Talk:Henry Jenner

Removed text
I've removed text from the Political leanings section which appeared to be a copyright violation of Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, not the 1904 version as claimed in the DNB template indicating a free source. This material should not be readded unless it is determined to be free of copyright. Franamax (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the DNB temlate, as Jenner wasn't in it anyway (died far too late). DuncanHill (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New (2010) edition of Jenner's handbook
Notwithstanding my interest in the book, Duncan, I think that the book is in fact relevant to the subject of this article. There's a link to the first edition in the external references... why not a link to a the revised edtion? -- Evertype·✆ 14:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that your edition will be of use to editors writing about Jenner and the Cornish language and revival. Unfortunately, the link you added and which I reverted was only to a promotional page for it, and not to the text itself, and I believe that this makes it unsuitable for inclusion in the article. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand. The text of the revised edition is not identical to that of the first edition. It's a revision, after all. (Jenner's estate is glad about it, indeed.) Many articles on the Wikipedia refer to printed books, including their ISBNs (which I hadn't got to before you deleted the reference). I was also going to add a paragraph to the article describing "In 2010 a new addition of Jenner's Handbook was published..." and outlining some of the differences. The "promotional page" gives the text of the book's preface, which can assist readers of the Wikipedia to determine whether the 1904 or the 2010 edition would suit their needs. I don't think that this reference is "spammy" as you described it. -- Evertype·✆ 14:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Any look at Amazon would reveal that there have been many reprints of Jenner's book over the years. I don't see how this one is so special. Seems like just advertising to me. --Joowwww (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This new edition isn't just a reprint, that is, it is not just a copy of the original put out again. It is a re-edition, intepreting what Jenner wrote with the addition of phonetic transcription, additional notes, and 100 pages of additional material at the end comprising three articles Jenner wrote thirty years before the Handbook was published. This new edition is a serious contribution to the Cornish Revival and offers a modern of Jenner's own work. That should not add up to "just advertising". -- Evertype·✆ 18:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But you're not linking to the text, only to a promotional page about the book. As I said above, I am sure the book would be of use to editors, but a link to a promotional page is not a link to the book. DuncanHill (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fairly sure that external links to books on the Wikipedia do not only link to electronically available texts of those books. This is a print-book, not an online publication or eBook. The "promotional page" does give the entire text of the book's 2010 preface. I do not believe that there is a rule on the Wikipedia that external links are only to be "of use to editors" either. This article is not for editors, but for people interested in Henry Jenner and his work. The new book offers interpretations of Henry Jenner's work. As such, is it not relevant? -- Evertype·✆ 18:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe, Duncan, that you have been assuming good faith. I find this disheartening. You deleted the reference for nothing more concrete than "a bit spammy I think" but I don't think you have addressed the core issue. Here is a new book about Jenner's work. Surely it can be referenced in an article about Jenner. -- Evertype·✆ 18:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pursuing this, I note that the external link to [Henry and Katharine Jenner, A Celebration of Cornwall’s Culture, Language and Identity also does not link to the text of the book, but to a means for acquiring the book—and just to an online bookstore, not to an informational page by the book's publisher. Now I don't believe that this link should be deleted. It is useful to anyone interested in Jenner, his life, and his work. I don't think it is "spammy" any more than the notice I put next to it earlier today was. -- [User:Evertype|Evertype]]·✆ 18:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out that spam link, which I have now removed. I doubt there'd be a problem with mentioning that "In 2010 a new edition of Jenner's Handbook, edited by Michael Everson, was published" but the link as it stood was spammy. DuncanHill (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, bosh. I am not happy about your deleting the useful link to that IMPORTANT