Talk:Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English

"Anti-Welsh sentiment" - AFD and possible rewrite/expansion

This is a little sad isn't it? Hardly calculated to counter the English belief in an hysterical Welsh victim-complex! I am Welsh but I do not go to sleep at night worried that the English do not love me enough and may love the Scots more. Why not include, "Welshing on a deal" and "Taffy was a thief"? --MJB (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to be a problem to me though. I'm Welsh and I've personally encountered a fair deal of discrimination and hassle because of my Welshness (I should add I am living in Wales too - but in a very Anglicised area). Though maybe it isn't a Wikipediaworthy article even though it clearly is a real issue. And incidentally, I consider "Taffy was a thief" a racist and nasty little rhyme.88.104.232.104 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you,and I'm not being racist but I do look down upon Welsh people are they ruined my family's holiday.User:Agent008 —Preceding comment was added at 18:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

AAGILL IS SCOTTISH! ANNE ROBINSON HAS WELSH RELATIVES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.82.24 (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion (see above link) and just about survived. If it is not improved then it may be taken back to AFD for further discussion in a few months. Neıl ☎ 09:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In the deletion discussion I proposed that the article should be expanded and rewritten as "Cultural relationships between England and Wales". This is the subject of both humour and (occasional) racism from both sides (and, for instance, the subject of a recent book - see [1]). The article would link in with Welsh nationalism and Welsh culture, and also address the widespread English fear/distaste of those. It would also address the influence of the Welsh on modern English culture - eg in politics generally, and in specific areas such as Liverpool and Bristol. I propose doing some research (I'm not an expert, but I have lived close to the Welsh-English border most of my life) and improving/expanding the article when I can give it some time, hopefully within the next few weeks. In the meantime, all (non-racist) suggestions will be gratefully received at my talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First attempt posted now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, an excellent job turning around an initially feeble entry. --MJB (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I might recommend adding this (I'm thinking of the Robert Relfesque "only for sale to a Welsh speaker" part near the bottom), this, this and this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I got bored playing round with it in draft (and learning a lot about Welsh history in the process!) so put it up in the hope that others could improve it - feel free to add bits yourselves! I think it particularly needs an expanded section on the recent (20th century) past, sports rivalry, etc., but I'm happy for others to make what changes they want (and if I think they're inappropriate I'll just change them back again, of course...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

above 3 comments copied from my user page for completeness - Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Language

"Because the Welsh language has different rules of grammar and syntax from English, and a widely different vocabulary, it is seen by many English speakers as difficult to learn and speak. Letters such as w and y are vowels in Welsh, but often used as consonants in English. Welsh also makes extensive use of digraphs such as ll and dd, and consonant mutations."

I'm not sure this belongs here, for the first part, evidently as a different language Welsh has a different grammar. The fact that the writing system is different and uses digraphs (English does too) is neither here nor there for this article.

What would be good would be a section on "Language issues", highlighting the often English disdain for the Welsh language (I heard someone the other day get pissed off because of the people concerned over poor translations into Welsh (see e.g. here), and referring to the language as "Klingonese" — reprehensible behaviour in my opinion. Also, the lack of effort on the part of English immigrants into Wales to learn the language (I am as culpable for this as any). Also interesting to mention would be the attitude of anglophone Welsh people towards the language (including a mention of the anti-Welsh attitude of Welsh Labour wrt. train announcements and other efforts to increase the visibility (or audibility!) of Welsh in Wales.

I'll leave it in for now, but these are things to think about. - Francis Tyers · 15:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with these points - my reason for referring (inadequately) to the language differences was to try and get behind the "problem" that some (most?) English people have with what they see as a difficult / alien language, and the implications that has for how they perceive people who speak it. Need further help on this - I am not an expert on these issues. Can someone on the Wales forum work on this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good place to start. I'll also try and dig out some references and post them here. - Francis Tyers · 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ghmyrtle, I agree with Francis that this section is unnecesasry in its present form, but as a Welsh speaker I do understand your reasons for inclusion. However, I don't beleive that welsh is a diffucult language to learn as the contrib. seems to suggest (or could be interpreted as such)and as many English people claim. In my and others experience this is an excuse for not learning Welsh in Welsh speaking communities as a kind of colonising agenda (a psychological refuge for hostility)and has become very popular as a justification for hostility (as touched upon by Francis. I know it's not your intention but the section does appear (could be interpreted) as an apology for such attitudes and behaviours. This is not unique to Wales unfortunately Qebecois get it in Canada, native american speakers get it; bretagnes, Basques etc...

