Talk:Welsh people

• Archive 01: June 2005 - May 2006
• Archive 02: May 2006 - Feb 2007

Fact and reference check

The link to the 2006 US Census is broken.

Check it out, why do we need citations. Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. Alun 12:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Famous Welsh women for the picture header

As with most ethnic groups, there are two types of Welsh people: 'men' and 'women', each of whom make up 50%. Yet this article illustrates the Welsh with a picture of four men. I suggest the illustration needs a couple of women. If you had to choose two women to represent the Welsh, who would you choose? And which two men would you boot off - Lloyd George, Jones, Wallace or Everest? My personal choice would be Shirley Bassey and Catherine Zeta Jones, and I would boot off Jones and Everest for relative underachievement compared to the other two. I realize any selection will be totally arbitrary, but it's something that needs doing and it's an interesting thing to discuss. This list of Welsh people may be useful. Cop 633 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Only 100% Welsh people should be used

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

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

While it would be nice to have some women on there I don't think we should just slap them on there in the name of political correctness.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Showstopper87 (talk • contribs)

Also, Robert Owen should definitely be amongst the images as one of the founders of socialism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.154.217 (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have 8 famous welsh people

4 women and 4 men like every other ethnic group article (like irish people article).

Yes catherine zeta jones and shirley bassey are good choices.

OK, so this requires some decisions. Who else will be there? When I discussed this idea on the English people page, we eventually used this structure:

1. Medieval man

2. Renaissance man

3. 19th/early 20th century man

4. Modern man

5. Medieval woman

6. Renaissance woman

7. 19th/early 20th century woman

8. Modern woman

This works well because you get a sense of the history and diversity of the group in question. Here are some ideas from me (but I'm not Welsh, or very knowledgable about Wales, so they're just intended as stimuli to discussion)

1. Medieval man: Owain Glendower

2. Renaissance man - ??

3. Nineteenth century man - David Lloyd George

4. Modern man - Tom Jones

5. Medieval woman - ??

6. Renaissance woman - ??

7. Nineteenth century woman - ??

8. Modern woman - Catherine Zeta Jones

Any ideas? Cop 663 17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Would William Morgan count as Renaissance? A bit iffy, I admit, but he is a very significant figure who made a massive contribution to the Welsh language and Welsh nation. I would also suggest Anthony Hopkins as a more unambiguously good example of a modern Welshman (I like Tom Jones, but many don't). Though I suppose his Welshness is now ambiguous – then there's always Ioan Gruffudd, or Rhys Ifans, or Russell T. Davies. Lloyd George is obviously a good example, despite his living into the last century. I'll have a think about pre-twentieth-century women. They're always, sadly, harder. garik 21:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While I think about it, Steve Jones is also a very good example of a modern Welshman. We don't necessarily want both our modern Welsh people to be entertainers. garik 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok fine, keep 4 old age welsh people and have 4 modern welsh people.

steve jones the rugby player or athlete do you mean btw?

4 modern welsh people could be: steve jones catherine zeta jones tom jones and either iona gruffud or rhysifans? (and it doesnt have to be split evenly on gender, none of the other articles do, we should only include people based on their famousness, we dont include all people with big ear lobes either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.192.228 (talk • contribs)

Actually, I was thinking about the geneticist. He's also the Telegraph science correspondent. Maybe not terribly iconic for most people though, I admit. garik 13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah..I just made a collage of the pics on the article page. This was done for no real reason except that the pics of Welsh people in this article have been a bit untidy for quite some time. I just tidies them up. I didn't realise there was a discussion going on here. I was not trying to preempt anything. I called the image Image:pobol.png, when this discussion is finished maybe the a new image can replace the pobol.png image I created just to keep everything neat and tidy? All the best. Alun 18:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Are Welsh people more likely to have brown eyes than the rest of the UK people?

Just wondering if there's any truth to this. They seem to sometimes have a slightly darker complexion than people from the rest of the UK.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See here

Passing of the Great Race

The map looks suspect to me. The terms used look as though it were out of the 1930s, with all of the racial overtones that the climate then held. There is DNA evidence suggesting that the Welsh and Picts and Irish had a strong connection with the Basque people.

This quote is from the Irish History page, however simular results were found in Wales and Scotland.

The Y-chromosomes of the modern Irish, characterized by the M343 mutation that defines the R1b Haplogroup (dominant, in variant degrees, from Iberia to Scandinavia), are closely related to those of Iberian population (Portugal and Spain), particularly those of the Basques, which has led some anthropologists to surmise that the Basques are a remnant of the pre-Indo-European population of western Europe, and that the pre-Celtic language (or languages) of Ireland may have been related to Euskara, the Basque tongue

Additionally, there is known trade routes between Greece and Wales/Cornwall, and between Wales/Ireland/Western Scotland with the northern coast of Iberia. Interestingly, I have read where some fokelore connect the Greeks with the Tuatha Dé Danann.

I would be careful with that map though, reliance on it I mean. The terms look suspect and potentially in error.Drachenfyre (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Only Nazi's believe in such things as the Alpine, Nordic and Mediteranean "races" of Europe. "The Passing of the Great Race" was a racist book written by Madison Grant to promote his pseudoscientific eugenicist ideas, he wanted to murder everyone who he thought was genetically "inferior", which unsurprisingly meant anyone who he thought didn't look like him. Nice source. Y chromosomal distribution is clinal, all human groups on the Atlantic face of Europe have high proportions of R1b haplogroup. R1b is the dominant haplogroup in western Europe, with proportions decreasing as one moves east. Y chromosomes measure male-line descent, they do not measure ancestry. The quote from the Irish people article is suspect, the haplogroup R1b is characterised by the mutation M343 not the Y chromosomes of Irish men, otherwise the quote is saying that men from Ireland who do not have this mutation are not Irish people, which seems a bit odd. About 90% of Irish men belong to haplogroup R1b, which mean that one in ten do not. As for the question about Welsh people, it's simply irrelevant, John Beddoe claimed an index of "Negrescence", in which he measured the hair colour of people from different parts of Great Britain and Ireland. He found that people from western parts of the islands had somewhat darker hair than people from eastern and northern parts of the islands. People like Bedoe were racists and believed in racist ideas, Beddoe thought that African people were more stupid than "white" people, and that people from western parts of Great Britain and Ireland were closer to Africans due to their high "index of negresence". He believed these people belonged to a "celtic" race. Of course he was an "Anglo-Saxon" and therefore completely different and "intelligent". We should not confuse the racist ideas of previous generations with proper science. People in western parts of the islands may well have marginally darker hair and marginally more brown eyes than people in eastern parts, but you would hardly notice it, there are light and dark haired and blue and brown eyed people all of the islands. There is no great discontinuity and the differences that do exist are really quite small, they are not dramatic and one would not notice them unless one were to statistically analyse them. Alun (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Wales

If anyone can help, still needed is an article about the History of the Jews in Wales to complete the History of the Jews in Europe. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cumbric, Cumbria, Cymry

