Talk:Cornwall

See also

• Category:Wikipedians in Cornwall

Childish edit warring should die down for a bit.

It turns out following a sockpuppet investigation that Hdjhgfjh‎ (talk · contribs), MJC59 (talk · contribs) and 81.138.71.174 (talk · contribs) are all the same person so they have all now been blocked. This article has also been semi-protected for a week which means that only named accounts which have been registered for more than 5 days (i.e. autoconfirmed) can edit the article. Right now new accounts and IP addresses can't edit Cornwall, although they can post on the talk page. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it turns out that MJC59 wasn't the sockmaster, but Govynn was. Anyway, MJC59 is back with more nationalist contributions with this and this. I am not going to trip 3RR so hopefully others will step into stop this silliness. If the behaviour continues I would suggest taking him/her to WP:RFC/USER. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's finally unlocked! And no POV pushing vandalism so far. How long this will last though... --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the childish re-edits, changes and reversals. I made several additions only to have them all reversed (by a very pro-Anglo-Saxon gentlement it appears)!!! I don't mind healthy debate but when pointing out when so called 'facts' are not attested and are in fact assumptions, I think it is reasonable to point these issues out within any wiki article. I'm too busy to persevere so I won't be adding these in again, but I really would recommend that the whole debate about Anglo-Saxon Kings and whether they were fighting internal battles or with the Celts should be placed on a far more neutral and sceptical basis. It seems a trifle ironic that English and Cornish wiki-posters are apparently conducting the same war on Wiki as the people they are writing about!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artowalos (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Geographical area of Duchy

The introduction to Cornwall states; "The geographical area of Cornwall also constitutes the Duchy of Cornwall."

Whereas the Duchy of Cornwall article states; "Nearly half of the holdings are in Devon, with other large holdings in Cornwall, Herefordshire, Somerset and Wales."

Should the sentence be changed in the introduction to; ""The geographical area of Cornwall also constitutes part of the Duchy of Cornwall."?

Serpren (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not expecting a simple, or single, answer to this because I know there are different (sometimes politicised) interpretations - but we really need to sort out the relationship between Cornwall as a geographical area, and the Duchy of Cornwall. On one hand, there are those who see the Duchy as simply (or pre-eminently) a property owning organisation, in possession of an estate which covers some parts of Cornwall and also land elsewhere - according to its own website, "around 53,628 hectares of land in 23 counties, mostly in the South West of England". On the other hand, there are those who argue that the whole of Cornwall is a Duchy with a special constitutional position in relation to the monarchy. This article seems to be confused as to which meaning of the Duchy is being used. Edits today have gone from one view to the other, without any clear explanation. My view is that there are likely to be sources supporting each approach - but, it is important that this article (and others referring to the Duchy) explains them and does not confuse readers. Thoughts on taking this forward, anyone? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a Duchy of Cornwall article about the estates owned by the Duke of Cornwall and it is this context which should be used in the article. I don't see another article about the more ephemeral duchy and ntil that exists there can't be any meaningful use of it within the Cornwall article. If we can find proper sources (not for example the ultra-soapbox site duchyofcornwall.eu) then we should put something in the article. Wikipedia is not a platform for soapboxing and unfortunately that is exactly what is being done by some people. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you know that different views exist - that the Duchy is not simply an estate-owning organisation, but has wider legal and constitutional authority. That is not simply the view of political extremists - it is the view expressed, for example, in this article, as well as in our article at Duchy of Cornwall#Legal status, which says (based on at least some legal opinion) that "the Duchy of Cornwall is broadly the same extent as the modern county". I don't have a view on which approach is "right" - what I am saying is that WP should present a balanced view in its information for readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, in one sense if you have a "Duchy of Cornwall" and a "Duke of Cornwall", Cornwall as a whole is, of course, a duchy by definition, as one could argue are Westminster, Lancaster etc. But in reality and in common usage, when we talk about the territorial extent of the duchy, we are surely referring to the estate that is actually owned, ie the hodge-podge of properties that are found in Cornwall and elsewhere, as originally given to the duke by the 1337 charter, along with certain rights, such as that major one these days of appointing the sheriff, across Cornwall as a whole. By contrast, when people talk about "Cornwall", the primary official designation and standard reference is, simply, that of a county. Now, maybe the lovely duke and the government are engaged in a plan to pull the wool over our eyes, but the official duchy website makes a clear distinction between the "title" or "honour" and the "estate"; the charter linked to just now is very clear when it lists those properties in Cornwall and elsewhere that make up the duchy estate that those properties fall in the "County of Cornwall". Now, obviously people, common usage and official definitions can be "wrong" but they are the key starting point - and if they all converge, one has to ask how much weight we want to give to an alternative formulation.

