Talk:Cornwall/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Cornish language section

Today I changed the wording and was reverted. Why? What was there was misleading, opinion, and not baacked by the sources. The BBC source refers to Cornish as a regional language, not a minority language. These two definitions are made in the EU charter, presumably because they need to be separately defined because they are not the same. And where does any official recognition of Cornish come from an EU charter? Ther is no link. Those who claim there is need to provide very good sources. This agenda laden approach has creeped in to most Cornish language articles and has been changed in many of them already. It is not my neutral changes that need to be questioned but rather the misreading of various sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You added commentary designed to denigrate it. Open to working changes but not those and I suggest you don't start to suggest some conspiracy theory. Recognition of minority languages has increased in importance in recent years and that will be reflected in Wikipedia. If material is not properly refrernced then list it here and we can go through it -----Snowded ^TALK 12:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Let us start with the original text that said minority language. The source said regional language. What is the problem with my change? Your comment about minority languages being increasingly recognised seems to be off topic and not relevant here, unless you are pushing an agenda, which I am not suggesting you are. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The source says regional or minority language if you read down a bit so either are OK. Your introduction of the unsourced: 'enthusiasts' was classic User:Roger 8 Roger phrasing - edge of derogatory If you do not think I am pursuing an agenda why suggest I am? No one is fooled by your final phrase :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 13:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The basic issue, for me, is that there is no need for this overarching article to go into unnecessary detail about the current legal status of the Cornish language. That should be in the Cornish language article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree in principle but it needs to be identified as having some official status and that it has been revived to a degree - that would be the right level. -----Snowded ^TALK 13:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't have any official status. It is recognised as a language as defined by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages but this is not to be confused with official status as the explanatory report states[1]

"This is a question of recognition of the existence of these languages and of the legitimacy of their use. Such recognition must not be confused with recognition of a language as an official language. Admitting the existence of a language is a pre-condition for taking its specific features and needs into consideration and for action on its behalf."

