The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Moreschi ^Talk 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Authenticism[edit]

Authenticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

"Authenticism" is Tim Saunders' personal "theory" about the arguments regarding the orthography of Revived Cornish. Whathojeeves is quite evidently Mr Saunders. That user has been vandalizing regularly the pages of people who are active in the Cornish Language debate but with whom he disagrees. Every one of this user's edits has been in bad faith as is this article. I recommend speedy delete. -- Evertype·✆ 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete and warn user per nom. Obvious disruption of Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• speedy Delete per nom--Hu12 22:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)speedy part of vote was struck, delete was kept per DuncanHill comment. --Hu12 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I have no intention whatsoever of supporting or opposing the deletion of this article, but as the user who first welcomed Whathojeeves to Wikipedia, I do feel this debate should not be excessively speedied until s/he has had a chance to contribute to the debate. DuncanHill 22:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Additional comment especially as the nominator is one of the authors of the paper criticised. DuncanHill 22:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Authenticism, used in this sense, is a neologism, intended to be offensive to those to whom it is applied. I hope that the editor who generated this article may find a way to reconcile themselves to the consequences of the recogition of Cornish as a European Minority Language and the possibility that all parties will be reconciled to an official "standard" written Cornish. If this can happen, then there could be thousands rather than hundreds of fluent speakers and a blossoming of Cornish culture. . . . BTW, User:Evertype has identified himself on his userpage and is not the author of any of the papers criticised. I hope (probably in vain) for a constructive comment from User:WhathojeevesVernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - author Michael Everson is identified as one of the Authors of the Kernowak paper criticised in the nominated article, see this link [1] on page xiii. DuncanHill 23:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment (again) - Oh Yes, apologies - Whatho faces a rather broad opposition, doesn't he - there are 21 "authentic" signatories. Michael Everson also typeset the document (a nightmare task, I would think!). However, as I understand it, from another signatory, no-one has any intention of forcing anyone to abandon their mode of speech or adopting an irrational alternative. Anyway, "Authenticism" is a neologism, unless you are referring to the instrumentation of ancient music. It's not in OED and sounds a bit Klingon.Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another comment I have actually seen "authenticism" used in language-related discourse, in a similar sense to that suggested in the article (though it was in relation to the languages of former-Soviet Central Asia), and in poetry criticism in relation to writing only about direct-experience, however please do not anyone construe this as being a "keep" or a "delete"! I really don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of the Cornish Language revival movement(s). Got enough trouble in my life already. DuncanHill 23:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Ah. Michael is busily trying to suppress yet another idea with which he disagrees. This does rather tend to confirm a recent analysis of authenticist ideology on Cornwall24. Even if 'authenticism' *were* a neologism, Vernon's progression to support for suppression would be a non-sequitur. Not quite sure what Vernon means about 'Klingon', a tongue with which I'm unacquainted. Whathojeeves 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox for your theories, Tim. You invented this term "Authenticism" to try to belittle those people in the Cornish Revival who are opposed to Kernewek Kemmyn. this "term" is not found in the literature or any other source apart from your own postings to Cornwall24. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Vernon - you'll probably catch this tomorrow - are you on principle opposed to neologisms? If a word's non-neologistic statement is demonstrated, will you withdraw your objection to it? If not, then could you explain what in fact is the gravamen of your apparent support for Everson's attempt at suppression of dissent from his ideas? (By the way, Nicholas Williams, the main proponent of Authenticism, is on record as wishing to do away with Modern Cornish as spoken by the overwhelming majority of Cornish-speakers in Cornwall. That is why this article is important, and why agrreing to delete it will be tanatmount to aligning Wikipedia with an anti-humanist ideology). Whathojeeves 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment Williams is not a "proponent of Authenticism". Only Tim uses this word. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Just one more thing (as Lt. Columbo used to say) ... since the exponents of Authenticism insist that (undefined) 'authenticity' is the chief criterion for their acceptance of any variety of our language, it follows that to describe them as Authenticists can hardly be offensive. Nos da! Whathojeeves 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, but probably rename/move/combine. The article seems to be based largely on recent material by the eminent poet Tim Saunders. While many others share his views he has the unfortunate habit of using his own ideosyncratic terminology which can be confusing. E.g. "Modern Cornish" = 'Cornish as used by most people today' = Kernewek Kemmyn, whereas generally "Modern Cornish" means some variety of Revived Late Cornish (used by a small clique). I will comment further when I've had time to study the article more fully. The topic is without doubt notable within the current debate around Revived Cornish. It may have wider relevance as similar disagreements are likely to arise whenever a language is revived/reinvigorated, and there are many such projects being initiated at present. See Language revival although the list on that page is far from complete. Evertype is extremely partisan in this matter, indeed he is the main publisher/propagandist for the authenticist faction. Mongvras 02:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I doubt very much that you can establish "notability". Saunders uses the term to try to pigeonhole and discredit people who disagree with Ken George and his orthography. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment While I agree that the article in its present form violates a number of Wikipedia's rules, especially through personal attacks and the use of idiosyncratic terminology, the ideological underpinnings of the Cornish Spelling Debate, alledged or real do merit mention. They should be put in a proper context and the article renamed. "Authenticism" seems too general a term to me. I would rather like to see this as part of an article about the Spelling Debate. The question is if this can be done in a way more in line with the general policy of Wikipedia. --Pokorny
      • Is that a Keep but rename vote Pokorny? Mongvras 18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Saunders' amusing article is merely a projection of his paranoia. By using the term 'Modern Cornish' in a way not understood by most people (apparently applying it to a form of Cornish based on the pronounciation of 1500!) he is deliberately trying to obfuscate. Either that or he clearly doesn't understand the sources he cites. And I thought his 'authenticists' (which by right is a term that should be applied to all Cornish revivalists - the spelling preferred by the Cornish Language Board was adopted 'for the sake of the authenticity of the language' (Ray Edwards, Kernewek dre lyther: Kynsa Gradh, Sutton Coldfield, 1994, p.iii) had agreed on a consensual spelling for Cornish called Kernowak Standard. Jan penrose 08:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Response to the above Tim uses Modern Cornish in the same way people use Modern English or Modern Welsh, to mean the language that most people use today, cf Wella Brown's A Grammar of Modern Cornish. Unfortunatly this term is ambiguous and something like Revived Middle Cornish would be clearer. By authenticists he means those who believe modern writers should slavishly follow the spelling practices of the mediaeval and Tudor source texts, even though such an orthography is poorly suited to the needs of modern users. The other side, the great majority of teachers especially, believe that Cornish should have a modern, largely phonemic orthography, equivalent to those used by Breton and Welsh. The reason for this is to help modern learners attain an authentic pronunciation. Hence the term authentic here is also ambiguous, it's all a question of what kind of authenticity, spoken or written you feel is most important. This is an important issue, one that is not confined to Cornish. I believe it is notable, but I'm not sure how to fix the terminology. The advice of other editors is sought. As far as KS goes, this is simply an experimental prototype devised by Everson and his associates in an attempt to unite several dissident factions so as to be able to mount a challenge to the KK majority. So far it seems only to have further confused matters. Mongvras 21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The normal term is "Revived Cornish". The word "modern" is nothing but confusing, particularly as Richard Gendall used the term for "Revived Late Cornish". Of course this was pointed out years ago to Tim, who persists in using it because it annoys people. How odd, Keith, that you should defend Tim's characterization of us because we "slavishly follow" medieval and Tudor source texts, when KK "slavishly follows" George's "reconstruction" of Middle Cornish of 1500, and since you reject genuine Cornish features like pre-occlusion as "a speech impediment" because they are later than 1500. As far as KS goes, Keith, it is not an experimental prototype. It is a proposed orthography which has succeeded in uniting UC, RLC, and UCR users -- as well as some KK users though you will try to deny it. It is the Kesva which remains outside of consensus. Your calling us "dissident" is part of your own propaganda. Maybe you do believe that the Kesva "owns" the Cornish Revival. That doesn't make it so. -- Evertype·✆ 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • If you read my comment you'll see that I am in fact agreeing with you over the confusing use of Modern Cornish. Kesva an Taves Kernewek/The Cornish Language Board is the established body representing and governing Revived Cornish although there are other smaller break-away groups that promote other versions of Revived Cornish. They not only disagree with the Kesva, they usually disagree with each other. KS is simply a proposal advanced to promote discussion, the draft report of the Linguistic Working Group say as much. It is by no means certain that it has