This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Currently the entry contains the following…
“The Education Act of 1870 called for education to be taught through the medium of English, and not through the medium of Welsh. This reinforced the class differences originally set within the Act of Union 1536, with the English language being linked to success academically and the Welsh language being seen as the opposite; spoken by those who are uneducated and lower class.”
The act does NOT call for education to be taught through the medium of English.
This is what the act does do… “It made provision for the elementary education of all children aged 5-13, and established school boards to oversee and complete the network of schools and to bring them all under some form of supervision.”
The text of the act can be read here (note the website domain name is misleading) http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/acts/1870-elementary-education-act.html
I will delete the cited text. It’s factually incorrect & makes unsourced claims.
Cheezypeaz ( talk) 08:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
In the Effects section we have...
"The practice and wider social changes of the nineteenth and the beginning of the 20th century saw many Welsh speakers come to view the speaking of Welsh as a disadvantage.[3]"
The only supporting statement in the linked reference seems to be this sentence. (Note: There were three commissioners and they didn't speak Welsh.)
"The commissioners saw the Welsh language as a drawback and noted that the moral and material condition of the people would only improve with the introduction of English."
Also in the Effects section we have...
"Although no direct correlation can be made to use of the Welsh Not and the decline of those speaking Welsh, the decline of its use well into the 19th and 20th century and the long term stigma attached to the use of the language, clearly shows it had an effect.[15"]"
The linked article (which is very interesting in itself) does not support the claims in this sentence. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 11:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Cheezypeaz, Kleuske, Hogyncymru, Mjroots, Martinevans123, Girth Summit, I believe that the content of the Language policy section whould be better covered in its own article or the History of the Welsh language article. The section should be removed from the article because
List of references
|
---|
References
|
@ TSventon:@ Martinevans123:@ Hogyncymru:
I'm going to delete the entire Effects section. Nothing worth saving. 1) Assertions with sources that don't back them up. 2) Boring discussion of unrelated statistics. 3) A weak admission at the end that everything written in this section was wrong. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 17:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Cheezypeaz: I think you're misunderstanding the whole reason of discussion pages; to get to the point, this is the 3rd title you've published now outlining your dissatisfaction with the page, in future could you collect all your issues and compile them into one so that it doesn't become long-winded and confusing, how are people expected to follow your arguments if they keep migrating? like mentioned in earlier, these were indeed spoken within Westminsters and they were published under their parliamentary papers, this in term would be a policy, the difference between a policy and and act are different;
Policy: means goals or objectives set by the governments to achieve.
Act: means law i,e. any law is made on any particular matter by the parliament or state legislatures, after making of law that particular matter is regulated by that law.
As for you thinking certain pieces of the article is 'boring' or long-winded.. this is for readers to decide, I believe that it all conveys a step-by-step process of the control of the language under the church and state.. Hogyncymru ( talk) 17:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Cheezypeaz: PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE LARGE CHUNKS OF THE SITE, this is a further warning.. the reason for Talk is to resolve issues, not to add your opinion and to vandalise as you see fit.. you MUST resolve the issues first before taking drastic action!. Hogyncymru ( talk) 17:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree the section should be removed. Para 1. The BBC article goes out of it's way to downplay the effects of 'The Not' yet it is used to justify an entire paragraph about the Welsh Language being stigmatised, the BBC article does not even imply that this stigamtisation was in any way an effect of the 'Welsh Not', only that it existed. Para 2 is at least honest "no direct correlation can be made to use of the Welsh Not and the decline of those speaking Welsh,"... so why is the following text in a section title 'Effects' "Clearly shows it had an effect" looks like WP:SYNTH to me? Para 3 onwards are just about the decline of the welsh language, with no reference whatsoever to the subject of the article. JeffUK ( talk) 17:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I have no issue with people arguing their case as to why parts of the site should be seen as.. but to have someone that isn't even a registered user on this site decide things because he or she dislikes it because it portrays an 'ugly' view on Westminster is absurd, they cannot simply go onto a rampage deleting most of the page just because they feel they are wronged without fist coming to a rational conclusion.. For example, if something sounds wrong or doesn't seem right, then let someone correct that part first before the whole site is butchered! if there's sources lacking.. why not add (citation needed) next to a claim?, if you think something doesn't sound correct.. why not edit it to make it sound better?, this is why talk exists, to come to a rational conclusion, to have most of the editors come to a level-ground and agree to meet people half-way and to better the site so that it is informal and correct. If someone's already warned, why are they then going against that and going against everyone? that doesn't sound like a rational person to me, this seems like someone who's got a vendetta, someone who is strongly invested in covering up the past.. this is why an user with a red name nor ip number should not be editing this page.. especially that it's a sore subject in Welsh culture. Hogyncymru ( talk) 18:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Drmies: he's done it again.. I saw that another user threatened people with edit warring with a ban.. I really don't want this to happen, there is no final consensus even though he claims there is. Hogyncymru ( talk) 22:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for everyone's time giving their opinion, I know I'm not really suppose to delete my old addition, but please, I beg you, just leave it be, I started something extra which I did not have the mental energy to carry on, I have to be real, It's taken a tole on my mental health, I just can't deal with the extra arguments, I'm done, my contribution to the discussion has ended, if you resurrect it, please note that it will push me over the edge.. I'm leaving this here to say thank you for everyone's contribution to the discussions, I was wrong in some instances and this is something I have realised, editors are here to make a difference, so carry on what you do, all the best. Hogyncymru ( talk) 17:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
If Welsh Not is a proper noun, then surely Welsh Knot, Welsh Note, Welsh Lump, Welsh Stick or Cwstom are also all proper nouns? Or do we just follow the individual sources? Martinevans123 ( talk) 07:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Welsh Not n. (also Welsh knot, Welsh note) now historical a token fastened around a child's neck as a punishment for speaking Welsh (cf. earlier Welsh lump n. (b)).
