Talk:Cornwall/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Edit summaries

I would respectfully remind ALL contributors to this page to use meaningful, informative edit summaries, out of courtesy to watchlisters and to people looking at the history of this page. It is most disappointing, and offputting, to see a long string of edits with such pathetic edit summaries - many with none at all, and others with just a cryptic "r". DuncanHill (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wording of lead, including discussion of constitutional status etc

PLEASE can we have a thread specfically about this, not one titled misleadingly "Grammar point". James - it really would be best to propose changes and get consensus first. The article (and many others on Cornish subjects) has been seriously marred in the past by people with various nationalist agendas, and undiscussed changes are likely to trigger new disputes. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The "provocation" argument is utter nonsense - if wordings in articles "provoke" WP editors, that is their problem, if they are NPOV and factual. Behind that statement lies the false concept that nationalist editors within WP must not be provoked. I accept Duncan's point that it is a Unitary Council and not a County, I was using shorthand above. I would accept the "England within UK" line but still contest that any of it is neccessary, since I have shown evidence above that Cornwall has the same Unitary status as other Unitaries in England. The intro and article go on to give adequate coverage of the other aspects of Cornwall's claims to differentness, this is about that specific sentence. The actual point is a very simple one - is or is not Cornwall some different kind of English Unitary Authority. Answer: no. There is also a grammar point though - that "compromise" reads like it was written by a US'er, something we normally deprecate. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's provocative edits - that is, undiscussed edits that any editor familiar with the article and its history would know are likely to cause provocation, that I am objecting to. That Cornwall is administered much as any other unitary authority is not in doubt (though the estates of the intestate and right of wreck go to the Duchy rather than to the Crown as they do elsewhere). This article is not solely about the Unitary Authority - that article is at Cornwall Council. This article is about the place, and its hitory, geography and culture, not just the local government structure. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c): James, we know all that. I thought you'd understood the point earlier in this discussion, but perhaps not. The point is that it is misleading to describe Cornwall, in the first sentence, solely in relation to its current administrative position. It's true, but it gives the impression that it tells the whole story when it doesn't. The constitutional position is contested, and so we should use more subtle language in order to present a neutral POV. Cornwall is not just the local authority. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK to what you said just now about provocative edits, but that wasn't the point you made higher up - what wearies me is the tendancy to see the text in edits as somehow provocative to nationalist opinion - what matters are the facts. On the actual sentence, I agree it's not just about the Unitary, but that's part of it. It seems we have three problems, (1) a clumsy wording which apparently emanated from a misreading of Britannica's web formatting, (2) describing the historic and current nature of the ceremonial county - ancient entity and (3) the current administrative/political arrangements. I don't think they all have to be in the very first sentence, but at the moment the very first sentence seems designed to give an odd impression that somehow Cornwall floats someplace between England and the UK, in some way differently to other counties. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What I said at the start of this thread stands. Because of the difficulties in this subject area, and the history of POVs of all descriptions and the associated edit wars, it is particularly important to propose changes and get consensus before making changes to the wording. DuncanHill (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to apply for full protection then, as you seem to be proposing a complete article lock. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying discuss and get consensus before making changes which are likely to be contentious. You very first post in this thread misrepresented what I was saying - I hadn't said anything about "provocation" up to then, yet your response to me was to rubbish an argument I hadn't made. Please don't continue to misrepresent me. I strongly suggest you spend some time reading back through the ten pages of archive here, as well as the history of the article. This will give you an idea of the problems I am trying to avoid. DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The "provocation" remark was from Ghmyrtle, I was responding to him in that one. I have browsed the archives - there is good material in there and also a lot of false arguments. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No James, you were responding to the only post in the thread, which was by me and did not mention provocation. Now, if you want to suggest a new wording for the lead, why not start an appropriately titled thread, make you case, and take part in the debate that follows? Be great to see you linking to some of the good material in the archives. I look forward to it. DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Duncan, I did respond in the wrong thread, but the traffic was heavy and I was rushing. I was responding to the higher thread where GH said "wording that states that Cornwall is "of England" is unnecessarily provocative". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

