Talk:Plaid Cymru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "The Party of Wales" addition 2 NPOV on predcitions 3 Cleanup 4 Pronunciation 5 Election box metadata 6 Socialism 7 Leader(s) 8 User:Normalmouth's edits 9 Welsh 10 The Party of Wales 11 On-going POV edits by Normalmouth 12 "Change of Party name" 13 Leader changes again 14 Triban 15 Election Box Metadata 16 Weasel words 17 Referencing primary sources 18 Wartime worries 19 Seimon Glyn 20 Bias

[edit] "The Party of Wales" addition

Anyone remember when the formal name change to "Plaid Cymru - The Party of Wales" happened? Plaid's website refers to the party by the old name up to the 1995 local elections, and by the new name from the 1999 Assembly election. -- Arwel 23:20 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

The following website refers to "the late 1990's" - http://plaid-cymru.biography.ms/

The following (similar) site http://experts.about.com/e/p/pl/Plaid_Cymru.htm states : "The name was used from the late 1920s until it was formally changed to Plaid Cymru - The Party of Wales in the late 1990s, partly due to new electoral requirements that a party have an English name. In Wales, the party is often known as simply Plaid."

See also http://www.socialismtoday.org/46/wales.html Hogyn Lleol 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Just seen the entry at the bottom of this Discussion Page under "Party of Wales". That wasn't there when I read this earlier! Hogyn Lleol 17:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] NPOV on predcitions

I removed this chunk:

Plaid face wipe-out in the forthcoming council elections, due to be held on the 1st May 2004.

In retrospect Dafydd Wigley's tactics of distancing Plaid from its traditional defence of the Welsh Language, and thus the Party's heartland of North West Wales, in exchange for a more "All Wales" Nationalism, has proven to be disastrous. Wigley chose short term profit over long term survival and as a result distanced Plaid from its core voters. In the 2001 General Election, Plaid lost Wyn Jones' old seat of Ynys Mon. At the time this was seen as a fluke, but looking at the results of both the 2001 general election and the 2003 assembly election tells a different story. Wigley's old seat of Caernarfon is very vulnerable to a pro-Labour swing, and if a general election was held today, Plaid would probably lose it. It is not alone. Carmarthen is even more vunerable, and the resurgence of the Liberal Democrats, puts Ceredigion at risk. Only Meirionnydd Nant Conwy looks safe, but even then if Plaid weakens its link with the Welsh Language even further, it becomes very vulnerable.

Plaid's emergence as a major force in Welsh politics began with a series of massive swings in Valleys by-elections. Has its decline back into the fringe begun?

It's clearly not NPOV. Election results, like all data, can be read in various ways. Whoever wrote this doesn't allow for any other views. That's why I removed it.

-- -- hoshie

[edit] Cleanup

Following edits to make this article more neutral, the flow has become severely disrupted and its continuity broken. Someone with more time on their hands needs to clean up this article so that it conforms to a higher standard of writing.

[edit] Pronunciation

How do you pronounce "Plaid Cymru"?
In English phonetics it would be "Plide Kumree"

User:81.178.123.10 tried to add the following but it ended up in the wrong place:

Plaid is similar in sound to the English word Plied

Cymru has two syllables, the first which sounds more like the English Cum (to reach orgasm) than the English Come (to arrive)

The second is the same "RI" as in the second syllable of the name Harry (Ha - RI)

CUM-RI

Okay, I'm just surprised: there are people who pronounce "come" == "to reach orgasm" differently from "come" == "arrive"? 66.92.237.111 01:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also rather astonished at that, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 07:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Me too - As far as I'm concerned, the "Cym" in Cymru sounds like both of them. Unfortunately, the BBC announcers have got it into their heads that it should be pronounced "Cwm". I wince every time I hear it. Deb 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there an official pronounciation? It would be nice to include an IPA phonology for it on the page. --DDG 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't really do IPA well, but the word 'Plaid' is exactly the same as the English word 'plied', and the word 'Cymru' is exactly as it is on the Wales page, i.e. /ˈkəmri/ (I've replaced 'ɹ' by 'r' as per the talk page. Gareth 22:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the way you describe it, the first word would be /plaɪd/. --DDG 23:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally say it as Pa-lade Sim-roo. :P --Mrdie 03:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Amusing, but perhaps you should stop that. Deb 17:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:

• Template:Plaid Cymru/meta/color Content:    
• Template:Plaid Cymru/meta/shortname Content: Plaid Cymru

[edit] Socialism

Is Plaid really so socialist? Gwynfor Evans was arguably not one, and certainly a large proportion of the party, such as the "Hydro" group are not.

Not sure why "Social Democracy" is being listed in the ideology section rather than "Socialism". Plaid Cymru's constitution clearly states that they pursue a policy of "decentralised socialism".Dyfrigj 16:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Dyfrig Jones

An interesting one this, and a debate that is echoed in the discussion on the Labour Party article. Is the ideoloy section on the infobox a place to list how the party describes themselves as, or how they actually are? If it's the former we should be consistent throughout, so 'Liberal democracy' would be the description of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky for example.

My own view is that we should attempt to capture the real ideological position of the party, as so many parties (including arguably Plaid Cymru and Labour) have self-definitions that are heaviliy contested.Normalmouth 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that your comments are fair enough, and the point about Zhirinovsky is a good one. However, I would argue that Plaid Cymru are far more socialist than any of the other Welsh parties. Take, for instance, their policy on the milk industry http://www.plaidcymru.orgplaid_policy_a_milk_regulator_for_wales.pdf This policy advocates creating a central milk regulator, who would set price controls for Welsh milk, and would have the power to impose those prices on milk producers. I'm not sure whether you regard this as socialist or simply corporatist. The strong state element pushes it closer to socialism than social democracy, in my book. Plaid Cymru's overall economic strategy http://www.plaidcymru.org/plaid_policy_target_the_economy.pdf is also on the socialist end of the scale. It emphasises the Assembly as the provider of employment, advocating the creation of a "Jobs Unit", and stressing the importance of public procurement policy as a tool for growth. . Plaid Cymru may not advocate public ownership of resources (although this might reflect the inability of the Assembly to pass such a policy), but they do advocate a centrally planned economy. To my mind, the statist thinking behind such a policy pushes Plaid Cymru closer to Socialism than Social Democracy. Dyfrigj 10:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Dyfrig Jones

I agree, this does demonstrate socialist or corporatist thinking. To my mind, however, socialism is fundamentally internationalist whereas Plaid Cymru are fundamentally nationalist. Their analysis of justice is rooted in the national rather than the class question. So they would look to promote policies that help wealthy, landed Welshmen (along with other classes of Welshmen) over working class foreigners.

