Talk:Richard Trevithick

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

How hard could this be to turn into a GA?

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Regarding "Penydarren" versus "Pen-Y-darren", as far as I know, the former is what is used now. The latter may have been used then, but if so I'd be willing to bet it was actually "Pen-y-darren", no capital 'y'. Varitek 02:27, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the version with the hyphens was the one used then. At least for the locomotive/mine. I definitely remember this being in too many books. One has to remember that these are Welsh place names as rendered by Englishmen, too ... --Morven 05:20, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia policy about which place name to use when the name has changed? Do we refer, e.g., to Bombay or Mumbai when talking about events that happened pre-name-change? Varitek 19:34, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy in the general case is to use whichever name is more common among English speakers. I don't think it's so clear cut in a case like this.

If the article is correct that the locomotive itself was nameless and it's known by the name of the place it was used at, then probably the current usage is good here.

On the other hand, if the locomotive ITSELF was officially named for the place, then we'd use the spelling used then. I'd say the naming is fine as is right now -- but that whoever used 'Pen-y-darren' wasn't making their own spelling, but following some book or other, because this usage is quite common in railway history books. --Morven 08:46, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Penydarren was Samuel Homfray's ironworks. I do not think the locomortive had a specific name. The railway (or tramroad) did not just go to Penydarren and is best described as the Merthyr tramroad. Peterkingiron 08:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

This article is rather overwhelmed with pictures at the moment, they certainly need organising better, if no-one else does this, then I might well do it. G-Man 00:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree and hope the article as I have just left it is an improvement. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Incomplete

This article seems to be heavily focused on road and rail transport. However Trevithick was more important in the long run as the person who introduced for this introduction of steam engines that worked above atmossphereic pressure. The present article is incomplete in failing to say enough about the rest of life. Peterkingiron 08:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Substantial New Material

I have just added quite a bit of new material (eg. South American exploits, reaction engine etc) much of it from Richard's biography by James Hodge (from the Science Museum, bookshop London which will hopefully address the above comment in part. I have tried to merge it with the existing article and make it flow reasonably and I have not actually deleted much at all, just moved it around quite a bit. Further tidy-ups welcome.ChrisAngove 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have done a very good job in expanding what was previously a grossly inadequate article. I have made a few minor adjustments today, unfortunately some of them while inadvertently not logged in. Peterkingiron 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Peter, my pleasure. I hope to contribute more in due course and I would like to see it as a class A article eventually. Its a good excuse to spend lots of holidays in Cornwall visiting the second hand bookshops!ChrisAngove 13:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring over England / English vs United Kingdom / British

A large number of Cornish people do not identify as English or see themselves as from Cornwall, 'England' for reasons relating to the ongoing debate about the past, present and future constitutional status of Cornwall, together with many people's sense of a distinct Cornish cultural identity - see Constitutional status of Cornwall and Revert warring over England/English vs United Kingdom/British. Since 2001 the Cornish have had their own unique ethnic UK Census code '06' similar to the Irish, Scots, Welsh and English, 2001 Ethnic Codes, and on many official forms it is now possible to register as Cornish as opposed to English.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.134.75.62 (talk) Aug 5 2006

I'm genuinely 'gobsmacked' that we have people asserting that Richard Trevithick was "English" and not "Cornish" or even "British".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.68.177 (talk) Mar 10 2008

Catch Me who Can

I did a google seach for Trevithick "Torrington Square", and found 173 matches. I did another search for Trevithick "Euston Square" and found 294 matches. The majority opinion is that the 1808 circular railway was in Euston Square, not Torrington Square. Euston Square no longer exists, but there is a black plaque on Gower Street, close to the entrance on UCL, saying that Trevithick's engine was displayed near here. That plaque is quite a long was from Torrington Square. The illustration that is used in this article is held in a library called "Science and Society" http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?txtkeys1=Catch Their website refers to Euston Square. This poster http://www.fromheretohere.com/euston_sq/index.html also exists as a mosaic on the walls of Embankment station. It says that the site was Euston Square, not Torrington Square. Ogg 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the site is underneath the Chadwick building, University College London. 19 June 2007

