Talk:Hedd Wyn (film)

message: I have re-written the introduction and corrected the infobox. That it is a Welsh film is cited by reliable sources. Please discuss here rather than inserting unsourced opinions into the article. Daicaregos (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Welsh should be used in the introduction and infobox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think there's a good argument for considering that both accurate and more informative than British. garik (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to add that this kind of edit summary is at best infantile and at worst a personal attack. garik (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole issue needs to be brought to the talk page and discussed in an adult fashion. this kind of childish edit is absolutely unacceptable, and the editor's apparent refusal to discuss the matter on the talk page does not show very good faith. garik (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree that "Welsh film" is the more appropriate description.  I also note that childish behaviour profits nobody, and that further disruption is likely to lead to a block. BencherliteTalk 11:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The neutral position, it seems to me, would be for the article text to recognise that, in common with many other things, it is both Welsh and British - as well as stating very clearly that it is a Welsh language film.  Flags in infoboxes are generally deprecated, and I think that should be removed.  That leaves the question of whether the "country" in the infobox should be stated as the UK or Wales, which in my view is a matter where there should be consistency across WP and across different projects.  I'm not aware that there is a consistent line everywhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that that would be a solution, although I can't see exactly how we acknowledge in the text that it's both Welsh and British without that sounding very awkward. When I wrote above that it would be "more informative" to write simply Welsh, I meant that Welsh entails British, while the reverse is not the case, though I recognise that maximum informativeness is not the only point at issue here. And yes, I'm not sure either that there really is a consistent line everywhere. One thing seems relatively straightforward to me, however: I don't see that there should be anything wrong with listing both Welsh and English as the languages of the film, although we should perhaps indicate that Welsh is certainly the principal language. garik (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  British is it? What exactly did the British have to do with this film. It couldn't even get a UK release.  As the BBC says here (part of their article Welsh film history: 1990-99):The 1990s ushered in a strong dose of reality, with increasing acceptance that a fertile period of Welsh features was not yet on the horizon, but there was still much evidence of burgeoning talent waiting in the wings for opportunities. The evidence came from dozens of short films of undoubted merit which emerged in the decade from colleges and various initiatives by Sgrin Cymru Wales, in particular. Lack of opportunities for embryo directors to bridge the gap between short filmmaking and features was partly due to lack of adequate funding, while the hiatus in the careers of some more experienced filmmakers could be attributed partly to lack of faith and enterprise by London distributors. This particularly applied to Welsh language films, as the nation has yet to establish with outsiders a tradition of filmmaking which makes subtitled work from established mainstream filmmaking countries acceptable. The most startling casualty and victim of blinkered distributors/investors was Paul Turner's Hedd Wyn, which made history in 1994 as the first Welsh language film short-listed for a Hollywood Oscar (best Foreign Language category). This compassionate film about Ellis Evans, World War One victim who became the only poet to win, posthumously, the coveted Welsh Eisteddfod Bardic Chair for poetry, gained a clutch of Bafta Cymru awards and landed the Royal Television Society's Best TV drama prize. Yet it failed to gain a distribution deal in Britain. That the references for it to be noted as a Welsh film are reliable has been confirmed by the Reliable sources/Noticeboard (see here) who also provided futher references that Wales is a country. There is a Welsh film industry, distinct from the 'British' flim industry. Just as there is Welsh literature and Welsh music. I see no reason to alter the article for some supposed neutrality that will inevitably give a British POV, by airbrushing Wales out of Wikipedia. Daicaregos (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming that the Welsh are not British?  S4C is (correctly) described as "the fifth oldest British television channel".  Where and how the film was distributed is not an indicator of where and how it was made.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Daicaregos (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No to what?  Sorry, my fault, we cross-posted there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not claiming the Welsh are not British. Daicaregos (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good! So why can the film not be described (in some way - wording to be agreed) as both Welsh and British? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It no more needs to be described as British than European. As my other points were completely ignored I repeat them here: That the references for it to be noted as a Welsh film are reliable has been confirmed by the Reliable sources/Noticeboard (see here) who also provided futher references that Wales is a country. There is a Welsh film industry, distinct from the 'British' flim industry. Just as there is Welsh literature and Welsh music. I see no reason to alter the article for some supposed neutrality that will inevitably give a British POV, by airbrushing Wales out of Wikipedia. Daicaregos (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is a Welsh film - no-one disputes that.  The discussion is whether, in principle and without making any specific suggestions as to wording, it should also be described as British, if that is helpful to readers.  I notice that it is described as "British" in the Awards section - so there is also an argument that the intro (and infobox) should reflect the main text.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As neither reference supported that it was the first British film nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards, only that it was the first Welsh film nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards, I changed it to say Welsh. Daicaregos (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This official site states both that it is Welsh, and produced within the UK.  Would "produced within the UK" be preferable to using the word "British"?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean “Of course it is a Welsh film - no-one disputes that.” The only reason we're here wasting our time is because an editor disputed that, and did so by edit warring for months. All statements noting Hedd Wyn as Welsh are supported by reliable sources. Distinct Welsh film and cinema is acknowledged by the BBC, for example. 'British' and 'UK' are irrelavent in this context. (BTW your link didn't work) Daicaregos (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry, I was discounting Varlaam.  The link worked for me - try searching for Hedd Wyn at http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The link worked this time. Thanks. In some contexts Welsh and British are separate and distinct. Welsh law, Welsh rugby, Welsh literature, Welsh language, for example. In others, not so much. Where those contexts are distinct using Welsh and British (or UK) does not serve to clarify the genre, but has quite the opposite effect. There is a 'Welsh film industry' see here for example. It should be noted as such. Daicaregos (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly true that "In some contexts Welsh and British are separate and distinct" - but they are not necessarily comparable. There is no such thing as "British language", and "Welsh literature" written within the UK - whether in Welsh or in English - is still "British literature".  I don't fully understand the relationship between The Film Agency for Wales, the BFI and the UK Film Council - here - but in any case it would have been different in 1994, and it doesn't alter the fact that what happens in Wales by definition also happens within the UK.  In my view, in articles like this one, it is a neutral statement, and helpful to readers worldwide, to allude to the fact that Wales - as well as being a country in its own right - is part of the UK.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's important at all - I only entered this discussion to put forward what I felt was a neutral position, between one editor who claimed that the film was "British", and another that it was "Welsh".  I made the point that, in my view, it is both; that there is no logical inconsistency in stating that; and that, if anything, stating both would be more, rather than less, helpful to most readers.  That remains my view.  Other articles aren't directly relevant; "British rugby" isn't meaningful either (but I didn't see any merits in getting sidetracked into discussions about the terminology of the Lions team); and I'm not knowledgeable about the extent to which there is "British law" (and I didn't want to get sidetracked into discussions of Scottish law, English law applied in Wales, UK nationality law, etc.). So far as this article is concerned, I'd be interested to hear the opinions of editors who have not contributed so far.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken. When you first posted here, the only discussion was four editors in agreement that the best way to note the film was as 'Welsh'. And it wasn't just "claimed" as you say, it was verified by reliable sources that were confirmed by the WP:RS/N, as you well know. I too would like to  hear the opinions of editors who have not contributed so far, but first I would like an explanation for the difference between your treatment of Welsh literature and your proposal here (This is what I said earlier, as you appear to have missed it: "re: “"Welsh literature" written within the UK - whether in Welsh or in English - is still "British literature".” yes it is, but 1: so what? And 2: you didn't seem to think it relevant enough to mention  when you created this page (and it still doesn't mention it). Nor is there any mention that " "Welsh literature" written within the UK - whether in Welsh or in English - is still "British literature" " on either the Welsh-language literature or the Welsh literature in English articles, both of which you have edited". Perhaps after that we could discuss music (i.e. why is an English musician not a British musician, many examples to follow). Daicaregos (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no intention of responding to irrelevant questions (except to point out that a movie, unlike a living person, can't self-identify as one nationality or another).  