As to whether it is a minority or regional language (or both) is also not an issue addressed by the ECRML (as made clear in paragraphs 19 and 20) The article should simply state that it was recognised under the ECRML in 2003. -- Eckerslike (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Ekerslike for that reference. I hope that now ends this ongoing debate about Cornish being official. It should also not be described as officially recognised either. The charter is not an agreement or legislation, it is a charter that binds the UK because the UK has signed the EU treaty. Languages within the charter can come and go over time. By putting money into promoting the language within Cornwall the UK govt is complying with the Charter, not recognising Cornish as official. I am not sure if the frequent reference to it as being official is due to an innocent misunderstanding of what a charter is or agenda pushing. It is probably a mixture of both. I accept that I have not found any sources confirming Cornish is either a minority or regional language. However, from reading various reports and comments (a while ago now so I have nothing to show here) it seemed clear to me that Cornish fitted neatly into the definition of a regional language (having a bearing on the culture and lifestyle of the region of Cornwall), rather than a minority language (such as Scottish Gaelic). I agree though that the distinction may not be relevant. I have made it in an attempt to stop the constant claims (directly of indirectly) that Cornish is a spoken L1 language akin to Irish, which is a genuine living L1 minority language. I used the tern enthusiasts because that describes the people reviving it and speaking it. That does not necessarily describe the bureaucrats in the council who have to organise road signs though. Another word might be more suitable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The use of the language on signs etc. in Cornwall is probably down to the Cornish Language Office of Cornwall Council - a page that provides some useful links. The word "bureaucrat" usually describes unelected officials, but in this case the Council is made up of directly elected councillors. Whether editors agree or disagree with their views is of no consequence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that useful link to the council's website. Follow the link towards the bottom and find a quote of what the EU charter requires the UK govt to do - it says Under the terms of the Charter, the government is committed to 'base its policies, legislation and practice' on a list of nine objectives and principles which, for example, express recognition of Cornish as an expression of cultural wealth and support resolute action to promote the language. The existence of Cornish as an emblem of regional distinctiveness was an important factor in Cornwall being awarded Objective 1 status.. (My emphasis. Note the lack of any mention of Cornish being a living language.) Further down the first page the council site says See the international agreements which give official status to Cornish. But there is nothing that implies or states that Cornish has official status. (See post above where the EU says official status is not given.) Is this original research by the Cornwall council? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle do you fancy drafting something? I'm OK with not using the 'official' word but I am not happy with saying it is not official - road signs, promotion etc are strong and run by official bodies -----Snowded ^TALK 10:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Not really! The term "official status", of course (?!) could include recognition by the local council - it does not necessarily mean recognition by the national government. (... setting aside the question of whether Cornwall Council is a "national" government, of course)... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If I could interject for a moment. I think I know your line of thinking, both of you. The Cornish council (or the section set up to deal with it) is promoting Cornish because it is told to by central govt which has to comply with the charter. Central govt covers some or all of the cost by way of a grant It is not the same as making that decision itself, which might give a level of official status. Numerous councils everywhere print documents in multiple languages, such as electoral forms. That does not make those languages official even though the council is recognising its residents are multicultural. Over time I have stressed that "cornish is not official anywhere" I did that to counter what I saw as equally strident edits by others that said it was official I accept though that stressing the 'not' official may not be required. (If something isn't why prove it isn't?) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the Council "is promoting Cornish because it is told to by central govt", and plenty of evidence that it has done so for years because it is the body that represents the interests of Cornwall's residents. For instance, see this page, which says that "in November 2002, after a seven-year campaign by Cornish organisations and local authorities [my emphasis], the United Kingdom government specified Cornish under Part II of the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages." The many Cornwall Council documents about the Cornish language all demonstrate that, so far as the local authority is concerned, the language has a special status which is officially recognised (and indeed promoted) in Cornwall. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't your link merely confirm what I said. The seven year campaign (including by Cornwall council) was to get central govt to get Cornish added to the Charter. Without that charter the Cornwall council could not do much by way of promoting the language. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Imho a lot of stuff said about the Cornish language and the Cornish independence movement is wishful thinking from Celtic ethno nationalists. Cornish is still a minority language spoken by very few and its uptake by the general population has been very slow - no matter what XY council or body says in the range of “de jure” rulings. The de facto is that it’s not important or on the radar of most Cornish people (and by that I mean actual Cornish people with Cornish lineage, not English migrants from wealthy areas of the UK!) and that’s that. Using council and EU mandates to paint a false reality is cynical at best. Same goes for Mebyon Kernow - a tiny political party yet made out to be far bigger than they are on Wikipedia. English nationalists coming here with an ax to grind against their fragile identity complex should be given no thought of the day and so should Cornish nationalists with their persecution complex. 2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:F8B7:F799:910B:200B (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

History

Why does the History section stop at Elizabethan smugglers? (rhet.). Presumably things happened after that. I realise there is a main article, but I think the Cornwall article should reflect Cornwall's history more completely. Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, add something then?Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, everyone add something then. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

However if there is expansion here it will be another version of the contents of History of Cornwall and Timeline of Cornish history which can be connected to from the beginning of the section.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Fishing neutrality

The section regarding the fishing industry under Economy could do to be made more neutral in tone. Sintangon (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Before changing this section the article Fishing in Cornwall needs to be considered. It is also very difficult to produce a more neutral account while the effects of Brexit and its consequences are still developing.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Tin mining

Interesting article about reopening of tin mines, from a very respected source: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/13/business/cornwall-tin-revival-tech/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banerperan (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Genetics

Re: "though the Cornish are much more similar genetically to other English groups than they are to the Welsh or the Scots." It is doubtful if this is relevant to this article though it might be to Cornish people. It has been added before and then removed.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't an appropriate article for this information and inclusion of it can easily be seen as a bias. How many other pages on locations have discussion of genetics in the opening paragraph? The topic on genetics and identity is far too complicated to be summed up in this manner (on a article that is only loosely related) and is the reason there is a tab on the cornish ethnicity page. Elit3powars (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Celtic ethno-nationalism relies heavily upon the myth of the “original, singular and pure Celtic race” (which stinks of neo-Nazism/Aryanism) - so having information on Cornwall’s genetic legacy/history is important to counter such absurd myths. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:DCBB:690F:7DCC:3941 (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Ethnically Cornish person here. How's Plymouth? Ethno-nationalism is a load of bull and I (and many others) work very hard to keep it out of our movement. The genetic make-up of the Cornish people is not relevant to the topic at hand, which is the place Kernow (Cornwall), nor is ethno-nationalism. It should not be here, and certainly not in the introduction. Meur ras. --Gwikor Frank (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

