the UK Parliament in terms of the number of Members of Parliament representing the interests of the party.

NEW: Plaid Cymru returned their first Member of Parliament in 1966 and today has three such reprentatives, along with 12 Members of the 60 strong Welsh Assembly (see above). Traditionally, support for the party is overwhelmingly concentrated in the rural Welsh speaking areas of north and west Wales, from where all their MPs hail. In the late 1960s and 1990s the party enjoyed surges in support, but overall support for Plaid Cymru - and for the cause of Welsh independence - remains at around 10% of the Welsh electorate.

Not happy with either of these, the first being too pro-Plaid and the second too anti-Plaid. Gareth

OLD: Though mainstream nationalism in Wales has been constitutional,...

NEW: Though mainstream nationalism in Wales has been largely constitutional,...

Mainstream nationalism has been totally constitutional. Either remove the "mainstream" or the "largely". Gareth

Right, I'll incorporate those changes which we are agreed upon and respond to the ones you don't.

1. Wales has never been an independent nation. Pre-conquest it was a series of Kingdoms. See "When was Wales" by G A Williams [2] for validation.

2. Glyndwr was an aristocrat. Fact. Whether you think that's negative or not, it doesn't change it. Moreover, it's important to note that he was not a Peasant leading a peasant uprising. See R. R Davies' "the revolt of Owain Glyn Dwr for an authoritative account [3].

3. "This excluded most native Welsh from any formal office unless they adopted English to some degree or other". The provenance of this claim is not certain, but I'm content to leave it in.

4. I propose: "Plaid Cymru returned their first Member of Parliament in 1966 and today has three such reprentatives, along with 12 Members of the 60 strong Welsh Assembly (see above). Traditionally, support for the party is concentrated in the rural Welsh speaking areas of north and west Wales, from where all their MPs hail. In the late 1960s and 1990s the party also enjoyed brief surges in support"

5. Not sure you can really stand up your assertion. Mainsteam nationalism has, at times, adopted non-violent direct action.

Normalmouth 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

1. At times Wales was united under a single ruler; see my links above. Perhaps this is better?:

Through most of its history before the English conquest, Wales was divided into several kingdoms. From time to time, rulers such as Howell the Good and Rhodri the Great managed to unify the country, but their lands were divided on their deaths. By 1282, only Gwynedd stood out, whose ruler was accorded the title Prince of Wales.

2. Would you be content with 'nobleman' then? He was after all descended from the princes of Powys and Deheubarth.

4. Happy with this.

5. Example please. Gareth 22:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I still think it lacks the precision, but I'll go along with it.

2. Yes.

5. Most obviously, Penyberth. Also, threats of hunger strike, language protests etc.

Normalmouth 22:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo psephology

A Labour Party activist keeps trying to insert "findings" from a bogus BBC poll. Polls should only be used if their methodology is transparent, and findings should only be presented after the deduction of Don't Knows and No Answers: this is the industry standard within market research.--Mais oui! 09:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you take this up with the BBC. I suggest that if they are prepared to stand over this figure we should do the same. Normalmouth

That is not the way Wikipedia works. We do not publish research findings before they have been proven legitimate: we publish research after it has been proven legitimate.--Mais oui! 10:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a 'bogus poll' (a self-selecting sample) but a reputable poll and therefore deserves mention in the article. David | Talk 10:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed? And what is your source for that? Please link to a published methodology and detailed Findings, or at very least, provide a source which does provide that industry standard info. Otherwise this bogus psephology cannot be propagated here at Wikipedia.--Mais oui! 12:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Details of the poll and methodology are here. Pages 4 and 5 are the relevant ones. David | Talk 16:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits by User:Mais oui!

These edits are, of course, largely unacceptable and are deeply POV. I will be making significant revisions to undo this damage, but I intend to do so on the basis of discussion. I'd urge everybody involved to join in, so we don't have nay more this unilateral gutting of an article, simply on the rather obvious political symathies of one user. Normalmouth 15:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific. Exactly which elements of my recent copyedit were POV? Your own political sympathies (Labour) are crystal clear from your previous vandalism campaigns, so do not for one moment think that you will be able to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. Your attempt to pervert the due process of Wikipedia business by the use of multiple sockpuppets has already been exposed. Please raise your game, and cut the pseudo "team-player" guff.--Mais oui! 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a relative newcomer to Wikipedia and made some early mistakes, both on how I went about editing articles and by failing to sign in before editing (what you refer to as using sockpuppets - although I did create a second identity (Goatmix) when it looked like you were trying to block my edits).

I've learned from these errors and no longer make them. You've been doing this a long time, and therefore have no explanation for your agressive and non-collaborative behaviour. As is currently being evidenced by your latest unilateral changes to Plaid Cymru you are putting yourself outside of what could be a productive approach to this work.

I've no intention of getting into a pointless and trivial exchange of personal abuse with you, so I'd urge you for your own sake to leave that aside, use the discussion pages before editing and try to reach consensus. Normalmouth 21:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits by User:Mais oui!2

Where to start? The title I suppose. Personally I can see why someone might want to create a article on Welsh self government - but that should be in addition to, not instead of, one on Welsh nationalism. User:Mais oui! doesn't appear to have heard of the term 'cultural nationalism' which is used in Wales to distingush those for whom the nationalist movement is more about the Welsh language and identity than independence, self government or autonomy.

So my first proposal would be to split the two and have one on each. From here on I'll talk about the edits to the article on the basis that this is what we are going to do. My comments therefore are about an article entitled Welsh nationalism.

We should retain the section about the rise of nationalism in the 19th Century. Most similar articles trace the heritage of an ideology (see socialism and liberalism).

Polling evidence should stay in. User:Mais oui! may not like it, but that is the factual explanation. He's raised some objections about the methodology. These have been addressed. Let's move on.

I'm not going to pass comment on the edits to the Conquest and Annexation sections, since it's not really my area of interest.

Obviously the slightly newspeak edits expunging all references to 'nationalism' will be undone (come to Wales sometime User:Mais oui! - there are many people who happily carry that tag and doubtless do not appreciate you attempting to erase it from history).

And that's it. Then, if you want to create an article on self-government you can (though I'd urge you to collaborate with someone who knows the topic, as your grasp is somewhat underdeveloped).

Comments please - I intend to reverse User:Mais oui!'s unilateral changes in a couple of days. Normalmouth 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have restored the points that were agreed above. I have retained the name Welsh self government as the bolded name should ideally agree to the article title (although I do note that it was moved unilateraly by Mais_oui!. I have also retained the links added by Mais_oui!. Astrotrain 19:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Title

Does anyone think that History of Welsh nationalism would be a better title? Astrotrain 20:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No I think the current title is fine as this articles has the current situation as well as the history.--Rhydd Meddwl 17:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Y Mab Darogan

Should this article include a note of Y Mab Darogan, in English The Destined Son who according to legend will recapture England for its true Celtic inhabitants.--Rhydd Meddwl 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Mudiad Rhyddhad Cymru

"It is believed that such a move will strengthen our struggle for an independent Welsh republic."