The view expressed by Ogg is out of date. The location in Torrington Square <NO - I should have said the planned Carmarthen Square - now the site of the Chadwick Building> is a recent archaeological discovery, and it is not surprising that older sources, such as the plaque cited (a serivative source) should repeat the older claim. The correctness of a view does not sepend on how many Ghits it gets, but how good the sources for the rival views are. In this case, the source for Torrington Square is a peer-reviewed journal, descrining the results of archaeological work: you could hardly get better. Peterkingiron 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about the situation. Your edit of 31 March 2007 at 15.09 deleted Torrington Square and replaced it with a reference to the site being under part of the UCL (but you did not then state which part). You gave as a reference "Tyler.N" Trans. Newcomen Soc.

My understanding is that this person is Nick Tyler the head of the UCL Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, which is in the UCL Chadwick Building. Can you say what part or department of UCL is over the site so that the article's existing text can be corrected. 19 June 2007 Presumably he is referring to this paper by Nick Tyler: http://www.newcomen.com/abstracts/abstracts_2005to6.htm. As far as I can see, it doesn't dispute the idea that the site was Euston Square. Instead he is simply being more specific, since Euston Square was pretty huge. Ogg 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This comes of writing things without rechecking references, with the result that I got the place names wrong. My point was that the archaeological discovery made under the Chadwick Building revises previous interpretations as to the precise location. In my recent comment, I mixed up the names of squares: where I referred to it being at Torrington Square, I was trying to refer to Carmarthen Square, a square that seems to ahve been planned but never completed. I understand that to be not far from Euston Square. Unfortuantely, my familiarity with the geography of London is clearly inadequate, and this has led me to make a recetn comment that was misleading and only addd to the confusion, for which I apologise. Prof. Nick Tyler, the author of the recnet article, is indeed the head of the UCL department in question. My amendments to the article in March were the result of reading the article. This gave me the impression (perhaps falsely) that the author was saying that previous statements about the location were wrong, but perhaps in light of our recent discussion, he was merely sayting that it was imprecise. In any event, I believe that the present text of the article conforms with what Prof. Tyler wrote. He made a well argued case, in a peer-reviewed journal. I hope this may be the end of the matter, except that I must apologise for adding to the confusion in my recnet comments. Peterkingiron 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

All is forgiven. We are all agreed that the article is good as it currently stands. This is the best map that I can find of that area at that time:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/cain/projects/euston_grove/euston_grove_wallis.htm Euston Square is bounded on the West side by Gordon street, the East side by Upper Woburn Place, the North side by Drummond Street, and the South side by Endsleigh Place (the last street is not named on any of the maps). Somewhat tantalisingly, it is just possible to make out the word "Carmar" on the second map from the top, along the bottom edge. The street seems extremely wide there, and the whole of that area is now under UCL. It is roughly a continuation of Mallet street, further north (Malet Place/ Foster Court) , roughly where the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archeology now stands. As for the Chadwick Building, it is precisely where the plaque is currently placed, by the main gate: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/images/map_mainsiteb&w.jpg# I found only one mention of Carmarthen Square, in this Old Bailey report of 1821: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/html_sessions/T18211024.html Ogg 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The article makes clear that Carmarthen Square had (at most) a very brief existence, its site being taken by the University. I therefore think it best not to refer to it. Peterkingiron 11:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your comments. I have corrected the slight mistake re "East" side and "West" side (with reference to Gordon Street and Upper Woburn Place) also note what appears to be an "n" under "Carmar" (on the map) which I assume is the last letter in "then". 26 June 2007 Here is Cruchley's plan of area in 1827:

http://archivemaps.com/mapco/cruchley/cruch02.htm (note Caerm. Squ.r, also note how a "Grafton" is often found near a "Euston", this is because the Earl of Euston is/was the heir to the Duke of Grafton and so the buildings in the Euston Place block or square may have been the Euston's London residence) 1 July 2007 Here is Bowle's Plan of area in 1806: http://www.oldlondonmaps.com/Bowlespages/bowles02a.html 5 July 2007.

