Talk:Welsh Not

Views of the Welsh Not around 1900

Hi @DonBeroni, you have made a number of changes to the wording of this article. I'd like to query a change you made in reactions and impact section.

You replaced the line "Some writers in this period [around the turn of the 20th century] saw the Welsh Not as something imposed on Wales by England with the aim of destroying Welsh language; others disagreed, often seeing it as a result of Welsh people's desire to learn English" with "Welsh writers of the period often invoked the Welsh Not to decry what they considered the be the oppression of the Welsh language, such claims declined after the end of World War I in 1918, along with "the idea that this was the fault of the state or the English more broadly."

While Johnes does say that the view declined after the First World War I think it is more helpful to the reader to focus on the two strands of opinion that existed at the time; whatever we think of their accuracy. Llewee (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I think's that a fair point. In my mind, I was trying to stick as closely to the source as possible. Page 7 of Johnes (2024) states: "This did not change the anger that tellings of the Welsh Not could involve because of its perceived goals and impact on the Welsh language... Sometimes such interpretations put the blame (incorrectly) on the state or saw it as an example of England’s oppression of Wales." Given that this is the source cited for the aforementioned section, how about rewriting the sentence like this?

"During the turn of the 20th century, some writers in Wales perceived the practise as an attempt by the British government or England to suppress the Welsh language, though such claims declined after the end of World War I in 1918." I think this is good as I can't find much information in Johnes (2024) for support among fin de siècle Welsh writers for the Welsh Not, although I could be overlooking something. What do you think? DonBeroni (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@DonBeroni, the pages from Johnes book that are cited for that sentence are 7, 8, 9 and 21. I think there is a lot of evidence for my wording. It also appears that the point about the period after the First World War is opposite to how it is now presented in the article.

Statements that support "Some writers in this period saw the Welsh Not as something imposed on Wales by England with the aim of destroying Welsh language;"

• p 7 "Sometimes such interpretations put the blame (incorrectly) on the state or saw it as an example of England’s oppression of Wales.25 J. Tywi Jones (b.1870) did not make specific reference to the Welsh Not but he did write in 1919 of how Welsh had been ‘banned’ at his Llandovery school ... He later began to take interest in Welsh literature thanks to the influence of an old miner and began to realise what he had been deprived of: ‘We were simply robbed of our birthright by a foreign system of education and its paid servants.’26 What is significant here is the sense that existed even in the late nineteenth century that there had been a deliberate attempt to, as one 1890s account put it, ‘help kill our old language’.27"
• p 8 "One 1890 reference to the Welsh Not in schools in the past said it was little wonder that Welsh had lost ground when the machinery of the state schools was driving it to perdition.29"
• p 9 "After the First World War, invoking education and the Welsh Not to discuss linguistic and national decline intensified. So did the idea that this was the fault of the state or the English more broadly.38 Sir Ben Bowen Thomas, who worked in adult education before becoming permanent secretary to the Welsh Department at the Ministry of Education in 1945, wrote that education after the 1870 Act that spread its reach was ‘designed to obliterate the characteristics of the society which it should have served’. It was geared to making the Welsh ‘adaptable to the demands of industry and commerce’. The result was, he said, that people ‘gained the whole world’ and ‘an English soul’ but lost a Welsh one.39"

Statements that support "others disagreed, often seeing it as a result of Welsh people's desire to learn English".

