Talk:Welsh language

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Welsh language article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

More information Article milestones, Date ...

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 20, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

Close

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

Languages Top‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Celts (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts

Wales Top‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rgima. Peer reviewers: Djiang1019, Ashleyhpace.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Welsh speakers in Patagonia

This figure of 5,000 native speakers is misleading. If not simply invented, it probably relates to the number of learners who have studied Welsh through the Welsh Language Project. There may be some young children who are close to fluency by attending the recently opened bilingual schools but that is a guess. The simple fact is that there are no reliable sources because a detailed study has not been carried out. From what I have seen the few remaining fluent Welsh speakers, mainly farmer, died out decades ago. There may be a few elderly people left with a knowledge of the language but that is all. Finally, I question the reliability of the Welsh.com site which is a marketing tool to promote all things Welsh, government sponsored or not. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wales.com, the cited reference, states “Today the province of Chubut, where most Welsh immigrants settled, has a population of 550,000 people. Of these some 50,000 can claim Welsh ancestry and 5,000 speak the Welsh language.”, which seems pretty explicit. i.e. that of the people who live in Chabut, 5,000 speak Welsh. Wales.com is the Welsh Government's website. If you dispute that it is a reliable source, please discuss it at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Until then, I have reverted to the cited number. Daicaregos (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read the citation again. Where does it claim 5,000 'native' speakers (meaning first language}, as opposed to just 'speakers'? The distinction is very important, presumably why the infobox refers to native speakers. Not to make the distinction would allow a totally distorted claim, as has happened here, because otherwiseanybody able to string a few words together in a given language could claim to be a speaker of that language. So, whether Wales.com is a relevant source or not is irrelevant because it does not claim what the infobox says it claims. A point of interest is to look earlier on this talk page about similar unfounded claims of Welsh speakers in England. Again, no reliable factual evidence given. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Another commonly used source for citations about numbers of speakers of various languages gives 25,000.^[1] Should we use this figure instead? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I read it. The figure in the Infobox is verified by a reference from a reliable source. If you disagree you are welcome to take it to the Reliable sources noticeboard for their opinion. Daicaregos (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

References

[1]
Ethnologue

"Main language" in census

I think we have to be a little careful about reporting the responses to the "main language" question from the 2011 census in England. Census questions are subtle things; "Can you speak Irish?" produces different responses to "Do you speak Irish?" for instance. In this case, there's the odd point that people were asked "What is your main language?" but the glossary of terms (a separate document released after the census had been conducted) defines "main language" as "first or preferred language". This is a problematic definition because "main language" and "first or preferred language" are different things, and it's the first that people were asked about. I'm a native Welsh speaker, and I might even say that Welsh is my preferred language, but I live and work in Philadelphia, and I can hardly say it's my "main language". I've edited the text to try to make this clear by simply stating the facts, with sources. If people feel it's too much information, I think we should leave out the bit about "first or preferred language", as that seems the part most likely to mislead. The key point to get across is not what ONS thinks "main language" means, but what question people were asked and how many said "Welsh". Garik (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. If 'first or preferred language' didn't form part of the question posed it should be left out from this article entirely. Daicaregos (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It should be left in (or put back), as you have written it Garik. Normally I would agree to take it out, but because the glossary, that is freely available online, does define 'main language' in the way it does, it is more likely than not that the average reader having a look at the census results will assume that 'main' means 'first or preferred'. The best way to solve the confusion is not to omit an important part of the online census website (the glossary wording), but to spell it out that the definition is flawed - which is what you did. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The sentence has been re-instated without consensus being reached on the talk page first. I have edited the text slightly to clarify that the ONS's definition was not published as part of the question. In my opinion, only the question should be noted on the article. Readers will form their own opinion as to what was meant by 'main language', in the same way that respondents to the census question had to. Some will consider the the question to have a similar meaning to the ONS's definition; others will not e.g I read it to mean the language you mainly spoke. Including the ONS definition is necessarily on-sided and unbalanced i.e. not neutral. It should be removed entirely. Daicaregos (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Equally, it was un-installed without consensus? Whatever, I can see that putting in an explanation about the later census definition does look a little strange. If it does come across as neutrally unbalanced, it reads to me as in favour of 'main', and against 'first or preferred', which is what I think we all want, seeing as 'main' was the question asked and answered. In that sense it is not a breach of WP:NPOV. I have wondered though, if this debate is missing the point. Censuses are inherently risky to use as definitive sources of fact, as Garik has pointed out. This debate just confirms that. Isn't the question we should ask, therefore, not whether to mention, or not to mention, 'first or preferred', but whether we should use the census result at all. This would be because the source is unreliable WP:RS and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, despite where it comes from. It is unreliable because 1/ the question answered was not the question that was intended by ONS (proven by its later definition), and 2/ even the original question, ie 'main', is open to interpretation, as has been proven by this debate. All this means that should we omit the census data entirely? Failing that I still think that if it is included we do not really have an option other than to labour the point that the result might not be reliable: (effectively leaving the article as it currently is, with nothing more than some minor tweaks). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I accept your point that the 2011 census question is inherently unreliable. And further, given that it does not provide data on the number of Welsh speakers in England, is not notable. I would be happy to see all reference to the census data on the Welsh language in England removed. Daicaregos (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Origins