The Chadwick Building is directly opposite University Street. On the the 1827 map the street is shown as Carmarthen Street. 14 February 2008. For aerial photo views of the area go to http://maps.live.com and search: Gower Street London. 15 February 2008.

Interesting new bit of research: [1] Frankie Roberto (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Note - The location was reassessed in a lecture at the Early Railways 4 Conference in mid-June 2008, which placed the location on the south side of Euston Road, slightly north of the lcoation indicated. The article will need to be amended when the confernece proceedings are publihsed. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just thought I'd mention this: The illustration attached to the section on Catch Me Who Can has recently been discovered to be an early 20th century fake, according to The Railway Magazine, citing sources at, I think, the British National Museum. Just wondering if people think this should therefore be removed, as it likely bears no visual similarity to the actual locomotive, or whether it should be left for purely illustrative purpose. Richard

"Fake" may be too strong. "Artist's impression" would probably be nearer the mark. The whole subject was (as I mentioned above) dealt with authoritatively at the Early Railways 4 conference last summer. The Conference proceedings will be published as Early Railways 4 in due course. This will constitute a reliable source on the subject. I would suggest we leave amending the article until the volume is published. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pen-y-darren Locomotive's winnings

It might be worth mentioning in some fashion that the 500 guineas won in the wager would be worth in 'today's' terms around £35,000 (an online conversion calculator gave a 2006 figure of £34,030-odd). While direct comparisons are rendered problematical by changes in society - much we now buy didn't exixt then - the sum was far from trivial, and weakens the frequent argument that the Middleton locomotive was the first to be "commercially successful."195.92.67.74 (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an equivalence amount seems useful. However, I don't think this in any way changes whether the Middleton locomotive can be considered the first commercially successful locomotive or not. A prize of this sort is not what is meant by "commercially successful" - that phrase, I believe, means that the locomotive is being used successfully for revenue generation over a substantial period of time. The Penydarren locomotive clearly never did this, while Salamander did. Gwernol 23:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

TRanslating historic sums of money into modern ones is fraught with difficulty, because different commodities have suffered quite different inflation rates. The sum was a substantial one. If your comparator was a labourer's weekly wage, you might get a much higher figure. If you work on UK house prices, the figure even from the end of WWII, would be several tiems higher! The Penydarren loco was certainly mechanically effective, but the cast iron rails on which it ran were not up to the task and the engine was converted to a static use. Those at the Middleton Colliery and on Tyneside were part of profitable transport systems that continued to function while the colliery they served continued to work. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