• p 8 "A 1917 account maintained that the Welsh Not and the slaps he had received for speaking Welsh were not about killing off Welsh but rather helping children who never heard English out of school learn the language. This writer likened the idea that the Welsh Not was an attempt to kill Welsh to how German children were wrongly taught before the ongoing war that everything Britain did was to hurt their country.32 Another account said: "A ruder or a more primitive mode of teaching English is hardly conceivable; but it shows that, in those dark and cloudy days, there was some desire to acquire a knowledge of that language which is destined to become the one common medium of international intercourse between the civilised nations of the world.33"
• p 9 "Others understood that the Welsh Not had come from within Wales rather than government policy and used this as an example of self-hurt. In 1916, in the aftermath of the Easter Rising, one writer said that when he remembered the days of the Welsh Not and the arrogance of some Welshmen towards their language, he could understand the sins of the Irish and how they had been misled.35"
• p 9 " A school textbook from 1938 noted that education after 1870 was ‘purely English’ but that this ‘was not the fault of the English Government’. Instead, it argued that parents had not wanted Welsh taught in day schools so their children could learn English to get on in the world."
• p 21 "The possibility that understandings of the Welsh Not are ahistorical is not new. In 1925, the Revd J. Vyrnwy Morgan argued that ‘violent speeches’ and ‘acrid articles’ had denounced the ‘tyrannical effects’ of the Welsh Note, ‘building up a superstructure of racial and linguistic grievance upon false inferences’. He argued that the Welsh Note had been implemented by teachers who were Welsh and that they were not trying to eliminate Welsh but rather teach English.92 Similarly, in 1937, scholar W. J. Gruffydd wrote that many people who complained they had suffered under the Welsh Not had gone to schools where it was not used and where teachers spoke Welsh to them. He went on to say that everyone was tired of hearing about the Welsh Not because they knew that it was customary and fashionable to express bitter feeling about it.93"

I'd prefer to keep my wording but perhaps clarify it to "Some writers in this period saw the Welsh Not as something imposed on Wales by England or the British government with the aim of destroying Welsh language; others disagreed, often seeing it as a result of Welsh people's desire to learn English". Johnes will have read many more contemporary texts and given these as some examples. The source states that they were blaming England as a nation as well as the British government so we should state that.Llewee (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

My apologies for not reading through the source more clearly; I think your revised sentence is good, though perhaps we can still keep the fact that such views declined after WW1 somewhere in the para? DonBeroni (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@DonBeroni, The source says "After the First World War, invoking education and the Welsh Not to discuss linguistic and national decline intensified. So did the idea that this was the fault of the state or the English more broadly.38" I would assume that Johnes means by "intensified" that the view became more common. "Linguistic and national decline" is referring to a belief that the Welsh language or culture was declining. Llewee (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Early 20th century again

@Hogyncymru: hi, you have removed However, there is no written evidence of the practice being used after 1900.sourced to Johnes 2024 and added a quote from Gwynfor Evans diff. I think what Johnes says is important as a recent academic source, available online. He says There is some evidence that suggests the Welsh Not was still being used in some schools that late [into the twentieth century] ... no published autobiography or contemporary commentary dates the Welsh Not to the twentieth century so perhaps our wording should be clarified. A quote of what he said about the Welsh not would be more useful than the current quote. TSventon (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon:, I've reverted the edits in question. The newspaper article did not say that the Welsh Not had been used in the early 20th century and it would be odd for a 1960s opinion piece to overrule an academic history book published last year in any case.--Llewee (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Welsh Not/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Llewee (talk · contribs) 00:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Zzz plant (talk · contribs) 02:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Llewee, thank you for your work on this article- this looks like a very interesting topic. I will review it against the GA criteria and should have comments posted within the next day. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Zzz plant, I should be able to start answering the comments on Friday. Llewee (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for your work on this article. There are just a few outstanding prose points, but overall this article is in very good shape and I'm looking forward to promoting it soon. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Really excellent work across the board here, and thank you again for being so responsive! I'm happy to promote this, as it meets all the GA criteria. I encourage you to consider nominating it for DYK - as a newly promoted GA it will be eligible, and I think there are multiple potential "hooky" facts in the article. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Well-written?

