Jump to content

Talk:Welsh language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 20, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

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)[reply]

Welsh speakers in Patagonia

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ethnologue

"Main language" in census

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Origins

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bias / lack of neutrality

[edit]

In this massive article there is not one word on the cost to British taxpayers for funding / promoting the Welsh language. There's also no comment on the educational impact of having to learn an additional language local language / not learn a foreign language. No mention of it's impact on attracting non-welsh business. There's also no mention of the number of monolingual welsh speakers.Billyoffland (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is relevant; that is why it is not mentioned. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly not relevant, considering those were the issues which several news outlets (including the BBC) dwelt on during the recent coverage about the plans to increase spoken Welsh by 2050. They are certainly not criticisms many people like to hear, and maybe lazy criticisms by monoglot English speakers, but they are still arguments and opinoons that exist. Sionk (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's also not one word said about the aggressive way the language was suppressed by the English, for example Henry VIII’s Act of Union and later Victorian schoolchildren punished physically for speaking Welsh. Sheps (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there's not one word about it on the page, you should probably read the page again. Also both your examples get their own pages: Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 and Welsh Not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Welsh language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Welsh language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

usage of welsh news references

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removing non-supported misleading claims

[edit]

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. [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Please stop your vandalism.

[edit]

Please stop vandalising the page by spamming "WELSH LANGUAGE IS DYING". You are in fact making the Welsh language die even faster by dis-encouraging potential learners of the language from accessing resources about the language. --BlobcatsAreCool (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The person responsible for this nonsense (Fifawill12) has already been blocked. I also reported the IP that they were using, so this shouldn't be a problem anymore. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Welsh listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Speak Welsh. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 12:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calon Lân in parliament

[edit]

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)[reply]

That is your opinion. I disagree with you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I wonder what you think about this reverting? Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [3] or you could write a new section to the Calon Lân article here: [4] 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)[reply]

Western or not?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

History and Etymology

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Archive 6

[edit]

All discussions from pre-2017 have been archived at Talk:Welsh language/Archive 6. The next archive should be Talk:Welsh language/Archive 7. This has been done due to nothing being added to discussions - in some cases since 2008! This will hopefully start new discussions on how to improve the article. – Dyolf87 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Welch language" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Welch language. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 10#Welch language until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Language maps

[edit]
  • Languages of Wales 1750 - 1900
  • 1750
    1750
  • 1800
    1800
  • 1850
    1850
  • 1900
    1900
Key: • Welsh   • Bilingual   • English  


Hi @Gareth Griffith-Jones:. In your reverts you said "inclusion is doubtful" [5]. 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)[reply]

Let's wait and see what others think.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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." [6] or "inclusion is doubtful" [7] 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)[reply]
Encyclopaedic and truly historic maps worthy of Pryce. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I see no good reason to exclude these maps from the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Number of speakers in intro

[edit]

I want to suggest that this part of the introduction:

According to the United Kingdom Census 2011, 19 percent of residents in Wales aged three and over were able to speak Welsh. According to the 2001 Census, 21 percent of the population aged 3+ were able to speak Welsh. This suggests that there was a decrease in the number of Welsh speakers in Wales from 2001 to 2011 – from about 582,000 to 562,000.

The Annual Population Survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics for the year ending in June 2020 concluded that 866,600 Welsh residents (28.6 percent) aged three or over were able to speak Welsh. The results for the most recent National Survey for Wales (2018-2019) suggest that 22 percent of the population aged three and over were able to speak Welsh, with an additional 16 percent noting that they had "some Welsh speaking ability"

be changed to just this:

Around 20–30% of Welsh residents are able to speak Welsh.

There is just too much detail about the various surveys of the number of speakers. An introduction should just give a summary of the topic, I can't think of any other language article that gives so much attention to speaker surveys. (Additionally "This suggests that there was a decrease" does not seem to fit, surely the number is within margin of error.)

– Thjarkur (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the circumflex diacritic have a Welsh name?