This issue as others, relates to the perceived status of the Welsh language which sould be adressed by the proposed new Welsh language act just on the horizon; unless the anti-Welsh laubourites mentioned by Francis try to sabotage the process further beyond stalling the Asembly's LCO's (Legislative Competence Orders) that count as the ridicilous law making process in Wales. Just last week a bank refused to cash a cheque written in the Welsh language on four different occasions despite the bank claiming to have a voluntary Welsh lang. policy. Additional evidence for new legislation.

Perhaps a section on attitudes to the Welsh language is necessary? Which could include not just anti Welsh sources which are English but also those Francis mentioned from within Wales itself (colonised minds syndrome)and from Welsh institutions or those that claim that status. What is particularly significant in attitudes in Wales is how working class valley people have re-embraced their language by adult aquisition and particularly significantly, Welsh medium education for their children. The growth has been immense and it is increasing particularly with the shift away from the generation old identification with Welsh Labour values and alleigiances - concomitant with perhaps.

Anyway, kudos for beggining this article as these issues need to be adressed, even after the english racists like Clarkson had their wings clipped by police interest in media driven racism towards Welsh people there is still a lot of racism and intolerance towards Welsh people as evidenced by the response from some in the disscussion page. Evidence enough if any more was needed. When you return we'll discuss further; you too Francis?Pencerdd (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Pencerdd

The point I was making was to do with the perception of the language as difficult, not whether or not it actually is. As I said in response to someone else's comment here, I hope other people do add new points and change this article to improve it - it is not the sort of article that can be written by "an expert" (which I'm not anyway!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidently there is no absolute scale of linguistic "difficulty" which can be objectively defined. However there are some features of Welsh which make it difficult for English speakers to learn and/or use successfully (as there are of course with all languages) and some of them could be foregrounded somewhere. The orthography is a little off-putting but not I think the main issue. The use of the digraph ff for /f/ is not particularly difficult to understand and the voiced/unvoiced distinction not nearly as crucial for comprehensibility as it might be. The ll digraph causes difficulty not because of the way it is written but because it represents a sound that is not present in most dialects of English. The phonology of the language is here the obstacle not the orthography. The fact that Welsh has initial mutation is also a difficulty for English speakers - most of whom will not have met a language that uses that form of morphology (it is essentially unknown in German, French, Russian, Spanish and Italian -- all common language taught in English schools). There are socio-linguistic difficulties too - its hard to find native speakers who will speak the language and with whom one needs to speak the language to communicate. Many native speakers use the language as a means of excluding non-users rather than including them and so on. All these are very real problems and most do not exist with other neighbouring languages (though of course they do exist with gaelic - except that at least initial mutation is marked there most of the time). Francis Davey (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Future references

• ‘English first’ call to end rail confusion
• Guardian: Wales swamped by tide of English settlers
• Mann, R. (2007) "Negotiating the politics of language: Language learning and civic identity in Wales". Ethnicities, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 208--224

Three to start off with. Note: If you need access to the last one, you can contact me. - Francis Tyers · 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Historical Background

Anyone mind if I break up the section 'Historical Background' into period subsections - Sub-Roman, Anglo-Norman conquest, Tudor etc.? It may make it easier to read. Also, I think the London Government's attitude to Treweryn/Capel Celyn deserves to be highlighed here too. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Carry on - when I started it I was expecting it to become very collaborative. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-English sentiment

I have removed two unreferenced statements from the Anti-English section. The first statement (Anglophobia runs high in north and west Wales where Welsh is still the most widely spoken language.) is clearly not encyclopedic (how high?), as well as being unreferenced. The second statement (Through the 1980s and early 90s Meibion Glyndŵr blew up cottages that had been bought by English people in Wales, because they felt that the resulting increase in house prices denied Welsh people the opportunity to live in their own community.) is incorrect as well as being unreferenced. AFAIK Meibion Glyndŵr did not use explosives on any holiday, or second, homes and the reason given for their action is pure speculation, given that their motives are unsourced. I also amended the referenced statement to fit in with the citations, although I am still not happy with it, as the statement is plural (assaults and vandalism) and the two sources are for one assault and for one act of vandalism (I'm not even sure if that was carried out by a Welsh speaker as the Welsh is incorrect). Anyone want to improve please go ahead. I would prefer to see examples of anti-English sentiment to be more scientific studies rather than individual, isolated acts of violence by idiots - which may or may not be indicative of general sentiment. This is a very sensitive area and great care should be taken not to 'sex up' the facts. Daicaregos (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Your point about scientific surveys is well taken. In Scotland, an academic study concluded that Scottish national identity was a major contributing factor to anglophobia (ranking slightly below low levels of education). So far as I know, no such study has been undertaken in Wales, but I wouldn't be surprised. I will try to find one.