James, you responded speedily and boldly to a comment by Moon that was itself provocative. Your edit was "provocative" in the sense that I'm sure you must have known, in the context of discussions on this article, that it would provoke a response, and, again in context, I don't think it was necessary given the ongoing discussions over wording here. In some senses, Cornwall is indeed "of England", but there is a debate over whether using a simple statement like that in the opening sentence leads to misunderstandings over the area's history, culture, and current constitutional arguments, that could be avoided by using a different wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

True that Moon was winding me up. Mustn't see red mist quite so easily. Remind self thrice daily. Agree on the latter point. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to ask that any controversial changes be discussed at the Talkpage first, rather than being WP:BOLD. Obviously, there's no compulsion, but why not? Daicaregos (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Just been browsing some of the cites given for the "recognised" wording you reverted to Dai - some are dead links, some blogs, etc. Will go through them in more detail later, but they don't convince. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

In the past, editors have generally been very helpful at mending or improving refs when someone has asked on the talk page. Perhaps you would like to make a list of the problem refs that you have found, and then we could help find better ones? DuncanHill (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, they need to be pretty good to justify the "recognised" claim. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, links 8-14, used to ref the sentence "Cornwall is recognised as one of the Celtic nations by many Cornish people, residents and organisations."

Link 8. "The Celtic League". Fixed from dead status by Dai just now. A campaigning body which has (amusingly in the context of the above discussions) branches for Alba, Cymru, Kernow, Mannin and England (my italics). [1]. No information on their website about numbers of members, etc. News searches for "Celtic League" list nothing about the organisation.

Link 9. An item from the Cornish Stannary Parliament (hardly an independent source) claiming that "the UN recognises Cornish Identity". This unlikely headline turns out on closer inspection to head a discussion on why the government documents supplied to justify World Heritage Site status (themselves incorrectly quoted in the piece) granted to the Cornish Mining industrial sites have not been written across into a formal government policy that Cornwall is a seperate nation. It's really just a blog point.

Link 10. Mebyon Kernow. See (8), Celtic League. As one is affiliated to the other, these are really one link anyway.

Link 11. RTE Celtic Media Festival Awards. As far as I can tell, can be discarded, as it contains no text relevant to the sentence and in any event is not a Cornish body of residents or people.

Link 12. The International Celtic Congress turns out to have some branches in Cornwall. Quelle Surprise! Relevance however to the text must remain in the magick rhelm of mystery.

Link 13. BBC website Irish Interest section. Briefly mentions the "six Celtic nations". Really a tourism puff-piece, fairly amateurishly written. Not a justification in itself for the sentence, but can accept it with other refs of a more meaningful sort.

Link 14. Link to Welsh Assembley site story - broken link now. Searched a bit for the original, can't find it - WA site seems to de-archive material. Google unhelpful. [2]

Well there we have it. Hardly a convincing repertoire of references, to say there are so many. There's probably more in the local Cornish media. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the list, I will look at in detail soon, but am off to Explorers in a few minutes. I know that several references have previously been removed from the article because other editors were complaining of over-referencing of the Celtic Nation material, and it will be useful to look at those too. It's also worth noting that the lead normally should not have many refs if the material summarized is reffed in the main text. DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have found enough representative references for 'recognised' and 'many' to be used. All the main UK newspapers acknowledge Cornwall as a Celtic nation: Independent, book review of The Last of the Celts by Marcus Tanner, Financial Times on Cornish self-rule, Guardian begins “A call by First Minister Alex Salmond for the return of ancient Scottish treasures from the British Museum has fuelled demands from five other Celtic nations … “, Western Mail: ferry spokesman “... connections between the Celtic nations of Wales and Cornwall.” and the BBC refer to "... all the Celtic nations including Cornwall". Here are a couple of government sites: Welsh Assembly Government: “... the Celtic countries and regions of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Corwall, Isle of Man, Galicia, Asturias and Brittany.“, Isle of Man Government: “... links between the Isle of Man and other Celtic nations: Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, Ireland, Asturies and Galicia.”, an Exeter Uni paper, Festival Interceltique de Lorient define the Celtic nations (in French) I can translate if necessary), Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat), in a House of Lords debate, notes that "Cornwall sees itself as the fourth Celtic nation of the United Kingdom". By the way, several reliable sources including John T Koch and the Celtic Media Festival define Cornwall as one of the "Celtic countries", but perhaps we shouldn't go there. Which of these would you like to use, or did you find some better ones? Daicaregos (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Before we go into those in detail, can we just establish what the sentence means? I see that you are still citing bodies outside Cornwall as evidence - the sentence says "by many Cornish people, residents and organisations" and I think it's clear this means "Cornish organisations". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It does read like that, doesn't it. But it shouldn't mean just Cornish organisations. After all, that Cornwall is recognised as a Celtic nation internationally is rather more notable than if only those with that opinion were in Cornwall. How about cutting the sentence to read "Cornwall is recognised as one of the Celtic nations.", which is verifiably true . Daicaregos (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If that's your aim, it's the sentence wording that's wrong then. I would suggest a redraft - at the moment the cite proof proposed is at odds with the sentence. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean ... The refs provided yesterday would verify the sentence "Cornwall is recognised as one of the Celtic nations.", which is my suggested redraft. Have I misunderstood you? Daicaregos (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I typed that last one in a bit of a rush without fully taking on board your suggested revision. I don't have a problem with the revision you propose (provided the sources stand up of course, which I'm sure for something so obvious, good sources that do can be located) and like it better than the current sentence which is a bit leaning towards painting a picture of Cornwall unanimous behind a separate nation agenda, a supposition that is far from on the ground reality. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Shall we wrap this discussion up now by making the edit suggested above by Dai, "Cornwall is recognised as one of the Celtic nations" to replace the "recognised" sentence and remove the existing refs and replace with some from Dai's proposed list above? There seems to be agreement on this. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