On the Cumbria page, it says "Saint Ninian, born about 360 AD, was almost certainly of Cumbrian origin and has strong associations with Ninekirks near Penrith. Not only did Ninian give his name to the place, he is believed to have had a hermitage in the caves of Isis Parlis overlooking the present church, which was originally dedicated to him. Earthworks in the area also give tantalising clues to an early monastery here. Ninian is often credited with the conversion of the Cymry to Christianity, despite its original introduction to the area by Romans." I assume that when it says "Cymry", the article is referring to speakers of the Cumbric language but if you search Wikipedia for Cymry it goes to the Welsh people page. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to disambiguate Cymry? The reasons that I haven't simply gone ahead and done it are (a) I don't know anything at all about the subject and (b) I'm aware that it could possibly be politically sensitive. (Northernhenge (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

Islam in Wales

An IP keeps adding Islam to the info box, but in Census 2001 Muslims represented less than 1% of the Welsh population. Far more people reported no religion.[5] Pondle (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Welsh People

Just something I read in the Western Mail today, if anyone is interested: Our Celtic roots lie in Spain and Portugul. 195.27.12.230 (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Domestic violence

OK, it happens is Wales. It happens elsewhere too, but how long do you think a section like this would last on English people for example? I'd give it about 30 seconds. This is just the usual anti-Welsh stuff, insinuating that domestic violence is a particular Welsh characteristic without giving any evidence that it is worse than elsewhere. 81.158.9.115 (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Doug Weller (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for removing this irrelevant section. Alun (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Welsh people

Discussion below copied from User talk:Drachenfyre via User talk:Ghmyrtle
You made an edit to the article Welsh People, changing the emphasis from the percentage of people in Wales who consider themselves to be Welsh, to the percentage of people born in Wales who consider themselves to be Welsh. The casual reader browsing the article would see that a massive majority of people in Wales (87%) and would be likely to see what they expect and move on (as in an article on French People, for example, they would expect to see a majority of people in France considering themselves to be French). Without seeing the 'small print' that says that a large minority of imigrants don't consider themselves to be Welsh at all. Incomers are an ongoing problem in Wales. The English colonists (the vast majority are from England) don't tend to integrate or learn the Welsh language and are obviously far more likely to be unionist, voting in favour of so called British issues rather than Welsh ones and further eroding the Welsh culture and way of life. Such issues need to be publicised. Would you mind having another look at your edit please? Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Without seeing the above comment, I've modified the text - your edit was very confusing. To an international readership, it seems to me that the fact that 87% of Welsh-born people living in Wales identify as Welsh (why isn't it 100%?) is much less interesting and important than the fact that 67% of all people living in Wales identify as Welsh. (And PS, note to Daicaregos - not all, or even perhaps most, English-born people living in Wales regard ourselves as "colonists", "unionists", or "eroding Welsh culture". In a lot of cases, our forefathers were born here anyway.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello to you Ghmyrtle and Daicaregos! Well, my reasoning is simple. The artical is about Welsh people, that is, the ethinic group and nation of those who consider themselves Welsh. From this perspective, even for an international reader, the primary percentage is the 87% of those born in Wales considering themselves as Welsh. The second figure is just that, secondary. If this was an artical about the Demography of Wales, then prehaps I would agree. The Demography of Wales page does need attention by the way, to bring it up to the Demography of Scotland, which is different from the Scottish people page. Should the info on the 30 percent of those not born in Wales be included? Yes, but that is secondary and should be treated as secondary info. And explained why there is such a high percentage of non-Welsh born residents residing in Wales. This would be a secondary paragraph, though in the opening paragraph I can see it as a secondary portion of the sentence or a second qualifying sentence.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair point. Although I still agree with Ghmyrtle that the 67% is a much more important fact. It sounds as though you don't consider those born outside Wales to be Welsh, even though 67% of those who were born outside Wales think of themselves as such, myself included (I was born London Welsh and moved back home to Wales). I've always considered genes to be the primary factor relating to nationality rather than location. (PS, note to Ghmyrtle - if the incomers integrate I wouldn't consider them to be colonists). Please reconsider. Cheers. Daicaregos (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dai, I was listing the facts, and no servay yet in England has asked a resident in England the question of weather or not one considers oneself Welsh or not. That was one of the key reasons the Scottish parliament demanded its inclusion in the Scottish census. I do not and am not making a value judgement as to weather or not those born outside of Wales are 'Welsh' or not. In point of fact, many of those who consider themselves Welsh were not. Saunders Lewis for instance was born in England. Its just that the question hasnt been answered. And I dont know if it will be on the next census (that appears in England). I do know that the census that will appear in Wales will now have the question as to ethnic idenity with a check box. This page is on ethnicity, of those that consider themselvs Welsh, not nationality, which has a legal difference in British Law. Though in American useage they can be interchanged somewhat♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There are three points here. Firstly, the proper interpretation of statistical survey results. My point still stands, that the 67% of all people in Wales identifying as Welsh is a more useful, interesting, and statistically significant point than a higher proportion of those born in Wales identifying as Welsh. The fact that a higher proportion of those born in Wales identify as Welsh than those living in Wales but not born there is not surprising, not interesting, and almost trivial - the same would apply in any area of the world where there is both an indigenous population and an immigrant population. That is simply a matter of proper statistical interpretation. The second point is whether any of the points arising from a single survey are worthy of being mentioned in the lead section of the article, given the guidance at WP:LEAD. I think it would be pretty hard to demonstrate that this survey is one of the most important aspects of the article (unless of course one was seeking to push a particular view, which I assume you are not). Finally, you mention the Scottish people article, which states categorically in the lead that "In modern use "Scottish people" or "Scots" refers to anyone born or living in Scotland. In another sense, it applies to people who are descended from the Scots and who identify ethnically as Scots." That seems excellent and wholly applicable to the Welsh situation, and I also suggest that for reasons of conformity a similar sentence be included in the lead of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

With respect, for this artical, I disagree with :

My point still stands, that the 67% of all people in Wales identifying as Welsh is a more useful, interesting, and statistically significant point than a higher proportion of those born in Wales identifying as Welsh.

and can back off quoting statistics in the opening paragraph, but not in the only servay which qualifies the question. In an artical speaking about Welsh people, this is the most important statistic. This is the proper interperation of those findings, all else ... for this particular artical... are secondary. I am willing to compromise on the opening paragraph, but not on the servay itself. The most important qutantitive figure is the 87%. I hope that you are not attepting to mitigate the number of those claiming Welsh ethnicity.

The fact that a higher proportion of those born in Wales identify as Welsh than those living in Wales but not born there is not surprising, not interesting, and almost trivial - the same would apply in any area of the world where there is both an indigenous population and an immigrant population.