• overall yes, this article is quite well-written. it is consistently clear to a broad, general audience. I also found it a quite engaging read. I did notice some quite minor repetition in a few places, so I will organize some suggestions below by subsection. General disclaimer: not all of my prose notes will directly pertain to GACR, and please feel very free to push back on any thing you don't think would be an improvement. Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Lede

• "The Welsh Not was a token used by teachers at some schools in Wales, mainly in the 19th century, to discourage children from speaking Welsh at school, by marking out those who were heard speaking the language." - I would suggest removing "at school" since that is already established in the first clause. and/or you could replace "children" with "schoolchildren" Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• "It could be followed by an additional punishment; sometimes a physical punishment." - would suggest rephrasing to avoid repeating "punishment". maybe something like "It could be followed by further discipline, sometimes involving corporal punishment." Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • done--Llewee (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• for the second para, I do feel like the last sentence - which provides context for why/how the Not was instituted - sort of belongs nearer to the front, before the info about how it fell out of favor Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • moved to start of that paragraph--Llewee (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• "Accounts suggest that its form and the nature of its use could vary from place to place, but the most common form was a piece of wood suspended on a string that was put around the child's neck." suggest simplifying slightly to "Accounts suggest that its form and use varied from place to place, but it was most commonly a piece of wood hung on a string and worn around the child’s neck." Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • done--Llewee (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Overview

• "...banned the use of Welsh in the school and playground to force children to use and become proficient in English." suggest replacing "school" with "classroom" - since I assume the playground was also physically at the school; this helps convey that it was enforced both during lessons and students' unstructured free time Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • done--Llewee (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• "Some of these schools punished children caught speaking Welsh with the Welsh Not." this sentence feels a bit tacked on to the first para, I think because to me it feels like it's repeating information that has already been conveyed in the previous sentences Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • moved to start of the next paragraph, the Not wasn't universal even at schools where children weren't allowed to speak Welsh--Llewee (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• "The Welsh Not came in several forms and with different names (Welsh not,Welsh note, Welsh lump, Welsh stick, Welsh lead, cwstom, Welsh Mark, Welsh Ticket) and was used in different ways." - the stacked "ands" make this a tad difficult to parse. suggest something like "The Welsh Not came in several forms and was used in differing ways. It was also known by other names, including..." Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • done, added detail about names and created terminology section--Llewee (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

    New terminology section looks excellent, separating it out was a great idea. Zzz plant (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• "Similar approaches to teaching languages were used around Western Europe." if the sources support a specific example I think that could be a helpful add Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • added a couple--Llewee (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

History

• "...for instance, Rev Richard Warner..." recommend spelling out Reverend on first usage Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Zzz plant done Llewee (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• "Efforts by teachers to prohibit the speaking of Welsh in schools became gradually less common in the late 19th century." suggest "Efforts by teachers to prohibit the speaking of Welsh in schools gradually became less common in the late 19th century." Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Done--Llewee (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Laws in Wales Acts

• very interesting section! as a non subject-matter expert, I would have assumed that these laws would be very poorly received by Welsh people. but it seems like it's much more nuanced than that; you convey that quite well. Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, it is an interesting section but I can't take credit for it. It was here before I started working on the article.--Llewee (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• my only note is about "It would also have led to the realisation that to get anywhere in a society dominated by England and the English, the ability to speak English would be a key skill." - I can't access the source, but I think this could probably be rephrased to avoid sounding like speculation. you can attribute the idea to Johnes Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• I have access to an ebook version of the source (though it doesn't seem to have the same page numbers as the version used here). I've reworded the relevant sentence.--Llewee (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

