Talk:Philip Payton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Cornwall Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines: Shortcut: WP:Cornwall Articles are written using a standard set of headings (see suggestions for article structure here). This is to maintain consistency between Cornwall articles and to improve the quality of entries through a constant style of writing. These headings are, however, plastic and in a state of flux and although we welcome suggestions or improvements, we would appreciate discussion before any major changes to the layout yourself. Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty! At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline. These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish self-government movement, etc) and should not overflow into other articles. Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

I have removed non-evidenced POV. Whathojeeves 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Here as at Michael Everson and Ken George you show your POV is against people who dislike Kernowek Kemyn orthography for Cornish. Please do not use the Wikipedia for that battle. Gromercy dhys. -- Evertype·✆ 09:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No Michael, you're the one who persistently uses Wikipedia as a soapbox for your adopted causes. If you really believe PP has the interests of the Cornish Language Revival at heart, perhaps you could list some of the things he's done to promote it. Mongvras 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Payton and revived Cornish

The article says:"Payton was made a Bard of Gorseth Kernow in 1981, taking the Bardic name Car Dyvresow ('Friend of Exiles'). Despite receiving this honour, he has done little to promote the Cornish language revival, rather he has played down its success and attempted to undermine its public credibility (e.g. Cornish or Klingon, Cornish Studies Fourteen, 2006)".

This is a ridiculous Point of View. Cornish Studies has given space to many valuable articles on Cornish Language and culture.===Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 18:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed. Mongvras' comment was his sour grapes because KK has failed to attract support from academia (quite the reverse). Thank you for you very good edits to this page, Vernon. -- Evertype·✆ 17:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles referred to mostly relate to the study of the history of Cornish. Of those that are directly concerned with the Revival, a few are fairly neutral but many are very negative in tone. Eventype has well know strong views on this matter (and also a financial interest). I have added a link to the "Klingon" paper, and I suggest that other editors read this and reach their own conclusions. This is very typical of Payton's attitude towards the Cornish Revival and the institutions and individuals that support that Revival. It's ironic that at a time when language maintenance and language reclaimation is widely recognised and supported by many of the most prestigeous academic institutions around the world, that the Cornish Revival, one of the first such ventures should continue to be the butt of academic derision in the UK.Mongvras 20:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Despite receiving this honour, he has done little to promote the Cornish language revival, rather he has played down its success and attempted to undermine its public credibility (e.g. Cornish or Klingon, Cornish Studies Fourteen, 2006)."

.

I can't accept this edit. 1. The Klingon article is by Bernard Deacon, not Philip Payton. 2. Cornish is unlikely to acquire thousands not hundreds of fluent speakers without an agreed standard version. Pointing out that this is the case does not "undermine its public credibility" or deride the Cornish language. 3. Cornish Studies journal has been hospitable to a variety of views on the Cornish language. These are, of course, academic in nature, not partisan statements. 4. Philip Payton appears to have written a wide range of articles which support Cornish culture and language, not least the introductory essay to Cornish studies: Fourteen.Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

When Mongvras says that Cornish Studies "is very negative" about the Revival, he means that the journal has carried some articles critical of Kernewek Kemmyn. That orthography is extremely problematic, and deserves the criticism it receives. If KK has not received academic approval, it is because it does not merit such approval. People like me (who write in criticism of it) do no to so because we are mean-spirited bastards. We do so because we are linguists and it is flawed. -- Evertype·✆ 09:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think rather that you do so because you are a well known self-publicist (how many people initiate a Wikipedia article about themselves?) and because you have a financial interest in the matter. You have no real interest in the Cornish language since you do not live in Cornwall, do not take part in Cornish language events, write neither poetry nor prose in the language, and as far as anyone can tell barely know how to speak it. Mongvras 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I no longer need apologize for providing the initial text on the article about me -- and I only did that because Roozbeh had put an empty link to that article on the Unicode page, and then only months after he had done so, and indeed when I wrote that version I didn't know much about Wikipedia policy regarding such things. It has evolved since then. Your accusation of "financial interest" in Cornish is absurd. George publishes dictionaries, does he not? I have been involved with Cornish for 13 years. It is irrelevant whether i live in Cornwall or not. I have Cornish ancestry and a linguistic interest in Cornish and other Celtic languages. Do I need more "credentials" than that? Why? -- Evertype·✆ 23:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Vernon, the pdf has Payton's name on it. I do not see Decon's name there. The slant of the paper is that the existing language revival (which has taken 100 years to build) can simply be brushed aside because paid academics have not wanted to involve themselves. Unfortunately this is not how things work as you have to build on the existing speaker base and human resources. What in any case gives you the right to say what is and is not a valid contribution here? I don't think you own this article any more than I do. Mongvras 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Authorship of Cornish or Klingon - the Exeter Uni website hosting the pdf states that it is by Deacon, Payton's name is on for citation purposes as the editor of the Journal in which it appeared. DuncanHill 23:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And here is the relevant weblink [1]. I must admit I made the same mistake of assuming it was by Payton at first. DuncanHill 23:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cornish nationalism

I removed category "Category:Cornish nationalism" added by unregistered editor, added by unregistered editor. As so-called Cornish Nationalists have recently threatened celebrity chefs and fliers of the flag of St. George with violence and demonstrated their ability to light a fire, I suspect the subject of this article would prefer not to be so labelled. Nationalism and National Identity are two of many topics considered by this subject in his academic work. Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 14:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)