Talk:Cornwall

See also

• Category:Wikipedians in Cornwall

The opening line is ugly and doesn't make sense

and it's just a pathetic attempt to make Cornwall seem like it's not part of England, which is not what Wikipedia is here for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.142.135 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. It clearly states it's a county of England. Signed, a Proud Anglo-Greek. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly weasel words. no other county of England is described like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.142.135 (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's because no other county has the same issues. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC).

Or perhaps it is because it's a Duchy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernow2012 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 May 2011

And a county which is sourced and backed up in the article. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that it is a Duchy why was the edit to list "Duchy" in the status box reverted? 195.171.24.2 (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the Duchy of Cornwall (with holdings in Devon, Herefordshire, Somerset and Wales) and this article (entirely restricted to the geographic area) are not one and the same thing, though there is much overlap. What is referred to in this article is the current ceremonial county and unitary authority. A "Duchy" according to regulations and legislation is NOT a legally defined administrative entity in the UK which is what the status title in the infobox is for. Instead, Duchies in the UK are regulated by relevant Acts of Parliament that have powers which are not too dissimilar to those powers and responsibilities given to corporations and trusts. Many may dispute the constitutional status of Cornwall, but you can not deny the fact that duties have absolutely NO administrative function, at least none which covers the entirety of the respective "duchies". ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 12:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is important to distinguish the Duchy estates (which include various holdings in many locations) from the territorial Duchy itself, suppose that the Crown Estate held some land abroad etc., that wouldn't change the extent of the sovereignty of the British Monarchy. Govynn (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is specifically for local government areas. The Duchy is not a modern local government area, so it is not appropriate to mention it in the infobox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is about Cornwall in general, which includes its status as a Celtic nation, and Duchy as well as its de facto administrative status as a Unitary Authority area, and ceremonial county (as defined for the purposes of appointing lieutenancies, although it seems that the lord-lieutenant of Cornwall is appointed by the Queen, the High Sheriff is apppointed by the Duchy [1]) Govynn (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, but then the British Monarchy is not a geopolitical administrative division of the UK either, so your logic does not hold up. I'm not arguing about the constitutional status of Cornwall. Nor am I arguing about the judicial status of the Duchy. I'm not even talking about any kind of sovereignty. As I stated before, the Duchy of Cornwall has absolutely no legal, juridical, administrative, etc. control over the territory known as Cornwall. It is more like a corporation than anything else, and it is certainly not a defined UK administrative territorial unit for which the "Status" section is reserved. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 17:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Again the concept of Cornwall is broader than a mere present-day administrative convenience. Govynn (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, can you please desist from inserting "South West Britain" under the "region" section. This section is not about a vague geolocation of the territory of Cornwall. It is a legally defined administrative unit. To continue to do so is akin to saying that Spain is part of that wonderful EU member state known as South West Europe.... ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Or an illegally defined administrative unit if you actually read the Duchy of Cornwall Charters 1337 (there are three, 16th, 17th, 18th March 1337 unfortunately not all are easily available, Wikisource has the 17th March one [[2]], the Cornish Stannary Parliament website[[3]] references the others but unfortunately does not give the full original text) Govynn (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you never heard of parliamentary supremacy? Cornwall was established by the 1888 Act of Parliament so therefore cannot be illegal. Additionally, original research does not constitute a reliable source. You have to use published sources so the original charters cannot be used. In fact the idea that the county is covers the same area as contradicted by the duchy's own website. Eckerslike (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Parliamentary supremacy (which ultimately derives from the Crown) is misleading in this context since the sovereignty rests in Cornwall with the Duchy rather than the Crown. Since the original Duchy charters are difficult to get hold of, light may be shed on the case by considering the Cornish Foreshore Case of the 19th century, whereby the Duchy, whatever it may publicly say today (again, you are confusing the Duchy estate land holdings with the territorial Duchy itself), argued that it was sovereign in Cornwall and hence had the right to the foreshore. The other thing is that since the concept of Cornwall is broader than the present administrative unitary authority (since 2009) and the previous County Council administration (1889-2009), to assert Cornwall was established by the 1888 Act of Parliament is simply plain wrong. Govynn (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Where did you read in the article that it is about the "broader concept" of Cornwall? This article is about the ceremonial county and unitary authority. It is not about the Duchy of Cornwall. There is a separate article for that at Duchy of Cornwall. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 06:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The text of the charters should be here: Royal charters applying to Cornwall; they have not yet been moved to Wikisource.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Cornwall is outside the jurisprudence of Westminster? As Lord Bingham put it in the Rule of Law "there was and could be no fundamental or constitutional law which Parliament could not change by the ordinary process of legislation". As the Cornish Charters are part of the English (subsequently British) constitution it is absurd to claim that legislation that overrides them is illegal. Supremacy is not derived from the crown but was demanded by Parliament during the Glorious Revolution. The Crown's role is pure tokenism.

