Talk:Thomas Flamank

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Flamank. 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/20060515002733/http://homepages.tesco.net/~k.wasley/Blackheath.htm to http://homepages.tesco.net/~k.wasley/Blackheath.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) 03:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Flamank. 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/20060504042933/http://kris.rootschat.net/flamankfamily.html to http://kris.rootschat.net/flamankfamily.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) 23:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Cadoc and "Speak the Truth" quote
The claims about descent from Cadoc of Cornwall, and the quote "Speak the Truth and only then can you be free of your chains" are unsourced, and seem to be from this 2010 contribution by (a toned down version of this original contribution which was soon reverted). There are now two books I can see which use the quote (2013 & 2019) which are both unsourced, and from after the 2010 edit; a third book (from 2018) was added as a source for this in the Cadoc of Cornwall article, but I haven't been able to check it yet. The quote attributed to Michael An Gof is given in at least one reliable source, but it doesn't have anything from Flamank, which you might expect. If the 2018 book is also unsourced, is it best to remove it as not reliably sourced, or keep it while saying something like the earliest published source is from 2013, in case someone reads one of these books (or the numerous websites which also now use the quote), and tries to add it back to the article? &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 14:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * After looking into it a bit more, the Cadoc and "vernacular history" part do seem to have been taken from the Cadoc of Cornwall article, and added here in these edits from October 2020, but the "Speak the Truth" quote was here before that from 2006 until it was first removed in 2015. It was first added in this 2006 edit, citing this website, which seems to show the likely source of this quote: John Angarrack's 1999 book Breaking the Chains: Propaganda, Censorship, Deception and the Manipulation of Public Opinion in Cornwall. I haven't been able to check this book yet to see if it cites any documents that support this quote. The quote was removed in this 2015 edit, and wasn't added back until the October 2020 edits linked above. &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 17:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Cornish...
was Flamank from England and is Cornish a nationality? I fail to see how calling an English/British person English/British is controversial. MOS:CONTEXTBIO is clear on how lead sections of biographical articles should be handled: In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. Unless there's some PAGs that say people from Cornwall should have their nationality omitted, CONTEXTBIO applies. – 2 . O . Boxing  02:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * MOS:CONTEXTBIO specifically says "In most modern-day cases": you're claiming instead that it's a blanket policy that applies to all articles, even historical ones like this. If you fail to see how it's controversial (even after being pointed out here and on your talk page) then don't change swathes of articles: our article on the constitutional status of Cornwall starts by saying that it "has been a matter of debate and dispute". For now I've removed the nationality from the infobox (they don't need every field in any case): pointedly asserting British nationality for its own sake isn't constructive, and doesn't improve the article. &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 12:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In most modern-day cases...because some modern-day cases will be an exception. Further down it gives brief guidance for historical cases, Examples of how to handle historical subjects vary...The simplest example is someone who continued to reside in their country of origin (which would be England, not Cornwall). It also goes on to clarify that we do not identify people in the first sentence by their ethnicity (Cornish), but if relevant to notability, can be mentioned in the second sentence: Per the above guidance, we do not add ethnicity ("Russian-American") or country of birth ("Russian-born American"). These details can be introduced in the second sentence if they are of defining importance. And yes, it also ends with Finally, in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted. His nationality is not unclear nor controversial. Including somebody's nationality, for the sake of WP:INFONAT, is indisputably constructive and improves the encyclopaedia. Pointedly removing the nationality because...[insert reason]...is not constructive and doesn't improve the encyclopaedia.  I've given a very clear and guideline-compliant reason for my edit. Would you mind responding in kind? Your initial reply didnt answer much of anything (I'll presume your answers to my initial question are 'yes' and 'no', respectively). –  2 . O . Boxing  13:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand you see it in a very clear cut way, that Cornwall is just part of England (and presumably always has been?), and how frustrating this discussion must seem if you see things this way. So to answer your question: not necessarily, and it might historically have been. If this is also a frustrating response, then that's the nature of subjects like this: there's not always enough evidence to provide definite answers one way or another, and the articles need to reflect that, rather than choose one or another to make everything seem neat and orderly. The argument in favour of your position is set out at . The position that Cornwall was not always considered part of England is set out at . Attempting to define historical figures from Cornwall as English by saying that it's not a controversial subject, or thinking that it somehow shouldn't be controversial, doesn't prevent it from being controversial. Until there's a consensus on the best way to discuss the nationality of historical people from Cornwall, then MOS:CONTEXTBIO and WP:INFONAT don't settle this, as they presume there is an unambiguous nationality for the individuals involved. In terms of policies, as you know, WP:DR sets out how to resolve disagreements: hopefully it will be possible to discuss and reach an agreement on this (honestly I doubt how much either of us particularly want to spend more time arguing about this, though I might be wrong); if not, it suggests WP:CONTENTDISPUTE as a way forward. &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 17:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that was an interesting read. I'm still on the side of "nope, England, English", but I can see it's not as clear-cut as I thought, especially in Flamank's day. I think CONTEXTBIO allows for English/British to be omitted while leaving Cornish in the lead; it should probably still stay out of the infobox though. I'll go through my contributions from the other day and revert similar cases for historical figures. Thanks for the brief history lesson. –  2 . O . Boxing  03:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)