Talk:Cornwall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Pending tasks for Cornwall
WikiProject UK geography has identified ways in which Cornwall can be improved. For tips on how to bring this article nearer to featured article quality see the guidelines and resources section of the WikiProject.
The images in the Physical Geography section display poorly in Firefox 1.5 and completely cover some of the text. Physical geography section, including geology, landscape, ecology and climate. There's lots to write on this for Cornwall, so we could also have the sub-page Geology of Cornwall. Possibly split the politics section to Politics of Cornwall as it's more complex than for other counties - then reduce the section on this page to a summary. Turn some of the hundreds of red links at List of places in Cornwall into articles Tourism and industry section Populate Category:Natives of Cornwall and Category:Villages in Cornwall Add to the Cornwall images gallery (add a link from this page when created)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

		This article falls within the scope of the the Cornwall Wikiproject, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. Contributions and new members welcome, you can edit the attached page, do a task from our to-do list, or visit the project page, and contribute to discussion.
		See drop down box for suggested article edit guidelines: Suggested article edit guidelines: Articles are written using a standard set of headings (see suggestions for article structure here. This is to maintain consistency between Cornwall articles and improve the quality of entries through a constant style of writing. These headings are, however, plastic and in state of flux and although we welcome suggestions or improvements, we would appreciate discussionbefore any major changes to the layout yourself. Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid is your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty! At the the Cornwall Wikiproject we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish self-government movement, etc) and should not flow over into other articles. Most of all have fun editing - thats the reason we all do this right?!

Archives
2001-Feb 2004 - 35kb - Is Cornwall a country? Should we use "UK" or "England"? English Heritage Feb 2004 - Nov 2005 - 107kb - More on county/country, NPOV, nationalism; deleted links, etc Nov 2005 - Jan 2006 - 78kb - More on country/county Jan 2006 - Nov 2006 - yet more stuff about constitutional status of Cornwall, Infoboxes, NPOV and other minor topics

Contents 1 See also 2 Archiving 3 New Cornish Town/Village info boxes 4 Superfluous Information 5 Off topic discussion 6 economy 7 Number of current speakers of the Cornish language 8 Legal Referencing 9 Cornish people 10 [[Vikings again] 11 Language issue in intro... 12 Cornwall is also the historic home of the Cornish people 13 Is cleanup required for ==History source==? 14 Introduction, again 15 Politics 16 Cornish rugby 17 Truro Update 18 Religion 19 Cleanup

[edit] See also

• Category:Wikipedians in Cornwall

[edit] 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)

[edit] New Cornish Town/Village info boxes

"Necrothesp, 'English' is a competing identity with 'Cornish' as, in fact, it has been for others within this island generally. You are an outstanding example of how suppremacy of this island was achieved by the Anglo-Saxon and then 'English' (also euphemised as British) Imperialism over the past 1500 years - a process still very much active within Cornwall today. I have no doubt that you hold your view of identity sincerely, but it is incredible that as, allegedly, a Cornishman that you have found it so easy to dismiss what has long been an ongoing debate within our Cornish Duchy - and talk pages of wikipedia."

"I do not consider my sensibilities to be "more important" than yours, but I do feel that they are equally as important to be considered and respected. My sensibility respects the rights of the Cornish people to exist and to be seen to exist and, by inference, the rights of others. Yours, on the other hand is built upon historical misrepresentation, repressive lies and deceit, and some inate imperial desire to destroy. You, of course, will neither see this nor accept it! Probably best if we leave it there! -- TGG 12:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)"

"Once again, I must emphasise that this is your opinion, whereas you seem to treat it as a fact. I do not dismiss the debate or contest the fact that some Cornish people hold that opinion, nor that they have a right to do so. I certainly have said nowhere that the Cornish have no right to exist or to be seen to exist, and I would never say such a thing. But what I do contest is your view that your opinion is the truth and your incredulity that anyone else could see it otherwise. In my turn, I find your opinion and the way you express it a shining and very sad example of how hatred is perpetuated and will never be laid to rest. That, of course, is only my opinion! -- Necrothesp 13:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)"

The above has been extracted from this section within the the recent archiving (#4) of this page[[1]], not to perpetuate this particular aspect of the discussion but simply, in closing my input, in responce to the penultimate sentence of Necrothesp.

It is you that has chosen to use the word 'Hatred' and I find it offensive that you accuse me of perpetuating it, by the way that I express my opinion. You do not say hatred of what! I could easily fill this page with just disecting what it is you have stated and implied but I only wish to draw this to a close. If you consider 'hatred' to exist then, as an intelligent person, you will understand why. If you understand why, then you will be on a path to resolving/reconciling what you consider to be the cause(s) of this hatred. Regrettably, such enlightenment has no place within the Imperial/Establishment mind-set. -- TGG 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a single quote from your own post: "Yours, on the other hand is built upon historical misrepresentation, repressive lies and deceit, and some inate imperial desire to destroy." If that's not offensive against the English (and therefore, by extension, myself) I don't know what is. I would point out that I was merely trying to point out that yours was not the only view; it was you who chose to turn the discussion into a forum to insult the English. -- Necrothesp 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If the cap fits, then wear it! I have never pointed any finger at the English people either as a human community, or as individuals, (many of whom are friends and relations) and treat people as individuals (wherever and whenever). You have chosen to interpret what I said without seriously thinking about what I was saying. I certainly hold accountable for Cornwall's ill, those who are parasitic purveyors (innocent or otherwise) of the inertia of English Imperialism and fully paid up members of the English Hegemony. Something that you will find explained in some detail on the TGG website. The use of the English flag on Cornish pages is neither innocent nor NPOV! -- TGG 13:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superfluous Information