To edit this article, I would like to delve deeper into the origins of Welsh to try to clear up some of the speculative sections, particularly about the introduction of Welsh in the Bronze & Iron Ages.

Some sources:

Wales and the Britons 350-1064, Charles-Edwards, TM

The Welsh Language: A History, Janet Davies Rgima (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what's speculative about that. Do you even know anything about historical linguistics? The account you edited was correct before and you made an incomprehensible, confused mess of it, with such blunders like the implication that Welsh was spoken on the Continent in the Iron Age, and that the name of the River Danube is from Welsh! Let's look at the actual facts. Old Welsh was spoken mainly in Wales between the 8th and 12th centuries. Earlier stages are not directly attested except for fragmentary evidence (mostly names) but can be reconstructed. Around the 7th century, we can speak of Early or Pre-Literary Welsh. It is estimated that Common Brittonic split into Welsh and Southwest Brittonic (the common ancestor of Cornish and Breton) in the 6th century. (It's not completely clear where Cumbric fits in, let alone Pictish, though both seem to go back to some form of Brittonic.) Common Brittonic was never spoken (at least not to a significant extent) anywhere else but in Britain.

Common Brittonic already seems to have lost the old final syllables by the 5th/6th centuries; since Cornish and Breton lack them too, and the last common ancestor of Welsh, Cornish and Breton is reconstructed without the old final syllables, the argument you ascribe to Janet Davies doesn't make sense. The loss of the final syllables isn't a diagnostic feature specific to Welsh. (Unless you call Late Common Brittonic a form of Welsh, but that makes about as much sense as calling Latin a form of Italian and is only confusing.)

The immediate prehistory of Common Brittonic prior to about the 2nd century AD is somewhat controversial, mainly what its closest relative is: Primitive Irish or Gaulish. Traditionally, Gaulish was considered its closest relative (the Gallo-Brittonic or P-Celtic hypothesis), while a number of newer scholars prefer Irish (the Insular Celtic hypothesis). However, all scholars I'm aware of are in agreement that Brittonic goes ultimately back to Proto-Celtic, and that Proto-Celtic was not spoken in Britain, but somewhere on the Continent. (When Proto-Celtic, specifically in the sense of most recent common ancestor of all Celtic languages, was spoken is more controversial. The Lepontic inscription of Prestino, dated c. 500 BC, is generally agreed to be Celtic, and thought to be rather close to Proto-Celtic, so it seems unlikely that it was spoken much earlier, and the word *īsarnom "iron" is reconstructed for Proto-Celtic, making the Bronze Age datings sometimes suggested questionable.) So the suggestion that Welsh originated in what is now the United Kingdom and spread to the Continent from there in the Iron Age is completely preposterous. Ancient Celtic languages were spoken in the Iron Age in Western Europe, not Welsh; Welsh is a late descendant of them, and certainly nowhere near the origin of the Celtic languages.