References should be redundant in a mature article like this. Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should be a summary of the article text. Consequently, everything in the Lead should already be referenced in the text. The text summarised by "Cornwall is recognised as one of the Celtic nations" is from Cornwall#Question of Cornish national identity. Would everyone accept the shorter Lead sentence being unreferenced, as long as the references from the 'text' are updated? Half a dozen references for a nine word sentence in the intro looks ridiculous. Daicaregos (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. I assume that long string of refs is there due to previous contention. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree; and yes, it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The changes have been made, as discussed. Please say if you have any issues. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's good with me Dai, it's a big improvement. Going back to the first sentence and having had time to think it over, I think the problem is that as it stands it is attempting to give a wider sense of "Cornwall" and "Cornish distinctiveness as part of a Celtic identity" whilst in the actual sentence it only refers to the Ceremonial County/Unitary Authority, both "modern" (in the sense of post-medieval or modern) entities. Do you think we could rewrite it to work around the concern that it mustn't underplay Cornish identity so that we also end up with less clumsy wording? I was thinking along the lines of something (paraphrasing - obviously it will be technically better than this) like "Cornwall forms the tip of the south-western peninsula of Great Britain. Culturally and politically a traditional part of Celtic West Britain, in is now an English Unitary Authority and Ceremonial County of the United Kingdom". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Scroll back up the page to 1 Feb and you'll find I suggested: "Cornwall... is an area at the tip of the south-western peninsula of Great Britain, administered as a ceremonial county and unitary authority of England, within the United Kingdom". Personally I don't like the wording "Culturally and politically a traditional part of Celtic West Britain, it is now....." - I think that swings the balance too far the other way, particularly for the opening paragraph. I'd be content to leave the wording as it is for the time being rather than stirring up a new nest of hornets. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't dislike your proposed sentence Ghmyrtle, it's certainly better than the one we have now IMHO. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I shall be bold..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Small change in 4th Lede para

As we are generally tightening up the phrasing in the Lede, can I suggest another small change? After the recent change, this sentence reads:

"Cornwall is recognised as one of the Celtic nations. It retains a distinct cultural identity, reflecting its history, and modern use of the revived Cornish language has increased.[8]"

I think the second sentence could be better. It's a bit repetitive and has a bad-grammar "comma-followed-by-and" - can we have something like this instead:

"Cornwall is recognised as one of the Celtic nations with a distinct cultural identity and history. Modern use of the revived Cornish language has increased.[8]" 18:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points: firstly, I couldn't find “modern use of the revived Cornish language has increased.” discussed in the article and, the reference seems to be a dead-link too. Until the increasing use of Cornish is discussed in the article text and a reference found, the sentence should be removed. The second point is that using "with" as an additive link is deprecated. How about something like: "Cornwall is recognised as one of the Celtic nations, retaining a distinct cultural identity that reflects its cultural heritage.” ? Daicaregos (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts - I think I recall that the increased phrase was contested a while ago inconclusively and at the time I looked hard for quality sourcing on it and was unable to locate any, so I agree with that point. I didn't know "with" as an additive is deprecated, which MoS is that in for my interest? I want to know these little things! (genuine interest, not argumentation.) Your sentence change proposal is fine with me. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it's a MoS. It's noted here though: WP:UKCOUNTIES#Grammar and layout checklist. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks, hadn't seen that page before, very helpful! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:45, 11 February 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [3]) 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 [[4]], the Cornish Stannary Parliament website[[5]] 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)

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)

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)

No. This is based on a misunderstanding of the uses and meanings of the word shire.