Or as I read a few years ago - would a Welsh nationalist support the aristocrat Owain Glyndwr over a peasant English conscript? Normalmouth 18:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel that your comments about Plaid Cymru's comittment to socialism are rooted in prejudice, rather than any real understanding of their policies. Since the mid 1980s, Plaid Cymru's nationalism has played second fiddle to its socialism. Internationalism plays a prominent role in the party's workings - did any of the other Welsh parties send a representative to the World Social Forum in Sao Paulo in 2003? Jill Evans, the Plaid Cymru MEP was present, a fact that demonstrates the party's comittment to internationalism. Your reasoning also seems to say that any party that calls itself socialist should be putting the needs of the global working class above any national consideration. This is a very 19th century interpretation of socialism, and you'd be hard pressed to find a single politician in the world that attains your impossible standards.

Gwynfor Evans wrote extensively on Keir Hardie and was a great admirer of him. Saunders Lewis though, was close to Fascism. --MacRusgail 06:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well their website says they aim for 'decentralised socialism' for Wales. Of course, that may be more talk than action, but the point is that this is how they see themselves. I don't think we can really know how socialist they are in reality until/unless they get more power. garik 17:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leader(s)

Should we list any one individual as Plaid's "leader", given that at present this is an unclear matter and they seem to have three different ones? Timrollpickering 08:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The party's constitution says in article 14.1i President: The President shall be the Registered Leader of the party., so that's Dafydd Iwan, then. -- Arwel 17:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Normalmouth's edits

Wide-ranging edits that significantly change a page's tone should be discussed here and a consensus found before they are enacted. We can start by asking why all references to Plaid as a left-wing / social democratic party are being erased. There is very little debate on this point. I have not heard any politician describe Plaid as a right-wing party, even Labour opponents. Let's see some evidence please! Gareth 20:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well. The left wing argument has been settled. The edit now makes an objective statement (the party's formal aims include a commitment to decentralist socialism) and I am content with that.

I've edited out the very recent suggestion that the manifesto is 'left-leaning' since that is simple editorialising and not in the least relevant to the passage. Let's stick to the facts, eh?

Such as why the following have been repeatedly edited out:

1. An explanation of what the term 'Plaid Cymru' means. Helpful for the vast majority on non-Welsh speakers visiting the page.
2. Any description of Plaid Cymru as a nationalist party. Most in PC are happy to describe themselves thus, and they are in a nationalist block in the European Parliament. Why edit it out?
3. The number of local authorities controlled by the party. This is simply a matter of fact and should be of interest to any reader on the subject.
4. Mention of the plot against Wigley and subsequent troubles endured by Ieuan Wyn Jones over Seimon Glyn. This happened. It should not be erased because of partisanship. That's not what Wikipedia is about.
5. Iwan undoubtedly shifted his party to a position of supporting independence (remember that Wigley claimed PC had 'never, ever' supported independence). To say he 'clarified' it is just PC propaganda.
6. Why has the remit of the EFA been erased? It's simply factual info that helps establish PC's ideology.

Look through my edits and you will see that I am trying to incorporate other's edits. (example, adding the section in on Wigley's popularity). Mais_oui!, by contrast, simply will not accept any amendment to his work. Who is the one trying to reach consensus?

I'll await a proper, substantive response to these points (and will ignore the rather pathetic invective of [[user:Mais_oui!]).

Normalmouth 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Normalmouth, perhaps you could make edits 1-3? Rather than do every thing at once? I'm sure those ones are without issue - or they certainly look like it to me.

The European Free Alliance is linked on the article - any talk/description about it really belongs on that article, not this.

Thanks/wangi 23:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've made those changes. It's important also to add in the detail about Seimon Glyn, and the shift to independence.Normalmouth 21:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll add in the points above tomorrow, since there are no objections. Normalmouth 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the shift to independence, it really depends on what is meant by 'independence'. What Ieuan Wyn Jones was getting at is that the early Plaid Cymru party supported dominion status as self-government (e.g. Australia, Canada), not "independence" on the Irish model. To a layman, these would both count as "independence", i.e. full sovereignty, but there are technical differences. "Clarification" really means that PC moved from a technical view of independence to a layman's view. Gareth 20:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn't the case. In the run up to the first Welsh Assembly elections Plaid Cymru's then President Dafydd Wigley proclaimed (and I'm certain I quote verbatim) "Plaid Cymru has never advocated independence. Never, ever on any occasion". See also here [1] and here [2] the latter being particularly relevant as it was reported during the leadership election which Dafydd Iwan went onto win.

So it is not the case that Iwan clarified his party's position - though I'd grant the old position lacked clarity. I'm therefore going to reinsert my previous edit.

Lastly, I'm going to add back in the reference to Seimon Glyn, which was a significant episode in Plaid Cymru's recent history and is widely thought to have harmed the party and contributed to their standstill performance in 2001. Normalmouth 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In the first link you gave you'll notice that the conference agreed to seek membership of the EU, which could only be acheived by becoming a sovereign nation. So they were obviously advocating sovereignty; but they didn't phrase it as 'independence'. Labour obviously went on to use this as a stick to beat them with. I think (I haven't checked) that that conference or another around that time went on to advocate a seat at the UN ('between Cuba and Cyprus' was the catchphrase), thus reinforcing my point. Re. Seimon Glyn, feel free to add a reference but I reserve the right to edit it for NPOV. Gareth 23:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

well, have a look at what I've done. I've attempted to remove any reference to shifting of clrifying and merely noted the formal declaration, which should satisfy both our arguments.Normalmouth 23:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm intrigued to know what the difference is between 'nationalism' and 'Welsh independence'? Gareth 10:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Spare a thought for those readers not familiar with the subject (that is, after all, the point of the article). Plaid Cymru are undoubtedly a nationalist party, therefore they should be described as such in the ideology section. Welsh independence is not an ideology, it is a policy. Normalmouth 12:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh

Plaid Cymru are Welsh, hence the correct link is to Welsh nationalism. Our resident Labour Party propagandist keeps reverting it to nationalism, which if you look at that article you will see that that is pure slander. I request that Normalmouth desists from vandalising this, and other, PC-related, articles.--Mais oui! 09:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

'Nationalism' is an ideology readily understood by most non-expert readers. As such it is far more suitable. Normalmouth 09:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Normalmouth is right. Nationalism is an ideology, Welsh nationalism is a policy. David | Talk 09:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Normalmouth is trying to perpetuate the Labour Party trick of associating PC with the Nazis. Wikipedia should not allow such disgusting shenanigans on its webspace.--Mais oui! 10:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not every nationalist is a nazi. That's an enormous piece of POV. David | Talk 10:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read the Nationalism article then that is the distinct impression that a reader will come away with: and that is Normalmouth's objective. In this tricky area we must use precise, clear terms, and avoid sloppy, lazy ones: the correct link is Welsh nationalism, not Nationalism - the two terms differ vastly.--Mais oui! 10:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe Irish nationalism is a nazi ideology too? Scottish nationalism? Cornish nationalism? That's a really extreme view that you're promoting. Nationalism is not fundamentally left or right. David | Talk 11:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No I do not, but if you read that Wikipedia article then that is very much the impression you will come away with.

