Talk:John Angarrack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dead link[edit]

The link to the "Falmouth navigator" is dead, and should be removed. As should the unverifiable point it links to.Serpren (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


I question the notability of this article. John Angarrack spends his days selling washing machines and really isnt that notable here in Cornwall for cornish related issues, only popping up now and again to air his views. Personally i think Skwardya (local band) and in particular their vocalist Matthew Clarke (also of Pirate FM fame) is more notable, particuarly for their attempt to get licencing to cover beatles songs in cornish, and the fact he is an active and known campaigner for the cornish language. --Sotonfc4life (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reason for Edit[edit]

I removed the phrase "He also believes that the true history of Cornwall and the Cornish language should be taught in local schools," as it is a form of "weasel words" implying, but not stating, that the true history of Cornwall is not already taught in schools.

Also removed the phrase "It attempts to set events in their proper context" with regard to his last self published book. "Proper" being weasel word Serpren (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Reason for edit[edit]

Should John Angarrack's trade and means of earning a living, as a washing machine repair man not be included in his description? The current description would have us believe he is some sort of author or historian/academic, whereas in fact he earns his living by his trade. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Angarrack & Sons 01208 76336 45 Higher Bore Street, Bodmin, PL31 1JS

There can be no doubt it is him, as Anagrrack is his assumed name, and occurs nowhere else. DSerpren (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC).

Seconded. I reside in Bodmin and he is indeed a washing machine servicer and dealer. --Sotonfc4life (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reason for edit[edit]

  • "a leading Cornish historian" and "well known." Without proper citations this is opinion. Such PoV is not accepatble on Wikipedia. Changing to "a Cornish historian" avoids this, and is quite an acceptable description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:14, 7th January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Mr Wilton is not an academic, and has no qualification or standing as "a historian."Serpren (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The words leading Cornish Historian originate from from an article in Cornish World Magazine. I don't speak for Mr Angarrack and know nothing on his educational qualifications, but after a quick 'Google' I found the following on the Cornish World website. Talskiddy 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The director of Cornwall 2000 John Angarrack, a leading historian and Cornish human rights campaigner, is supportedby a group of well-informed Cornish activists. What, why, how? Cornwall 2000 is a catalyst and a dedicated campaign group in many areas of Cornish self-determination. These include the right to self identify as Cornish and the more formal implementation of the Charter for the Cornish Language. Since the specific exclusion of the Cornish by the Government from the Council of Europe Framework Convention forthe Protection of National Minorities, Cornwall 2000 has worked tirelessly to achieve equality of treatment for the Cornish. John Angarrack published Our Future is History, the backbone text to Cornish constitutional issues in 2002.

"Cornwall 2000" no longer exists, if it ever did, and does has no web presence outside of Wikipedia. I don't think an uncredited article, with no sources, such as the "Cornish World" one can be used as a defining measuere of one's standing as a "leading historian".

The words leading historian were edited out of the wikipedia article several weeks ago. I only included the article from Cornish World (above) to illustrate where the reference originally came frome.(talk) 10:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely some peer reviewed publications, not vanity published books, or articles in biased magazines, are necessary for someone to earn this distinction?Serpren (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it help to have a quote from Bernard Deacon's book? Bernard Deacon is a reputable academic and his book, Cornwall: the Concise History, is published by an academic press of some standing. Bernard Deacon evaluates Angarrack as a campaigner rather than as an historian. Anagarrack has a distinct POV in his writings. However his view of the history of Cornwall from a Cornish viewpoint has proved influential and achieved remarkable sales. It should not be dismissed as "vanity". Vernon White . . . Talk 14:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing his publishings as a work of vanity. Vanity publishing is where the author pays to have his work published, and hopes to recoup his expenditure from the sales.

When the book is non fiction, or purports to be of an academic nature, then if a reputable publisher can not be found to publish it some resort to vanity publishing.Serpren (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between vanity publishing and self publishing. DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the difference is that a vanity publication has little or no hope of recovering the cost of publication. This is not the case with Angarrack's publications, which seem to hold their value in the second hand market. Vernon White . . . Talk 19:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair points. Should it be noted if a book is self published then, rather than published by a recognised academic publisher?Serpren (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that "Independent Academic Press" of Padstow is actually Angarrack alone and not a group of sponsors? If so, please add your note. It should, however, be fairly obvious that this imprint is not in any way equivalent in authority to a publishing house associated with a recognised university. Vernon White . . . Talk 09:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea to be frank whether Angarrack paid out of his own pocket, or had a whip round down the pub to get this published. But surely, as your last point states, any publication claiming to hold fact or authority on its subject would be published by a mainstream publisher at least, or an academic publisher at best.

