User talk:Shaws username/sandbox

Improvements

Should we add separate sections for options 1, 2, and 3, with the votes numbered? This could be used to better organise the sections. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That's fine by me, the sections seem clear enough Brwynog (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: Should Wikipedia:WikiProject England be pinged as well? I would prefer not to create conditions for canvassing, but Cornwall is often geographically lumped in with England on devolution maps. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

My appologies, I didn't see the talk page when I made the last changes, (to clarify that it's to consider Cornish as similarly to Welsh or Scottish and not estabilsh it's own guidelines) does that still look ok to people?

@Tewdar, @SchroCat and, @Gwikor Frank, I hope it's ok to ping you to let you know I'd changed some of the wording and see what you think of ASmallMaplLeaf's suggestion of posting the notifiction message to Wiki project England as well. Shaws username . talk . 20:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think a ping to WikiEngland is fair, Cornwall is a county in England, this isn't imperialist propaganda, just geography. Halbared (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shaws username Not only OK, but thank you for pinging me. I apologise, but I get very low on brain power when I get tired as I currently am, could you direct me to the text you're suggesting using? Thank you. Gwikor Frank (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, right here Shaws username . talk . 21:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Meur ras, thank you. The wording looks fine to me and thank you so much for taking your time to do this. Gwikor Frank (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As for posting to WikiProject England, I don't really want to be negative, but I'm afraid I feel quite uncomfortable with the idea of posting it to Wikipedians of the group that benefits most from our continued oppression. It feels like asking the French about Brittany or the Israelis about Palestine or the Spanish about Catalunya or Basque? Gwikor Frank (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Benefits most from our continued oppression"

WP:AGF please, I disagree Cornwall is on the same level as Palestine in being oppressed. I agree with SchroCat's view here regarding this RFC affecting both groups of editors. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

So who do you think benefits most from Kernow's position as a neo-colony then? And I didn't say it was on the same level! I am saying you do not ask the oppressor whether they should continue oppressing, whatever the level. But I'm starting to feel like Wikipedia is a poor place to be decolonial. Gwikor Frank (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Suggesting to a colonised person that it is "bad faith" for them to point out they are colonised and who by is a bad look. But I assume that wasn't your intent. Gwikor Frank (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that will text will be shredded by MOS watchers. I'm not sure it adequately reflects the position of the MOS as it stands when relating to Scottish/Welsh/Irish (it takes more than "from" a territory and having a source describe them as such). Normally there have to be other criteria involved too (self-identification, etc), which need to be factored in.

In terms of leaving a neutrally worded message, yes - the same text should be posted on both Wiki project England and Wiki project Cornwall, as it affects both. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've tried to update it with a v3 Shaws username . talk . 21:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What does 'exclude either' mean? Don't include the words Cornish, English, or British at all in the lede description, I suppose? And are people really going to seriously suggest at the RfC that people like John Angarrack, Dick Cole, Craig Weatherhill, William Bodrugan, and Ivo of Ramsey are best described as British or English, rather than Cornish? I don't think I will be able to keep a straight face, but I'll try.  Tewdar  09:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, 'exclude either' would mean having just having no mention of Cornish or British before there role in the lead. There is a strong case for not using the term 'Cornish' though. For example, I only see an indication of where a politician is from in the UK being based of the 4 constituent states: Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England (under the denonym 'British' for those originating in England). If we start adding the word 'Cornish' in front of notable persons, it's a slippery slope, since 1): Why not call people from Yorkshire 'Yorkshirites' because they come from there? and so on and so on. 2) It is open to people adding the denonym 'Cornish' just because a newspaper said 'this person is from Cornwall', which will immediately be controversial if they call themselves English. And 3): Only 20 percent of people in Cornwall consider themselves Cornish .