I've removed the section about their motives, though what other motive they could have had than anglophobia (in whatever self-righteous garb they dressed it) is totally beyond me. You are correct that MG used fire not explosives on holiday homes. Not that this makes it any better, but it doesn't hurt to be accurate. BillMasen (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I would have thought MK's motives in burning second homes was more to do with the problem of well-to-do outsiders pricing locals out of the housing market. It was hardly anglophobia as some of the second-homes burnt were owned by Welsh people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.26.124 (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"recent comments" a little too negative

The section on recent times deals solely with mutual antipathy (the anti-English section was copied directly from my text at Anglophobia). While that certainly exists, to omit any mention of positive feelings is to seriously exaggerate the tension. The majority of Welsh are unionists, right? And Wales (unlike Scotland) is not the target of much English resentment over the Barnett formula.

Can someone find something positive to say about the modern "cultural relationship" between these neighbours? BillMasen (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Without resorting to stereotypes, that is not easy. Have you read this book? My perception (as someone who has lived close to the border for most of my life and was born in England from an originally Welsh-speaking family) is that (despite the jokes) a lot of English people have a lot of positive (if sometimes patronising) views about Wales and Welsh people (Gavin & Stacey, Charlotte Church, Bevan, Manic Street Preachers, Dylan Thomas, etc etc etc), but that isn't necessarily reciprocated - which is not at all surprising, given history, and the relative sizes of the two countries (ie that they are not "equals" in scale). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't read that book. Perhaps you could summarise the main points in the article, if it would help the article.

