Talk:John Angarrack: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:39, 28 May 2008

Cornwall Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Reason for edit

"a leading Cornish historian" and "well known." Without proper citations this is opinion. Such PoV is not accepatble on Wikipedia. Changing to "a Cornish historian" avoids this, and is quite an acceptable description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.30.72 (talk) 03:14, 7th January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Mr Wilton is not an academic, and has no qualification or standing as "a historian."Serpren (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The words leading Cornish Historian originate from from an article in Cornish World Magazine. I don't speak for Mr Angarrack and know nothing on his educational qualifications, but after a quick 'Google' I found the following on the Cornish World website. Talskiddy 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The director of Cornwall 2000 John Angarrack, a leading historian and Cornish human rights campaigner, is supportedby a group of well-informed Cornish activists. What, why, how? Cornwall 2000 is a catalyst and a dedicated campaign group in many areas of Cornish self-determination. These include the right to self identify as Cornish and the more formal implementation of the Charter for the Cornish Language. Since the specific exclusion of the Cornish by the Government from the Council of Europe Framework Convention forthe Protection of National Minorities, Cornwall 2000 has worked tirelessly to achieve equality of treatment for the Cornish. John Angarrack published Our Future is History, the backbone text to Cornish constitutional issues in 2002.

"Cornwall 2000" no longer exists, if it ever did, and does has no web presence outside of Wikipedia. I don't think an uncredited article, with no sources, such as the "Cornish World" one can be used as a defining measuere of one's standing as a "leading historian".

The words leading historian were edited out of the wikipedia article several weeks ago. I only included the article from Cornish World (above) to illustrate where the reference originally came frome.(talk) 10:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely some peer reviewed publications, not vanity published books, or articles in biased magazines, are necessary for someone to earn this distinction?Serpren (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help to have a quote from Bernard Deacon's book? Bernard Deacon is a reputable academic and his book, Cornwall: the Concise History, is published by an academic press of some standing. Bernard Deacon evaluates Angarrack as a campaigner rather than as an historian. Anagarrack has a distinct POV in his writings. However his view of the history of Cornwall from a Cornish viewpoint has proved influential and achieved remarkable sales. It should not be dismissed as "vanity". Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 14:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haslar

If a citation for the Punk/Haslar period is not forthcoming soon, it should be deleted. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 07:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference and link

I removed <ref>[http://www.justcornish.com/new_store/catalog/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=667 Our Future is History]</ref> which no longer links to an opportunity to purchase the book online. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed another reference and link

^[1] removed. This is just a ScotNat view on MK with no additional info on Angarrack. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed yet another reference and link

<ref>[http://cornishstannaryparliament.co.uk//resources//article.php?story=2007012919440015 John Angarrack fights for Judicial review of policy towards the Cornish]</ref> removed as it does not give the specific information stated on the link label. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher

I can find no information online for either the "Independent Academic Press" or "Cornish Stannary Publications". If these books are "vanity published" then it should be noted.Serpren (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the new book is also published by Independent Academic Press. Amazon hasn't heard of this publisher. Doesn't look as if they have published any other titles. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 20:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall 2000

The artcle on Cornwall 2000 could also do with some attention. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 23:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Scottish Independence website

[1] Scottish Independence website

[1]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 Surely some peer reviewed publications, not vanity published books, or articles in biased magazines, are necessary for someone to earn this distinction?[[User:Serpren|Serpren]] ([[User talk:Serpren|talk]]) 06:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
+:Would it help to have a quote from Bernard Deacon's book?  Bernard Deacon ''is'' a reputable academic and his book, ''Cornwall: the Concise History'', is published by an academic press of some standing.  Bernard Deacon evaluates Angarrack as a campaigner rather than as an historian. Anagarrack has a distinct POV in his writings. However his view of the history of Cornwall from a Cornish viewpoint has proved influential and achieved remarkable sales. It should not be dismissed as "vanity". [[User:Vernon39|<font color="green">Vernon White</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Vernon39|. . . Talk ]]</span></small></sup></b> 14:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 ==Haslar==