We could also make the lead something like 'British politician supporting Cornish Independence' or something like that but point is: An RFC is necessary. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

So, would you support calling, say, a Cornish saint born in Cornwall before England ever existed who was described by their peers and scholarly sources as Cornish and identified themself as being of Cornish nationality, "British"? For example? Or would we need to perform DNA sequencing on their bones first, too?  Tewdar  15:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if that might have sounded a bit hostile. What I'm really asking is, where would you draw the line? If the answer is "never describe anyone as Cornish, ever", I cannot agree with that.  Tewdar  15:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I would very much agree that people known to exist in Dumnonian period, prior to English conquest and control, should be refered as Cornish (or Dumnonian if appropriate), but there needs to indeed be a solid line. If it were up to me, I would draw it at the beginning of the Breton-Norman period, from which point I think its reasonable to discuss referring to Cornwall's different inhabitants as either being British, Cornish, English etc. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

So not John of Cornwall or John of Cornwall, then? I would prefer to follow the sources myself, rather than trying to draw lines. But we should probably talk more about it at the RfC.  Tewdar  16:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Good points. I agree with a harder line being drawn, but at the same time, when there are solid sources pointing out the Cornishisness, this should be taken into account too. Basically, what we do with all the other UK people, we look at them on an individual basis, and weigh up the data? As T Sowell says, ''there are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.'' Halbared (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I looked at articles for Scottish and Northern Irish politicians and it seems to simply refer to people born there as 'Northern Irish' or 'Scottish' even if they themselves say they are British/English etc. Still, all can be discussed at RFC ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In reading through these comments, the medievalist in me thinks that in addition to Wikiproject England, it might be a good idea to ping/involve Wikiproject History and Wikiproject European History. Especially when it comes to drawing lines based on historical events and making determinations about when there is a distinct Cornish national identity, where historical expertise would be critical. In a lot of ways, it's more of a question for historians than for the more generalist Wikiproject England (although still relevant to them, too). Grandpallama (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, there's people like this fellow, where the biography skips nationality altogether. Breton king? Cornish king? These identities may or may not have existed in the 6th century, and I suspect that someone like Tewdwr, when not martyring missionaries having the audacity to try and convert him, may have vaguely thought of himself as somehow 'Brittonic'. But at some point, (many? most?) people in Cornwall started to think of themselves as distinctly Cornish, and some (quite a significant fraction) people still do. I think this question may even be more important for living or recently deceased people. I wouldn't dream of calling someone like Craig Weatherhill English, for example, because he'd probably hit me, even though he's dead.  Tewdar  17:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure! I am (or was) a medievalist, which is why I brought that up after reading your comment about John of Cornwall, but I don't actually think you specifically need medieval perspectives. Rather, it just struck me that a large part of the question here involves the sort of thinking in which historians generally engage, and would probably be of interest to that wikiproject (at least in terms of setting any general guidelines). They are the ones who would be especially interested in figuring out and discussing exactly at what point (many? most?) people in Cornwall started to think of themselves as distinctly Cornish and other such questions, which in turn could lean to smoother discussions about how to think about when to use Cornish vs British vs descriptor x. Grandpallama (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that historians/medievalists would have a great deal to contribute to this discussion.  Tewdar  18:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest there is a strong case for including Cornish. Cornwall distinctiveness has been recognised by the UK Government under the Council of Europe's Charter for Minority Languages and Cultures. There will be be no mention of Yorkshire, Dorset, Northumbia there because these areas do not have a separate language. Cornwall has observer status at the British and Irish Council, along with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland because of the language and special identity. Yorkshire etc are not included and will not be in the future either. Although Cornwall is de facto administered as a county and part of England, de jure, this is not the case and a simple perusal of wikipedia will give you the arguments and legal counsel as to why it has a special status legally. Cornish nationality was not included as a tick box in the 2021 census, so the 20% that filled it in as an 'other' option had to go out of their way to specify their status. That is not the same as '20% consider themselves Cornish' at all. Acknowledging Cornish as a nationality is a simple recognition of the fact that although they don't have full national status like Wales and Scotland, that they are sufficiently different from the rest of England for that to be acknowledged. That is not true for Yorkshire etc. Brwynog (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Brwynog, This is the place to discuss the wording for the RfC and where to publicise it. It’s not the place to rehash the same comments as have been made elsewhere. Your opinion would be best placed at the RfC once it opens. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure that anyone would want it but I put it there for completeness. My aim with the phrasing was more to establish "Should Cornish be treated as Scottish and Welsh are in MOS:NATIONALITY?" (honestly that might be a better question) which does still leaves "Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus" but if yes, would establish it as something that could be done, with an rfc to support or oppose it, where sources and consensus agree. (to what extent should be left up to the rfc) Shaws username . talk . 18:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed advisable to cite the relevant part of the MOS in Option 1. The subsection is headed "Context", so the most neutral way to link to that section is either in full or by the abbreviation MOS:CONTEXTBIO. MOS:NATIONALITY is a working link to the same section, but insinuates that nationality has some kind of priviledge over other identifiers (to the point that some interpret it in a manner that "Not a nationality" is seen as sufficient reason to mass-revert edits without considering in full the relevance of MOS:CONTEXTBIO for each individual subject). The present text of Option 1 appears fine to me, so I suggest "Refer to them as Cornish when appropriate as outlined in MOS:CONTEXTBIO, as is done for Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish".