I think the majority of Welsh people want to retain the union with England. That seems like a good place to start. I lived in Wales for 4 years, and while being English didn't exactly result in lots of free pints, I didn't feel anything like the hostility that I met with on visiting Scotland. BillMasen (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The latest figure I've seen is that only 10% of the Welsh people want Wales to become an independent state[2], and there is some older evidence that the majority of people in both England and Wales (and Scotland) are happy with a common over-arching British identity[3]. We should probably try to find a place for "what the English and Welsh share in common", because the article does currently present relations as somewhat antagonistic! Pondle (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the book is too discursive to be summarised, though it is referenced in the existing article. I understand the concerns over the current emphases, but I think finding good references for a shared positive view will be quite difficult as "happiness", especially when tacit, and unlike antipathy, is not very "newsworthy". And, of course, editors' perceptions, however valid they might be, are not a matter for articles here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I got the text to support the citations, but I think we need to get some balance here, and I'm not sure the current section should be up front, maybe in historical sequence. I also don't think we should confuse the Unionist issie/independence issue here. --Snowded (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no cause for a simplistic portrayal of this relationship as bound by mutual dislike, unless, of course, the editors involved are promoting the dissolution of the Union. Why is it that this NPOV problem took too long to address? All of the British Isles articles are prone to ethnocentric separatism. Is this Labour's doing? Perhaps Labour's part in revising governmental infrastructure needs to be included, for more impartiality as to the source of discontent. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to assert mutual dislike (other than the odd idiot) whether you support dissolution of the Union or not --Snowded (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you have mistaken me. I meant "cause" as in some mission to disintegrate the union by separatist propaganda pushed here. Of course, bigotry is not something I was attempting to justify, only assessing the root (cause/the cause) and goal of this massively obvious negativity. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You really should stop speculating on the motives of other editors you know, its tedious. If you think there is separatist propaganda then list it --Snowded (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You think I'm alleging conspiracy, when a loose and disorderly expression of separatism hides in the open, in as plain a sight as edits made to neo-Nazi articles elsewhere on Wikipedia, it all being self-promotion by bashing other nationalities, through emphasis on their differences. How many times and in how many articles, has Wikipedia been glossed (not graced) by this kind of rhetoric? Maybe the world's just hateful right now, I don't know, but the simple fact remains, that there are notable instances of it being carried out and when I have noted some example or other of it, you decide to attack me. (Hmm, are you trying to start a fight, by insuating that I simply followed you here from Talk:British Isles, to interfere with you?) I am on the defense all the time, although it is my fault for even trying to get others to call it quits (I did not name you, because I don't know who in particular is doing this, otherwise, I would have named a culprit), from objectifying their biases against other peoples. My "brother's caretaker attitude" is going to waste, when it appears nobody around here is concerned for the other people involved in these kinds of disputes, simply crying foul. I am no eschatologist, but these are terrible signs for Wikipedia and indeed, many parts of the world, but I'll refrain from sensationalism. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're doing it again. I have no idea if you are alleging a conspiracy theory or not, nor am I interested. I have no view on if you followed me here or not, nor do I have any objection if you did. I have not seen any significant examples of self-promoting bashing of other nationalities. All that I ask is that you address content issues objectively and stop speculating about the motivations of other editors. --Snowded (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are indeed doing against me as you claim I am doing. I have only offered a possible explanation for why you presently vex me, as we leave off not too far from a previous dispute. Please, simply accept the fact that I'm not interested in this. I had a small thought, perhaps not overly humble, if I felt like "intruding" on a subject in which you have already felt to be an established editor. You're pretty sensitive to "interference", but I am apparently, only sensitive to the fallout of ethnocentric disinterest being tossed about here and there. It's a bit disturbing, for why else would those above in this discussion address it? I am simply nodding in agreement with the above sentiments, but you have made a mountain out of a molehill, by trying to read between the lines and infer something else out of what I wrote. Don't point a finger at me as if I'm being difficult, because your edit history shows as many disagreements with other editors, if not more...To wit, I am not going around to so many articles and reverting or engaging in so many tangential disagreements, all these many things which I see you have a modus operandi of doing. I prefer to discuss any discrepencies on the talk page first, but others like yourself have a habit of pretension, that you should disallow any initiative to edit the articles themselves, unless thou has approved of the "correct version" first. Why is it that those like yourself, who constantly revert other people's edits, accuse those you victimize, of the one being difficult? Come off it and don't condescend so much. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All I have asked is that you address content issues not editor motivations and discuss controversial changes on the talk page --Snowded (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough distortion. If you want to edit without me present, then by God, you shall have it. I don't want to be around all these people with bad vibes anyways, even if they have insisted in forcing their way about anything I choose to do, or framing what I say in response to being belligerently mishandled by them. The side-step and side-swiping straw man is policy around Wikipedia these days. I will leave this discussion as promised, so long as you don't erase all which I have written, for then it shall be an edit war. Don't manhandle me, but you may have the last word, if you would that it may soothe your lack of conscience in dealing with me. Oh yes, be very self-assured that you're always right. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Very happy to let what you have written speak for you. Other edits may delete the whole exchange though --Snowded (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Respect

The bit about relations between the Welsh and English being "mostly characterised by tolerance, respect ..." strikes me as being written by somebody with rose-tinted spectacles. I lived in England for three years, and got regular abuse for being Welsh, including threats of violence. If the people I met had any respect for anything Welsh, they hid it extraordinarily well. By contrast, I later lived in an Islamic country for four years, and experienced only courtesy and kindness. 86.138.54.242 (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I must confess the first sentence of this article does make me laugh a bit, but the second sentence covers your concerns in a reasonable way i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Were the hell were you living in England? Your just as likely to be abused in such away in certain areas of Wales. Sorry for your own personal experience being bad and all...But by and large the Welsh and English get along better, I have to say, than the Scottish and the English do.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Welsh people treated inferiorly by the English

Because the Welsh were looked upon as someone "different" as a people (this is called "group libel") or expected to do what the English "master" race tells them to do: i.e. language, ethnicity, religion, national loyality, cultural conformity, etc. it is somewhat, if not entirely, comparable to anti-Semitism (hatred against Jews in religious strife) esp. in Nazi Germany, anti-Korean ethos in a very homogeneous Japan, racism against blacks and anti-Hispanic sentiment in the USA, and the speak white analogy in Canada against Francophones. It can develop into a point of vicious kinds of defamation and dehumanization of Welsh people as something "BAD", "immoral" or "disloyal" to the British (esp. Anglo-Saxon Germanic) hegemony. Have the developed countries and free world learned the concept of tolerance, multiculturalism and human rights when it comes to respecting people who wish to preserve a different culture and not to mock an ethnonational identity? The present-day U.K. continually caters to the Welsh, Scots, Irish (esp. when it comes to sectarianism in Northern Ireland) and the growing multiracial British society is concerned, but no government should promote a hostile environment to alienate any particular social "minority" group of people and the Welsh were subjugated to forced assimilation in order to avoid themselves being singled out as an "uncouthed-uncivilized" and "heathen-pagan" nation (pardon my examplatory form of speech about typical anti-Welsh slurs or stereotypes), accordingly said by the "Chavs" in 19th century Britain. + 00:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.12.55 (talk)