the full support of all the break-away groups. Indeed Dick Gendall has described it as crap as we all know. None of which has anything to do with the value of this article. Most of your comments belong on the talk page, if and when the article is retained and we begin the task of Wikifying it. Mongvras 22:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment User:Jan penrose account created 07.51 on the 16th Aug 2007, only edits are to this debate, and are copy-edited by Evertype. Accusations of paranoia are hardly a civilized way to conduct a debate. As to the original nom, if Evertype has seen vandalism, why has he never issued a vandalism warning to Whathojeeves or made any attempt to engage with him on his talk page? This so-called debate is in my opinion demonstrating all that is worst about both Wikipedia and the Cornish Language revival movement(s) (a movement which to this interested observer, seems to alternate between navel-gazing and playground squabbling and name-calling). As far as I can see, both the nominator and Whathojeeves have behaved less than properly on Wikipedia, and if their intent is to destroy what credibility the Cornish Language revival has in the eyes of the world, they are both doing a proper job of it. DuncanHill 10:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment So what's the vandalism warning supposed to look like today? It's so much work to trying and tag every vandalism compared to just reverting it.--Prosfilaes 13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Answered For those users who don't know, the set of vandalism warning templates can be found at WP:TT. DuncanHill 13:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I don't know who User:Jan Penrose is and the copy edits had to do with formatting trivia. I have not engaged with Mr Saunders on his talk page because of two years' of pointless discussion with him on other forums. -- Evertype·✆ 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Massively POV attack page. Arguably it could be moved to a name that people on both sides could agree on and fixed to be non-POV...but (a) that would be a new page, and one that could be created whether or not we delete this one and (b) I don't see why the basic concept couldn't be merged into Cornish (nothing from this article is worth preserving.)--Prosfilaes 13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Although Authenticism as a hypothesis is defunct, that is no reason for deleting this article about it. Compare the articles on Scholasticism and on the Phlogiston Theory, both discredited, but worthy of a place in Wikipedia. Morgowlez 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If you're voting keep could you please say so clearly, meur ras.Mongvras 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, I am saying keep. Morgowlez 20:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Morgowlez has made no edits but the above. -- Evertype·✆ 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If Authenticism as a hypothesis is defunct, then there's every reason in the world for deleting this article, since it's on a subject that's clearly not defunct and thus is a POV attack page taking up a spot needed by a real article.--Prosfilaes 12:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete regardless of the proper approach to the orthography of this language, the term is a neologism in this particular context, the article is exceptional POV, and it should be removed so that possibly a proper article about the general use of the term can be written by someone else.,DGG (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I think this is simply a matter of naming. I don't doubt that Authenticism has some more general meaning within some field or other. Furthermore afaik in the present context it is only used in this way by the page's originator and by Tim Saunders, a person notable for linguistic innovation. In the present context we are concerned solely with Linguistic Authenticism which I think is a worthy subject for inclusion here. The Cornish material can then act as a stub until information about parallel cases is provided. To aid this a few lines and a link should be added to the Language revival page. That would be a constructive way to treat this material and build WP. I admit I cannot understand why so many people are willing to come in and support Evertype in his desire to trash this article. It's not as if he doesn't have quite a track record for deleting anything he doesn't personally agree with, and his interest here is plain to see. Mongvras 00:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dear Duncan, I'm grateful to you for your interest, but think that your description of most of the discourse on this page as 'debate' is more than a little over-optimistic. Mongvras' support is welcome, of course, although I would beg to differ from him on one or two details, but as for the rest ... oh *dear*! Vernon at least went through the motions of consulting somebody who agreed with him before trotting out his knee-jerk reaction (to mix metaphors horribly!), while the others have, it is transparently obvious, fired off a received opinion with such glibness that no fact, it is plain, could divert them. ¶ Do you remember that rhyme about Benjamin Jowett? It finishes 'I am the Master of the College,/ If I do not know it, it is not knowledge.' That is, to a certain extent, the problem with which we are contending. It has always astounded me how the Cornish language, sosmall and vulnerable, can excite so much fervent hostility amongst people to whome it could never be practically relevant, let