{{sofixit}}. David | Talk 11:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

David Boothroyd, you are a far more reasonable debater and editor than Normalmouth, but as an active, serving Labour Party politician, with a history of strongly POV edits on the UK by-election articles, I feel that your trying to act as a mediator on this page is fraught with difficulties.--Mais oui! 11:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not acting as mediator, I am contributing as an editor. I dispute this "history of strongly POV edits" which you mention. It's all explained on Talk:Swing (politics). David | Talk 11:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but it all seems like a mass of Original research as far as I can see: not a single source in that whole article. Anyway, we digress... --Mais oui! 11:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll give my take on things. As I understand it the purpose of the NPOV policy is to provide neutrality of opinion and not no opinion. This means that all points of view are presented. it states The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. It seems to me that Mais oui! is claiming that Normalmouth is in breach of this policy because he is presenting a point of view, but it seems to me that what Mais oui! is doing is simply presenting a different POV as fact. I think that the correct way to solve this dispute would be to present both POVs in as neutral a way as possible. Some people evidently do not see a distinct difference beteween Nationalism and Welsh nationalism, these people are not wrong, they just have a different POV. This POV has equal validity according to the NPOV policy. Likewise people who assert that Welsh nationalism is distinct from Nationalism also have a valid POV. The intro to the Nationalism article states that: Nationalism is an ideology which holds that the nation, ethnicity or national identity is a "fundamental unit" of human social life, and makes certain cultural and political claims based upon that belief; in particular, the claim that the nation is "the only legitimate basis for the state", and that "each nation is entitled to its own state. Personally I think all forms of nationalism (be they British nationalism, Welsh nationalism or Scottish nationalism) are coercive, and I don't think there is any such thing as benign nationalism, one only has to look at the problems Ireland and Jugoslavia (to name but two) have had over the last century or so to see thet nationalism is no panacea. Nationalism is also a divisive and exclusive proposition. I am a proud Welshman, but I feel ashamed of my fellow Welshmen (including Plaid Cymru politicians) when I hear them maligning English people. This is just my opinion, but I think that it is valid to point out that Plaid politicians have resorted to xenophobic language quite recently in a crude attempt to bring a racial or xenophobic element into Welsh politics [3]. And before anyone starts claiming that I am a supporter of the Labour party I would point out that I support no political parties in the UK, Labour seem to be no more than a slightly diluted version of the Tories. I think my natural inclination would be as a Plaid supporter but for their nationalistic policies. Alun 06:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Politicians from Labour, the Tories and elsewhere have also used xenophobic language in the recent past. In fact, British comedy frequently features racist jokes about Welsh people, e.g. Blackadder, Men Behaving Badly... even Minder to a minor extent. --MacRusgail 18:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Party of Wales

The full name of the party is, since September 1998, "Plaid Cymru - the Party of Wales". "The Party of Wales" is not an additional English alternative but part of the name and therefore should be bolded. David | Talk 10:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As below, this name is now incorrect. It is now "Plaid" Ymlaen Forward with the welsh always above the english. If anyone wants a scanned Plaid business card ask. --Damien Jorgensen 03:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The name remains 'Plaid Cymru - The Party of Wales. 'Plaid - Ymlaen', is just the part of the new branding and logo.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4744956.stm

This is also evident in articles on the party's website. I have altered the first sentence of the article accordingly. Abertyllgoed 13:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On-going POV edits by Normalmouth

Here are the latest batch of deletions and additions by Normalmouth:

• Removing subheaders: this pattern of breaking standard Wikipedia formatting is a recurring feature of Normalmouth's edits
• Adding in info about another political party's election results (his own party, funnily enough)
• typos galore
• removing the elementary factual statement that PC are the 2nd largest party in the Assembly
• POV vocab: "succession" (sic) (presumably meant to be the pejorative word secession)
• removing the factual statement that it is opponents who refer to it as the "Welsh nationalist party"
• removing the reference to Labour in a link to a BBC article about a Labour Party allegation
• and finally, the pièce-de-resistance, the reintroduction of that nasty, malicious Nationalism link. In articles about French poetry we link to French poetry, not Poetry; in articles about Canadian culture, we link to Canadian culture, not Culture; but apparently, at all costs, links must not be made, on any account, between an article about a Welsh political party, and the corresponding article which deals with its key, founding principal: Welsh self-government. Mmmmm... I wonder why?

The reason is all too transparent.--Mais oui! 07:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. Let me take each of these in turn.

• We don't mention PC's status in the other elected bodies to which they return members. We either do all, or none at all. I opted for none.
• You can choose to see secession as pejorative if you like. It's dictionary definiition is "to become independent of a country or area of government" - which is precisely what PC seeks for Wales. Autonomy does not accurately capture their position.
• Some media commentators, as well as other political parties and the general public also refer to PC as the Welsh Nationalists.
• Ditto the anti-English comments. PC have been attacked on this from all sides.
• As already stated, I've no idea why you have such a bee in your bonnet about nationalism. Many PC members are happy to describe themselves thus, and it is an ideology comparable in scope to social democracy, which is also listed. I say again - and am getting bored of repeating this - that this link is best from the perspective of the non-expert reader. If you really object ot the link I suggest you change the Nationalism article to reflect what you want (just try to keep an objective sense as you do).

But more than all of that, this link has been agreed - so it's staying in.Normalmouth 11:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is not an article about Social democracy in Wales, if there was we would link to it; please stop breaking elementary Wikipedia links: they are the basis for the success of the whole encyclopedia.

On your other points:

• I cannot find any other Wikipedia article about a main Opposition party that does not mention that fact in its article. It is standard, indeed fundamental information for the reader.
• I do see secession as being a pejorative term, as do many others. I wonder why you want to use it instead of the standard, widely understood, and NPOV word: independence? It is a smear.

• May I ask why you think secession is a pejorative term? The secession article defines it thus: Secession is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity. Typically there is a strong issue difference that drives the withdrawal. The word is derived from the Latin term secessio. I think that in the case of political independence the words secession and independence are synonymous. It seems to me that it is just your opinion that the word is pejorative, I do not think this is a generally held view. I have never encountered the word in any sort of negative context. The definition from here is simply To withdraw formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance. I have no problem with the word independence either mind, but your objection to the word secession seems, to be frivolous IMHO. Alun 19:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• The vast majority of "media commentators", and a large proportion of the public (by dint of voting for other parties), are opponents of PC: they are included in the term "opponents".
• You are very keen to attempt to label PC as anti-English. Why don't you try to include a nice section on allegations of anti-Welshness on the UK Labour Party article. Your contribution, rightly, would not last 5 minutes, because it is clearly a smear attempt: we have been extremely tolerant (too tolerant) of your black propaganda to date. No other political party article here at Wikipedia allows opponents to take massive free swipes at it, so why are we allowing the PC article to become a free promotional tool for a maverick (I certainly hope you are a maverick and not an employee or office-bearer) Labour Party supporter.