"Whilst I feel sure that there is someone out there, who will surely oblige, has anyone yet said that the use of the 'Cornish' flag on a 'Cornish' page is offensive? I am not arguing for, or against, the Cornish flag but that does not preclude it from some judgement - which will not be forthcoming! - that use of flags are unneccessary and should be removed. If that is what it takes, then so be it!"

"If we may return to the "one particular England-related template" that I have objected too and the superfluous nature of its inclusion at the foot of the page. May I remind you that you previously stated that "a link does not replace a template" when you restored the said infobox (that I had deleted). Why, then, are there any links at all and all such links are properly(?) replaced as individual templates/infoboxes?"

"The concept of 'Green' and 'Parkinson' were only semi-serious because they helped to prove a point which I was well aware would not be signed up to - as has been confirmed. They are, however, probably more serious than you think. But, what the hell does it matter, it is only our children's future! Those who defend the status quo are only seemingly interested in the here and now! -- TGG 15:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)"

"Well, if the use of the flag of Cornwall is an attempt to show Cornwall as separate from England (and I think here it actually is attempting to do that), then it is offensive to those who feel that Cornwall is rightfully part of England. The only reason you find the flag of England on the template under discussion offensive is because you find the idea of Cornwall being a part of England offensive. Until Cornwall ceases to be a part of England, however, and ceases to be a ceremonial county of England, the template is perfectly acceptable for this article, and the flag is perfectly acceptable as an icon of the template's place in the group of England-related templates."

"Now, for your point about links and templates, it is patently obvious that we cannot replace all links with templates (or, if you will indulge me, links are templates; templates including just what is relevant: the single link). But when a full template is useful, then there is no need to forgo it and instead include just one link."

"But... "our children's future"?! Because there's a template at the bottom of the Cornwall article with links to other ceremonial counties of England? Good good, man, you really must have lost it. Get off Wikipedia now, the future of the human race is as stake! Why use any precious electrons at all? _└ ^OzLawyer / talk ^┐ 15:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)"

The above has been extracted from this section within the the recent archiving (#4) of this page [[2]], not to perpetuate this particular aspect of the discussion but simply, in closing my input, in response to OzLawyer.

I am sure that you are well aware of action and reaction but not sure why you feel that the use of the Cornish flag would be offensive to a Cornish person? However, you deliberately misrepresent my position again, which is that the use of any flag is superfluous unless in a proper context.

We will, quite naturally, have to agree to disagree on the need for links and infoboxes or the philsophical factors surrounding information simply for the sake of information (the Everest syndrome perhaps? Namely, because "its there" or "it can be done").

The Cornish - English dispute clearly throws up the disturbing fact that the 'peoples' encyclopedia is here (and possibly elsewhere?) being used as a bureaucratic and Establishment device. I live and breathe 'Cornwall', which is in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, yet we are constrained to operate within an externally contrived format which insidiously, and excessively, acts against Cornish interests. We should be free to present Cornwall as discussed and agreed by consensus within Cornwall (within wiki guidlines) instead of the present coercion into starting from a predetermined Establishment-orientated mindset.

Your final para contribution yet again misrepresents my position, as argued in this section, by combining various points made by me as if they were just one point. If you found the points being made, too complex for you, there was no need to respond, let alone be offensive! -- TGG 17:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. You have failed to show why an infobox with links to ceremonial counties of England is superfluous when included on the article for one of those ceremonial counties. You have also failed to really give any reason why a flag in such an infobox is superfluous in any way. It connects England-related topics together in an easily-identifiable way.

As for the Cornish flag being offensive to Cornish people, who said that? It might be considered offensive to English people. Since obviously this and other Cornwall-related articles are not read only by the Cornish (in fact, you might think it's read less by the Cornish), then why would we be looking at this from a Cornish-only perspective?

Also, I do not think I have misrepresented your position on the "green computing" issue at all. But your comments were outright ridiculous no matter how they were taken. The entire issue is a non-starter.