alone any kind of threat. However, this is a subject for a careful analysis, when this present nonsense is over. For the timebeing, we are in the position of the legendary creature of which it was said 'Cet animal est très méchant: quand on l'attaque, il ce défend.' Our forebearance has been so extreme as to be culpable, and we have let ourselves be blustered to the edge of a disaster. Happily, we have recoiled and the Authenticists are about to see all their ambitions frustrated. For the time being, then, since you've been so considerate I'd like to put a few points to you. ¶ Firstly, 'Authenticists' is only one of the more printable terms for the clutch of groupuscules variously named (with differing degrees of inaccuracy and unfairness) 'Ninja's Gang', 'The Institute Clique', or 'Fascists'. The latter expression I particularly condemn, since, although they collectively exhibit an exagerrated authoritarianism, and although the disparate elements of their ragbag of ideas would, in coherent combination, be highly dangerous, none of them is, as far as I know, a fascist. Since their thought is formulated by several people, and since they make a certain existential 'authenticity' their touchstone, 'Authenticism' seems a preferable term to denote their ideology. Suppressing it will only make the use of other, less neutral terms, more likely. If you, Duncan, have a better expression than 'Authenticism', then by all means please share it with us. ¶ Michael Everson's attempt to suppress the expression of ideas distasteful to him is not surprising. The Authenticists, after all, have form for this. Perhaps, after the humiliating disappointment they suffered over the attempt to suppress the native edition of 'Bywnans Ke', they wish to gain the odd little victory here and there. In a way, I was slightly disappointed that he was so slow in his attempt to suppress the article. ¶ More alarming then Michael's drearily predictable vituperations, however, is the readiness with which people in the Wikipedia environment seem to have swallowed the constantly-reiterated falsehoods. The readiness with which people rush to condemn something of which, it is transparently and painfully obvious, they have no knowledge, is frightening. It is also highly embarrassing. For some time now, I have been championing the cause of Wikipedia, representing it as incapable of the sort of mendacity whereby a certain reference work described Kurt Waldheim as having served in the Austrian Army, and being a student when in fact he was a military intelligence officer. Wikipedia, I said, was a rational and democratic system quite free from the mendacity and the wilful obtuseness of the academic world. Friends of mine, on the other hand, insisted that, whatever it potential, Wikipedia was too vulnerable to the obsessive and the bully. On the showing of this page so far, I shall have to admit that my friends were right and I was wrong. ¶ Take care, Duncan: I wish you very well indeed. Whathojeeves 23:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I nominated this article for deletion because Wikipedia is not a soapbox for pet theories, and "Authenticism" in the context of the Cornish Revival is Tim Saunders' attempt to "classify" people who dislike George's orthography -- and orthography which Saunders himself doesn't use. It is not encyclopaedic. -- Evertype·✆ 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This screed doesn't help you one bit. Please avoid personal attacks on Michael Everson and other people. Please try not to bring your disagreements here; WP:NPOV asks for an attempt to state neutrally the issues, not pushing your position. WP:NPOV means that the article should at least state their view in a way that they would feel is fair, even if you also state the view of their critics fairly. Most articles on groups of people, with an eye to WP:NPOV, spend most of the time describing their stated position and their documented actions, giving only a quick statement of criticism from diametrically opposed groups, putting their stated positions on their page. If you had followed these guidelines, then we probably would be a lot less sympathetic to Michael Everson here.--Prosfilaes 14:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete It fails the Google test impressively: including "Cornish" in the search returns a single page of references, some of which are manifestly not relevant. By contrast, a search on "authenticism" by itself returns 3000+ results. I don't see any evidence that this isn't something someone just made up. Mangoe 20:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment As stated above, I feel such an action would be too extreme. The title clearly needs qualification and I have already suggested Linguistic Authenticism. I have sought advice but received nothing constructive. I believe a useful and informative article can result if the existing material is used as a kernal and its field of reference widened. Is there some way of bringing other linguists into the discussion? Mongvras 22:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Zounds, Keith. Williams and I are real linguists but you reject everything we say because it doesn't suit you. -- Evertype·✆ 22:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No, because your conclusions do not follow logically from the data, as I and others have demonstrated ad nausiam in other places. All of which is in any case OT here. Mongvras 23:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One comfort is the the time and energy that ME is wasting on this blatant attempt at censorship isn't going into far more harmful activities.