[edit]

Does the diacritic ^ (as seen on ŵ and ŷ) have its own Welsh language name? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While doing a web search to try to find the answer to to this question (without success), I found a reference that says that Welsh also uses diaeresis (e.g., ä. So may I broaden the question to ask for the Welsh name for this diacritic too, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They do indeed. A circumflex in Welsh is known as an 'acen grom' [curved accent(uation)] (or less formally, a 'to bach' [little/small roof]. A diaeresis is known as a 'didolnod' [separating mark]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:7C09:AA00:AD2C:55F3:F5B7:FF90 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The acen grom is also known as a hirnod ("long sign"). So that's three names.---Ehrenkater (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness (although these are rarer) the acute accent is an acen ddyrchafedig ("elevated/ascending mark") and a grave accent is an acen drom ("sad or heavy mark") or acen ddysgenedig ("descending mark"). See Welsh orthography.

Note that the word acen is feminine, so the accompanying adjectives take the feminine form.---Ehrenkater (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wanted this to make ^ a self-sufficient article but, because I didn't have any sources, it promptly got reverted to a redirect to caret (which it isn't, but that is the WP:Common name in the US...). If I am to have another go, I will need a citation for those names, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find most of them in "Gramadeg y Gymraeg", by Peter Wynn Thomas, University of Wales Press, 1996 edition, Appendix IV, sections 18 and 37-41.---Ehrenkater (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Genocide

[edit]

Why is there no mention that the British government suppressed and prevented the use of Welsh in schools and thereby contributed to near extinction of the language? Here is an article that partially deals with the issue: Welsh Not. This should be addressed in the history section and also mentioned in the summary. MythicalAlien (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though there is a secton under "In education" about the Welsh Not. Maybe some sort of (sourced) explanation about the language's near-extinction needs adding to the woefully short "Modern Welsh" section, which states it was almost driven to extinction, but not why or how. Like similar language articles, this one's heavily biased towards recent events. Sionk (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree that Welsh Not should be given greater coverage. "near extinction" is a bit rich though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh-speaking communities other than Chubut Valley?

[edit]

Okay, this may be utter speculation, but was Welsh historically spoken in Ireland? I mean, after the conquest of Ireland in the 17th century, many British people settled there. This led to extensive colonies of Scots speakers in Ulster, and to a West Country English-based variety in Leinster (a dialect now known as Irish English). So it seems likely to me that Welsh speakers must have settled there, too. And if they did, their language may well have survived for some generations. Can anyone teel me whether this was the case? Steinbach (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No; there is no record of Welsh spoken as a community language anywhere in Ireland. Jeppiz (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like you allude to, Walsh is the 4th most common surname in Ireland today (Walsh means Welsh/Briton). Some other very common Irish surnames are Brannagh, and variations of it, which also mean 'Welshman/Briton'.
We can safely assume at least some of those people were Welsh-speaking, and that some of the mercenary troops accompanying Norman and English and other invasions of Ireland were Welsh-speaking.
So if you're asking have people existed in Ireland historically who spoke Welsh, absolutely. There's some strong evidence that Brittonic languages had some kind of presence in parts of Ireland going by placename evidence and Irish contemporary accounts of ethnic divides within Gaelic Ireland, but nothing concrete and any attempts put forward by academics and linguists are usually crucified by insecure Irish nationalists. 81.170.32.206 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actual language use

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Aren't you yet another sockpuppet of User:92.14.216.40? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What are your proposals for improving this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
So maybe you should suggest that at Welsh people. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Welsh books section

[edit]

Not only should there be a Welsh books section, but also a full article on Welsh books. Cambrian Bibliography is an old list of some of the first books. I've been asked to add other books from the new and rather exciting Commons:Category:Scans in Welsh from the Internet Archive (950 new pdfs!) over the next few months, and therefore can't afford the time. John Jones (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Welsh-language literature, you mean ;) Sionk (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but specifically about the printed book. And, maybe a second: List of early printed Welsh books. John Jones (talk)

The Welsh language as a tool of white supremacism.

