Talk:Cornwall

See also

• Category:Wikipedians in Cornwall

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 relevent 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)

economy

I think facts about poverty and deprivation and prosperity are probably best put here under Economy.

I have amended the references to Cornwall as "the poorest" to "one of the poorest."

Generalised judgements on the prosperity and deprivation of Cornwall are of limited value because the official statistics at council district and 'sub-ward' (super output area, SOA) level show that there is a large range within Cornwall, even within wards. I think to use only the per capita GVA data is too restrictive.

Other official data - the indices of multiple deprivation, free school meals, child poverty, education spending, health, etc - do NOT show Cornwall and the areas of Cornwall to be the poorest in England. They show that some areas of Cornwall are poor, some very poor, and some are among the top half of prosperity. An encyclopedia should acknowledge this variety. Crococolana 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added two further references about poverty in Cornwall. Crococolana 12:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this and the link to "LINK": Local Intelligence Network Cornwall. ===Vernon White (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the data for GVA and GDP. Crococolana 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yesterday I used a wiki-illicit url for the economic figures. I have now removed the url from the references. Crococolana 09:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"The area now known as Cornwall was first inhabited by Neolithic and then Bronze Age peoples, and later (in the Iron Age) by Celts. The Kingdom of Cornwall was an independent entity, often coming into conflict with the expanding kingdom of Wessex: in the reign of King Athelstan the boundary between English and Cornish people was set at the Tamar. It is unclear when Cornwall was absorbed into England, but it certainly was from the mid 11th century. The Cornish language continued to be spoken until the 18th century in the west of Cornwall alongside the predominant English. A revival of Cornish was begun in the early 20th century and has progressed further over recent decades. Today, Cornwall's economy struggles after the decline of the mining and fishing industries, and has become more dependent on tourism. The area is noted for its wild moorland landscapes, its extensive and varied coastline and its mild climate." This passage has altered over the last few days: perhaps it is too detailed but another concern is what is meant by 'Today...{the] economy struggles': is it the period since 2001 or earlier still? Decline in mining and fishing was not something that just happened once.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is referring to now, the present situation. Cornwall's economy is struggling, because of the recent declines of fishing and mining, and has become dependent on tourism. --Joowwww (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Cornwall is also the historic home of the Cornish people

Is this statement necessary? Talskiddy 18:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems tautologous to me, unless a Cornish Volk is implied. === Vernon White (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes its needed because the Cornish people are one of the distinct features of Cornwall. Cornwall and the Cornish are intimately connectedBretagne 44 16:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering how useful it was, I've just tidied the lead paragraph, and decided to leave this sentence, but moving it into a more sensible place in the paragraph where it also looks less obtrusive.

The sentence also serves as a way to introduce the Cornish people link.

Mdcollins1984 17:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what the intended meaning of "historic" is in "historic homeland" and "historic Celtic nations"? The word nowadays means important-in-history and this strikes me as otiose in this context. I suggest we delete the word.Crococolana 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Bona Vacantia and Duchy Status

Added the following fact with link plus small modification, it seems not all government bodies are so sure that Cornwall is just an English county:

Cornwall is often described as county of England but some government bodies such as the Treasury Solicitors agency for Bona Vicantia Divison consider The Duchy of Cornwall to comprise the County of Cornwall Bona Vacantia - See Jusrisdiction.

Bretagne 44 21:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a slight misrepresentation of their position. Under 11(i) they state

If the company's last registered office and the asset was in England or Wales (other than in the Duchies of Crnwall or Lancashire)

This makes it clear that they still consider it a county of England as well as part of the duchy. josh (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yawn:

v) If the company's last registered office and the asset was in the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancashire its assets fall to be dealt with by Messrs Farrer & Co, Solicitors, of 66 Lincolns Inn Fields, London WC2A 3LH. The Duchy of Cornwall comprises the County of Cornwall. The Duchy of Lancaster comprises the Counties of Lancashire, Merseyside and parts of Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Cumbria. Further details as to the precise boundaries of the Duchy can be obtained from the Duchy Office, 1 Lancaster Place, Strand, London WC2E 7ED (tel: 020 7836 8277).

Bretagne 44 20:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the page considers the duchy of Cornwall part of England. josh (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The exact words of the text are: "If the company's last registered office and asset was in England or Wales (other than in the duchies of Cornwall or Lancashire)..." The words "other than" here mean that the two duchies are in England. Since the text says that the duchy comprises the county, it follows from the text that the county is in England; Cornwall is a county of England. The addition Cornwall is often... should be removed. Crococolana 10:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Cornovii

The present claim that some of the Cornovii emigrated from Wales to Cornwall is too bold. The Cornovii were a tribe in the west midlands, apparently settled from Chester to Gloucester. There was also a tribe called Cornovii in Caithness. We do not know for certain who these people were but a coincidence of name from Caithness to the west Midlands to Cornwall is not evidence of genetic identicality. A more cautious entry is required. Crococolana 10:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose to remove the text about the Cornovii: see my arguments above. I also think this aspect is better dealt with in the specialist article on the history of Cornwall rather than in the general article and there the existing entry is suitably cautious. Incidentally, I am uneasy about saying the comment about Cornwall being called West Wales during the heptarchy. The trend in the Old English texts (Anglo-Saxon Chronicles and the charters) until quite late on is to refer to people not teritory, thus the English not England. The references are to the West Welsh rather than to West Wales though I suppose "West Welsh" gets glosssed as West Wales. Crococolana 12:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

demographics

I have removed the phrase "as opposed to British" in the account of the write-in numbers of Cornish as it is misleading. There were numerous alternatives to British on the form - Irish, Indian, Chinese, etc, along with whatever others may have written in under "other." I have added that the 7000 were written in not ticked. Crococolana 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

CORNWALL DURING ROMAN OCCUPATION

There is dissapointingly little information on this period. The Ordnance Survey map of Roman Britain shows very little military or civilian presence, but a large number of significant hoards found along the South coast. This indicates not that Cornwall suffered Roman occupation, but rather that it fought and plundered the invaders, and I would be interested to learn what other evidence exists of activities around this period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.10.253 (talk) There could be more at article History of Cornwall: the Timeline of Cornish history published by the County Council is a good source of information. West of Exeter the Romans probably did not occupy but a fort at Nanstallon and some other earthworks are probably Roman; Roman milestones (five I think) were sited in Cornwall but nothing like a Roman road has been found; trading was no doubt by sea and river routes particularly across by the Camel - Fowey valleys and onwards to Gaul----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Celts

This culture, which has influenced literature, farming, navigation and so much of European life, for 4,000 years, and covers places as diverse as Portugal and Asia Minor, would be worthy of its own project. Modern areas still Celtic include Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. Please weigh in at the proposal Chris 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Payton citation

Anyone have a full citation for the refrence Cornwall, Peyton, 1998? the closeset I can find are:

• Philip Payton, (1996), Cornwall, Fowey: Alexander Associates, ISBN 1 899526 60 9
• Philip Payton, (1999), The Cornish Overseas, Fowey:Alexander Associates, ISBN 899526 95 1
• Payton, Philip (ed.), (1998), Cornish Studies, second series No. 6 Exeter: University of Exeter Press, ISBN 0859896102
• Payton, P. (ed.), (1997), Cornish Studies, second series No. 5 Exeter: University of Exeter Press, ISBN 0859895513

Lozleader 12:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggest date is wrong, as well as the spelling of the name . . . see list of Publications in WP Article on Philip Payton#Publications.

Cornwall; Fowey : Alexander Associates, 1996 ISBN 1899526609. Revised edition Cornwall : a history , Fowey : Cornwall Editions Ltd, 2004 ISBN 1904880002.

--Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 13:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

• The only correct spelling of « mineralization » is with a « z », even in British English (see Oxford English Dictionary).
• « exagerated » is unambiguously incorrect.

Elagatis 01:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Like a lot of words, it does depend on which dictionary you use, however the OED might spell it. It does apparently appear to be acceptable to use the 'z' derivative. I did not notice your correction of "exaggerated" when I reverted your edit. Bretonbanquet 13:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Google provides a large number of hits for the "British" spelling of "mineralisation", whatever OED says. The first example cited by OED spells the word with an "s". The OED does not legislate on language.--Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would personally prefer the spelling with -z-, but not enough to make a big thing of it. OUP style is to use -z- where there is a choice in -ise/-ize. DuncanHill 16:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Flag

"Commonly understood to represent the white tin metal against the black tin ore, symbolically, however, the flag is said to represent the light of truth shining through the blackness/darkness of evil."

Who by? Is there any evidence for this? Can it be verified?Serpren (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As the Cornwall#Flag section is a summary of a Main Article Saint Piran's Flag, it does not need to cite references. I will remove the {{Citation needed}} tags from this section.