Welsh lump n. †(a) a large brick capable of withstanding intense heat, used esp. to line furnaces and fireplaces; a large firebrick (obsolete); (b) a heavy weight fastened to a child's neck as a punishment for speaking Welsh (now historical and rare); cf. Welsh Not n.
Welsh Not n. (also Welsh knot, Welsh note) now historical a token fastened around a child's neck as a punishment for speaking Welsh (cf. earlier Welsh lump n. (b)).
[The precise origin of the construction is unclear, but it is likely to be a shortening of a full sentence such as ‘Welsh must not be spoken’ (compare quot. 1844). In form Welsh knot by association with the homophonous knot n.1; in form Welsh note by association with note n.2 I.]."First example given is: "1844 Rep. Commissioners Inq. S. Wales 102 in Parl. Papers XVI. 7: "he schoolmaster in my parish.., amongst the common Welsh people has a little toy on a little bit of wood, and on the wood is written, ‘Welsh not’; that is to say, they must not speak Welsh; it is a mark... The rule of the school is..that..if anybody speaks a word of Welsh he is to have the Welsh mark, which he is to carry about his neck.]" Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
... and there were campaigns over the language's lack of status in schools, particularly over the use of the Welsh Not(e). Welsh was included in the curriculum after 1889..." -- DeFacto ( talk). 11:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The expression "intermediate education" means a course of education which does not consist chiefly of elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but which includes instruction in Latin, Greek, the Welsh and English language and literature, modern languages, mathematics, natural and applied science, or in some of such studies, and generally in the higher branches of knowledge, but nothing in this Act shall prevent the establishment of scholarships in higher or other elementary schools;" There's a analysis of the Act here. Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Who here is actually reading the history, who here is tweaking the article?
New format (very rough may change)...
Summary
History
Examples of use for illustration (contemporary reports only)
I hate the sidebars, they break up the narrative & lack context
lots of rubbish in current article
Pointing to a 540 page book isn't a source.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto ( talk). 08:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I see it there in your original edit. I think I filled it out correctly? I can see it in the pop up. The pop up isn’t very readable. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 08:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
DeFacto, Cheezypeaz I added page numbers to the reference to chapter 15 of The Welsh Language and Its Social Domains, but I didn't remove the pages needed tags because I thought more specific page numbers would still be useful. TSventon ( talk) 12:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
DeFacto, TSventon, Martinevans123
https://microform.digital/map/guides/R97305.pdf
please add more! Cheezypeaz ( talk) 22:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Cheezypeaz, DeFacto, Martinevans123, would anybody be interested in taking a look at the History of the Welsh language article, which has been tagged as needing additional citations since 2015. The 19th century section is poorly referenced and relevant to this article. TSventon ( talk) 17:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC).
I've been reading "The Welsh language and it's social domains".
There is no legislation "restricting" the use of the Welsh language except for the Act of Union.
The blog post it links too is wrong.
the blog says "Those who spoke Welsh would be prohibited from holding public office."
the act of union says...
"no Person or Persons that use the Welch Speech or Language, shall have or enjoy any manner Office or Fees within this Realm of England, Wales, or other the King's Dominion, upon Pain of forfeiting the same Offices or Fees, unless he or they use and exercise the English Speech or Language."
Historian John Davies says "English was to be the only language of the courts of Wales, and those using the Welsh language were not to receive public office in the territories of the king of England."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/periods/tudors_04.shtml
Which still tends to be misleading.
One aspect of the Act of Union upset a large number of people in Wales. The act stated that all people that were chosen to represent Wales as officials or Members of Parliament had to be able to speak English. It also stated that the law-courts in Wales had to use the English language.
https://spartacus-educational.com/TUDactunion.htm
much better. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 12:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Is the Welsh Not a corporal punishment - along with all these'? Defined as "physical punishment, such as caning or flogging" on Lexico. [1] In the article it says "the pupil in possession [of the Welsh Not] at the end of the day was subjected to corporal punishment or other penalty...", but that's not the same as saying it is a corporal punishment, is it? I've heard of children getting a beating for having cigarettes, their teacher's spectacles, dirty books, or chewing gum in their possession - are all those therefore corporal punishments too? -- DeFacto ( talk). 17:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
None of those obscure cherry-picked sources you cite declare that the 'Not' is a form of corporal punishment, they all portray it more as a way of selecting pupils for punishment, a bit like a marker or flag, or entry in a log of 'culprits'". Caning, whipping, beating, smacking are corporal punishments - labelling an individual is not. -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000 Lolz
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Welsh_Not&diff=next&oldid=1043566455
Cheezypeaz ( talk) 21:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Do we really need to use the verbatim quote of an editorialised comment on a BBC webpage to push a particular pov on the purpose of the Not?
Watch this earlier sequence of edits...
− | + | Its purpose was to encourage pupils not to speak Welsh |
− | Its purpose was to encourage pupils | + | Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh |
− | Its purpose was to encourage pupils | + | Its purpose was to encourage pupils not to speak Welsh |
− | Its purpose was to | + | Its purpose was to 'force Welsh children to speak English at school' |
Sure we could balance it with a verbatim quote from another article editorialising it the other way, but wouldn't it be better to accept the concise neutral wording resulting from edit 2 above - Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh
? --
DeFacto (
talk). 11:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@
DeFacto: -NO! Any desire by communities came later. Not much desire during the flogging period. On what do you base this assumption?