And finally, no, we have to present Cornwall first and foremost as what it legally is. That you do not believe that Cornwall should be (or perhaps you think even is) part of England is not enough to overhaul completely the way we present the topic. The Cornish (or the "autonomy for Cornwall") point of view must be presented, since it is a fairly significant point of view, but we must not give it more that its just due. We must not sanitize articles on Cornwall to remove references to its legal Englishness. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Point one - Superfluous becasuse a link already exists within the main infobox.
• Point two - The flag adds absolutely nothing to the article when used in that context.
• Point three - I am not arguing for the retention of any flag, for reasons stated, but note that you err on the side of those who might think the Cornish flag as offensive. Therefore, NPOV demands removal!
• Point four - I have never argued against presenting the 'legal' position only the superfluous nature of the flag and an unnecessary infobox - or, if you choose, infoboxes.
• Point five - The Establishment sanitisation process already exists in the over-stating of the 'English' status. Your global mis-use of "Englishness" is also noted.

-- TGG 13:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off topic discussion

I ask again, can you guys please take this discussion to your respective talk pages rather than clogging up the Cornwall page. This discussion is becoming increasingly off topic and nothing new is being said. Talk pages are for discussing aspects of improving the article in question, not for rambling political discourse Mammal4 14:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Number of current speakers of the Cornish language

The numbers given in to introductory paragraph (recent edit) differ very significantly from those given under the sub-heading "Language". It would be good if further sources were cited to indicate the nature of the research that yielded each of these totals. === Vernon White (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The only considered reference that I know of is the study by Kenneth MacKINNON in 2000. This suggested that there were about 270 fluent speakers of Cornish in Cornwall (defined as able to hold a conversation at ordinary speed on everyday subjects) and about 3000 speakers at lesser levels. Perhaps this should be used, as a benchmark at least. Changes since 2000 will not be enormous and there seems little point in guessing. The 2000 figures as I read them were not really censual. The original report seems to no longer be on the net.

The reference (1) in the main language section is unsatisfactory. The comment "as at 2006" seems odd as the reference is to an article in the Daily Telegraph of November 2002 and the paper does not give the source of the figures. Incidentally, the wiki article does not quote all the DT figures: eg 100 fluent speakers, ten households speaking Cornish are omitted.

The phrase "most estimates agree" in the introductory article is unacceptable without citation.

I am inclined to amend the figures in the two articles to reflect the MacKinnon study.Crococolana 19:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the figures to reflect the MacKinnon ones. I really think speculation about the present is unnecessary and unencyclopedic - MacKinnon is only six years ago. However, if there are any estimates which can be ascribed to a named source, no doubt they will be added. I have left in the Cornish language -current status section the speculation "it is estimated...non-Cornish-speaking people" as I see a citation has been asked for. If it is not forthcoming I think this should be deleted.

I have not put a web link to the MacKinnon study because I cannot find the the original report on the net. Perhaps others can.Crococolana 17:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Weren't there some reliable articles in Cornish Studies. === Vernon White (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, Vernon. Can you access them? It would be very good to have numerical evidence additional to MacKinnon/GOSW. I have now found the 2000 language study site: [www.gosw.gov.uk/gosw/docs/254795/mode_of_use.doc] Incidentally, the ipsissima verba is "300 effective speakers of Cornish (with 30 reported for the London area)" - I take "with" to mean "including" not "and also".Crococolana 23:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

From Cornwall County Library catalogue:

Title Cornish studies. - 10 / edited by Philip Payton Publisher Exeter : University of Exeter Press, 2002 Contents Contains: New Cornish studies: new discipline or rhetorically defined space? / Bernard Deacon - New Cornish social science /Malcolm Williams - On ideology, identity and integrity / Colin H. Williams - Cornish archaeology at the millennium / Charles Thomas- Looking forward to looking back: the study of medieval history in Cornwall / Allen Buckley - Re-discovering difference: the recent historigraphy of early modern Cornwall / Mark Stoyle. / Industrial Celts? Cornish identity in the age of technological prowess / Philip Payton - Cornish migration studies: an epistemological and paradigmatic critique / Sharron P Schwartz - Making of modern Cornwall, 1800-2000: a geo-economic perspective / Ronald Perry - Party, personality and place: researching the politics of modern Cornwall / Garry Tregidga / Brian Elvins and nineteenth-century Cornish electoral politics / Edwin Jaggard - In some state ... a decade of the literature and literary studies of Cornwall / Alan M Kent - Cornish studies and Cornish culture: evaluations and directions / AmyHale - Defining the spectre: outlining the academic potential of the CAVA movement / Treve Crago / Cornish at its millennium; an independent study of the language undertaken in 2000 / Kenneth MacKinnon - Fatel era ny a keel? Revived Cornish: taking stock / Neil Kennedy.

I'll try to find a copy at Falmouth Library next week and give page references === Vernon White (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A better reference to the GOSW study is http://www.gosw.gov.uk/gosw/culturehome/heritage/cornish/. As a result of this study, isn't it the case that a high level officer has been appointed by some official body to steer development of Cornish language studies in Cornwall?. Presumably they would be pleased to tell WP Editors of any improvement in numbers. === Vernon White (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am looking here only at the estimated numbers speaking Cornish. Thanks for reminding me about the language strategy people; on Monday I'll ask Jenefer Lowe, the strategy chief, if she has any more up-to-date estimates (for wikipedia) than MacKinnon/GOSW 2000 and, if so, their basis. The "mode of use" reference I gave for the GOSW site takes one to the part of the study that gives the figures. I'm clear that we should put in only sound and referenced estimates. I'll hold my amendments to the present morass until I hear from Ms Lowe and you have the chance to see if Cornish studies give any methodical figures. Crococolana 12:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

::Righto, I have now heard from the Cornish language strategy manager about numbers of Cornish language speakers. This will help us to right the present morass.