19th century and early 20th century

• "The language was becoming more widespread in the industrialising areas due to migration" - suggest The language became more widespread in the industrialising areas due to migration." and providing a temporal marker here if possible - it's not super clear to me if this is a follow-up or the next step in the sequence from the first sentence Zzz plant (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Done the first part. The second and first sentence are meant to be at the same time. I initially had "however" at the start of the second sentence. However (lol), I have been told off by other editors for including too many of those kinds of words in my writing so I took it out.--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• "Welsh speakers were keen for their children to learn English..." would soften this ("some" or "many"), as I don't think it's possible to report definitively what every Welsh speaker wanted for their children Zzz plant (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• added "many"--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• "...while, in schools where "the schoolmaster has to teach them English, and to talk English in the school, there is no room in the school-room to admit all that come" I would paraphrase this quote, as I don't think the specific phrasing is adding a lot (and may even be a bit hard to follow for some general readers). suggest something like "...while, in schools where the schoolmaster was expected to teach and speak only English, there was not enough space to accommodate all the children who wanted to attend." Zzz plant (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• done--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• I think the section on Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales could do with a tiny bit more context and depth to those who were critical of it. I would like to get a glimpse from reading this section as to why it was notorious enough to earn the "Treason" or "Treachery" moniker, even if it seems to have not advocated for the Welsh Not in particular. Zzz plant (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• rewrote paragraph--Llewee (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• "Welsh schools, in the first half of the 19th century, emphasised strict discipline." ymmv, but I feel like it may be good to mention or allude to that this (probably) wasn't just a quirk of Welsh schools in particular. schools in general were stricter in this period. Zzz plant (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent but I've tried to make the point that it was a British, rather than specifically Welsh, thing.--Llewee (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  Looks good now Y Zzz plant (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Reactions and impact

• "Government investigations in the mid-19th century indicated that excluding Welsh was not an effective way of teaching English, some teachers made use of Welsh to help teach English in that period." these almost seem like two separate thoughts. I would use a semi-colon if you want to connect them, but I'd also consider whether the connection could be clearer (if sources allow). like, did the teachers make use of Welsh to teach English in response to the government investigations? Zzz plant (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think there was a direct connection. The government wasn't doing much to encourage them. I've broken up the sentence and added an example--Llewee (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• "According to the Encyclopaedia of Wales, "Welsh patriots view the Welsh Not(e) as an instrument of cultural genocide", but "it was welcomed by some parents as a way of ensuring that their children made daily use of English" even attributed, the "according to...but actually" construction feels a tad like it's "debunking" the cultural genocide claim. Zzz plant (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I think it fits in the paragraph which it is part of now. Tell me if you are OK with it.--Llewee (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

    I think the current framing is better, but I would tweak it a bit more for maximum neutrality. Maybe separate the thoughts, something like "'The Encyclopaedia of Wales notes that the Welsh Not(e) is viewed by Welsh patriots as an "instrument of cultural genocide." The publication also notes that the practice was welcomed by some Welsh parents who prioritized their children's proficiency in English."? Open to other constructions too, but I would try to avoid a "but" or "although" type setup Zzz plant (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  rewritten along those lines and moved to the historians sections--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Cultural interaction

• no comments here, looks good Zzz plant (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research?

• yes, see below:

Source spot check

in-line ref #s as of this revision

• [3]: "Some of these schools punished children caught speaking Welsh with the Welsh Not." Y Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• [17]: "The Welsh Not was not a government policy." Y Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• [19]: "The Welsh Not was a practice introduced by individual teachers mostly on their own initiative." Y Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• [38]: "Davies says that as the (Tudor) government were to promote Welsh for worship, they had more sympathy for Welsh, than for Irish in Ireland, French in Calais, and than the government of Scotland had for Gaelic of the Highlands. The Tudors themselves were of partly Welsh origin." Y Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• [90]: "David T. C. Davies, a Welsh Conservative politician, argued in 2012 that the Welsh Not was "largely a myth used to stir up anti-English prejudice"..." Y Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• [96]: "In 2024, the 1923 Welsh Women's Peace message was translated into the Okinawan language from the perspective of the similarities between the Okinawan dialect cards and the Welsh Not." Y Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• [98]: "Japanese musicians also created a short film, inspired by the similarities between the history of Okinawan dialect tags and the Welsh Not." Y Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Reference formatting

• I think [12] and [35] are duplicates and can be consolidated Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• optional, non-GACR suggestion: for the news sources, recommend wikilinking to the publication rather than providing the url so reader can easily check out the source info for themselves. e.g. rather than nation.cymru -> Nation.Cymru and rather than www.okinawatimes.co.jp -> Okinawa Times. Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• done--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• optional, non-GACR suggestion: add archive links for web-based sources Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliability

• this looks to be a very richly researched article. it does lean on Johnes 2024 significantly - but as this is described as "the first academic study of the Welsh Not" I think this is understandable and justified. the book itself appears quite reliable. Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Original research

• no signs of this - scholarly opinions are carefully attributed and presented in appropriate context. Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Copyright

• EW 23.7% - based on dates, this looks like a reverse copy of Wikipedia rather than the other way around Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• did not see any CLOP in sources I spot-checked Zzz plant (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Neutral?