You're attempting to give child abuse a positive spin! Absolutely incredible! I never edit political stuff and have never come across such political pov on Wikipedia!
Here are the 10 first mentions of the Welsh Not on Google (check it yourself!). I searched for WHY was the WN used and couldn't find one single citation which says: 'Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh' - an incredible spin to the negative physical punishment given!
DeFacto is looking for 'neutral wording' on child abuse! He is trying to hide the fact that children were flogged. Is this neutrality or an editor's non neutral pov? The latter! Let Wikipedia speak freely of what happend and say it as it is. It's not up to DeFacto to decide, it's up to the sources. And here is what they say:
2. Guradian article by Dawn Foster: The Welsh language is not nearing extinction, but it needs to be put to use: 'the days of the Welsh Not, when schoolchildren who spoke Welsh had a wooden plaque hung around their neck, and were beaten daily from straying from English.'
3. Visit Wales website (a very neutral site!) by Charles Williams, author Broadcaster: the ‘Welsh not’, used to discourage 19th century schoolchildren from speaking Welsh.
4. Gweirydd Davies, Head of Welsh Language (Golley Slater): The Welsh Not was a practice (started around 1840-1940) where school children would be punished for speaking Welsh in school.
5. Article The role and importance of the Welsh language in Wales’s cultural independence within the United Kingdom by Sylvain Scaglia, UNIVERSITE DU SUD TOULON-VAR FACULTE DES LETTRES ET SCIENCES HUMAINES MASTER RECHERCHE : CIVILISATIONS CONTEMPORAINES ET COMPAREES: 'What will later be called the Welsh Not was a rule – even though not official – created to discourage children from speaking Welsh. Purpose / use: to discourage children from speaking Welsh
6. RCAHMW: 'The Welsh not was a means of forcing Welsh children to speak English at school during the 19th Century.'
Purpose / use: forcing Welsh children to speak English
7. [
http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/6710/ The Role of Welsh-language Journalism in Shaping the Construction of Welsh Identity and the National Character of Wales; PhD thesis 2017, by Robert Glyn Môn Hughes: 'Children were punished for speaking Welsh' in schools.'
Purpose / use: Children were punished for speaking Welsh
8.
Regressive History and the Rights of Welsh Speakers: Does History Matter? by Gwenllian Lansdown (Cardiff University):
'The ‘Welsh Not' is another example of the language's marginalisation and a powerful symbol of English oppression. Although this was never a government policy, children who spoke the language in school (particularly so in West Wales) were castigated for so doing and forced to wear a piece of wood with the words ‘Welsh Not' carved into it.'
Purpose / use: Children castigated ... and forced to wear the WN
An attempt to balance the BBC website with you own pov is not on and should be reported to Jimmy Wales asap. Monsyn ( talk) 11:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd
I'm still reading my new books but I don't think I'll find anything that drastically changes my current understanding...
We should be reading Welsh history written by historians. I have...
The current wikipedia articles - both for the Welsh Not and the Blue Books - seem to rely on too much stuff that doesn't come from reliable sources. I'm still reading my new Welsh history books so I will do some more updates later. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 14:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't have access to a copy of the "Gwyddoniadur Cymru" source, so could someone who does, please confirm whether it supports any of the assertions it's been added against in this edit by Llywelyn2000 please. I have seen the English version of the same book, "The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales", and all it says is "It had parallels in other countries, such as Ireland, Brittany and Kenya". If that is the case in the Welsh version, then it adds nothing and is an redundant. -- DeFacto ( talk). 09:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
where editors can discuss improvements to articles or other Wikipedia pages". I'd have though that after "434,473 edits", you would have appreciated that. Have you come across the WP:AGF guideline before? -- DeFacto ( talk). 19:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
History
Welsh schools and the English language.
In 1850 all schools in Wales taught English. The learning of English was demanded by the public, parents, teachers & schools. It was seen as the language of advancement, commerce, trade and science. The teaching of Welsh was left to Sunday schools.
The vast majority of the schools did not just teach English but also used English for all of their lessons. Some schools banned the use of Welsh in the classroom & playground in an attempt to force children to use and become proficient in English.
The government provided partial grants for building new schools for poor children but was otherwise uninvolved in teaching the nation’s children, it did not require children to go to school and was not involved in the running of schools.
Parents who wanted their children to go to school had to pay for it. Schools were set up and run by religious organisations, charities, or private businesses.
The 1847 educational report into Welsh schools found that the quality of schools was awful. Poor buildings, untrained teachers & an almost complete absence of suitable books. Many children did not go to school at all and those that did were often absent. The report found that some schools were attempting to teach English without translating from Welsh and as a result the children did not know the meaning of the words they were learning. They also came across one school using a Welsh Not. The report condemned its use as educational nonsense and something that would teach children to be dishonest.
The report was controversial because of the comments it made about Welsh society and, to a lesser degree, the comments it made about the Welsh language. However its support for the teaching of English in Wales was agreed with by the Welsh public.
Schools in parts of England were as bad.
The 1870 England and Wales education act created locally elected school boards who were tasked to supervise schools and ensure there were enough school places for their local children. They were also given the power to pass local laws to force children to go to school. The Act did not specify what subjects to teach or what language to use when teaching.
The Welsh Not
The Welsh Not was a token normally made of wood which was given to a child caught speaking Welsh in school. It would be passed to the next child caught speaking Welsh. The child still holding the token at the end of the day, or week, might be punished, detention and ‘flogging’ are mentioned in contemporary accounts.
How many schools used this device is unknown. Not all schools banned the use of Welsh.