--Mais oui! 13:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On a general note, wikipedia produces articles by consensus. Why not try to find areas of common ground, and wordings you can both agree on, rather than taking entrenched positions. I'm all for argument but you are not conducting an argument, you are just contradicting each other. I urge you both to start to discuss alternative wordings on this page before engaging in an edit war. I suggest that you start by finding a compromise on the word secession or independence, as these words have generally the same meaning it should not be too hard. It is absurd to introduce your respective political affiliations into the article. Any serious introduction of propoganda or political bias would be taken quite seriously I would imagine. If you really have a problem then why not have a vote on respective words or phrases (but that might bee too democratic for a nationalist and a supporter of the Labour party- just kidding before you get all hot under the collar). Alun 19:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The last version was produced by this consensus (see above). Then Mais oui! took it upon himself to change it unilaterally.

But, hey - let's start that process:

• It's important to note that PC want to take Wales out of the union of nations (i.e the UK) of which it is presently a member. That's central to their project. I suggest therefore:

"Plaid Cymru...is the principal nationalist political party in Wales. It advocates the withdrawal of Wales from the United Kingdom and the establishment of an independent Wales state."

• On ideology, how about we include BOTH nationalism and Welsh nationalism, as well as social deomcracy?

• Mais oui!'s point about all commentators or voters being opponents is untenable. There is such a thing as impartiality. So Suggesting that only opponents of PC refer to them as Welsh Nationalists is factually wrong.Normalmouth 20:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I tend to agree, I have refered to PC as the welsh nationalist party myself, I have never seen it as a derogatory term, it is simply what they are. I live in Finland and have often refered to PC in this way, it is simply a way of describing the party in a concise way to people who are not conversant with Welsh politics, I do not use the phrase as an oponent of PC (I am always rather pleased when they do well), and find it strange that anyone would claim that only oponents of the party would use it. Alun 21:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Alas, Mais oui! is ignoring this discussion and has just changed the article again. I'm going to carry out the changes we have discussed here. Normalmouth 06:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Plaid Cymru...is the principal nationalist political party in Wales". It's not actually - the Labour Party is. Plaid Cymru is the principal Welsh nationalist party in Wales (as opposed to British nationalist - see various comments by Gordon Brown). Rhion 19:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad you've put this as a comment as it's certainly a POV. PC, on the other hand, describe themsevles as Nationalist (See Adam Price's comments only yesterday "Now we need something that chimes with the deeper ambition of self-government. We move from a defensive nationalism to a more constructive, positive nationalism." [4])Normalmouth 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is POV - that's why I put it here rather than the article. We all have our varying POVs - the point is that we should try to get an NPOV article, which this one isn't at present. Plaid Cymru don't describe themselves as "anti-English", so why is it acceptable to give so much prominence to allegations of anti-englishness by political opponents? I don't see any references to Tony Blair's comments about the Welsh in the Labour Party article. Rhion 08:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "so much prominence", given that that sentence acounts for about 28 words out of about 1,000. The Seimon Glyn affair and its fallout was a significant one for the Party - however you interpret the episode - so I think it should be mentioned. To my mind, it's done relatively fleetingly and in context (i.e in connenction with Ieuan Wyn Jones's problems when President and the party's subsequent electoral performances). It's not as if a section has been devoted to it.

The point about Adam Price and Nationalism was supposed to illustrate only that senior party figures are comfortable with that ideological tag. How PC describe themselves is not the final word on how we describe them as we have to try and take an objective view which resists both pro and anti PC propaganda, but Price's comments do show that many in PC do not regard the word 'nationalist' as dirty, which was the suggestion in various edits of the article.

You're the second person to suggest that the UK Labour Party article is some kind of example of how a NPOV article ought to look. Have you seen it recently? It's a terrible peice of writing. Normalmouth 10:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think one can call Labour a British nationalist party. It's totally incorrect. It would be more correct to say they are the largest unionist (or even statist) party in Wales, in that they see no merit in breaking up of the UK. Alun 15:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Change of Party name"

It is not correct, as reported (see reference to 24th Feb 2006), that the party name will be changing.

To quote Dafydd Iwan - "The name of the party is not changing ... it's the logo, the branding which is changing." That quote comes grom this article - (sorry, it's in Welsh) http://news.bbc.co.uk/welsh/hi/newsid_4740000/newsid_4746000/4746098.stm This article also shows the new logo, with simply the word "Plaid". Having heard some discussion on the radio today, there is some concern by the public that whereas "Plaid Cymru" means "Wales' Party" or "The party of Wales", "Plaid" simply means "A party". Not even "THE Party" (which would be "y Blaid"). There was a fair bit of dismay that the word "Cymru" has been removed. Reservations were also expressed about the choice of yellow as a colour - a colour which is used by other political parties. (The previous logo used the colours of the flag.) Dafydd Iwan was reluctant to respond in detail to these (the logo had not yet been officially unveiled at the time), but repeatedly stated that it was the policies that were most important, not the logo, which was a publicity tool. Hogyn Lleol 17:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting that no language translates perfectly. The welsh word "Plaid" means "party" also in the sense of a group of people generally - so a crowd of Welsh rugby supporters following the national team could also be referred to as 'y blaid Cymru'. David | Talk 17:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, curses! Shall I revert, or will you? (It would be very nice if we can keep the references though..) --Telsa (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

David: As a fluent Welsh speaker I have never heard that usage of 'plaid'. If the word is used in that sense it must be either archaic or localised. To convey that sense most people would use the English loanwords 'grŵp' or 'criw' (group, crew). 'Plaid' as a noun is used nowadays almost exclusively for 'political party'; also as an adjective 'o blaid' means 'in favour of'. Gareth 17:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly used to be the case. Perhaps the growing role of Plaid Cymru has put paid to it. Of course in English it is possible to find the same form of usage, e.g. "the shooting party" = the group of people going out shooting. David | Talk 17:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My various dictionaries confirm that "plaid" is a party in the political sense only. But I suggest waiting a day or two before amending the page, given that this news only came out today. Hogyn Lleol 18:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Anybody got £350 to spare for a copy of Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru? :) I've just put a section in describing the rebranding, anyway. -- Arwel (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

From the searchable version of the GPC:

Plaid eb.g. pleidiau (prin) pleidioedd.

