Talk:Cornwall/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 14

Archiving

I have archived the previous discussion (see links right) as the length was getting unwieldy. Please do not continue discussions in the archive. If people feel a need to respond to comments that are now archived, could they please copy the relevant sentances "and place them in italics" with their responses on this page, taking care to mention where the original comment comes from. This should help keep things tidy. Many thanks Mammal4 09:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Archiving proposal - your opinions please

I propose using the MiszaBot to automatacilly archive this page. I would suggest setting it to archive threads with no activity in the previous 30 days, what are other editors' opinions? DuncanHill (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea to me Duncan. Tinminer (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


"Kings"

The recent insert stated that "the later Cornish Kings (as they would still have considered themselves) would probably have had to shown their allegiance to early English monarchs by the reign of Edward the Confessor" There is no evidence that there were Cornish Kings. Two responses were given (i) that the article on Cornish Kings has names and (ii) "refer to King Dungarth - Annales Cambriae "rex Cerniu" and King Huwal". In respect of the first argument, the article concerned deals with legendary figures and does not constitute evidence that there were actual Kings in Cormwall. Dungarth, IF he was a King was ruler of Dumnonia which may have included Cornwell but covered most of the South West or may even reference West Wales. Huwal relates to the same area and some think he is the same as Hywel Da the Welsh Law Giver. Annales Cabriaw include legends of King Arthur! This is a murky area with few records. However this is an article about Cornwall and needs to be accurate. --Snowded TALK 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Several well known historians as referenced, including Peter Berresford Ellis and Philip Payton of the Institute of Cornish Studies, believe that a Kingdom of Cornwall emerged around the 6th century and its kings were at first sub-kings and then successors of the Brythonic Celtic Kingdom of Dumnonia. The Kingdom of Cornwall or Kernow derives it's name from a Brythonic tribe called the Cornovii, whose existence is implied from the place-name "Durocornovio" meaning Fortress of the Cornish (Dyn Kernowyon in the Cornish language), recorded in the Roman Ravenna Cosmography. (ref Philip Payton - Cornwall - 1996). In 838 the whole of Dartmoor and the South Hams was still exclusively Cornish territory (Cornish language) and the Exe-Taw line was the border between Cornish and West Saxon lands. In August 825 Ecgberht had signed a charter in a place called Creodantreow (thought to be close to Crediton) where he was "amongst the enemy, the Britons" confirming the Exe-Taw line as the border. It was nearly a full century later in 936 when King Athelstan fixed the east bank of the River Tamar as the boundary between Wessex and Cornwall. ‘Dumnarth rex Cerniu’ (Dumgarth, king of Cornwall), or Donyarth, whose drowning is recorded in the Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals) for the year AD 875. Dumgarth is identified with Doniert whose ninth-century memorial stone is situated near St Cleer, Liskeard and reads in its Latin inscription DONIERT ROGAVIT PRO ANIMA. In 928 Athelstan held great court in Exeter and amongst the attendees was ‘Huwal, king of the West Welsh’ mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. ‘Huwal, king of the West Welsh’ is a term exclusively used to describe the British Celts of Dumnonia and Cornwall (this was not Hywel Dda of South Wales). Huwel (Hywel) is generally recognised as the last in the line of independent (or semi – independent) Cornish kings. In Penzance an inscribed cross dated AD 1000 has the inscription REGIS + RICATI CRUX – the cross of King Ricatus. Historian Peter Berresford Ellis, states that the Kingdom of Cornwall was always independent of Dumnonia, perhaps as early as the time of Gildas (c. 545). This was certainly the case after the majority of the latter kingdom fell under Anglo-Saxon control in the 8th century. (Peter Berresford Ellis. (1993). Celt and Saxon. London: Constable and Co) 86.156.57.156 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
No question about the origin of the word Cornwall, the persistence of the language etc. My dominant area of reading is Welsh History where the term brenin does not fully equate to the saxon concept of King although I concede that the term "King" is in use in some of the histories, although Prince becomes more common and is not seen as inferior (superior in fact) over time. The issues about Hywel and the range of Dumnonia are open issues although you may have more evidence on this that I have met todate. --Snowded TALK 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any evidence of old relationships between Devon and Cornwall?
Yes: see Dumnonia.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


one of the six Celtic nations

The introduction also says "and is considered one of the six "Celtic nations" by many residents and scholars" This claim requires better sources, again what is "many"? The Celtic league and congress may consider cornwall a celtic nation but they have a clear political agenda.