Let us suppose someone turns to wikipedia to ask the questions, How many people presently speak Cornish fluently? How many speak it at a lesser level? At present we do not have any uncautioned figures though that should be changing soon. The Cornish language development manager tells me that they hope to commission new quantitative and qualitative research in the “very near future.” The data will be made public and be available for wikipedia.

Currently seekers after truth in wikipedia will find in four – yes, four - sections in the Cornwall and Cornish Language wikipedia pages figures that are widely different and only one serious source, others being unsourced or taken from a newspaper which does not give the source of its figures.

I put at the end of this post the story of the numbers.

At present the only serious study we have that I know of is the MacKinnon/GOSW study of 2000 and I think only this should be what appears in wikipedia until we have the new research. These are the figures that the language strategy department is using currently until the new commissioned research gives its results.

I propose to amend the language number entries now, using only MacKinnon, and rewrite the entries when we have the new commissioned research.

I do not believe the tentative data we have on numbers needs to be in four different parts of wikipedia. A nod on the main page and then details in the Current status part of the separate Cornish language section are sufficient. For this to be in four sections is overkill.

This is an encyclopedia. Let us put away our crystal balls. As Bacon said, let us not fill up our blanks and spaces with conjecture. Well, not too much at any rate.

Anyway, here are the minutiae for those who wish to read them...

FLUENT SPEAKER NUMBERS

MacKinnon offers a definition of fluency: “the ability to hold a general conversation at ordinary speed on everyday topics” (paragraph 2.5.2 MacKinnon/GOSW 2000).

Here are the figures at present on wikipedia with their sources:

“somewhere between 300 and 500 in Cornwall” speak “effectively” (MacKinnon, BBC multilingual website – the BBC website actually says “around 300”)

“around 500” (no source)

“As of 2006...around 500 fluently” (citing an article in the Daily Telegraph of November 2002 – the newspaper actually says 100 are fluent and that 500 have “reasonable conversational ability”)

“300-400” (Strategy for the Cornish language. I have found figures only in the section 'Where are we now' (www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=7984) where it says, referring to MacKinnon, “might be around 300 effective speakers of Cornish”)

100 (not on wikipedia but from the Daily Telegraph November 2002, if one follows the DT link which is on wikipedia)

NONFLUENT SPEAKER NUMBERS

I have put all the nonfluent under one head as I cannot surely distinguish the degree of speaking ability implied by the phrases “some knowledge,” “basic conversational level,” “some knowledge of basic phrases,” and “reasonable conversational ability.” I think nonfluent is a reasonable way of subsuming all these. MacKinnon has a detailed breakdown of claimed and attributed ability and, as he is given as a source, those details can be accessed by those who wish to know.

The figures given in tables 3.1 and 3.2 by MacKinnon (2000) vary greatly and come with a serious caution from him. I am not at all sure now that we can give a realistic figure for nonfluent speakers beyond “several hundred” until we have the new research data. People can read the tables if they wish to know more.

“upwards of 3500 are said to have some knowledge or are learning the language” (Daily Telegraph November 2002)

“now around [3500]” (says “4000 Cornish speakers, around 500 of whom are fluent”)(no source)

“500...having reasonable conversational ability” (Daily Telegraph November 2002, if one follows the DT link; the original “reasonable conversational ability” in the newspaper has been translated into “fluent” in the present wikipedia article)

“As of 2006...around 3500..to a basic conversational level” (Daily Telegraph November 2002)

“approximately 3500” (no source)

“in excess of 5000...some knowledge of basic phrases or could understand basic sentences” (no source)

I think we should try to resolve the contradictions in the figures not merely reinstate them. We should not claim a precision that we do not have; and giving a round number and qualifying it with something like “about” does not overcome that.

SOURCES FOR THESE FIGURES Now look at the two sources given for the present wikipedia figures:

i the MacKinnon/Government office of the south west(GOSW) study in 2000; this is the source of the language strategy figures and presumably the MacKinnon BBC article

ii an article in the Daily Telegraph of 17 November 2002 which gives figures but does not give any source for them.

For some of the figures presently on wikipedia no source is given.

MacKinnon in his 2000 study – which informed the subsequent government recognition of Cornish - explains exactly where the varied language-speaker estimates in that report come from: see tables 31.and 3.2. They are basically the estimates of language activists and groups. For fluent speakers he gives his own estimate of 300 in all of which 30 are in the London area, ie 270 in Cornwall. The ipsissima verba are: “there may be 300 effective speakers of Cornish (with about 30 reported for the London area).” I have taken “with” to mean “including” not “and also” but am happy to use 300 for Cornwall if others think that is a better interpretation. www.gosw.gov.uk/gosw/docs/254795/mode_of_use.doc

MacKinnon does not give one figure for nonfluent speakers but quotes others' several very differing figures. I think “several hundred” is a reasonable interpretation of these.