This sounds like its straight off the web page of the group, so Im changing the 'our'Abertyllgoed 23:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Article title

It is my view that this article is incorrectly titled. This is an article about the political and cultural movemement of Welsh Nationalism, from its roots to the present day. It was until recently known as Welsh Nationalism but has recently been changed. Welsh Self-Government should concentrate on the governane of Wales and specifically the ongoing process of devolution. If someone wishes to write such an article they may do so. In th meantime I am proposing to change this article back to its original title of Welsh Nationalism Normalmouth 09:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any views to the contrary I have now made the above change, reverting the article to its original title. Normalmouth 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Wikipedia:Content forking is crystal clear in this matter. --Mais oui! 17:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm keen not to break any rules (see my discussions on my talk page) but I am clear that this article's title should be reverted to what has always been. Normalmouth 15:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

New Poll available

A new poll has been published in the Wales on Sunday newspaper, regarding attitudes to independence, so I have incorporated this in the opening paragraph alongside the BBC poll. Abertyllgoed 19:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed references to this poll since it's methodology is not clear from the citation. As Mais oui! states elsewhere on this discussion page "Polls should only be used if their methodology is transparent". This is not the case. If it can be established, and is sound, the findings should be included. Normalmouth 19:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved to Welsh nationalism (lowercase): More common name; others might be more appropriate, but "self-government" appears uncommon. Consistency might be good, but inconsistency is the status quo and the current is not the most appropriate name. —Centrx→talk • 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Welsh self-government → Welsh Nationalism – This article title was changed from the original title of Welsh nationalism without discussion on 22 February and does not accurately describe the subject, namely the history and composition of the various groupings within Welsh nationalism. Normalmouth 21:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - the movement or movements described in this article are about much more than a desire for constitutional autonomy; they are as much about cultural expression, so 'self-government' does not capture the topic fully. Normalmouth 06:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Related articles have the titles English nationalism, Cornish self-government movement and Scottish independence. Article names should be consistent. Rhion 07:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Its obviously about Welsh nationalism. 194.60.85.4 15:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser - a request has been made to check this IP account. The request can be found at:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Normalmouth

Thanks. --Mais oui! 18:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for the simple reason that "Welsh Nationalism" goes against capitalisation naming conventions. —Nightstallion (?) 11:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, and why is this page being movedwhile there is clearly no consensus to do so. Only one User (the nominator) has supported the move. --Mais oui! 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Rhion - your grounds for opposing the move are interesting. However, I do not see them as all directly comparable. Ultimately, Welsh nationalism has a very strong cultural component which centres around reviving and protecting the Welsh language. That is wholly overlooked by an article entitled 'self-government' or 'independence'. Normalmouth 08:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(?) - ok. How about if we simply title it Welsh nationalism instead? Normalmouth 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move between Welsh self-government and Welsh nationalism

What is the reason for having this article at Welsh self-government? To summarize:

• Reading the article, it is about "nationalism" and repeatedly refers to it. This is to be expected, as the article was originally at Welsh nationalism; since it was moved in February, there has been little substantial change to the article [4].
• Reviewing results at Google Scholar and the Proquest database of newspapers, magazines, and academic journals, "Welsh nationalism" is 20 times more common than "Welsh self-government" and, from reading further, it appears that "Welsh self-government" is a specific subset of "Welsh nationalism", which is properly included in this article if not sufficient to be forked, but it is not the historical term for the subject, and it is not the exclusive subject of this article.

The only remaining reason against the move is a general wish to have the names of these articles standardized, but that is not a reason to have this particular article at the incorrect name until, if ever, that happens. Rather than reverting, please explain why the article belongs at which title. —Centrx→talk • 16:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mh, fair enough. I was only against moving the article to a location in direct contradiction of the RM result, but together with this explanation, it seems fair enough to me. —Nightstallion (?) 05:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll on independence

The poll on independence in the opening section is cited as it gives a measure of the popular support for Nationalism (another might by the combined share of the vote of parties espousing nationalism). Which institution people think should have most influence is not a measure of nationalism and should not be included. Normalmouth 14:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4759946.stm s the bbc report. This is the website for the poll, it was, I am sure, accidentilly removed. I disapgree Normalmouth that excluding this information is not part of the nationalism page, it is appropriate. Just pulling one portion of the poll out is cherry picking, with the additional information... which was reported very well, is needed to give context. Drachenfyre 00:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. There are plenty of ardent devolutionists who are opposed to indepedendence, and who would not think of themselves as Nationalists, The inclusion of this extra data suggests that all who want the Assembly to be in the lead favour independence or are Nationalists. This data belongs in the politics of Wales or National Assembly for Wales articles. Normalmouth 09:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree further, as the data reviels the direction of the national consiousness. The Assembly, and what powers it has, is directly part of this argument. The inclusion of this data reviels what direction it is headed. Drachenfyre 12:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry. I'm absolutely firm on this. The question on independence is a good measure of public sympathy toward Welsh nationalism as an ideology. The question of influence is a measure of support for devolution only. It's not a question of cherry picking, it's a question of quoting pertinent information.

The section starts by asserting that Welsh nationalism is "a movement...that seeks independence for Wales"; quoting support for independence thus illustrates support for Nationalism. You cannot say that support for devolution correlates anywhere near as strongly support for nationalism. In fact, that would be considered highly erroneous by pro-devolution supporters of the Unionist parties. I'm simply not going to allow this edit to stand as it gives the wholly false impression that all support for devolution can and should be correlated directly with support for nationalism. Normalmouth 14:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"It generally seeks independence for Wales within the United Kingdom or outside it." this sentence seeks further qualification, which the full quote you are cherry picking from speaks to. The statisitic can not be taken out of context, which currently it is. Drachenfyre 14:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are so firm on this, and clearly can not keep a neutral point of view, we should invite others into the discussion, yes? Drachenfyre

Of course. My point of view is netural. I am suggesting that only pertinent polling information be included, not information which does not relate to support to nationalism (as measured by support for independence). There are approximately 44% of people in the poll who do NOT support independence, but want the Welsh Assembly to have most influence. You want them in this article as if they do. That is wrong. It is not cherry picking to leave this information out. Otherwise I would insist we also include the finding that 80% think the cost of the Senedd too expensive. I'm not suggesting that, because that finding is not material to the subject, namely public support for nationalism. Normalmouth 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, nationalism can and does manifest itself at differing degrees, which was the point of the BBC artical cites. There is no good reason not to include it, unless for pov reasons you wish to minimize its impact. The artical was a good one, and the results should be given in full context, as in the artical. Drachenfyre 18:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There is. As I have repeatedly explained, it is highly likely that support for the Assembly does not translate into support for independence. Indeed, the huge difference beteween the 16% who support independence and the 60% who support the Assembly's primacy rather confirms this. The article was not about nationalism, it was about support for the Assembly - which again makes my point. And in any case, Wikipedia should rely on the polling facts, not a commentarty by a BBC journalist.

As for impact, 16% of the public support independence, 14.3 support the main Welsh nationalist party. I can't change those facts, neither can you. But we should not attempt to embellish them by implying that everyone who supports the primacy of the Assembly is a supporter or nationalism. You edit does this. That is why I am objecting. Please concentrate on the facts of the issue, and not what you imagine to be my motives. Normalmouth 18:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Welsh nationalism should properly be distinguished from support for devolution, which need not include full constitutional sepatation of Wales from the United Kingdom." This is an expression of opinion, not fact. Your position is untenable, for nationalism does manifest itself in degree of suport, and Welsh Nationalism should not be translated to suport for Plaid Cymry. This is what you are doing in your interpertation of the poll. We can and should rely on the author of the artical, who is the subject matter expert (for the poll results) for the BBC and thus has more authority on the matter.Drachenfyre 18:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No. The poll results themselves are the source material, not the commentary. But if you think my attempts to reach a better form of words are not helpful, I will remove them.

The fact is that the only really reliable measure of support for nationalism is support for independence. All else, especially support for devolution is conjecture and should not go in.

You have reverted my edits more than three times now today, which is against the 3RR rule. If you persist, I will be forced to take additional steps. Please do not let it come to this, as we have managed an acceptable compromise on the Wales article. Let's try to do so here. Normalmouth

I have already contacted the admins reguarding your removal of information to suit your ends, I have also told them of the 3RR reverts so they are fully abrest of the issue. Drachenfyre 19:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, not really, you have told me, and I do not speak for all Wikipedia or even all admins. Take to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard I suppose. Adam Bishop 19:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adam, headed there now.Drachenfyre 19:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am keen to resolve this by agreement. But I'm happy to submit to dispute resolution. It cannot be right for irrelevant material to be added that gives a misleading impression of support. Normalmouth 19:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is amusing that only after I contacted admins and posted there, you have, for the first time kept the quote in. I would have been happy with that except you did another switch and bait tactic, even so, in the spirt of compromise I would continue. I am happy with this except for the bold.