Contemporary descriptions
““The school master in my parish, for instance, amongst the common Welsh people has a little toy on a little bit of wood, and on the wood is written “Welsh not” that is to say they must not speak Welsh; it is a mark, and they pass this mark one to another. The rule of the school is that there is no Welsh to be spoken in the school; if anybody speaks a word of Welsh he is to have the Welsh mark, which he is to carry about his neck, or to hold it in his hand. There is the greatest anxiety to catch one another speaking Welsh, and there is a cry out immediately, “Welsh not”.” November 1843. Inquiry for South Wales. Reverend R. Bowen Jones.
“My attention was attracted to a piece of wood, suspended by a string round a boy’s neck, and on the wood were the words “Welsh stick”.This I was told was a stigma for speaking Welsh. But in fact his only alternative was to speak Welsh or to say nothing. He did not understand English, and there is no systematic exercise in interpretation. The Welsh stick, or Welsh, as it’s sometimes called, is given too any pupil who is overheard speaking Welsh, and may be transferred by him to any schoolfellow whom he hears committing a similar offence. It is thus passed from one another until the close of the week, when the pupil in who’s possession the Welsh is found is punished by flogging. Among other injurious effects, this custom has been found to lead children to visit stealthily the houses of their schoolfellows for the purposes of detecting those who speak Welsh to their parents, and transferring to them the punishment due to themselves” Reports of the commissioners of inquiry into the state of education in Wales 1848 Page 452
"Endeavoured to compel the children to converse in English by means of a piece of wood. Offenders to be shut in after school hours.” Extract from the Llansantffraid Board School log book. 8 February 1870.[1]
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cheezypeaz (
talk •
contribs) 10:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
References
DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb (You have all been added simply because you have recently been active)
1) The ONLY sources of history we should be using here are historians.
2) Statements by historians are FACTS unless there is a dispute between historians.
3) Blog posts by journalists, speeches by politicians should NOT appear on this page as sources of history. If they aren't relevant then they need to be deleted as cruft.
4) Academic papers which are not published in history journals should NOT appear in this article as sources of history. Reason: They have not been reviewed by other historians and are therefore not reliable.
5) I'm happy with some primary sources being used so long as they are only used to illustrate what historians have already stated.
6) The "mother was a lively child" should be deleted as it's not contemporary.
7) I can't believe there is a dispute about the purpose of the welsh not.
Martin Johnes. Welsh historian Professor of History at Swansea university:
Throughtout his whole discussion of the Welsh Not he's talking about teaching English. It's perverse to pretend the Welsh Not wasn't about teaching English. Take this statement...
"Moreover, many teachers recognised that punishing children for speaking Welsh did not actually work in helping them with their English"
8) Does anyone disagree with this statement: "Some schools banned the use of Welsh in the classroom and playground in an attempt to force children to use and become proficient in English." ?
If you disagree with any of the above please let me know. I will be basing my future edits on the above criteria. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 19:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb (If you wish to be removed from this notification please tell me)
4) Academic papers which are not published in history journals should NOT appear in this article as sources of history. Reason: They have not been reviewed by historians and are therefore not reliable.
I intend to delete the following...
a) Susan E. Pitchford (Part time sociology lecturer, Liberal Studies Program, University of Washington Bothell Campus) has claimed in an ethnic tourism paper...
b) Pritchard and Morgan (both from the School of Hospitality, Leisure & Tourism, University of Wales Institute) add, in a tourism management paper...
Reason for deletion: They are NOT historians and the papers have NOT been published in history journals and so cannot be relied on for peer review by historians.
This is not a call for consensus. It's a chance for you to tell me how wrong I am.
I will delete them in 24 hours time. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 17:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I have deleted the content discussed above Cheezypeaz ( talk) 16:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld. Editor Cell Danwydd has reinstated the content discussed above and also removed the text that describes the qualifications of the people making the statements, what types of papers they are and where they were published. The description of their edit is "Reinstate facts in academic papers which have been censored by vandalism". Cell Danwydd Please engage with the arguments above and also please explain why you think my edit was vandalism. Thanks Cheezypeaz
My edit to remove the content: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1044890848&oldid=1044637331
Cell Danwydd edit to reinstate https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1044941496&oldid=1044909630
DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld. Cell Danwydd Repeating notification because I didn't sign it properly. I keep doing that grrrr. Please see my response above. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 12:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted Cell Danwydd change and asked that they address the changes here Cheezypeaz ( talk) 13:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Cheezypeaz and DeFacto's contributions to this talk page, and to much of the article are on the verge of vandalism. A lot of political gas. Please stop it both of you. Cell Danwydd ( talk) 21:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links". I asked for them above, it is your duty to supply them in support of your words. Diffs are easy, why wouldn't you supply them if you are behaving in good faith here? -- DeFacto ( talk). 18:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article has been hijacked by Cheesy and DeFacto. I agree with Cell Danwydd. Monsyn ( talk) 07:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld (If you wish to be removed from this notification please tell me)
From the Department of "You Didn't See That Coming"
Currently we have...
"Some Welsh people have described the use of the Welsh Not as a 'weapon to create cultural genocide', others welcomed the use of it because they believed that it was a method which helped children learn English.[5]"
I don't have access to this book and it seems an odd thing for an encyclopedia to say.
So what does the "The Welsh Academy encyclopaedia of Wales" Say about "cultural genocide"?
Thanks! Cheezypeaz ( talk) 18:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Very strong keep. Your non-neutral pov is equally as strong, to question the use of cultural genocide by an academic encyclopaedia. Read: WP:BIAS. Cell Danwydd ( talk) 10:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Currently the entry contains the following…
“The Education Act of 1870 called for education to be taught through the medium of English, and not through the medium of Welsh. This reinforced the class differences originally set within the Act of Union 1536, with the English language being linked to success academically and the Welsh language being seen as the opposite; spoken by those who are uneducated and lower class.”