I changed it to British. He was Cornish but this is not his nationality, and this would actually mean little to a global readership. Let's not damage an article about such an important man by reverting to confusing information. Note also that according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is a well recognised reference for Wikipeida, he was English! (ref. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073323/Richard-Trevithick) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.151 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please could people stop using this page as a forum to promote their separatist agenda. Whatever you may believe, or wish to happen, Cornwall is part of the United Kingdom. The article should include where he was born but it is misleading, especially to global readers, to keep reverting British to Cornish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.105.168 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The style manual is perfectly plain: ...Nationality...In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the talk page and archives.) No mention of counties. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the opening paragrpah to read "Cornish" since there are numerous sources that describe him as such: I used three examples from 1884, 1960 and 1986 the latter being to Grolier's Academic American Encyclopedia. He is widely recognized as specifically Cornish and I don't think its confusing, or not understandable to those outside the UK. Nor do I think its particularly pushing a Cornish nationalist agenda to describe him in this way: I am not a Cornish nationalist, I don't believe that Cornwall is a separate nation, but I do believe that many reliable sources described Trevithick as Cornish. Gwernol 15:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In which of those cites does it note that Trevithick referred to himself as Cornish, as opposed to English? See WP:UKNATIONALS ... richi (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a misreading of WP:UKNATIONALS. It says: "When looking for available evidence (perhaps through biographies, encyclopedias and news articles), bear in mind that there is often no consensus across the UK, and many conflicting examples can exist for any one person. Often, however, a clear national preference can arise (e.g., Sean Connery is widely referred to as a Scottish actor)." In other words its not how the subject refers to themselves, but what sources say about the subject. Indeed it seems very unlikely that Trevithick was asked this question and that we have his answer recorded, so we can't rely on what he may have referred to himself as. We do, however have a lot of references to what other reliable sources describe him as. As far as I can see the majority refer to him as Cornish, not English, so that's what the article should reflect. As always, go with WP:V as the primary guiding policy. Gwernol 18:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of WP:UKNATIONALS: thanks for pointing it out, it was an interesting read. Basically, it's saying "try to get a consensus" but at the moment this still seems some way off! I couldn't help but notice the paragraph"The county of Cornwall is the South-western peninsula-tip of England. The Cornish language and culture has undergone a renaissance in recent years. It is spoken by 3,500 people" which immediately put me in mind of 86.149.105.168's remark above about editors promot[ing] their separatist agenda. (I need to point out here that I completely accept that this isn't Gwernol's motive, as he/she declares above.) My main point is in fact the same as his/hers: the reflection of reliable sources. As regards the works cited in the article, only the Grolier seems significant: a book entitled Cornish Worthies or The Cornish Giant may (quite appropriately for their particular market) not match up to WP's standards of impartial sourcing when it comes to Trevithick's national origin. The internationally accepted Encyclopædia Britannica, in contrast, starts: English mechanical engineer and inventor. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Changing_an_exisiting_UK_nationality is clear that there should be consensus before changing an article subject's nationality. I'm not clear that there is such a consensus. FWIW, my personal opinion is that "Cornish" is not a nationality—unlike, say, Welsh ;-) ... richi (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC) (updated 20:02)

This is what it says about changing a nationality:
Changing an exisiting UK nationality

It cannot be called "wrong" to change an existing nationality (e.g., Welsh to British, or British to Irish) provided a sufficient connection exists.
Before making a change:
Consider why the existing nationality was chosen.
Examine the article for details that support the existing label.
Look for existing consensus on the discussion page, and in any archives that may be present.
Conduct research to be certain your choice is preferable (you can consult the guide above).
Sometimes no single "correct" choice exists. Is your change actually for the better? An editor may query you, or revert your choice – so be prepared to explain your decision.
Above all, be civil, assume good faith and respect other people's points of view. It is of course OK to "be bold" and apply your choice, but remember that strong feelings surround UK identity, and firm disagreement may arise!
Do NOT enforce uniformity
It is not possible to create a uniforming guideline, when such strong disagreement exists on the relative importance of the labels.
Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency – making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities – is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained.
Do NOT "edit war"!
Be aware that "edit warring" with other editors by repeatedly changing the text of an article to suit your views is against Wikipedia policy, and may lead to action being taken against you by Wikipedia administrators.

If that helps at all. DuncanHill (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest the following opening text: "Richard Trevithick (born April 13, 1771; died April 22, 1833) was an inventor, mining engineer and builder of the first working railway steam locomotive." ... leaving the details of his background to the "Childhood and early life" and "Trevithick's final project" sections? 25 February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.85.252 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"my personal opinion is that "Cornish" is not a nationality" - Cornish is an officially recognised government ethnic census code - see Census 2001 Ethnic Codes - 01 British, 02 Irish, 03 English, 04 Scottish, 05 Welsh, 06 Cornish, and recognised by Cornish people and many others.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.93.254 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, I think you just proved my point. An ethnicity, not a nationality. If you want to argue that the article should state the subject's ethnicity in the lede, you'll need one or more primary references that show he described himself as belonging to that ethnicity. If, however, you're arguing that this biographical article should, like practically all others such articles, state his nationality in the lede, the convention is that you should stick with the original—in this case, "English"—unless you have good reason to change it Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Changing_an_exisiting_UK_nationality should guide you in presenting those reasons in the talk page ... richi (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

can I suggest that everybody reads the bit above about edit-warring, and then also read WP:LAME please? DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the introduction should give his nationality. Virtually every other biograph article in Wikipedia notes a person's nationality. The issue would be what nationality to describe RT. For this conisder the following references:

• http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073323/Richard-Trevithick#55430.hook
• http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10248452
• http://www.britainexpress.com/History/bio/trevithick.htm
• http://www.todayinsci.com/4/4_13.htm
• http://gm.ca/inm/gmcanada/english/about/OverviewHist/hist_auto_highlights.html
• http://www.learningcalendar.com/this_day_in_history/days_template.cfm?history_id=16912

Personally I think the suggestion for "Cornish" as it's an ethnic group on the recent census would set a dangerous precedent. I am not suggesting this was the above writer's intention but I fear this could open a nasty can of worms in respect to racist arguments on other articles.

Also let's not forget the wider readership of Wikipedia. Many will not be from the UK. Many will not know anything about its regional identities. Describing someone as Cornish will not mean anything to much of the World, but they will understand English (or British .... I'm not fussed about either.) Inclusion of his birth place later in the article would give more information about his exact origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.65.148 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would go with either Cornish or British, but no way English. I don't think the "people from around the world won't understand Cornish" argument holds water - Wikipedia has this things called "wikilinks" which people can click on... DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I agree with your argument regarding wikilinks. As much as possible an article should be useful and make sense on its own. Wikilinks should enhance qn article by allowing further information to be easily accessable. It should not necessary to follow them for understanding.

About English / British / Cornish: (1) whatever people's wishes Cornwall is part of England, and therefore if born in the county (with usual legal rights) makes someone English. Someone can be Cornish AND English, just as someone else can be a Yorkshireman AND English. (2) The six citations above describe RT as English. All are legimate references.

I do not understand why you suggest "people from around the world won't understand Cornish" holds water. Consider that (1) even in the UK the call for sepration of Cornwall from England is very small beans. Many are not aware of it. (2) Plenty / most of the world will not be able to locate Cornwall on a map, or even care. A lot more will be able to locate England / Britain, and have some understanding or knowledge of it. and (3) when writing for a encyclopedia surely the readership should be considered? And this includes what would mean something to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.65.148 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I have seen a lot of POV pushing from IP addresses trying to remove any suggestion of Cornish cultural or historical difference from Wikipedia, I do have a problem when edit warring breaks out driven at least in part by an IP editor. British will do after all, noone has "English" as a nationality on a passport. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd happily vote for British, which should be acceptable to all but the most rabid Cornish nationists.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.65.148 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

British will also upset some of the more rabid English nationalist who like to edit war on Cornish articles from time to time. I've seen it before. DuncanHill (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And that's all I hope I will say - I've seen this sort of question far too often for it to be good for me. The guideline about nationality does point out that nationalities within the UK are hard to define, cannot and should not be standardized, and to be honest I do think that anyone describing Trevithick as English would be laughed out of at least 4 counties. DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationality problem

The above threads have become somewhat confused, so I suggest further discussion takes place in a fresh thread. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~.

