Talk:Perran Moon

Name

The name of the subject of this page is frequently vandalised to "Peregrine", despite the name being sourced from the official Hansard record, which is a reliable source. Edits have included linking to a tabloid article from an untrustworthy source (Cornwall Live) with an allegation that the subject changed his name. The primary source, the UK's own parliament, should take precedent, and changes to the name should be prevented in future. Vonbrown446 (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to assume that those edits were made in good faith and thus were not vandalism. See WP:VANDAL for further detail here.

There seems to have been quite a lot of conflict of interest editing on this article recently (see WP:COI). Do you have any relationship to the subject here, for example are you involved in his promotion in any way? If so, it would be best if you were to make a conflict of interest declaration in accordance with the relevant policy. Axad12 (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the block of text (with reference) that has now been removed 3 times in the last 24 hours re: the subject's name...

I must admit that my feeling is that the statement that "Moon was accused of [etc]" is technically correct, and the idea that the source is untrustworthy seems to be unfounded (also, that idea seems to have been introduced by a user with an undeclared conflict of interest, which doesn't help matters).

Clearly it is simultaneously possible that Hansard records the subject's current name (as per Vonbrown446's claim above), but that the allegation recorded in the disputed source that he changed his name in 2022 is also true.

Vonbrown446's claim that Hansard supersedes the other source would thus appear to be factually incorrect because the two sources are not at odds with one another.

I do agree with Vonbrown446 that the subject's current name is Perran rather than Peregrine, and that the lead section of the article should reflect that, but I just don't see that that has any bearing on the issue discussed directly above.

Copying in Czello and LindsayH to see if we can get some sort of consensus here. Axad12 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Also copying in Melcous who has been editing the article recently. Axad12 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there - I live locally, hence the interest, but wouldn't say I'm conflicted more than anyone else reasonably could. I've generally been a very casual editor (mostly spelling and table construction on pages), but this annoyed me into creation of an account so I could post this in the talk page. I'm happy to avoid editing if people think I'm conflicted, and I'm glad the talk on this is growing. I just want fair standards! Vonbrown446 (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your note above.

Part of the issue here seems to be that your edit to the article here duplicated, in 2 very distinct ways, edits which had previously been made on more than one occasion in the previous 24 hours by the user PerranM, who I think it is reasonable to assume does have a very definite conflict of interest here.

It did seem to me that there was a certain amount of evidence off-wiki to link your username very closely to Perran Moon.

Also, early yesterday an IP address geolocating to Falmouth University visited the rather obscure location WP:RPPI to request page protection for this page and was advised to come to this talk page to discuss the matter, which you then did. Presumably that IP user is you, as you have recently begun editing the Falmouth University article. It doesn't seem very credible that a very casual editor would find their way to WP:RPPI to request page protection in relation to an issue that they had never had any previous involvement in. The overall picture thus seems to suggest a significant degree of association between yourself and the PerranM account.

So, to be completely clear, you are not connected in any way to Perran Moon, or to the account PerranM (a concept which could be definitely established here, WP:SPI)? Axad12 (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus on name (and also on 'British' vs 'Cornish')

Following on from the thread above, and in the absence of any further comments in relation to the block of text that was repeatedly removed and re-added on 27 & 28/8/24, I had a look at the edit history to try to determine the consensus view.

The material was originally added by user:Jwslubbock and later restored by user:Czello.

The material was removed by the now-blocked (and apparently conflict of interest) user:PerranM and by the apparently related account user:Vonbrown446.

The continued removal of the material was described as disappointing by user:LindsayH at WP:COIN, here [1].

A perhaps more diplomatic version of the material, along with the original Cornwall Live sourcing, was then added by user:Melcous here [2]. Personally I am in favour of the material being retained in some form.

So, it looks as though there is a majority of 5:1 (of unblocked users) in terms of the Cornwall Live source being a legitimate citation in line with WP:RS. There is also a majority of 5:1 in terms of the material being retained in the article in one form or another. I’d therefore suggest that any further attempts to remove this material would be contrary to a clear consensus.

While on the general subject of disputed edits… There would appear to be a similar consensus in favour of the subject being referred to as ‘British’ rather than ‘Cornish’. This issue is a topic which has been discussed many times on Wikipedia in many places and the conclusion has always been that UK subjects are referred to a ‘British’. Under certain circumstances (e.g. sportspeople) designations such as ‘English’, ‘Scottish’, ‘Welsh’ or ‘Northern Irish’ may be appropriate, but county or regional designations are not to be used. This is as per the relevant manual of style guidance here, WP:MOSBIO. Further info on this point can be found here, WP:UKNATIONALS. Axad12 (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)