How are your assertions relevant to the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposing a rename back to the standard 'Anti-x sentiment' format.

This article's first edit in its entirety:

Anti-Welsh sentiment is a hatred or fear of Wales, the Welsh people or Welsh culture.

In the United Kingdom, anti-Welsh sentiment is widespread in England and, to a much lesser extent, can be encountered in Scotland.

High-profile examples of anti-Welsh sentiment in recent years have included A. A. Gill’s description of the Welsh as :"loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls." [1]

English television personality Anne Robinson caused a furor when she appeared on the comedy show Room 101 on 5 March 2001 and made derisive comments about Welsh people. Comments such as "what are they for?" and 'I never did like them' and suggesting that Prince Philip also disliked the Welsh. The people she was thinking about were supposedly based on people who spoke Welsh around the market stall operated by her mother during her childhood. This caused an outcry and accusations of racism. Four senior officers from North Wales Police spent 96 hours investigating the issue,[2] but concluded that there was insufficient basis for a prosecution.

When Huw Edwards began presenting the BBC Six O'Clock News in 1999, the BBC received a large number of complaints from English viewers, outraged that a Welshman was allowed to present the "English news".

So why wasn't such a poor article immediately deleted? Because at the time nothing at AfD's were - they were all subject to 'inclusionism', headcounts and comments like "hey guys it needs some work, but things can always be improved" as if people had nothing better to do on Wikpedia alone (optimistic comments that were followed by tumbleweed most of the time, because many AfD contributors had no interest in editing the article at all).

Here it appears that the suffering article went through a name-changed instead, but the problem is that this has turned the article into a sociological essay, not an encyclopedia entry (and certainly not a Wikipedia one per policy). The first title at least made sense as an article, and could be directly compared to articles like Anti-Australian sentiment or Anti-Americanism. Wikipedia struggles enough getting it's standard articles right, and should surely never be allowed to tackle things like this, which would only make sense to me on a wiki like 'Wikisociety', or 'wikiessays' or something.

So I suggest a name-change back to the original (and less anglocentric) Anti-Welsh sentiment title (unless someone knows of a better name for xenophobia towards the Welsh) - and replacing some of the endlessly-repeated history with the usual links when needed. Wikipedia the encyclopedia can't be a place for articles that are ultimately more like essays on the aspects of articles. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As always, constructive suggestions to improve the article are welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If there was a revert, it would be a good idea to drop the definition of "anti-welsh sentiment" as including a fear of Wales. I suspect that vanishingly few people in the UK are afraid of Wales the place. They may (or may not) like it as a geographical or political entity, but you'd be hard pressed to find any fear. More careful drafting needed. Francis Davey (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As MattLewis says, the original text was dire, and on the verge of deletion - there's no chance of going back to it, and I don't really see the point of him bringing it up now, over three years later. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pehaps this could be a simple name-change, followed by a stint of fairly basic rewriting. ie no big deal. As for the 'point' - I've taken the time to detail a couple of points above, and they are pretty straight-forward, esp Wales followin the 'anti-x' format that WP normally uses. Beyond that, what's your problem? People are still finding all kinds of issues on WP (eg incorrect content) that is older than 3 years old! The key obviously is to make the 'anti-Welsh' a balanced article from the outset. It needn't be more than a stub to begin with, though I'm sure there is enough in here to make it more than that.