The main reason why Welsh must come from the Continent is that its closest relatives, apart from Irish, can be found there (Gaulish-Galatian, Lepontic and Celtiberian/Hispano-Celtic), and are more diverse than Insular Celtic, with no indication that the Celtic languages might not be indigenous to the Continent; moreover, there is positive evidence that the origin of the Celtic languages is on the Continent, because related languages were and are spoken there, especially the Italic languages (like Latin), and also other Indo-European languages.

Indo-European studies also provide evidence that makes it most likely that Celtic was introduced to the British Isles sometime during the Iron Age, or perhaps during the Bronze Age already (but that would imply that Proto-Celtic was already spoken in the Bronze Age, which, for at least the reasons given above, is questionable, even if maybe not completely impossible), but hardly earlier (i. e., prior to c. 2500–2000 BC), as that would imply that a recognisable form of Celtic language and culture already existed in the Neolithic/Copper Age (which is an extremely marginal position at best).

All of this is completely mainstream in Celtology and Indo-European studies (I refer you to Wikipedia's very own coverage of these topics). Therefore I have reverted your uninformed changes to the article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Bias / lack of neutrality

External links modified

usage of welsh news references

I find it ironic that references from Welsh news articles are forbidden in the Welsh language section of Wiki.. "Tidied, c/e, re-entered references with better structure, reduced cites-5 is too many and they should be in English" what if there are no other references to a topic in the English language? does it make the article invalid? what about history pages that source latin, French, Spanish, German books? are they invalid? I can agree to have supplied too many references, but the argument over not using references from other languages seems silly to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 14:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

They are not "forbidden". However, this is the English-language Wikipedia, not Wicipedia Cymraeg. Here, WP:NONENG says: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." So, English-language sources are preferred, but not required. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

So, you're saying Welsh articles are allowed? 'preferred' can be a flexible word, it is not a solid yes/no, I see no reason why articles in other languages shouldn't be included, one in English and another in Welsh.. what's the problem? you have one to check up on, the other can be ignored if you wish, as long as it's valid, but it's the same with the Welsh wiki, the Welsh wiki uses references from English articles.. so why is it more flexible there and less so here?

I made that edit summary. If there were no citations in English then Welsh would do, but there were citations in English, plenty of them, so they should be used first. When I reduced the citations (that all said the same thing) from five to three, I removed first the non English citation and second, a slightly less than top quality local newspaper. Even three citations is probably too many for such an uncontested sub-article. Also, lest we forget, the topic was no less about the English language (loss of 100% Westminster primacy) as it was about Welsh. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing non-supported misleading claims

The infobox claims 1,500-5,000 native speakers in Argentina. The lead claims the same. These claims need to be removed. First, what is a native speaker? Although no clear definition exists, we can rely on the definition given by WP. The template guidelines mean that a native language and an L1 language are the same, so we can assume that as a fact here. It is not directly stated but unambiguously intended - read the template guide and the L1 article to see the connection. Next, look at the sources given. None of them claim L1 (or L2) speakers, just 'speakers'. These is not good enough to use as RSs because they are open to interpretation, meaning the claim of native speakers is not supported. This is why I will delete the statements and the references given - because the claim cannot be amended to reflect the sources. It is disappointing that these misleading weasel claims about a large community of L1 speakers in Argentina still exists. More justice to the Welsh language would be given by detailed and accurate analysis of the revitalisation efforts currently going on in Argentina, and the dying out of true L1 speakers during the 20th century, rather than constantly hammering the L1 line. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal of citations and estimated numbers of speakers and Argentina and England. By all means discuss it here, but claiming there are no speakers of Welsh in Argentina or England is highly controversial, to say the least! Large numbers of native Welsh speakers move to live or work in England, by nature of jobs and education opportunities etc. and (admittedly anecdotally but for illustration) I met an elderly lady from Chubut last year who'd learnt Welsh from her mother, spent her savings flying to South Wales for a holiday and was distressed that she couldn't find any Welsh speakers. Clearly the Welsh speakers of Chubut aren't learning Welsh as an eccentric hobby. Sionk (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you please read my post before giving a fixed POV reply. Where have I said there are no Welsh speakers, L1 or L2, in Argentina, England, or anywhere else? The citations did not back the statements so the statements were unsupported so I removed them. If you want them put back then the onus is on you to provide a reliable source that backs the claim, namely that there are L1 speakers in England and Argentina. So, prove it ! Failing that the claims remain OR. I expected some form of disagreement with what I have done, but I thought it would be about the interpretation of 'native' speaker or something else open to a modicum of interpretation. Please do not put back uncited claims. The talk page is here for a reason. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

