Talk:Crachach

This article cited a self published blog by Marcus Stead. Issues around Stead's works were detailed in full at the deletion discussion for the wiki page for him. The issues around the verifiability and notability of Stead's writing can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Stead (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Stead.

Much of Stead's work is self published and he has not been (as far as I know) published in any reputable publications. His specialism as a writer was in snooker and cricket biographies.

As per WP:SPS self published sources are "largely not acceptable as sources". Further, where they are allowed, they should be by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. From my understanding of the deletion arguments around Stead, he would not meet this test. Instead this article only seems to be an opinion piece in many sections, which goes against WP:NOTRS.

Further I am concerned that the article does not meet WP:NOTRS, as Stead is not employed as a journalist, and does not hold any qualifications or publications on this subject. This all raises issues about 1) meaningful editorial oversight and 2) checking the facts, of which there are neither for his blog.

I would appreciate any input from editors who have views on this matter. Pinging to editor @46.208.131.59: who disagreed with my initial rollback.

46.208.131.59 (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)46.208.131.59 Marcus Stead is a professional journalist of around 15 years' experience, and his work has appeared in print in most UK national newspapers. In addition, he is a regular presence on global radio as both a sports pundit and political analyst. Therefore, your claim that Stead is 'not employed as a journalist' is incorrect.Reply

I have read his blog article and all the claims he makes are backed up by evidence, including many links. Therefore his blog article, while an opinion piece to some extent, should be regarded as a reasonable and fair contribution to what is a contentious subject matter.

Nice try, Marcus! 2A00:23C6:8D80:5401:FC49:BB9F:C339:720C (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@46.208.131.59: The issue is not about him having not been published as a journalist.

What matters is that it is Wikipedia policy to use third party, independent sources for citations. A personal blog by definition cannot be such, unless the author is an expert. The rules are clear. This was the issue with Marcus' own Wiki article, and it's the same here.

In the deletion discussions, it was agreed that his work was not considered notable as he has not worked for major publications, aside from the Guardian obituaries column. Further he has no claim to being an expert on this topic. Where are his major high profile credits? Academic qualifications? Citations in major publications? You have clearly not read WP:SPS.

Please cease your abuse of Wikipedia rules, there is a clear consensus against self published blogs, and a record over two deletion reviews against citing Marcus' work, going back a long way (as far as 2012), due to issues with his (lack of) notability as a journalist. Please read WP:SPS and instead use impartial and reputable sources. The BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, etc. Not his blog. Llemiles (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The following discussed originally started at WP:HD#Crachach article (Crachach) and has been moved here by — Sebastian 00:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm writing to you to assert that this article, entitled 'Crachach' is both factually incorrect and full of anti-Welsh propaganda. Not only does the article inexplicably link the supposed 'secret elite' of Welsh society with devolution, citing it as being one of the ills which followed it, but also tars Welsh speakers by connecting them to this supposed group of power-hungry individuals. Upon looking at the alleged 'sources', they seem to be editorial articles lacking in any hard evidence, citing nothing but anonymous tips and unnamed individuals giving opinions. This is therefore a biased article based around prejudice, and should be scrutinized carefully. The fact that it also names certain individuals, linking them to a supposed elite of corrupt individuals, and all with the lack of solid evidence (as described above) is also very worrying. I recommend that the above article be revised and carefully scrutinized by a user experienced in editing - it seems that the original user who approved the article failed to notice the biased tone, the unreliable sources and the underlying suggestion that devolution in Wales or Welsh speakers are somehow to blame for corruption or nepotism. Please amend this as soon as possible. Any response will be very welcome.

Many thanks,

Primus001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primus001 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Have you initiated a discussion about this on the article's talk page?--ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, it seems that the talk page is devoid of life - not surprising considering the article is discussing a subject which concerns a small amount of people contained within a small demographic area. Would raising the point on the talk page only notify the article creator/editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primus001 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article's references are suspicious. The first one admits itself to be tongue-in-cheek. The second appears to be intended seriously (though I cannot take it seriously). The third is a duplicate of the second. The fourth is a duplicate of the first. Maproom (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Maproom. Glad to know I'm not being paranoid about this. I wouldn't raise the issue usually, but there has been a worrying bigoted trend in the media recently toward the anti-Welsh, with little hard evidence and much prejudice (see the Gogwatch and BiLingo scandals if anyone's interested). As such, I feel it's my duty to point things like this out when they do crop up. Hope someone who's experienced in editing or removing articles can amend this as soon as possible.