The act does NOT call for education to be taught through the medium of English.
This is what the act does do… “It made provision for the elementary education of all children aged 5-13, and established school boards to oversee and complete the network of schools and to bring them all under some form of supervision.”
The text of the act can be read here (note the website domain name is misleading) http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/acts/1870-elementary-education-act.html
I will delete the cited text. It’s factually incorrect & makes unsourced claims.
Cheezypeaz ( talk) 08:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
In the Effects section we have...
"The practice and wider social changes of the nineteenth and the beginning of the 20th century saw many Welsh speakers come to view the speaking of Welsh as a disadvantage.[3]"
The only supporting statement in the linked reference seems to be this sentence. (Note: There were three commissioners and they didn't speak Welsh.)
"The commissioners saw the Welsh language as a drawback and noted that the moral and material condition of the people would only improve with the introduction of English."
Also in the Effects section we have...
"Although no direct correlation can be made to use of the Welsh Not and the decline of those speaking Welsh, the decline of its use well into the 19th and 20th century and the long term stigma attached to the use of the language, clearly shows it had an effect.[15"]"
The linked article (which is very interesting in itself) does not support the claims in this sentence. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 11:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Cheezypeaz, Kleuske, Hogyncymru, Mjroots, Martinevans123, Girth Summit, I believe that the content of the Language policy section whould be better covered in its own article or the History of the Welsh language article. The section should be removed from the article because
List of references
|
---|
References
|
@ TSventon:@ Martinevans123:@ Hogyncymru:
I'm going to delete the entire Effects section. Nothing worth saving. 1) Assertions with sources that don't back them up. 2) Boring discussion of unrelated statistics. 3) A weak admission at the end that everything written in this section was wrong. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 17:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Cheezypeaz: I think you're misunderstanding the whole reason of discussion pages; to get to the point, this is the 3rd title you've published now outlining your dissatisfaction with the page, in future could you collect all your issues and compile them into one so that it doesn't become long-winded and confusing, how are people expected to follow your arguments if they keep migrating? like mentioned in earlier, these were indeed spoken within Westminsters and they were published under their parliamentary papers, this in term would be a policy, the difference between a policy and and act are different;
Policy: means goals or objectives set by the governments to achieve.
Act: means law i,e. any law is made on any particular matter by the parliament or state legislatures, after making of law that particular matter is regulated by that law.
As for you thinking certain pieces of the article is 'boring' or long-winded.. this is for readers to decide, I believe that it all conveys a step-by-step process of the control of the language under the church and state.. Hogyncymru ( talk) 17:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Cheezypeaz: PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE LARGE CHUNKS OF THE SITE, this is a further warning.. the reason for Talk is to resolve issues, not to add your opinion and to vandalise as you see fit.. you MUST resolve the issues first before taking drastic action!. Hogyncymru ( talk) 17:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree the section should be removed. Para 1. The BBC article goes out of it's way to downplay the effects of 'The Not' yet it is used to justify an entire paragraph about the Welsh Language being stigmatised, the BBC article does not even imply that this stigamtisation was in any way an effect of the 'Welsh Not', only that it existed. Para 2 is at least honest "no direct correlation can be made to use of the Welsh Not and the decline of those speaking Welsh,"... so why is the following text in a section title 'Effects' "Clearly shows it had an effect" looks like WP:SYNTH to me? Para 3 onwards are just about the decline of the welsh language, with no reference whatsoever to the subject of the article. JeffUK ( talk) 17:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I have no issue with people arguing their case as to why parts of the site should be seen as.. but to have someone that isn't even a registered user on this site decide things because he or she dislikes it because it portrays an 'ugly' view on Westminster is absurd, they cannot simply go onto a rampage deleting most of the page just because they feel they are wronged without fist coming to a rational conclusion.. For example, if something sounds wrong or doesn't seem right, then let someone correct that part first before the whole site is butchered! if there's sources lacking.. why not add (citation needed) next to a claim?, if you think something doesn't sound correct.. why not edit it to make it sound better?, this is why talk exists, to come to a rational conclusion, to have most of the editors come to a level-ground and agree to meet people half-way and to better the site so that it is informal and correct. If someone's already warned, why are they then going against that and going against everyone? that doesn't sound like a rational person to me, this seems like someone who's got a vendetta, someone who is strongly invested in covering up the past.. this is why an user with a red name nor ip number should not be editing this page.. especially that it's a sore subject in Welsh culture. Hogyncymru ( talk) 18:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Drmies: he's done it again.. I saw that another user threatened people with edit warring with a ban.. I really don't want this to happen, there is no final consensus even though he claims there is. Hogyncymru ( talk) 22:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for everyone's time giving their opinion, I know I'm not really suppose to delete my old addition, but please, I beg you, just leave it be, I started something extra which I did not have the mental energy to carry on, I have to be real, It's taken a tole on my mental health, I just can't deal with the extra arguments, I'm done, my contribution to the discussion has ended, if you resurrect it, please note that it will push me over the edge.. I'm leaving this here to say thank you for everyone's contribution to the discussions, I was wrong in some instances and this is something I have realised, editors are here to make a difference, so carry on what you do, all the best. Hogyncymru ( talk) 17:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
If Welsh Not is a proper noun, then surely Welsh Knot, Welsh Note, Welsh Lump, Welsh Stick or Cwstom are also all proper nouns? Or do we just follow the individual sources? Martinevans123 ( talk) 07:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Welsh Not n. (also Welsh knot, Welsh note) now historical a token fastened around a child's neck as a punishment for speaking Welsh (cf. earlier Welsh lump n. (b)).