I can't remember if there a place to go to request this - I'll look. I can't imagine too many objecting, though I suppose some people might want to re-create this article as a seperate entity. I definitely favour a direct name-change and re-write though (called a 'Move' if I think?), rather than developing the newer post-name-change (!) 'anti-Welsh sentiment' redirect page - in my opinion this article isn't right for WP as it stands. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy for the article to be trimmed, but would not support the major changes you seem to be proposing. There is indeed such a thing as "anti-Welsh sentiment". But, it is (unless there are goings-on in Patagonia of which I'm unaware) exclusively perpetrated by the English - not the Scots, Irish, or anyone else. Other nationalities may have anti-British sentiments, which may encompass the Welsh, but those are addressed at the Anglophobia article. By the same token, there is also verifiable anti-English sentiment perpetrated (sometimes, by some - see refs) Welsh people. That is, again, specifically against English people in the adjoining country (not against Scots, Irish, etc.) Now, if we have sentiments expressed by people on one side of a land border about people on the other side of that border, it makes a great deal of sense to me to have a single article which sets out both sides. The alternative, which would be what you're suggesting, would be to put the instances of anti-English sentiment by Welsh people in the Anglophobia article, and have a small stubby and one-sided article here on anti-Welsh sentiment by English people. I don't think that would be helpful or the best structure for the encyclopedia - it is more helpful to set out instances on both sides here, and place them in context - the context being that there is a lot of "history" between the English and Welsh but that, by and large, we now get on reasonably well and are probably not about to declare war against each other. The relationship between the Welsh and English is also the subject of many articles, books, and so on - it is not a "made up" subject. But, I don't like the title much and would happily settle for a better one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes but can't you see that this is Original Research? Even if you find sources, the subject only exists in compilation - with matters too transient. The title you would want is 'Cultural conflict between the English and the Welsh' - ie an essay. It might seem sincere enough, but honestly there is no place for it on Wikipedia. Of course you are not alone in wanting stuff like this, but they are ultimately against policy, and imo a minefield anyway for an anonomous collaboration like this one. We are not denying anyone anything by adapting this - people can always read a book on this kind of subject (and always should as their primary source for things anyway). Matt Lewis (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not WP:OR, not WP:SYNTH. The title could perhaps be changed (maybe delete the word "Cultural"), and the article edited like any other, but it is a properly sourced article about a real subject which is the subject of multiple published sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't simply about finding a source. Somebody somewhere has said something 'verifiable' about any idea, theroy, topic or subject you can think of. Not everything is valid for an encyclopedia, and you won't find this as an article in Britannica for example - though you could find it as a feature by some sociologist in a history periodical (which simply is a different product). Wikipedia is supposed to have all manner of limitations - it is not in any respect an encyclopedia of every aspect of every thing. I'll sort it out when I get a chance, and bring it back in line with the 'anti-x sentiment' articles, which in themselves are workable as 'common terms'. I'm sure you can put all the ant-Welsh examples you want in that without focusing exclusively on the English, so it won't be much of a big deal. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't be so arrogant as to think that "you" will "sort it out". We - that is, the community - will resolve any disagreement, using proper procedures. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about whatever the procedure is - apply some AGF, and don't be so flipping snotty yourself. I've never had issues with WP:OWN, unlike so many people in this crazy place. I've always done ridiculous amount of work involved in finding a guideline-based consenus, or I've completely failed to find time. It's always been one or the other. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only person to notice that most of the examples of anti Welsh sentiment quoted are actually jokes? They may be unfunny or in bad taste or deliberately offensive, but they are still jokes. Does anybody really think that the quotes by A.A. Gill, A.N. Wilson, Jeremy Clarkson and Anne Robinson represent what these people (or anybody else) actually think about the Welsh? --Ef80 (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"The relationship between the Welsh and English within Great Britain is mostly characterised by tolerance, respect"

Really? Hahaha.

Possible reword

Hatred or fear of the Welsh by the English or others has been termed "Cymrophobia".[1] Antipathy to the English, by the Welsh or others, is termed "Anglophobia".

Not a fan of this part, think the wording could be placing unbalanced emphasis on the English holding the more emotive opinion. 195.162.87.201 (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Offa's Dyke, the Battle of Chester, etc