With respect nobody here is discussing ethno-nationalism, nor is the topic of that relevant. Introducing the topic of genetics only serves to further arguments on ethnicity, which isn't needed here. There is much more to minorities than DNA and introducing this argument into this subject makes no sense, as to remain neutral you would need to iterate this point was well, at which point the introductory paragraph becomes completely irrelevant to the area known as Cornwall. Elit3powars (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The fundamental point the IP seems to miss is that genetics should be covered at the Cornish people article - not this one, which is about the place itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Americans writing about Cornwall

Do you guys wanna claim Elizabeth George's Inspector Lynley as Cornish literature or not?

Donation

I would like to donate but hesitant to use a credit card. Do you have a mailing address to send a donation? 2600:1702:3DA0:46E0:E45B:EB1E:EAE6:3325 (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Contact us/Donors.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

History of Cornwall

My attempt to add the Cornish Bronze Age (hopefully the "first" part of a series) to the 'see also' links in the 'Prehistory, Roman and post-Roman periods' section was reverted, on the dubious grounds that the section "covers more than the bronze age" (even though we had a link to Dumnonia already). I then attempted to change the Bronze Age Britain link to Cornish Bronze Age, which was again reverted because "there is nothing specifically Cornish about the bronze age culture" (apparently linking to Bronze Age Britain all this time was fine and dandy, though). I've now linked Cornish Bronze Age to "Cornwall in the Late Bronze Age", which who knows, may not have been reverted by now. Anybody want to throw their tuppence into this dispute to help achieve some sort of sensible resolution?  Tewdar  13:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a specifically Cornish bronze age. There is justification for examination of Cornwall in the bronze age, so perhaps the Cornish Bronze Age article should be retitled Cornwall in the bronze age. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Funnily enough, none of the archaeologists or other interested parties suggested that title during the article's construction period. Also, reliable sources tend to use "Cornish Bronze Age", not your suggestion, which is why I chose that specific title.  Tewdar  13:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, this diversion does not appear to be directly relevant to this section.  Tewdar  13:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Which reliable sources, just as a matter of interest? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Consult the references. And start a new section for this tangential discussion, please.  Tewdar  13:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

On that article's talk page, obviously...  Tewdar  13:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Going back to the original discussion; Dumnonia has some justification for inclusion as a main article as it arguably covers the periods of the section, being a prehistoric subdivision of the tribal areas of Britain at the time of the Romans arrival and continuing after they left. An article about one specific era does not fulfill that criteria and can be adequately included by a wikilink in the section. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Great, put it back then. The idea that 'see also' links must be to articles describing the entirety of their section header is one I have never encountered before, and does not seem to be the norm on other articles. That's what 'main article' is for, no?  Tewdar  14:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Itis not a See also link but a Main article link, if you want to discuss it it helps if you know the difference. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You sure about that? Main article=

Main article: History of Cornwall

, see also=

See also: Dumnonia and Cornish Bronze Age

 ????🤔  Tewdar  14:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure you are not correct. Anyway, I've put Dumnonia back now.  Tewdar  15:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: Erm... perhaps you thought it was a 'main article' link until now? Now that you know the difference, does that change your opinion at all?  Tewdar  15:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: - [Dumnonia] is not a See also link but a Main article link, if you want to discuss it it helps if you know the difference. - this statement was incorrect, wasn't it?  Tewdar  09:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Historic, a or an?

There is a dispute about whether the correct phraseology is a historic county, or an historic county. the arguement being that historic, without the indefinite article, has the initial letter pronounced. The problem is that, in conventional British English, when used with the indefinite article, the h is silent: an istoric. Derived, of course, ultimately from the French histoire, where the h is silent. Views are requested on which version should be used. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

How about a compromise? Cornwall is a ceremonial and historic county of south-west England.....? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

That woud solve the immediate problem. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Both Lancashire and Middlesex use ..a historic county.. The joy of all things (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

So I see, one reason why some sort of consensus is required. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