But in point of fact it is interesting and factual, especially considering the prior section about the ethnicity section and controversy surrounding the absence of a Welsh ethnicity check-box. As stated, I can compromise given the lead, but not the section on the servay itself.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I'm not going to revert again on that particular point, even though I believe it makes the article difficult to understand and potentially misleading. However, I would welcome the input of others to help ensure that the article remains balanced and neutral. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Ghmyrtle and Dai I'm afraid. The general qualification for being Welsh is to have at least one Grandparent, being born in Wales is not necessary, but is sufficient to be Welsh. The whole holiday homes and colonisation issues in Anglesey and elsewhere is also significant. It seems to me that if the incomers attitudes are to be emphasised here then we need additional material around that. Honestly I think you would be a lot better reverting and opening the discussion here. You might also want to search out the number of people who identify themselves as Welsh but live in England and elsewhere. It could get complicated, best to keep it simple --Snowded TALK 21:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the statistics given, a higher proportion of people born in Wales consider themselves Welsh than those born outside Wales is indeed of great interest. In fact, if there was a similar survey for all the countries of the UK (is there?) it would be even more interesting. It could even explain the political make up of the country. Skipper 360 (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems odd to me. I would have thought it obvious and unworthy of much comment that someone born in Wales and living in Wales would be more likely to think of themselves as Welsh than someone who was born in, say, England who was living in Wales. But, anyway, someone can be Welsh under a whole variety of criteria without necessarily thinking of themselves as Welsh. I "think of myself" as British, personally (for a whole range of reasons too boring to go into), but (in my view) in fact I am Welsh because I live in Wales. It all depends on definitions, and one person's definition is no more worthy of expression in WP than any other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But that is just what this servay defines! It askes the question, and quantifies it by where you were born. The intriging statement is that when someone is asked if they consider themselves Welsh or British, and then where they were born, 87% answered Welsh, which is the ethnic group the artical is about! these follow simular results as the Scottish census when asking about ethnic idenity.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

When someone asks me "Are you Welsh?", I am equally content to give the answers "yes", "no", "don't know", or "it depends what you mean". The point is that there is no such thing as an unambiguous definition of nationality. Anyway, I'm a citizen of the world... (dreams on...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also British by choice, this does not mean I don't find the statistics interesting. Skipper 360 (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the Labour Force Servays are the only servays asking the question in Wales. None are asking in England as far as I know. I understand the point about holiday homes on Mon, I was the one that wrote that into this and other articals, lol. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, what I disagree with is the statement that you have to be born in Wales to be Welsh. Its about asking the question of your ethnic identity, which this 01 Labour Force servay asks. None other have, and we do not know who in England do consider themselves part of the Welsh ethnic group. What is interesting here is of those born in Wales, 87% consider themselves Welsh. We do not know because it hasnt been asked, how many in England consider themselves Welsh. The question is who considers themselves Welsh, and where were they born, in England, or in Wales, or in Scotland.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC) artical is about Welsh people, that is, the ethinic group and nation of those who consider themselves Welsh. From this perspective, even for an international reader, the primary percentage is the 87% of those born in Wales considering themselves as Welsh. The second figure is just that, secondary. If this was an artical about the Demography of Wales, then prehaps I would agree. The Demography of Wales page does need attention by the way, to bring it up to the Demography of Scotland, which is different from the Scottish people page. Should the info on the 30 percent of those not born in Wales be included? Yes, but that is secondary and should be treated as secondary info. And explained why there is such a high percentage of non-Welsh born residents residing in Wales. This would be a secondary paragraph, though in the opening paragraph I can see it as a secondary portion of the sentence or a second qualifying sentence♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Italic text=== Lets step back for a bit ===

I think we need to agree some principles/facts/ concepts before we get into the words. My suggestions:

• You don't have to be born in Wales to be Welsh
• If you have a Welsh grandparent then you can be Welsh
• You do have to have lived in Wales for a period (Rugby Union has a specific period) to assume nationality
• Wales has absorbed many waves if immigrants who became Welsh and whose children are welsh
• You can be of Welsh ancestry (before Grandparents) but never lived in Wales but still assert a Welsh identity
• North East Wales have become a commuter area (in part) for North West England, as the North West Coastal areas have become retirement homes (with lots of social issues around housing, destruction of local communities etc.)
• Loss of industry in Wales has resulted in a diaspora to England with a sizable Welsh population in London and the home counties that sees itself as Welsh. (As an aside I am one of those as are most of my cousins, but we are welsh, have season tickets for welsh rugby clubs, go back most weekends and our children have names like Huw, Elenor and Ceri.
• The above is also the situation with Scots and the Irish - part of the confusion of being Britain
• Some people are British but acknowledge being welsh, some use both, some use Welsh and European (there are many ways that identity is asserted)

Whatever we do the survey results need to be there, what is in the lede and what is elsewhere and what words are put around it are the issues. --Snowded TALK 22:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Agreed
2. Disagree. In my opinion the surroundings you are brought up in influence your identity. I am English with an Irish Grandparent. If I went to Dublin and told them I was Irish they would laugh me out of town, quite rightly I believe.
3. Agreed
4. Agreed
5. Disagree. similar to point 2.

I agree with the rest of your summary. Skipper 360 (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My point, in a first of its kind servay that point-blank asks "Are you Welsh, and where were you born," 87% answered that Yes, indeed, they are Welsh ethnicity... whatever or where-ever their parents were from. When asking if you were born outside of Wales, and asking the same question, the number drops to 67%. Representing 30% of people who were born outside of Wales as not identifying themselves as Welsh.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That is all true. But the emphasis is all skewed. Drachenfyre said (2nd to last sentence, last but one post). 'And explained why there is such a high percentage of non-Welsh born residents residing in Wales'. What did you have in mind for the explanation? By the way, I agree with every point made above by Snowded. Daicaregos (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The servay defines itself: If the place of your birth were outside of Wales, you identify as not-Welsh. If the place of your birth were in Wales, 87% of the respondants said they were Welsh. It doesnt matter where their parents were from. This artical is not about those who do not idenify as Welsh, it is about those who DO identify as Welsh. The 87% leads in this instance. If this were about the demography of Wales... that is the residenial make up of the country, then you can lead with a varity of other numbers. But this particular artical is about those who idenitfy as Welsh.

In an artical about those people who identify as part of the Welsh ethnic group, as opposed to the demographic make up of Wales. THIS 87% is the most significant number. Full stop. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely, in an article about those people who identify as part of the Welsh ethnic group 100% would identify themselves as Welsh. Daicaregos (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely not! That is what these servays are for! This is the facts, and why it needs to be cited as I did here. The servay is in par with the results in Scotland during the census the prior year, and also what was expected had a Welsh tick box been made available to Welsh residents. And there could be those not born in Wales but identifying as Welsh, Mohammad Asghar for one, who is of Pakastani decent and is a Plaid Cymru Assembly member. Born in Pakistan but idenifying as Welsh in a Welsh nationalist party♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In my view the only people who can unambiguously be described as "Welsh people" are people who were born in Wales, of Welsh descent, who live in Wales, and who self-identify as Welsh. Some people born in Wales of Welsh descent who live in Wales might self-identify as British, but according to some definitions would still be "Welsh people". Others born in Wales and living in Wales but of (say) English descent might self-identify as English. Others born elsewhere and living elsewhere (say, Patagonia) but of Welsh descent might self-identify as Welsh. Others born in (say) England but living in Wales and of Welsh descent might self-identify as English. Or British. Or Welsh. Etc etc etc. - there are a huge number of possibilities. In my view the article "Welsh people" needs to address the full range of possibilities covered by that title, and definitely not state that the only topic the article covers is those who self-identify as (or, even worse, are deemed to be "ethnically") Welsh. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, I have my own views on who constitutes who and where, but it doesnt mean much except when it is back up by citable facts. Here, the servay defines itself, and the topic is for those who identify with the topic. It seems clear to me. In an artical about Welsh People, shouldnt those who identify as Welsh people be what the artical talks about? The servay in question asks "Are you Welsh?" and "Where were you born?", and the conclusion is clear: Where you were born has a huge impact on which ethnic group you identify with the most. It is the single most significant factor, above all other considerations... for those servayed.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