Note that the BBC website cited as a source is an undated article by MacKinnon in which he puts the current number of fluent speakers in Cornwall at “around 300” (not 300-500 as put for this source on wikipedia) with another “50 reported” for London. This is a minor variation on his 2000 study figures. A dated reference is preferable to an undated one.

I do not think the Daily Telegraph figures are acceptable as no source is given for them. Additionally, the present citing of the DT figures is selective - note the DT figure of 100 fluent speakers is not put on the present wikipedia pages. Crococolana 11:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How about people who have taken an exam on the Cornish language? Are there figures for this somewhere? Talskiddy 12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be an interesting figure, Talskiddy, and it would be useful to include it as it indicates a serious interest in the Cornish language and success in mastering it. [MacKinnon][3] gives some figures for this. The language board will have statistics. The living successful candidates are presumably included in the fluent "300" and in the non-fluent figures. Some of the candidates will be deceased, alas.Crococolana 13:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Referencing

Considering debates here, and elsewhere, that insist on using "legal" references, why has my editing from 'the county' to 'Cornwall' been reverted? As a Cornishman, with an identity that I am proud of and willing to protect, why should I be saddled with a non-identifying epithet of 'the county' by itinerant non-identifying geeks? Please restore changes!! -- TGG 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about protecting an identity. You were sanitising the article of all references to the fact the Cornwall is a county. Thus pushing your POV on the article. I haven't removed all your changes because equal use of 'Cornwall' and 'county' creates a more balenced article. josh (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The legal territorial name for Cornwall is "Cornwall" so what 'balance' is maintained by describing Cornwall as "the County"? 'The county' refers to an administrative function! Why should that editing/clean-up concern anyone? Perhaps, if you are genuinely interested in 'balance', we could agree to follow the recommendations of a Royal Commission on the Constitution (1973) and use "the Duchy"? To use 'the county' as a territorial epithet is about as POV as one can get in devaluing what, in Cornish terms, is a unique territory. It is part of an ongoing process of psychological genocide that seeks to fragment and undermine the 'Cornish' people-territory relationship. How do you differentiate between actions to 'clean-up' an article and 'sanitising' other than from your own POV and agenda? -- TGG 12:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To all intents and purposes Cornwall remains an English county. It's legal status is that of and English county, one which votes for, and returns members to, the UK parliament where it is recognised as a county. The council which oversees all public works within Cornwall is "Cornwall County Council" http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/

For Wiki to describe Cornwall as anything other than a county subverts its function as an encyclopaedia. To impose the term “Duchy”, when it is unused by all except a tiny minority of “nationalists” is superfluous and unnecessary.

For Cornwall to gain the recognition it deserves, it should not be limited to the perspective of a small minority who wish to change the county to satisfy their own agenda, but put forward in a recognisable and true description. The purpose of the Wiki section on Cornwall is NOT to educate the world on the obsessions of the few, but to inform the world of the true and accurate state and status of Cornwall as is.

The minority agenda should be added as a footnote.

But it is quite common to hear people refer to Cornwall as a Duchy, not to mention all the companies, hotels, pubs etc etc that use Duchy in their name. This on top of the fact that Cornwall clearly was a Duchy should be enough. Bretagne 44 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, non-British and uninterested observer here. Quite frankly, claiming that referring to a county as a county is a form of 'psychological genocide' is ridiculous. Do you wear a tin foil hat so the government can't steal your thoughts, too? Please. If you ever separate, by all means, change the terminology. Until then, varying the language makes this article much more pleasant for most of the world to read. 68.144.205.47 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"But it is quite common to hear people refer to Cornwall as a Duchy, not to mention all the companies, hotels, pubs etc etc that use Duchy in their name." POV and not evidential nor defining in any way. I've drunk in Pubs called the "Birds Nest", that doesn't make me into a pigeon though.

"This on top of the fact that Cornwall clearly was a Duchy should be enough." I'm glad you use the qualifier "was" it is now a county and has been since 1888. The fact that some do not like this idea should not prevent Wiki from remaining true to it's role as an encyclopedia, which is to present facts, not the wishes or desire of minorities.

[edit] Cornish people

Minor addition to the article. Cornwall is also the historic home of the Cornish people . Bretagne 44 09:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Who ever removed my edit please explain why or stop doing it. Please learn how to us wiki before you do anything!~ Edit restored! Bretagne 44 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Again my edit has been removed without reason if this does not stop action will be taken.

Bretagne 44 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [[Vikings again]

The latest edit puts the Vikings back in 721/722. The Annales Cambriae do not mention the Vikings at this date. See [www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/annalescambriae.html] (in English) and [www.kmatthews.org.uk/history/annales_canbriae/ac_a.html] in Latin. I have removed the Viking reference until a firm reference for it is put up. Crococolana 12:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language issue in intro...