I'm going to change the first sentence to conform with the Manual of Style that states

If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition

As is pointed out above the opening is ugly and designed to obfuscate the fact that this article is about the county of Cornwall. Any "broad concept" has long since been forgotten by the general populace and is not what they think of when referring to Cornwall. Eckerslike (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The unitary authority and the ceremonial county are not coterminous, and the historic county had different borders again. One of the great failing of Wikipedia is that many people seem to think that words like "county" or "Cornwall" can be defined in a sentence, when of course they cannot. DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a county left with its original borders intact but this is not a history article. It is about the current entity, the county, known as Cornwall. Eckerslike (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Cornwall Council the unitary authority responsible for Cornwall inform that Cornwall is 'administered as a County' MJC59 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJC59 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Having been accused of being disruptive by a self appointed Wiki policeman from Somerset and as an elected member of Council in Cornwall holding an MA in Cornish and Celtic Studies, I will continue to change the wording as follows: that Cornwall 'is administered as a County of England (this being the preferred style of Cornwall Council) and that the English Channel was formerly known as the 'British Channel' (check your blessed Wiki entry on the same) and still is in some places here. Get your facts straight about Cornwall or let us develop our own Wiki which I believe is in the process of happening ! MJC59~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJC59 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And doing that, against consensus, will bring you a ban from Wikipedia quicker than you can imagine. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you forbidding me as an elected representative on Cornwall Council from developing our own version of Wiki as the current version is inaccurate. A simple answer, yes or no please ? MJC59 (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere did the editor say that. We here in Wikipedia do not care about what you do outside of Wikipedia. It is a free world after all. However, within Wikipedia there are rules and policies in place to prevent random insertions of incorrect materials, plagiarisms, copyright vios, biographical attacks, etc. What would get you banned on Wikipedia is you "...[continuing] to change the wording as..." without consensus, without agreement, etc. As a representative of Cornwall Council your view on the issue is instantly POV, especially if all you do is claim to be from Cornwall Council (without actually providing any evidence for this) and continue changing the article's wording without any references or sources - remember WP is about verifiability, not truth. One man's truth is another's lie and all that. WP tries to put forward information in as NPOV manner as is possible. What do you find so difficult about checking WP guidelines and policies, abiding by them, and coming to talk pages to rationally discuss possible changes? Would you head off to France and ignore their rules and regulations - perhaps driving on the left hand side of the road? No, you wouldn't. So why do you come here and expect us to allow you be exempt from our rules? ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 12:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a guess, but maybe he [there are two M_C members of Cornwall Council, both male] saw the bit that says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", without realising that that works both ways.  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite correct in your assumptions unlike this highly innacurate entry on Cornwall ! MJC59 (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be inaccurate... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And who the devil are you ? MJC59 (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you take a break, calm down, maybe take a walk on the beautiful cliffs (where I'll be tomorrow, by the way), come back, read some Wikipedia policies and guidance (including Wikipedia:Civility), and address the issue of how best to make constructive edits here through discussion and consensus, irrespective of where particular editors happen to live. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon !?! MJC59 (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you take a break, calm down, maybe take a walk on the beautiful cliffs (where I'll be tomorrow, by the way), come back, read some Wikipedia policies and guidance (including Wikipedia:Civility), and address the issue of how best to make constructive edits here through discussion and consensus, irrespective of where particular editors happen to live. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you realise that you are condoning highly inaccurate information about Cornwall ? (Yes I can spell having been awarded my MA two years ago by Tremough ! ) MJC59 (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If the article is inaccurate why don't you discuss your proposed change on the talk page like the vast majority of the thousands of other WP editors do - or do you have some divine privilege that exempts you from all rules and regulations? As for who I am, not that it is of any relevance to the topic at hand, but I am an experienced WP editor from Ireland, an administrator on the Manx language wikipedia and a stickler for rules. I have been involved with the Cornish article for about a year and a half now - the same could be asked of you - who are you? You just popped up in the last 3 days, flaunt WP policies and procedures, claim to be someone with authority without providing evidence (even though this is not relevant in WP - we are all equals here), enter in "false" information on pages and dictate you can by saying your from Cornwall Council - as if Cornwall Council "owns" the WP article. If information is false, then a source to the contrary should be easy to find. Why do you continuously refrain from doing that most basic of tasks? Just for your information:

You are a member of Cornwall Council - big deal - that does not mean you have any more privileges at this article than a farmer from Kenya
You have an MA - again big deal - you still have the same status as someone holding no education or someone holding 50 MAs.
Mac Tíre Cowag 13:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

AT LONG LAST - our own Wiki more relevant and accurate to Cornwall ! http://godhvos.wikia.com/wiki/Godhvos_Wiki MJC59 (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please go there and edit it with our blessing. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a very interesting link. Perhaps I should introduce you to User:Govynn...... Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

POV!

"spectacular landscape". Someone could go to Cornwall and find it rather dull for all you know ;). Also, "Successful tourist industry" in what way IS it Successful? Actually this is a very common trend on so many articles... --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks James, I have been to Cornwall three times on holiday for extended holidays, made countless day trips there and love the landscape, and their (Respectful, decent unlike the theme park on lands end)tourist "Facilities" but, the article shouldn't read like propaganda in some ways ;) --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Cornwall does contain some of Europe's most spectacular coastlines and some have World Heritage status. It earns 1/3 of its income via tourism and is one of the most visited regions in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.162.101 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WRONG AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!! It earns between 19 and 23% of its income from tourism. Source ? Cornwall Council ! MJC59 (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Where's your source? ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 12:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The article itself, by the way, says that "the tourist industry... makes up around a quarter of the economy..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The figures are published annually by Cornwall Council are are indeed repeated in your own 'Economy of Cornwall' Wiki entry. Good heavens. Is this place full of morons ? Tourism is still rated by district for the time being and in none is it anywhere near to 33% of Cornwall's GDP. Food packaging accounts for more than that as does agriculture if taking in fisheries. Come on, this is common knowledge within Cornwall. The sooner we develop our own version of Wiki from the existing CLIC the better ! MJC59 (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've now added a sentence to the article, drawing on the source cited in the Economy of Cornwall article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Is this place full of morons ?" Although it sometimes seems that way to some of us, the answer is, no, but it is full of volunteers. This whole project is undertaken by volunteers, motivated by service to the community - like a council in some ways perhaps, but without any officer support. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said and done. Is Wiki a home for idiots who think they know more about Cornwall than those of us who have lived and worked (and indeed served) here all our lives ? Please check the Wiki English Channel entry if you could. You will see that it was referred to as The British Channel and still is by some of my constituents. Why is Cornwall now served by Cornwall Council and not Cornwall County Council ? Do any of the uneducated masses up country ever think of that. Because Cornwall is 'administered as a County' it is not one. I never came across a Cornwallshire - did you ? Anyone with any knowledge at all would know that Cornwall contained until recent times its own Counties ! All referenced in 'Cornwall - A History' by Professor Phillip Payton incidentally and not something which is available on line ! I wish people would read these works and those of Dr Bernard Deakin and indeed the late Judge Paul Laity. Then this inaccurate Wiki nonsense would be more authoritative. MJC59 (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You make some valid points. However, they are all points which have been considered before. That is no reason why they should not be reconsidered, but to do that you need to play by the rules - raising the issue, in civil terms, on the relevant talk page, so that all interested editors can come to a view and a consensus reached. If you were sitting in a council meeting and someone stormed in demanding to be heard, and demanding that standing orders be immediately suspended so that they can make their point, you wouldn't just go along with that, would you? Most councillors of my acquaintance would feel put out, refer to the rules of conduct, maybe suggest that they should give advance notice of a question, or whatever. The point is that all organisations have rules - including Wikipedia, though its "rules" are very much looser than most "organisations". If you are happy to help build this encyclopedia by contributing with others, on a voluntary basis like everyone else here, that is fine. But, to put it politely but bluntly, you are not making a very constructive start. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why was Ghmyrtle's edit undone without explanation? Nev1 (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you say about the British Channel/English Channel. It is called the English Channel by the vast majority of English speakers worldwide - remember this is the English language encyclopaedia - it is not the Cornucentric encyclopaedia. Even the references to the British Channel in that article are only images of two maps - one from the late 1700s and one from the early 1800s - that's 200 years ago. If we used 200 year old terminology we would not have words such as "internet", "telephone", "javascript", "broadband", etc. Please find a reference that states the majority of the world's English speakers refer to the English channel today as the British Channel. Secondly, a county does not have to end in "shire" to be a county - there are thirty two counties on the island of Ireland that are English creations that don't end in "shire". There is also County Durham, Kent, Surrey, Middlesex, Cumbria/Cumberland, etc. - are these suddenly no longer counties by your definition? Finally, again, read the WP guidelines and policies. And please learn how to use the : formatting device so readers can actually read what you're saying without having to take a walk...^Mac Tíre _Cowag 13:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