Welsh lump n. †(a) a large brick capable of withstanding intense heat, used esp. to line furnaces and fireplaces; a large firebrick (obsolete); (b) a heavy weight fastened to a child's neck as a punishment for speaking Welsh (now historical and rare); cf. Welsh Not n.
Welsh Not n. (also Welsh knot, Welsh note) now historical a token fastened around a child's neck as a punishment for speaking Welsh (cf. earlier Welsh lump n. (b)).
[The precise origin of the construction is unclear, but it is likely to be a shortening of a full sentence such as ‘Welsh must not be spoken’ (compare quot. 1844). In form Welsh knot by association with the homophonous knot n.1; in form Welsh note by association with note n.2 I.]."First example given is: "1844 Rep. Commissioners Inq. S. Wales 102 in Parl. Papers XVI. 7: "he schoolmaster in my parish.., amongst the common Welsh people has a little toy on a little bit of wood, and on the wood is written, ‘Welsh not’; that is to say, they must not speak Welsh; it is a mark... The rule of the school is..that..if anybody speaks a word of Welsh he is to have the Welsh mark, which he is to carry about his neck.]" Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
... and there were campaigns over the language's lack of status in schools, particularly over the use of the Welsh Not(e). Welsh was included in the curriculum after 1889..." -- DeFacto ( talk). 11:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The expression "intermediate education" means a course of education which does not consist chiefly of elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but which includes instruction in Latin, Greek, the Welsh and English language and literature, modern languages, mathematics, natural and applied science, or in some of such studies, and generally in the higher branches of knowledge, but nothing in this Act shall prevent the establishment of scholarships in higher or other elementary schools;" There's a analysis of the Act here. Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Who here is actually reading the history, who here is tweaking the article?
New format (very rough may change)...
Summary
History
Examples of use for illustration (contemporary reports only)
I hate the sidebars, they break up the narrative & lack context
lots of rubbish in current article
Pointing to a 540 page book isn't a source.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto ( talk). 08:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I see it there in your original edit. I think I filled it out correctly? I can see it in the pop up. The pop up isn’t very readable. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 08:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
DeFacto, Cheezypeaz I added page numbers to the reference to chapter 15 of The Welsh Language and Its Social Domains, but I didn't remove the pages needed tags because I thought more specific page numbers would still be useful. TSventon ( talk) 12:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
DeFacto, TSventon, Martinevans123
https://microform.digital/map/guides/R97305.pdf
please add more! Cheezypeaz ( talk) 22:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Cheezypeaz, DeFacto, Martinevans123, would anybody be interested in taking a look at the History of the Welsh language article, which has been tagged as needing additional citations since 2015. The 19th century section is poorly referenced and relevant to this article. TSventon ( talk) 17:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC).
I've been reading "The Welsh language and it's social domains".
There is no legislation "restricting" the use of the Welsh language except for the Act of Union.
The blog post it links too is wrong.
the blog says "Those who spoke Welsh would be prohibited from holding public office."
the act of union says...
"no Person or Persons that use the Welch Speech or Language, shall have or enjoy any manner Office or Fees within this Realm of England, Wales, or other the King's Dominion, upon Pain of forfeiting the same Offices or Fees, unless he or they use and exercise the English Speech or Language."
Historian John Davies says "English was to be the only language of the courts of Wales, and those using the Welsh language were not to receive public office in the territories of the king of England."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/periods/tudors_04.shtml
Which still tends to be misleading.
One aspect of the Act of Union upset a large number of people in Wales. The act stated that all people that were chosen to represent Wales as officials or Members of Parliament had to be able to speak English. It also stated that the law-courts in Wales had to use the English language.
https://spartacus-educational.com/TUDactunion.htm
much better. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 12:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Is the Welsh Not a corporal punishment - along with all these'? Defined as "physical punishment, such as caning or flogging" on Lexico. [1] In the article it says "the pupil in possession [of the Welsh Not] at the end of the day was subjected to corporal punishment or other penalty...", but that's not the same as saying it is a corporal punishment, is it? I've heard of children getting a beating for having cigarettes, their teacher's spectacles, dirty books, or chewing gum in their possession - are all those therefore corporal punishments too? -- DeFacto ( talk). 17:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
None of those obscure cherry-picked sources you cite declare that the 'Not' is a form of corporal punishment, they all portray it more as a way of selecting pupils for punishment, a bit like a marker or flag, or entry in a log of 'culprits'". Caning, whipping, beating, smacking are corporal punishments - labelling an individual is not. -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000 Lolz
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Welsh_Not&diff=next&oldid=1043566455
Cheezypeaz ( talk) 21:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Do we really need to use the verbatim quote of an editorialised comment on a BBC webpage to push a particular pov on the purpose of the Not?
Watch this earlier sequence of edits...
− | + | Its purpose was to encourage pupils not to speak Welsh |
− | Its purpose was to encourage pupils | + | Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh |
− | Its purpose was to encourage pupils | + | Its purpose was to encourage pupils not to speak Welsh |
− | Its purpose was to | + | Its purpose was to 'force Welsh children to speak English at school' |
Sure we could balance it with a verbatim quote from another article editorialising it the other way, but wouldn't it be better to accept the concise neutral wording resulting from edit 2 above - Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh
? --
DeFacto (
talk). 11:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@
DeFacto: -NO! Any desire by communities came later. Not much desire during the flogging period. On what do you base this assumption?
You're attempting to give child abuse a positive spin! Absolutely incredible! I never edit political stuff and have never come across such political pov on Wikipedia!