If the Editor who inserted them can demonstrate that the references to sources are NOT in the Main Article, "Saint Piran's Flag", they should remove the statements from the summary of the Main Article in this section of the "Cornwall article", leaving an explanation on this Talk page Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 20:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Hi all, The CornwallWikiproject template has been upgraded to include assessments for all Cornwall-related articles. For those who are interested, you can find more info about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Assessment where you can also find categories for all the different gradings. The extra template parameters can be found at Template:CornwallWikiproject. Right now most articles are in the "unassessed" category, let's try and give all the Cornwall-related articles a rating :-) Cheers, --Joowwww 12:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

List of places in Cornwall

Hi all, I have added the top 15 settlements by population to the page List of places in Cornwall, now that it is linked from the {{Cornwall}} template. There are pictures still needed for Saltash, Bodmin, Liskeard, Hayle and Launceston, if anyone lives in those towns or can find some free images it would be much appreciated! --Joowwww (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Images of all of the required ones are available on the Geographic British Isles web site which we can use. Best to load the images from that site onto Commons so they can be used on all of the projects. If you have problems then select the images you want, give me the numbers and I can load them onto Commons for you. Keith D (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Evil Cornwall

I think there should be a section that elaborates on why Cornwall has been portrayed as evil in storys. In the series "A Dream of Eagles" )by Jack Whyte), Cornwall is ruled by the vicious King Lot of Cornwall. And in the Shakespeare play "The Twelfth Night", and also in the modernized version of the play "She's the Man", the Cornish force/soccer team is shown as rude and unlikeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.165.195 (talk)

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)

Education section

I can't make head nor tail of this paragraph:

Cornwall has a comprehensive education system, with 31 state and 8 independent secondary schools. There are no sixth form colleges, and three FE colleges - Penwith College (a former sixth form college), Cornwall College and Truro College. The Isles of Scilly only has one school. Restormel district has the highest school population, and school year sizes are around 200, with none above 270.

• No sixth form colleges? Redruth School has one, and it can't be the only one.
• "school year sizes are around 200, with none above 270" Was this taken out of context or something? It is incorrect on its own, when I was at school there were well over 300 in the year. --Joowwww (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• • VIth Form Colleges - there are colleges at some schools - Sir James Smith's School certainly has one (for the time being), but I don't think there are any seperate VIth Form Colleges (there used to be oone at St Austell, but, together with Mid Cornwall College of Further Education (St Austell Tech) it has been merged into Cornwall College. DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymology section currently reads a bit like a debate. It might be a good place for cleanup by someone who knows more. Thomas B♘talk 02:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cornish media

For info - I am currently working on South West media on Commons. Specifically I am working up the Cornish page & adding some media that may be more recent &and representative than was used before. I've placed the standard Commons link on the page here but feel free to look around in the Cornwall category there. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I've removed the stuff about Buddhism, witches etc. Buddhist represent less than 0.2% of the population of Cornwall (2001 census) - less than the nation average, and there's nothing particularly Cornish about the statements. These sections have a tendency to become a 'my church/religion' should be mentioned too section far too easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmybn (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Links

What is it with people's refusal to add new links? I suggested two sites, www.visitcornwall.com (official government-run tourist board website) and its independent (and perhaps less doggedly pro-Cornwall) equivalent, www.cornwallinformation.com.

This is not spamming, this is the inclusion of useful resources. It seems people are more interested in removing genuinely useful links which may be in competition with their own dubious external links. Pathetic! Wikipedia has a no-follow attribute anyway.

The internet is an open forum for sharing, Wikipedia is by definition collaborative, and while spamming is to be discouraged, genuinely useful material should be welcomed, not marched off by Hitlers with vested interests! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiminycricket2008 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You are maybe missing the point of an encyclopaedia. External links are rarely required, if folk can get to Wikipedia they can also handle a Google (or other engine) search which will give up to date links for whatever they are after.

Wikipedia is collaborative - maybe referring to people who do collaborate as "Hitlers" may not be the best way for someone getting into Wikipedia to describe volunteers here. please contribute however with content not links. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What baffles me is that the links were genuinely useful - and more relevent then the links that were there at the time... and I would say equally as relevant as the laughably parochial "Campaign for a Cornish Assembly" website. It seems this Cornwall page is far more concerned with alienating visitors to Cornwall than attracting them.

My links were informative and valid and I see no valid reason to take them away; certainly I resent being treated like a vandal; it's just a knee-jerk "this must be spam" response. Obviously the two links had not been investigated, otherwise it would be patently obvious that one was the official site of the tourist board (the first port of call, one would think, for further information on Cornwall) and its independent alternative.

If we are going to follow the dogma "Wikipedia is not a link catalogue" (well, dur!) then why have any links at all? No, this is just a nonsense by over-zealous people. I understand people being sick of spam-bots leaving trails of garbage in their wake, or of over-eager marketeers or underpaid Ethiopians leaving their pointless witterings spewing over the internet, but this is something different. And I don't believe it's in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia or indeed the internet as a whole.

Now are there any more opinions or objections? Because I don't exactly see an overwhelming denunciation of these useful links at present. More a couple of people with an (understandable, admittedly) axe to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiminycricket2008 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You said "the official site of the tourist board and its independent alternative". I agree that an official tourist site would be suitable, but there are certainly more than one "independent" alternatives. The problem is, if one independent site is linked to, then why shouldn't they all be? --Joowwww (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy - your attitude really is priceles (Jiminycricket2008).

This is an encyclopaedic not a tourist directory. The official site would be fine - other tourist links would not be. We would end up with a web page of links which is not an encyclopaedic at all.

I have no idea what you think is laughably parochial about an Assembly. That is an issue of possible governance and indicative of other aspects of discussions of Europe/the UK/England etc. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Please change your attitude & contribute constructively if you wish to. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find you're one of the two people who aggressively and provocatively labelled me a "spammer"; who rather bullishly and snidely said on another's talk page "I'm here if you need any help" or words to that effect - some welcome! And who has refused to admit any fault in blanket-erasing any changes I made with curt, dismissive "notices" plastered on my talk page. Exactly the sort of dreary middle-management jobsworthiness that has come to personify Wikipedia and those that aspire to moderate it!

"That is an issue of possible governance and indicative of other aspects of discussions of Europe/the UK/England etc." ... to the whole world! and the universe!! Bwahahaha. No, not parochial at all. Mm, hang on... perhaps the Wikipedia entry on parochialism needs a stern re-write, sir! From wikipedia: "Parochialism does relate directly to culture and economics in regard to a local culture or geographic area's government making decisions based on personal relationships instead of uniformity. This supports and/or leads to governmental corruption and deters real economic health and outside investment. Parochialism reinforces an insular society and economy, many times to the detriment of the citizens who are the willful victims of parochialism, their local prejudices and regional attitudes played upon by politicians of all colours."

You clearly have little idea of what you're talking about. At least look up a term on the platform we're using before making such assertions. Besides, I didn't say the link was irrelevent, I said it was laughably parochial. Something that embodies Cornwall, really. Jiminycricket2008 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you still wish to discuss the external links or not? Because I'm having difficulty distinguishing your rant from your issue with Wikipedia policies. --Joowwww (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (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 world 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?

Announcement: The 2009 Structural Changes in Local Government in England: A Taskforce

1. On 1 April, 2009, a number of changes will occur that will affect a number of counties and districts in England, including some which fall within the remit of your project and/or county.
2. The changes will necessitate a large number of changes to various articles on wikipedia.
3. New articles may have to be written, old ones may have to be changed because they will then describe abolished former districts, etc, and numerous changes will have to be made to templates, category names, and articles about individual settlements to update information about local government.
4. Because of this the Uk Geography Project has set up a specific taskforce to identify the changes to be made and then to coordinate the work of preparing for the changes and then implementing them when the changes occur on 1 April.
5. The name of the taskforce is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force or WP:2009ENGLAND.
6. You are invited to join this taskforce to help us all improve wikipedia in these areas by making sure the information is kept updated, and accurate.

Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of the taskforce)

I have made the infoboxes for Cornish districts and boroughs in my sandbox ready to replace the current infoboxes on 1 April. Jolly Ω Janner 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have added the infoboxes to all the districts of Cornwall within <includeonly> tags. I will delete the tags and the old infobox on 1 April leaving the new infobox in full view. Jolly Ω Janner 21:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Athelstan

The present introduction gives the date 922 for the border set by Athelstan: however "Cornish_people#The_Cornish_in_history" gives 936 and "Events of the 10th century" gives 928. Perhaps the matter needs to be looked at.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Taliesin ab Iolo Morganwg

"These texts are now known to have been forged by Iolo Morganwg. Interrupted at p. 494 by the editor's illness and death, completed by the Rev. Thomas Price (Carnhuanawc). Published for the Welsh MSS. Society." They were published in 1848 not 1843 having been edited by Taliesin Williams (the collection was the work of Edward Williams): if they are not genuine the inclusion of this quotation is misleading.----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Celtic nations

A discussion is taking place at Celtic nations regarding whether Cornwall is actually a Celtic nation, or not. Editors are invited to participate. Daicaregos (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Overplaying the separatist / self governing movement

In the introduction it says "Many inhabitants question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, and a self-government movement seeks greater autonomy within the UK." This is quite a strong statement for the introduction and i think it grossly overplays support for such changes. Please define "many" and if that is not possible, this statement should be removed or atleast made more neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ive removed it as no sources backed up the claim.