At least we agree that our own individual views are not important in this. You ask: "In an article about Welsh People, shouldn't those who identify as Welsh people be what the article talks about?" My answer to that is unequivocally no. The article should cover all the possible definitions of "Welsh people", of which "those who self-identify as Welsh" is one, and "those who live in Wales" is another. Yes of course the survey should be covered, but as just one element of a much wider discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"In my view the article "Welsh people" needs to address the full range of possibilities covered by that title, and definitely not state that the only topic the article covers is those who self-identify as (or, even worse, are deemed to be "ethnically") Welsh." What you are speaking about here is the demography of Wales, not about the Welsh ethnic group... those that self-identify as Welsh. Should it be mentioned, discussed in a topic, yes. But not to distract here from the main focus, the Welsh people.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But the point is that "Welsh people" does not necessarily or only mean "the Welsh ethnic group". And what is your definition of that anyway? It seems to me that you are coming from the point of view of someone who does not live in Wales but may self-identify as Welsh, whereas I actually live in Wales but may not necessarily always, for all purposes, self-identify as Welsh (I'll come clean - I was born in England but most of my gggfs etc were Welsh). The concept of "Welsh people" can easily encompass both of us, or neither of us, depending on the definition used. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the answer is not of great interest. If people living in Iceland were surveyed "Are you Icelandic?" and "Where were you born?" you would also expect a high percentage. No surprises at all. The more important facts, and more interesting is the 67%. And I'd still like to know what you have in mind for the explanation. Daicaregos (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dai, what do you mean that the number of people within the country, born in the country, and identify with that ethnic group is not of great interest? Just the opposite! For the number 67%, The answer is already in the artical and above. That includes all residents of Wales regardless of birth when averaged out. The most important figure in an artical about the whole Welsh ethnic group is the 87% who identify as Welsh. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like things are getting a bit heated here, so how about sitting back a bit and pondering the complexity of the issue? Defining ethnicity/nationality is not easy for any people. No single factor can be regarded as decisive. I was born in Wales of Welsh parentage and have lived in Wales all my life (apart from a couple of spells abroad) and regard myself as Welsh, pure and simple. In my village I know of people - English, it has to be said - who've lived in Wales for twenty years or more but who don't for a moment think of themselves as Welsh. So residence, even long-term, does not neccesarily mean you're Welsh (plenty of individual exceptions, of course). Place of birth is important but not decisive: try telling Dafydd Wigley he's English! (as for Edward II of England being on a list of "Welsh people" because of an accident of birth, well, that's just absurd). All the factors mentioned in the discussion above have a part to play, but I suppose its a matter of individual self-identity; sometimes that is unquestioning, as in my own case, sometimes its a matter of choice or gradual assumption. However the Welsh are defined though, I think that residence is a non-starter and should be left for the demograhics article - if I had to spend the rest of my life in exile and even adopted another citizenship I'd still be 100% Welsh, althoug I might also choose to identify with my adopted country. Don't know how much that helps, but there we are... Enaidmawr (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ye gods! Kk, gotta go. Throwing my hands up. I am bored to tears with the acromony here, as elsewhere♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you want to the artical, I am quiting the artical leaving it to your hands.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Drachenfyre, my remarks were not aimed at you but everybody above! Enaidmawr (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No acrimony on my side at all, just a failure to agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is damn complicated. We could define the 'Welsh nation' in terms of ethnicity (language, culture or ancestry) but depending on how tight that definition is, we'd risk excluding a large number of Welsh-born, Welsh-identifying individuals. Alternatively we could define the 'Welsh nation' on a civic basis but it would be ahistorical, since Wales has not traditionally been a civic nation, and we'd have to include *all* residents living and voting in the country, even those who identify as non-Welsh. Phew! Pondle (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No acrimony from me. I really respect you. That's why I brought it up on your talk page, rather than either reverting your edit or bringing it here. Sorry if I upset you. Daicaregos (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No acrimony that I can see (go and look at the British Isles task force, or Irish naming if you want to see that). Its an interesting discussion. No one has reverted you Drachenfyre, but brought the discussion here. Normally a sign of respect. Skipper 360 you could play for the Irish Rugby team with that one grandparent, and get an Irish passport so I think your relatives are wrong!

The issue here is the complicated nature of the British, with the rise of nationalism and national identity (not the same thing) it is not going to be easy for someone who did not grow up amongst the complications to understand it, but it is our job as Wikipedia editors to try and make that easy. Now in the case of Wales the vast bulk of the population comes from mass immigration during the industrial revolution (a lot of that from Cornwell which is also Welsh in a sense) but also form outside. I have a lot of data on that, but its at home so I can't do much with it now. That includes English, West Indian, Italian, Irish etc. etc. This is less the case for Scotland. We also have the difference between north-west/agricultural/nationalist and south=east/industrial/socialist (Something Emyr Humphries brought out so well in his novels). I was born into the south, raised in the north but have lived outside of Wales for most of my post University life, but I am Welsh. My children will make that choice for themselves, its not pre-determined.

I think the figures that we quote need to be set in context so the figures mean something. I can draft something next week when I am home. For the moment the figures are the figures and can be easily misinterpreted or misunderstood. I suggest a continued open discussion about what needs to be said. --Snowded TALK 05:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You are of course correct to say I could play for Ireland and have an Irish passport. Many English footballers have trod this path, only of course when they know they will not be chosen for England. My personal opinion is that it is all rather cynical. It is fine being proud of your heritage and your background, but as I said, I was born and raised in England and it was England that influenced everything I became. I think someone in this thread said if they moved abroad and had a different passport they would always remain Welsh, which is totally understandable, but how would their children feel? Proud of their Welsh blood of course, but their influences outside the home will be their peers, their schoolfriends, and workmates. This, I believe, is the major factor in defining nationality. Just my personal opinion of course, but one I believe is right. Skipper 360 (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Russel Wallace