In the past the Old English word scir (shire) carried several meanings: a district, diocese, parish, estate, office (see J Bosworth and TN Toller An Anglo-Saxon dictionary and JR Clark Hall A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary).

Broadly, the Anglo-Saxon hierarchy of local government comprised villages and towns (vills), then these collected into hundreds (called wapentakes in the north), then the hundreds/wapentakes collected into shires. Tithings based on vills were the local police units. Estates owned by nobles spread over these arrangements. This system was continued by the Normans and new units developed over time; eventually hundreds faded away as active units but most of the shires are with us today. When the Normans conquered England the name given to the shires in their legal documents was the Latin comitatus which in English is translated as county. Thus shire and county after 1066 are two words for the same thing, they are synonymous, apart from the instances in the next paragraph. The word county is found after 1066 to describe the presentday counties or shires. It is used in documents to describe Cornwall.

Before shire came to mean a county the word was sometimes used as a suffix to mean a lesser area and this meaning has lingered in several instances. Examples of the use of shire meaning hundreds and other non-county districts are: Salfordshire, Hallamshire, Cravenshire, Coxwoldshire, and Yetholmshire, all parts of counties. Associated with the palatine bishopric of Durham were the areas, none of which were counties, of Islandshire, Norhamshire, and Bedlingtonshire in Northumberland and Allertonshire and Howdenshire in Yorkshire. A large list of such instances by JA PICTON is in Notes and queries for 22 January 1887, page 61, accessible here .

In medieval Cornwall the shires of Triggshire, Powdershire, Pydarshire, and East and West Wivelshire were not counties but the equivalent of hundreds. (Note that William STUBBS writes “In Cornwall, in the twelfth century, the subdivisions were not called hundreds but shires”: Constitutional history of England in its origin and development, 1891, 111). Serpren (talk) 02:46, 6 August 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)

What the HELL went on here??? My post had nothing to do with nationalism, it was a general query to make sure the Cornish tourist board were not promoting Cornwall with Bias words or something, nothing to do with, I say again, Nationalism...and look what it turned into. I'm disappointed. Excuse my anger, I'm a woman who thinks matters like this are so childish --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ceremonial County?

What is the importance of the ceremonial county to Cornwall, and why is it any more important than the duchy? The ceremonial county gives the lord lieutenant and the duchy gives the high sheriff. Cornwall is no longer administered as a county. The duchy has certain powers, some used, some not, over the whole territory of Cornwall. Both county and duchy are frequently used to describe Cornwall, indeed many MPs last year described Cornwall as a duchy in the house of commons. Bodrugan (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This statement "The South West is made up of the city and ceremonial county of Bristol, the counties of Somerset, Dorset, Devon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, and the Duchy of Cornwall." is at TeachingEnglish published by British Council / BBC. It is not what I was expecting there.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Childish edit warring should die down for a bit.