The problem is that this inevitable and quite usual fuzziness over words, together with the usual odd constitutional quirks you find in the UK, as well as some one-off quotes, eg from the land registry/TSol in the guidance notes referred to - which are very definitely not legal rulings or declarations and which don't actually seem to reflect those organisations' usual descriptions - are seized upon in a bid to create and claim some kind of real-world Passport to Truro-type situation. Now, there are issues about terminology, and, as the recent tribunal ruling made clear, about the public/private status of the duchy. That should all be dealt with in the appropriate places on WP, but I don't think we should be getting too excited about much of this in the main Cornwall article. There is a brief section here currently on the duchy's status and scope, as well as more regular and significant mentions of broader issues about identity and calls for greater autonomy, and I'm sure that's about right. Putting something in the lead on the duchy issue specifically, for example, is just a diversion. In my view, anyway. N-HH talk/edits 11:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with most of your comments. That's why I took out all the references to the Duchy from the lead - it's clearer without them. I also agree that we need to give due (and not undue) weight to any claims about the Duchy having wider powers than those of a normal landowner. However, I think WP should (continue to) recognise that there are views - held in some legal comments that we cannot simply dismiss, as well as by small political groups that I think we can largely dismiss as "fringe" - that hold that "the Duchy" does have some standing over the area of Cornwall as a whole. We should give some weight to those claims, but not undue weight. It's a question of balance. I'm actually not completely sure that the Duchy's own website is reliable in relation to those claims - it's reliable in relation to its ownership and management of land, no doubt, but not necessarily on the wider issues. And I don't think we can base what WP says wholly on what we, as individuals, think is "reality and ... common usage" (and "surely refer to"), when I believe (WP:OR warning) that "reality and common usage" in England as a whole is not necessarily the same as "reality and common usage" in Cornwall itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the three of us at least are broadly in the same area in terms of principle but there's obviously the practical issue of how to implement that on this page (and others). I agree as well that we have to be careful of original research and easy assumptions - and be aware of our own possible subconscious biases - as well as avoid too much reliance simply on the duchy's own site, but at the same time, I don't think it's controversial to assert that common and mainstream use is pretty clear. Yes, we should refer to the claim about duchy status, attributed and with due weight; and also state the verifiable and uncontroversial facts about the extent of the duchy's rights over the county (here, and more so on the main duchy page). I think that's done about right at the moment and in the right part of the article. One thing that perhaps does need a bit more of an acknowledgement on the page is that people beyond the more fringe nationalists do sometimes casually refer to "the duchy" (I believe David Cameron did this recently), even if only to clear up any confusion. Aside from that, it's worth noting that this thread was kicked off by someone slightly confused by the terminology/territory issue - but only in fact, it would seem, because of a very bold statement in the lead, of the sort that all three of us would rather not have here. N-HH talk/edits 12:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The Celtic Sea - is part of?

In the introduction, the geographical area of Cornwall was described as between the Celtic Sea, English Channel and Devon. However, for some reason a few contributors deem it necessary to state it is part of the Atlantic. This is a very odd statement, as the Celtic Sea is recognised in its own right. Observing many of the posts on the Cornwall page, I am leaning towards the opinion that there is an agenda at work - to the detriment of the area. Perhaps I should edit the English Channel to state it is part of the Atlantic, and then edit Europe to state its part of the planet Earth? Now that would be silly, wouldn't it. Please, lets respectfully keep this consistent with other references.