• I would like for the Reactions and impact section to provide a bit more analytical depth as to the extent that this occupies a place in Welsh collective memory. i.e., I think it needs a bit more discussion of what that really means practically. see stability section below, where there was different opinions on whether or not to include an editorial by Gwynfor Evans. while I completely agree that the source should not be used to say anything definitive about the note's history - he's not a historian and doesn't seem to be asserting otherwise in the opinion piece - I think there is an opportunity to use it (or sources like it) while generally discussing the collective memory aspect. particularly as it relates to those who take a more Welsh nationalist approach Zzz plant (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• to clarify a bit more, I do understand (and think you've demonstrated quite well with reliable sources) how the reality of the Not was more complicated than the popular messaging makes it out to be, but the sheer volume of discourse from this lens warrants a bit more development in my view. Zzz plant (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I have rewritten the legacy section to add more detail of how its been seen in Welsh culture.--Llewee (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

    Thank you! The expansion of the legacy section definitely provides the analytical depth I was looking for. It now clearly illustrates with concrete examples how the Not evolved into such a potent symbol in Welsh collective memory. This is a significant improvement for both scope and neutrality. Very well done. Zzz plant (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Stable?

• yes. constructive edit history. one dispute last summer, but it doesn't seem to have lingered. no ongoing edit wars. Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Illustrated?

• yes. see below:

File:Welsh Not on display.jpg - relevant and PD. I agree with the cleanup note on commons - it's pretty tiny - but I don't think it's of sufficiently poor quality that it should be excluded, as an actual physical note being illustrated is of high importance to the reader Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I've changed the image to one from the gallery in Johnes book.--Llewee (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

That's a great replacement! File:Welsh Not (Bangor).png - relevant and CC BY-SA 4.0 Y Zzz plant (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Old schoolroom, Pen-ffynnon - geograph.org.uk - 942366.jpg - relevant and CC BY-SA 2.0 Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

File:"Y Welsh Note". Trysorfa y Plant.png relevant and PD Y Zzz plant (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Welsh Not found at Garth school, Bangor

• ... that at a school in early 19th century England, pupils were punished for speaking English with a punishment resembling the Welsh Not (pictured)?

• Source: Welsh Not: Elementary Education and the Anglicisation of Nineteenth-Century Wales (pp. 60–61, 74)

• Alt1: ...that in 1962 a man protested employees being prohibited from speaking a language at work by wearing a school punishment?

• Source: Welsh Not: Elementary Education and the Anglicisation of Nineteenth-Century Wales (p. 18)

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Centres of governance in the Roman Empire

Improved to Good Article status by Llewee (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 18 past nominations.

Llewee (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC).

• I have withdrawn the first hook as it was indirectly sourced to a children's magazine. Llewee (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll review this. Thriley (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Llewee: Before I complete the review, I do think the background section is way too large. It's better if you make an article about the history of the banning and discrimination against the speaking of Welsh than have such detailed paragraphs in an article about an object that was just one aspect of that. Thriley (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thriley, thank you for reviewing this, my previous comment was needlessly catty. The article is about a sensitive topic for many Welsh and English people. You can see if you look at its archive that there have been major arguments in the past. So I think it needs a fair amount historic context, much of which was there in some form before I started working on the article. You will have to decide if you think the article is good enough to appear on the front page or not. Llewee (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand. It was more meant to encourage you to explore this further in an article about Welsh language discrimination generally. The article will not be prevented from running. Thriley (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. QPQ is done. I don't find ALT1 very interesting. Perhaps: ALT2: ... that teachers hung a Welsh Not (pictured) on the necks of students to discourage them from speaking Welsh? Thriley (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Ping @Llewee:. TSventon (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thriley, I think this might be a good hook which gets to the point of the recent book on the subject. Llewee (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that the Welsh Not (pictured) was meant to help children learn English, but did not work?

