Talk:Welsh independence

Owain Glyndŵr's Gold dragon flag inclusion

Owain Glyndŵr used 'Y Ddraig Aur' (The golden dragon) in his campaign for Welsh independence from English rule, it is possibly the most important symbol representing Welsh independence, more-so than the four lion does.. as the lions represented Owain himself.. where-as the dragon represented his people. I have added the dragon to the article (however I'm not expecting it to stay long as I'm sure there will be someone displeased with it being added).. I'm not looking for an in-depth argument, however I would encourage editors to reply to this section with a 'keep' or 'leave out' so that democracy can be achieved. Hogyncymru (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru If you can add some good references to the image caption then it should stay. Titus Gold (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep. It does 'symbolise' Welsh Independence and the article is called Welsh independence. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Does it not also get confused with the golden wyvern/dragon of 143.159.205.142 (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Individuals

Does this article really need to list every single independence supporter than can be identified? It would make more sense to limit it to those deemed notable, i.e. those with long-standing articles., per WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:NAMECHECK. DankJae 19:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment and I have deleted non notable entries. It is usual practice to limit such lists to those who have Wikipedia pages as a demonstration of presumed notability. Also removed Michael Sheen - I already removed this from his bio page too as his views are clearly equivocal. I have three other thoughts:

1. The list is somewhat arbitrary. We have Saunders Lewis on there, which makes a lot of sense in that he clearly supported independence, but the vast majority of the list is of living supporters. There are plenty of others who have supported the cause of Welsh independence who have passed away and are not mentioned. I wonder when Owain Glyndwr will be added! (that is a joke btw. Don't add him!) The point being that maybe we should restrict to actual supporters of the current campaign or pare it right back to the most significant instigators of the movement.
2. I am not sure we need political parties on there - particularly parties that don't enjoy any representation.
3. There is a WP:NPOV issue here, which should be studiously avoided in an article like this. We only have supporters of independence and nothing about those who oppose it or have opposed it. The whole list is basically taken from Yes Cymru literature, which is clearly a POV source. I do note that we have a list of political parties that oppose independence, but there is a lack of any individuals, so this is not neutral point of view.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

While not entirely sure whether a list of individuals should be here at all. Having a opposition one seems to make sense to address POV concerns.

Concerns on the POV of the entire article have been brought up in a section above. DankJae 09:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I have read the page and do have some POV concerns, but I think these are somewhat offset by the fact that it is rather tedious, so we should not be too worried that anyone will read it through and be persuaded by the POV arguments! The history is way too long, and in that and following sections, tracts are copied and pasted from see also pages, so that it is hard work cutting through to the page subject. I am short on time, but as I get the time I will take a closer look. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree that some arguments need to be better summarised but without losing detail and points. Titus Gold (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Also agree that some aspects of history can be summarised better but again without losing important info. Titus Gold (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

There remains a significant imbalance in point of view in this article, with headings and sub headings expanded into sections for various arguments for independence (looks like it is based on pro independence literature) and a single short section on arguments against independence. I have today removed a couple of the pro sub sections that did not make a case for independence but simply discussed how the area would work in an independent nation (e.g. defence). However, I really think the whole pro/against structure should probably be jettisoned, and replaced with something like this article: [1]. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree there is some imbalance on this article. Not sure what you are proposing based on that The Atlantic article? What exactly are the sections instead of pro/against?

I would prefer something similar to Scottish Independence at least temporarily (ofc Welsh and Scottish Indy are not wholly the same), with pro/against retained in named sections, but centred more on the supporters (mainly organisations/parties/media etc), with most of "Independence movement" (YesCymru, LfIW etc) being moved to "support". And ofc the equivalent for opposers is similar detail.

The issues section wholly re-written to focus on general issues rather than specific cases brought by one side just like the new change at the Scottish one. So discusses each issue individually and describes it ideally NPOV. The fiscal debate should probably be re-added there it has somewhat been brought up, but not in so much detail, and only summarised. Referendums probably should be in its own section (Legal position?) near polling. But this is just my thoughts. DankJae 16:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the structure necessarily needs big change. The main issue is a lack of arguments directly arguing against independence in news, books etc. Independent Nation: Should Wales Leave the UK? (I recently made the page) could be a potential source for arguments against independence. The book seems to approach the topic from a neutral perspective. Perhaps the Issues section could have sub-headings of "for" and "against" or the current structure could be kept and the arguments against is tidied and expanded. If the "argument against" sections are massively expanded, then it makes the Unionism in Wales page obsolete. Titus Gold (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you are proposing based on that The Atlantic article? My thinking was that this article presented the case for and against independence in a single and cohesive prose narrative, although I expect the downside is that it did not cover all the arguments. It was the style rather than the content I was thinking of. However, happy to structure per Scottish Independence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Still even if basing on that article, there would need to be sub-headings here, but content there can be used for the history/movement sections. And the article mainly discusses setbacks and comparisons to Scotland which would not be needed in this article in as much detail, though could be somewhere.

Whether Unionism in Wales becomes obsolete depends. If we retain the existing structure, for balancing the pro-union side needs expanding. As the debate is on and associated with independence, which readers are more likely to associate with, both sides need to be here, and not a situation where this is a pro-indy POV article (as it leans to now) and UiW is the pro-union POV article. UiW may not even need arguments as it and its parent seem to be envisioned as merely about history and polling, and status quo articles are naturally a bit obsolete.

But if we were to create a neutral section here and potentially at UiW, they may not exactly be the same, therefore not as obsolete. The section(s) would focus on the arguments raised by proponents of the article (indy/UiW) but would include interpretations from all sides. Unionists and separatists may have conflicting main reasons that may have to be listed in only one of the two, but having interpretations from both sides. (but ofc this just thoughts, not fully thought out)

The issues section would IMO be organised by the arguments brought up in the debate, therefore mainly led by supporters, but will not be worded from solely the supporters POV. I.e. including opposing or factual information if it seems fit than relying wholly on POV interpretations. DankJae 00:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

So neutrality of the issues section seems to be the reason that the banner has been added.

Can we move the neutrality banner to this area as a section neutrality issue and look to make additions to arguments against independence then? Titus Gold (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Constitutional Commission update needed

Please add a suitable mention of the new report published today:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/welsh-independence-viable-devolution-collapse-28464093

https://news.sky.com/story/welsh-independence-viable-but-most-uncertain-option-for-waless-future-report-finds-13050418

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-67949443

Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)