I've restored it with a reference to the 50,000-name petition for a Cornish assembly, which clearly backs up the phrase concerned. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

10% of the Cornish electorate is a tiny minority. It certainly is misleading to say "many inhabitants question the present constitutional status of Cornwall" That is not clear just because some people want more devolution. Im sorry but this is grossly overplaying the situation in Cornwall and im going to remove it again. The Scotland article at the end of the introduction makes clear the constitutional future of Scotland still gives rise to debate, which is totally justified as theres a separatist executive in power. There is no such justification here, Devolution is not going to be extended, its not backed by the two major parties and its clearly not backed by the people. It should be mentioned in the article somewhere, but NOT in the introduction.

Im sorry but i can not accept the misleading statements, i dont want to get into an edit war so we will have to seek others points of view on this matter if you change it again. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is that every person who disagrees with the present constitutional status of Cornwall signed the petition. You cannot know this and, you must agree, it seems extremely unlikely. Please read WP:SYN. 50,000 people seems to qualify to be described as 'many' to me and the statement is not misleading and is referenced. Whether devolution is extended or not is not for us to decide. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Daicaregos (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, what i meant was not everyone who signed a petition for devolution disputes Cornwalls constitutional status, and yet the statement said "Many inhabitants question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, and a self-government movement seeks greater autonomy within the UK.". You are trying to justify that "many" because 50,000 votes for greater autonomy.. wheres the justification for many to be used for questioning the constitutional status of Cornwall?

Im sorry but according to the BBC source 50,000 is only 10% of the electorate, that is a tiny minority. The statement is grossly misleading and it should not be re added. Im sure about 50,000 people want English independence from the United Kingdom, it doesnt justify a mention of it in the introduction. This is indeed an encyclopedia, sadly some have clearly been using it to push separatist agendas by misleading readers. We do not even go as far to say "many" people want Scottish independence on the Scottish article, its worded in a far more balanced way that Scotlands future continues to give rise to debate and yet theres a larger group than 10% wanting Independence. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

10% of the total population on a poll isn't bad, many a European Parliament Member has been elected on similar numbers. If it said "Most" it would be misleading, "Many" seems fine but we can look at other words. --Snowded (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to the 'many' sentence in the lead para. Even so, I'm not keen on using that word either. Also I've added a reference to statement in the politics section supporting the statement that all of Cornwall's MP's support establishing a Cornish assembly. Also I've added another statement in the Politics section(referenced) that a Mori poll shows a majority of respondents are in favour of an assembly. Honestly, BritishWatcher, your contributions to this encyclopedia could be so much better if you took the time and trouble to research the subjects you criticise. Just bothering to read and understand the articles would be a start. You waste so many editors' time. Daicaregos (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i think saying "many" for 10% of the population is grossly misleading and the silly electoral methods of the European Parliament do not change that. Theres three problems here, first it is simply wrong to say many question Cornwalls constitutional status, even if some want more devolution.. that isnt "questioning" the current status, which sounds like many dont think its part of England. Second "Many" for 10% of the population is "not as exact" as it could be ;). Third i dont think theres justification for any of the statement in the introduction, i cant see it mentioned in North East Englands introduction which actually had a referendum on having an assembly... slightly more valid a case than a small petition and a couple of Lib dem MPs. Including a mori poll is fine with me, but again such things do not belong in the introduction.

I comment and request change to statements i consider inaccurate or misleading, ive certainly come across a few in the last couple of days. The most important thing about an encyclopedia is accuracy not size and id rather no information or article at all than misleading ones. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC

Well maybe you should go and change the North East article then. 10% is substantial for a poll, its enough to justify a statement. How about trying to come up with an alternative to Many which is acceptable? I also agree with Dai, if you find something you think is inaccurate or misleading you hit straight away without doing some basic research - same thing over on Celtic nations. --Snowded (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think a referendum which was rejected deserves a mention in the introduction, its mentioned further down in the article itself where it belongs, just like it doesnt belong in the introduction here. Ive told you "Many" is not the only problem, so changing a word isnt going to solve it. This really is unacceptable and misleading which is why i added the dispute tag to warn readers they are being mislead, i dont know if its intentional or not. As for not doing research, im sorry but ive yet to see any evidence that suggests im wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Then you haven't looked. Also you disputed the whole article which is bad practice. If "Celtic nation" is pipelinked then that handles any issue about misleading (see the discussion there). Saying that Cornwall is a celtic nation does not mean it is a 'nation' or that everyone sees themselves as a celt as we established on that article. Dai has given other evidence above which you have not responded to. It is a significant asepect of Cornwell which is different from the other English Counties (in effect it was Welsh for a long period). I think if you showed some respect for that it would be easier to reach agreement. --Snowded (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Saying that Cornwall is a celtic nation does not mean it is a 'nation'" lol its all so clear to me now. Im sorry but to avoid confusion or possibly misleading people who do not go on to the Celtic nations which is currently a complete mess anyway, we shouldnt have that in the introduction. A small number of people or organisations thinking something does not justify a mention in the introduction. I replied to the points made by Dai, such things on the lib dems supporting an assembly, the poll, the petition should all be mentioned in the article, i just dont think they belong in the intro (same with the "celtic nation" bit.

I have great respect for Cornwall, It is a county of England and whilst ofcourse it has its own history like all English counties, we shouldnt be saying its a celtic nation in the intro, especially as you admit it may not actually be a nation. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Isle of Man Government considers Cornwall a Celtic Nation!

http://www.gov.im/post/stamps/FutureIssue.aspx?categoryid=164 Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How wonderful, as i have said before i dont dispute the fact some view Cornwall as a celtic nation, what im saying is this isnt a mainstream view, its certainly not the British government view and its unacceptable not to explain who "considers it a celtic nation" if its mentioned anywhere in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What would you consider "the mainstream"? And the terms "state", "country" and "nation" are not synonymous. --Joowwww (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps then we can simply say "and is considered by some as one of the six "Celtic nations" ? Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:11, 11 May 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." ?

• http://ceres.cafebabel.com/en/post/2008/01/27/The-Cornish
• http://www.nationalia.info/en/news/421
• http://www.cornwallgb.com/
• http://www.celticleague.net/index.html
• http://www.mebyonkernow.org/?q=policies_historic_celtic_nation

Teapotgeorge^Talk 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)

Dispute Tag

OK BW, if you think there are many errors LIST them, its not enough to tag an article with a general statement If you can't then self revert (there are WIki rules about this you know). --Snowded (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1) and is considered one of the six "Celtic nations" by many residents and scholars.

2) Many inhabitants question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, and a self-government movement seeks greater autonomy within the UK.

3) There is a growing call within Cornwall for greater self-rule.

4) Many residents advocate the creation of a Cornish Assembly, along the lines of those for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,

5) Cornwall is usually described as being one of six Celtic nations alongside Brittany, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales.

6) (including the national census) have given results varying from 7% to 79%

7) Many people in Cornwall say that this issue would be resolved if a Cornish option became available on the census.

Those are some of the statements i have a problem with. Alot of it is on the use of the word "many" again which needs clarification. Theres no sources for the survey that showed 79% consider themselves Cornish, and considering the current article on Cornish people says they are "celtic people", im unsure they think it has the same meaning. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so its ALL ONE ISSUE - tag that if you have to but not the whole article. You are still not reading the material above by the way, otherwise most of that list would go. Back off for a bit, think about what you are doing here. --Snowded (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ive read the above, this is about two issues the problem is as pointed out in my list there are many sentences spread throughout the article. I think something as misleading as saying Cornwall is a celtic nation in the introduction warrants a warning to the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well one can't dispute that you think it, unfortunately you are wrong. Lets see what happens over the next 24 hours. --Snowded (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now theres a dispute tag it takes away the urgency to remove the misleading claims so lets wait a day or two but it doesnt appear to be a very active talk page so not sure how many other opinions we will get in that time. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To address each point raised above:

1) Change "residents and scholars" for verifiably sourced bodies, whoever they are.

2) No problem with this. 'Many' is an awkward word with a subjective meaning. Suggest changing it for 'some' or something similar.

3) Needs a reference.

4) No pro:blem with this as per #2.

5) Clarify who or what bodies consider Cornwall a Celtic nation.

6) Needs a reference.

7) Needs a reference.

A lot of the problems with the article just seem to be over referencing and wording. I don't see anything here worth the fuss that's developing, and I don't see anything as misleading as is being suggested. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of the suggestions to resolve the problems, but im sorry i dont see how its not misleading to look at an article about an English county and see it described as a "celtic nation" in the introduction. Thats a pretty big deal and why its important to warn people that there may be problems with the article.

On 1) even with a correction of who claims its a celtic nation, i do not think that is justified to be mentioned in the introduction. The British government does not support or endorse the claim, a couple of celtic organisations which clearly have their own agenda doesnt make them notable enough.

On 2) Less than 10% of the people signing a petition does not justify a mention in the introduction. We have a single sentence on the Scotland article, saying its constitutional future continues to give rise to debate, thats clearly justified. I dont see the big debate on this issue or that anything is going to happen about it. Devolution is not going to be given to Cornwall and 5 lib dem MPs have no power to change that.

On 3) It depends on how big the growing calls are, If support for greater autonomy is 1% and goes to 10% thats growing, but it needs to be put into context of how small the support for it is.