• Source: Welsh Not: Elementary Education and the Anglicisation of Nineteenth-Century Wales (pp. 62, 239–240)

Approve ALT2 and ALT3. All set. Thriley (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Forget-Me-Not

@Llewee and Zzz plant: thank you for all your work in getting "Welsh not" to good article status.

Llewee, I don't think the current hook is suitable for DYK, as Caroline Cleveland: a School-day Anecdote by Mary Russell Mitford is described as a story by Johnes and is probably not a reliable source. Also WP:DYKFICTION does not allow fictional events in hooks. I found the story here via Google books. TSventon (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it probably wasn't a great choice. I've added a different hook and will try to think of some more.--Llewee (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I have added the story as an additional reference, hopefully correctly formatted. TSventon (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Over reliance on a single source?

I'd echo the previous discussion that a lot of good work has gone into this article to get it to good status and thank everyone for their efforts. However, the current article does rather read like a promotional of Jones' book "Welsh Not: Elementary Education and the Anglicisation of Wales".

Not only is this single source greatly overused throughout the article, but Johnes himself is mentioned a staggering eighteen times in the main body of the text! Furthermore, many subsections and paragraphs begin with variations on a redundant credit ("Johnes writes" or "Johnes comments") which does rather make this look like it was written as self promotion (particularly for such a recent publication).

I am not a fan of Johnes style, presentation of evidence or conclusions at the best of times but surely this page needs a greater plurality of sources before it can be truly described as good work? Welsh-boi1 (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I'll have a second look. Deb (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Deb, let me know if there's anything I can help with.Welsh-boi1 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Welsh-boi1 and Deb, the article is heavily reliant on Johnes 2024 because it is the only academic source which focuses specififically on the Welsh Not. I get the impression Welsh-boi1 does not agree with the idea that the Welsh Not was partially a result of a popular desire among Welsh people to learn English; that's fine, but they need to find a academic sources which supports that perspective. Some of Welsh-boi1's actions, claiming that information cited to a text written by historian Gareth Elwyn Jones was uncited and removing information supported by the body from the lead, gives the impression they are not behaving with good faith.--Llewee (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

You have reverted all of my edits for spurious reasons, seemingly based on conclusions about me based on my assessment of Johnes as an historian. Please explain why you have accused me of not being WP:Good Faith and please stop reverting my edits wholesale and discuss the issues properly.

The idea that Johnes' book is the only "Academic" source is, naive at best and really does look like promotion. The source itself (which has an accessible pdf copy) lists a very extensive Bibliography of both contemporary and modern sources. A popular history book published by a University Press is not an "Academic source". Why is the article singularly sourcing Johnes and not the primary and secondary sources he uses himself? Please let me know why that is objectionable?

Please don't accuse me of not acting in good faith only to remove my Wikipedia:Verifiability query without discussion. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal.

I never claimed that it was uncited. Welsh-boi1 (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Welsh-boi1, you are clearly coming to this issue with particular ideological views and are using any means available to promote them. Including insisting that a well sourced section, now with better sources on the particular point, has an unneeded tag on it. It's not my responsibility to teach you what the different between an academic and popular source is. If you have any evidence that there wasn't widespread support for learning English among Welsh people in the 19th century or that Johnes work can't be trusted then can you please provide it because you haven't done so thus far.--Llewee (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's the reason for the reversions. The Welsh Not had very little to do with the popular desire to learn English. Teachers used to tell parents not to speak Welsh to their children at home, and it was teachers who introduced the Welsh Not - not the parents. There are plenty of sources and they don't have to be "academic" in the sense that you are applying it. They need only to be reliable sources. One person's view of the Welsh Not (Johnes) is no more valid than that of people who had personal experience of it. Deb (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Further comment - I find it bizarre that several other authors with whom Johnes disagrees are referenced and quoted only through a reference to Johnes. I propose removing the references to Breverton, Felton and Fiona G H Wells under "Popular Culture", along with that ridiculous final sentence in which, discussing personal recollections, we are told that "Johnes suggests that some of them are likely to be inaccurate". Definitely not NPOV! Deb (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, Middleton's "Thomas Hopley and mid-Victorian attitude to corporal punishment" in History of Education (2005): describes the issue as "complicated and often contradictory."