[...] (d) row, rank, company, crowd, throng, host, multitude, flock; party (in a lawsuit); group of supporters, (political) party, faction, sect, denomination. 12g, -- Arwel (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your new section describing the rebranding is excellent - and works better then earlier edits (which seemed to be, dare I say, a little peeved about what PC's leadership had done). Should we now drop the reference to 'Plaid' in the intro, since it does seem to be a rebranding and not a renaming exercise? Normalmouth 08:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure what there is to discuss here. Plaid Cymru is now Plaid (appears to both English and Welsh speakers, as the cymru in the title does exclude English only speakers). Also we are lacking mention of the new tag line "Forward", "Ymlaen". --Damien Jorgensen 03:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am responsible for the edit that has been described above as being "peeved at what PC's leadership had done". This edit makes explicit reference to the fact that the decision to adopt "Plaid" as the de facto name of the party was taken without consulting the membership. Regardless of whether I am peeved or not, I feel that my edit was sufficiently neutral in tone, and was factually accurate. I request that my original passage be allowed to be restored.Dyfrig Jones

I agree that the comment is neutal enough, but somehow it seems to carry an unintendid undertone. Having heard some discussion on the day of the launch, Dafydd Iwan stated that a certain amount of consultaion was carried out, but I don't know with whom. Perhaps wording like "limited consultation" could be used.Hogyn Lleol 17:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to back up your claim that there was limited consultation? This is not something that I have come across, to be honest, and I have followed the coverage closely. I personally contacted Dafydd Trystan, the Chief Executive of Plaid Cymru, and he informed me that the desicion to re-brand was taken by Adam Price, the Plaid Cymru MP. There was no consultation. I can provide you with a copy of this e-mail, if necessary. Dyfrig Jones

I have reinstated my reference to the party's lack of consultation regarding the change of name.

I notice that someone (Hogyn Lleol?) has decided to change my edit, so that it states that there was "limited consultation" with the members before changing the brand. This is factually incorrect. I have asked Hogyn Lleol to provide evidence to back up his claim, but he has failed to do so. I have an e-mail (in Welsh) from the chief executive of Plaid Cymru, that states that there was no need to consult with the members, since Adam Price had a mandate - as campaigns manager - to do as he wished with the brand identity. I am going to re-instate my original edit. Please do not change it back without providing evidence to back up your claim. By doing this your are creating a misleading public record for political reasons. 81.130.198.55 09:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Dyfrig Jones

No it was not me !!! Please don't accuse me of doing what someone else has done! I use my user-name! (In truth I was a little frustrated to see that someone had tinkered with this item - I thought it was settled). My original comment was simply based on what was said on the radio. I have no evidence for that. Clearly you're evidence is fairly irrefutable.

It was probably just someone trying too hard to be NPOV. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Deb 19:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry, I didn't mean to falsely accuse you, Hogyn Lleol. I hope that this is settled now. Gobeithio y cai faddeuant.

Once again, I've had to reinstate the fact that the rebaranding was carries out without consulting the members.

[edit] Leader changes again

I note someone in the editing deleted the section about how Plaid seemed to have a de facto triumvirate leadership after 2003 - something that even Simon Thomas was attacking so it was hardly an invention of political opponents. I think this needs to be put back in because it has been a point of confusion. Additionally the latest changes have complicated it further - "the party's assembly leader Ieuan Wyn Jones has been voted overall leader by party members although Dafydd Iwan will remain president" Source: BBC News so the Party President now isn't "the leader". What exactly makes Ieuan Wyn Jones the leader? (Also is he thus Plaid's "prospective First Minister"?) Timrollpickering 02:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triban

Can the old logo feature somewhere on the page?--MacRusgail 06:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Election Box Metadata

As per this article and the National Assembly article, the Plaid colour has been changed from green to yellow.

doktorb | words 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

I have reverted this:Increasingly, the party has sought to portray itself as socialist, a stance disputed by opponents and resisted by elements within the party back to this Increasingly, the party has adopted a socialist platform. At one point it stated that the party was quasi-socialist, but this doesn't make any sense, and anyway wasn't supported by any citation. The wording by Normalmouth was simply a form of weasel words. How can a political party seek to portray itself as socialist? It either has socialist policies, or it does not. PC clearly has left wing policies. Claiming that they are merely seeking to portray themselves as left wing is a partisan political statement, and so has no place in the article, and would appear to be unverifiable. To point out that the stance is disputed by opponents makes no sense either. The parties opponents are clearly going to dispute with it, otherwise they would not be opponents, this is just a statememnt of the bleeding obvious. As for resistance by elements of the party, this again is just a statement of the obvious, surely when any political party adopts a policy at convention (or wherever) there are proponents and opponents, so it's just the normal internal workings of a democratic party. On the whole I don't think these changes were intended to be constructive or to improve the article, they display political bias that we should avoid in an encyclopedia. Alun 08:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

With a title like 'weasel words' it is apparent that your willingness to engage in constructive dialogue about this is going to be limited. Let's try, anyway.

I think it is highly disputable whether PC have adopted a socialist platform. Their politics, that of by national unity over class unity, is counter to the basic tenet of socialim. What is more, they are not a member party of the Socialist International. If they choose to adopt specific policies that may be deemed to be left-leaning that does not make them socialist.

My amendments were intended to reflect this. However, if you are not happy I suggest we delete the entire sentence, which does not really belong in the intro in any case. If you wish to fomulate a NPOV set of words elsewhere in the article please do so. Normalmouth 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. If you had checked you would have percieved that the statement about socialism was verified, whereas your version was not, and did represent a form of weasel words. I suggest you read the avoid weasel words guideline before you accuse me of being unwilling to be constructive. You will see that weasel words are employed when no citations are used, but when one is trying to disguise a POV edit by attempting to use what appear to neutral words. I would suggest that your edit hits that nail firmly on the head. You even state I think it is highly disputable whether PC have adopted a socialist platform, so in fact you are admiting that this is nothing more than your opinion, this is in direct breach of the neutrality policy, it is forbiden for you to express your opinion in an article. You need to find a reference to support your claim, if you do this you will have the right to include the alternative point of view. In the mean time you do not have the right to remove a verified edit, whereas I had every right to remove your edit as it was not verified. I strongly recomend that you read the verifiability, neutrality and no original research policies. Alun 17:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not so. The statement about Plaid Cymru's socialism has been cited - it has not been verified. Verification AIUI means that arguments should "have already been published by reputable publishers". Your citations, on the other hand are:

- A BBC reprinting of the Party's own description of itself (so you may as well have cited the party's own website) and;

- A questionnaire sent out by the Socialist Unity Network and responded to by five Plaid Cymru Parliamentary candidates. They survey does not even seek to assess whether the repondents consider themselves to be socialist, let alone make any sort of argument about whether their party is.

By these standards, what I offer for verification is much stronger. As you can see [here] it is a firm claim that Plaud Cymru's socialism is not authentic.

There are others. Therefore any discussion of Plaid Cymru's alleged socialism has to reflect the degree of contention there is around it. So the statement either goes in as I had it before (or similar) or the discussion point comes out altogether.

