Talk:Chysauster Ancient Village: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:50, 23 June 2021

Archaeology Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cornwall Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

Comments

How does filling in a fogou under archaeological supervision to preserve it and stop it from caving in on the public constitute negligent damage? The article implies that the entire village was destroyed by evil government agencies. It is still open to the public. The fogou was covered because it was dangerous- sure, this is not a strong argument and yes it could have been rebuilt using different materials but then it would have been a different site. adamsan

Controversy over the site

Why was this text removed ? - please discuss before removing further text.

In 1999 there was some controversy regarding this site and others under the care of the English Heritage organisation. The Cornish Stannary Parliament wrote to English Heritage asking them to remove all signs bearing their name from Cornish sites by July 1999 as they regard the ancient sites as Cornish heritage, not English. Over eleven months eighteen signs were removed by members of the Cornish Stannary and a letter was sent to English Heritage saying "The signs have been confiscated and held as evidence of English cultural aggression in Cornwall. Such racially motivated signs are deeply offensive and cause distress to many Cornish people". (see external BBC link). *Cornish Stannary Parliament tackles cultural aggression in Cornwall *BBC news - Historic signs case trio bound over

The bias of this paragraph is currently being discussed at Talk:Tintagel Castle Putney Bridge 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am currently researching weaknesses in the statutory system for ancient monuments in Cornwall, and I expected to see something on the controversy at the Chysauster page, and the well known issue of damage to the fogou. Looking closer I can see that this has been removed from the page. Will this be put back? It seems odd that Wikipedia has omitted this. Information on this topic is available elsewhere in paper published form, and online in newspaper articles. Thank you. Artowalos (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Artowalos[reply]

Roman site

Although the site was in existence throughout the Roman period, it was inhabited by the Celtic tribe, not the Romans. Should it have the "Romans in Cornwall" category? MortimerCat 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I've removed it now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 The bias of this paragraph is currently being discussed at [[Talk:Tintagel Castle]] [[User:Putney Bridge|Putney Bridge]] 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
+Hello, I am currently researching weaknesses in the statutory system for ancient monuments in Cornwall, and I expected to see something on the controversy at the Chysauster page, and the well known issue of damage to the fogou. Looking closer I can see that this has been removed from the page. Will this be put back? It seems odd that Wikipedia has omitted this. Information on this topic is available elsewhere in paper published form, and online in newspaper articles. Thank you. [[User:Artowalos|Artowalos]] ([[User talk:Artowalos|talk]]) 10:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Artowalos
 == Roman site ==