And my intervention was not in response to comments here, it was to mediate in an edit war.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I am not in the least surprised. Were you? Daicaregos (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that Y Mabinogi and Solomon & Gaenor, amongst others on the List of Welsh films, have "United Kingdom" as country of origin in the infobox. I think we need to be consistent on this. I will restore "United Kingdom" to the infobox of this article, pending the outcome of discussions now underway in various venues. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit does not have consensus. Nor was any attempt made to gain it. I have reverted. Please do not make what are obviously controversial edits without achieving consensus first. Daicaregos (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point me to the consensus for your initial edit changing "UK" to "Wales" in the infobox? Thanks. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly necessary. The consensus on this page is for "Welsh". Daicaregos (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the consensus for this being a Welsh film. Please be aware that per Template:Infobox film there is also a consensus that flags should not be used in infoboxes for films. This is also covered by WP:FLAG. MarnetteD | Talk 20:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't agree that there is consensus on this page. Besides, this is not the only place where discussion is on-going. I became aware of this issue when another editor posted on the Wikiproject Wales talk page, apparently concerned about an "edit war" on-going on this article. It does appear that a number of the current sources for the article (NY Times, IMDB) do not in fact support your substitution of Wales for UK as the country of origin. What sources are you relying upon? Personally, I'd be most happy with an international film archive such as that of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or perhaps the Library of Congress. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'd be much happier with a cite to the Academy library or perhaps Hedd Wyn's copyright entry at the Library of Congress, which should refer to the country of origin of the film. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The references for it to be noted as a Welsh film are reliable; as confirmed by the Reliable sources/Noticeboard (see here). I agree that IMDb is not reliable. Please feel free to remove the one IMDb reference. Daicaregos (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you agree that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and/or the Library of Congress would be reliable sources for the country of origin of this film?Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh film 

message: Unfortunately, it seems we have to revisit the question of whether or not this is a Welsh or a British film. I don't think Varlaam's childish and offensive edits, along with his complete refusal to discuss the matter on the Talk page, incline anyone to take him very seriously, and—given the previous discussion on this— he appears to be something of a lone dissenter against consensus. In view of that, I see no reason not to simply revert his changes to this article. However, I think there is very much something to be said for agreeing on a consistent policy for Welsh, Scottish, English, and Northern Irish films. When are they British and when are they not? Can anyone suggest where this discussion should happen? garik (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly a Welsh film - Welsh language, made in Wales, etc. etc.  That is undeniable.  It is also, in some senses, a British film.  It was made within the UK, and won UK-wide awards.  It is absolutely correct and neutral, in my view, to describe it as both Welsh and British, and in my view to do that would be more, rather than less, helpful to readers globally - there is no inconsistency.  So far as the infobox is concerned, this guidance says: "Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article. The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source. The source must clearly identify the nationality in a descriptive capacity, as in describing it as an American or a French film/movie etc, or in a contextual capacity such as the BFI's list of top 100 "British films" or as an example in a published work on German film etc. Sources that simply identify the country of origin as France, or the production country as U.S. etc such as is the case with resources like Allmovie and IMDb is not sufficient identification of the film's nationality. If there is a conflict between nationalities, then the nationality should not be stated and the country field should not be filled in."  If anyone wants to change that guidance, they should raise it at Template talk:Infobox film.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to resolve this issue by describing it as a "Welsh language" film, but was reverted. The problem with insisting on describing it as either "Welsh" or "British" is that the other is also correct, and describing it as both is generally considered not to be an option. By describing it as Welsh language and leaving it at that, we can avoid this periodic discussion, and let the reader decide for themselves whether it is "Welsh", "British", or indeed whether they care. —WFC—  08:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "...describing it as both is generally considered not to be an option..."  Why?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why. It just isn't the done thing, on or off of Wikipedia. —WFC—  10:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