The whole idea that these events represent the end of welsh presence or even when they were minorized by the english settlers in the west of England is ridiculously outdated english nationalist nonsense where the welsh somehow kindly evacuated lands they lived on the moment they lost to an anglosaxon warband. I would refer to Chadwick if I could still get my jstor access in order, but the rough points: Chester was a temporary setback and anglian settlement in the Cheshire-South Lancashire area only started a century later at the earliest; Offa's Dyke was a border between Mercia and Powys and a lot of the presumed extensions of the dyke, especially on the southern border, have Terminus ante quem that makes it impossible for it to have been started when Mercia even existed in the first place. The polities directly east of Offa's dyke also were still largely welsh even as mercian subkingdoms. 199.180.97.243 (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I live in North Devon, very close to Wales. We are overwhelmingly English in our identity here, unlike Cornwall next door. Get your facts straight.--Somchai Sun (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Today maybe, but it's obvious cornish was still spoken at the time the bishopric of Exeter was instituted in Crediton, as seen by the grant itself. So you're eithere very well assimilated or not natives. 173.176.137.97 (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Not native? Assimilated? Thanks, but Devon doesn't want anything to do with your toxic brand of ethno-nationalism. I can trace my ancestry back 500+ years in Devon (mostly central and far west of Exeter). I am a native, and I have every damn right to choose how I identify as. Edit: My apologies, I see you are Welsh (In Canada?) - so this really has nothing to do with you. And events that happened 1000+ years ago have nothing to do with me neither, I'll have you know. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"I see you are Welsh" - so this really has nothing to do with you." You seem offended at the idea that the brythonic cultures were mostly unified before the english (and eventually the french) took over? 173.176.137.97 (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

whereas English is in the West Germanic group; consequently many English speakers find it harder to learn and speak Welsh than Dutch, for example

Not disputing that English is in the West Germanic group (originally) but who says Welsh is harder to learn for natural English speakers? There's also no context here. Welsh is far easier to learn than the Non-Brythonic Celtic languages, but hey that's my own OR... ;)--Somchai Sun (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Racism Vs Prejudice (and other stuff).

Which would be the more appropriate term? "Prejudice" comes across as more broad and encompassing - prejudice takes many forms, including that of Racism. The negative side of the English/Welsh relationship (which is sadly the most prominent relationship the two countries have) often shows itself across a broad, ugly spectrum. Some racism, yes, but all...? --Adam in 成都市 (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the wording is "...occasionally overt racism..." (my emphasis). Prejudice (in either direction - in my experience as someone who lives on the border) is probably more widespread than "occasional". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Occasional it is not, we all know this...(someone with rose-tinted spectacles seems to of written parts of the article)...overt racism seems to be less common than general prejudice, xenophobia and ignorance. I once went to a Plymouth Argyle game VS Cardiff match (back when Argyle were actually good enough to play teams like Cardiff it must be said!) and the general cross supporter interactions was at its worst ultimately childish or reasonably good natured - the more sensitive soul may of taken offence and labelled it as "racism"...--Adam in 成都市 (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The word is used here (reference '2', "Wales-England: Where is the love?"). Although the quote is "blatant racism" rather than "overt racism", I think that's reasonable. Daicaregos (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Blatant<~>Obvious, out in the open, laid bare for all to see, not trying to disguise itself, overt has a similar definition.--Adam in 成都市 (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The stuff I (and others) were subjected to by EDL Portsmouth Supporters on the train 10th January was blatant and overt racism. Prejudice can be seen as a way of toning things down from reality. Its not universal, it is occasional but it does happen. The Sun's treatment of Neil Kinnock came close at times ----Snowded ^TALK 21:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Prejudice is prejudice. Racism is Racism. It is neither unique or endemic to either of our groups. The article claims the W E relationship is built upon respect - and herein lies the problem. It's simply not. Just because it doesn't always take the form of over racism - which is rare it must be said - doesn't mean the Welsh-English relationship is any good. I sincerely believe it is more than often poor. There is no evidence, and no sources to back up the claim it is generally cordial or friendly. I refuse to believe so because I have experienced enough vitriol from either side of the boarder. I technically live very close to Wales - when I'm in the UK that is - but rarely come across Welsh people, it must be said - however via the general media, incidents, newspapers, internet and even from a the few I have come across - I can safely say that the relationship is sometimes of mutual respect, sometimes friendly, but far too often just downright mistrustful or resentful. I won't go into details, as that would be treating this page like a forum - but this article is wrong on so many levels. Get rid of the apologetics and unsourced claims, and turn the article into what its title actually represents - culture. Right now it reads too much like an international relations piece! --Adam in 成都市 (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite. Though, to be fair, re-writing the opening sentence ("The relationship between the Welsh and English is mostly characterised by tolerance, respect, and an intermixing of people and cultures."), which has carried a 'citation needed' template for four months, would likely change the tone. The sentence does not reflect the rest of the article. WP:INTRO says "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Any suggestions how to summarise the topic? Daicaregos (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This article as a whole is subject to a confused identity and I have no idea what to make of it. When I have insane nationalists blaming an entire ethnic group with inherited sin and racially abusing me by declaring me a non-native of where I was fucking born and bought up, then I start to wonder why I should care in the first place. But if anything, the article should focus on the cultural exchange between the English and Welsh, if this makes any sense - how each others culture has influenced the other, i.e. loan words, trade, traditions etc, whatever - anything to do with culture (I live in Devon. Some of our traditions and place-names are of "West Welsh" Celtic origins, most of us probably have Celtic DNA but we are most certainly not Welsh or Celtic! And don't get me started on that "DEWNANS" crap). It shouldn't be some political ethnic relations piece. I have no idea who put that lead sentence in, but they are clearly a smiling Welsh or English person, sitting in a cafe (or an English "footy" pub) right now drinking coffee that has been spat in by someone with an ethnic chip on their shoulder. I've met plenty of nice, decent, honest Welsh people - but the die-hard ethno cultural nationalist ones? I've met Irish Republicans, Scottish nationalists...and I find them more agreeable and less inclined to automatic hatred once they know my stance on things, but when it comes to general views of the English from the Welsh side of the nationalist coin...oh boy. It's a 1500-year-old blood feud. As for how the worst of the English view the Welsh - it's usually just stereotype mockery or snobbishness, and it's very effing common. Off-hand racist remarks are something I have seen directed towards the Welsh on an almost weekly basis if I accidentally come into contact with the muppets who espouse it (TV, Forums, general street banter). BAH. --Adam in 成都市 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