Can we please have some reliable 3rd party sources that state Cornwall today is a celtic nation? If not it should be removed or reworded.

Also further down in the article it says "Cornwall is usually described as being one of six Celtic nations alongside Brittany, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales." This should state by who, because its more often described as an English county not a celtic nation. I am very concerned about biased claims on some of these Cornwall articles, if better sources can not be found or things are not reworded, misleading claims should be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is taking place on Celtic Nations. Are you on some form of crusade here BW? --Snowded (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Not a crusade although i confess i am stunned at some of the articles covering Cornwall. The fact that its not clear if Cornwall is a celtic nation or not sounds like it should be removed from the introduction all together or at best replace "many residents and scholars" with the celtic league and Congress. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You need to read up on some history, the post Roman period and the persistence of language and culture into the modern age. It is certainly more than the celtic league. --Snowded (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
But is it "many residents", again it comes down to the definition of many and i find it a grossly misleading claim. I dont have a problem with a mention in the intro of certain celtic roots, what i object to is saying that Cornwall is a celtic nation, which is not accepted by "many" people. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible references for "many residents would describe Cornwall as a Celtic nation." ?

TeapotgeorgeTalk 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

LMAO, and you consider all these reliable sources? How about some sources which are neutral?
The first one, says "Today, both the French and the British Governments still deny people from some of the Celtic countries to legally describe themselves in terms of their Celtic national identities in all areas of life.".. Hmm sounds like a reason for removing the offensive claim that Cornwall is a celtic nation.
The second starts... "“It's not that Cornwall became part of England, it's just that the English forgot Cornwall was not part of their country”" Lmao, thats about as fair and balanced as Fox News channel.
The third... nice website lol there are millions on the world wide web we shouldnt take them all seriously
The 4th, we know the celtic league views it as a celtic nation, perhaps we should say it does rather than mislead people by making them think its a commonly held view. Celtic League and Celtic Congress clearly have their own political interests, again wheres a neutral source?
The 5th, lmao you saved the best till last. A separatist political party with clear reasons to push such claims on the people of Cornwall.
Im sorry but the sources you have provided to justify this are a joke, again please find reliable NEUTRAL sources. I accept certain organisations view Cornwall as a celtic nation, what i dont accept is their view is worthy of a mention in the introduction of this article and the fact it doesnt say this is a point of view held by SOME organisations. Totally unacceptable, and had you made this post earlier i would of restored the dispute tag because you clearly fail to see the problem.
Wikipedia can not just declare that Cornwall a county of England is a Celtic Nation. Its grossly misleading not to point out this isnt a mainstream view. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm ok i have added up the total votes the separatist party got in the last election. They got 3552 votes in the 2005 general election where as the population of Cornwall is over 500,000. Slight difference huh? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Not everyone gets a vote, and not everyone with a vote actually casts one. So that "statistic" you just raised is meaningless. Your tone seems to be getting a bit disrespectful - any chance you could stop deriding the subject and those you are arguing with? I don't know if anyone else here gave a wry smile at your claim that you're not crusading, it seems pretty clear to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok then its about 1% or less of the electorate that voted for the separatist party. Is that better? As for my tone being direspectful, i think you will find other editors have been much more offensive towards me and even Teapotgeorge was when he removed my dispute tag and put in the edit summary about me being a "disruptive editor" before hed even made a single comment on the talk page responding to my concerns.
I take this matter very seriously and i have stayed to the point. The biggest problem i have with this article is the misleading claim in the introduction that Cornwall today is a Celtic Nation. In the last few days it has got worse, instead of it saying many residents consider it a celtic nation, now its just "Considered one of the six celtic nations". This is a county of England we are talking about, a few organisations and pressure groups which all have their own political interests can not dictate that Cornwall is a "celtic nation". Asking for reliable 3rd party sources doesnt seem an unreasonable request? Cornwall was a celtic nation and it has celtic roots but that is very different to saying it is considered one of the six celtic nations.
I am sorry but i seriously do think some people are ignoring how grossly misleading this statement is. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
BW, I think this may need to be revisited if and when you attract any significant support here for your opinions. At the moment they seem to be your views alone. The clear evidence is that Cornwall can verifiably be termed a "Celtic nation", as well as being in administrative terms an English county. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem with explaining WHO describes cornwall as a celtic nation? rather than just making the claim that it is considered a celtic nation, which sounds like a commonly held view (Which simply is not the case). Until more people have commented or an explanation of WHO describes Cornwall as a Celtic nation is added, the warnings need to remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that it "simply isn't a commonly held view", or are you just making claims based on your own opinion? --Joowwww (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The evidence that its not a commonly held view is the lack of neutral or mainstream sources describing it as one. All of the links provided so far are Celtic organisations, or celtic websites, or political parties which have clear interests in pushing a celtic identity. Now i dont dispute they consider it one, what i do dispute is that its a mainstream view and that its unacceptable to say its a celtic nation without explaining who describes it as one, and the fact it doesnt belong in the introduction at all.. like the 4 other "Celtic nations". BritishWatcher (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Its not even clear how many Celtic nations there are, ive just looked at two websites which says theres "seven celtic nations". So if its the case that some think theres more celtic nations, surely the main groups which declare theres only six like the Celtic league and Celtic Congress should actually be mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