They are only OR based on your rather pedantic reading of the sources. This seems to be part of a pattern of edits from you on articles concerning the different nations of the UK -----Snowded ^TALK 10:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it is a problem that needs addressing with the wording, or available headings, of "Infobox language". But if, as Roger 8 Roger states, there is no clear definition of 'native speaker', then it's a bit churlish of them to impose their own interpretation. By their own argument they'd need to remove the statistics cited from the UK census about speakers in Wales, because we've no idea if these are first language speakers, or people that have learnt/improved the language in later life. Perhaps to (a) retain useful sourced information (b) clarify what it represents, someone could add footnotes. Sionk (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The term 'native speaker' is defined here on wp, so whether or not it is not defined in wider usage isn't relevant. In that sense we are fortunate. The WP definition is native speaker = L1 speaker (not L2, or L1+L2). All the sources used refer to 'speakers', which could be L1 or L2, so they do not clearly back the claim made. Snowded thinks agrees with me but he thinks I am being pedantic. I prefer being accurate, pedantic or not. Census data is important but it needs to be handled carefully because it is often primary evidence. The authorities publish the opinions of the box ticking public by passing on the data. It data becomes a secondary source if it is endorsed by the writer/publisher of that data. I agree with Sionk that a form of footnote would be a good way of using census data that is not very clearly from a secondary source. Back to the citations currently in use: aside from the native speaker topic, one of the citations says the number of Welsh speakers is believed to be between only 1,500 and 5,000, meaning it is making no such claim as to the number of current speakers. This is basic reference checking, see RS. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Most people would not make the 'fine' distinctions that Roger 8 Roger is playing with here. Speakers, native speakers etc. If I grew up with welsh to the age of 4/5 then moved away but relearnt it on return am I a first or second lanmguage speaker? I'm happy to remove 'native' and simply report the number in the sources if there is ambiguity - but I think this is pedantic nonsense -----Snowded ^TALK 03:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

We use the best available sources, therefore if a lengthy news article by Wales' major national news outlet says the numbers of Welsh speakers in Patagonia are believed to be between 1,500 and 5,000, then it means exactly what it says. It's just semantics to say that if something is believed to be true then it isn't true. Sionk (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree Sionk, we use the best available source (unless it is clearly unreliable). It is your, and others, interpretation, and hence use, of the source that is disputed. Being 'believed to be' is not a claim by a source that the statement is correct. The source, here wales.com, is merely 'passing over' the opinion/s of other unnamed persons, making the statement by wales.com unreliable. Whether wales.com is a reliable source or not is irrelevant in this case. The source also says 'speakers', not 'native speakers' as the source states. This is a fundamentally important distinction and very far from being pedantic. So, I agree, the source does mean exactly what it says, but that is not the same as what you think it says. Yet again, please provide a reliable source for the statement that there are 1,500 'native speakers' of Welsh in Patagonia (I assume we agree to exclude native speakers from Wales who happen to be in Patagonia.) If you cannot do that then the statement in the lead should be removed or left as unknown, ie use a '?'. Further explanation can be made in the body of the article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You are being over pedantic - the source is good enough for the current content-----Snowded ^TALK 07:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your vandalism.