For the moment, I'm doing the latter and removing it altogether. Normalmouth 21:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You really do need to read and understand the three policies on verifiability, neutrality and no original research. So now you have produced a source. It can be cited as libcom.org. I would certainly accept this as a reliable source (others might not though). But you need to understand that this does not give you the right to remove the previously verified statement. Neutrality means that both points of views should be expressed, you do not seem to appreciate this very basic policy. I suggest that we re-word the statement in as neutral a way as possible. The fact that plaid describes itself as socialist is relevant to an article about them, whether you like it or not. So something like, Plaid Cymru espouses socialist policies, though how socialist Plaid Cymru would be in practice has been disputed, we can include both your citation and the BBC one, or even the PC website if you like. Alun05:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, an earlier edit contained the statement "the party's formal aims include a commitment to decentralist socialism". I think this is the right form of words; it is demonstrably true and beyond contention. Normalmouth 11:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So what was your original complaint? You stated earlier that: I think it is highly disputable whether PC have adopted a socialist platform, and now you say that "the party's formal aims include a commitment to decentralist socialism". I think this is the right form of words, which I believe is from their website, which you claimed was not a viable source before, and of course it also claims that PC are socialist, which you disputed before. The problem is that there are several meanings for socialism. The anarchist website you pointed to earlier had a problem with PC because anarchists don't believe in private property, and think of profit as the theft of the value of labour from the workers. But social democracy and certain types of moderate socialism do accept private ownership. The same critiscism would apply to say the Labour Party as to PC from the perspective of a Libertarian socialist (or anarchist if you prefer) with regards to this. Obviously to an anarchist state ownership of the means of production (or nationalisation, ie classical socialism/communism) is just as much theft as the private ownership of capital. So I would imagine that the site you cited earlier was just as vitrioloc about just about every political party in the whole UK.

The form of words that I removed was an edit by GANDALF1992: Increasingly, during the last election and to the present, the party has adopted a quasi-socialist platform and called for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. As far as I could tell this was a de Novo edit, he did not replace a previous form of words with this. Their website gives five aims:

OUR AIMS

1. To promote the constitutional advancement of Wales with a view to attaining Full National Status for Wales within the European Union.

2. To ensure economic prosperity, social justice and the health of the natural environment, based on decentralist socialism.

3. To build a national community based on equal citizenship, respect for different traditions and cultures and the equal worth of all individuals, whatever their race, nationality, gender, colour, creed, sexuality, age, ability or social background.

4. To create a bilingual society by promoting the revival of the Welsh language.

5. To promote Wales's contribution to the global community and to attain membership of the United Nations.

These should probably all be included in the article. It is instructive to note that their policies are only based on decentralised socialism....I wonder what that means? Alun 12:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My complaint should be obvious: the statement 'the party has adopted a socialist platform' purports to be an objective conclusion based on an analysis of Plaid Cymru's policies, when it is nothing of the sort. The statement "the party's formal aims include a commitment to decentralist socialism" is merely a factual observation about something that the party says about itself. No judgement is made in the statment about whether this aim has been attained. The party's own website, in this context, is a perfectly valid source as the only claim being made is what the party says about itself. Again, this distinction ought to be obvious. Normalmouth 13:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. I would point out that your original edit was far from objective, neither was the one I had replaced, but I concede that my edit was not very good either. Just goes to show wikipedians do tend to work better when they work together. I think the form of words you suggested are more relevant, but I also think it makes more sense to put all five of the objectives displayed on the parties website here in the article. They could even have a short section of their own. That way we cover all the bases. What do you think? Alun 14:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it would be quite useful to state Plaid's published aims (verbatim) on the Wiki page. It will give a certain objectivity to things.

Hogyn Lleol 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. a new heading entitled "Stated aims" or similar should be introduced and should replace the existing sentence in the intro section. Normalmouth 19:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing primary sources

A disputed edit regarding consulting the membership before changing the logo and brand needs a citation. I have a personal e-mail message from Dafydd Trystan, the party's chief executive, which states that there was no consultation. Is this an acceptable primary source? How should it be used?dyfrigj

Wikipedia is based on using published sources. If it's not published it's not verifiable, and if it's not verifiable it can't be included. It's a pain I know, but that's how wikipedia works. It's not so much that the edit is disputed, as that all edits should be properly verified, which means a cite from a published source. It's a problem with wikipedia as most articles are not properly verified, I think this is due partly to laziness, lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the policy, and deliberate POV editing by certain editors. I'm not claiming that you are pushing a POV, but edits should be properly supporeted. Is there anywhere online that could verify your edit? Alun

If you were to put the text of the e-mail on-line somewhere, even if it was just in an e-mail to a couple of other people, then it would count as "published" for the purposes of libel, so wouldn't it also count as "published" for us? Deb 11:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I alwas try to go by the verifiability and reliable sources guidelines, as in Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors. (from WP:V) A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. (from WP:RS) In this case i think the email in question would constitute a personal comunication (in any scientific journal anyway) and not a primary source. Also A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. (from WP:RS). I think for this sort of thing a newspaper article would constitute a reliable source, but reliable sources do vary depending on what one wants to verify. My experience of the general level of newspapers reporting of science is that they are usually unreliable, but are usually reliable for politics. Alun 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that my e-mail isn't the best possible source, but the problem is that I'm being asked to prove that something didn't happen - that Plaid Cymru did not consult with the members before changing the brand - which is always more difficult that proving that something did happen. BBC Cymru/Wales - which is the main source for any Welsh news story - didn't report on this aspect, so I find myself a bit stuck. But I'll try and see what I can dig out.

The other problem is the language. Wikipedia prefers English language sources, yet this is an issue that has been discussed in greater depth in Welsh. Again, this wouldn't be a problem if I had some supporting material from the BBC, but it excludes using Welsh published sources such as Barn or Golwg. User:dyfrigj\dyfrigj

Wikipedia does prefer English language sources, but will accept sources in other languages when no English language equivalent is available (see Sources in languages other than English). I suggest that you give a Welsh language source and a brief description of what the source covers in the footnote that is used as a citation. Although not ideal, I think this sort of edit is not necessarily contentious and should not cause much of a problem. If someone disputes the source then we can think about tackling it from a different angle at that point. Would this solution be acceptable to editors in general? Alun 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder whether the Welsh language article on Plaid Cymru in wicipedia, if it contained the above information (which I don't think it does at the moment), would be acceptable as a reference? Deb 21:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking something similar, though it amounts to the same thing, Wicipedia is a non-English language source just as much as any other Welsh language publication, and it would still be verified on Wicipedia with a Welsh language source. All in all I think it would be OK to use a Welsh language source here for verification, it is acceptable if no English language source is available. I tend to think that verifiability is very important, it's the only thing that keeps Wikipedia from being the personal opinions of a bunch of individuals, rather than an encyclopedia of human knowledge. Remember verifiability not truth, however true something is it can't be verified if no published source is cited. Alun 04:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wartime worries