Since it is only a very small portion of Cornwall's population, does this lengthy discussion really belong in the intro? I seems to contain very little real information (just specifics and citation that can be moved) that isn't already in Language, and is probably only there because of media attention and the like effectively blowing it out of proportion. In Ireland we all know about it for reasons obvious to most in Ireland (and probably the rest of the British Isles), but such is not reson to give it mention in the opening paragraphs. While the language may be important to the area's history, and so the attempt to revive it a point of interest, it still seems completely unnecesary. I think at least an explanation of why such a small thing gets such prominent mention is in order. Anyone agree? elvenscout742 10:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No! Cornish is an EU and UK recognised minority language and is funded under the Council of Europes framework convention for the protection of minority and lesser used languages. It is a prominant part of the moden Cornish identity and so shall stayBretagne 44 13:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Is cleanup required for ==History source==?

100110100 05:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction, again

[Sighs]

So, as tends to happen, the introduction has once again mutated into a verbose and ineligant collection of random facts. We've been through this before, and decided amongst us on an intro. Perhaps we now have some new information at our disposal that makes it neccesary to have a different introduction. Either way, we need to get a decent readable intro that we're all happy presents the important facts, and start reverting all changes that aren't discussed and agreed upon, otherwise we'll end up in the same place next year.

Unfortunately it seems to be the case on this talk page that new discussions need to come with the disclaimer that this is not about England vs UK. That matter has already been decided. I can't stop you starting a new discussion about it, but please keep it out of this one.

Here are a few suggestions to get started:

Cornwall (Cornish: Kernow) is a county in South West England, UK, on the peninsula that lies to the west of the River Tamar.

Most / all other counties name the bordering counties here, and I'm sure we always used to...

Cornwall is also the historic homeland of the distinct Cornish people.

Eeew. At least drop the "also", it makes no sense whatsoever here. It would make sense to combine this with the "celtic nation" section IMO.

The administrative centre and only city is Truro, while the historic capitals are Launceston and then Bodmin. Including the Isles of Scilly, located 28 miles (45 km) offshore, Cornwall covers an area of 1,376 square miles (3,563 km²). There is a population of 513,528, with a population density of 144 people per square kilometre, or 373 per square mile.[1] Tourism forms a significant part of the local economy. However, Cornwall is one of the poorest areas in the United Kingdom with the lowest per capita contribution to the national economy[2].

The economy sentence used to be part of a paragraph briefly describing the major items of history, geography and culture, e.g. the famous coastline and countryside. Why was this dropped? It made the intro the perfect length at three nicely sized paragraphs. At present the intro is a little short. I'd like to combine the admin and demographics intro with the first sentence, and move the economy info to the end of a reinstated brief history, geography & culture summary, which would put it in the context of why tourism is important.

Cornwall is considered one of the six historic "Celtic nations" and some question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, referring to it as a Duchy which is separate from England.

The wording seems a little clumsy, but I can live with it. However, it's not a paragraph. Combining with the "homeland" sentence makes perfect sense to me. I'd also suggest perhaps including the history and/or culture summary here, though I can see the objections arising already...

Joe D (t) 21:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There was at one point half a sentence on Cornish language - something like ...and there has been a recent revival in the Cornish language but this has at some point been edited out. I think it is an important point to make in the leader, which is supposed to be a summary of the whole article, but I agree its probably important not to make too much of itMammal4 09:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited one of the references to Celtic nation, this is rather POV. Celtic nationalists claim that Cornwall is a Celtic nation - that is true. "Cornwall is considered a Celtic nation" implies that everybody holds this view. Most English people don't agree with this.GordyB 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And you speak for all English people do you? How do you know that "most English people" don't hold this view? Provide a reference to say that most people don't think Cornwall is a celtic nation and maybe we should revise this. Besides, all this illustrates is that many English people are ignorant of their own history, and how the Kingdom of England was formed, not that the statement is true or not. Also, are we ignoring the views of all the non-English poeple who might have a view on the matter? You could also argue that most north americans don't recognise the difference between England and Britain but that doesn't mean it should be presented as such on Wikipedia. Mammal4 11:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I am saying that you cannot assert that a view is universally held or even imply such unless it is verifiable. That Celtic nationalists see Cornwall as a Celtic nation is verifiable that the English do is not (and is almost certainly untrue). The current version says that many locals see Cornwall as a Celtic nation, I don't have a problem with that version.GordyB14:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but many Bretons might also see Cornwall as a Celtic nation. Many Welsh do too. I suspect its probably a matter of exposure to the issue -Many English might also see it as a Celtic nation if they were familiar with the history and culture, but then again not. The problem I have with the "many locals" version is that it has a suble pov and implies that it is only a local issueMammal4 15:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I changed it to 'Celtic nationalists see Cornwall as a Celtic nation'. Celtic nation is an abstract concept and inherently POV whereas your previous example of England and Britain is not. England and the UK have an objective reality i.e. they are defined by UK law, 'Celtic nation' is just something that Celtic nationalists like to talk about. It means as much as 'Latin nation' or 'Anglo-Saxon nation'.