Speak Welsh listed at Redirects for discussion

Calon Lân in parliament

Although it was great to see MPs singing Calon Lân in parliament, I think the fact is not notable for this article. It was not an official use of the Welsh Language in parliament. It is a current issue but creates no precedents for the language itself. It should not be in this article. Sorry. Sirfurboy (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That is your opinion. I disagree with you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Then how is it notable? It is an example of usage of a Welsh song yesterday. In what way does that create new precedent for the language? The section regarding parliament is about official use of the Welsh language in the British parliament. Sirfurboy (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I wonder what you think about this reverting? Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

As Sirfurboy already said, it's hard to see how this is WP:DUE. Furthermore, arguments consisting of nothing more than an aggressive "That's your opinion" and nothing else do not contribute to the discussion. If users want to include material that has been challenged, the onus is on them to provide an argument for it. Jeppiz (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Though singing a Welsh song in the UK House of Commons is more than just another "example of usage of a Welsh song", I tend to agree this is only of passing (but not significant) interest. None of the news sources (that I can find) say anything more than something to the effect of "here's a quirky video of MP's singing Calon Lan". Not even the North Wales Daily Post describes it as anything more significant than that. Sionk (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Gareth, I think that on balance it is of sufficient interest to include in the article (it is an example of the use of the language in a notable context), but at the same time that we should make clear that this was something informal and unofficial, which was why I added the bit about the Speaker having left the Chamber. Nobody was suggesting that it creates a precedent. (Incidentally I recently added to the Manx language article an instance of the unofficial use of the Manx Gaelic language in the House of Keys.)----Ehrenkater (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate all contributions above and I am content to leave it reverted.
Sorry that Jeppiz thought my es to be "aggressive". I was merely being brief. I apologise. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder what Wikipedia is really for, I sometimes wonder why a website dedicated to documenting everything feels the need to cull down on information pertaining to information, I feel wiki and (some of) its editors treat information as selective, as a person who cares for the documentation of everything: warts and all.. which can be an aid to those who wish to learn, so when I see people chopping up information, to not include it due to 'informal' use, seems silly to me, the fact is that it happened, it was documented and it was seen by many, the article does indeed include a section dedicated to its; 'use in British parliament', in which it happened, the title does not say anything about it being official or not unofficial so how would readers understand whether something is either if they were to read it? so really, it should be included and the internet isn't this limited space, as long as there are books or articles that mention something that happens should be included, especially when the use of Welsh inside of Westminster was forbidden until recently, it shows great shift in our rights to use the language, it's something quite significant.Hogyncymru (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place for a generalised discussion about the purpose of Wikipedia itself. The question is only whether the material is notable and in scope for *this* article. There are two other articles where you might want to record this event. You could add it into the article on the prorogation crisis here: or you could write a new section to the Calon Lân article here: which describes notable uses of the song (you would have to track down other notable uses too though). No one says the information should simply be forgotten, but is it notable for an article on the Welsh language and if so, why?

Even if notable in this article, it is not notable in this section because the section is headed "Status" and the section on Parliament describes official use in parliament, and not every time Welsh has been spoken in an unofficial capacity. The singing of Calon Lân in the pro-rogation crisis had no effect on its status so the information does not belong here. Again, even though it does not belong here, it does not mean it does not belong anywhere. You need only consider where in this encylopaedia would you say that the information is notable and in scope. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Western or not?