There's a good old debate about it here. As we are a written (not spoken) encyclopedia, I think "a historic" is fine - or use TJOAT's wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting discussion but no real conclusion, unfortunately. The comment about it being written and not spoken doesn't work for me as I normally sub-vocalise what I'm reading and the phrase grates horribly when spoken! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I just thought it should be consistant with all the other historic english counties which generally seem to use "a historic county" instead of "an historic county", we could change all of them to state "a(n) historic county" or "a/an historic county" though. Trinkay (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Strikes me as the worst option, frankly. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

An ongoing debate everywhere to which it is hard to find a resolution. It depends on what school you went to and if you were taught to speak proper. Wikipedia has to be written in an encyclopedic level of English, which I would say dictates that we use 'an historic'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Cornwall hasn't been a county since it became a duchy in 1337, so there's no need to discuss "a" or "an" with reference to Cornwall today. 2A00:23C5:5804:DC01:212F:E1F4:727E:E06B (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Preamble and Conflict with Wessex

Cornwall isn't located in England. The preamble, especially when mentioning the Athelstan settlement, sets this out, so describing Cornwall as being in South West England is incorrect. The section on Wessex may cast doubt over what many historians accept, but for it to support the initial statement that Cornwall's in England it would need to clearly provide evidence to show that this is the case, but there isn't any. This doesn't stop the dispute, however! 2A00:23C5:5804:DC01:212F:E1F4:727E:E06B (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Swapping of the flag for an image

It seems to be the norm for infoboxes of regions to show the flag as it is a central symbol of it, so why was the Cornish flag removed and replaced with an image on this article? Infrish 2

Edit: I realised it was changed for consistency with the other counties of England. (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Infrish 2, kinda yes but this "consistency" is a rather new thing (not a consensus) up at debate vaguely at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Ceremonial county infoboxes with some editors opposed to the removal of the flags. Just raising awareness of that discussion, should you wish to participate. DankJae 01:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Flag

I'm not unconvinced by the first edit summary's rationale given for reverting of my reversion of the addition of the flag but with the addition of two further dummy edits and accompanying edit summaries, to give further, and to my mind less compelling, arguments for the flag's inclusion (and per WP:BRD), perhaps it would be better to lay them out here? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have already suggested to the editor that he uses the talk page to explain his reasoning. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I object to their use of the term "Ethnic minority" over how confusing it comes across. it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the flag debate either. To many, "ethnic minority" implies non-European. The idea that Cornwall is some mystical land 'eternally separated from' Devon at the Tamar is fiction. Cornwall is not an ethnic enclave. At any rate, using edit summaries as a "discussion" is not helpful. --SinoDevonian (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

First, I want to clarify that I wasn't using edit summaries in lieu of discussion; rather, as I was reverting a revert, I wanted to make sure my full reasoning for reverting was included to be as crystal-clear as possible. Additionally, the term "ethnic minority" likely has different meaning between you and I (WP:ENGVAR), but that has no broad bearing. I'm coming at this from my American perspective. I think of this case more akin to Brittany and Corsica than to Devon; that being, a region in an otherwise unitary country which has a unique cultural and historical identity, and as such which has some degree of distinction between it and other similar subdivisions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

On flags, the crux of the issue is that this article is primarily about the current ceremonial county rather than the historic county. The ceremonial counties do not have flags, but all of the English historic counties have flags registered with the Flag Institute, which has some government recognition. Since the flag represents the historic rather than the ceremonial county it should not be in the article infobox, which is about the latter. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The guidelines on how to write about counties say that historic counties do not exist. Historic county means what the county looked like in the past, not a separate entity. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The flags registered with the Flag Institute are intended for contemporary use but explicitly represent the historic counties, a position which is irreconcilable with our guidelines. In my mind that makes the guideline unfit for purpose, since it should reflect reality, but that's a separate debate. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the consensus is what the guidelines say, and that takes precedence over what a group of enthusiasts say. Shouldn't you first find some reliable secondary sources to confirm what you, and the Flag Institute say to get the guidelines changed? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no interest in opening that debate. Omitting the flags from the infobox but including them in the body with appropriate context fits the spirit of the guideline. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps an article split between the historic county and the modern ceremonial county may be preferable in this instance then. Curbon7 (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The flag can just be displayed in the body of the article, as it already is in the 'Flag' subsection of 'Culture'. Historic counties generally only have separate articles when they can't be properly covered by a ceremonial county article, e.g. Middlesex or Yorkshire. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