It turns out following a sockpuppet investigation that Hdjhgfjh‎ (talk · contribs), MJC59 (talk · contribs) and 81.138.71.174 (talk · contribs) are all the same person so they have all now been blocked. This article has also been semi-protected for a week which means that only named accounts which have been registered for more than 5 days (i.e. autoconfirmed) can edit the article. Right now new accounts and IP addresses can't edit Cornwall, although they can post on the talk page. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it turns out that MJC59 wasn't the sockmaster, but Govynn was. Anyway, MJC59 is back with more nationalist contributions with this and this. I am not going to trip 3RR so hopefully others will step into stop this silliness. If the behaviour continues I would suggest taking him/her to WP:RFC/USER. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's finally unlocked! And no POV pushing vandalism so far. How long this will last though... --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the childish re-edits, changes and reversals. I made several additions only to have them all reversed (by a very pro-Anglo-Saxon gentlement it appears)!!! I don't mind healthy debate but when pointing out when so called 'facts' are not attested and are in fact assumptions, I think it is reasonable to point these issues out within any wiki article. I'm too busy to persevere so I won't be adding these in again, but I really would recommend that the whole debate about Anglo-Saxon Kings and whether they were fighting internal battles or with the Celts should be placed on a far more neutral and sceptical basis. It seems a trifle ironic that English and Cornish wiki-posters are apparently conducting the same war on Wiki as the people they are writing about!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artowalos (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be informed that on Sunday 3rd June, 2012, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of England and I of Scotland sailed down the River Thames as part of the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations aboard the Royal Barge 'Gloriana'. The Royal Barge flew at its stern the Red Ensign. At midships its flew the following flags: Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and CORNWALL and these represent the Nations of Britain as recognised by Her Majesty the Queen. Please note that despite the inaccurate and dismissive comments on this Wikipedia entry, Cornwall is a Nation of Great Britain as recognised by Queen Elizabeth. The procession was covered on BBC news and I enclose a link to photographs of the Royal Barge 'Gloriana'. I would like this inaccurate reference to Cornwall/Kernow as a 'County' removed. It is a Duchy and Nation of Britain administered as a Unitary Authority. This by authority and recognition of Elizabeth II. Link to photographs here showing the National Flag of Saint Piran of Cornwall (black with a white cross) given equal precedence upon said Royal Barge with the other National Flags of Britain: http://s1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii532/morgawr1/ Mur ras dhys. Kernow bys Vyken! Morgawr1 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the Cornish flag was flown on the Gloriana neither strengthens nor weakens the claim that Cornwall is a nation of the United Kingdom. The other flags flown were the de facto national flags of England, Scotland and Wales, the Saint Patrick's Saltire (presumably to represent Northern Ireland). The flag of the City of London was also flown - we can hardly claim the city is one of the home nations on the basis of a flag on a boat. There was also sponsor's (?) flag on Gloriana, and countless other flags (such as county flags) on the other boats, that doesn't make them recognised as national symbols either.

The Pageant may have been a royal event, but its organisers are separate from the crown. The decision as to what was on that boat wasn't necessarily a decision of the crown or approved by them (or the government). The choice of St Piran's cross may not have been to recognise Cornwall as a nation either, and there are several other possibilities for the choice of that flag. Without some sort of statement, stating "Gloriana will fly the flags of the nations of the UK..." any supposition as to why the Cornish flag was on that boat is original research.--Nilf anion (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Her Majesty chose to fly in the same section of the 'Gloriana' the flag of Saint Piran of Cornwall in equality and alongside the flags of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland shows that Cornwall is a Nation. I am not interested in what other vessels flew. I am talking here about the Queen's vessel. The Saint Piran Flag has been shown to be the de facto National flag of Kernow by the reigning Monarch. Accordingly, the text of the entry will be changed in due course to reflect this fact. Kernow is one of the four Nations of Britain and five of the United Kingdom. The 'Gloriana' flew NO 'county' flags and was the Royal vessel. Time for Wiki to get up to date. More photographs now added: http://s1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii532/morgawr1/ . No English Imperialist can deny the actions of the Queen. Morgawr1 (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The following is a 'cut and paste' from Wikipedia concerning the flags flown on the 'Gloriana':

"During the celebrations on 3rd June 2012, and in accordance with flag protocol, 'Gloriana' carried the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom and flags of the COUNTRIES of the United Kingdom: The Cross of St George for England; Cross of St Andrew for Scotland; Welsh Dragon for Wales; Cross of St Patrick for Northern Ireland; Cross of St Piran for Cornwall; and Triskelion for the Isle of Mann."

