Jump to content

Talk:Richard Jenkin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British or Cornish

Some unregistered editors wish to describe the subject of this article as "British" rather than "Cornish". Why? Vernon White . . . Talk 18:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suspect because the political activity within the article is all at the national (Westminster) or supranational level. I realise that it was on behalf of Cornwall, but i can only assume that that is why the larger adjective is used. That said, i think it would be fine to put 'Cornish', as that implies 'British'. Cheers, Lindsay 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You may suspect but you would be wrong. I simply wish to see the article (i) be factual and (ii) be helpful to readers. Describing someone only as "Cornish" is not: the vast majority of readers will not know the regions of the UK. If need be include reference to Cornwall but British is corrected and needed. Although I do not know I could speculate that insisting on solely "Cornish" is using Wikipedia to push a small-scale political (separatist) agenda. Something Wikipedia is NOT here to do. Why not include British? I can not see what wrong with the article included reference to British as well as Cornwall. Is there evidence showing he is not British?
Simple ... he is British! Should you think reference be made to Cornwall then this should ALSO be included. Please remember that readers outside the UK, who make up the bulk of Wikipedia, (i) will not know the finer points of British regions, (ii) want to know facts! And that include him being British. Why do you insist on changing this correct, and more helpful, description? Comment removed from misplaced location above. Cheers, Lindsay 16:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, please allow the comments to remain in the order they were written; if you edit or change talk pages it leaves a false record ~ at the very least, indicate you have done so, as have i.
Second, please assume good faith; i have no adgenda to push, other than to make WP as good as possible; i can't speak for Vernon, but i'll assume his good faith too.
Third, Cornish implies British, as i said. Any reader who doesn't immediately know what "Cornish" means has merely to click on the link to discover. That's one of the beauties of a hyperlinked encyclopædia.
And fourth, i merely turn around what you wrote: Should you think reference be made to [British] then this should ALSO be included. If you insist on British, why not add it yourself, rather than removing the other, which was the original description? Cheers, Lindsay 16:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lindsay,
First - I modified the order purely for the order of my replies to the individuals. This seemed logical. There was no other reason.
Second - I was assuming good faith! It was you that made an assumption about poltical reasons. My reply responded in a similar way - this was to highlight that the original assumption was just that ... groundless speculation. But I did acknowledge that I didn't know if there was a political agenda.
Third - to many readers Cornish will not readily imply the UK. There is alot of benefit from hyperlinks, but an article should make sense on its own. The hyperlinks should allow easy access to more information: they should not be used to excuse a badly written article (I'm not suggesting this is: just that for the sake of a few words it could be improved.)
Fourth - basic work play is not constructive. I do note that I'm quite happy if the description is British and references Cornwall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.171.112 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you misunderstood, & i compounded it; sorry about my unclarity. I was not making any assumptions about political reasons. I actually meant, exactly as i said, that probably the adjective was being changed because that was the level at which he was active (i.e. he was a British [as opposed to local] polititian). Anyway, i really have no axe to grind, and think that either is an effective adjective to use. Personally, i'd slightly lean to the more restrictive, because it is more accurate (i'd rather say that blood is crimson than red), but either is correct. Thanks for responding.
By the way, if you type four tildes (~) at the end of your comment the magic of wiki signs it for you. I'm impressed. Cheers, Lindsay 19:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Linsday. Thanks for the reply. I guess I did misunderstand - sorry. I hope my recent edit is OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.171.112 (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The general rule for UK people is to stick with the orihginal author's usage unless consensus to change can be reached. Users unfamiliar with the term "Cornish" can always click on the Wikilink. I would add to our anon contributor - PLEASE sign your posts. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I will add that this is not the first time that an anon editor using BT internet and not signing their posts and refactoring talk page comments has been making this sort of change without seeking consensus first. DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The guidlines you have directed me to relates to English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh. There is nothing about the origins from individual counties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.171.112 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The man was born in the county of Derbyshire, not the county of Cornwall. To "skip" that fact when desiginating a definition seems rather dubious. - Sprogeeet (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The current version says "British politician of Cornish origin" and then mentions his birth in Derbyshire in the next paragraph. This sounds ridiculous, to my ear. "Origin" implies place of birth, not ancestry.

There is no RULE stating that a person's nationality MUST be included in the introductory paragraph.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph is guidance indicating "no consensus" on UK. "No consensus" means that there as already been a long and somewhat tedious debate.

If you wish to continue this debate concerning the specific biographical articles, please register and, having read the relevant guidance and debate, put your case for altering the originally drafted articles to conform with clearly stated criteria, on the talk page of each article to be changed. Vernon White . . . Talk 08:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it sounded a bit silly, though i disagree about the use of the word "origin"; to me it implies ancestry, not place of birth. Anyway, i tweaked the opening sentence slightly; see what you (both) think. Cheers, Lindsay 09:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Further work

  1. The Cornwall Centre in Redruth has a CD: Author Jenkin, Richard. Title Memories of a Cornish Bard and Mebyon Kernow founder member [sound recording] : an interview of Richard Jenkin of Ledstown on 11th February 2000 by Treve Crago. Publisher Cornish Braids, 2000. Physical details 1 CD-ROM Subject Childhood - Oxford University - World War II - Cornwall - Mebyon Kernow - Celtic Congress - Grand Bard Notes Richard Jenkin born Derbyshire - Father Salvation Army bandsman, mother an Anglican - Father ordained a minister - Moved to Manchester - Access to books from Manchester Central Library - Year at Oxford University 1943-44 - Met others interested in Cornwall - A.L. Rowse - Army in Middle East - Became Bard 1947 - Left Army 1948 - Father had living in North Cornwall - Moved to St. Mewan Rectory -Cornish lessons with Morton Nance - Founder member Mebyon Kernow - Gorseth secretary, Grand Bard 1976 - Honorary Life Vice-President of Celtic Congress - Stood as parliamentary candidate for Mebyon Kernow 1970 Falmouth-Camborne -Deputy Grand Bard 1972 - MK chairman 1973 - Teacher Helston Grammar School - Future of Gorseth.
  2. Ann Trevenen Jenkin probably deserves her own article
  3. Richard Jenkins contribution to the revival of the Cornish Language need to be assessed and included in the article.

Vernon White . . . Talk 20:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)



Shelved at 942.370820208

Cornish writer

I have re-added the subject to the Category:Cornish writers as he was a writer in the Cornish language, long resident in Cornwall, and of Cornish descent, and so amply and clearly meets the standards of the category. DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I have removed the {{notability}} tag from the article, as I believe that being twice Grand Bard of the Gorseth, President of the International Celtic Congress and a founder of MK all argue persuasively to notability. DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Does being a founding politician for a party that has never recieved any electoral success at all make somebody notable? I don't know. There are many failed parties in Britain who have been unable to achieve any degree of popular support. We don't have articles for obscure and unelected founders of the Southampton First and South Tyneside Progressives parties. - Sprogeeet (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Were any of them twice grand bards? Or presidents of the ICC? Or indeed, were any of those parties as significant on a regional level as MK? A party does not need to achieve national electoral success to have a significant and notable influence on the politics of a region. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:POLITICIAN doesn't suggest that part time parish councillors (full time school teachers) would qualify. I'm not sure his hobbies would qualify. Can't find any rules for inclusion on that. I also can't find anything significant on the net about him apart from on a website by this Gorseth Kernow club, perhaps a merger is in order.- Sprogeeet (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I see no necessity for a merge. The individual is clearly notable for his contributions to culture and politics, as evidenced by, for example, his Grand Bardship. DuncanHill (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Jenkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Jenkin/Archive_1&oldid=1137157103"