On 4)Some would be better than many

On 5) AGreed it should say Celtic League and Congress describe it as a celtic nation - at the moment its totally misleading by saying its usually described as a celtic nation.. - Its called an English county more for sure. but this is the place where the celtic nation should be talked about, it doesnt belong in the introduction.

on 6 and 7) Yes find references for the claims if they exist. The number who said they were Cornish on the census is the most important figure, it shouldnt just say from 7-79% BritishWatcher (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I did a search for the 79% consider themselves Cornish but couldnt find anything. The Census is clearly the thing we should take seriously BritishWatcher (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1) I disagree, I think it is justified to be mentioned in the opening paragraph. The British government are not arbiters of what claim should or shouldn't be endorsed. As long as it's clear who believes it to be a Celtic nation, that's all a wikipedia article needs to be bothered with. If there are counter-claims, such as any by the British government, then they can be included too.

2) Again, I disagree, and the Scotland article is not at issue here. 10% of the population signed the petition, but clearly that is a higher percentage of Cornish people, given that not everyone in Cornwall is Cornish. The petition was not readily available to be signed by Cornish people outside Cornwall, for example I did not sign it, though I would have if I'd been given the opportunity. The 50,000 is an indication of a degree of support, not a total number of supporters. You saying that Cornwall will not be given devolution is crystal-balling and has no bearing on the article's content.

3) Agreed, and I think someone added a reference on that point.

4) I think 'some' would be okay - it's still vague, but more neutral than 'many'.

5) It doesn't say it's called a Celtic nation to the exclusion of other descriptions, but I agree that it could be reworded. I still think "totally misleading" is something of an exaggeration. A reference to Cornwall's Celticness does belong in the introduction.

6-7) The Census is all very well, but there was no "Cornish" box to tick, which would have resulted in a different figure. This needs to be clarified and referenced. The '79%' - 79% of who? Cornish people or people in Cornwall? Does that include people who just own second homes in Cornwall? Figures like these need to be very clearly referenced.

Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC) So long as the term "Celtic nations" is retained within the inverted commas and linked to the relevant page, I think the text would be improved by deleting the words "by many residents and scholars". That phrase is both meaningless and contentious - it doesn't add anything of value. There clearly need to be good references for the claim for it being a "Celtic nation", but those do exist, even if the concept itself derives from non-neutral sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a very reasonable proposal --Snowded (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Daicaregos (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Could use more references though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Again i agree with some of the points made about how to improve sentences within the article and to provide better references. However i still see it as grossly misleading to say that Cornwall is considered a Celtic nation in the introduction and that many seek greater autonomy and the worst bit is the "question Cornwalls constitutional status" - this is totally unacceptable, "Many" (however u define many) do not question it. Cornwall is a county of England, not a celtic nation and i find it offensive that a couple of Celtic organisations which have no influence or power over the governing of Cornwall and isnt even known by the majority of people who live there is somehow deemed important enough for a mention in the introduction.

The change actually makes things worse not better, we have gone from the article saying that Cornwall is a considered a celtic nation by "many residents and scholars" which was a lie to "Cornwall is considered one of the six celtic nation" with no qualification or explanation at all? How on earth is this better?????

Thank you all for taking my concerns seriously, however the matter has clearly yet to be resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could turn this round a little. Instead of everyone running round in circles trying to appease one editor, maybe it is about time that the editor who is complaining that all these things are 'totally unacceptable' actually does some work on the subject. How about that editor coming up with a form of wording that is acceptable to the majority of editors on this article, together with relevant references. Don't you think it's about time you actually did some work here, instead of just whinging about everyone else's hard work. I mean, how many article have you created, Britishwatcher ? How many articles have you been substansially involved with that have achieved 'Did you know ...? ? How many articles have you, personally, managed to attain Featured Article, or even Good Article status? It's time you pandered to those who have actually done some work on this encyclopedia, and not the other way around. Daicaregos (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm i think i did something by removing a grossly misleading claim, but guess what it was readded by certain editors. I have explained very clearly i do not think it is justified for the statement on being a celtic nation or the greater autonomy to remain in the introduction, and ill happily expand on the reasons why if you want. This is my main concern and its the reason why i think the disputed tag needs to remain. Apart from removing the offensive and misleading claims (which i tried to several times) i dont see how i can help change the introduction.

You need to calm down i think, you may not have a problem with articles that mislead people but i do. Accurate content is more important than incorrect or misleading articles which seriously damage wikipedias standing. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

BW, though I sometimes do agree with your comments elsewhere, you are going way over the top on this issue. Like it or not, Cornwall can be termed a "Celtic nation" - with inverted commas to show that it is not necessarily an objective description - that being the description used by organisations such as the Celtic League. The word "nation" does not necessarily mean "nation state" and, whether or not you think it is "unacceptable" (sorry BW, but your personal views are irrelevant here), it is used. And clearly - as the article Cornish self-government movement shows - it is not only an issue for "a couple of Celtic" organisations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry Ghmyrtle, i understand you are trying to improve the article unlike some others but i am surprised that people do not see how big a deal this matter is. Should we say the UK is an Islamic nation because certain people or organisations want that to be the case and some of the population are muslims? Cornwall is a county in England, it may have celtic culture, roots and history but that is slightly different to saying "Cornwall is considered a celtic nation" in the introduction without even a qualification of who considers that to be the case.. I find it very misleading.

On the fact they seek greater autonomy, again i would like examples of how this is justified? I dont see Hawaii or Alaska saying some seek independence from the USA in their introduction. I dont see the fact the people of North East England actually had a referendum on greater autonomy but rejected it in the introduction?

This article right now seriously misleads people and i think thats unacceptable and am not just going to ignore it. Because of the track record of this article and others related to it i wouldnt trust Cornish self-government movement at all, although ive yet to read through that fully yet. The main article on cornwall is clearly more important right now. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And theres this bit "many inhabitants question the present constitutional status of Cornwall". Totally misleading and simply incorrect under any definition of the word "many". Where are all these people questioning Cornwalls constitutional status? Clearly not all those who seek greater autonomy question the current constitutional status (if Cornwall is really part of England). So how on earth is this misleading claim allowed to remain? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the concept of "nationhood" with the idea of seeking independence. I doubt if there are more than a tiny minority in Cornwall who seek independence from the UK - however, I also know (having myself worked for a time in the South West Regional Assembly) - that there is much more widespread support there for greater autonomy from English regional bodies. The references to Cornwall as a "nation" are only confusing, in my view, to people who don't understand what the word "nation" can mean, and I again emphasise the importance of the inverted commas to make clear that it is a "so-called" nation (although I wouldn't suggest using that term in the article itself). I can't find your reference to "many individuals.." - the text I see states: "some groups and individuals question the present constitutional status of Cornwall..." which is a bit mealy-mouthed but true, and referenced in the linked article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the point you make, use of nation is confusing and by placing "Cornwall is considered a Celtic nation" in the introduction it makes matters worse, especially as we do not say by WHO. Ofcourse this should be explained in the article that its viewed by some as a celtic nation and then an explanation about it. Cornwall is a county of England, it really is a huge step to say that Cornwall is a Celtic nation (I accept that has nothing to do with seeking independence).

My problem with the independence thing is the wording of the intro, right at the bottom of the intro the current article i see says..

". Many inhabitants question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, and a self-government movement seeks greater autonomy within the UK. [7][8]"

Now we can argue about if "many" seek greater autonomy and if its worthy for the intro considering other articles dont say such things. But i see no evidence that many inhabitants question the present constitutional status of Cornwall (which basically means Cornwalls satus as an English county). BritishWatcher (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! - yes, I skipped over that, sorry. "Some" is acceptable, "many" is not and is not in line with the article text, hence contravening WP:LEAD. I'll change it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm. Just bored by this. Cornwall is considered to be a Celtic nation. The references support the statement. If you have references to support a statement that says Cornwall is not considered to be a Celtic nation, for example, then you should add them. Otherwise, you just need to accept it. As for the "many inhabitants question the present constitutional status of Cornwall" that is also cited with references that support the statement. And as every Cornwall MP supports a change in the constitution to allow for a Cornish Assembly (also cited) that simply adds weight to the demands. Again, if you have references to support a statement that says many residents of Cornwall support the status quo, for example, then you should add them. Otherwise, you just need to accept that too. I notice that you were unable to give a single example of any constructive work you've achieved on Wikipedia. This does not come as a surprise. Your statement 'i understand you are trying to improve the article unlike some others ...' (sic) was priceless (you were referring to yourself, right?). No one is stopping you from finding references to support statements you think should be added to this article. Your constant whinging is stopping editors from improving Wikipedia by tying up their time. Either do some work on the article, or shut up. I propose removing the tags from this article. Any real editors wish to comment? Daicaregos (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are bored by this, please spend your time doing something else. You do not sound calm, and thats the reason why i chose to ignore your previous rant. I have explained the reasons why i have problems with certain parts of the introduction above, perhaps you should try reading instead of simply bashing me. I think making an article more accurate is improving the article, i consider those who support keeping misleading content perhaps because of their own political views as unhelpful and their actions certainly dont "improve" the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The tag has now been removed by another editor. I'd oppose any attempts to reintroduce it on the basis of the current text - the intro now reflects the article, and in my view the suggestion that "many" inhabitants question the "constitutional status" of Cornwall is misleading and a partial interpretation of all the evidence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

His removal of the tag was unreasonable, first considering hes refused to even debate on this talk page about the concerns i have raised and second his offensive description of me as a "disruptive editor". Clearly he has a balanced view on this mater.