Most English people don't believe that a Celtic heritage means very much in the 21st century, most Cornish people these days probably were born outside the county or their parents come from outside the county. If Cornwall was a separate nation with its own identity before the late 20th century, the last few decades would have wrecked that. People move around so much these days.GordyB 16:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nationality has very little to do with genetics and where people are born, and more to do with what people feel. There are many British/American people who were either born elsewhere or children of immigrants who identify as British, so no I don't think that people moving around has "wrecked" Cornish identity. Cornish identity has been adopted by many who have come to live in the region. Oh, and people have been moving around for centuries - you only have to look at traditional Cornish surnames such as Jago, that are in fact of Spanish extraction or the recent genetic studies showing West African genetic loci present in established Yorkshire bloodlines [4]. Nationality is a complicated loose term (see Nation) and is more about a shared identity - take Channel 4's recept programme 100% English which illustrated that basically we are all mongrels with regards DNA, even those that feel they are English through and through. I would never want to take away someone's right to identify with a specific culture just because their parents happen to have come from elsewhere

Celtic nation is not an inherently pov term (a nation that feels it has a shared Celtic heritage?)only the context in which it is used is pov, whereas your usage of the term Celtic nationalists to imply extremism arguably is. Saying things like "Most English people believe.." is Weasel wording and seems designed to imply something that you believe is true but can't actually proove with proper referencing.

Also, England is not defined in law as you say, it ceased to exist with the Acts of Union 1707 with Scotland. Legistlation applied to England now, is in actuality UK legistlation that does not apply in Scotland and Wales. This does not mean England does not exist as a concept though, as does the concept of celtic nations and the Cornish nation. Mammal4 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The science behind 100% English was a joke. Don't take it seriously.

Whether people like it or not traditional identities are under threat from 'Middle England'. Celtic nationalists has never been taken to mean extremists, very few people claim that PLaid Cymru or the SNP are extremists. Whether Cornwall is a nation is incredibly POV. Nor did I add 'Most English people' to the article so there is no need to call it weasel words.

England is defined in law. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all defined as 'constituent countries' by the British government.GordyB 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No - As much as you might like it to be(looking at your St George Cross daubed userpage), constituent countries are not defined in law even if they are mentionned on the UK government website. they are just convenient terms that we use to refer to hazy concepts.

Oh and by the way, I have a Ph.D. in genetics so I am well aware of the value of genetic studies in this area. The 100% English programme might have been lighthearted and dumbed down, but the point behind it remains valid (i.e that we as europeans are an homogenous mixture of genetic heritage and that this shouldn't be used as the basis of defining nationality as you seem to think it should be). If you want want something more solid then there are plenty of good academic papers that can be cited that come to the same conclusion, but If I start citing these here for layman it isn't going to do much good.

I am using weasel words to describe how you present your arguments on this page (most people think this, most Cornish that) not in the article. please keep up.

Anyway, it seems clear to me that you are just trolling me so I shan't be feeding you anymore. You don't address points when I put them to you, just deflect them and start talking about something related. Saying that the Cornish are not a nation is just as POV as saying they aren't Mammal4 09:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed this to the flag is seen by some people including Cornish nationalists as a compromise. rv warring won't do this article any good so it would be better to come to some form of agreementMammal4 09:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer your second post to your first. If I were trolling I wouldn't be interested in a compromise. If I were pushing a POV, I would delete all references to Cornish nationalism on this and other pages. If you read the talk page for Home nations, you will see that the opposite is true. I can't even think which points I am supposed to have evaded.

All I want is for the article to be more ballanced and your propsed compromise is acceptable.GordyB 12:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just attempted a bit of a tidy up of the lead. I agree with User:Steinsky about some of his points regarding the length of the paragraphs, and summarising some more of the article in the lead, but didn't want to cause too much controversy so instead worked with what was there initially. Mdcollins1984 17:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

The present Cornwall-politics item (and the main item Politics of Cornwall) are unbalanced in their presentation of politics in Cornwall and I think a visitor to them would get a misleading view of the range and scope of politics in Cornwall.

For example, in the article on this main Cornwall page 3½ lines are given over to the Liberal Democrats and 14½ lines to Cornish nationalist issues, these latter lines even including a reference to a by-election for a parish council.

I don't know how on wikipedia one goes about suggesting major changes so I'll do it here. I suggest the following for the politics item on the main Cornwall page:

<<Cornwall currently elects five MPs to the British House of Commons, all of whom are Liberal Democrats (2005 general election). New parliamentary boundaries will create a sixth parliamentary constituency in Cornwall which will be fought for the first time at the next British general election.

The organisation of the local government of the county is presently subject to debate and may change but the current arrangements in early 2007 are as follows.

There are eighty two county council seats. The majority are currently held by Liberal Democrats (2005 county council election).The headquarters of the county council are at Truro.

There are six districts in Cornwall with a total of 249 council seats. From east to west they are North Cornwall, Caradon, Restormel, Carrick, Kerrier, and Penwith. The numerically largest main groups represented on them are Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, and independents.