Welsh nationalism is a movement that became popular in nineteenth-century and throughout the twentieth century. It generally seeks independence for Wales within the United Kingdom or outside it, and is distinct from the Home rule or devolution movement which genrally seeks a limited form of self-government for Wales within the United Kindgom.

An opinion poll from the BBC suggests that around 16% of the population of Wales support the idea of Welsh independence outside of the U.K, whereas "60% believe the Welsh Assembly Government should have the most influence over Wales, compared to just 21% who think the UK Government in Westminster should have the most influence," [1].

I offer this compromise, expression both points:

Welsh nationalism is a movement that became popular in nineteenth-century and throughout the twentieth century. It generally seeks independence for Wales within the United Kingdom or outside it. Some nationalist seeks full independence, others are content with devolution. The greatest expression of Welsh nationalism has been with the promotion and revival of the Welsh language, halting and then reversing its decline.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drachenfyre (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

I am not happy with this quote going in alongside the 16% figure. Period. However, this struck me as a rather ugly but perhaps useful compromise. You proposed above edit does away with figures, so I'm not happy with it. Normalmouth 20:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Third-party opinion

I saw the note on the revert issues here on AN/I, and have a few thoughts:

1. First of all, the reverting has to stop. Both Normalmouth and Drachenfyre appear to be in violation of 3RR. Talk this out here before making any further changes to the article.
2. Pursuant to that, disguising reverts with misleading edit summaries (one example: [5]) is not acceptable. If you're removing disputed content, the edit summary must reflect that.
3. Welsh independence redirects to this article. Therefore, at this moment, the subject of Welsh independence is within the purview of this article. (And I am not advocating a split, which would probably be a POV fork.)
4. That said, stacking the intro with facts and figures is, at the least, unwieldy, and doesn't really comply with the manual of style. Intro paragraphs should be concise, with facts placed in the appropriate sections of the article.
5. No matter what else is done to this article, its sourcing leaves a be desired. I see print sources listed at the bottom, but very little of the article's actual content bears citations. Limiting the content to cited material would go some ways towards resolving the POV issues which appear to be at the heart of this debate. (One glaring example of a section that needs sourcing is "The influence of European nationalism," which reads more like a student essay than an encyclopedia article.)
6. I'd like to propose a compromise. Since it seems to me that information on Welsh independence does belong in this article, can we restructure this article to reflect both the pro-independence and pro-autonomy (but not pro-independence) movements? A lead section for History (encompassing everything prior to the 20th century, or perhaps prior to WWII), then a separate section on Contemporary Welsh Nationalism, with subsections on Pro-Independence Movements, Pro-Autonomy Movements, National Identity Movements (such as the groups pushing for Welsh language rights), and perhaps Violent Movements would make the article easier to navigate, would include room for the information Drachenfyre has been inserting while putting it in its proper context, and would (I think) address Normalmouth's concerns as well.

I hope this helps get the discussion back to improving the article and allows us to stop the revert-warring, so that we don't have to protect the article. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you MrDarcy for offering a third way. I wish to make note, Welsh nationalism can manifest itself as both a full independence movement, and as a more socially concious community striving to promote its native language. The devloved assembly is one path taken, and both pro-indepenents and more moderates suport it, thus its inclusion is important. Yes the whole artical needs a major review, I noticed this myself, but there was a narrowly defined defination of nationalism that needed expansion.Drachenfyre 20:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

grateful for this intervention. Agree with part of the above; Welsh nationalism is both constitutional and cultural. However, it generally seeks indepdendence, which is a) why figures for support for independence are pertinent. They attempt to quantify the significance of this movement and thus give the reader a useful insight.

I agree with the need for a rewrite to reflect the face that WN is both cultural and constitutional. However, it's important to seperate cultural nationalism with support for devolution. There are many supporters of devolution who would not consider themselves nationalists of any persuasion (and indeed can be ardent Unionists or non-Welsh speakers). an edit that suggest all devolution supporters are nationalists would be deeply misleading, which is what I have been objecting to all along.

I'm also more than happy for Drachenfyre's figures to be used appropriately in the article as suggested by Mr. Darcy. What I remain insistent over is the need to distingish the wider pro-devolution movement, which includes both ardent Unionists and non-Welsh speakers, from Welsh nationalism. Not all nationalists are devolutionists, and far from all devolutionists are nationalists. Normalmouth 20:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think all of those points are reasonable. Given the subsections I proposed for a Contemporary Welsh Nationalism section, would it make sense to replace Pro-Autonomy Movements with Pro-Devolution Movements? In that subsection, as long as it's properly sourced, the article could make clear that devolution is not the same as nationalism, even though it may share some goals (and, for the purposes of Wikipedia, should be in this article). Would that sufficiently address your concerns?

Also, perhaps I'm touching the third rail here, but is the title "Welsh nationalism" part of the problem? I notice that the analogous articles for Scotland and Ireland are labelled as "X independence" rather than "X nationalism." Using independence as the title would allow for a starker contrast when the article turns to devolutionists (devolutionaries?), as proponents of autonomy who oppose outright independendence. Just a suggestion - not something I'd consider imposing unless we have a very, very strong consensus on it, and we see it as a way to make this a less troublesome article. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Have to say, I'd be against that for the very reason that Welsh nationalism has such a strong cultural component. Normalmouth 21:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they deleted Welsh self-government for a simular reason of ambiguity. Welsh nationalism is an expression of just that, the degrees of which, weather it is full independence, promotion of the Welsh language, or the further expression of nationalism within the context of the U.K. The second sentence in the artical speaks to this, and was the reason for the full quote in the first place. I disagree sharply with Normalmouth with with regards to limiting the Welsh Nationalism debate to one of singular independence, when it has manifest itself so widely, and is indeed a hallmark to a particular form of Welsh nationalism verses another nations nationalism. The first paragraph should define boradly what Nationalism is, and mayhap what defines a particular form of Welsh Nationalism, both without the statistics. Following this introduction, more specific "chapters" as Mr.Darcy would suggest. This would be a better compromise. Drachenfyre 22:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

On a very narrow point, if we are going to describe a movement as popular, we should seek to quantify that assertion. I pointed out that WN is both cultural and constitutional, so it is clear that I am not limiting the debate to singular independence. However, it is fanciful (and perhaps even vaguely insulting to most nationalists) to suggest that a defining characeristic of Welsh nationalism is not the desire for as full a measure of self-government as any other nation-state - parity for Wales in the family of nations. A poll quantifying public support for that demand is therefore the closest estimation of public support for Welsh Nationalism. In an objective sense it grounds support for this idea. So it (along with the attendent points about its heritage) is an ecellent jump-off into a wider discussion, which I agree needs an overhaul. I am happy to add with this that WN is further strongly defined by the desire to protect and enhance the Welsh language and its associated culture. If anyone can suggest good figures to back this claim up that would be ideal. If not, I believe it is apparent enough to warrant inclusion.

I suggest therefore: "Welsh nationalism is a movement that became popular in nineteenth-century and throughout the twentieth century. It generally seeks independence for Wales within the United Kingdom or outside it, supported by around 16% of the population of Wales [citation], and is also strongly defined by a desire to protect and enhance the Welsh language and its associated culture.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Normalmouth (talk • contribs) 00:24, 25 December 2006

Just a minor point - "popular" has another meaning, and I think it's the one intended here: it means "of the people," rather than, say, "of the government." So a "popular movement" would be a movement that exists outside of or even in opposition to the establishment. I'll pop in later to say more, but I wanted to raise that point now before I forgot. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Granted, though the wording would tend to reflect that sense, i.e a popular movement rather than a population that became popular.