There is only one county so having two articles to cover the same thing is silly. Some counties are gone now such as Middlesex and Yorkshire but that doesn't stop them from having an article. A county can be called different things depending on the context but there still is only one county. Look at the guidelines. Your flag logic is about the weight we attach to a county flag. If the flag is important enough it can go into the infobox as well as being in the body; if it is not important enough it stays only in the body. Whether it represents the county in only one context, such as its past, ie historic, is not relevant. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The article infoboxes are about the current ceremonial counties. The flags represent the historic counties, which according to our guidelines do not exist. On that basis the flags cannot represent the ceremonial counties and therefore have no place in the infoboxes about them. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the guidelines say the historic counties are the ceremonial counties as they were in the past, with different borders. That is why the guidelines say the HCs don't exist with the same borders (they do exist now but with changed borders and a different name, eg ceremonial - because they are current, not historic). If the flags represent the historic county then logically the must represent the ceremonial county too, because the counties are the same. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

If a guideline is wrong - as it clearly is in this case - then simply WP:IAR. It's a guideline, not a policy. If the council regards the flag as the county flag (as the article states), then it's the county flag. Excluding it from the infobox seems odd. (Note, I reinserted the flag yesterday without being aware of this talk page section.) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

To add - these links would appear to suggest official recognition: UK Government Another UK Gov page Recognised county flags. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The guideline isn't clearly wrong, there are editors who agree with its position. The three links you've provided all refer to the historic county of Cornwall, not the ceremonial county, so they can't be used to establish that the flag represents the current administrative area.

@Roger 8 Roger My understanding is that the guidelines acknowledge the continuity between the historic counties and the current ceremonial counties, but consider the historic borders to be defunct. This directly contradicts organisations such as the Flag Institute, which considers the historic borders to be current as it only registers flags which represent a historic county. This may not seem like an issue for Cornwall, where the two borders closely align, but it causes issues in many of the other counties, where they can differ significantly. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Cornish flag is official for the ceremonial county

https://www.stevedouble.org.uk/sites/www.stevedouble.org.uk/files/13263697_10154202591287292_7150075672819728502_n.jpg here it is flown outside the cornish council 82.14.227.184 (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Except that is not the ceremonial county council. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It still represents the historic county. When the Department for Communities and Local Government flew the county flags outside its building they were identified as the historic county flags, including Cornwall's. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I do get it, the flag situation can be a bit counterintuitive. Consider Lancashire, though. There the historic county flag represents areas which are no longer part of Lancashire, so including it in the infobox about the modern county would be misleading. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

that is untrue and unfounded, this is the council for this 2021 Cornwall Council election these are the current borders i'm sorry but now you are making things up, please refrain from spreading false information. 82.14.227.184 (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It is true. Here is the page of the Flag Institute website which states that they register the flags of 'historic UK counties' and which includes the Cornish flag. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You have misread the page, Excluded are the flags of modern administrative entities (e.g. local authorities) and flags subject to copyright restrictions. Only because they may be subject to copyright restrictions, this doesn't mean that they are not official, it means they don't deal with them due to copyright restrictions, if they aren't in the public domain, this is as clear as day. you have not helped wikipedia here, you have only been a nuissance in acting as such. 82.14.227.184 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

its mental gymnastics to go from "We don't deal with modern flags due to copyright rules" to they are unofficial, and only official for historical counties. 82.14.227.184 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

While you may have good intentions and wish to be a positive force in wikipedia, with all due respect by your changes to the counties, you haven't acted as a positive force, you have only upset people, and that is not what wikipedia is about. 82.14.227.184 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It is because of this sort of dispute that we have the Wikipedia policy MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, which reads

Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. [etc].