The change of wording from many to some, is an improvement and removes part of the misleading text. However its still up for debate if its noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the introduction. England, Wales, Alaska, Hawaii all do not mention independence movements or groups wanting greater autonomy. Even Scotland doesnt talk of many wanting independence, it simply says the constitutional future of Scotland continues to give rise for debate.

However on Celtic nations, im sorry but i still see this as misleading. I have no problem with the intro saying Cornwall has a celtic history and celtic culture exists still today but "Cornwall is considered a Celtic Nation" is a step tooo far and simply putting "Celtic Nation" changes very little. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If every MP in England supported greater autonomy, would you consider it noteworthy enough to include in the lead? Because every MP in Cornwall does. Daicaregos (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ive said before the fact the Lib dem MPs support greater autonomy is an important point and should be included in the article but we all know that those MPs have no authority on this matter and can not change how Cornwall is governed. Did they all campaign on bringing more autonomy to Cornwall or do they just support it in passing as a way to get more power? If all MPs in England wanted greater autonomy they have the power to make it happen, so its slightly more notable.

Even if the fact the Lib dems support greater autonomy make that notable enough, it doesnt solve the problem that we are currently claiming Cornwall is a Celtic Nation which is grossly misleading and do those Lib dems question the constitutional status of Cornwall? (Do they think it isnt part of England)? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm perhaps it might be helpful if the introduction mentioned the fact Cornwall became a unitary authority a month ago instead of attempts for a Cornish Assembly from 2001? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

: Sorry BW, but it looks like you are arguing a political position rather than dealing with the evidence. The phrase "Celtic Nation" is established and it does include Cornwall. The amendment to put it in inverted comments and pipelink it to the article makes this clear. You are not dealing with that but are making this a nationalist-unionist debate which it really isn't about. Whether MPs support greater autonomy or not is a separate point that may or many not be notable. It has nothing to do with Cornwall's celtic past and the fact that it is a "Celtic Nationa". --Snowded (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My main problem with the celtic nation statement was that it didnt explain who uses the term, which the recent change has resolved. The MPs supporting greater autonomy was on the other issue, which is also less of a problem now. At first it said in the intro MANY inhabitants question cornwalls constitutional status / and seek greater autonomy, thats now changed to some which is more accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that many seek greater autonomy, but it is true that only some question Cornwall's constitutional status (although Andrew George MP and Dan Rogerson MP are two of them). --Joowwww (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent change

Ghmyrtle thank you, the recent change adding who views Cornwall as a celtic nation does remove the problem (even though i think it doesnt justify mention in the intro) its now far more acceptable and i wont re add the tag. Just for the record, i should probably tell you all i made a post on an Admin board after id posted it i saw the change you made a minute ago so i removed it straight away. [1] BritishWatcher (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No prob - let's see if anyone else is happy. Next time, I seriously suggest you try to come up with a wording yourself, rather than trying to appeal to a (?!!!) "higher authority". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but it didnt seem like it was going to get anywhere as people disagreed with my concerns on the celtic nation bit which is what i had the biggest problem with, so i wanted information about what we could do next. I had said several times i think we should say who describes them as celtic nations, but there was no agreement. Anyway im happy with the recent change and the previous changes made (changing many to some etc) even though i still think its overplaying the matter, but its not misleading now. thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. The revision makes it seem as if it is only the Celtic League and Celtic Congress who consider Cornwall to be a Celtic nation. Whereas it has far wider acceptance. For example Cornwall participates in Festival Interceltique de Lorient - self evidently for Celtic nations, Isle of Man Government, Mebyon Kernow, Nationalia (The Catalan organisation highlighting stateless or semi-autonomous nations),Cornwall - Celtic nation (from the BBC). The reference Payton, Philip (1996). Cornwall. Fowey: Alexander Associates, was also provided. Additionally, both the Commission for Racial Equality and the Council of Europe consider the Cornish to have a separate ethnic identiy. I have changed the lead to reflect this. As Teapotgeorge says. This is just about one disruptive editor. (Editor! lol). Let him go whinging to the Administrators. Let's see what they have to say. Daicaregos (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

All those additional sources are either non-neutral or don't refer to Cornwall as a "nation". They don't add anything to the discussion. Where there are differences, at least let's try for consensus. I'll refer this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall. They may have a view, after all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is a good idea to post on the Cornwall project to get feedback from there and i agree about the sources. Especially the BBC one, which isnt a BBC article but part of their site where anyone can edit much like Wikipedia which clearly has its own problems as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with "some individuals, academics, campaign groups, government bodies and European agencies", followed by references? Also include Plaid Cymru, the SNP, and the BIIBP to the list.--Joowwww (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much information which would overburden what, in the lead, is supposed to be a summary of the article. We need a relatively light touch here - something like: "The county is recognised as one of the six "Celtic nations" by some residents and groups, including the Celtic Congress and the Celtic League." Any need for more explanation should go in the main text further down the page. Which "government bodies" did you have in mind, Joowwww? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Isle of Man Government is one. Daicaregos (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The link shows IoM stamps which "celebrate the languages of the Celtic world", but doesn't describe Cornwall as a "nation", so far as I can see. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it says: 'This set of stamps celebrates the links between the Isle of Man and other Celtic nations: Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, Ireland, Asturies and Galicia. Each stamp features the native language of our fellow Celts.' It's towards the bottom of the page. Daicaregos (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're quite right. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few more: The Irish television station, RTE, names Cornwall as a Celtic country here. Clare library notes Cornwall as a Celtic nation (under IICE- The Institute for International Cultural Exchange - to help you find it) here. Kerry County Council notes Cornwall as a Celtic nation (under Pan-Celtic festival) here. Kildare News notes Cornwall as a Celtic nation (under More pipe bands for Duchas 99) here. The Cornish Language and its Literature By Peter Berresford Ellis talks of Cornwall being a Celtic nation & country (p152 on here Celtic Culture By John T. Koch notes Cornwall as a Celtic nation (e.g. p 1416) here. 'Cornwall ... a nation ... with a Celtic culture ...' The Cultural Landscape Past, Present and Future, by Hilary H. Birks here The point is that it is not just the Celtic League & the Celtic Congress who call Cornwall a Celtic nation. Daicaregos (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy either Ghmyrtle, linking this to the celtic league and celtic congress implies that it is only those organisations and neither is one I would be happy to associate with. We are pandering to a single editor here who is arguing what he thinks should be the case, rather than addressing the formal term "celtic nations" which has specific meaning. I'm happy with some restriction as its not all, but not with that one. --Snowded (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept that it is not just those bodies, and earlier on I suggested

The county is recognised as one of the six "Celtic nations" by some residents and groups, including the Celtic Congress and the Celtic League

and Joowwww suggested

The county is recognised as one of the six "Celtic nations" by some individuals, academics, campaign groups, government bodies and European agencies

I prefer my option for the reasons I outlined before, but would be happy to change it to, say,

The county is recognised as one of the six "Celtic nations" by the Celtic Congress, the Celtic League, and others.

Any comments, or alternative forms of words? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are to qualify it then a variation of Jowwww's suggestion is OK, but I think by pipelinking it and placing it in quotes enough has been done. As Dai has shown above there are plenty of other references that could be added in. --Snowded (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The wording suggested earlier by Ghmyrtle..""The county is recognised as one of the six "Celtic nations" by some residents and groups, including the Celtic Congress and the Celtic League." that makes it more clear or if you dont like Celtic Congress / League then just say some residents and groups. Its more accurate than the current wording, and the previous wording said by many residents and scholars, my big problem with that was the word "many" BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The current version: 'Cornwall is the homeland of the Cornish people and diaspora, and is recognised as one of the six "Celtic nations".' is accurate and reads well. No need to change it and no need to reference the Celtic Congress or the Celtic League - and it doesn't say 'many'. Daicaregos (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem there is that the words "..is recognised.." are possibly ambiguous, and might suggest to some readers that the recognition is more universal and uncontested than is actually the case. Personally I think the inverted commas around the term do the job, but some brief explanation of who the term is recognised by would, in my view, add to the article rather than detract from it - though I really am not bothered as to whether that explanation should be in the lead or further down the article itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying "Celtic nations" instead of Celtic Nations makes very little difference to how reading the statement comes across. Ghmyrtle thankyou for accepting that simply saying Is recognised.... might suggest to some readers that its universal, thats exactly how i read it. In the introduction of an article about an English county wikipedia is declaring that Cornwall is a recognised Celtic nation, im sorry but thats a big deal which is why a qualification is needed in the introduction. I dont think it needs to be repeated again further down the article, and i removed the dubious tag from there myself after the wording to the intro was changed before. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD makes clear, in my view, that the intro should only summarise material which is contained within the body of the article. So the full explanation of who recognises the term "Celtic nation" would be better in the main text - but the intro should still avoid using words which can be misunderstood. Would "..is considered to be one of the six "Celtic nations" be better, or worse? (sounding like an eye test now...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Up until a few days ago it said "and is considered one of the six "Celtic nations" by many residents and scholars", the biggest problem with that was the word many (which has been used several times) instead of saying by "some". Use of the word recognized as a celtic nation makes an explanation as to WHO recognizes it even more important than "considered". I think this should be gone into in greater detail in the article itself but there needs to be basic information in the intro about who says it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are many references (above) from which you could begin to construct any additional information to the article text. There will be many more should you choose to look for them. Do you want to run it past us here, to gain consensus first, or will you just add it to the article? Thing is, once you begin to list who actually defines Cornwall as a Celtic nation, you need to research it thoroughly. Otherwise it would imply that those listed are the only ones. Daicaregos (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Going into greater detail in the article about the "Celtic nation" would ofcourse need consensus and much further research and sources. Expanding on it is an option which i think would be a good idea but i dont view it as a problem that it currently doesnt. The sentence in the introduction i do have a big problem with and as Ghmyrtle said, it could be misunderstood and sound as though Cornwall is universally recognized as a Celtic nation. Thats how i read it which is why i have a big problem with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is the only one of the six relating to the "Celtic nations" where this status is referred to in the introduction. Could someone please explain why such a reference is needed in this introduction, when it does not appear in those other articles, and is not elaborated on to any extent in the main text of this article? In my view, another solution, consistent with other articles, would be to entirely remove the reference to "Celtic nations" in the introduction here, but to add a referenced and balanced paragraph in the main text itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The beginning of the second paragraph on the Wales article, for example, states: 'Originally (and traditionally) a Celtic land and one of the Celtic nations, ...' Have I misunderstood you? Daicaregos (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll go and have a lie down.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle makes a good point though, all the other articles of the "celtic nations" do not mention this in the introduction or anywhere else in the article, with the exception of Wales. Britanny mentions it in a note above the intro but that articles a complete mess anyway. Now i do not have a problem with the Wales article saying its a Celtic nation, for a start the basis of what is and isnt a celtic nation appears to be mainly linked to language and we know that Welsh now has equal status to English in Wales compare that to Cornwall where a couple of hundred people speak the language and they only agreed a written form last year.