On a different note, looking at the info box I see one of the notable Welshmen is Alfred Russell Wallace. On checking his article I see he is referred to as an Englishman. Why would there be such a discrepancy between the two articles? Skipper 360 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Because (like Bertrand Russell) he was born to an English-heritage family living in Monmouthshire, which at the time many English people considered (with some legal justification) was not part of Wales - see this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, after reading that I don't think he was a Welshman, particulary after reading even he did not consider himself a Welshman. What do you think? Skipper 360 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your definition - he lived in what is now Wales, what was historically (pre-C16) certainly Wales, and what many (but not all) people in the C19 also agreed was Wales. But he did not identify himself as Welsh. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A difficult one to call. I just found the fact that the link from here to his article had such a glaring discrepancy a little puzzling. Skipper 360 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have brought this question on his nationality to his article page to see what they think over there, as I don't think wiki should be giving two different nationalitys on two articles. I do think they should be in sync with one another, whether that's as a Welshman or Englishman. Skipper 360 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just been having a discussion about the national identity of the popular singer of the 50's David Hughes who was born in Birmingham of a Welsh father and English mother (the page is wrong, saying they were both Welsh.) The article originally said that he was English, and we know that local people thought of him as English. But the people of Wales generally considered him to be one of their own, and he himself identified strongly with Wales. So we eventually agreed on the compromise 'English born singer of Welsh extraction.' That seems fair enough to me - sometimes you just have to make such a compromise.
♦ Jongleur100 ♦ ^talk 19:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this one is a little more complicated. I believe he was born in a part of Wales which at that time many considered England. He had no Welsh parents, considered himself English and was proud of his Scottish heritage. I'd rather not make the decision, but I don't think we can have two articles calling him two different nationalitys. I won't be changing anything, I'm only putting the question. I'm quite obviously a fence sitter. :> Skipper 360 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Many people consider the the whole of Wales to be English, from Edward I, through Henry VIII to the present day. Just as many Chinese people consider Tibet to be China. It don't make it true. I understand that Monmouthshire was referred to differently from the rest of Wales (as in 'Wales and Monmouthshire') because it was part of a different judicial circuit for purely administrative purposes. Also, in Wallace's time, it didn't pay to be thought of as Welsh (the racism then was worse than it is now) and the family may have wanted to be perceived as English in order to get on, if only socially. Having said that, I don't believe that where one is born determines one's nationality - it's all in the genes. By the way, he can't have been that 'proud of his Scottish heritage' if he 'considered himself English'.  :) Daicaregos (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Daicaregos, you're right. It doesn't really matter where you were born. Cliff Richard and Joanna Lumley were both born in India, but no-one would consider them to be anything other than English. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ ^talk 22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor at Wallace's page made a number of points here which agrees with much that you say.Skipper 360 (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes a pleasant change, Skipper 360. This explains why people have been confused about Monmouthshire, much better than I did. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder which silly burger wrote the Laws in Wales Act 1542. He sure did cause a lot of confusion. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wallace is indeed a complicated case. It is clear from his autobiography that neither he nor his parents thought of themselves as Welsh (he talks about Welsh people he knew but always refers to himself as English) and most of his biographers have followed this. On the other hand he seems to have been claimed by modern Welsh nationalists and he is on the well known list of 100 Welsh heros. I might have been more impressed by that fact if they had bothered to get the spelling of his name correct. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's dubious to claim someone as Welsh if they themselves didn't identify as Welsh. That's the basis of ethnic identity and if this article is about anything it's about ethnic identity. I'd change him for someone more unambiguously Welsh, there are plenty of candidates. Alun (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I nominate Inigo Jones. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, forgive me if you where joshing. You do know his wiki article calls him English? Skipper 360 (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the commons has a category commons:People of Wales, some of the subsections also contain images of Welsh people, e.g. Category:Dylan Thomas. Commons images are preferable because they are under licenses that allow them to be used in Wikipedia articles, they are either in the public domain or licensed under GFDL or Creative Commons licenses. So it's beats to use a commons image where possible. I might suggest Image:Dylan Thomas.jpg Alun (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. I'm a little surprised he wasn't considered for the infobox before now. Skipper 360 (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you check your link to commons:People of Wales, please Alun. It says the page does not currently exist. Thanks Daicaregos (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