It should be added to the page that Plaid were - like other Celtic Nationalists, especially Sinn Fein - worries to the UK govt in 1940 regarding the anti-war stance they took, and how there might be scope for German spy insertions via the networks. Ref, e.g. http://www.south-wales.police.uk/fe/master.asp?n1=8&n2=253&n3=504&n4=846

I agree. Normalmouth 20:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

note sure why this section was removed, so I've put it back. Please note this discussion and proceed with amendments on the basis of dialogue and agreement. tks Normalmouth 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seimon Glyn

I have added back in the reference to Seimon Glyn and amended the old text to reflect the fact the Plaid Cymru deny the charges made against them over this issue. The episode and the issues it raised were an important episode in the post-Assembly era history of the party and should be referred to. What is more, I do not think the alternative formulation, which refers to demonising and lack of hard evidence is sufficiently npov. Happy to discuss amendments here. Normalmouth 17:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This article has clearly been written by an editor or editors hostile to Plaid Cymru. It is what journalists would call an "attack piece". It's not that the facts given are incorrect, more that what is included in the article seems to have been carefully selected to show Plaid Cymru in the worst possible light. It stands out among the articles on UK political parties - the others all manage to remain at least approximately neutral, whatever the other deficiencies of some of them. 193.39.172.1 07:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to be more specific. I just read the article through and can't see any obvious bias. These pages are improved by consensus, but we need to determine exactly what it is that you think is biased in the article before we can address it. These aretcles are not promotional, so there needs to be ballance. If you think there is a certain point of view expressed in the article that only reflects one shade of opinion, then we should certainly include any other point of view. Can you please point out some specific things that need to be addressed? Thanks. Alun 10:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to take two examples from the two sections above this one:

1. Wartime worries - reading what it actually says in the South Wales Police link provided gives a different picture to what is implied in this article. The link suggests that the worries were in fact basically unfounded, while this article implies the opposite. Also the comments about Hitler by Saunders Lewis in 1936 are not put into context - many unionist UK politicians praised Hitler at this time, Lloyd George for one. I don't think that would be put in the article on the Liberal Party though.

I agree, the article cited mentions that the state thought that Plaid were "obstinately defeatist", it doesn't mention that the UK state thought Plaid were going to be used by Germany to insert spies or carry out other covert operations like the article does. Indeed the citation does mention that a certain Arthur George Owens was to provide the Nazis with a spy ring based on nationalist sympathies and that: He was given the task of establishing a network of Welsh extremists to gather information to aid sabotage on major industrial plants, airfields and defence installations. But the police citation doesn't link this man with Plaid. I agree this needs to be removed or made far more neutral in tone. Alun 23:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Seimon Glyn - he was a Plaid Cymru county councillor, not an MP or AM. I could easily find half a dozen anti-Welsh comments by Labour county councillors, but if I put them in the Labour Party article I doubt if they would last 10 minutes before being reverted.

Racist comments are racist comments. I don't care if he was an Assembly Member or my local butcher, if he made a racist atta

ck in my hearing I would never vote for him/buy meat from him again. The problem of townies in rural areas is not specifically Welsh. There is no excuse for racism. I don't care if you can find Labour politicians being racist, those people are scum as well. All racists are scum IMHO. The fact that Wales is small and that English people might be buying properties in rural districts does not give anyone licence to make racist comments. If you want to solve the problem then encourage the immigrants to adopt our language and culture by making them welcome. What's the alternative, an apartheid reigime? Defending racists morons who are so stupid that they cannot understand that they are damaging the Plaid cause by making these sorts of statements is not the purpose of this article. Find a reliable source that thinks his comments were taken out of context and include this point of view as well is the best advice I can give. Alun 23:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

These are just two quick examples. Surely all parties should be treated in the same way in these articles? 193.39.172.1 11:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The objections to the article do not seem very grounded. I have no view about the wartime worries section and would be content to see it amended to reflect the concerns expressed about it. On a point of information, however, I very much doubt whether you could find a single party leader other than Saunders Lewis who was quite so explicitly anti-semetic and pro-Nazi. In the context of supposed concerns by the authorities of the allegiance of Plaid Cymru members during the war his comments are highly pertinent.

On Seimon Glyn, his elected office is irrelevant. The significance of the episode is the problems it caused the Plaid Cymru leadership, and the subsequent impact that had on their electoral fortunes and on Ieuan Wyn Jones's standing. You do not have to have a view on the rights or wrongs of the episode to acknowledge that it was a significant one in Plaid Cymru's recent history. Normalmouth 20:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If you consider that the incident had a significant impact on their electoral fortunes you need to provide a citation (from an unbiased source, not Llew Smith or his ilk) to support this. Otherwise it's just your opinion. 193.39.172.1 08:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree - if the article made reference to the impact of the episode on their electoral fortunes your observation might be valid. Since it refers only (and indeed is framed in the context of) the effect on Ieuan Wyn Jones's leadership, that is not necessary.

The current wording makes it crystal clear that Plaid Cymru rejected and continue to reject the allegations of anti-English and anti-English language sentiment that were made against them during that time. In my view, therefore, NPOV guidelines have more than been upheld. Normalmouth 13:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi anonymous user 193.39.172.1, I have been thinking about Seimon Glyn and a Google of his name [5] gives 708 hits, but the majority of the top hits are in Welsh and many are in support of him. I think you might have a good case to claim that mention of this on the Plaid article is to give it undue weight. It should really have an article of its own, or not be mentioned at all. His comments, as far as I can tell do not represent Plaid policy. So I'm revising my position after a bit of thought and am agreeing with you. Alun 07:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is of course your perogative. However, I would strongly challenge any revision that omitted references to the problems PC in general and Ieuan Wyn Jones in particular experienced in the wake of Seimon Glyn's comments. Those problems, together with Dafydd Wigley's resignation, are an important part in understanding how the party lost the momentum it gained in 1999.

I suggest that a simple Google search does not do justice. Try reviewing the media coverage of the period in question. Normalmouth 11:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But as the anonymous user states you would have to show that Glyn's comments were the cause of the problems, and I'm not entirely sure what you mean by problems. In any case this is an encyclopaedia, this article is about PC the party. I think at the very least we need to try and make this information as neutral as possible, but I'm not sure it's that relevant for an encyclopaedia article, it is already an awfully dated story and not relevant necessarily to Plaid as a political organisation. Alun 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is, frankly, a bizarre argument. Glyn's comments triggered a significant crisis within PC and for IWJ. See [6], [7], [8], [9] and many, many more for verification. This [10] shows that PC itself admitted that the incident cost it votes and support! I suggest therefore that the aregument that PC has 'problems' and that these were triggered by the Glyn episode are beyond doubt.