Well, no point in trying to argue a case before a blatantly nobbled jury! This issue isn't going away, and it'll be Wikipedia's loss if it isn't dicussed here. Martesen, gwell dhyn dysputya hymma oll war ann Wikipedi y'gan yeith ni - ni a'vydh yn-maes a dhrehaedh ann gwas 'na yna, pan na'woer ev gworra un lavar anydhi war-barth! Whathojeeves 23:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • • Which being interpreted means Perhaps we ought to argue all of this in the WP in our own language ([[2]] ??) -- ?We won't have to suffer that fellow there/then? since he can't put a single sentence of Cornish together. Mongvras 23:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There was one other thing ... I can't help feeling that there are some interesting comparisons - and contrasts, of course - between some of the Authenticist attitudesm and the ideas of some of the proponents of Katharevousa. Whathojeeves 23:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Which is WP:OR, and not to be published on Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 12:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comments This is an English-language Wikipedia, so debate should be in English. In my opinion, both Evertype and Whathojeeves could benefit from reading WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and a whole host of other policies and guidance. Both might also be interested in engaging constructively with other editors through Wikiproject Cornwall. Perhaps gaining a wider perspective on WP's coverage of Cornwall could help them both learn to engage more constructively with each other and with the broader community, something which I feel would be of benefit to all. DuncanHill 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Keep this article. It provides a useful summary of the current position, To delete it would smack of censorshp. I agree with an earlier comment, that the writer needs to tidy up his or her nomneclature a bit to make it easier for the general reader to understand Zanzibar34 12:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment; This is Zanzibar34's only edit.--Prosfilaes 12:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mind you, Korais himself seems to have had some reasonable enough ideas, according to a book about him I once read. Perhaps the Katharevousa-Dhimotiki dichotomy is an over-simplification - Greek friends sometimes offer up to five variants on a simple sentence. The central point, however, is that contemporary and recent usage was rejected as inauthentic, with deleterious effects on speakers' intelligence and morals. Recapturing the language of a specified past will be a means of recapturing the its mentality. This has certainly been a constant theme in the writings of the Steam Authenticists, but I feel a certain caution before ascribing such a modality simpliciter to the Tudor Authenticists. With them, recapturing the language of a specified past seems and end in itself. NJAW's An Testament Noweth, for example, is a tour de force in which the somewhat macaronic language of the Tudor clergy is recreated with astounding conviction. Whathojeeves 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PoI NJAW = Nicholas Williams who devised the UCR (Unified Cornish Revised) orthography around ten years ago. Almost all publications in this system are by Williams himself. Mongvras 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not a point I'd considered, but is certainly an important one. The earlier (or 'Steam' Authenticist tendency, who advocated an Early Modern (c. 1600-1850) base for the Recent Modern (post-1850) language were certainly not a one-man band, although obviously Dick Gendall's work was the most eminent. The Steam Authenticists might have been in the running had they devoted to promoting Cornish the time and energy squandered on attacking the other tendencies. (I've seen literally hundreds of letters from them to offical bodies and funding sources of all kinds). The Tudor Authenticists would have needed not only to do this, but also to become someting more than a one-man band. We cannot but regret NJAW's decision to deprive us of the Cornish poems he might have written by indulging in vitriolic and highly repetitive polemic in English. It also occurs to me that the Authenticist attitude to Modern [n.b. in its normal] Cornish is intriguingly similar to that of some of the Haskalah crew to post-Biblical Hebrew. But it's getting late, so we can come back to this again. Suffice it to say that Authenticism is not an attitude confined to our language. Whathojeeves 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC) AReply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.