commons:Category:People_of_Wales try this. Alun (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alun. Not many to choose from though, are there? Daicaregos (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Skipper 360 I thought you had agreed that it wasn't relevant in which country one was born, but the nationality of one's parents. His Wiki article states that his father was 'the son of a Welsh Catholic cloth worker'. Both he, and his parents, were buried in St Benet Paul's Wharf, the Welsh church in London, which shows how he and his parents thought of themselves. If many Welsh people's view that Alfred Russel Wallace was Welsh are disregarded on the basis that his parents were not Welsh and he didn't publicly state that he was Welsh, it follows that by the same criteria many English peoples's view that Inigo Jones was English should be disregarded too. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, forgive me for jumping in without thinking. I truly don't know enough about him to give a considered opinion. Skipper 360 (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Inigo Jones played a large part in one of the episodes of Huw Edwards' TV programme 'The Welsh in London'. Edwards obviously considers him to have been Welsh. And who am I to disagree with the star of Doctor Who? It might be best to leave both as they are, rather than to stir up the hornets' nest. Their place of birth is verifiable, whereas it isn't so easy to confirm how they felt about their own nationality - and is that the criteria to use anyway? But I agree with you that one should be consistent between the different Wiki articles. So if you change one, you have to change the other. What do you think? Daicaregos (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree we have to be consistent over different articles, we can't have an encycopedia which gives conflicting information. I also take your point concerning Inigo Jones, who must have had strong feeling for Wales. Personally, as far as Wallace is concerned, If I were a Welshman I would not care to have someone who made a point of calling himself an Englishman in the infobox. Skipper 360 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing commons:Image:Pobol.png so that it now includes Dylan Thomas instead of Alfred Russel Wallace. I was being bold, hope that's OK. We can always change it again if there are objections. Cheers, Alun (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. The point about "nationality" is that there is not one single clear unambiguous definition of the term which is accepted by all. One of the implications of that statement is that it is perfectly easy and normal for one person to have more than one nationality, using different definitions. For example, someone born in Wales but of English parents can be both Welsh (based on place of birth) and English (based on, if they wish, self-identification). There is nothing unusual or contradictory about that at all. Yes, Cliff Richard is both English (self-identification) and Indian (place of birth). Wallace was both Welsh (by place of birth - setting aside the whole "was Monmouthshire in Wales?" issue for another day) and English (by self-identification). The problem in WP is with those editors who will only accept and use their own definition. But personally I really don't care if Wallace is shown in the infobox or not. What I do care about is someone reverting the plain and simple truth that, now, in Wales, the term "Welsh people" can mean (and does mean to the Welsh Assembly Government), people who live in Wales, regardless of where they were born or whether they "identify as Welsh". So I will put that definition back in again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that sounds absolutely crazy. Are you honestly telling me that if I as an Englishman move to Wales I become a Welshman? Is there a time limit for this, do I have to live there for a week, a year, ten years? When I decide to move back to England do I lose my identity as a Welshman, which I never considered myself to be anyway. The Welsh Assembly must be very powerful indeed if they can order me to be a Welshman. The day I move there and they give me a passport telling me I'm Welsh I'll agree with you, but until then.. Skipper 360 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. One definition of "Welsh people" (which you use) is "people who identify as Welsh, regardless of where they live or where they were born". A quite different, but equally valid, definition of "Welsh people" (which is used by WAG, among others) is "people who now live in Wales, regardless of where they were born or whether they define themselves as Welsh". Using different definitions gives different results. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is this definition I disagree with as I pointed out above. It may be used by WAG among others, but it takes the human element out of it. If people are happy to allow organizations to dictate to them in this way that's fine, but it doesn't make it right. I gave an opinion on whether Wallace should be considered a Welshman, and it was just that, an opinion. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but whether or not you "agree" with the definition is irrelevant. The definition exists and is commonly used. "Welsh people", on one definition, means the same as "people living in Wales". Wikipedia should reflect that definition along with other definitions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, can you tell me who commonly uses this definition? Is it commonly used throughout Wales? I have still not seen this reference you refer to. Could you please point out the page and paragraph. I hope you can answer quite soon as I will be unable to be here for quite some time from tommorrow. Thanks. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd lke to read the WAG press release that says that 'In modern use in Wales, "Welsh people" may also refer to anyone born or living in Wales.' Unfortunately the referenced link appears to be broken. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ ^talk 23:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The press release seems to have vanished so I've had to include a statement by the Chair of the All Wales Convention as to its remit. This uses the term "people of Wales" rather than "Welsh people" but in my view that is of no significance. It is obvious from the context that the Convention's remit covers all people now living in Wales, and indeed its membership includes people not born in Wales (though again the reference seems to have vanished from the website). Hope this helps. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Skipper 360. This definition, taken on face value, is just plain stupid and an insult to the intelligence, not to mention one's cultural/national/ethnic identity. If I move to work in England for a year or two do I become an Englishman for that time and then revert to being Welsh when I move back to Wales? As for the WAG press release, I too would like to see it. But even if it does exist does the fact that some WAG bureaucrat or spokesperson has said that mean we should accept it? Let's have a bit of common sense here. Skipper 360 is proud to be English and I'm just as proud to be Welsh - we are in total agreement and I imagine just about every other Welshman and Englishman would be too. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm proud to be both Welsh and English (but certainly not Saxon), as well as being qualified for Northern Ireland. Although, amazingly, no sporting association has ever asked me to choose one nation over the others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to read the press release too, for it seems perposterous. If it does exist, I am sure the context is important too. Prehaps by "Welshmen" there is a qualifying statement in terms of services. For instance, a Wales resident may qualify for special services unique to Wales because of Devolution (no prescriptions for instance). In this case, the term 'Welshmen' may refer to residency in Wales, rather then to ethnic heritage, which this artical in concerned about.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 03:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, this is about identity. Ethnicity is always about identity. An ethnic group is a group of people who identify with each other based on language and cultural/societal norms. Ethnicity is defined as a person identifying with that group. There for one way to be Welsh is to assert that "I am Welsh because I see myself as Welsh", that is individual ethnicity. Collective identity is "We are Welsh because we see each other as Welsh and others recognise us as Welsh". One is not Welsh just because one is borm in Wales or just because one lives in Wales. One can be born in Wales and have English parents and identify as English, in which case that person identifies as ethnically English. One the other hand one can be born in Wales and have English parents and identify as Welsh, in that case the person is Welsh. What makes one Welsh is that they personally identify as Welsh and that they are identified as Welsh by others. In all likelyhood these are the same things, somone who self identifies as Welsh is likely to be identified by others as Welsh. Mostly this does not matter. Ethnic group affiliation is not something that most people think about much of the time, it tends to be activated contextually. So for example someone from Cardiff would identify as a "South Welsh" person if they lived in North Wales, in opposition to the identity of the North Welsh people around them. On the other hand a North Welsh person and a South Welsh person would collectively identify as Welsh if they both lived in England, in opposition to the English people around them. On the other hand an English and Welsh person would be likely to collectively identify as British if they lived say in France, in opposition to the French around them. We identify with different groups depending on context. I was talking to a Finnish diplomat a few weeks ago and she said that when she's in Sweden she feels strongly Finnish, but when she's in Brussels with Swedes she feels Scandinavian. Ones identity is fluid and dependent on context. What we can say is that Wallace is known not to have identified as Welsh, and so it is correct that we do not claim him as belonging to the Welsh ethnic group. Ethnic identity is not straightforward, and it is not easily recognised or understood, usually we just know who we are without having to think about it. Take a look at the article Ethnic group for more info. Here's a good discusson of ethnic group identity:

Ideologies of ethnicity also base collective identity on shared descent, usually relating to a common regional or national origin. Language, dress, occupational specialization, and religion, among other things, may also be part of an ethnic identity. Since ethnic groups are always defined vis-a-vis other ethnic groups, the mere fact of difference is what is more often important than anything else. Thus the specific content of ethnic identities may shift wildly with time, and what may really be at stake is not any profound differences in culture or world view, but how a particular ethnic group membership allows access to scarce resources or how it can be used by leaders to further their political goals. Monaghan and Just (2000) Social and Cultural Anthropology: A very short introduction. pp 93-94. ISBN 0-19-285346-5

cheers, Alun (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - the voice of reason, much better expressed than I could have done. So, do we accept that (1) there is more than one definition of "ethnic group" or "nationality"; (2) Wikipedia should reflect and refer to all definitions; (3) many individuals can, in different contexts, belong to more than one "ethnic group" or "nationality"; (4) Wallace can be Welsh as well as English? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Alun for your comment, however if responding to my above comment I think it is misplaced. I understand the complexities of identity and ethnicity, and am the origionating author of the 01 Census and Servay sections, including citing sources. However, What I was responding to above was specifically the assertion that the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) can be the authoritive source on who is Welsh. It is simply not a devolved matter, and defining nationality and/or ethnicity currently remains the authority of the UK Government.

Additionally, maintaining an Office of National Statistics is also not a devolved matter, meaning that any internal numbers that the Assembly Government may produce are "unofficial" and therefor unauthoritive. And only in the 01 Labour Force servay was the question "What is your ethnic identity" asked, with specific check boxes. And, coming from this source, from the UK Office of National Statistics, did the additional summeration that place of birth is the single most contributing factor to ethnic identity in Wales, Scotland, and England. This was not my point of view, but the sumation of a recognized qualifying source.

The point I was trying to make was that it is within the Welsh Assembly Governments authority to define who qualifies for services offered by the Welsh Assembly, and only in this context would they be able to define that those "living in Wales" are in fact Welsh in this context, regardless as to what they identify as. They are Welsh only in the context of qualifying for services offered by the Welsh Assembly. When I wrote the sections on the 01 Census and the 01 Labour Force Servay, I went to the Welsh Assembly to try and ascertain if they had a definitive answer on who is Welsh for these section. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• What I was responding to above was specifically the assertion that the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) can be the authoritive source on who is Welsh. It is simply not a devolved matter, and defining nationality and/or ethnicity currently remains the authority of the UK Government.