Here are the 10 first mentions of the Welsh Not on Google (check it yourself!). I searched for WHY was the WN used and couldn't find one single citation which says: 'Its purpose was to encourage pupils to speak English rather than Welsh' - an incredible spin to the negative physical punishment given!
DeFacto is looking for 'neutral wording' on child abuse! He is trying to hide the fact that children were flogged. Is this neutrality or an editor's non neutral pov? The latter! Let Wikipedia speak freely of what happend and say it as it is. It's not up to DeFacto to decide, it's up to the sources. And here is what they say:
2. Guradian article by Dawn Foster: The Welsh language is not nearing extinction, but it needs to be put to use: 'the days of the Welsh Not, when schoolchildren who spoke Welsh had a wooden plaque hung around their neck, and were beaten daily from straying from English.'
3. Visit Wales website (a very neutral site!) by Charles Williams, author Broadcaster: the ‘Welsh not’, used to discourage 19th century schoolchildren from speaking Welsh.
4. Gweirydd Davies, Head of Welsh Language (Golley Slater): The Welsh Not was a practice (started around 1840-1940) where school children would be punished for speaking Welsh in school.
5. Article The role and importance of the Welsh language in Wales’s cultural independence within the United Kingdom by Sylvain Scaglia, UNIVERSITE DU SUD TOULON-VAR FACULTE DES LETTRES ET SCIENCES HUMAINES MASTER RECHERCHE : CIVILISATIONS CONTEMPORAINES ET COMPAREES: 'What will later be called the Welsh Not was a rule – even though not official – created to discourage children from speaking Welsh. Purpose / use: to discourage children from speaking Welsh
6. RCAHMW: 'The Welsh not was a means of forcing Welsh children to speak English at school during the 19th Century.'
Purpose / use: forcing Welsh children to speak English
7. [
http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/6710/ The Role of Welsh-language Journalism in Shaping the Construction of Welsh Identity and the National Character of Wales; PhD thesis 2017, by Robert Glyn Môn Hughes: 'Children were punished for speaking Welsh' in schools.'
Purpose / use: Children were punished for speaking Welsh
8.
Regressive History and the Rights of Welsh Speakers: Does History Matter? by Gwenllian Lansdown (Cardiff University):
'The ‘Welsh Not' is another example of the language's marginalisation and a powerful symbol of English oppression. Although this was never a government policy, children who spoke the language in school (particularly so in West Wales) were castigated for so doing and forced to wear a piece of wood with the words ‘Welsh Not' carved into it.'
Purpose / use: Children castigated ... and forced to wear the WN
An attempt to balance the BBC website with you own pov is not on and should be reported to Jimmy Wales asap. Monsyn ( talk) 11:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd
I'm still reading my new books but I don't think I'll find anything that drastically changes my current understanding...
We should be reading Welsh history written by historians. I have...
The current wikipedia articles - both for the Welsh Not and the Blue Books - seem to rely on too much stuff that doesn't come from reliable sources. I'm still reading my new Welsh history books so I will do some more updates later. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 14:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't have access to a copy of the "Gwyddoniadur Cymru" source, so could someone who does, please confirm whether it supports any of the assertions it's been added against in this edit by Llywelyn2000 please. I have seen the English version of the same book, "The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales", and all it says is "It had parallels in other countries, such as Ireland, Brittany and Kenya". If that is the case in the Welsh version, then it adds nothing and is an redundant. -- DeFacto ( talk). 09:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
where editors can discuss improvements to articles or other Wikipedia pages". I'd have though that after "434,473 edits", you would have appreciated that. Have you come across the WP:AGF guideline before? -- DeFacto ( talk). 19:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
History
Welsh schools and the English language.
In 1850 all schools in Wales taught English. The learning of English was demanded by the public, parents, teachers & schools. It was seen as the language of advancement, commerce, trade and science. The teaching of Welsh was left to Sunday schools.
The vast majority of the schools did not just teach English but also used English for all of their lessons. Some schools banned the use of Welsh in the classroom & playground in an attempt to force children to use and become proficient in English.
The government provided partial grants for building new schools for poor children but was otherwise uninvolved in teaching the nation’s children, it did not require children to go to school and was not involved in the running of schools.
Parents who wanted their children to go to school had to pay for it. Schools were set up and run by religious organisations, charities, or private businesses.
The 1847 educational report into Welsh schools found that the quality of schools was awful. Poor buildings, untrained teachers & an almost complete absence of suitable books. Many children did not go to school at all and those that did were often absent. The report found that some schools were attempting to teach English without translating from Welsh and as a result the children did not know the meaning of the words they were learning. They also came across one school using a Welsh Not. The report condemned its use as educational nonsense and something that would teach children to be dishonest.
The report was controversial because of the comments it made about Welsh society and, to a lesser degree, the comments it made about the Welsh language. However its support for the teaching of English in Wales was agreed with by the Welsh public.
Schools in parts of England were as bad.
The 1870 England and Wales education act created locally elected school boards who were tasked to supervise schools and ensure there were enough school places for their local children. They were also given the power to pass local laws to force children to go to school. The Act did not specify what subjects to teach or what language to use when teaching.
The Welsh Not
The Welsh Not was a token normally made of wood which was given to a child caught speaking Welsh in school. It would be passed to the next child caught speaking Welsh. The child still holding the token at the end of the day, or week, might be punished, detention and ‘flogging’ are mentioned in contemporary accounts.
How many schools used this device is unknown. Not all schools banned the use of Welsh.