As a Cornishman myself, I have never read such a load of condescending and positively insulting rubbish as I have here. The status of Cornwall as a Celtic nation has never been in doubt. Where shall I begin? Genetics, history, language, culture, the fact that Cornwall is in the Celtic League? The fact that all over the world people of Cornish and non-Cornish origin will tell you that Cornwall is a Celtic nation. I do not have any political affiliations and as a Cornishman may I claim to be Celtic? As for the other comments, it is not clear how many Celtic nations there are? Says who? It's quite clear to us Celts, the doubts are with Gallicia. Although "genetically" and "historically" Celtic, Gallicia was refused admission to the Celtic League because it was felt that it had become more Spanish/Romance and lost too much of its Celtic character, much as with the debate for Cumbria. The comments BritishWatcher make are nigh on as idiotic as refusing to acknowledge the Latin/Romance world merely because there is no single, agreed official definition. 14.05.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.228.114 (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A google of "Celtic nation" will find you some websites that say theres 6 celtic nations and some that say theres 7. If theres an official list of "celtic nations" (probably agreed by the Celtic League or congress) then surely we should atleast mention its these organisations that define it as one of the 6 celtic nations. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL!!! Yes and on both of those Google Searches you will see Cornwall listed. To debate whether Cornwall and/or the Cornish are officially a Celtic nations is the biggest piece of intellectual masturbation I have come across, if you pardon the pun, in a long time. It is interesting how the de facto argument as opposed to the de jure argument is used when denying Cornwall her status and identity and yet twisted around the other way by those who would wish to argue agains the "pro-Cornish lobby". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brythonek (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Please note that I have definite evidence that the poster BritishWatcher is a member of the BNP and therefore his comments should be viewed with extreme suspicion —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedPawl (talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

lmao, well i would love to see that evidence because it is news to me. I strongly oppose the British National Party, i have once stated that on my userpage and made several comments on the BNP talk page clearly showing my feelings towards them. Im a unionist, im not a far right nationalist. The election of the British national party would destroy this country faster than liberal government can. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


How tropical?

I have seen some pictures of palm trees there. How about citrus? Olives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Olives and citrus trees would not be growing in the climate of Cornwall: it is only a few parts strongly influenced by the Gulf Stream where some sub-tropical plants will grow. Some palm trees can now grow in parts of northern England because of climatic change but they would die in a hard winter.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The NORTH? You lie. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at the picture in the Moss Side article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Trachycarpus fortunei can grow quite happily as far north as Scotland but there are several species of palms that favour the Cornish climate, especially around Penzance and Falmouth. --Talskiddy (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Complete rewrite of Cornish people

User:Jza84 has proposed a complete rewrite of the Cornish people article. If you agree, disagree, want to help write a new article, or want to improve the existing one, please join the discussion at Talk:Cornish people#Rewritten completely?. --Joowwww (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Country

Shouldn't Cornwall be classed as a country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.221.244 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. --Joowwww (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Flag

What is the actual need for the St Pirans Flag to be shown at the top of the page? To the best of my knowledge St Piran is in fact the patron saint of tin-miners, not of Cornwall - regardless of modern usage. Surely the image would be best placed within the article?