And if we have a decent measure of popularity, which we do, we should use it. Normalmouth 19:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any objection to Normalmouth's suggestion for the intro: "Welsh nationalism is a movement that became popular in nineteenth-century and throughout the twentieth century. It generally seeks independence for Wales within the United Kingdom or outside it, supported by around 16% of the population of Wales "[citation], and is also strongly defined by a desire to protect and enhance the Welsh language and its associated culture." That seems like a good start to me, and then we can work on reorganizing the body. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:22, 27 December 2006

Well, I obviously agree. Suggest we go ahead with change. Normalmouth talk 08:42, 30 December 2006

Good work, guys. I think this is a much cleaner start to the article. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have been abset from the conversation this past week, however I have been looking up sources. I feel the tone of the page is in question, as the inference is that 'nationalism' is narrowly defined as strictly seccession from the united kingdom. When historian and author John Davies in his History of Wales clearly points out that Welsh nationalism is manifest in a wide varity of ways, from the promotion of Welsh language, to the devloved authorities to full indepenendence. Currenly, the artical strongly suggests that Welsh nationalism is narrowly defined as wanting to succeed from the U.K., when there is more ambiguity on the issue. I am still researching the issue now, and can give more information on the subject in a few days. I still STONGLY disagree with removing the second part of the quote as discussed above. Drachenfyre 07:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate that the statement that WN "generally seeks independence" is completely defensible in fact. Morevoer, you appear to ignore the new, second part of the sentence which now explictly emphasises the cultural element within WN. If you can find a significant intellectual strand within WN that seeks devolution as an end, rather than as a means to independence I will be interested to hear it. But even then, I would strongly contest the notion that support for devolution can be taken as support for Welsh Nationalism.

In any case, we need to look at the rest of the article, which is not up to scratch. Thanks. Normalmouth 09:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I did read the whole opening statement, which, after reading more on Welsh nationalism... especially with the introduction by John Davies... I feel misses the mark of what Welsh nationalism, as opposed to Welsh independence, is. I will propose another opening, one that I feel would more truely reflect the various aspects of Welsh nationalism, and how it manifests itself in Wales today. The opening should specifically define what Welsh 'nationalism' is, and also provide a broad enough introduction to the artical as a whole. Currently it fails at both. The continued idea that Welsh nationalism is solely expressed as absolute succession from the U.K. is in error.Drachenfyre 11:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know how to phrase this in a way you'll understand, since I've now stated no fewer than four times that I do not see WN as being exclusively about independence.

However, to be absolutely clear, WN has both a constitutional (i.e about that staus of Wales as a country in its own right) and a cultural (i.e the defence of primarily Welsh-medium culture, and the idea of Wales as a cultural entity) component. That is now up-front in the definition at the very top of the article. At the risk of appearing rude, you will begin to look rather ridiculous if you continue to conduct this discussion on the basis that anyone is suggesting that "Welsh nationalism is solely expressed as absolute succession from the U.K". They're not.

However - and this is a nuance that I really do urge you to attempt to embrace - it is implausible to suggest that the quest for an independent Wales (by which I mean one seceded from the UK) is not a central, defining objective of WN. It's not the only component (see above) but it is a central component. Therefore you will need some really solid evidence if you want to propose a definition of WN that does not make explicit reference to that ideology's desire for an independent Wales.

I've tried to be as clear as I can here. If you cannot or will not accept the difference between the constitutional component being central (which is what I say) and exclusive (which is what you say I say) then I cannot see how we can usefully collaborate. I'll comment seperately on your proposed structure. Normalmouth 13:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring your obvious patronizing tone, it is you that will have to prove "Therefore you will need some really solid evidence if you want to propose a definition of WN that does not make explicit reference to that ideology's desire for an independent Wales." For the works I have read and will source will point to this as a secondary, not primary end towards Welsh nationalism. The primary characteristic of Welsh nationailism (lowercase 'n', as apposed to uppercase, as the characteristic is more social then political, and always has been). Will "independence" nationalists have a place in the artical? Of corse. But the artical has to be balances by all aspects of the (n)ationalism artical. Your thrust, going back to when I first visited the page, has been to hawkishly and narowly define the artical to suggest nationalism was only the arena of small percentage of the population, without recognizing that particular Welsh nationalism could be satisfied with and excercised through the current Welsh national instatutions of the National Welsh Assembly, Assembly Government, National Library of Wales, National Meseum of Wales, ect. These are, according to John Davies, expressions of particular Welsh nationalism. Is independence a part of it? Yes, for some. But develution is the direct result of nationalist tendencies within Wales as responded to by the U.K. government.

I am uncertin, given our complete difference on the issue, how we can collaborate. Especially with your definate point of view on this issue and lack of detatchment. Drachenfyre 17:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's Welsh Nationalism with an uppercase N because that is how the article is titled, as per Wikipedia guidelines. If I patronise you it's because I've grown utterly tired of repeating myself, and with you continually misrepresenting what I say.

As for demonstrating my argument that the constitutional status of Wales is a central preoccupation within WN, it is woven through their entire discourse. Freedom for Wales was one of the earliest rallying cries for Plaid Cymru - indepdendence is their constitutional goal today. Of course Nationalists sometimes support devolution - but largely as a means towards freedom/independence, rarely as an end in itself. I challenge you to find me a significant Welsh nationalist movement around today that does not aspire to full self-government for Wales, or who is content with deveolution. You will not be able to, because no such grouping exists. Does this mean it's all they care about? No, but generally (which is the qualification in the article) they do tend to care about it and it defines their cause. No-one who has lived in Wales for any significant period and takes an interest in its public discourse would even suggest otherwise. But I look forward to your citation.

As for the poll evidence, it is what it is. You may wish it to be higher. You may even wish it to be lower for all I know. But here on Wikipedia we write articles based on fact, not on what we want the facts to be. Please do not confuse an 'is' with an 'ought'. Normalmouth 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

you continue to miss the point of nationalism as a social movement and its context. I can not help you understand any more then anyone else has tried to. I have not misunderstood your tone or intent, its evident in your writtings. The artical is title Welsh nationalism. Not Welsh Nationalism. I will continue the edits to the artical and cite sources, for the artical. I think we will need to invite others into the conversation for a broader discussion on Welsh nationalism and its manifestations, for I am uncertin at what progress we can attain, you and I. Drachenfyre 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have long accepted that, and asserted it many times. But I do not accept, and will not co-operate with an attempt to define every and all national institution as part of nationalism. There is a deep and profound distinction between a sense of national identity and nationalism, otherwise we may as well call everyone who supports Walesat rubgy a nationalist. Nationalism is defined - generally in the case of Wales - by a belief that nationhood and statehood ought to be coterminous. You appear to be the only person who finds this in any way contentious. I assure you, most people who regard themselves as Welsh nationalists do not. They regard it as axiomatic. Normalmouth 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

but... the thing is you and I do not have to define what illistrates social nationalism from political nationalism, and what institutions represent what... when we have published experts on the matter! This is where an objective and non-pov artical sprinsg from! So far, this artical, from its opening to its closing, reeks of opinion! Your positions have been pov until I asked for mediation! I suppose this will be ironed out when source material defining Welsh nationalism (cultural and politica) is written down. Drachenfyre 21:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then bring them forward. And your proposed text with it. Oh, and I have no intention of being drawn into a pointless and trivial tit-for-tat exchange over who is guilty of POV editing, so I'd urge you to focus on editing the actual text, rather than trying to dream up what you imagine my motives to be and wasting everybody's time. Normalmouth 21:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off, both of you. You two have a content disagreement. Stop personalizing it and bickering about it.

