Talk:Cornwall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

Contents 1 See also 2 Archiving 3 New Cornish Town/Village info boxes 4 Superfluous Information 5 Off topic discussion 6 economy 7 Number of current speakers of the Cornish language 8 Legal Referencing 9 Cornish people

[edit] See also

• Category:Wikipedians in Cornwall

[edit] Archiving

I have archived the previous discussion (see links right)as the length was getting unwieldy. Please do not continue discussions in the archive. If people feel a need to respond to comments that are now archived, could they please copy the relevent sentances "and place them in italics" with their responses on this page, taking care to mention where the original comment comes from. This should help keep things tidy. Many thanks Mammal4 09:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Cornish Town/Village info boxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Superfluous Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Off topic discussion

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

[edit] economy

I think facts about poverty and deprivation and prosperity are probably best put here under Economy.

I have amended the references to Cornwall as "the poorest" to "one of the poorest."

Generalised judgements on the prosperity and deprivation of Cornwall are of limited value because the official statistics at council district and 'sub-ward' (super output area, SOA) level show that there is a large range within Cornwall, even within wards. I think to use only the per capita GVA data is too restrictive.

Other official data - the indices of multiple deprivation, free school meals, child poverty, education spending, health, etc - do NOT show Cornwall and the areas of Cornwall to be the poorest in England. They show that some areas of Cornwall are poor, some very poor, and some are among the top half of prosperity. An encyclopedia should acknowledge this variety.

Crococolana 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of current speakers of the Cornish language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Legal Referencing

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

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

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

[edit] Cornish people

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