The chief registered parties contesting elections in Cornwall are Conservatives, Greens, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Mebyon Kernow, and UKIP.

There are several groups advocating varying forms of devolution or independence for Cornwall and campaigning on issues of the identity and rights of Cornish people: for example Mebyon Kernow, the Cornish Stannary Parliament (CSP), Cornwall 2000, and the Cornish Constitutional Convention. The main nationalist political party is Mebyon Kernow. In 2001 a petition calling for a devolved regional Cornish Assembly and carrying 41 650 signatures of residents of Cornwall was presented to the British government.

See Constitutional status of Cornwall>>Crococolana 13:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it could be argued that this is a little unbalanced but I think it would be wrong to remove material from the article as what is there is well written and neutral. The point is that there are some important differences in Cornish politics compared to other places(I can't think of any other county that has this particular devolution slant to its politics). Which is worth more than a casual mention because it is a unique situation, and makes the article interesting. Encyclopoedias should let the reader learn new things, not just tell them stuff that they already know. By all means balance up the content on the other political parties, but i don't think the devolution stuff should be cut Mammal4 14:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I started this article - Heres why it looks like it does. 1) For an article to exist at all on Cornish politics it has to describe its differences from the rest of the UK. 2) The phrase "The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are the main contestants for elections in Cornwall" is meant to show that although the Cornish Nationalist groups make alot of noise they are in fact a minority - The Cornish national issue does effect the main stream parties though. 3) I have scant information on the Conservatives and Labour positions in Cornwall, I am a former employee of the Lib Dems so I can add more info here but I have other things to do..... Please feel free to add more to the article and remove the bias which some editors have added lately - I dont think we need a list of endless articles all agreeing with the Cornish Stannary PArliament and containing a massive St Pirans flag for one!!!! 15:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am writing about the item Politics on the Cornwall main page (not the item Politics of Cornwall which has its own page and which I shall get around to).

“a little unbalanced”: well, that’s a droll way of putting it. About 80 percent of the current item is about Cornish nationalist politics. This vastly overstates the level of support for and interest in political nationalism. I suppose there might be an interest that elections do not reflect though I do not know how to test that supposition reliably.

I have taken a deep breath and rewritten the item. I have left much of the nationalist parts untouched - I have removed the reference to a parish council by-election. That is too embarrassing.

I think details about the nationalist and non-nationalist parties and groups are best dealt with on their own websites or the main article on politics in Cornwall or on their pages on wikipedia rather than in an introductory item like this.

Two queries: Does the Cornish Nationalist Party still exist? I know TGG as a website; is there accessible evidence of it as a group?

I have removed the last sentence (The British government however has no plans...) as current invitations for future plans suggest it is misleading. Crococolana 14:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cornish rugby

Don't take my edits to the section the wrong way. I'm not trying to 'de-Celtify' this section merely improve it.

I deleted a reference to 'huge nationalist support' or such-like as the section was about sport rather than politics and the issue is discussed on the team page. Ironically the phrase was mine originally though I don't remember the word 'huge' being there when I wrote it.

I've changed rugby to 'rugby union' in a couple of places too. Rugby can be as ambiguous a term as 'football' as a lot of rugby league fans refer to rugby league as 'rugby' as well.

I clarified that the Cornish rugby team play in the county championship because from the original text, it is not clear what the difference is between them and say Cornish Pirates.GordyB 16:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truro Update

I have added a large update to the Truro page, please take a peek. Cheers... A Cornish Pasty 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

I have moved my saint comments from the history to the religion item and added two further points.Crococolana 13:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

. . . and I have added a note about the Anglican diocese. === Vernon White (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Here is the summary for my edits today:

• Reorganised intro to be more of a summary of the article, per the above discussion.
  • I imagine the last pargraph of the intro will be the most contentious. The changes I made to it were to bring in links to the sub-articles that deal with the issue, in the hope of keeping the issue on those pages, and stop the edit warring on this one.
• I tidied up the physical geography section because:
  • Geology and landscape were separated, which I don't think makes any sense.
  • Moved geology details to the sub-article and cut down a little on the big words on this page -- Wikipedia:Summary style.
  • Removed sub-sectioning: IMO it's not neccesary to give every paragraph its own section.
• Used Wikipedia:Summary style for the economy section, and cut down on excess detail from this page.
• Started turning list of settlements into prose, but this needs much more, please expand! See Dorset (featured article) for an example.
• Moved list of places of interest, per WP:UK geo.
• Cut out history and culture links, per Wikipedia:Summary style -- links to individual sports/teams are fine on the articles about those sports/teams and fine in the Culture of Cornwall or a Cornish sport page, but lets not bloat this article too much.
• Generally cut spam, weasel words, subjective phrases (about the "spectactular" and "beautiful" coast", or the "best" way to travel) and duplicate links.

I'm hoping there should be no issues with any of that, except perhaps the intro. Next up, the culture section really needs cleanup and cutting down to summary style, but I just can't face that right now. Joe D (t) 13:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)