Regarding the content question, let me start with a question for Normalmouth: can you tell me where your definition of "nationalism" comes from? I have always understood the term to include what might be called strong patriotism. Merriam-Webster defines it as "loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups." That doesn't seem to me to require statehood. Are you saying, then, that you oppose any inclusion of movements that don't support statehood/autonomy in this article? Where do you wish to draw the line? | Mr. Darcy talk 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My OED has it as "advocacy of political independence for a particular country" for what it's worth, but that's neither here nor there. My concern is that we are about to commit a basic category error in the drafting of this article and conflate Welsh national identity (for which I believe there may be scope for an article more along Drachenfyre's lines) with Welsh nationalism. Welsh nationalism is a specific cultural-political movement that holds as a central article of faith that Wales is a nation in its own right and should be entitled to the same degree of freedom as any other comparable nation. At the same time it has long concerned itself with cultural questions about what makes Wales a nation. By and large, these have tended to focus on Welsh-language issues and on nation-building through institutions. In this latter point there is indeed some overlap with Welsh national identity. But we should not include in a discussion of nationalism anything and everything that exists on a national level in Wales. Normalmouth 06:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Normalmouth, your own statement of defination points to a need for an artical on "Welsh independence movement," as the political end for those who seek national "statehood". This artical, Welsh nationalism, is about the social movement. This social movement includes the attempts to define what Welsh culture is, begining with suport and promotion of the Welsh language, social organizations which promote it such as the eisteddfod, academic interests. These social movements, through the corse of the 19th and 20th century and now 21st century, have brought social but national institutions to better define what Welsh nationhood is. Welsh independence is a goal of some political movements in Welsh nationalism, but is only one aspect of the artical, not a central theme as you propose, not in light of the source material at hand. Over the next few days, I will supply some text for review here, to better illistrate. Drachenfyre 10:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

edit: We can split the same artical to reflect the sub catatgories of Welsh nationalism as both 1) a social movement, and 2) as a poltical movement towards Welsh statehood. Give me a few days to create another outline reflecting this. Drachenfyre 10:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible way to do it, provided the scope for the cultural dimension is not broadened too widely, as per my above concerns. I still think you should give some thought to whether the article you wish to write is more properly about Welsh national identity. I note an article already exists on Scottish national identity, and such an article could quite legitimately go as wide as you appear to wish to go. Just a thought. Normalmouth 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Emyr Llewelyn

Emyr Llewelyn was not and is not a Christian preacher. The Adfer philosophy is similar to the ideas of Gramsci of organic intellectuals, and has echoes of Biko's ideas of creating a consciousness. If you have based your description on his depiction in the film of the bombing of Tryweryn, then you have been misled. The Adfer philosophy has influenced the ideas of Cymuned: Emyr Llewelyn was a speaker at the Cymuned conference in 2005. talk

Proposed working Outline

Outlined below is the proposed outline for the page. I have information here that can go into the artical.

I. Introduction:

 a) defination: should include nationalism verses "Welsh nationalism," social movement, and nationalism verses independence. Also, difference between statehood and nationhood.
 b) sumery of artical
     1.
     2.
     3.

II. History 13th through 19th century

 a) Edwardian Conqest of Gwynedd (last indpenendent polity) Treaty of Aberconwy and Statute of Ruddlan.
 b) Owain Glyndŵr and the Laws of Wales Acts (abolishion of Welsh Laws and Annexation)
 c) French revolutionary influence
 d) Welsh religous movements and their impact
     1)
     2)
     3)
     4)
 e) industralisation 
     1) migrations into S. Wales from "abroad"
     2) decline of language
 g) "scholarly interest in the nation's past" (Davies)
     1) 19th 20th century litituture 
     2) University of Wales, Welsh National Library
 h) "cultural rebirth" (John Davies)
     1) Treachery of the Blue Books
     2) Eisteddfod 
     3) Welsh language in turn of the century(Davies)
     4) Welsh religous movements (Davies)
 i) toward national institutions (Davies)
     1) migrations to America and Patagonia, as expressions of nationalism (John Davies)
     2) Influence from Europe

III. Current developements 20th and 21st century

 a) 20th century: decline of Welsh language
 b) Character of Welsh nationalism 
     1. peaceful
        1.a International Eisteddfod (pan-nationalism)
        1.b Welsh Language Society (social movement)
        1.c Plaid Cymry (independence political party)
        1.d Llyn Celyn
     2. violent
        2.a Sons of Glen dwr
        2.b torching of sumer residences
     3. Results
 c) devolution creation of national institutions
     1. cardiff as capital 1950s
     2. Welsh Office 1960s
     3. 1979 devolution refrendum
     4. Government of Wales act 1997 
     5. National Assembly of Wales (1999)
     6. Government of Wales Act 2006
 d) revival of Welsh language (census for 1981, 1991, 2001)

IV. Welsh nationalist and independence movements (the current list seems comprehensive)

Drachenfyre 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite thorough. Normalmouth, I'd like to see your feedback on the outline - does it address your concerns about properly defining Welsh nationalism? Are we swaying too far in one direction? | Mr. Darcy talk 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good outline, so my thanks go to Drachenfyre for putting it together. I believe there is scope to introduce the early Wales-only laws of the late 19thC as examples of where a Welsh polity began to be recognised by the state. I can see some definitional issues in III b (Plaid Cymru, for example, have put themselves through the wringer attempting to define their own nationalism, so we may not be able to do it full justice).

On the opening definition, much will depend on the text itself. Drachenfyre clearly wishes to draw on some academic work, and that is to be welcomed. I've also read a fair amount on this topic, so we can collaborate on the wording. My existing concerns stand, however, namely that any such definition much make it clear that a core objective of Welsh Nationalism is freedom/independence for Wales. We can enhance the other goals to meet Drachenfyre's concerns but we should not end up with some woolly wording that gives insufficient emphasis to the constitutional arguments advanced by Welsh Nationalists. Normalmouth 14:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"any such definition much make it clear that a core objective of (some) Welsh Nationalism is freedom/independence for Wales" for some nationalist, but not all. There will be a distinction beteen the two.Drachenfyre 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the intro sums that up - Welsh nationalism as social-cultural movement, and Welsh nationalism as political movement (for autonomy, for independence, etc.). Then the article will describe both flavors of Welsh nationalism. NM, are you comfortable with that? | Mr. Darcy talk 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good way of putting it, and I am comfortable with that. But we need to take care not to co-opt all national institutions (Welsh Assembly, Eisteddfod etc) into Welsh Nationalism. There absolutely must be room in the argument to explain that many people who support devolution, or the Welsh language, or who celebrate the cultural life of Wales are not part of the WN cause. Normalmouth 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Welsh Independence Merge

Hi guys, what do you think about renaming this article "Welsh Independence", I started to add to the empty independence article, then realised this is actually the page you wanna look at if you're interested in the welsh gaining independence. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been had, and it was decided to stick with Welsh nationalism. Please see above. And it should be an article describing the situation from an NPOV perspective. not just for those who are "interested in the welsh gaining independence". Reagards. Normalmouth (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realise it had been had, I'll remove the "merge template" then. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Walescw.jpg

The image Image:Walescw.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Article balance

This article has been expanded recently. In general, this should be applauded, as it hasn't much traffic (or interest, for that matter). The subject is of a rather sensitive nature, however, and some sensitivity needs to be brought to it to ensure that it remains NPOV. A new section has been added - Criticism - which one assumes denotes criticism of the subject 'Welsh nationalism. Everything in that section should, therefore, be assumed to be criticism. The section begins with Llew Smith, who is a noted opponent of Welsh nationalism and the Welsh language. Noted, that is, except for in this article. This could be considered as weighted towards Llew's POV as there is no oposing view quoted. After Llew's history lesson, the next sentence is 'Welsh businessman John Elfed Jones characterised English migration as the human version of foot-and-mouth disease.' That sentence is only critical of Welsh nationalism if one considers a) that a businessman who happens to be Welsh (yes, there are some) is representative of Welsh nationalism itself, b) that it is a Welsh nationalist statement (the source notes that the statement concerned the Welsh language in connection to English monoglot speakers) and c) if one disagrees with it and therefore believes that the statement is a criticism of Welsh nationalism. It is, rather, the view of the author that the statement in itself is a criticism of Welsh nationalism, which s/he wants to share with the reader. The next sentence: 'Author Simon Brooks recommended that English-owned homes in Wales be 'peacefully occupied' is along similar lines (in that it is the author's view, as the statement only becomes a criticism of Welsh nationalism should one disagree with it). POV here, however, is even more pronounced. The author has chosen this statement completely out of context. Reading the source reference, one can feel Simon Brook's complete sense of helplesnes at foreign immigration. Indeed, the Guardian piece is entitled 'Wales swamped by tide of English settlers.' I could go on, but I think I've made my point. A complete reassessment should be made of this section. If not, it should be deleted. Other editors views would be welcome. Daicaregos (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, its rather like judging the English on the basis of statements by the National Front. Several of the quotes are taken out of context and it reads like a list of anything the editor could find, rather than a balanced comment. --Snowded (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This is not at all balanced and the quotes are out of context. For example: "migration ought to be controlled, and that incomers ought to be required to learn and speak English". I've omitted two words and changed 'Welsh' to 'English'. Sound familiar? Present-day policy of Llew Smith's own party and government... (And as Dai notes, the fact that Smith is a rabidly anti-Welsh British nationalist is not mentioned.) Enaidmawr (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want it noted that Smith is a critic of Welsh nationalism, fine. If you want people who respond to the criticism, fine. I believe Simon Brooks has written a book about how the Welsh-language movement have been unfairly demonised as racists. Add that if you want.