If "Celtic nation" isnt even mentioned on the Ireland articles which everyone accepts is celtic why does an article on an English county have to say it in the introduction and with out any qualification of WHO says it? Cornwall has Celtic roots but it is simply not a celtic nation today what ever you define "nation" as. Ive yet to see mainstream neutral sources saying that Cornwall is a "Celtic Nation" today, all the sources provided have been Celtic organisations or linked to them. What makes it worse is the Celtic nations article itself is a complete mess and its introduction is trying to be reworded.

I still do not think "Celtic Nation" is justified at all to be mentioned in the introduction (although Cornwalls Celtic roots ofcourse is fine) considering 4 of the 5 other "Celtic nations" dont even say they are in the introduction. Out of all the Celtic nations, Cornwall has to be one of the most controversial "nations" its applied to. Because its questionable if its a "nation" and its certainly questionable how Celtic it is today. At the very least it should explain WHO describes Cornwall as a Celtic Nation if it has to remain in the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Celtic Nation the argument for

Cornwall has been accepted as a Celtic nation by the Celtic League since 1904 and the Celtic Congress since 1961. Talskiddy (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not dispute that these two organisations and some others view Cornwall as a Celtic Nation, but it would be news to alot of people of Cornwall. If the fact its a Celtic nation belongs in the intro, can you not see it might be helpful to say who views it as one? this isnt a mainstream view held by everyone and it certainly has no official recognition by the British government. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How come you're an authority on what would or wouldn't be news to Cornish people? I disagree with you on that. What the British government recognises or doesn't recognise is totally irrelevant, by the way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to suggest that the majority of people in Cornwall view themselves as "Celtic"? Even the very few that described themselves as Cornish in the 2001 census probably dont all consider themselves celtic. Just because a couple of organisations which are not neutral say something does not justify its mention in the introduction and it certainly doesnt justify a declaration that Cornwall is a celtic nation without even saying WHO views it as one.. its totally misleading.

Again where are the mainstream, neutral, 3rd party sources saying that Cornwall is a Celtic nation, ive yet to see one. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to change the introduction. Surely, enough concessions have been made to accommodate just one disruptive editor. The lead adequately reflects the content of the article, is accurate and reads well. Personally, I don't think it necessary to have references noted in the lead, as they should all be in the main text, but there seems to be enough sources quoted now. If not, more can be found. Cornwall is recognised as a Celtic nation. This is noteworthy and it belongs in the intro Daicaregos (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is recognized as a Celtic nation by SOME organisations. Some people think there are more than 6 Celtic nations, so if that cant even be agreed on we should be saying who thinks theres just six. The current wording is totally unacceptable because it sounds as though this is a fully recognized and accepted term by everyone, thats NOT the case.. as of yet no mainstream sources, neutral sources have been provided saying that Cornwall today is a "celtic nation" BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have about as much evidence as you do to the contrary, largely because I haven't looked, yet you still seem to think you speak for Cornish people. You disagree with what's in the article, fine, but you don't have the lowdown on what Cornish people think, nor does anyone else. It won't wash with you, and I'm not saying it's a scientific measure, but at least half the people I know consider themselves Cornish. This has gone on for days and I doubt very much whether anything would get this resolved for you. Why would there be any great rush for neutral entities (who don't care either way by definition) to say Cornwall is or isn't a Celtic nation? It's just not that important in the grand scheme of things. It's only important within the Celtic League and similar organisations, and among those individuals who consider themselves Celtic, and neither you nor I can pretend we speak for them. To those people, it's very important I would imagine, hence it deserves a reference in the intro. You seem to be the only person here so "totally misled". Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This article currently speaks for the people of cornwall by declaring that they are a celtic nation. If neutral sources do not describe it as a Celtic nation this should really be pointed out (if its justified at all). Whilst i do not think its justified for a mention in the introduction, if it simply said that its recognized as a celtic nation by some organisation and residents.. or something along those lines then i would not have a big problem with it because it would be accurate, but at the moment i see this article misleading people because theres no explanation about who considers it one, it sounds like its a mainstream and common view endorsed by the British government.

You say half the people you know consider themselves Cornish, i have no problem accepting that and it could certainly be accurate for the whole of Cornwall, but how many of those people that call themselves Cornish consider themselves Celtic or part of some Celtic nation? thats a big difference. If i was born in Cornwall id have a right to consider myself Cornish, but would i have to embrace celtic culture to call myself one? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This link is very informative "On being a Cornish ‘Celt’: changing Celtic heritage and traditions in Cornwall" by Bernard Deacon http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/cornishcom/documents/OnbeingaCornishcelt.pdf Don't know if it helps at all? Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought we decided a long time ago that it should be clearly stated who and which organisations consider Cornwall to be a Celtic nation. I don't remember anyone disagreeing with that plan, so I really don't know why we're still discussing that. I remember suggesting 'some' was used rather than 'many', either here or at the Celtic nations article, so I don't know what else to say. As for Cornishness and Celticness - as far as my experience goes, Celticness goes with Cornishness hand in hand, and I've never heard of anyone calling themselves Cornish who distanced themselves from Celticness. It's a very loose thing to be associated with, one doesn't have to actively "do" anything to be Celtic, it's just associated with being Cornish, and I imagine the same for Scottish, Welsh etc. It's such a non-controversial issue, I can't tell you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Teapotgeorge, that's a very interesting essay, particularly with regard to being a 'modern Celt' - thanks :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think, personally, that the current wording of the introduction here is perfect - I've suggested variations which haven't commanded much support, and clearly there is no consensus (at present) to change to a different wording. C'est la vie. BW, perhaps you need to read WP:JDLI. Moving on, it would be very helpful if someone could summarise key points of the Exeter Uni essay, and reference it in the text here and in other related articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not like the fact that this is mentioned in the intro but i accept others think it does belong there and i dont have a huge problem with it remaining. What i cant accept is the current wording, without the explanation as to WHO describes it as a celtic nation in the intro and from comments by Bretonbanquet and yourself it doesnt seem like this is an unreasonable point of view to hold so maybe some consensus can be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether we choose to retain the: 'Cornwall is the homeland of the Cornish people and diaspora, and is recognised as one of the six "Celtic nations".' or the recently amended: 'Originally (and traditionally) a Celtic land and one of the Celtic nations.' version, BritishWatcher's request to note who considers Cornwall to be a Celtic nation will cause the same problem. If we add those who recognise Cornwall as a Celtic nation the list must either be exhaustive - including academic works - (or the text will imply that only those listed believe it to be the case), or include non-specific words such as many - e.g. 'Cornwall is the homeland of the Cornish people and diaspora, and is recognised by many people and organisations as one of the six "Celtic nations", including the Celtic League, Cornish Stannary Parliament, Mebyon Kernow, Cornish Nationalist Party, Festival Interceltique de Lorient, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, RTE, BIIBP, Celtic Congress, and the Isle of Man Government. I am inclined to revert to the 'Cornwall is the homeland of the Cornish people and diaspora, and is recognised as one of the six "Celtic nations".' version, as anything else will be far too wordy for the introduction. Daicaregos (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the intro summarises the content, in which case the content can list who considers Cornwall a celtic nation, possibly in the Politics section. --Joowwww (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. There may even be enough material for a section of it's own? Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The introduction does not have to list every organisation and person that considers it a celtic nation, it simply should say something like SOME organisations, scholars and residents recognize it as one of the six celtic nations, or along those lines. Its not good enough to just expand on who views it as one further in the article (although as i said before i think this should be done). The introduction needs to be clear and it cant just remain "Cornwall is recognized as one of the six Celtic Nations" with no explanation. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Daicaregos, Joowwww and Teapotgeorge - the sentence in the intro should be as Daicaregos suggests, and the longer version suggested by Daicaregos should be included in the Politics and administration section (5th or 6th para). There is a fuller explanation already at Cornish self-government movement, which perhaps could be better signposted from this article than it is now (there is a link from the words "greater self-rule"). I also think a reference (or, if not, an external link) should be made in one of the articles to the Bernard Deacon essay referenced above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle you said yourself that the previous wording could lead to people thinking that it is universally accepted that Cornwall is a celtic nation. How can we only correctly inform people half way down the article, something that could be considered misleading shouldnt remain in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the current wording on the article as it isnt such a misleading statement as "Cornwall is recognized as one of the six Celtic nations". so i oppose going back to the other wording unless we state its only recognized by some groups and people. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, it's not perfect (personally I think it may be slightly misleading to many readers, but not seriously so), but there is no consensus to change it. Detailed clarification should go in the main text of this article, and in other related articles, rather than in the introduction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Something that is slightly misleading to many readers should not be left in the introduction. I really do consider this very misleading, the rest of the article whilst i may disagree with parts is accurate now, but a statement in the introduction just saying "Cornwall is recognized as a Celtic Nation" is a huge deal and should not be kept if theres a chance it misleads people. I do not see how its unreasonable for a limited (dont need a huge list) explanation about who recognizes it.

