Talk:Thomas Flamank

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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? ‑‑YodinT 14:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cadoc and "Speak the Truth" quote 

message: 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:  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)
replies: text: MOS:CONTEXTBIO specifically says "": 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. ‑‑YodinT 12:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ...because some modern-day cases will be an exception. Further down it gives brief guidance for historical cases, ... (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:  And yes, it also ends with  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)
replies: text: 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. ‑‑YodinT 17:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cornish...