Also, any future notification should include WT:ETHNIC. The descriptor Cornish is not exclusively to be discussed in a historical context: self-rule and a vital language of daily communication are things of the past (← I'm a linguist, so don't lecture me on language revitalization), but to the very present day people very affirmatively self-identify as Cornish. –Austronesier (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The word 'people' should probably be added to the end of option 1.  Tewdar  09:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it should I've added it now Shaws username . talk . 14:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As well as the other proposed signpost locations and removed old text, if interested people could please reply to them in the section below to make the discussion easier to read, thanks. Shaws username . talk . 18:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 should be “as is *sometimes* done for Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish people”, given it’s not a default position. (If someone from one of those countries calls themself British, that’s how it’s decided, not just based on the location of birth, about which the individual has no choice). - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish people are currently referred to as Welsh, Scottish, or Northern Irish when appropriate, not *sometimes* when appropriate.  Tewdar  22:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  There’s something wrong with the wording around that, which is why I mention it.

• On the neutrally worded notice, I’m not sure “people linked to Cornwall” is right. Most similar notices run close or identical to title of the RfC. In the case, that should be “RfC on use of Cornish regional identity in biography leads”, if it follows precedent, and would also be more accurate. - SchroCat (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Updated some text and signposts

I've updated the language for the signpost to show where it's being posted. There seems to be a consensus that it sould also be signposted on Project England so I've added that, It's also been proposed to put it on Project Ethnic groups, Project History, and Project European history if people would like to give input on them. Shaws username . talk . 18:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I would tweak the notice slightly "There is a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography]] on how the [[WP:LEAD|lead sections]] of articles about people linked to [[Cornwall]] should refer to them." TSventon (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, I've updated it Shaws username . talk . 19:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this RfC is a great idea. As a Cornish-American I do tell everyone I'm Cornish. But I have some worries.

An RfC has to be a clear and complete question, or the discussion will be derailed as editors try to figure out what the RfC means. A widely advertised RfC brings in people who are not familiar with the issues or vocabulary. The current statement is ambiguous. Only the first statement of an RfC needs to be brief. The options and more material can be in a following statement as suggested at WP:RFCBRIEF. People coming to the RfC need more information than this brief statement gives.