If the sources are iffy, maybe it's destined for Afd?--ukexpat (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Seems an odd discussion here, when you consider the term has been written about over a number of years in such 'joke' news sources as the BBC and the Independent newspaper. Maybe the article needs cutting down in size, but it seems to be talking about a recognised phenomenon. Sionk (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, if that is so, would you have any better sources than the ones we have so far? — Sebastian 01:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

How do you mean? There are substantial articles by the BBC, Independent and Guardian. I've gone ahead and removed the wording that connects the rise of the cranach to the new Wales Assembly constitution - can't see where that came from either! I notice the BBC have sat-on-the-fence and described their journalist's article as tongue-in-cheek. I wonder whether she retained her job after writing that one ;) Sionk (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I read the Guardian, and speak Welsh, so that probably means that I'm a member of the Crachach, but the paper regularly publishes absoloute opinionated drivel, (see Comment is free for example). Sure, the BBC, Independent and Guardian can be cited as reliable sources for news and facts, but this article seems to be nothing short of a soap-box for the prejudice of some people:

the primarily Welsh speaking minority who hold a monopoly over the Welsh system of social and cultural prestige, isolating 80% of Wales’s non Welsh speaking majority in the process

Its quite a popular term used by Old Labour and (without a hint of irony) by New Labour to denigrate opponents. The quotes by Rhodri Morgan ar a classic example, him being the son of a Proffesor (of the Welsh language), and both him and his wife being MPs for parts of Cardiff while living in prosperous Vale of Glamorgan.--92.245.247.100 (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The senior Labour politicians definitely seem to like the word 'cranach' - Rhodri Morgan, Leighton Andrews, Kim Howells - it may be a good idea to separate these into a section of the article. The penultimate sentence currently describes Andrews as a 'commentator', while in fact it would be more accurate to call him a politician. Sionk (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

"The senior Labour politicians definitely seem to like the word 'cranach'." The word 'cranach' also appears in the article. Is this a type of variant of carachach? or a typo?--Rhyswynne (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I assumed it was just a typo, and changed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand how it can be referenced as a factual phenomenon when all the articles and references to it are all a matter of opinion or are tongue-in-cheek? Also, why the reference to Welsh speakers and the link to corruption? Surely if this is no more than an abstract concept used to describe people of a certain disposition (toffee-nosed or snobby with friends in high places, for instance), then the article doesn't deal in facts, but merely suppositions and opinions? I myself am a Welsh-speaker, and the term 'Crachach' is often used simply as a term to describe upper-class or well-off people with a snobbish attitude.Primus001 (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Primus001Reply

I've just created this account because I stumbled across this horrifically anti-Welsh entry and couldn't believe that Wikipedia would contain such bias. One of the sources cited is a BBC news article which claims to be tongue-in-cheek. If it is tongue-in-cheek should it be used as a source? Seems like using an 'Englishman, Scotsman, Irishman...' joke to support anti-Irish bias. If it's not supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, the quiz which it links to (see [1]) contains two questions which essentially say that all Welsh speakers that went to Welsh medium schools are a member of this group. 'All Welsh speakers' is a very broad brush and a clear sign of bias within the article. Even as joke this article is offensive. Please can someone remove the anti-Welsh bias within this article? Gazrogers (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Should we not be consistent in using either "crachach" or "Crachach"? I don't mind which, but the current inconsistency looks odd. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

It would be useful for us saesnaeg (?) to have a pronunciation guide. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Saesneg is the English language, Sais an Englishman. Crachach is written phonetically. A six letter word (ch is one letter in the Welsh alphabet) of two syllables: CRA (as in CRAg) and CHACH (similar to cack – as in cack-handed - but both CHs pronounced as in the CH in the Scottish loCH). The Encyclopaedia of Wales says “Crachach is a Welsh term that has come to be used in conversations in English”, which probably makes it a 'borrowed' word in English. Daicaregos (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

An IPA pronunciation guide would nevertheless be helpful. Phonetic pronunciations in the Welsh language are not necessarily understood by most readers. As it stands, some readers would expect a pronunciation "cratchatch", or "crackack". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have no real interest in Wales or its people, but I reverted an edit by a new user that had removed most of the references. It was probably in good faith, but it screwed up the reflist, so it had to go. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply