Talk:Cornwall

See also

• Category:Wikipedians in Cornwall

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)

Egbert

According to Orme, Nicholas (2007) Cornwall and the Cross: Christianity, 500–1560. Chichester: Phillimore in association with the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London ISBN 1-86077-468-7; p. 8:- "...a period of obscurity ... ends only after Egbert's conquest in the early 800s. Later records claim that he used his power to grant estates in Cornwall to the bishop of Sherborne, especially Pawton in St Breock and Lawhitton near Launceston. Egbert may have intended that the bishopwould visit Cornwall or send deputies there to supervise or develop the local church."Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A lot can happen in eleven years.

Ref no. 9 is currently eleven years gone by, maybe it should be replaced with something a bit more fresh, as it is dealing with an ongoing/debate issue in Kernow? :) --Τασουλα (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Apart from David Cameron's statement two years ago, I don't think very much has changed.--Cymru123 (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole paragraph "Some people question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, and a nationalist movement seeks greater autonomywithin the United Kingdom in the form of a devolved legislative assembly, and greater recognition of the Cornish people as a national minority" should be deleted from the introduction. it is totally undue weight to a fringe view that is of no significance and certainly does not justify mention in the lead, far more of the article content is more worthy or notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You almost make it sound like you've never brought this up before. It's been discussed, more than once. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

...BW, I have no idea where that even came from but it really had nothing to do with the issue I originally bought up, which has been answered (Thank you Mr. Wales, not Jimbo though). A far as I can see this article is well balanced and free from most POV. The self-governing movement is not fringe. If you are basing your opinions on Cornish nationalism/nationalists on a few individuals who have disrupted the article (Along with spouting racist rhetoric and blatant lies) then I suppose I should go around and judge all British Nationalist on the BNP, aye? >:) --Τασουλα (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The petition is part of the historical record in support of the ongoing calls for an assembly and the source is used to support a specific mention in the body of that petition. There may be a need for more updating, but not to replace it outright. As for the general references in the lead to autonomy calls, I'm fine with that. It's a registered issue and one that does not affect any other English county in the same way. Yes MK get few votes but the mainstream parties in Cornwall - whether through bandwagon hopping or sincerely - often talk about Cornish issues in an MK-lite way. It was - correctly - watered down a while back after some discussion (several threads in the archives here) but now seems about right to me.

The only issue I do have there is the "some people question the present constitutional status of Cornwall" - if that means some people want changes, that's a common view and worth noting in some way (although "constitutional status" may be a bit strong and it's also repetitive given that we say immediately afterwards that there are calls for greater autonomy); if it's meant to refer to the idea that Cornwall is not really, even now, part of England but an independent duchy of the UK within the borders purportedly defined forever by Aethelstan in the 10th century, with Prince Charles as absentee head of state or whatever, as confirmed by the flying of St Piran's flag on the royal barge etc etc, then we are in fringe territory. I'm also not sure about the nationalist boosterism about "homeland of the Cornish people" etc, and how informative that actually is, and have concerns about how the Celtic nation description is presented as something semi-official and universal, but equally I'm not sure it's worth arguing over. N-HH talk/edits 07:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What I find a little disturbing is how the article presents Cornish being the only ethnicity/culture in the county...it clearly isn't. People identifying as English or British probably outweighs anyone who declares themselves Cornish (excluding someone who sees their Cornishness in a similar fashion to someone who considers themselves a Scouser or a Cockney) I agree that the statements could do with a bit of clarification. The barge thing hasn't crept into this article (despite the actions of a few ignorant individuals which was swiftly stopped) thankfully so no fringe on this. If the claims in the lead come from parties such as MK then it is massive undue weight as they are a tiny political party indeed. Time to update. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I am also uninterested in arguing over this anyway. I think we just need some clarification. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I'd go so far as to say that virtually everyone who describes themselves as Cornish would also describe themselves as British. Many would also describe themselves as English - though many would also describe themselves, vigorously, as not "Anglo-Saxon". Of course, many people in England would not describe themselves as "Anglo-Saxon" either. The whole question of identity among people in Britain (and Ireland) is so variable, flexible and nuanced, for many residents, that over-simplification can easily lead to misinterpretations and confusion. So far as this article is concerned, I agree with NH-H and Tasoula. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it true that black people would be banned from an independent Cornwall?--feline1 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons? They don't exist any-more. If you're going to talk about the past we may as well be all called Africans as that is where we originated. Or perhaps we can stop this silly Ethno-nationalism based on events that happened 100s of years ago. As a Jew I find that has been a bit of a problem in my people's history...LOL, as for the "Black People" comment, I did see some Cornish nationalist state he was "glad that N*ggers, Kikes, Chinks" ect weren't so common in Cornwall. Oh no how unwelcome I feel, I'm a "Kike" with a "Chink" for a partner :(. Luckily, as I previously said, the extreme nationalist fringe theories don't exist on this article. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I usually find it's more common that people from other parts of the UK, especially the South East, like to think that Cornwall is some kind of "whiter" place, like a last bastion of white Englishness. I'm also sure that some people come to live in Cornwall for that reason. I usually attempt to put them straight. Neither that nor any other fringe theory belongs in the article, but I don't feel that the movement for self-government is fringe. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully it is a myth that the English are in anyway inherently anti-Cornish or that Cornwall is purely Cornish/English/White/Anglo-Saxon/Jewish/Elfish/Pixie. And no, not everyone who lives in Cornwall but identifies as English moved there... another myth. It's also a myth that Cornwall is a bastion of ethnic diversity - which isn't touched upon very much in the article. I have relations living in Cornwall that identify as British, Cornish AND English (not Jewish, wrong side of the family). My Cousin just completed his PhD in America, will it be Cornish VS English as to who can claim him!? Er, no. Family is generations old in Cornwall but the guy simply ain't Cornish per what he describes himself as. He also has NO intention of ever coming back to the UK! Why am I going so off-topic? To make a point. I don't think this articles demographics section is very extensive and pretty one-dimensional - I agree with keeping the Cornish stuff in but we need a bit more representation from other Ethnic groups and identities. Are we going to get one? No. Probably not ^__^. I think the Cornish stuff is really worth while because there is no place in England/UK that is quite like Cornwall. The article does not mislead about the whole Duchy issue as well. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway...if a more up-to-date source could be found it would be nice. I'll be keeping an eye out. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again I have found the childish and blatantly political reversal of edits intended to add value to this article. Stop it please, it is vandalism. You know who you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artowalos (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead - esp "celtic nation"

I would just revert this, but don't want to do that before at least posting a note here, as I don't want to start a massive war over it, having already reverted the bigger, previous changes of which this was one part. The description Celtic nation is already in the lead, in the fourth paragraph. It's repetition to have it again. And that's quite aside from whether the description should be attributed and how much weight we want to give the term, which is after all simply a self-designation by an activist cultural organisation. Outside of nationalist circles, it's not a term that is commonly in use or applied. None of the other related pages have it as one of the primary descriptions in the first sentence - Scotland and Ireland don't even mention the point at all in the lead currently. N-HH talk/edits 12:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the mention in the fourth paragraph - which at least begins to place the term in a cultural context - is sufficient, and the mention in the opening sentence should be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't spot that at the end. Should not edit when 15 hours jet lagged. Happy with the revert ----Snowded ^TALK 14:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I do, however, feel that the paragraph order is odd. Para 1 seems to be in the right place - it's a general description of the territory and its constitutional status, but then it is followed by pre-history (Para 2), then tin mining (Para 3) and lastly the people and origins of the territorial division (Para 4). Not only does this not flow and is awkward but a description of the territory's people and ethnography are considerably more important and should therefore be more prominent. How does everyone feel about re-ordering these crucial paras to 1,4,2,3?