No one is the "authoritative source" on "who can be Welsh", that doesn't make sense. The matter of ethnic identity can never be "devolved" nor can it be the "authority of the UK government". Ethnic identity is simply not defined by any government body. The ONS does not give criteria for how people self identify, they only ask people how they identify themselves and collect the data accordingly. This article is not about how any "governmental body" thinks in terms of the population it represents, because that's irrelevant to identity. My comment was actually in support of what you were saying though Drachenfyre, maybe I wasn't making that clear enough. I do not think that Wallace can be considered Welsh, because there is evidence that he did not identify as Welsh. On the other hand I would say that Geraint Jones is Welsh because he has specifically stated that he feels Welsh. Frankly I don't think this is a matter for jumped up self important officious and ignorant government officials. Alun (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

But no-one is claiming that WAG is "the only authoritative voice". What I am claiming is that there is a widespread and commonplace view that, in some circumstances, the term "Welsh people" (or "people of Wales") means those people who now in live in Wales - just like "American people" can refer to those people now living in the USA regardless of where they were born or their ancestry. No-one is disputing that there are also other definitions based on ancestry, self-identification or whatever, but I do dispute that any one definition is "better" or "more appropriate to be discussed in this article" than any other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: "They are Welsh only in the context of qualifying for services offered by the Welsh Assembly." So, you accept that "those who qualify for services offered by the Welsh Assembly" are "Welsh people" according to that definition? That is precisely the point I am making, although in my view (and I don't have references) it is not only WAG who take that view. My point is that the WAG definition is a different definition from the ones which you have used until now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to rely on sourced information in determining Welsh ethnicity (Welsh people), which can transend geographic borders, and not predetermine conditions. If creditable sources can be cited illustrating your above preconditions then it is acceptable.

Its official, the world is going mad. Surely someone who qualifys for Welsh services is called a resident of Wales, not welsh. If I moved to London I would qualify for all the services in that city, would it make me a Londoner. I think sometimes commonsense has to take precedent over a couple of sources, or is it just one? If it doesn't in this case then the world is not going mad, it's already there. Skipper 360 (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the link to a definition of 'Welsh People' (ref # 12 on the article). It linked to the All Wales Convention ok, but the page linked to only mentions the 'people of Wales', as far as I can see. This is understandable in this context as our elected representatives are, quite rightly, involving all those who reside in Wales in the devolved political process, no matter what their nationality. If there is a definition of 'Welsh People' on this link, would you mind pointing out exactly where it is? Please provide the page title, if it doesn't link directly, and which paragraph. I should be able to find it from there. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

But you are making my very point. Assuming that "Welsh people" and "people of Wales" are identical, you accept that WAG "quite rightly" provides services for "all" those people. That is, people who live in Wales now, "no matter what their nationality". By the way, I never claimed that the site defined "Welsh people", but it did use the term to refer to all people currently living in Wales for whom WAG provides devolved services. That is my point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That may be a different argument. The All Wales Convention could not claim to represent 'all' Welsh people, as they could be living anywhere. From Argentina to USA, and all points in between. It wouldn't be in their remit. The term 'People of Wales' does not relate to nationality any more than, say, 'people of Berlin'. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but again you seem to be assuming that your definition of "nationality" is uncontentious and acceptable to all. It isn't. There are other definitions which are equally valid and should be reflected in the article. If the article was headed "People of Welsh ancestry or who self-identify as Welsh" there would be no problem (other than a very silly title). But it isn't - it's entitled "Welsh people". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I currently have five Polish immigrant workers living next door to me in England, and they are very welcome. They pay their taxes and, quite rightly, use all the services and facilities accorded to all other residents of England. By your definition they are also now entitled to call themselves 'English'. Is that correct?
:: ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ ^talk 13:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think WAG and the All-Wales Convention are using the term "Welsh people" as a synonym for the 'resident population of Wales'. Obviously the Welsh ethnic group is a different concept.Pondle (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite, we should not confuse residency with ethnic affiliation. The NAfW/WAG are interested in the population living in Wales irrespective of ethnicity, after all Wales is not a state, there are no "citizens" of Wales, and even citizenship is not the same as ethnic identity, citizenship is a legal concept. Alun (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As Daicaregos asks, could you please point out the page and paragraph that tell's us all people living in Wales are Welsh. Skipper 360 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like he can. Argument deflected successfully, by the look of things. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what was the argument again? I don't think that anyone was saying that "WAG claims that all of the people living in Wales are Welsh". However, all British, Irish and Commonwealth nationals living in Wales are part of the "Welsh voting citizenry", or whatever you want to call it.[6] There isn't a legal definition of Welsh ethnicity, as far as I'm aware - it's just a matter of self-identification. That means there's plenty of scope for ambiguity!Pondle (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was on defining ethnicity, before we were taken off track. For example: we have a person (a) (Alfred Russel Wallace) born in Wales, of English/Scottish ancestry (at least), a non-Welsh speaker who is known to identify Welsh speakers as Welsh and monoglot English speakers as English - nationality is/was noted on his WP article as British/English. Person (b) (Inigo Jones) born in England, of Welsh parents, attends the Welsh Church in London and chooses to be buried there (i.e. self identifies as Welsh) - nationality is noted on his WP article as English. Perhaps it would be much simpler if everyone's nationality were to default to English unless they were either born outside Britain, or in Gwynedd, to monoglot Welsh speaking, Welsh born parents and never left Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Although not a technical legal definition, the Census allows for people to select Welsh as their ethnicity. The Welsh ethnicity has been defined by scientists time and time again. I would say that if Alfed Russel Wallace does not have any Welsh ancestry then he is not of Welsh ethnicity. It is another debate altogether however as to whether or no there is such a thing as a Welsh nationality.

gallery at commons

I also took the liberty of creating a gallery of images of Welsh people at the commons commons:Welsh people, I've linked to this in the article, the gallery could probably do with a bit of work, I just chucked a few images in there that were already in the commons:category:People of Wales. Cheers, Alun (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV: Archeology vs. Linguistics

The history section seems to give undue weight to the archeological theories on when Celtic language arrived (things like "as early as the early neolithic or even earlier" and "Goidelic and Brythonic languages develop[ed] indigenously"), while giving no space at all to the view from linguistics that such things are extremely unlikely based on linguistic evidence, - a rather bizarre state of affairs considering the fact that it is a linguistic question that is being asked in the first place! After less than five minutes I've found at least one reconstruction of a Proto-Celtic lexicon that includes reconstructions of roots for "iron" and "horse" [7], which obviously completely destroys the "neolithic or earlier" theory if true. Obviously that itself can't be used in the article as it would constitute synthesis, but I know for a fact that the mainstream view in historical linguistics is that not even Proto-Indo-European (let alone Proto-Celtic) can be reconstructed as far back as "neolithic or earlier". It is complete POV to only represent one side of the linguistic debate, and especially absurd when the side being ignored are the linguists themselves! --81.158.147.16 (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I may well be wrong, but am I right in thinking that you placed an NPOV tag on the history section because you dispute a single sentence? i.e. "The claim has also been made that Indo-European languages may have been introduced to the British Isles as early as the early Neolithic (or even earlier), with Goidelic and Brythonic languages developing indigenously." Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more accurate to say I added it because of the absence of any other sentences giving the other view point. I don't dispute that a lot of reliable sources exist for the stated view point, just that the others should be represented too. I've made an attempt to balance it out with a source from linguistics, or at least one that gives more consideration to the linguistics angle. --81.158.147.16 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that you have balanced it (I am not in a position to check the reference so will take it on trust) then there is no case for the tag given that the existing text is supported by citations. I assume you forgot to remove it? --Snowded TALK 15:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought maybe more could be added by others, but yes, the tag is no longer needed. --217.43.207.204 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So you you the same IP is 81.158 etc? Please register if you not using the same IP --Snowded TALK 16:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be clear from the context, but yes I am the same user. I have an account but for a number of reasons I prefer not to use it. --217.43.207.204 (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ Well, you might want to look at {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Alternative_account_notification this policy] and seek to comply with it. Yes it was clear from the the context, but you will generate suspicion if you use multiple IPs without making the links clear. This is especially true of any page to do with Celts, The British Isles, Ireland etc which are bedeviled with sock puppets. I can't think of any valid reason not to use a registered ID by the way. OK its not a requirement for editing but why? --Snowded TALK 18:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• the mainstream view in historical linguistics is that not even Proto-Indo-European (let alone Proto-Celtic) can be reconstructed as far back as "neolithic or earlier"