If consensus can not be reached for a reasonable request like that, maybe we should go back to the previous wording of that sentence a week ago. Before it said Its considered a celtic nation by many residents and scholars (or something like that), use of the word many made that rather misleading but if we go to the proposed wording by Dai we have something totally misleading because it simply says its recognized as a celtic nation.

The current wording though, "Originally (and traditionally) a Celtic land and one of the Celtic nations" does take away the need for going into detail in the intro about who considers it a celtic nation although i think a mention of Cornish people / diaspora should be readded. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The BBC, which is funded by British taxpayers (and whose governing body is the BBC Trust and was established by a Royal Charter), has the following to say on Celtic Nations....Today the so-called Six Celtic Nations include Alba, Éire, Cymru, Mannin, Breizh and Kernow, or Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the Isle of Man, Brittany and Cornwall respectively. The Celtic languages of these nations are: an Gháidhlig (Scots Gaelic), Gaeilge (Irish), Cymraeg (Wales), Gaelg (Manx), Brezhoneg (Breton) agus Kernewek (Cornish). [2] I would say that this is a fairly independant, mainstream and neutral source, yes? Talskiddy (talk)

Its certainly more of a mainstream and neutral source than ones listed previously and should be added as a ref, although i notice its only on the Irish part of the BBC website, with the choice to view it in English and it does have the nice "so called" in front of six celtic nations, which is slightly different to declaring Cornwall is recognized as a Celtic nation without any qualification. It was only added to the site a couple of weeks ago if that date is correct, id best get on and complain about how my license fee is being spent huh? :) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(LOL!) You may also want to complain about the following statement I have found that was published on BBC webpage a few years ago ......Some progress has been made with the inclusion for the first time of an ethnic code (06) for the Cornish on the 2001 UK Census and the Cornish language was at last officially recognised by the government in 2002, followed by some government funding in 2005. Despite all of this at present Cornwall is the only Celtic nation (out of Cornwall, Brittany, Galicia, the Irish Republic, Isle of Man, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) that has no form of effective self-government.[3] Talskiddy (talk)

That one is a bit like wiki where people can make the articles and we all know wiki has its problems :), but i confess the Irish BBC "article" (if you can call it that as its written more like a blog) was a good find, although as i mentioned before its still not good enough in my view. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The BBC isn't a neutral source. It is a left-wing organisation that is notoriously biased against England and in favour of minorities of every type. Mowsbury (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Post on noticeboard

Following Daicaregos advice i have re added my post to the noticeboard. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Cornwall BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Celtic nations 2

I added the information that had consensus to the Demographics section. However, I found a further reference by the Welsh Assembly Government. The WAG referred to eight Celtic nations and, as the Isle of Man Government referred to eight Celtic nations too, I split the sentence. It now says:

"Cornwall is the homeland of the Cornish people and diaspora, and is recognised by many people and organisations—alongside Brittany, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales—as one of the six "Celtic nations", including the Celtic League, Cornish Stannary Parliament, Mebyon Kernow, Radio Telefís Éireann (RTÉ), Celtic Congress and the BBC, and, as one of the eight Celtic nations—the other two being Asturias and Galicia—by the Isle of Man Government and the Welsh Assembly Government. "

I also added some brief info on the Festival Interceltique de Lorient:

"Cornwall is represented, as one of the Celtic nations, at the Festival Interceltique de Lorient, a celebration of Celtic culture held annually in Brittany."

Hope everyone agrees the changes. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the change, although i do not think you should list the BBC as recognizing Cornwall as a Celtic nation just because of that one article. Also we currently have an introduction saying its one of the Six celtic nations, further in the article we now explain some say theres six some say theres 8, again there is still a need for explaining WHO views cornwall as one of the six celtic nations in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that the current verison (of the full Celtic nations explanation, in the Demographics section) is not the same as that which had gained consensus previously, I ask all involved editors to confirm if they support or oppose the changes made. Thank you. Your support is much appreciated, BritishWatcher, thanks. With respect to your point on the BBC, although only one BBC reference has been cited in the article, several have been found. The others are here, here and here. There is also the BBC page you likened to a Wikipedia article here. Consequently, it is quite fair to reference the BBC, as they note Cornwall as a Celtic nation. With respect to your point on six/eight Celtic nations: Firstly, a reader will only have become aware that there are either six or eight Celtic nations once s/he has reached the Demographics section, wherein it is noted who considers there to be six Celtic nations and who eight. Secondly, if you think either this, or the intro, needs to be addressed, please construct the sentence you think would be appropriate and try to gain consensus here. Personally, I think that any expansion of the current intro version is unnecessary and would likely be too wordy for an introduction. But I could be pursuaded. Daicaregos (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok those sources justify including the BBC but i still think the sentence in the introduction needs clarification. A week ago it said something along the lines of ..It is considered one of the six celtic nations by many residents and scholars. Why can "by some... or by many.... not be added after saying its recognized as a celtic nation because it does not have universal recognition and as pointed out in the section you added to some think theres more than six. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to have your agreement for the inclusion of the BBC. Regarding the intro: as I said in my previous post '... please construct the sentence you think would be appropriate and try to gain consensus here.' Daicaregos (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

a "nation" according to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition: a group united by factors that include "language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory".--Talskiddy (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to see "by some organisations and residents" or "By many residents and organisations"... A week ago it was worded along those lines, but the "by.." was removed from the sentence which is why i have a problem with sentence. Especially as further down the article its explained some think theres more than six celtic nations, so its not a universal view that Cornwall is one of the six celtic nations. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No objection here. I've made the change, which seems quite reasonable to me. Let's hope we can draw a line under this now. :) Daicaregos (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with that. I think it's safe to say that there is consensus here that Cornwall does qualify as being described as a Celtic nation under the Wikipedia rule of verifiability. Perhaps references should be added after the statement to prevent any uncertainty about its verifiability in the future. --Joowwww (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Joowwww. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please note that I've changed the intro from '...considered one of the six "Celtic nations..." to '...considered one of the "Celtic nations..." so it is supported by all the references. If you think it makes a difference please reinstate the word "six" and remove the Wales and Isle of Man governments references. Daicaregos (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks the changes made clears up the problem i had with the statement. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole debate about "Celtic" nations is just a load of baloney, now that it is known from genetic research that the English have approximately as much Celtic ancestry as the rest of the inhabitants of the British Isles. "Celtic" identity is just a self-designation used to make it appear that anti-English sentiment has a basis in ethnicity, when it is simply a political sentiment based on historical resentment. Mowsbury (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your misdirected, misinformed and opinionated rant-filled contribution to a discussion that ended a month ago. --Joowwww (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

lol whilst i dont agree with everything Mowsbury said there is an element of truth to it. People from Scotland, Wales and Ireland often play on "celtic roots" to gang up against the English for what ever reason, its understandable considering our shared history i suppose. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To anyone considering continuing this thread - may I offer this advice: Don't Feed The Trolls, no matter how pathetic, ill-informed, paranoid, or racist their views. Daicaregos (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

You may not have noticed, but an IP has deleted the entire third paragraph of the introduction, on the basis that "cornish national identity occupies a small proportion of the body of the article, therefore no justification for a substantial inclusion in introduction". I've reverted this twice. At first I assumed it was vandalism, but, worryingly s/he maintains it was not. S/he has refused to engage on the talkpage concerning this controvertial edit. Any thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen any attempts at discussion, and would say the lines are indeed suitable for this article's intro, as it makes mention of Cornwall's culture, politics, identity and language. --Joowwww (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation

This is rhotic. Is it W'pedia style to show pronunciation in RP or the local accent? If it is in the local accent, the last vowel might need to be a schwa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The question of constitutional status 04.06.2009

Additionally, some groups and individuals question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, doubting the legality of Cornwall's current administration as a county of England, and Cornwall's relationship to the Duchy of Cornwall.[citation needed] Another political issue is the rights of the Cornish people as a minority.