But to remove all criticism is simply wrong. Every ideology page on WP has a section called "criticism". It is certainly not required to give a sympathetic treatment of the article topic, only balanced. If no-one has rebutted these criticisms, then I am afraid that is tough.

Wikipedia is not required to be "sensitive", only accurate. If I were going to be sensitive to anyone, it would be the people whose homes were "peacefully occupied", or threatened to be. If UKIP were "peacefully occupying" the homes of Hindi speakers, anyone would at once see that it would be repugnant to mitigate such behaviour with talk about the "despair" of the perpetrators.

PS: almost all of the criticism, including John Elfed Jones' statement, is quoted by Llew Smith. I'll try and make that clearer without lumbering every sentence with "Llew Smith says..."

PPS: I've just noticed that apart from the criticism section, the rest of the article contains only a single citation. I knew I would be challenged, so I cited every single sentence. BillMasen (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A section with criticism and responses would be one thing, but this is highly selective and slanted. Let's leave aside the thoroughly bigoted Mr Smith (rather like using the opinion of Ian Paisley for a critique of Irish nationalism) and take one example. You write that Gwilym ab Ioan, vice-president of Plaid Cymru, said "that English migrants were oddballs and misfits who were 'drowning out' Welsh identity". Your referenced source, that well-known bastion of tolerance and lover of all things Welsh The Daily Telegraph, actually has him saying "that his homeland was becoming a dumping ground for England's 'oddballs, social misfits and drop-outs'". So Gwilym ab Ioan did not actually say that the English as a people or even English migrants to Wales in general were "oddballs and misfits". You could also have noted that he is married to an English woman: "People have overreacted to what I wrote. There was no racism in my words at all. I am married to an English person and lots of my friends are English. I resigned because I don't wish my party to receive any damage or undue attention for things I have written." (Telegraph article). Many people, including English migrants, would agree with him: take a look at the social problems created in towns along the north Wales coast as a result of English local authorities dumping their unwanted "misfits" on towns like Colwyn Bay and Rhyl. By the way, you wouldn't be aware of it, but the instigator in all this was Ian Skidmore, a local hack in north Wales hardly renowned for his Welsh nationalist sympathies. I'm not going to go into every point individually, but this shows how onesided and selective your text is. There are some people in Wales (and across the border), notably in the dinosaur wing of the Labour Party, who cry "racism" and "narrow-minded nationalism" whenever anybody dares to suggest that the Welsh have a right to retain their culture and identity: now that is racism. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Again: you have the power to insert these responses. I've already amended my original text more than once, but I'm not going to let this be whitewashed because no-one can be bothered to find a source countering these claims.

Since you're flinging derision (ahem) around, I'll tell you this for free: the idea that a "nation" or a "culture" or a "community" has rights which supersede the rights of human beings is the guaranteed road to a nightmare. Add to that the idea that the descendents of an oppressor have to be punished in the oppressor's place, and your nightmare will become hell.BillMasen (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be deliberately avoiding answering my accusation above that your text is slanted and selective. I'll repeat what I said:

You write that Gwilym ab Ioan, vice-president of Plaid Cymru, said "that English migrants were oddballs and misfits who were 'drowning out' Welsh identity". Your referenced source actually has him saying "that his homeland was becoming a dumping ground for England's 'oddballs, social misfits and drop-outs'". So Gwilym ab Ioan did not actually say that the English as a people or even English migrants to Wales in general were "oddballs and misfits".

Your text does not match your source. The words you put in Gwilym ab Ioan's mouth are not his and represent a distortion of the truth. The phrase "England's oddballs, social misfits and drop-outs" clearly does not refer to the English as a nation nor does it refer to all English migrants to Wales; you have twisted his words to show him to be a racist. That is not acceptable here or anywhere else and comes close to libel and defamation of character. You seem hell-bent to portray all 'Welsh nationalists' as xenophobic racists, which is just not true. You should also learn something about cultural genocide as defined by the UN and then reconsider your sophism about the rights of human beings (those cultural animals, par excellence, formed as they are by their environment and heritage...). Enaidmawr (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No one is arguing for a whitewash, or that criticism should not be in the article. However you have just created a hotch potch of quotations, its more like tabloid journalism than an encyclopaedia. You are also quoting out of context as has been pointed out above. You argue that responses should be inserted, do that and you end up with half the article being a list of attacks and counter attacks. We need to reach agreement here on material which is balanced, notable and also with due attention to weight. --Snowded (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

moving forward

In respect of the recent edits I suggest that we do something along the following lines

• There needs to be a reference to tensions over second homes, local language teaching and concerns over cultural change (Wales mirrors other countries here) along with references to associated criticism of some nationalist language. Ie place the criticism in context in the main article
• Lew deserves a sentence but not multiple paragraphs. Possibly something about "modern tensions" again within the main body of the article.

--Snowded (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the criticism has to be placed in the main article. Every other major ideology on wiki has a criticism section devoted to attacks and responses; some of them have entire articles on the subject.

You're calling the section a "tabloid hotchpotch", but the only sources I cited are reputable newspapers, even though some of them may not be sympathetic towards Welsh nationalism. Moreover, it only includes statements and people who were specifically accused of being anti-English. I could quote far more which has gone under the radar. The rest of the article, which is basically sympathetic to Welsh nationalism, has only a single source.

The idea that the "context" of a "culture under threat" mitigates these remarks is no more respectable than demanding "context" when UKIP whinges on about Polish builders. Of course, you can insert the causes of this anti-migrant feeling, but the migrant-bashers will still look bad; and that's no-one's fault but their own.

If no one wants a whitewash, then I suggest you improve the section rather than constantly deleting it. I've made multiple changes to it, partly because of the comments made on here (intemperate and obstructive though they mostly were).BillMasen (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Calm it down a bit, please. Accusations of rascism are a sensitive subject, whether you like it or not. I disagree with your statement that 'Wikipedia is not required to be "sensitive", only accurate.' Wikipedia is required to be balanced as well. It is the responsibility of the editor adding content to ensure that balance, not those who ask for it. If you are unable to provide that balance (or context), then the information added will be deleted. Daicaregos (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am only asking for the same standard to be applied to Welsh nationalists as is applied to every other nationalist ideology.

The article is not "balanced" and cites no criticism whatever of Welsh nationalism and its adherents, except the criticism section. In fact, it cites almost nothing except what is in the section I added. By your logic, I should delete the entire article until someone comes along and makes all previous edits "balanced".

Now, perhaps you can suggest a way in which this can be resolved, without wholesale deletion of sourced contributions which might possibly upset people? BillMasen (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The critisism added does not seem to be argument put forward by opponents of the concept of Welsh nationalism. It appears to be a list of actions by some individuals who may, or may not be, Welsh nationalists. Those actions were not performed in the name of Welsh nationalism. Your argument is WP:SYN. If X had not paid his taxes and X were a Welsh nationalist, you cannot assume that X did not pay his taxes because he is a Welsh nationalist. If you have any sources opposed to the concept of Welsh nationalism that you want to note, lets hear them. But they haven't been noted so far. Sourced contributions should only be added in context and not given undue weight. No matter which people become upset. Daicaregos (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the Llew Smith speech? It is a speech by a noted critic of Welsh nationalism, which is explicitly critical of welsh nationalism, which mentions these incidents. All of the articles cited carried stories which were cited by Smith as examples of anglophobia in Welsh nationalism. Smith also criticised the entire movement for tolerating the phobic tactics of this vocal minority.

