Sgwrs:Teulu Brenhinol y Deyrnas Unedig

message: Mi gaffodd yr erthygl a'i restr aedolau'r teulu brenhinol presennol eu olygu i gynnwys farwolaeth y Brenhines Elisabeth ac olyniaeth y Brenin Siarl III. Olster21
The article and it's list of current members of the royal family were edited to include the death of Queen Elisabeth and the succession of Prince Charles.
(sgwrs) 12:34, 17 Medi 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olyniaeth y Brenin Siarl III 

message: @Llywelyn2000 I'm a bit disappointed to find out that the only information regarding the royal family in the article is about its past associations with fascism... even as a republican myself, I think this goes much too far in painting the royal family as fascists themselves (which Edward VIII arguably was, but the article ignores the fact that the royals became against Nazism in line with the rest of the country, as can be seen in George VI's VE day speech). The reference to the Nazi salute of the English football team is also off-topic, while the reference to the belief that Nazism was supported as a counterbalance to Communism is unsubstantiated. Ultimately I'm led to believe that this part of the article is intended to bias people's opinions of the royals, which I think violates Wikipedia's ethical goals as in Wikipedia:Ethical Code for Wikipedians.
I don't plan on unilaterally removing this part of the article, but I'm tempted to do so in future hopefully with your consent when I've created a category about the general history of the royal family. Olster21 (sgwrs) 13:18, 17 Medi 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Llewelyn2000 can answer for himself, and I ask him to forgive me for intervening. I'm only doing so by way of providing an independent voice here. I'm sure we're all disappointed with this article. But we do depend on what  contributors are interested in writing about, and also to a great extent with what is already available in the Welsh language. I don't see anything wrong with the section on the royal family and fascism in its own terms. I don't think it's "intended to bias people's opinions". The question is whether it's accurate and truthful, and I've no reason to suppose that it isn't. And there certainly isn't any evidence that a contrary point of view that presents the royal family in a more positive light has been suppressed.

text: What is wrong here is that the article is missing more basic bread-and-butter information about the royal family so that this section doesn't dominate. But for that we need contributors who are interested in and knowledgeable about the topic. Can you help expand it? Please do so. You're very welcome. --Craigysgafn (sgwrs) 16:55, 17 Medi 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :@Craigysgafn thank you for your contribution Craigysgafn. Still a newcomer, I think you're right I might have interpreted the intent a bit harshly. I think you're right that the article needs a lot more general text, so I'm starting on a general history section for the page. Will still see what Llywellyn2000 wants to say about it. Olster21 (sgwrs) 18:17, 17 Medi 2022 (UTC)

text: Also the first sentence; '[y] 'Windsors' sydd wedi etifeddu'r teitl, yr arian a'r sylw' gives me weird vibes. I think I will change this to be more in-line with the English article. Olster21 (sgwrs) 23:48, 17 Medi 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :We don't need to be "in line" with the corresponding English article; you can just re-phrase it in your own way. Deb (sgwrs) 06:27, 18 Medi 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ::@DebThank you, this is what I meant. Olster21 (sgwrs) 09:17, 18 Medi 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in the page