Some groups and individuals. No, a well-established political party, Mebyon Kernow, and many legal experts and UK political parties and bodies.

They do not doubt the legality of Cornwall's current administration, they dismiss it as being invalid.

The issue of the rights of Cornish people as a minority? Where, in Cornwall, in the UK? Very unclear. Also, what is the definition of Cornish then? Someone who has a Tre- surname (facetious example but to illustrate the point), someone born in Cornwall? This last phrases needs adjusting as it could be construed badly. I don't want to be a pain the """" about things but Wikipedia does seem to dismiss the Cornish and the Cornish movements as nothing other than fringe nationalists at time- at least on the English language pages.

Brythonek. 04.06.09

MK is a political party but it is a very minor one with very limited votes. This article goes out of its way to explain that some people in Cornwall question the constitutional status and seek greater autonomy. In my opinion it goes too far, but i accept the current text. Just compare this to the Wales and Scotland articles. Scotland currently has a nationalist government which wants independence and there is one reasonable sentence at the end of the intro saying Scotlands future continues to give rise to debate. Compare that to Wales where the independence issue isnt raised at all even though their nationalist party gets far more votes than MK. But here on the cornwall page we mention the greater autonomy and constitutional status in the intro despite this being a very small minority view.

I dont think there is any justification to be concerned about this article ignoring and dismissing these views. The Cornish people issue is also controversial but its covered in detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BW, I also support Cornish devolution but I think going any further than the current text would be giving undue weight to the issues. The current wording in one form or another has survived for years and I don't see a reason to change it, I would much rather see the current wording than nothing at all. --Joowwww (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you define a minor political party? And even if that be the case what difference does it make and why are they not mentioned? One might also note that several former Cornish MPs were also members of Mebyon Kernow, including Peter Bessell (Liberal Party), John Pardoe (Liberal Party), David Mudd (Conservative), David Penhaligon (Liberal Party) and currently Andrew George (Liberal Democrats)- taken from Wikipedia. Mebyon Kernow is also supported by Plaid Cymru and the SNP amongst others and one would hardly describe them as minor/fringe parties.

By using the word individuals the rather meagre article becomes even more subtley misleading, who are these individuals? Do you mean lawyers, historians, and judges? For these are all to be included in the list of individuals- but perhaps this would lend more credence to the Cornish case? As for the other somewhat "dismissive" comments:- I quote, "despite this being a very small minority view"- where are your stats for this? In a Morgan Stanley survey in Cornwall, 44% of those asked said they felt Cornish, rather than English or British [4]. Although I admit this is not de facto connected to Cornish constitutional discussions it is peripheral evidence of a Cornish identity- intrinsically related to the constitutional question and hardly a minority view at 44%.

The final, if not key point is that the wording is poor. The Cornish constitutional lobby, for want of a better term, do not question/doubt Cornwall's constitutional status at all. This wording would never stand up in court. The constitutional lobby wholeheartedly reject Cornwall's county of England status without exception. There are no grey areas in this debate, it's county yes or county no- this article is worded in such a manner as to give the impression that perhaps there were many grey areas needing clarifying or even that some people in Cornwall want to adjust Cornwall's status as a county of England etc. Remember, the people who read these pages do not necessarily have the same knowledge as the people who read and write them and therefore they ought to be as clear and unambiguous as possible. Brythonek 05.06.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brythonek (talk • contribs) 12:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As the election results have just come through, the "minor" party, [Mebyon Kernow], have won 3 seats on councils, 3 more than the Labour party with none. Thus one might draw the conclusion that the ruling Labour party be a "minor" poltical party within a Cornish context. Brythonek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brythonek (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Debate among the historians

"Debate among the historians The chronology of English dominance over Cornwall is unclear. Astonishingly there are no recorded ---------------------------------------etc. etc.------------------------------ -----------------Domesday Book indicates that Cornwall was, it may reasonably be concluded that the land in question was "West Wales" (i.e. Cornwall), not "North Wales"." This section was edited out 2 days ago: would there be support for restoring it? There can be no doubt that a debate of this kind has occurred.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall & Wessex?

There also seems conflict of whether Cornwall was part of the Kingdom of Wessex or not. The Wessex article cetainly doesn't mention Cornwall being a part of it...but I have seen some websites and books that claim that Cornwall was absorbed into Wessex.--Talskiddy (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question:- I found this quoted from the Institute of Cornish Studies Cornwall was, in fact, the last part of Britain to accede to the Saxons in 838 AD. Cornwall (Kernow) became federated but very much apart from Wessex when the borders between Cornwall and Wessex were set in about 927AD by Athelstan.

Indeed, much more recently than that, legislation refers to Anglia, Cornubia etc. and so Cornwall always maintained its distinctive identity and rulership under the Duke of Cornwall who held in Cornwall identical powers to the ruling Monarch of England.

In 1066 William the Conqueror made Cornwall an earldom and in 1337 Edward, the 'Black Prince' was named as Duke of Cornwall by his father King Edward III. A title held by the monarch's eldest son to this day. Brythonek (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC) [5]

Brythonek. 09.06.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brythonek (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall's eastern border was, at the time of Ecgberht up until Athelstan, the Taw-Exe line. If Cornwall had been conquered in the 9th century, why did Cornwall have a recorded king towards the end of the 9th century and another named in the 10th. Even early Norman records (according to William of Malmesbury) told of the "last of Cornish royal line", a prince (or earl in Norman terms) called Cadoc. There is no way that the Kingdom of Wessex would have allowed this line to survive, and, of course, the ASC is totally silent on this matter. Had Wessex conquered Cornwall, and they tried for over 200 years, the Anglo Saxon Chronicle would not have failed to shout it from the rooftops, but it says nothing. Athelstan fixed the east bank of the Tamar as the boundary between Wessex and Cornwall in 936. Professor Malcolm Todd in his book "The South West to AD1000" maintains that the West Saxons conquered the Cornish and absorbed Cornwall into Wessex. Where's the proof of that ? The Anglo Saxon Chronicle actually states:- "The Westwealas (Cornish) and the men of Defnas (Devon) fought at Gafulforda"..... and that is all it says.... no mention of who won or who lost, whether the men of Cornwall and Devon were fighting each other or on the same side and certainly no mention of Ecgberht. Nor can one "rebel" against a foreign enemy - only an internal one. Todd has no foundation whatsoever for his assumption and the ASC is the only record of this battle. The Hingston Down battle in 838 is now thought to have taken place in Devon where the Wealas and the Danes were "put to flight" back across the wilds of Dartmoor. In 838 the whole of Dartmoor and the South Hams was still exclusively Cornish territory and the Exe-Taw line was the border between Cornish and West Saxon lands. It was nearly a full century later in 936 when King Athelstan fixed the east bank of the River Tamar as the boundary between Anglo-Saxon Wessex and Celtic Cornwall, as up until 927 the two peoples had lived together in Exeter "aequo jure" - as equals. The Burghs of Alfred's Wessex also stopped in Devon. There is no record of Athelstan taking his campaigns into Cornwall and it seems probable that Hywel, King of the Cornish, agreed to pay tribute thus avoiding further attacks and maintaining a high degree of autonomy. In 1013 Cornwall's enemy and Anglo-Saxon neighbour, Wessex was conquered by a Danish army under the leadership of the Viking leader and King of Denmark Sweyn Forkbeard. Sweyn annexed Wessex to his Viking empire which included Denmark and Norway. He did not, however, annex Cornwall, Wales and Scotland, allowing these "client nations" self rule in return for an annual payment of tribute or "danegeld". Between 1013-1035 the Kingdom of Cornwall, Wales, much of Scotland and Ireland were not included in the territories of King Canute the Great--Kedehern (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm entirely neutral about the respective merits of the so-called "Cornish" and "Anglo-Saxonist" historical cases regarding the influence (or lack of it) of Wessex on Cornwall, and its timing, simply because I don't know enough about it. My point is only that the text which some editors are seeking to insert is both demonstrably non-neutral, containing WP:OR assertions and arguments, and also constitutes entirely unnecessary duplication. The battle involving the Cornish and the men of Devon is mentioned and discussed in two separate paragraphs. That simply should not be the case in an encyclopedia article - it should be mentioned, the original text reported, and the different interpretations of historians reported. This applies more generally in this section. There is no need for a separate section "Debate among the historians" - the different views should be reported and referenced within the section headed "Conflict with Wessex". Simply reverting a shortened, clarified text to a version which is repetitive and opinionated should not be an option. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

9 refs

9 refs for a single paragraph in the lead? C'mon that's going too far. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 01:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally have any refs in the lead paragraph, as they should all be in the body of the article. However, please read this talk page and let us know if you think they can be removed. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

lmao what the hell do people get taught in schools these days. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An Anglo-centric education. --Joowwww (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not Anglo centric enough if people are trying to suggest a county of England is a country :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 09:44, 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)