• What does "people from Cornwall" mean? Does this mean anyone who has ever lived in Cornwall? Are we talking about people of indigenous Cornish descent? Anyone who identifies as Cornish? English people living in Cornwall who would be indignant to be thought of as ethnically Cornish?
• What does "in the lead mean"? Much of the argument has been about about the first sentence of the lead. But, as an example, Option 2 would remove from the lead section any mention of A. L. Rowse's Cornish identification even though it was an important part of his career. His autobiography is A Cornish Childhood: Autobiography of a Cornishman. You may want to distinguish between the lead sentence and the lead section.
• What does "as outlined in the guideline MOS:CONTEXTBIO" mean. Are you talking about the residence part or does this refer to Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability. If what is meant is footnote [a] then the RfC statement should say that. Spell out what is meant in the RfC itself.
• Option 3 is not viable as written. It is a standard given in MOS:BIO to provide a location/nationality in the lead sentence. Do you mean leave out any mention of location/nationality from the entire lead section for people from Cornwall under all circumstances?
• What about an option to include both in the lead section?

StarryGrandma (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

(1) Perhaps When reliable sources describe an individual as Cornish, should the lead sentence:... would be more acceptable, but I'm not sure. This probably isn't comprehensive enough.

(2) I think this means the lede sentence, so option 1 would result in a first sentence like "X is a Cornish Z" where X is person and Z is the thing that made them notable.

(3) Not sure.

(4) Agreed. Perhaps this option could be omitted.

(5) Great idea. "A British-Cornish Z" would seem fine if sources supported it or disagreed amongst themselves.

I'll try and think a bit more about this today.  Tewdar  08:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Point 1 is dubious. If the RfC deems “Cornish” as an acceptable descriptor, the term should only be included if it is the person’s self-identification. Otherwise any old rubbish is used to justify a contentious change. Some of the stuff I reverted the other day was based on crappy sources (IMDB was one, and a site of a guesthouse that had a list of people born in Cornwall was another): it has to come down to what the individual prefers - which is partly based into the MOS at the moment.

I’m unconvinced by 5 as it’s entirely non-standard, either here of elsewhere. That’s a recipe for future changes, reversions and edit warring, which is best avoided. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

(1) Your reply to (1) would mean that Wikipedia, in the absence of any self-identification, would be unable to describe people like Ivo of Ramsey, Dolly Pentreath, John Trevisa, Thomas Tonkin, or Mabyn as Cornish, no matter what the reliable sources say. Self-identification cannot possibly be the only criteria, or we would be unable to describe people like, say, Art Óg Mac Murchadha Caomhánach as an Irish king without a source saying he identified as Irish. The normal reliable sources guidelines should be used here, which obviously a priori excludes sources like IMDB. As to your second point, there are instances of descriptors like 'Cornish Australian' and 'Cornish-American' used in Wikipedia biographies.  Tewdar  09:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's not play the rather pointless reductio ad absurdum game over the nationality of someone who was a king - which would be a de facto acceptance of self-identification. The real question is whether 'Cornish Australian' and 'Cornish-American' should be used: I would say generally not, given such pseudo-neologisms are always dubious, with the caveat that it's unless the individuals have specifically said that is their personal choice.

This is drifting away from the point of what the wording of the RfC and the neutral notice should be, so I suggest it's curtailed until the RfC kicks off. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Art MacMorrough was a king of the Kingdom of Leinster. Being a king of Leinster is not a de facto acceptance of self-identification as Irish, and hence this is not a reductio ad absurdum but a serious point. I have no idea what Art MacMorrough identified as (if anything), but I do know that reliable sources describe him as an Irish king. I am happy to postpone this kind of discussion, however. How do you think we should word the RfC?  Tewdar  13:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad this has been dropped, because it seems clear to me that in order to state the nationality in a WP article, either explicit self-identification as such or reliable sources supporting such a claim are sufficient, as Tewdar makes obvious. We can't expect an affirmative self-identification statement to be required for every biography, because most people never make such a statement, and we're not going to go around stripping nationalities from articles because they lack such a statement. Similarly, reliable sources must be sufficient (or more sufficient) than self-identification (foremost because "saying what the sources say" is core policy); Rachel Dolezal is a good case in point of the actual absurdity of relying on self-identification to the exclusion of, or even just over, other criteria. Grandpallama (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

How about something like Should the lead sentence of biographies of Cornish people: (rather than 'people from Cornwall')? Then we don't have to make assumptions that a Cornish person is someone who is born in Cornwall (or someone who identifies as Cornish, or someone who is described in reliable sources as Cornish, &c.)  Tewdar  14:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps an example for each option might be nice? Like:

(1) Dorothy Pentreath was a Cornish fishwife from Mousehole.