Trevithick was born in the Kingdom of Great Britain, and when he died that realm had become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I would suggest that British would be an acceptable description of his nationality, avoiding the problems associated with either Cornish or English. DuncanHill (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking, Duncan. For the record (again) I have no issue with whether we describe Trevithick is English or British, but I do object to anon IP users with no editing history ignoring WP:UKNATIONALS, despite reminder comments embedded in the article. Sure, it's not "policy", but it is good sense. Unless/until we have consensus that the nationality should be changed, we should stick to the original wording (English) ... richi (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But UKNationals doesn't actually say that, as far as I can see. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Which isn't to say that I'm not in favour of getting a consensus! DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That was my (imperfect) summary of Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Changing_an_exisiting_UK_nationality. Put simply: don't change it without consensus. I changed the comment to simply point here ... richi (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing, it's been "traditional" to take into consideration how the subject of a biographical article described his own nationality. Do we have cites for RT calling himself English, British, or Cornish? ... richi (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a very good question! I don't have anything to hand, ODNB does say he was known in Cornwall and elsewhere as the Cornish Giant, but I shall see what I can find - and would be very glad if any other interested editor could also do a bit of digging! DuncanHill (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have compiled a very rough survey of usage found on the internet, from encyclopædias, museums, newspapers, libraries etc at User:DuncanHill/Trevithick. DuncanHill (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear -- the UK WP tradition is to go with the description of nationality that the subject used, not that secondary sources ascribed to him. In other words, can anyone find a cite where he describes himself as "British" (for example) ... richi (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The UKNATIONALS actually does suggest looking at how a subject is widely referred to, as well as looking for evidence of the subjects own usage. DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Guide_to_finding_UK_nationality. DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for prolonging this discussion, but:

• CORNISH and BRITISH cannot be disputed; ENGLISH can (see, for example, Constitutional Status of Cornwall).
• My preference would be for Cornish, however:
• If anyone does not understand 'Cornish', surely there can be a link to Cornwall that will tell them what/where it is in a second.
• Trevithick, as far as I know, is generally regarded as a Cornish figure, and is important in Cornish history and culture.

Cornishman5040 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, citations please, especially from verifiable, reliable sources that show he viewed himself as "Cornish" ... richi (rant) 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Any citations suggesting he referred to himself as anything else? UKNATIONALS does NOT insist on finding the subject's own usage. DuncanHill (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't say it did. Where does "insist" come from? Anyway, it does say, "Look specifically for evidence that the person has a preferred nationality", which amounts to the same thing and is consistent how I've often seen these sort of disputes resolved ... richi (hello) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but Trevithick was an engineer who died in the 1830s. I might be wrong, but I expect it would be quite a tough job finding any sources that testify that he considered himself Cornish, English, British or Martian! Cornishman5040 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. WP:V and WP:RS are non-negotiable ... richi (hello) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The issue, however, is that (1) as DuncanHill pointed out, "UKNATIONALS does NOT insist on finding the subject's own usage" and (2) (the point I’ve just made) there is probably no evidence that exists showing the subject’s own usage- but please correct me if I’m wrong about the chances of that. (And anyway, as UKNATIONALS says, the subject might be wrong about considering themselves to be a certain nationality.) Therefore some other means has to be used to find his 'correct' nationality. Cornishman5040 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you can talk about process, or you can help build consensus. One way you can do that is to find verifiable, reliable refs, consistent with WP:UKNATIONALS, which support a change to the original editor's intent. As I've said before, I have no opinion ... richi (hello) 00:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I started to do this on my user page as linked above - but someone objected on the grounds that they wanted the subject's own usage, not usage by libraries, museums, encyclopædias etc. I just re-read Bronowski's "Ascent of Man", Bronowski describes Trevithick as Cornish too. I don't see any consensus for "English", and I don't see any prooof that Trevithick himself used "English", what I do see is a range of usage tending towards "Cornish" or "British" and away from English. DuncanHill (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm coming to that conclusion too. I also agree that it's unlikely that we'll find evidence of what he called himself, more's the pity. Do you think we might achieve consensus with "British (Cornish-born)" or something like that? ... richi (hello) 19:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe. I suppose British is a reasonable compromise. I don't think there'll ever be a consensus for English and some people don't seem to think Cornish is appropiate for some reason. Cornishman5040 (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I think this is a pretty good solution (British in main text and infobox saying British and Cornish) Cornishman5040 (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GBP2coinTrevithick.jpg

The image Image:GBP2coinTrevithick.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it FairuseBot is a tad broken, seeing as the big red ! sighn did not appear. Celtic Muffin&Co. (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I added a fairuse thingy to the image, but forgot to come back here and say so! DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent controversial edits

This discussion is copied from Talk:Steam engine#Richard Trevithick edits

An anon editor has applied this new text to the Richard Trevithick article. There are some bold claims, all without references of course, but lack of refs is not usually grounds for deletion, at least, not immediately.