Kyttow (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Celtic Sea is recognised as one of the seas that comprise the Atlantic Ocean. As is the English Channel. However, the English Channel is a well-known sea area, but outside the British Isles, the Celtic Sea is not well-known. The Atlantic Ocean is included to provide that information to those readers that do not know this. It's as simple as that. Your analogy with Europe is simply ridiculous, unless you can point me to someone who does not know what Europe is.^Mac Tíre _Cowag 15:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mac Tire is correct. Just read Atlantic Ocean and Celtic Sea - the link between the two could not be more clear. It is very easy to turn on edit protection so that no IP editor or newly-registered editor can update the article. That would fix the symptoms but it wouldn't address the cause which is people acting in a childish manner and engaging in silly edit wars. Please stop. If you want to make your point then go over to Wikia where there is ample opportunity for you to write anything that you wish - there is even a Cornish nationalism section there. --Bob Re-born (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In the minds of most English people, Cornwall is inextricably associated with the Atlantic - hence the A39 being called the Atlantic Highway, and the Atlantic Coast Line, and the numerous businesses and holiday properties / parks that use Atlantic in their name. Cornish companies do it - Sharp's Brewery talks about "The Brewery's unique position on Cornwall's Atlantic coast is a major influence." As such it would be wrong not to mention Atlantic. Explaining that Cornwall has its coast on the Celtic Sea will probably come as a surprise to a lot of people who will never have heard of that sea, but further explaining that the Celtic Sea is part of the Atlantic (which is a fact beyond dispute) serves to educate the reader, which is the purpose of an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. --Bob Re-born (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with the two above posters. Nothing more to say. Would rather be removing vandalism (Like I recently did on the Alan Rickman article, go check! It's funny what I removed) or doing my usual cleaning work, than getting into debates, but these really annoy me. I'm going to teeter on the edge and say these "debates" are mildly disruptive, an edit summary should be good enough for the likes of the OP, and in this case they were. No one here is an English Nationalist who despises the Cornish, no one here has an Agenda. We are actually rather nice :) this girl is signing off ^_^ --Nutthida (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter either way. Celtic Sea links directly to an article that describes it as part of the Atlantic Ocean, so, arguably, it's not necessary to say it twice. But it doesn't matter either way. Maybe half the time the article should say it's part of the Atlantic, and half the time it doesn't. It makes no difference. There is simply no excuse for either side to revert the other. See WP:LAME, and stop arguing over nothing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, you do realise there is a print version button on the side of the screen? The idea is that information, where appropriate, should be presented and it should be able to stand by itself without confusing the reader. A printed version of this article doesn't have links for the reader to click. Leaving Celtic Sea without any clarification would alienate pretty much every English-speaking reader from outside the British Isles, and probably a very substantial amount of readers from within the British Isles. I for one am from the British Isles - born and bred in Ireland - but I only "discovered" the Celtic Sea about 10 years ago. There are many more like me (perhaps in Ireland it is due to our education system), and we all referred to that sea to the west of Cornwall and south of Ireland as the Atlantic Ocean - nothing else. Secondly, and I'm not insinuating this is the case here, but the last person to constantly remove or tamper with the Atlantic Ocean part and to do so in a similar manner, went on to be an excessively disruptive force on the page, removing anything "English" and highlighting or reinforcing everything distinctively Cornish in a very blatant POV agenda. That/those person(s) eventually left Wikipedia to found their own Cornish wiki project which seems to have imploded due to lack of contributors/contributions. Basically what I am saying is that this article seems to be a sensitive one, and one which should require consensus prior to any change. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Without thinking too hard about it (and forgetting we'd had this discussion a few weeks ago as I was concentrating on other things), I removed the mention of the Atlantic on the basis that in my view it's unnecessary. But if the consensus is that it be re-added, I won't lose any sleep. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mind either. Maybe that kind of thing would be useful on the Simple English Wikipedia. I wasn't fussed but agreed there was no real issue, and accusing others of bad faith nationalist editing like the OP wasn't good. --Nutthida (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a good debate to be had about the historic naming of seas (for example when map makers started calling the Severn Sea the Bristol Channel and the British See the English Channel. Perhaps it would be more constructive to move any debate about what the seas are called to a separate version but refer to them in the main text by their present map names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artowalos (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)