(2) Dorothy Pentreath was an English fishwife from Mousehole.

(3) Dorothy Pentreath was a fishwife from Mousehole.

Or perhaps this is completely unnecessary?  Tewdar  14:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s not my RfC, so not my choice of wording, but I was pinged and have given a couple of pointers so far. I certainly don’t want to face more of the rather combative approach to any more comments, so I’ll drop out of this until the RfC starts. - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Combative? This is me being cooperative and friendly! 🤗  Tewdar  14:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much to everyone who's taken the time to give input. Given the latest feedback, I've updated the title and signpost to try and be more precise and also updated the text of option 1 a bit and explicitly referenced the footnote, as well as removed option 3. I think people are right that it wasn't really a viable option.
Also there's a different potential question, simply that "Should Cornish be included in footnote a" which I think might simplify things a bit and avoid rehashing some of the debate that's already happened in earlier discussions about them, just establishing if there's a concensus that Cornish can/should be widely used.
Since no one has said anything about the other places to signpost it, I'm assuming that people are ok with them? (If you aren't, please shatter my assumtion. Or if you are, reinforcing it would also be useful, thanks) Shaws username . talk . 15:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean in its current state, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to take this out of the oven and present it. I was quite in favour of a potential MOS:BIO exception for what was option 3, but I don't know how people would receive what is a compromise. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I kind of like the simplicity of "Should Cornish be included in footnote a", actually. Perhaps we should discuss this a bit more before taking it out of the oven.  Tewdar  17:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

When I supported to link to the MOS, I least had in mind to change/update the footnote, but actually considered the entire section as relevant for guiding future discussions about the applicability of "Cornish" in individual cases. So the answer to What does "as outlined in the guideline MOS:CONTEXTBIO" mean? is all of it.

Option 1 is in fact a trivial corrollary of our MOS and thus simply reflects the status quo; whereas it's Option 2 that explicitly aims to introduce (if supported by consensus) a special case that bars the use of a specific demic (i.e. ethnic or national) label. But sure changing/updating footnote [a] will be helpful to specify that using Cornish as a descriptor in the lede sentence is not verboten.

The removed Option 3 that aimed to bar the use of any label for a specific demic group is just as viable or not viable as Option 2. The MOS says "should usually provide context", not "always".

Btw, the current wording of Option 1 is however confusing. It is phrased as a question within Option 1. Before, Option 1 was nested within a question that spanned all options which IMHO made more sense.

Finally, I wonder if we could introduce maybe as Option 1a an additional guideline that says if there is no consensus to use label "Cornish" in an individual case, "British" should be given precedence over "English" per default, unless reliable sources and reliably-sourced self-identity of the subject clearly favor English over British. I admit this goes into WP:CREEP, but it gives room to the principle of least contention (if there is such a thing in Wikipedia where every other !vote begins with "Strong..."). Just a thought. –Austronesier (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty bad at this sort of thing, but what do you think of something like:

When referring to people described as Cornish in reliable sources, should we:

(1) Refer to them as Cornish when appropriate, as outlined in MOS:CONTEXTBIO (and update MOS:CONTEXTBIO footnote [a] to explicitly include Cornish people)

(2a) Refer to them as English

(2b) Refer to them as British unless reliable sources and reliably-sourced self-identity of the subject clearly favor English over British

(3) Do not refer to them as Cornish, British, or English

🤔 Tewdar  20:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)