Note the use of the words. Cornwall - a Country, Duchy and Celtic nation of Great Britain! 'Kernow yw konna tyr orth penn Breton Veur. Kernow yw bro Geltek! Kernow bys vyken!' Morgawr1 (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The usual paranoid, anglophobic nonsense - someone disagrees with your opinion and they must be an "English Imperialist" out to get the Cornish. Seriously, most people in England couldn't care less about whether Cornwall is a country or county or a nation or whatever. Many people in England view the Cornish as separate and distinct. Most people simply aren't aware or just don't care. The fact the flag was flown does not change the fact Cornwall is administrated as a part of England, the Queen was obviously paying tribute to the Cornish as a distinct group just like the English, Welsh & Scottish are as well - WHICH this article does not deny. She was being respectful to all the people's of these Islands too, there were many more flags besides. This has nothing to do with Cornwall's current administration, which is all that is being presented in the lead of this article which so many have taken undue offence at. Why would political groups like Mebyon Kernow exist in there current form if Cornwall was indisputably not administrated as a part of England? --Τασουλα (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Read the words of another Wiki article on the same subject Sowsnek! You English Imperialists cannot have it all ways! "During the celebrations on 3rd June 2012, and in accordance with flag protocol, 'Gloriana' carried the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom and flags of the COUNTRIES of the United Kingdom: The Cross of St George for England; Cross of St Andrew for Scotland; Welsh Dragon for Wales; Cross of St Patrick for Northern Ireland; Cross of St Piran for Cornwall; and Triskelion for the Isle of Mann." Deny the actions of the Queen now? Morgawr1 (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Calling me an "English Imperialist" is a personal attack and completely unfounded. You haven't listened to a word I have said or you just don't understand it. I repeat. None of what you have said changes the fact Cornwall is administrated as a part of England. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The following is a 'cut and paste' from Wikipedia concerning the flags flown on the 'Gloriana':

"During the celebrations on 3rd June 2012, and in accordance with flag protocol, 'Gloriana' carried the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom and flags of the COUNTRIES of the United Kingdom: The Cross of St George for England; Cross of St Andrew for Scotland; Welsh Dragon for Wales; Cross of St Patrick for Northern Ireland; Cross of St Piran for Cornwall; and Triskelion for the Isle of Mann."

Note the use of the words. Cornwall - a Country, Duchy and Celtic nation of Great Britain! 'Kernow yw konna tyr orth penn Breton Veur. Kernow yw bro Geltek! Kernow bys vyken!'Morgawr1 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine enough. But it still doesn't effect how Cornwall is administrated as part of England! Look at the article and the way it is presented, read for instance the line about how Cornwall is the home of the Cornish people! I don't think anyone can deny the Queen views the Cornish a nation in a sense (Nation has many definitions, Cornwall is non-sovereign and non-devolved, but still recognised as being distinct), but that's her personal opinion isn't it??? She doesn't have any political power what-so-ever. She is not responsible for anything going on in Cornwall and neither am I. You read too much into "Is a county of..." --Τασουλα (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is so hopelessly out of date in respect of the Celtic Nation and Duchy of Cornwall. It still shows the number of Mebyon Kernow Councillors at Lys Kernow as three when everyone knows it is five. I am not even an MK member or voter! Hilarious! Bram an gath! Morgawr1 (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Re; The flag on the Royal barge.

But calls by the West Briton to Buckingham Palace, the Diamond Jubilee Pageant, the company representing the Gloriana and the Richmond boatbuilders have revealed the answer.Master boatbuilder Martin Edwards, whose ancestors the Curnows were boatbuilders from Penzance, said a number of the workforce on the Gloriana were Cornish. They included himself, painters from Falmouth and a boatbuilder known affectionately to the team as "Cornish Malcolm". Mr Edwards said: "It had been a subject of amusement all along the construction. "We very diplomatically worked on it with Lord Sterling and he very kindly granted the purchase of a St Piran's flag and saw that it was flown from one of the flag poles on the Gloriana." He saw the internet whirlwind the flying of the St Piran's flag created. "It does not infer anything more than that," Mr Edwards said. "It's not anything constitutional, it's all very innocent."

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Mystery-Cornish-flag-jubilee-boat-solved/story-16366581-detail/story.html Serpren (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Everything mentioned on Wikipedia needs a reliable source to be included. With the flag issue, some sort of statement is needed as to why the 6 flags on the Gloriana were chosen (representing England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Cornwall and the City of London). The Royal Standard and the Triskelion were not on that boat. It may not have been to show "equal status for Cornwall", and if it was that there surely would be some sort of press release saying "Gloriana will fly the flags of the 5 home nations". All the photos show is that the flag was flown.

As for the number of councillors - the numbers on the article reference the 2009 election. That info is outdated now, and the political makeup has changed [6]. I've updated all the figures now, not just the MK representation, and updated the source.--Nilf anion (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)