SHAN'T be bothering. Have just had my attention drawn to our very own Wiki which we shall be promoting in Cornwall as the more accurate one http://godhvos.wikia.com/wiki/Godhvos_Wiki MJC59 (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That place is a hoot. I just saw how little content it has. Interesting to see that it attracting vandalism (or is that truth?) already. It somehow seems fitting that such content finds its home alongside train spotters and star wars geeks. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's only been in existence a few days English. It is a sight more democratic than your post imperial and failed on line 'encyclopaedia'. Please stay your side of the border. Either that or get your facts straight. MJC59 (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Poll Data.

We could do with some more for the article, basically, only one poll seems a bit small. I know this isn't an Article about an American issue (And they tend to use ALLOT of polls) but one more might not hurt? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Polls about what? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Polls to do with the constitutional status, there's only one =] --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A look through Google doesn't indicate that there have been any polls on the subject since 2003. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks =] I didn't expect much if anything at all, this isn't the US. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox refers specifically to the present administrative unitary authority, and ceremonial county. The concept of Cornwall is a broader one encompassing its identity as a Celtic Nation, and Duchy as well as any present administrative subdivisions. I propose that a new infobox should be created to reflect this. Govynn (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: The introduction of a second infobox only introduces a lot of duplicated material into the article. There are those that claim the RoI is legally still part of the UK, while there are those that claim the only legal administration in Ireland is the Irish Republic - would you suggest we have three infoboxes at the RoI article too? This idea is a non-runner IMO. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 06:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have edited the infobox title to reflect its reference to the present administrative UA. Govynn (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not what the title space is for. Your edits are becoming quite disruptive. Please seek consensus before editing the article. This article had roughly 1 or 2 edits per day until you arrived on the 13th June - since then there have been 18 edits, with all your edits being done without explanation in the summary box, and without seeking consensus. This is not how things are done on Wikipedia. Please refer to the relevant guidelines such as those at WP:EW and WP:TP. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 06:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the way things are done at Wikipedia are that in constrast to the supposed "free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit", it is necessary to seek approval from a group of self-appointed individuals who see themselves as guardian of a particular article or topic, and treat it as their personal fiefdom. Govynn (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So you think that, say, entering into the infobox of France that the official languages are French and Pterosaur should be allowed because "anyone" should be allowed to edit? There are guidelines set in place to avoid disruption and to set a standard for Wikipedia. Without rules nobody would bother coming to Wikipedia. There are no self-appointed individuals here. Simply people have interests and they will focus on their own interests. Nobody is stopping you from contributing, and nobody is stopping you from editing or voicing your opinion. What we are asking is that you simply discuss changes before you make them to keep the article as stable as possible. Imagine the poor individual who comes to WP simply to look for info. At the rate this page is going the info is changing every 5 minutes. That would not encourage anyone to stay and contribute - indeed it would probably ensure that that person never comes back to Wikipedia...^Mac Tíre _Cowag 07:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A couple of instructive precedents are Ireland, where there are separate articles for the island of Ireland, as well as the political entities of Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and Brittany where separate pages exist for the historic and cultural area of Britanny and the present-day administrative region of France. The infobox by its title claims to represent Cornwall in totality, whearas it in fact represents only the conception of it as a present day administrative area. Govynn (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