OH right...the lead...um..."Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English relates to..."....then "It explores the two regions cultural similarities and differences, and how each culture has influenced the other over the years...". Did Shakespeare not use Welsh in many of his works? --Adam in 成都市 (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing someone who gets insanely defensive at the thought that the position of the english towards the welsh has been nearly 1500 continuous centuries of invasions, repression and conquest, all the way to the creation of the united kingdom, of which Wales was the only part to not even have the pretence that it was done willingly (even the irish had the generosity of a puppet parliament). There is no racial abuse outside of your victim fantasies.

As for loan words, trade, traditions etc, whatever, that will be incredibly easy. There are about 60 total celtic loanwords in the entire english language, the few traditions that haven't been destroyed amount to new age nonsense, legends repurposed for political claims, and military pageantry, and trade that even archaeologists are hard pressed to find before the final english conquest of Wales. If you feel offended that some minor population in western Devon do not feel as english as you do, maybe you should ask yourself why and stop taking it and every part of it as a personal insult considering Cornish and its death on both sides of the Tamar is something english philologists have been nearly obsessed with for nearly two centuries before and after Dolly Pentreath died. Serious academic historians have said much harsher things on the english rule of Wales than this article does. 173.176.137.97 (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this page trash?

Whilst the title is “the cultural relationship between the English and Welsh”, the page overwhelmingly focuses on hostility between English and Welsh.

Given the numerous cultural links, the centuries of peace, and the contemporary support for the English-Welsh Union in Wales, the page is severely lacking in relevance and overall accuracy.

It reads as if it is written by someone with a serious axe to grind. Scat4219 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

‘Cultural relationship’ or ‘relationship’

Is this article about the ‘cultural relationship’ between the English & Welsh, or the relationship between them? Scat4219 (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Racism in Wales

Any objections to adding this category? It only occurred to me after noticing there are a lot of mentions of racism in the article. It's not a huge deal - just asking. Capewearer (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

So long as you believe that categories have any value whatsoever (I don't, but perhaps I'm ill-informed), I have no objection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I tend to oppose mass insertion of categories unless they are directly relevant as they can act to misrepresent weight in the article. It isn't a huge deal but there is little or no significant reference to racism in the article and I would oppose -----Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a reference to racism in the lede, indicating weight. The category seems appropriate. Miles Creagh (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Brythonic

Isn't the ancient Celtic language called Brythonic, not Brittonic? 2001:14BB:A0:78EA:49E7:978:13C8:36DD (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe they are interchangeable? See Brittonic languages and Common Brittonic, which use "Brittonic", which could indicate it as the most common name for the ancient languages. Considering "Briton" is used here rather than "Brython", using Brittonic is probably clearer to readers IMO.

Although the article is not consistent, since changed it. DankJae 02:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)