92.12.48.82 (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue about the flag, but quite a few English counties do display their flag at the top of the info box like that so i dont have a problem with Cornwalls being there. More details can be found at Saint Piran's Flag, ive seen the flag in mainstream media so its fairly accepted as the flag of cornwall, dont know if its official or not, like adopted and supported by the council. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Did neither of you think to look at the article attached to this talk page, before giving your 'thoughts' on the matter? Daicaregos (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I provided a link to the flag article, i didnt read it. Reading the section on the article itself, it doesnt actually answer the question really.
"Saint Piran's Flag is regarded as the national flag of Cornwall, and an emblem of the Cornish people; and by others as the county flag."
So people view it in different ways, does it have any official status, like does the Cornwall Council use it? A quick google search found this article [1] saying some had been campaigning for it to get status so its exempt from planning laws, but i dont know if they were successful. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
From the UK Government DCMS website here: "Q. Do I need planning permission? .... For saints' flags, the conditions are that they can only be flown in the county with which the saint is associated. This means that the St Piran's flag may be flown freely in Cornwall, but express consent would be required for it to be flown elsewhere in England." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Good link, any idea if the Cornwall Council fly it? I couldnt find anything about that. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I expect it's so obvious that they don't bother even to minute it - but I have found this, which states "The flag of St Piran was described as the Standard of Cornwall in 1838 (Gilbert, 1838) and was re-introduced by the Revivalists. It has been seized upon by the population as a symbol of identity, displayed on cars and flying from buildings including those of Cornwall County Council." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The best official recognition I could find is a UK government document entitled The Union Flag and Flags of the United Kingdom. (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04474.pdf)
Under Schedule 1 Class H of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, national flags, the flags of the Commonwealth, European Union, the United Nations, English counties and certain saints can be flown without the express consent of local authorities as long as they satisfy the standard conditions for the display of advertisements generally and the conditions and limitations set out within Class H itself. For saints' flags, the conditions are that they can only be flown in the county with which the saint is associated. This means that the St. Piran's flag may be flown freely in Cornwall, but express consent would be required for it to be flown elsewhere in England. If any of these flags are to be flown no further planning permission is needed for the flagpole, however it may be required if other flags are to be flown. --Talskiddy (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

IPA

Given that the wall in Cornwall is unstressed, shouldn't the IPA be /ˈkɔrnwʊl/ ? Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Third paragraph in lead, language etc

I know there's been a big debate about some of this stuff and I assume it was more or less settled by consensus at the time, but it still reads a little oddly, and gives too much weight as far as I can tell to a fairly fringe view, focused on Cornish nationalism. In particular the statement about language - while broadly true - is surely nonetheless misleading. To say that Cornwall "continues to retain its distinct identity, with its own history, language and culture" suggests anyone visiting the county would need to take a Cornish phrasebook with them if they were going to get around at all or do any shopping. Whereas the reality is of course that Cornish is barely spoken by anyone, let alone as a first language. The entry for Wales for example - where the local language is much more widely spoken - seems to deal with the issue with a little more clarity. --Nickhh (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be re-worded to something along the lines of “Some areas continue to retain a distinct nationality” and I think there needs to be emphasis on the fact that many people in Cornwall identify as English and English culture is very present within this English county. But no doubt Joowwww will have a fit about this. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that paragraph needs to be cleaned up. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to give any further ref to England in that para, as the opening words clearly state that it is a "county of England". In relation to the third para, I suggest that the first and third sentences be left as they are - they are clearly referenced - but the second sentence be shortened and clarified, as follows:-
"Cornwall is the homeland of the Cornish people and diaspora, and is recognised as one of the "Celtic nations" by many residents and organisations. It retains a distinct cultural identity, reflecting its history, and the use of the Cornish language is increasing. Some inhabitants question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, and a self-government movement seeks greater autonomy within the UK."
The ref to the use of the language increasing doesn't refer to the spoken language, so much as its use on signs, websites, etc, which is now quite widespread in Cornwall. Comments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree something should be done about the 2nd paragraph. On the 3rd paragraph, i agree the proposed wording above is better than whats currently there, although i still think it should touch on the issue that most people consider themselves English as we are saying they are Cornish people.. it would help avoid confusion.
One addition to that wording would be to mention where the language is starting from, i dont have a problem with saying its increasing but it needs context. Something like "Although only (name an amount or generalise) speak Cornish, the use of the language is increasing." BritishWatcher (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Its too fringe to mention any separtist agenda in the intro at all IMO (considering the electoral failings of MK). The featured article Greater Manchester is a good outline of how counties should be set out. Certainly it shouldn't mention "diasporas" or anything obscure like that (no other geographical location on Wikipedia does in the intro). In terms of language it should be mentioned in a more historical sense, ie - that in the Middle Ages, Cornish was the language spoken there (it doesn't mention the English language in the intro which 100% of the people speak as native, yet mentions a language which 0.01% have learned as a hobby?-WP:FRINGE centrism). - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the "diaspora" ref is removed from the intro, and I also don't mind if the language ref is amended to something like: "...modern use of the formerly extinct Cornish language is increasing" - as I said (and as the article should make clear), what we are talking about there is the widespread use of the language on town signs, websites, etc., not as a widely spoken language. But refs to constitutional issues are important here and should remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Any evidence that fringe regional separtists, who gain 4% of the vote in the county are worthy of focus in the intro which is a summary of Cornwall in general? I don't think so, not any more than policies of the Monster Raving Loony Party in areas where they stand and get a tiny vote. So far as I can see there is no evidence of this in any other encylopedia as a precident, to show WP:UNDUE weight isn't been given. Wikipedia isn't a lobby group. Re, language - what is written on recreational websites is hardly relevent when we're dealing with a geographic entity and presenting info to the reader about it. IMO the Cornish language should be mentioned yes, but in a paragraph summary of the history in the Middle Ages. When 100% of the people speak English today and have done since the Early Modern period, its spurious to mention it in a contemporary context at present. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not against a brief mention of separatist/independence ambitions in the intro, or mention of the Celtic nation issue. It is a view held by a vocal minority, and regionalism in Europe as a whole is genuinely a bigger deal these days than it used to be (let's not have a debate though about whether that's simply a ploy to make it easier for the EU to gobble up our nation up in bite-sized chunks). Of all English counties or regions, Cornwall is probably the one where this kind of feeling is strongest, albeit still not all that strong. However the language thing, as agreed, is misleading in the way it's currently written - I would prefer something along the suggested lines of reference to its historic prevalence and/or its current minority status, and again would be happy with that in the lead, as amended. And as for the "diaspora and homeland", that quite frankly reads like the opening shot of a mission statement for the Cornish nationalist movement and has no place anywhere in a serious encyclopedia. Even the page on Ireland doesn't say "Ireland is the homeland of the Irish people and diaspora". It would be simultaneously redundant and propagandistic there - here it's even more ridiculous. People who come from a place are either still there or have gone somewhere else; and making such a big deal about it seems like little more than petty nationalism (or county-ism). --Nickhh (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So... proposed revised wording

File:Kernow a'gas dynnergh 20050527.jpg
Just to remind some people here that Cornwall has a unique position in England, in having a second native language in current use.

How about:

Cornwall is recognised as one of the "Celtic nations" by many Cornish people, residents and organisations. It retains a distinct cultural identity, reflecting its history, and modern use of the formerly extinct Cornish language is increasing. Some people question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, and a self-government movement seeks greater autonomy within the UK.