To my mind, the long-standing text places Welsh as a Brittonic language in a family with Kernow and Bretton. Within that family, it can also be termed Western Brittonic but that is a less rich description and links to a very weak and uninformative article. Making the Western point later in the article is fine. -----Snowded ^TALK 19:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. c.f. English, a Germanic language. Yes, it is west Germanic,but most people would refer to it as Germanic and a more detailed description says West Germanic. The same applies here. It is Brittonic and the West Brittonic point is made later. Sirfurboy (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I too agree. The IP in question is also active on the Cornish article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You mean 'Kernowek' or 'Kernewek', not 'Kernow' ;-). And it's 'Breton'. I agree the Western Brittonic article is pretty crappy, as is the SW Brittonic article. Perhaps the Breton and Cornish Languages should be described as Brittonic Languages initially also, with a link to Southwestern Brittonic later. Tewdar (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

So I changed the Cornish and Breton articles so that they are Southwestern Brittonic languages (hover mouse over each word). Perhaps you could use a similar format for Welsh, replacing Southwestern with Western. The best of both worlds perhaps! Or not. I'll let the Welsh experts decide. Tewdar (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I disagree. I looked at what you did with Cornish and feel you can argue either way on that one, because there are two Southwest Brittonic languages (Cornish and Breton). To me, that is too much detail up front, but it is not wrong because there exist, in usage, two example languages in the category. In Welsh, however, it is unnecessary. Welsh is the only extant Western Brittonic dialect. Cumbric was probably Western Brittonic but the language does not exist today and we don't have enough evidence to say anything significant about it. Welsh therefore is the only Western Brittonic language, and so to say it is "a western Brittonic language" suggests a subcategory that just does not exist, seperately from Welsh itself. That is not to say it is uninteresting that it is closely related to Cumbric, Cornish and Breton, but that is meat for later sections. It does not belong in the front summary, where really all the Brittonic languages should just say that they are Brittonic. Sirfurboy (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I will not be changing the Welsh language article. Perhaps I will change the Cornish and Breton articles in line with your suggestion. The Southwestern dialect of Brittonic is very similar to the Western dialect anyway, so I don't really care about that very much. But, 'it was like that when I got here'. Plus, other languages (such as English) are described in this manner. So perhaps I won't change the Cornish or Breton articles after all. It is a shame that Wikipedia does not have a convention on this. Or does it? A cursory glance seems to suggest that most of the language articles give a subgroup, rather than a language family, in the introduction. Tewdar (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but Brittonic is already a sub group of the Celtic language family. As with all languages, we run into the problem of when a dialect even becomes a separate language. If Gwynedd had an army and a navy, Gog would be a language. :) Sirfurboy (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I very much look forward to the day when both Gwynedd and Kernow each have their own army and navy. Tewdar (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

History and Etymology

@Garik: found a very good source that discusses the etymology of Welsh and updated the history. However, I made some minor tweaks based on what the source actually says. Also the URL does not work for that ref although I have a copy of the paper. Not sure if the URL is just temporarily down - may need to fix it. I also cited the actual relevant pages. In the same section, Garik expanded other information and introduced four new sources, one after another. My reference that he removed actually refers to all this information in a single source, so I have put my source back under the WP:OVERCITE policy. I am not precious about my source, so if one of the four deleted sources will work on its own, feel free to put that back. However the information is parenthetical, so one source should do.

The new information about etymology of Cymraeg needs a source too. I expect I can find one shortly. Additionally, removal of the south Wales pronunciation here means we do not mention that pronunciation at all. Not sure if it is notable enough to go in the lead or not. I will leave that for others, but just flagging that Garik removed it from here. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. Also, apologies over the missing reference for Cymraeg. I'd gone to find one and become diverted from my course. (The perils of having children...) On the South Wales pronunciation: This feels the wrong place to include it. I'm not completely sure where the right place is though (unless we include it in the lede, which might clutter it). It's also worth adding that there's variation in South Wales accents too, though that's becoming reduced over time. Finally, I removed the word "foreigners" again; I understand the draw, but I think it's the wrong word. Depending on how it's interpreted, it's in danger of either being redundant (in the sense that, of course the Roman and Celtic inhabitants of the Empire were foreign to the Germanic peoples) or being too broad (in the sense that it's not clear the term was used of other foreigners, even if they happened to live in Rome. We also don't want to subtly reinforce the long-standing misconception that wealh was a word for generic foreigner. Garik (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is not the place for the southern pronunciation. I don't think it necessarily needs to go anywhere, but another editor may feel differently and the lead would probably be the place, unless they added a section about the dialect differences of Welsh. Regarding "foreigners," that is fine. I don't think it is a big deal. The cited paper on page 82 supports your rendering if we go with Katherine Miller's refinement of the semantic trajectory of the word. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Archive 6

