User talk:Salmon123

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from John Angarrack. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional status of Cornwall

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Constitutional status of Cornwall. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No response, so I have reverted your changes. Please discuss your proposals on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You gave me six hours to verify sources before undoing them. You need to read the whole article and then undo all text that is unreferenced, not just mine. You also deleted text that was referenced. Your edits will be undone as you do not leave sufficient time to offer references [six hours], and you are clearly selective in what unsourced text you remove.

Ghmyrtle removed my text [which showed differences between Cornwall and England, and questioned existing unsupported assertions which opposed this stance] on grounds that it was unreferenced within six hours of it being presented, yet unreferenced text which portrayed Cornwall as part of England was allowed to stand for months. For example:

"The 1337 charters describe Cornwall as a county, using the same word (comitatus) as that used to describe other counties such as Devon and Surrey[citation needed]."

AND

Cornwall sent members to the Parliament of England from the late thirteenth century when that parliament originated[citation needed].

Ghmyrtles status as impartial is under scrutiny.

Writing text and then finding references later to "verify" it strikes me as being a very odd way to edit, but I suppose that's up to you. I don't have any particular interest in the topic, and I certainly don't have any specialist knowledge, but I do know that much of what you have written is generally viewed as highly contentious and a fringe opinion, not a neutral and balanced statement of all sides of the argument. So, I doubt if it will stay in place in the article long. WP:NOTSOAPBOX seems to apply. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on the article talk page. Firstly, there's no need to SHOUT - using capital letters in that way is seen as aggressive and rude. Secondly, please don't question my motivations - comment on content, not on the contributor - but, if you must do so, please do so on my user talk page rather than the article talk page, which is to do with improving the article itself. I will respond to your comments in relation to the article in due course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall

Please, if you have something to say about Cornwall and the Prince of Wales's role in potentially liberating it from the English yoke, start a blog and tell everyone there. Stop messing around with stuff here about what actually is the case, and accusing people of being "English nationalists" or dupes of "propaganda". I for one am neither of those things. N-HH talk/edits 23:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSE: "Stop messing about with stuff here about wot actually is the case!" Oh dear, I forgot, people can only add facts that you say are true, not what judges, barristers, Government bodies and Government Commissioners say are true. Would you like me to remove all unverifiable or unreferenced text from this site?Salmon123 (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, taking this edit, which government body or judge has explicitly said, for example, that "the Duchy is the absolute owner of Cornwall"? Where do TSol or the Land Registry actually say the following - "Treasury Solicitors and the Land Registry state that the Duchy of Cornwall is broadly the same extent as the modern county"? Note, not where can you find a a phrase or words that you then interpret yourself to mean as much; but where these statements are actually made by the named bodies or by other reputable and serious authorities? If you have sources that genuinely back up the often-wild claims you are trying to insert into the articles, I'd happily see them. The problem is that you don't.

I am more than happy for articles about Cornwall and the Prince of Wales to include verifiable, factual information about legal issues and Cornwall's distinctiveness in cultural and quasi-constitutional terms, as for example the City of London page does in respect of the latter; also interpretation and analysis, if by a serious source and properly attributed. And, contrary to your edit summary, I have often added such information myself, eg here. What the articles should not contain - and I have indeed removed such material - is random theorising by random WP editors about what such things might mean. You're the one who seems to be asserting the right to decide "the truth" or what "the facts" are; I'm just asking for credible and verifiable references for your claims. As it happens, I'd like to see a lot more unverifiable, unreferenced or overly speculative content removed, from across this place, but that's another story. And, if you are going to cite third party sources, these should be footnoted properly, not cited by adding notes in brackets in the main text. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 13:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSE: If you care to look I have cited my sources ref Treasury Solicitors and Land Registry. Treasury Solicitors actually state, “The Duchy of Cornwall comprises the County of Cornwall" while Land Registry say, "“The Duchy of Cornwall is broadly the same extent as the modern county”. So what is your problem?

Yet the Duke says the Duchy has nothing to do with Cornwall, it is just a collection of estates.

Someone is lying. Guess who?

As for who is the absolute owner of Cornwall, if you understand the process of escheat, you will now that in the UK, Bona Vacantia reverts back to the absolute owner. That is the basis of land law here. In Cornwall Bona Vacantia escheats to the Duchy. I have detailed the applicable laws. If you know that it reverts elsewhere, please advise!

ps I knew it wouldnt take long for Ghmyrtle to wade in. He also has a history of conjuring up ways to remove Cornwall's distinctivess from the commom pool of knowledge. Totally discredits the role and purpose of WIKI.

Once again, when it comes to my adding material, some here press for untold specific references for each word, sentence or phrase added [probably to the extent that they require video evidence of the Duke himself mouthing the exact words added], so do you want me to remove all other unreferenced material from the Duchy site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmon123 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 13 November 2011‎

It would help greatly if you could reference your proposed changes properly, so that other editors can see and assess your sources. You need to read WP:CITE to find out how to do that. You also need to adhere to a neutral point of view - some of your comments above suggest that that may present a problem. No-one here is trying to conceal facts, but in contentious areas such as Cornwall's constitutional arrangements we need to try to use secondary rather than primary sources and avoid attempting to comment on them ourselves. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. No one is asking for references for every word. The point is when an editor adds what is clearly contentious material, they should provide a footnoted source and only add what that source actually says - and without a direct cut and paste of its words btw - rather than loading their own interpretation on top of that. That applies to everyone, no one's singling you out. If that source is online, adding a link would help so that other people can look at it easily. There is a long history in Cornish pages (and elsewhere in WP) of people diving in to make politically motivated changes that introduce some pretty way out content and seem to be more about proving a point than imparting verifiable and fairly presented information. In the past for example, you have added the claim to a WP article that the duke shares sovereignty over Cornwall with the monarch.

As to the points at issue - I have now found the sources for the TSol and LR quotes. Fine, they exist - as I said, I would have been happy if you were to provide links to them. However, they appear to be in the context of obscure guidance notes relating to the specific issues of intestacy and company insolvency (where, as long known and acknowledged - in my head, the relevant WP articles and even on the Duke's lovely website - the duchy's rights extend across the county), not formal declarations of fundamental and overarching legal principle or policy. As for the "absolute ownership" point, yes, in one sense the duchy is arguably the absolute owner of land in Cornwall; as noted, I am well aware of the bona vacantia point, as I am of the laws relating to land ownership in England and Wales. But it is not up to you or I to add that interpretation based on our own analysis, amateur or otherwise, of English law - as I asked, where is a reliable and authoritative source that says, explicitly, "the duchy is the absolute owner"? Equally, making a massive point of such a statement would be misleading, implying as it would a far greater interest in the land than in reality exists. As Ghmyrtle says, neither of us wants these issues airbrushed away; the point is how - verifiable - information is presented and how much weight and interpretation is put upon it. N-HH talk/edits 14:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)