How can you possibly say this is my synthesis? It was Smith who made the sythesis, not me. BillMasen (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the speech concerned is this one? That is not, in my view, a speech "against Welsh nationalism". It is a speech against racism in Wales against the English, and to some extent a party political speech by a Labour MP in opposition to Plaid Cymru. Those are not all the same things - some nationalists may indeed hold Anglophobe views, but it's perfectly possible to be a nationalist and not hold those views. There are arguments against - and criticisms of - nationalism, at a policy and strategic level, which may be worthy of mention in this article, but that speech doesn't really address them, it addresses racism and criminality. If the speech is to be mentioned at all, in my view it should only be in brief, and cross-referencing to other articles more appropriate such as Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English and Anglophobia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Smith explicitly criticises the leader of Plaid Cymru, the political organ of Welsh nationalism: 'When is the leader of the Welsh nationalist party, Ieuan Wyn Jones, going to insist that such people be kicked out of the party if they continue to make racist demands?' That is in the link which you just provided. Don Touhig also criticised him as "the monkey to Brook's organ grinder". Smith also attacks Welsh nationalism for demanding more money from Westminster while at the same time agitating for independence, and describing English pensioners as a "drain".

These two speeches are an explicit attack on Welsh nationalism and PC. BillMasen (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is the other speech? I'm not saying Smith's views shouldn't be mentioned, but his comments don't appear to be in opposition to the idea of "Welsh nationalism" - the subject of this article - they are party political speeches highlighting issues of racism. It is important that this article is neutral, and does not confuse nationalism with racism, or indeed with the views of one political party, even if (or especially because) he tried to muddle them together for party political reasons. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Ghmyrtle and Dai. Please note the same "list" is being dumped on Plaid Cymru and also Anglophobia (where the definition was also changed). I have reverted in both cases. --Snowded (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have to say that this seems very biased and even deliberately misleading (see above: if the text had remained I believe it could be taken as defamation of character and a cause of libel action). Enaidmawr (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If they wanted to sue wikipedia, they would have to sue Smith and 3 national newspapers as well. Since these quotes are all well-documented and undenied, I think their action would not go very far!

Attacks on Welsh nationalism on that page: From Smith's speech: 'That attitude to the English can also be seen in their opposition to English children coming to Wales during the second world war to avoid the Nazi bombing of their homes. For the nationalists, that movement of population was one of the most horrible threats to the continuation and life of the Welsh nation in history. How could anyone have such a warped sense of priorities, seeing as the enemy not Nazi Germany, which was bombing the homes of people in London, but English children, who were coming to Wales as evacuees? .' 'The Welsh nationalist party at the time described the building of the Severn bridge as a suicidal policy; I have never heard any retractions from modern-day nationalists. I assume that their main interest was breaking all links with England, and that that was far more important than creating jobs. ' From Wayne David's remarks: 'The strong strand of racism and xenophobia in Plaid Cymru's history is well tabulated.'

Seriously, how can you possibly say that Smith et al are not attacking Welsh nationalism and Plaid for being anti-English? And why shouldn't their reasons, which I listed in the article, also be enumerated?

All of the MPs in question accused Plaid of putting up with racists in their party so that they didn't lost votes. BillMasen (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As you say: '... these quotes are all well-documented and undenied, ...'. And yet you still managed to misquote them. Would you care to advise us if that was deliberate, or simply incompetent? These statements are attacks against racism and against a political party (not all Welsh nationalists support Plaid Cymru). They are not arguments against Welsh nationalism (which I would, personally, like to hear) and are not relevant to this article. As I say, if you have any sourced arguments opposed to the concept of Welsh nationalism that you want to note, lets hear them. I note that you are trying to blame the synthesised argument on Llew Smith. So, you are quite content to add quotes that you know to be misleading to this article. It is incumbent on the editor adding content to ensure it is accurate, balanced and relevant. You have managed to fail on all three counts. Impressive. Daicaregos (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"These quotes are all well-documented and undenied" you say, yet once again you seem to be avoiding admitting the fact that the quote put by you in the mouth of Gwilym ab Ioan is not what he actually said. So I'll repeat for the third time:

You write that Gwilym ab Ioan, vice-president of Plaid Cymru, said "that English migrants were oddballs and misfits who were 'drowning out' Welsh identity". Your referenced source actually has him saying "that his homeland was becoming a dumping ground for England's 'oddballs, social misfits and drop-outs'". So Gwilym ab Ioan did not actually say that the English as a people or even English migrants to Wales in general were "oddballs and misfits".

What you inserted as Gwilym ab Ioan's words were not actually his but yours. And they seriously distorted the truth. I hope that wasn't deliberate, but you have certainly evaded the issue. You turned a genuine comment on a real social problem (and it's not only 'Welsh nationalists who have voiced similar views about the large-scale dumping of unwanted benefits claimants by Enlgish local authorities on small Welsh towns and communities; an English-born GP in Rhyl recently said the same thing but in much stronger terms) into a racist slur. That was either an innocent mistake or it was deliberate. If it was the latter, and I hope I'm wrong, then it is completely indefensible. So which was it? Enaidmawr (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Some arguments against nationalism as an ideology are summarised here, here, and here. If we could find references that use those arguments in a Welsh context, we might get somewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say those three atricles are seriously flawed, and all statt off with the postition that nationalism = racism/xenophobia end of.--Rhyswynne (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Smith' speech/rant doesn't exactly mention who these people who objected to evacuees coming to Wales were and how did they go about it. Were they members of Plaid Cymru or a particular organisation? In what way did he/she/they express this objection (did they write a letter in the Western Mail, blocked railway lines from England, refused to take in an evacuee into their own home/s?). Where these people actually Welsh nationalists or just people concerned about the Welsh language (I have friends who are passionate about the Welsh language, but who are also staunch Unionists). I personally wouldn't take an anti-Welsh politician like Llew Smith's word for it. You say the comments were undenied - if Welsh nationalists went about denying every false acusation made against them by British nationalists, they'd spend their whole lives doing it!--Rhyswynne (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Linked article

The same list of quotes, the same editor, the same out of context use of material can be found at Anglophobia. Looks like a few newpsaper articles have been culled to make a list which is being imposed on multiple articles. --Snowded (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Surprised the reference there to the "Welsh regionalist party" hasn't been changed yet....!!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC) - I've changed it now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that last one. Would you believe that someone complained when I described Plaid as a "Welsh nationalist" party. BillMasen (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

.."Plaid do not describe themselves as nationalists". Maybe not, but everybody else does. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

History section

I think much of the history section(s) may be better suited for the Welsh independence article. They mostly deal with the gradual loss of independence, rather than the building of a nationalist sentiment which this article is supposed to be about. I recently added to the history section myself, but this was before I realized there was a separate Welsh independence article (which has a pretty shakey history section, actually).--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

A recent edit replaced a survey result with a different survey result (result 1 was 52 %, result 2 was 20%) - both were cited by WP:RS - with the edit summary 'revert surreptitious change to polling numbers, the more recent BBC Wales poll found totally different statistics.' A few points:

• text cited by a WP:RS must not be removed without achieving consensus on the article's talk page.
• I assume that the change being surreptitious refers to not achieving consensus prior to the change, rather than implying any underlying attempted deception.
• To have removed a referenced quote and replaced it with a different one could be seen as WP:POV or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Either way, it is unacceptable.
• The 'more recent' poll is from 2007, the older poll from 2006.
• WP:NEU says ' Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. '
• Further - the lead paragraph has been reduced so much that it does not conform to WP:LEAD i.e. 'The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.'
• Neither does it comply with WP:BrE: Strong national ties to a topic: 'An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation.'