"Welch language" listed at Redirects for discussion

Language maps

Languages of Wales 1750 - 1900
1750
1800
1850
1900

Key: • Welsh • Bilingual • English

Hi @Gareth Griffith-Jones:. In your reverts you said "inclusion is doubtful" . What has led you to this perspective that made you revert the maps? What are your concerns? Maps are based on Pryce's research, and each map is heavily referenced on what scholarship they draw from at their pages on wiki commons. I have also included academic sources that explain his methodology. Pryce is a respected scholar who did much research on the Welsh language and his data has been continuously republished by scholarship of the years, including reproductions of his maps (which i have also included links too).Resnjari (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what others think.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gareth Griffith-Jones:, i can wait, but the material is heavily sourced to reliable scholarship. Anyone wishing to follow up data on the map can just go to the wiki commons and visit the pages of the maps and can see where the source material comes from for themselves in the extensive descriptions i have given for each. Still, omitting the maps for reasons of "The maps are pointless." or "inclusion is doubtful" does not say much about what your objections and concerns are. Please elaborate by what you meant, so i understand your perspective. Also these maps have been accepted in Welsh Wikipedia. In general maps are added to wiki articles if they expand knowledge of the topic. These maps show the status of Welsh over a 150 period and are important to the topic by providing visual images of the data based on reliable scholarship. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic and truly historic maps worthy of Pryce. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, everybody. My background is oriented towards material culture studies - I'm not a linguist. My view comes mostly from an anthropological perspective, papers which I've read about the preservation of the Welsh language and an understanding of how reliable bibliography functions on wikipedia. I'm also a strong supporter of the preservation of endangered languages. I think that the maps are sourced, but I'm interested to learn more about the perspective of @Gareth Griffith-Jones:. Maybe there's a WP:SYSTEMIC issue which external observers haven't noticed, but a native Welsh person can explain to us. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Academic works on the Welsh language, nearly always mention Pryce's work as a starting point. He is a giant in the field and unavoidable for people doing research on the topic. He looked at church records spanning 150 year period whereby clergy wrote about the language use of parishioners and changes over time, and from that Pryce compiled his maps in the late 20th century. He meets wiki criteria of WP:RELIABLE and WP:SECONDARY. Each map that i uploaded is well sourced on their respective wiki commons page. I added the maps to this article because they are about the Welsh language. They deal with the critical 150 year period when Welsh was mainly a monolingual language for its speakers and covered most of Wales, to one becoming confined to the north west and south west, after massive changes due to the schooling system and industrialisation. Respectfully @Gareth Griffith-Jones:, I hope WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not prefigure as a rationale for the omission of maps from the article, as that goes against the spirit of what Wikipedia is about as an encyclopedia project. I hope you can elaborate on your reasons for reverting, as i am engaging in good faith. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I see no good reason to exclude these maps from the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Neither do I, however, I'm interested in learning more about the perspective of Gareth Griffith-Jones.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber:, i still have no idea why the maps were reverted. @Gareth Griffith-Jones: could you please elaborate your reasons for not wanting the maps in the article, so we all can have an idea here of your perspective. I ask because i do not want to engage in trivial edit wars when i place back the maps in a few days time if the discussion remains as it is, and goes nowhere beyond the support shown by editors who have respectfully engaged in the talkpage. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I have just made the following revision: /* Middle Welsh */ Restored the gallery (of maps) to this section rather than back into the Modern Welsh section. Cheers to Resnjari and those who have posted above.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool! Glad its resolved Gareth Griffith-Jones. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think these maps are accurate unless I'm misinterpreting them. The last Welsh speakers in eastern parts of Monmouthshire died out around 1900, meaning that in 1750 these communities were almost certainly Welsh speaking. In 1892 there are reports of Welsh still being understood by people in Herefordshire. And in areas like Cwmyoy and Llanthony, Welsh speakers could still be found in 1892. In fact in Llanthony most over 50 could still speak the language. If anything, the map portraying 1750 is inaccurate for Monmouthshire. Would like to know others' opinions on this too incase I'm mistaken. LeviWay (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Number of speakers in intro

Does the circumflex diacritic have a Welsh name?