So this discussion is a bit pointless because the flag does not "convey information in addition to the text". Information about historic and current flags is usually complicated, such as for the reasons that have been explained above: the article body is the place where such complications can be explained. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In fairness, that's about small flag icons (such as the ones found in battle articles) rather than images of flags generally. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The White Horse of Kent has been the county icon for centuries, nothing to do with the flag institute. Most, but not all, of the other flags are artificial inventions by the Flag Institute that have no notability beyond being invented by the flag institute. But, what is the fuss? The WP guidelines say the HC and the ceremonial county are the same, except with different borders. Therefore, the flag does represent the ceremonial county. The Flag institute can be seen as an unreliable source for explaining what it is doing and what its flags mean - it is simply a pressure group, a modern day group of advocates with an axe to grind. That does not apply to Kent though, or the roses of Lancashire and Yorkshire (if Yorkshire existed, which it doesn't any longer.) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It might be best to restrict discussion of Kent, Lancashire, and Yorkshire to those articles, R8R, or perhaps to open a general discussion at WP:UKGEO. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger is Correct. 82.14.227.184 (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

County status was removed sometime ago 85.10.117.114 (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Cornish language

Then lead claims the Cornish language "went into steep decline" during the industrial revolution but is now being revived. Implying it is similar to the Welsh language which underwent that cycle. In fact the Cornish language became extinct as a living language in the mid-late 18th century and the lead statement is very misleading. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Concur: The last monoglot speaker died just as the industrial revolution was getting started.--SinoDevonian (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Last monoglot does not mean the last native speaker, 1900s there were still native speakers. 85.10.117.114 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Cite? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

'Cornish - the struggle for survival', Rod Lyon, 2001, Taves an Werin, and recent research by Kensa Broadhurst, University of Exeter Brwynog (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Dolly Pentreath was not a monoglot; she also spole English. Chesten Marchant a century earlier was the last monoglot speaker. Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Flag (2)

@SnowieLuna1212, please remove the flag from the infobox. Although popular it isn't official, and the WP:UKCOUNTIES guidelines state 'Do not include flags in the infobox, as they cannot be placed in context there.' A.D.Hope (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's probably time for an RfC on this.  Tewdar  10:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the flag has been at the top of the article since at least 2005 until someone recently changed it. Nearly twenty years!!! I think the flag should be put back while discussion takes place, as recent edits clearly demonstrate that there is absolutely no consensus for this change, despite the *guideline* (not policy) that says Do not include flags in the infobox, as they cannot be placed in context there, whatever that is supposed to mean. Guidelines say we can have four images, how about we add the photo of the flag that Murgatoid reverted?  Tewdar  08:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Putting a photo rather than a graphic is a degree of sophistry that is excessive. Actually I would use the photo rather than the graphic in the section about the flag, it is a very nice image. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Sophistry? It was suggested in the spirit of compromise. I see that WP:BRD is not being followed on this article. Perhaps I should just get started on the RfC, so we can get some more diverse input.  Tewdar  09:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The same guidelines which say up to four images are can be used in a ceremonial county article infobox collage also state that the ceremonial county article infoboxes shouldn't contain flags.

The reasoning behind this is that the county flags which were formerly used in the county infoboxes are largely unofficial, simply being those registered with the Flag Institute (website unresponsive for me). While some of them are widely used, it's better to present them in the body of the article, where the history of the flag (e.g. the competition which was held to create it) can be more fully explained.

I do understand that Cornwall's flag has a longer history than most, but I don't think there's any particular reason to make an exception to the guideline. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for self reverting, it genuinely brought joy to my heart.🤗 I'm thinking rfc options would be (1) a "flag=icon", ie the stable version for the last twenty years, (2) Replace one of the current photographs with the photo of the flag I put in yesterday (3) Add the photo of the flag I put in yesterday, giving four images, or (4) No flag 😭, which definitely would not bring any joy to my heart. Anything you'd like to add or remove from that?  Tewdar  09:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Or just start the RfC without any discussion. Why not, eh?  Tewdar  09:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Well exactly. We seemed to be heading in that direction anyway, so why not just get the ball rolling? It would make sense to discuss your proposals below, as part of the RfC. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It's actually probably better to have a simple yes/no question, so I have no objections.  Tewdar  10:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Fab, I'm glad we're on the same page. Apologies if the above seems a bit terse – I am absolutely willing to discuss the flag, but this is far from the first discussion I've had about the county flags so I'm afraid my initial reaction was 'here we go again'!

I'll be happy to settle the matter one way or the other. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll be totally honest - there is only one outcome that would make me happy. I'm literally in tears here at the way the RfC is going. But I will respect whatever consensus emerges.  Tewdar  10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)