BOOK about Jenner's life, and I intend to revert your deletion. There aren't other good web sources about that book, and deleting it simply makes it unavailable to people who want to look at it or get hold of it. Neither that book nor mine is being flogged here like some crappy rock band's DVD. These are serious books about serious topics. "The link as it stood was spammy" is just more doubletalk on your part. "Spammy" is not precise, and you must cite Wikipedia recommendations for your deletion of this material to stand, in my opinion. There are MANY such links on the Wikipedia. Why punish Cornish studies just because you have an idea about what you think is "spammy".? -- Evertype·✆ 00:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, I had thought that you had just been a bit over-enthusastic in adding a link to a site promoting your book. Your responses here suggest otherwise. You have a direct commercial interest in your new edition of the Handbook - and the link's presence adds nothing to the article. Now, if someone were to cite it as a reference for something in the article that would be fine, and as I said above a mention of it in the article would also be OK. The link as you added it did nothing but promote your bank-balance. Finally, to suggest that I would try to "punish Cornish studies" is just plain stupid. I want more and better coverage of Cornwall, not random self-promoting links. Try to behave like the serious scholar you claim to be, not the snake-oil salesman you sometimes come across as. DuncanHill (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, give over. How many copies do you think will ever sell of the 2010 edition of Jenner? This isn't Harry Potter. It's scholarship about Jenner. I'm not selling snake-oil, and I think that by suggesting that I am you are not assuming good faith. -- Evertype·✆ 01:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you know what snake oil is, either. The two books whose references, which might have been improvable but which you summarily deleted for no real reason but your feeliing that they are "spammy", are not fictitious. They are real books. With pages. WIth content. With value about Jenner and his work. -- Evertype·✆ 01:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, links to content wouldn't be a problem at all (I have a history of arguing in favour of more links to external content). The links I removed weren't links to content but to sales pitches. As I have repeatedly said, I am sure that your new edition of the Handbook will be of use to anyone interested in Jenner and Cornish, and I do still wish you all the best for the launch in Truro. However, links to promotional sites really aren't acceptable. Mention of your new edition, or of the other book you mentioned, could be acceptable in context but bare links to sales or advertising sites aren't. You have repeatedly accused me of lacking good faith - well, I started out by assuming good faith from you, but your aggressive and self-promoting behaviour, and refusal to accept concerns, make it increasingly hard to maintain that assumption. I didn't say you were selling snake oil, just that you come across like someone who does. You do yourself and Cornwall no favours by your manner. DuncanHill (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not a link to "a sales pitch". There is no "NEW! Improved! Buy it NOW!" on that page. It was a link to the content of the Preface to the new edition, hosted by the book's publisher, which describes the new edition. The page also gives bibliographical information about the book, and links to another site where the book could be purchased. How is that "a sales pitch"?
 * The rest of the content of the book is not available online. That is the same as with most books, is it not? The fact is that you hardly even gave any chance for improving the material: you summarily deleted what I had put there before discussing it, and with nothing better than the adjective "spammy". You may have repeatedly said that this book (and presumably the other book) are valuable in terms of Jenner, but you have removed reference to both of them. Since my role as publisher irritates you, I request that you edit the article to put reference to the two books in in a manner which does not offend your sense of spamminess. If you won't do that, then I will restore both links to the External References, and work, with others, to make them more relevant.
 * Another point. I object to your declaring that I have been "aggressive" and "self-promoting", too. That also does not assume good faith. You accused me of editing this page just so I could make a few bob. Perhaps you don't know how long I have been preparing this new edition, and have not considered the reasons—which can hardly be financial in nature—someone would put so much effort into a re-edition of an important source for the Revival. But you attack my manner, or your perception of it, without much care, it seems to me, for Jenner's place in the Revival.