But the Republic of Ireland does not claim sovereignty over NI, NI does not claim sovereignty over RoI and neither are coterminous with the geographic area of Ireland by a long shot. The same case applies to Brittany where arguably the most important city and 25% of the population are situated within the cultural and historic area of Brittany but outside the modern région de Bretagne. Both these cases that you have highlighted are not similar to the case of Cornwall in pretty much all respects. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 07:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I counter that there are many aspects of Cornwall's history and culture which do not comfortably fit into the "English county" box that many of you try to force it into. Govynn (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

They certainly didn't fit into the secondary infobox you entered into the article either. I'll tell you what - let's get rid of the article altogether and simply have a page of infoboxes - one on the Unitary authority, one on the ceremonial county, one on the Republic of Cornwall, one on the Duchy of Cornwall, one on the geographic entity of Cornwall..........^Mac Tíre _Cowag 07:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in the article text addressing some of the wider questions (so long as they don't duplicate other articles excessively) - but the infobox used here is specifically for current administrative areas. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is someone who has not significantly contributed to this article suddenly popping up and deleting material, introducing contested material, edit warring, etc. and all without even the courtesy of an edit summary to allow us know what has been going on in the edit history. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 07:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree - anyone has a right to edit, so long as they recognise that everyone else has an equal right. Obviously we have community guidelines, but being a new editor an' all they might not yet realise that.... (lol) Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. However if an editor is pointed to the relevant guidelines and asked to provide edit summaries many times and still fails to do something about it then perhaps it is time to S.P.E.L.L. I.T. O.U.T. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 08:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that something (the infobox) that exists specifically for current administrative areas gives only one narrative about Cornwall, the English county one excessive weight Govynn (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes but any other infobox used in conjunction with the current one will not add anything to the article - it will simply duplicate information which is already present in the current infobox. The current infobox already has parameters for introducing such things as mottos. Why not use those instead, as that is the only real difference your proposal made... Take a look at the Spanish communities - we have one single infobox for Asturies, despite the fact that Asturies is BOTH a principality AND an autonomous community - neither are coterminous (with the principality including some extraterritoriality). Do we go and insert 2 infoboxes for Lancaster as well? ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 08:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm with the other two in thinking that your edits are bordering on disruptive. You are very welcome to ensure that the article is balanced and contains appropriate levels of information about Cornish history and current views on autonomy, but these shouldn't be given undue weight. You should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and take note of the section on "Due and undue weight". On another point, please see WP:OVERLINK. You only need to link the first instance of another wikipedia article within a section. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not modify Lancashire's info box? Since the infobox for Lancashire only talks about the modern local authority area, rather than the full traditional Lancashire, it is also misleading, although in that article there is a separate box below showing the previous boundaries of Lancashire. Govynn (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that ostensibly reliable sources such as the BBC and representatives of the UK government, have consistently lied or misrepresented the truth about Cornwall's constitutional status over a very long period of time. This means that the Wikipedia guidelines on what are called majority or minority views are broken in this case. Govynn (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"verify" is defined as "make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified", derived from latin "verus" by the Oxford English Dictionary. Truth is an inherent part of being verifiable. Just because something has been asserted by a source that many people might consider reliable doesn't mean it is verified. Govynn (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The only definition that is relevant here is the one provided at that WP page. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You're definition of "truth" might be different from my version of "truth" which in turn might be different from Ghmyrtle's version of "truth". This is why we do not base encyclopaedic content, in so far as is possible, on the subjective "truth". To avoid this we as a community establised a policy here to avoid confusion over the matter. This means for every item deemed controversial or where there is a question surrounding a matter at hand that the information presented in the article can be "verified" by following the relevant sources. In other words, verifiability trumps truth. Even your own definition above from the OED accurately portrays our policy in that we must "make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified" by providing the relevant citations. We also must adhere to the undue weight policy to prevent radical ideas from prevailing on WP, although there is room to include (though not exclusively) these viewpoints. Please take a look through the various guidelines that exists on WP - it may be a bit tedious getting through them but it is definitely worthwhile. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 16:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The latest edit by Govynn is to remove the region from the infobox stating "Government offices of the regions no longer exist, and it seems likely that the UK is reverting to a situation wherby different official bodies will use different regional boundaries. The region field was misleading". This was quickly reverted by Ghmyrtle (who beat me to it). Every county article in England uses the region field, and I'm pretty sure every unitary authority does (a quick random check seems to confirm this). One editor cannot go against the consensus established at this article and at supporting wikiprojects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject England and Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. An editor can (and should) however challenge consensus, because consensus can change, but where it is made clear by others that the change is not supported, then that editor should back down. To do otherwise risks a block for edit warring or tendentious editing. The way I see it right now, Govynn is not winning any effort to change consensus and is now making mostly disruptive edits to make a point and should stop. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out to Govynn yesterday that he was making references to "Government administrative regions", when in fact their administrative functions have been abolished by the current government. They are still regions, used for statistical purposes. There is no evidence at all that "different official bodies will use different regional boundaries." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

some official bodies have chosen to continue to use regional boundaries not coextensive with the former Government Office Regions, even when they existed, such as the Met Office, is anyone asserting that the abolition of the GO Regions will increase usage of the regional geography suggested by them. Govynn (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

History

722, Battle of Hehil - the enemy WERE West Saxons, as Ine, king of Wessex and his kinsman Nonna are specifically mentioned as the guys the Cornish were fighting against. Donyarth didn't drown in battle, he just drowned. We don't know where or how. (AC: 875 AD: Doniert rex Cerniu, id est Cornubienses, mersus est") Govynn (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Opening Section

The second and third paragraphs of the opening section before the Contents should be largely moved/merged into the History section of the article. It somewhat obscures the Contents box, especially for users on smaller screens. Govynn (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a large article, and the lead is supposed to adequately summarise the article as a whole, thus the lead paragraphs are large. If it's causing you technical issues then perhaps there is something you can do in settings, I'm not sure, but removing those two sections to the history part would mean, in all respect, that the lead would no longer adequately summarise the article. Hope that helps --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. Daicaregos (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to this article, reverted prior to discussion with only an obscurantist explanation given

Can you please give full details of any way in which my recent edit to the article Cornwall introduced ideas that you assert to be incorrect, or unsupported by evidence? Further, if any ideas that were introduced, which, if not incorrect or difficult to verify, otherwise were not helpful for this online encyclopedia? I politely request that all replies are in plain English, in sentences as grammatically unambiguous as the English language allows, rather than in Wikipedia jargon, or in links to lengthy pages with their own sublinks within the often contradictory policies and guidelines of Wikipedia itself. Muggetypie (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OK you want it clear? the changes you made were just plain daft. DuncanHill (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)