Second, it was these problems that contributed in part to the lost momentum, which in turn explains why PC are where they are today and not where they were in 1999. That is hightly relevant, central even, to any discussion of PC in the Assembly era, which is where it appears.

I could construct a case that we should not have PC's 1999 advances in the article, since they have since been won by Labour, or that we should omit Gynfor Evans's 1966 victory, since he lost the seat four year later and the episode is 'awfully dated'. I won't, because I recognise these episodes in PC's development and having them in helps the reader to understand how and why PC came to be the party it is today with the level of support it currently enjoys. The same applies for Glyn and its aftermath. Normalmouth 16:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • • which in turn explains why PC are where they are today and not where they were in 1999

This is revisionism of the highest order. Plaid did well in 1999 because Tony Blair forced Alun Michael onto the Welsh Labour Party as leader, he gerrymandered the vote for leader of the party so he could get his man in, something Welsh Labour certainly did not want. The Welsh Labour party was firmly behind Rhodri Morgan. So in 1999 they voted Plaid rather than for a Labour leader imposed from Westminster. In 2003 they had Rhodri Morgan, and so many Labour voters returned to their party.[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] As for the stories you link to, they provide good sources for why the leader of Plaid had to resign, but this was because many people in his party disagreed with his policies, worthy of note in the article for sure. As for your comments about 1966, these are obiously daft. The election of Gwynfor Evans was an historic event for Plaid, Seimon Glyn's comments will have been forgotten in a few years, they are hardly comprable and should be put in context of internal party discord rather than anything else. We need to put this in it's proper context, we also need to make it more neutral, for example we need to state that Seimon Glyn was expressing the views of many people in the area for which he is a representative, and also that he recieved much support for his views. A more detailed and neutral deconstruction of what actually happened is required if it is to be included. Alun 07:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

you misunderstand my argument. I make no claim here as to why PC did well in 1999 (though for the record an earlier edit of mine makes the same argument as you do); I am suggesting that one of the main reasons why this impressive 1999 performance was not sustained or augmented Post 1999 was because of the fall-out of the Seimon Glyn affair (another may be the replacement of Alun Michael with Rhodri Morgan, we should perhaps make reference to this). Hence it is important to gaining an understanding of the party and is thus worthy of inclusion in the article.

I simply cannot agree that a policy disagreement lay at the root of Ieuan Wyn Jones's problems during this period of his Presidency and the links I have provided, along with many other sources, bear this out. PC have themselves acknowledged the significance of the Glyn affair in their levels of support (bear in mind it happened shortly before a General Election). As always with Wikipedia, I am happy to collaborate on a possible revision to the wording to address your concerns. I will not, however, co-operate with any attempts to delete this incident and its aftermath from the article. Tks. Normalmouth 10:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well a policy disagreement did lie at the heart of it, it's what prompted Glyn's comments. The effect of those comments is a different matter. I agree with you that we should keep this in the article, but we need to make it more neutral. After all Plaid does see itself as the guardian of Welsh language and culture, so it would be odd if its representatives were no concerned with the their loss. In this sense Plaid has a tightrope to walk, like all nationalist/independence parties, of wanting to appeal to an ethnic group while not being seen to disparage another ethnic group. Certainly the level of support Glyn got from the people he represents should be included. We should also make note of the specific policies that Glyn was opposing when he made the comments. Like I say context is all. Alun 14:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We appear to be coming at this from slightly different perspectives, Alun. You seem to be coming at this from the perspective of an examination of the episode, so it is no surprise that you may conclude that it is dated.

I am coming at it as a passing reference only (there are fewer than 40 words out of an article of over 1,000) in the context of PC's post-Assembly history. The ins-and-outs (and indeed rights and wrongs) of what happened are less important than that fact that it did, and that PC and IWJ had problems coping with it. That is, as you note, because of the tightrope that you talk about, but I'm not sure if we can delve into that without giving it the undue prominence that anon is concerned about.

I'm happy to contribute to an article on Seimon Glyn, the basis for his comments and the response by his party (and indeed other parties and the Welsh Mirror). In this article, however, I think it is enough to note that IWJ struggled to establish himself as Dafydd Wigley's successor, and that a significant and illustrative episode in this was the aftermath of Glyn's remarks. It's about PC in the modern era, not Seimon Glyn and whether he's wrong or right. Normalmouth 21:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at what it says in the article I think you have a good point, it's already in the context of the Jones's leadership, but I think it would benefit from mentioning that Glyn's comments were motivated by disagreements about policy, this need only be a few extra words and would frame the context better, his comments did not come out of a vacuum. We can also use some of the links you provided above for a cite of this. Alun 06:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alun. There is a lot to commend in your edit, but Glyn's initial comments were not about Ieuan Wyn Jones's language policy. He took part in a radio phone-in show on the subject of rural housing and made a number of comments to the effect that English speakers were coming into his area (the Llyn peninsula), pushing up house prices for the locals and not learning Welsh. He - and this is where the controversy emerges - used to some ears some fairly spicy terms, such as referring to elderly people moving into the area as a 'drain on resources' and calling the overall movement a 'tidal wave of immiogration'. He also called for incomers to be 'strictly monitored and controlled'. His defenders claimed he spoke truthfully even if his exact choice of words and phrases was unfortunate. Detractors claimed his words revealed a hidden agenda within PC to denigrate or divide English and Welsh speakers.

It was only later - possibly after he was not defended as vehemently as he thought he ought to be - that Glyn widened his criticism to take in IWJ and the PC leadership. He famously called IWJ a 'Cach Ghi', which I won't translate but which non-Welsh speaking readers can be assured is far from complimentary.

So the essence of the incident was Glyn attacking the practice of non-Welsh speaking migration into Gwynedd, rather than and atttack in IWJ. I therefore propose to change a little of what you've done and leave much in place. Before I do, why have you omitted references to the alleged plot against Dafydd Wigley? This was widely reported at the time and has all but been affirmed by Wigley and other senior PC figures. Leaving it out would be like denying that Alun Michael was plotted against by Labour AMs when he was First Secretary. Normalmouth 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I took mention of the plot against Wigley out because the citation I used about health problems doesn't support it's inclusion. I'm happy for it to be included with a cite. Please make any changes you feel are appropriate. I wonder if Seimon Glyn should have his own (brief) article, I think this issue makes him notable. We could then remove much of the information from the PC article and just make reference to him having caused problems to the leadership. Alun 14:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Alun, I've made some amends to your edit, in line with my comments above. Let me know what you think. Normalmouth 09:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, though it would really help if the anonymous user were to contibute more, as they originally expressed their concern, we can't address this if they do not actively contribute to this discussion. We should look at making the references to Plaid during the war better reflect the citation. Alun 10:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed we can then remove the neutrality warning. Normalmouth 11:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)