I'm very conscious that this thread has not involved any Cornish editors so far. Comments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be ok with that although i still think it overplays the fact a tiny minority of people question the constitutional status / autonomy issue. On the language, that is certainly better although i still think it should point out in more detail just how few people speak the language. Im also still not very happy about the celtic nations bit, whilst i accept its well sourced that organsiations and some residents consider cornwall a celtic nation, do we honestly think most people in cornwall think of themselves as a "Celtic nation"? i dont believe they do, but its hard to prove such a thing, except for the fact they think of themselves as part of England and English. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh and good image, id say add that to the language section unless the article has too many. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If we look at Texas for example, an entity which has widespead media coverage on scessionism in recent times, there isn't a single mention of it in the intro. Yet here on an article where we're dealing with a tiny fragment of the population its given front seat, full and exclusive coverage in the article of the obscurantist position. This proposed text is still unacceptably dominated by non-mainstream agenda to the point where it fails WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It reads like what should be the intro for the "Cornish nationalism" article instead, rather than an intro on Cornwall itself. A short paragraph in the body of the article is OK, but not the intro. I think to form a new intro we need to see other encyclopedia's coverage as a preccident and then go from there. The only reason its currently like it is, is because a small but proactive group of obscurantist regionalist activists have had free reign since roughly 2007 to try and subvert the database without review. Fortunetly its been spotted now and the tide is starting to change. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, although i think theres still a huge problem across wikipedia on this issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. By the way, you missed: "..many claim an independent "Texan" identity superseding regional labels." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been done over and over again. What we have now was the agreed compromise. --Kernoweger (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Which simply means of course it's what was agreed by the probably 3-5 people who were aware of the content, and involved in the page, at that particular time. In principle of course that would mean if three idiots - I speak generally, and for the sake of example - agree on a form of wording on a page on August 12th, it's set in stone for ever onwards in that form. However, that's not the way this place does or should work - it's perfectly open for other editors to come along and see some problems with it. The language point that I have highlighted is perhaps the most glaring one.
Anyway, as for the proposed amended wording, I'm relatively OK with it, since I don't see how a proper treatment of Cornwall can avoid flagging up the issue, albeit briefly, in the lead.
  • As I said, the "homeland" and "diaspora" stuff is a no-no really (I think any neutrally minded editor would agree), and that's not there in the proposed amended version; however ...
  • I'd prefer to downgrade the Celtic nation wording, to say that it is "considered" or somesuch (rather than "recognised", which implies some form of official, universal judgment), and by "some" people, organisations etc (not "many");
  • the point about language is better now, in terms of no longer implying everyone uses it as if it were the language spoken in the county as first choice, but as noted still doesn't make clear quite how limited its use is - a few hundred in the most up to date figures I've seen. Perhaps the specifics of that can be saved for the main body though;
  • the politics bit also overplays the support for autonomy/independence, given - to make an admittedly simplistic point - Mebyon Kernow seem to have only polled anywhere between 4 and 7% of the local votes in recent elections. Granted most English counties or regions don't have an equivalent movement in the first place, hence why I accept it's worth mentioning, but it's still on the fringes of mainstream politics
Anyway, that's what I think, FWIW, as the editor who came across this page and was a little surprised by the language being employed in the lead. --Nickhh (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
MK aren't the only ones in Cornwall with a devolutionist agenda. In fact the Lib Dems have done more to campaign for an Assembly over the past decade than MK has, a lot of independents are nationalist too. MK got 15% of the votes in the seats they ran in. Also don't forget that MK beat Labour in the local and Euro elections - they are Cornwall's third party. --Joowwww (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
it still grossly overplays the issues. Labours incompetence and failures have no impact on this. Recent elections which saw the conservatives come out on clear top weakens the case rather than strenghtening it. Do any of the Conservative councilors agree on this matter? If they do i would love their names. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree with the points you make Nickhh BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On the basis that a clear majority in this discussion have not dissented from the view that my proposal at the top of this section is an improvement on the previously existing wording (with one dissenter, so far as I can tell), I have gone ahead and changed it. There are clear views on both sides here - some saying that the "Cornish nationalism" viewpoint is overplayed, and others that it is underplayed. I've tried to take a balanced view, but those on one side or the other will clearly disagree. All I hope is that future discussions will be on the basis of improving the wording I've now put in, rather than the previous wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The new wording is better than what it replaces so im fine with the change, despite still having concerns about some of the points it mentions. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sick of this.

Undone todays changes to the intro

I have undone todays changes for several reasons and i will undo them again if its re added. First of all promoting small organisations in the introduction is totally unacceptable as far as im concerned, especially when their titles are designed to be very misleading. Also the bit about 10% was highly misleading. 10% may have signed a petition calling for an assembly quite a few years ago, however that 10% were not questioning Cornwalls constitutional status. The stable wording should remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

-I understand the 10% section, but the names of the organisations have little relavance. There is no guideline against groups with "misleading" names, any word, title etc can be infered to mean anything, that is why additional information is given. Edit it if you must, but don't continue to re-add weasel words. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous wording was stable and had consensus, you will find "some" or "many" used on many wikipedia articles, its not like its completly banned. It makes sense to use such a term in the intro and then expand on it in the article itself which is done. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, I think it is appropriate, in this case, to refer to "many" organizations (especially with multiple references) in the intro and then enumerate further later in the article. I think it's appropriate use of that word choice in the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say the so called "Duchy of Cornwall Human Rights Association" while a fancy name, is just John Wilton, a washing machine repair man. The "association" (in reality just his website) is "headquartered" at his washing machine shop. Obviously one obscure mans WP:FRINGE hobby doesn't belong in the intro on an encyclopedia article about a georgraphical area. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsuspecting readers should beware his website, which gives a misleadingly official-looking first impression! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, than the source is unreliable, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnOicheGhealai (talk • contribs) 11:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldnt agree more! BritishWatcher (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"washing machine repair man"-Lol. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the CCC and Angarrack sites are inappropriate for the lead, so I've moved them from there. The footnote itself for the Angarrack site was also designed to confuse, so I've corrected that, and moved the refs instead to the Constitution section where they are listed among those pressure groups seeking constitutional change (or administrative recognition, if you prefer). That, in my view, represents a neutral position. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think his website is a reliable reference to be used in this article, or in fact any on Wikipedia, at all (or even mention). We're delving into such obscure hobbyism there and he is neither an academic or a qualified person at all. I mean, fair enough, if I wanted my washing machine fixing, by all means call Wilton in. But his own personal opinion on geopolitics? For a global encyclopedia? We need a more WP:RS IMO. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't personally have a strong view on whether it should be mentioned in this article (though others might, and I think that hasty unilateral action should be avoided), but I certainly think it is notable enough to be mentioned in the various articles on Cornwall's constitutional status - not as a reliable source, but as a significant contribution to the constitutional debate, which (like it or not) exists and should be fully covered on WP. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any view on what should be mentioned on this article. I'm just here to ask, what's wrong with being a "washing machine repair man"? I reckon their far more useful than any politician. Jack forbes (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, people in hard water areas would have a hard time that's for sure. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I have manually archived all threads which shewed no activity after the end of June 2009. I have also set up MiszaBot to automatically archive threads after they have shewn no activity for 31 days. I hope that this will help stop this page becoming unmanageably long again. DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Truro and Penwith college

in the education section you have truro, and penwith as seperate colleges they have ow merged ad are known as Truro and penwith college. here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.35 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Both the English and Cornish languages are used in Cornwall."

Although the statement above is true, I don't think it's very helpful to the reader from, say, China or even Oklahoma, who might think that they are spoken equally, or by different groups of people. We should say that English is spoken by everyone (well, possibly 99.9%), and Cornish, as a learnt and additional language, by a very small (but growing, I wouldn't wish to denigrate it) minority of those. Do we have refs to support that? - they may not exist simply because, to a UK resident, it's obvious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Misleading pro-nationalist text.

"Cornwall is recognised as one of the "Celtic nations" by many Cornish people, residents and organisations.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] It retains a distinct cultural identity, reflecting its history, and modern use of the formerly extinct Cornish language is increasing.[11] Some people question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, and a self-government movement seeks greater autonomy within the UK.[12] Contents [hide]"

  • Point one, "Many"-Weasel word? Many would imply allot, which is clearly not the case. As far as I know, Cornish nationalism is fairly weak.
  • Distinct cultural identity? Ok fair enough, I expect that, but just like other places in England Cornwall does in fact have greatly mixed cultural identity. It has some Celtic influence in many areas, but this is generally mixed in with allot of English and even some would say "British" identity...
  • The entire section reads like an attempt to undermine the fact that not only neo-cultural Celtic exists in Cornwall.
  • This article reads like Englishness does not exist in Cornwall! What a racist lie! --Palmoneus (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting questions. Can Englishness be defined? and does it (Englishness) exist in say Wales or Ireland?--Talskiddy (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Watch out, under the bridge! Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The section reproduced above is rather well-sourced, by the looks of it. "Many" can't really be a weasel word with seven citations next to the relevant sentence. And what is "Englishness"? Without having any idea of what it is, we don't even know if it exists in England. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
How can anything be defined? Are the Cornish "Cornish"? Could they be aliens, or could they be cheese makers? Ah, the mysteries of life. Could My computer explode? Who knows!!! Culture is relevant to only those who follow it. Eh?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Flag

Closed: Thread starter is a sock puppet blocked for disruptive POV pushing edits.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Under the section about the Flag of St Piran, it refers to the Flag as the national flag of cornwall. But cornwall isnt a nation, it is a county in England, with only a small minority of people believing it is a nation. Perhaps a different way of putting it (e.g. it is the county flag of cornwall)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The cows want their milk back (talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Make the change, then watch the owners of this article revert it in an instant. PS: you can sign your posts simply by typing four tildes at the end of your text. The Roman Candle (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
What it actually says is "Saint Piran's Flag is regarded as the national flag of Cornwall, and an emblem of the Cornish people; and by others as the county flag" which I think covers both points of view without neddlessly offending anyone. DuncanHill (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Weasel, weasel! Regarded by who? And who are these others? The Roman Candle (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
There are seven citations next to the sentence in the lead paragraph where it says that many organisations consider Cornwall to be a Celtic nation, hence national flag is appropriate in that context. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The weasel statements I've pointed out are unreferenced. Also, national flag is quite obviously not appropriate because whatever any organisation might think about the matter, Cornwall is not a nation. The sentnece needs rewording. I'll have a crack at later if someone doesn't beat me to it - Cows, why don't you have a go? The Roman Candle (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I rather think it's the other way round. Whatever you arbitrarily declare, several organisations believe it to be a nation. And that is a reliably sourced fact, unlike your blanket statement that Cornwall is not a nation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. They believe it to be a nation. There's no argument on that one. That doesn't actually make Cornwall a nation, nor its flag a national flag. At best it is claimed to be a national flag. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
And others, like you, believe it not to be. There is no difference. There is a reference now anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe anything in this respect. The last I heard, Cornwall was a county.. The Roman Candle (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added a ref for "regarded by many as the national flag", would ask that no-one makes hasty changes before time is given for more refs to be obtained. This is a sensitive area, and we have managed to avoid excessive drama on the subject for some time now, would be nice if that could continue. DuncanHill (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Better, but you need to somehow eliminate those weasel words - even if the reference uses such words, which may indicate that it's a poor quality reference. However, to say "it's regarded.." is now closer to the truth. The Roman Candle (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you'll find you get better results if you don't jump in with demands that a stable text be rewritten to suit your preferences. Perhaps you could find some references and propose a wording that you would find acceptable. By the way, it already said "it is regarded", I changed this by adding "by many" in accordance with the citation. I don't think the choice of words indicates a poor quality source. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know it already said that, which is why I said "regarded..", with the dots denoting the extra wording you've added, but which, as I also said, could do with better modifying to remove the weasel words. I'm not demanding anything. I'm just suggesting what you need to do - take it or leave it. BTW, there's no point in me making any changes, since due to article ownership, and claims of "stability" - as if nothing should ever change again - they would immediately be reverted. The Roman Candle (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Try to assume good faith if at all possible, rather than writing other editors off as rulebreakers and article controllers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with some editors here is that they seem to think that the word "nation" necessarily means "sovereign state". It doesn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
(To The ROman Candle, after edit-conflict) Then I'm sorry I misunderstood your usage. As to changes being pointless, they aren't, and I am sure that most watchers and readers of the article would be very happy to see clearer language and better referencing. Some unilateral changes are very likely to be reverted on sight, for example the removal of "United Kingdom" from the start of the article. There have been some quite unpleasant edit-wars between those who would have no mention of England and those who would have no mention of anything which even hints at Cornwall being in some ways unlike a county like e.g. Beds or Herts. A compromise "location wording" was adopted by the Cornwall Wikiproject to help avoid such unproductive behaviour, and has been reasonably successful. As a general rule, major changes are best proposed here, where they can be discussed first. DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

All sock puppets should review past discussions. I don't see why we should bother repeating ourselves over and over every few months. --Joowwww (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Don’t accuse people of being sock puppets when you have no evidence…--85.210.212.24 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cornwall/Archive_9&oldid=1136638729"