I have added both survey results (per WP:NEU and WP:BOLD) to the lead paragraph, which I've rewritten. I accept it is not perfect. However, please try to achieve consensus here for any changes to it, rather that making changes without prior agreement. Daicaregos (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, my edit actually restored the long-standing BBC survey finding after it was removed without comment (and consensus) by an anonymous editor, who replaced it with a survey from a less reliable publication that got wildly different results (though perhaps results more pleasing to some people). I didn't "reduce" the lead, I just rearranged some wording and added necessary links like "nationalism" and "Welsh culture". Your version has removed the nationalism link and gives statistics without attributing them to any source, and synthesizes the findings of the two surveys into a new claim (neither says that the percentage is "between" anything). I have rewritten the lead (again) per these concerns, and per the previous consensus I have included the BBC poll's number, as BBC Wales is obviously a reliable source and the methodology is indicated in the article. If we decide not to use the BBC poll, that's fine; there may be more reliable data out there anyway. However, including the WalesOnline poll will require consensus to be established first, and even if it is included, we cannot just synthesize the data together.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am disapointed. My lead has (basically) been reverted. The only difference being that the phrase self-determination has been retained. I had asked that we should reach agreement here, before making changes. That is the basic strategy of the WP:BRD cycle. AFAIK Wikipedia encourages edits by anyone, and no-one has to register. If I as mistaken please refer me to the relevant policy. I do not understand what you mean here: if you 'didn't "reduce" the lead, I just rearranged some wording and added necessary links like "nationalism" and "Welsh culture" ' how did the lead become shorter? I agree that I removed the nationalism link (& that could be reinserted), however, sources for the statistics I reinput are/were in the main text of the article see diff. You must have been aware of that, as you deleted it see diff (I note the reference you posted will need to be repaired, yet you deleted the good quality reference I provided for the BBC quote too). The accusation of WP:SYNTH is a bit strong. I'm sure we could agree acceptable wording. Talking of acceptable wording, using American spelling is not acceptable in this article. You may have noticed that this article concerns Wales, consequently, British English spelling should be used. It is disapointing that the mis-spelling was reinserted after I had pointed out it was inapproprate. We do not need consensus to include the WalesOnline statistic, any more than we do the BBC one (which I was not arrogant enough to remove, btw). WalesOnline is a reliable source. WP:RS says: 'All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.' I noted this above, but it appears to have been ignored. If there was any doubt about whether the source is reliable it should have been referred to the WP:RSN, not just deleted out of hand. Please reinstate it and make the other appropriate changes Daicaregos (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot, but your patronizing tone doesn't help. I don't understand why I must be in the wrong for removing the WalesOnline poll, while the anon who removed the BBC poll and replaced it with one whose findings he liked better wasn't commented upon at all. Your interpretation of WP:RS is faulty here, as the BBC poll and the WalesOnline poll do not represent "all majority and significant-minority viewpoints" - they are two news polls, one of which comes from a more reliable source, so it is not acceptable to use them to synthesize claims. I still hold that barring some upswing of consensus or a demonstration that the poll is really a reliable source, the WalesOnline poll cannot be used here in the face of a more reliable source finding totally different numbers. The burden of evidence is on you to defend it. The BBC poll is another matter for discussion. Additionally, I don't see what's wrong with the url, and the "-ize" ending is not an Americanism, though it is commonly mistaken for one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

My 'tone' was reserved for noting that this article should use British English. If you had read my 'patronising' post correctly you would have noticed that I did not highlight any particular words, so your post - "and the "-ize" ending is not an Americanism, though it is commonly mistaken for one." - was mistaken. If you need an example of your inappropriate spelling in this article I refer you to the word 'favor', which is spelt 'favour' here. Anons are just something we have to put up with here, unless/until policy changes. AGF and you could assume that the anon saw a poll, thought it appropriate to the article and put it in. More than two weeks later, and after having made an unrelated edit, you revert the change with an edit summary implying something devious or sinister had happened ("revert surreptitious change to polling numbers, the more recent BBC Wales poll found totally different statistics"), completely disregarding a sourced poll. That is why I think you are wrong, because at that point, there was additional evidence, which you chose to ignore - why? You maintain that WalesOnline is not a WP:RS. I hope this is simply ignorance, in the same way that people not familiar with France wouldn't necesarily know that Le Monde was a reliable source for stories about France, or La Stampa in Italy. WalesOnline is the website of Media Wales, publishers of the Western Mail, Wales' national newspaper, and that poll was from the Western Mail. The story is, therefore, verifiable and should not be discarded because you don't happen to believe it. I read your link to burden of evidence. It says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It was. "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article." It did. "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." It was. So, as the story conformed to the burden of evidence requirement, what is your point? WP:BURDEN goes on to say: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." No time was given to provide references(which were already provided) - and this editor objects. You have not followed good practice or the behaviour expected by Wikipedia editors (thanks for the link btw). Please advise what you intend to do about this. Daicaregos (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I corrected the spelling. This is my error, but easily taken care of once you brought it specifically to attention. Any other possible errors are just as easy to fix. My bad.
• I did not say that WalesOnline was not a reliable source. I said it was not as reliable as BBC Wales. I don't agree that being owned by the same company that publishes the biggest tabloid paper in Wales indicates that this website carries the same weight as the BBC.
• From WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". You are currently addressing that by defending your restoration of the challenged poll. Per the WP:SYNTH concern, also from WP:BURDEN: "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article." The sources do not support your statement that independence is "an aspiration supported by between 20% and 52% the population of the country." Rather, one says 20% while one says 52%, neither mentions the other, and these are hardly the only polls that have been taken. The BBC Wales article specifically mentions previous polls, and notes that 20% is actually a high number compared to earlier results, which it says were between 10 and 15%. Doing a little more cursory searching, I find this 2007 poll by the Institute of Welsh Politics at the University of Wales, cited by our friends at WalesOnline, which found that 12% of the population favours independence, similar to the results from its 1997 poll (14%). This 2001 poll for the Institute of Welsh Affairs found that 11% wanted independence.
• You make very much of my removal of this poll. In reality, I saw that an anonymous editor had recently not only added this poll, but removed one which had been in the article for over six months which came from a reputable publication and got wildly different results from the new material. There was no edit summary or comment on the talk page. But it was not until I restored the status quo version that there came a lecture about not removing sourced material.
• I propose that all mention of specific statistics be placed at the dedicated Welsh independence article, surely a much more appropriate place than here, which is supposed to discuss nationalism.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have created a section at Welsh independence dealing with the poll results I just named. Future work on that matter should go there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet, you left your preferred poll result on this article. Have you read NPOV? Daicaregos (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it. Have you read WP:AGF?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I read it again just after the edit appeared replacing a cited survey result with a different survey result - with the edit summary 'revert surreptitious change to polling numbers, the more recent BBC Wales poll found totally different statistics.' - as I felt sure it must have changed. It hadn't.

Whatever. This has long since stopped being productive.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Pointless Map

Can the editors tell me why we have a basic modern map outline of Wales attempting to show the Medieval kingdoms when, if you agree the Medieval period was between 800AD and 1300AD, the actual area would have been very different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.207.84 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

A Template:Confusing tag has been added to this article. As the template's talkpage says: “This tag is useless unless ... it is accompanied by explanation of what is confusing and why. All it says is that someone, somewhere, didn't understand some part of the article, which could have any number of causes.” Please explain. Daicaregos (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As no-one has tried to explain why they added it, I suggest it be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done I removed the 'improve' tag too. As all articles can be improved, it's redundant. Daicaregos (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Posted here by accident. Meant to post in Article: Plaid Cymru. How do I delete?

Flag

Other nationalist wikis like Canadian American and British nationalism all have a flag image “The Union Jack, in addition to being the flag of the United Kingdom, also serves as a common symbol used by British nationalists” or simply “the flag of the United States” we should add a welsh flag image to this wiki 2600:8801:1187:7F00:C9EF:DF28:E340:3E59 (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)