As it stands we have no way of judging the authenticity of the publisher or Angarracks publications. 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpren (talkcontribs)

However, anyone can draw conclusions from the absence of IAP from Google searches. I suggest that we close this discussion. Vernon White . . . Talk 09:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. (However, I have just published a book "self publishingas an art form", on my home computer, and do consider myself a respected Cornish author and authority on the subject!)Serpren (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Serpren, the words objected to were removed weeks ago. Step away from the horse and put down the stick! DuncanHill (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Duncan; I thought we were debating the legitimacy of claiming a book had been "published" when in fact it was "privately published" a horse of a very different colour, and one which I think has implications and ramifications throught Wikipedia. Serpren (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


If a citation for the Punk/Haslar period is not forthcoming soon, it should be deleted. Vernon White . . . Talk 07:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed reference and link[edit]

I removed <ref>[ Our Future is History]</ref> which no longer links to an opportunity to purchase the book online. Vernon White . . . Talk 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed another reference and link[edit]

[1] removed. This is just a ScotNat view on MK with no additional info on Angarrack. Vernon White . . . Talk 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed yet another reference and link[edit]

<ref>[ John Angarrack fights for Judicial review of policy towards the Cornish]</ref> removed as it does not give the specific information stated on the link label. Vernon White . . . Talk 19:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

See also references[edit]

Which of the following actually help the user find out about John Angarrack?

  • List of topics related to Cornwall
  • Celtic nations
  • Cornish Assembly
  • Cornish self-government movement
  • Constitutional status of Cornwall
  • Cornish people
  • Culture of Cornwall
  • Gorseth Kernow
  • The Song of the Western Men

Vernon White . . . Talk 20:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed by User:Talkiddy. Vernon White . . . Talk 06:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cornwall 2000[edit]

The artcle on Cornwall 2000 could also do with some attention. Vernon White . . . Talk 23:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


I can find no information online for either the "Independent Academic Press" or "Cornish Stannary Publications". If these books are "vanity published" then it should be noted.Serpren (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the new book is also published by Independent Academic Press. Amazon hasn't heard of this publisher. Doesn't look as if they have published any other titles. Vernon White . . . Talk 20:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


The link to "John Angarrack's books" and "Publishers description" refer one to

This is the author's own website, where he sells his books from, and surely constitutes advertising on the author's behalf. There is no "publishers description, as all the evidence points to Angarrack "self publishing" his books (See debates above)

Is this in breach of Wiki ettiquette? Serpren (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen this book or any reviews of it, so the publisher is the only source I have, at present. I am NOT promoting this writer. However, if Dr. Deacon regards him as significant, I think good information about the latest book is valuable, from whatever source. Vernon White . . . Talk 09:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Vernon, you are kind, but there is no recognised publishing house, agency or academic institution involved here,therefore the books have no academic standing (which I'm assuming they claim.) These books are "self published", and therefore it is a breach of etiquette to have a link to the sales site for the books.

These links add nothing to the validity of the author and/or publisher, as they are links to John Angarrack's own website. It would seem to me that if this were allowed to continue, then anyone with a self published book to flog could set up a Wiki page promoting themselves, and post links to sales sites for their "works".

What we have here is an unknown author, with scant recognition outside of his "cause", promoting his three self published books, books from publishing houses unknown.Serpren (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't have any evidence, do you, that any one of the several editors of this article is John Angarrack? He is certainly NOT unknown in Cornwall. Cool it, please. Vernon White . . . Talk 13:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The European Court of Human Rights[edit]

This text was removed from the article - In August 2008 it was announced by John Angarrack's organisation Cornwall 2000 that they intend to lodge a case for the proposed inclusion of the Cornish into the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities with the European Court of Human Rights. For a case to reach this stage however, it must be shown that Cornish campaigners and Cornwall 2000 have exhausted all domestic legal avenues by having the case summarily dismissed by the High Court, the Appeal Court and the House of Lords. Cornwall 2000 claim however that, before such a challenge can begin, they need to raise at least £100,000 to cover potential adverse costs.DjHope (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I removed that text as it belongs in the article on Cornwall 2000 - and indeed it is already in that article. DuncanHill (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Angarrack is writing name, Wilton real[edit]

He was born John Wilton as Serpren pointed out above, Angarrack is a pen name. He adopted the name Angarrack as a pseudonym to sound "more Cornish". The name was completely exinct by 1881. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The "real name" is mentioned here and in a web forum but I can't find anything that would comply with BLP policy – do you know if there are any reliable sources for it? snigbrook (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
BLP policy clearly states Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page. Thanks, --Talskiddy (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)