Cultural Genocide

Welsh-speaking communities other than Chubut Valley?

Actual language use

There's all sorts of information about people who "can speak Welsh", and people who learn it in school, and use it in information technology, profesional engineering, and all kinds of stuff. What there isn't, or hardly, is information about how the situation actually is on the ground. Because a living language, if it's really a living language, is spoken at home, in the pub, at the butcher's, with the lady at the hospital information desk... As of now, one gets the feeling that Welsh has been largely reduced to folklore (as is certainly the case with Irish). 90.186.83.177 (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand your concern but rest assured Welsh is a real living language, meeting all the marker-points you gave plus countless more. What ideas do you have to illustrate Welsh as a real L1 living language?Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

In most of north, mid, and west Wales, Welsh remains the dominant language - "spoken at home, in the pub, at the butcher's, with the lady at the hospital information desk". Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

More information WP:FORUM ...

WP:FORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

~~That's fantastic to hear, hope it remains so!~~ Sock of indef blocked User:92.14.216.40 81.170.32.206 (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Aren't you yet another sockpuppet of User:92.14.216.40? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

~~I don't believe so, no, not sure what that has to do with me being gladdened to hear about the resilience and strength of the Welsh language though.~~

I understand we had our disagreements about Welshness, and ethnic identities in general, but you do get that if you say to people all they need to do to be Welsh is simply call themselves Welsh, nobody is going to go to the effort of maintaining and continuing the tradition of speaking Welsh, right.

I want the language to survive and thrive, I want Welshness to survive and thrive (albeit I'm not myself). It's not going to do that if all you boil it down to is people ticking a box on a census form every 10 years. Sock of indef blocked User:92.14.216.40 81.170.32.206 (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

What are your proposals for improving this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting an improvement to the article, I was merely expressing joy at the current position of the Welsh language, as claimed by Ghmyrtle. I suppose, since you're asking, you could create a section based on the relationship between Welshness and the Welsh language? But that might be better suited to the Welsh people article, which has devoted like a sentence to it or something (could use expanding). Sock of indef blocked User:92.14.216.40 81.170.32.206 (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

So maybe you should suggest that at Welsh people. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

~~So you can collapse my suggestions, ignore them when I ask uncomfortable questions and then strikethrough every point I make a day later?~~

~~Maybe I will.~~

~~Do you speak Welsh, by the way? I assume you consider yourself Welsh, yes? Can I ask you why you think speaking Welsh isn't an important, crucial part of Welshness?~~

Believe it or not, it was a Welsh woman (many years ago, when I was an insecure, blinded young separatist) that helped instill in me the realization that language was crucial to identity, although it would take me a long time to mature enough to the point I realized she was right (I actually reacted to her telling me this in an extremely hostile manner). Sock of indef blocked User:92.14.216.40 81.170.32.206 (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Welsh language

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Welsh speakers in Patagonia

"Main language" in census

Origins

Bias / lack of neutrality

External links modified

External links modified

usage of welsh news references

Removing non-supported misleading claims

Please stop your vandalism.

Speak Welsh listed at Redirects for discussion

Calon Lân in parliament

Western or not?

History and Etymology

Archive 6

"Welch language" listed at Redirects for discussion

Language maps

Number of speakers in intro

Does the circumflex diacritic have a Welsh name?

Cultural Genocide

Welsh-speaking communities other than Chubut Valley?

Actual language use

Welsh books section

The Welsh language as a tool of white supremacism.

Template Clutter

Patagonian Welsh again

Incorrect Information on the Numbers from Census Records

Related Articles