 * In any case, I have asked you now to make the required edits so that the two books can be referenced in the article in a way which you find acceptable. Since you have stipulated that the books are to be considered useful, I think that this request should be considered to have been made in good faith, and without "aggression". I look forward to seeing your edits. -- Evertype·✆ 12:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a suggestion above for how you could legitimately mention your new edition. You have chosen not to adopt it but rather to attack me. Put some context in and you shouldn't have a problem. Put in bare promotional links and there will be a problem. Perhaps you'd like to invite comment from a wider range of editors, in which case you could try the Cornwall WikiProject. DuncanHill (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the books are relevant to the topic, which seems not to be disputed, and one objects to the nature of the reference itself, which seems to be the case, the surely the logical thing to do is not to delete the references, but to edit them so as to refer to them in the manner standard throughout Wikipedia. To delete the reference is not a judgement upon the details of the reference, but upon the relevance of the volumes in question. Talliesin (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not allow promotional links, and the links as they stood were promotional. Now, given Everson's history of involvement in the development of the SWF I am sure that his self-published new edition of the Handbook wil be useful - but without having seen it I can't say much more then that, certainly not add anything to the article about it. I've not seen the other book which he says would be of use, if he has a copy I am sure he could use it to add cited content to the article. DuncanHill (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You claim that this link is "promotional". Is it? It is a publisher's page about the book. It gives the bibliographical details and the complete text of the book's 2010 preface. There are links to Amazon, but those form a small percentage of the text on the page. Is this merely promotional? You've made a lot about how BAD this page is, but you've not really done anything constructive here. I asked you to edit the article yourself; you've refused to do that, and just handed it back to me, claiming that you made a positive suggestion. Then you claimed that I had attacked you. Now, I didn't delete text that you wrote. I tried to add value to the article. All you've done is delete that and then give pretty lame excuses about it, trying to call me "aggressive" and "self-serving" and whatnot. I don't think you read and understood what Talliesin said. I think you were wrong to delete the book references from the article. You've not given any rationale beyond assertion of your perceived "spamminess" and what you think Wikipedia "allows". -- Evertype·✆ 01:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:SPAM. We've got something about self-published works as well, but I can't remember the shortcut right now. DuncanHill (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He praiseth and taketh away... I do not apologize for being a publisher, Duncan. ("Self-published" is a term often used to denigrate a one-off publication by a novice writer. Evertype has published over 40 books by various authors since 2003.) Offer something constructive, why don't you? It's OK to link to the Gutenberg text of the 1904 edition, but not OK to link to the complete text of the 2010 preface. Why? Please be specific. You think that the two books might be useful to people interested in Jenner, but you haven't done any work to improve the article by including them; all you can do is accuse me of wanting to make money off of the new edition, and then citing WP:COI. But you had just told me that you had given me advice about including the 2010 book in the article. Didn't you understand that I asked YOU to insert that material in the article so that it wouldn't appear that this was WP:COI? You can't have it both ways. You can't ask me to put something in the article and then accuse me of self-servingness in the same breath. Regarding WP:SPAM, can you please explain how the text of the 2010 Preface is inappropriate? You can't buy the book from the publisher on that page, you know. There are links to Amazon, but no direct purchase is available there. If that is not acceptable, can you please explain how a book can be referenced in a way in which you approve? -- Evertype·✆ 10:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * DH: links to content wouldn't be a problem
 * ME: the entire content of the book isn't available on-line, though the content of its preface is
 * DH: the link wasn't to content, but to a sales pitch
 * ME: most of the content of the page is the text of the book's preface. There are links to a third site where the book might be bought. Is this a hard-sell sales pitch? How else can a book be linked? How else can the content of the preface be linked?
 * DH: I told you already how to put it in the article
 * 1) Talliesin: Here are some ideas
 * ME: Why doesn't DH put the material in the article so he will be satisfied?
 * DH: You're violating EL and COI and SPAM
 * ME: Catch 22 -- Evertype·✆ 10:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having said all that, I have made a number of edits to the article. Please assume good faith. No summary deletions. Thanks. -- Evertype·✆ 12:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Jenner. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027211610/http://cornovia.org.uk/htexts/jenner01.html to http://cornovia.org.uk/htexts/jenner01.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry Jenner. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050415092957/http://www.gorsethkernow.org.uk/english/gallery/grandbards/egwasmyg.htm to http://www.gorsethkernow.org.uk/english/gallery/grandbards/egwasmyg.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060115152407/http://www.bibelkernewek.com/Jenner-Mark1.htm to http://www.bibelkernewek.com/Jenner-Mark1.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)