[edit]

[8] - there is currently no mention within the article of non-White Welsh people and how they interact with and feel about the way the Welsh language is implemented in Wales. The irony is this is exactly the pattern of bias highlighted in the report! (Considering Plaid Cymru’s *dismal* record on dealing with ethnic minority issues within Wales, this is hardly a surprise). It may be uncomfortable for some White Welsh people to here, but it needs to be addressed! 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:5948:DC5B:70B7:C3A4 (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a political rally. What do you want to happen? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is about the language from a strictly linguistic point of view, and doesn't cover the sociology of the language community, it's probably the wrong place for this. Apart from that, you need to be very careful of that source. But the relationship between language and ethnicity in Wales is a real encyclopedic question. Look for some academic research on it. I suspect that there are non-white Welsh speakers. I also suspect that non-whites in Wales are more likely to have sympathy for the Welsh-language community as they have a shared experience of being a minority. But if there is evidence that some of them feel excluded, let's see it. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are many non-white Welsh speakers, and a similar percentage of Wales-born non-white people speak Welsh to the percentage of white Wales-born people [9]. Sionk (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template Clutter

[edit]

The article went from 4 to 7 footer templates in the last couple of days. I have pulled out a couple. As per the guidelines, there should be an editor discussion about which templates are best for the article.

The article is about the Welsh languages which is one of the languages of the UK. Yes, it is also clearly about Welsh linguistics andWelsh language and languages of Wales, but there is a lot of overlap in these. Also is Wales topics then deemed too broad? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe {{Welsh linguistics}} and {{Welsh language}} should be the same single template as brought up at its talk as most similar templates usually have only one of the two, not both. Unsure of {{Languages of Wales}}, comparing to other templates "Languages of" (click the grey banner), they usually literally just list the languages (maybe some do dialects), therefore the UK one can work fine enough. No idea on {{Wales topics}}, that's been added as a default really when there is no other template. Therefore it could be reduced to 5? At the same time {{Navboxes}} can be used to collapse templates. DankJae 15:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly merged {{Welsh linguistics}} and {{Welsh language}}, so there is one less template. DankJae 16:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think this is sensible Titus Gold (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patagonian Welsh again

[edit]

AuH2ORepublican, to underscore the point Roger 8 Roger made in their edit summary, note that the Patagonian Welsh article itself has been tagged for ten years for a lack of citations. I might run through it myself this week and source what I can and remove the rest. In any event, it isn't clear that there's an active dialect. If all the speakers are learning it in school, absent evidence to the contrary, I expect that it's from standard Welsh materials. Largoplazo (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Information on the Numbers from Census Records

[edit]

The "Status" section in this article is a complete mess and is both inconsistent with the numbers from the census as well as with itself.

Inconsistent with itself: The numbers from 2021 are roughly correct from what I can gather from census results: 3,107,489 people in Wales of which ~538,300 can speak Welsh. The article states this is 17.8%. It is not. 538,300/3,107,489 = 17.3% The reason for this discrepancy seems to be coming from the official report from the Welsh Language Commissioner who uses 17.8%. I believe the reason for this might be because the Commissioner is using the total population of Wales aged 3 & over which is the number of people who are allowed to answer the language question. The percentage for 1991 has a different error. The percentage is something like 18.07% and I guess the decimal was put in the wrong place at 18.7%. I think all these percentage calculations need to be checked.

Inconsistent with census numbers: The real problem here is that the Status section is comparing the number of Welsh speakers in Wales to the total population of Wales. No other official source does this. We should be comparing the number of Welsh speakers to the population of Wales above the age of 2. The reason for this is because you cannot, according to the government, speak Welsh (or any other language) if you are under 3 years of age.

I'm going to go ahead and correct that table using the census numbers. Oscopo (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Welsh_language&oldid=1258847538"