text: This subject was discussed extensively above. I see no reason to revisit this subject just because one editor decides to  continue his slow revert-war (for which he was blocked previously).  That Hedd Wyn in a Welsh film is verified by reliable sources, which has been confirmed by the RS noticeboard. Should reliable sources verify a film as Scottish, English, or Northern Irish, that is how they should be described. Daicaregos (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Howabout for the intro ...is a 1992 anti-biopic made in Wales & for the infobox - add 'sovereign state' under 'country', thus showing both Wales & United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm not convinced there's any point including both. For a variety of reasons given the last time this was discussed, this film is better described as originating in Wales than the United Kingdom. And, for those who care, "Wales" implies "United Kingdom" in any case (the reverse is clearly not the case). I'm more concerned with coming up with a set of criteria in general for films that originate in one of the British countries. If we don't introduce some consistency, I predict that this discussion will just keep recurring on this and other articles. garik (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've raised this here, though it looks as if the best solution is just to rely on what the BFI says, which makes for a simple solution. Might be worth noting that somewhere in the template guidelines... garik (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Betty Logan (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been pointed out, this shouldn't be misconstrued as any sort of dispute. Really it's all about one editor whose behaviour doesn't warrant his being taken very seriously. So I don't think any sort of compromise is necessary. As I've said, I think the more important point is that we find a way to be consistent on Wikipedia, and I think the best option is simply to follow the BFI here and elsewhere. garik (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the BFI is a good source and entirely applicable in regards to 'British' films, but obviously we can't defer to them over French sources in regards to French films for example, and then there are international co-productions where sources might "claim" the film for their country i.e. try telling the French that Concorde is British! Unfortunately there isn't a 'universal' source which is why film nationality is always a source of contention, but I think in this particular case the BFI can settle the dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I should have been clearer: I mean that the best general solution may be to follow the BFI in any case where a film originating from part (or all) of Britain is concerned. If anyone can come up with a good way to be consistent internationally, I'll be very impressed! garik (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, WFC, I think the problem with sidestepping the issue by calling it a Welsh-language film is that the text of the article isn't really the problem. I think it's mainly the infobox (certainly that's the bit that keeps getting changed), which has a space for the film's country of origin. For that, we have to put Wales, UK, both, or neither. Having both ("Wales, UK" is the only way I could see it sort of working) is obviously redundant; and, as Daicaregos pointed out, it failed to even get a distribution deal in Britain. Having neither is somewhat unsatisfactory. Part of the issue—the reason some Welsh editors see this as important—is that there aren't very many Welsh films, especially not Oscar-nominated ones, and having "Wales" effaced as the country of origin on a film so prototypically Welsh as this (which the BFI itself describes as originating in Wales) feels like giving up something rather important. Particularly when the only obvious reason for doing so is to compromise with a single editor who can't even be bothered discussing the issue on the talk page. garik (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox should reflect what's in the article, so if you identify it as a Welsh film and have a source to back it up—from the BFI no less—then I think it's obviously clear cut.  If the lead is handled properly (as it is) then the infobox follows naturally, they are not two separate entities. You can choose to not put the country in the infobox, but if you do decide to include it, then it should reflect exactly what you've got in the lead. I mean, Wales is a still a country, just not a sovereign state, so it is perfectly legitimate to put Wales in the infobox as the country of production.  It seems to me the problem isn't the concept of "Welsh films", they are clearly an identifiable body of work, it's a single editor whose actions are not consistent with consensus. If it continues a report should be filed at WP:AN3 and the editor can be removed from the equation. Betty Logan (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

text: This is simply unacceptable, and at least the third case of such offensive conduct I've seen on this article from this user (see also this and this). What's more, the editor is clearly going against consensus (not to mention reliable sources) and has refused to discuss the matter on the Talk page. It seems clear to me that it's time to block him. I need to go in a moment or two, but if anyone has more time, I would encourage them to file a report. garik (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put a 3rr warning on the page - that is needed before any report --Snowded TALK  05:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More about country of origin