I do think this page reads as one-sided. Pendle Which (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Deb, I don't want argue with you about your personal views on the Welsh Not, our own opinions should not have any sway on our writing. Johnes is in an historian who has researched the subject and views thus have significance. Can you suggest any alternative historians who could provide a different perspective? Llewee (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure there are. In fact, some of Johnes' own books appear to contradict some of what he says in the one referenced here. Having said that, looking back at the text of his book, I think some of the content has been unintentionally misrepresented in the wording of the article. Deb (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Deb, I don't think that's fair it certainly wasn't my intention. Llewee (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That's why I said "unintentionally". Johnes' opinions on the Welsh Not are controversial and this book is only two years old. If you look through the work of other historians from earlier decades (the names of Gwyn Alf Williams, John Davies and Geraint Jenkins come to mind, but I know that there are many others who may have mentioned the Welsh Not in their voluminous writings). The problem is that the work of older historians is less immediately available, especially online, and the concentration on Johnes is a kind of recentism. Deb (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@User:Llewee, ould you maybe explain this edit. Your edit summary says "closer to article's content". Assuming you're referring to the Wikipedia article itself, I'd like to know why you've taken it on yourself to decide that this statement is not relevant in the lede when it's present and referenced in the body of the article. Deb (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Deb, The previous wording was based on a sentence in the article which is cited to a book of memories of one locality. The new wording is more general. Llewee (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The new wording has changed the entire meaning. Please replace the correct wording. Deb (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

On the subject of the clean-up template, questioning whether parents embraced the learning of English, Gwyn A. Williams broadly points in that direction in "When Was Wales?". He also specifically addresses the Welsh Not in a very lengthy paragraph. More broadly he addresses the anclicization of Wales. He says the Welsh Not "was not very effective but it enormously reinforced the image of Welsh as an inferior and gutter language" while "a significant number of Welsh school-teachers, presumbaly suffering from a tribal self-contempt and a species of shame, saw their duty not simply to introduce their students to the world of the English language, but to eradicate every sense of Welshness". In the 20th century he says "family after family, aided by sympathetic Labour local authorities, tried to get their children out of the pits via the examination obstacle race" and "no one can miss the sense of liberation which swept over many young people at the time on being admitted to a world language of infinite scope." He therefore strongly suggests that English language education was seen by many as a positive thing. Sionk (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I should think that's true; by that time the "educated" classes were primarily English-speaking, and most immigrants were monoglot English speakers. I don't think it's particularly relevant to the current bias of this particular article, which tends to follow Johnes's implication that the Welsh Not is some kind of myth. Deb (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

That's a really nice citation, but I would ask why is so much of this article given over to the views of parents? The articles on the Symbole, Dialect card and especially the lengthy history of the Vergonha make no comment on parental encouragement or acceptance, and this article feels very much the outlier.

I'm not Welsh and I don't speak the language, but a lot of this article reads like it is justifying it's usage or "victim blaming". We obviously have an ongoing argument between knowledgeable contributors but as someone who doesn't know the subject well it reads like an attempt to justify the usage. Pendle Which (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see much 'justifying', but historians are a good source for 'explanation' and context. All that being said, much of the comments (above) by Gwyn A. Williams are about the Welsh language later on in the 20th century, rather than the Welsh Not per se. There are certainly several paragraphs that could be chopped out of the current Wikipedia article, because they are solely about the decline of the Welsh language, rather than the Welsh Not (which was a 19th century thing). I notice someone has already quoted Gwyn A Williams but sourced it to "Johnes 2024". I'll replace that citation, at least, with one directly to "When Was Wales?". Sionk (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)