I don't dispute what you say, but I'd like to point out that the article doesn't claim that proto-celtic can be reconstituted as far back as the neolithic or earlier. It states that "The claim has also been made that Indo-European languages may have been introduced to the British Isles as early as the early Neolithic (or even earlier)". I suppose that this sentence assumes that proto-Indo-European is considered an IE-language. But in all fairness the statement is not exactly unequivocal. It clearly says that it's a claim and that they may have been. That's a lot of bet hedging. The article certainly doesn't claim that "proto-Celtic was introduced in the neolithic" as your comment suggests.

Probably I introduced this, I tend to read more genetics and archaeological material, and in these disciplines the Anatolian hypothesis of Colin Renfrew does predominate. I understand in the context of linguistics there is more debate about the origin of the Indo-European language group, and that hypotheses like the Kurgan hypothesis may have a more dominant position. Rest assured it was not my intention to produce a pov into the article, and I fully support your inclusion of alternative explanations. I probably included this information some years ago before I understood that different disciplines give to the various theories different emphases, obviously that was simply ignorance on my part and not a deliberate attempt at pov-editing. But the Paleolithic Continuity Theory also exists, and that would place the introduction of the Indo-European language group into Europe even earlier (hence the "neolithic or possibly earlier"). You must forgive me, I don't know the relative validity of each of these theories as regards to linguistic evidence, I'm not a linguist. But the real debate, as far as I understand it, is whether the Brythonic and Goidelic language groups developed in situ from pre-existing IE languages, or whether they were introduced at a later date having developed elsewhere? I don't think that debate is over. It might be beneficial to link to some of the related articles that deal with these various hypotheses? Alun (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

confused religion section

the religion section here seems to be confusing itself with the article Demography_of_Wales by describing the religion of people who are not ethnically Welsh. As the disclaimer at the top of the article states, this is the article about the ethnic group and nation, not all of the people in the actual country of Wales. --86.163.123.30 (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article seems to have become a bit lost. Trouble is, would we be able to find any NPOV sources for the religious beliefs of ethnically Welsh people? If not, it may be better to remove the entire section relating to religion in Wales for, say, WWII onwards. Any thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2001 census is the only source on religion in Wales, as far as I'm aware, and I don't think there's any disaggregation of the stats by who wrote in "Welsh" in the national identity box. Again, we come up against the old chestnut - debated above - of who is "ethnically Welsh", and who isn't. Plaid Cymru now has a Muslim AM (Mohammad Asghar); is he 'really' Welsh? Or Asian or Asian British or Asian Welsh? Pondle (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with Pondle starting to talk about ethnicity is dangerous - do you allow the Italian post war group to be Welsh? What about the influx at the time of the Industrial Revolution? There have been some racist overtones on discussions of ethnicity on some of the pages about England. Census is the source. --Snowded TALK 19:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This article being 'Welsh people', I would be interested to know your views on how you define 'Welsh people'. Is it a simple (simplistic) definition? i.e. you regard people born in Wales to be Welsh people. Is it the parents/grandparents definition? i.e. the 'qualify to play for Wales' route? Is it, which seems to be being agreed upon above? i.e. those who have chosen to live in Wales (at any given time). Or is it those who self-identify as Welsh. Because I have a long list of people who I think of as Welsh, based on some of these criteria, who do not have their nationality noted as Welsh in their Wikipedia article. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether you are talking about nationality, ethnicity or both. They aren't the same thing. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 12:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The term nationality is a bit confusing. Usually it is something analogous to "citizenship", so it's a legal term. In that sense Welsh people are most often UK citizens, but even that's confusing because the UK government uses the term "British citizen" or British national or UK national. We shouldn't get too hung up on the status of the state in deciding these things, the purpose of the state in this is to provide or deny certain services or to, expect certain obligations from, the individual based on their legal status (e.g. am I allowed free health care, can I get a passport, do I need to do national service). If you mean nationality in the sense of belonging to the Welsh nation, then that's a different thing. I don't think there is any strict distinction between a nation and an ethnic group. The Book "Language and Nationalism in Europe" by Stephen Barbour and Cathie Carmichael has a stab at distinguishing between a nation and an ethnic group, but the distinction is somewhat arbitrary. Nations tend to be larger groups and tend to be associated with specific geographical regions, for example the Welsh with Wales. Ethnic groups can to be smaller and can be more spread out, they can be nomadic as well, e.g. Romany people. Barbour and Carmichael also think that the origin myths of nations are less convincing because they involve a bigger group. A nation may be more political, for example a group seeking autonomy or independence for a specific geographic region. On the whole though, the concepts of ethnic group and nation are very similar and difficult to distinguish. Both are about identity and a (often belief in) shared origin. Identity is the defining factor, I am Welsh because I see myself as Welsh and others see me as Welsh. This article shouldn't worry too much about that, it's about Welsh people, so it shouldn't worry about why someone is Welsh, only that they are generally perceived as Welsh. Some Wikipedia articles describe people from the UK as British, others as Scottish, others as Welsh and some as English. There doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rule. If you see people who you think of as Welsh described as something different then it's OK to change the article or to ask on the article's talk page. It's also perfectly acceptable for someone to be described as both Welsh and British. For many notable people it's probably easy to find a reliable sources that describe then as Welsh and other reliable sources that describe the same person as British. Sorry it's not so straightforward. Alun (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Famous Welsh Pictures

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd George, Nye Bevan

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

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

Richard Burton, Tom Jones, Catherine Zeta Jones

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

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

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

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

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

Help!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to clarify who I've put together:

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

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

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

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

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

Didn't we have a previous debate about whether Bertrand Russell actually considered himself to be English? I guess he was Welsh-born and features in the 100 Welsh heroes website.[8]Pondle (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kelly Jones

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

Wales Etymology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welsh citizenship?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History

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

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

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

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

Diversity

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

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

I agree with Lindsay - the article doesn't imply that Welshness is inherently 'racialised', or that the Welsh are somehow superior to other ethnic groups (which is how I read the accusation of ethnocentrism). It's important to remember that this is an article about an ethnic group - the Welsh people - and not an article about the people of Wales in a broader sense. In 2001, 33 per cent of the latter didn't self-identify as Welsh.[9]--Pondle (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethnic group or nation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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