Contemporary descriptions
““The school master in my parish, for instance, amongst the common Welsh people has a little toy on a little bit of wood, and on the wood is written “Welsh not” that is to say they must not speak Welsh; it is a mark, and they pass this mark one to another. The rule of the school is that there is no Welsh to be spoken in the school; if anybody speaks a word of Welsh he is to have the Welsh mark, which he is to carry about his neck, or to hold it in his hand. There is the greatest anxiety to catch one another speaking Welsh, and there is a cry out immediately, “Welsh not”.” November 1843. Inquiry for South Wales. Reverend R. Bowen Jones.
“My attention was attracted to a piece of wood, suspended by a string round a boy’s neck, and on the wood were the words “Welsh stick”.This I was told was a stigma for speaking Welsh. But in fact his only alternative was to speak Welsh or to say nothing. He did not understand English, and there is no systematic exercise in interpretation. The Welsh stick, or Welsh, as it’s sometimes called, is given too any pupil who is overheard speaking Welsh, and may be transferred by him to any schoolfellow whom he hears committing a similar offence. It is thus passed from one another until the close of the week, when the pupil in who’s possession the Welsh is found is punished by flogging. Among other injurious effects, this custom has been found to lead children to visit stealthily the houses of their schoolfellows for the purposes of detecting those who speak Welsh to their parents, and transferring to them the punishment due to themselves” Reports of the commissioners of inquiry into the state of education in Wales 1848 Page 452
"Endeavoured to compel the children to converse in English by means of a piece of wood. Offenders to be shut in after school hours.” Extract from the Llansantffraid Board School log book. 8 February 1870.[1]
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cheezypeaz (
talk •
contribs) 10:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
References
DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb (You have all been added simply because you have recently been active)
1) The ONLY sources of history we should be using here are historians.
2) Statements by historians are FACTS unless there is a dispute between historians.
3) Blog posts by journalists, speeches by politicians should NOT appear on this page as sources of history. If they aren't relevant then they need to be deleted as cruft.
4) Academic papers which are not published in history journals should NOT appear in this article as sources of history. Reason: They have not been reviewed by other historians and are therefore not reliable.
5) I'm happy with some primary sources being used so long as they are only used to illustrate what historians have already stated.
6) The "mother was a lively child" should be deleted as it's not contemporary.
7) I can't believe there is a dispute about the purpose of the welsh not.
Martin Johnes. Welsh historian Professor of History at Swansea university:
Throughtout his whole discussion of the Welsh Not he's talking about teaching English. It's perverse to pretend the Welsh Not wasn't about teaching English. Take this statement...
"Moreover, many teachers recognised that punishing children for speaking Welsh did not actually work in helping them with their English"
8) Does anyone disagree with this statement: "Some schools banned the use of Welsh in the classroom and playground in an attempt to force children to use and become proficient in English." ?
If you disagree with any of the above please let me know. I will be basing my future edits on the above criteria. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 19:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb (If you wish to be removed from this notification please tell me)
4) Academic papers which are not published in history journals should NOT appear in this article as sources of history. Reason: They have not been reviewed by historians and are therefore not reliable.
I intend to delete the following...
a) Susan E. Pitchford (Part time sociology lecturer, Liberal Studies Program, University of Washington Bothell Campus) has claimed in an ethnic tourism paper...
b) Pritchard and Morgan (both from the School of Hospitality, Leisure & Tourism, University of Wales Institute) add, in a tourism management paper...
Reason for deletion: They are NOT historians and the papers have NOT been published in history journals and so cannot be relied on for peer review by historians.
This is not a call for consensus. It's a chance for you to tell me how wrong I am.
I will delete them in 24 hours time. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 17:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I have deleted the content discussed above Cheezypeaz ( talk) 16:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld. Editor Cell Danwydd has reinstated the content discussed above and also removed the text that describes the qualifications of the people making the statements, what types of papers they are and where they were published. The description of their edit is "Reinstate facts in academic papers which have been censored by vandalism". Cell Danwydd Please engage with the arguments above and also please explain why you think my edit was vandalism. Thanks Cheezypeaz
My edit to remove the content: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1044890848&oldid=1044637331
Cell Danwydd edit to reinstate https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Welsh_Not&diff=1044941496&oldid=1044909630
DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld. Cell Danwydd Repeating notification because I didn't sign it properly. I keep doing that grrrr. Please see my response above. Cheezypeaz ( talk) 12:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted Cell Danwydd change and asked that they address the changes here Cheezypeaz ( talk) 13:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Cheezypeaz and DeFacto's contributions to this talk page, and to much of the article are on the verge of vandalism. A lot of political gas. Please stop it both of you. Cell Danwydd ( talk) 21:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links". I asked for them above, it is your duty to supply them in support of your words. Diffs are easy, why wouldn't you supply them if you are behaving in good faith here? -- DeFacto ( talk). 18:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article has been hijacked by Cheesy and DeFacto. I agree with Cell Danwydd. Monsyn ( talk) 07:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
DeFacto, Martinevans123, Monsyn, Cell Danwydd , TSventon, Llywelyn2000, Deb, Llwyld (If you wish to be removed from this notification please tell me)
From the Department of "You Didn't See That Coming"
Currently we have...
"Some Welsh people have described the use of the Welsh Not as a 'weapon to create cultural genocide', others welcomed the use of it because they believed that it was a method which helped children learn English.[5]"
I don't have access to this book and it seems an odd thing for an encyclopedia to say.
So what does the "The Welsh Academy encyclopaedia of Wales" Say about "cultural genocide"?
Thanks! Cheezypeaz ( talk) 18:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Very strong keep. Your non-neutral pov is equally as strong, to question the use of cultural genocide by an academic encyclopaedia. Read: WP:BIAS. Cell Danwydd ( talk) 10:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)