Apart from the typos/punctuation, anyone care to comment? -- EdJogg (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

At least some of it (about failure to understand things) is balls. Globbet (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Only some? I'll wait for the refs before accepting this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

But much of the article is unreferenced, although most is probably uncontroversial.

What best to do? Mark the new text with 'fact' tags? Delete it as unref'd? Move it to talk page? Leave it as is? (These are slightly rhetorical, as I'm on Wikibreak for two+ weeks from tonight and won't be in a position to follow them up.) -- EdJogg (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I also wondered whether to revert most of it, but was not sure enough of my ground. Perhaps it should be placed on the talk page until referenced. It sounds like WP:OR to me! Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am copying the discussion so far to Talk:Richard Trevithick. Please continue this discussion there, chaps. Globbet (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with copying the mods here and then reverting. I suggest comments to the effect that it is controversial, added by an IP user to boot, and a request for refs. Globbet (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to revise my view expressed above. The addition appears to be wrong, in that it has been added in the wrong place chronologically. There is an article Arthur Woolf, which deals with the subject of the addition, and also needs attention. That article cited what was a web-linked article (link now broken) from Eindhoven University, probably from the same authors (but misspelt), as an article just published: Alessandro Nuvolari and Bart Verspagen, 'Technical Choice, innovation, and British steam engineering, 1800-1850' Economic History Review 62(3), 685-710. This is an important explanation of why engine development was quite different in Cornwall that period from the textile districts, such as Lancashire. It cites another article by the same authors, 'Lean's Engine Reporter and the development of the Cornish engine: a reappraisal' Trans. Newcomen Soc. 77 (2007), 167-89. I am beyond my area of expertise, but hope that one or other of you can get to grips with this, and update, this article, Arthur Woolf and History of the steam engine in the light of these articles. Some one commented that the 19th century history in the latter was sadly deficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Some one commented..." -- that would be me then!

These edits are still bugging me. On this page they are peppered with {{fact}} tags (OK, so I added most of them!) and on many pages that would be enough to have them removed. On the Arthur Woolf page, Trevithick is called 'mercurial and wayward', and although there are references, they are neither plentiful nor on-line, nor applied specifically to this claim.

For a living person, such unsubstantiated claims to his (lack of) ability would be removed on sight and I tend to take the same approach with someone no longer living. Trevithick has a long-standing reputation, and these claims put a serious dent in it. I'm prepared to have my view of him challenged by new information, but only if it can be properly substantiated.

How long do we leave this unreferenced text in place?

EdJogg (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The tags have been there long enough and no references have been forthcoming, so I suggest it goes now. Globbet (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Cornish ethnicity

To those of you who seem to think that it is acceptable to remove any mention of Cornish ethnicity (cultural identity) from these articles, why is it I don't see you removing UNREFERENCED Welsh, Scottish and Irish ethnicity statements from other info boxes? Lets see you remove the Scottish references for James Watt, and change Scottish to British. Well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.211.98 (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Trevithick is undoubtedly Cornish. I don't see anyone disputing that, or "removing any mention of" his Cornish identity from the article. The problem is with asserting, without any qualification, in an infobox, that his "ethnicity" is Cornish, definitively and exclusively; or indeed with asserting any such ethnicity, including "British", were anyone to make that claim. This is a rather large assumption, and a fairly egregious piece of original research. And what might or might not be in the James Watt article - or on any other page - is irrelevant of course, as is whether anyone is planning to make equivalent changes on those pages or not. --Nickhh (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My first thought on seeing the removal was, 'yes, correct action'. If Trevithick had been born in Berkshire, no one in their right mind would have claimed that as his 'ethnicity'. -- EdJogg (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"And what might or might not be in the James Watt article - or on any other page - is irrelevant of course, as is whether anyone is planning to make equivalent changes on those pages or not." - If you say so!