Talk:Tintagel Castle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Maybe a photo could go here? I must have one somewhere - buried in boxes of old prints - but would require scanning in. Maybe someone else will oblige! David Martland 09:34, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy over the site

I have restored the original text as below, as I think you will find that your statement is inaccurate - in fact the judge returned a verdict of "not guilty" when there was no evidence presented and a Public Interest Immunity Certificate was granted.

In 1999 there was some controversy regarding this site and others under the care of the English Heritage organisation. The Cornish Stannary Parliament wrote to English Heritage asking them to remove all signs bearing their name from Cornish sites by July 1999 as they regard the ancient sites as Cornish heritage, not English. Over eleven months eighteen signs were removed by members of the Cornish Stannary and a letter was sent to English Heritage saying "The signs have been confiscated and held as evidence of English cultural aggression in Cornwall. Such racially motivated signs are deeply offensive and cause distress to many Cornish people". (see external BBC link). *Cornish Stannary Parliament tackles cultural aggression in Cornwall—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Av151 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

"But Geoffrey Mercer, prosecuting, said the men had agreed to be bound over for a year in the sum of £500 each. They had also paid English Heritage £4,500 compensation. Judge Graham Cottle praised the prosecution approach for being "sensible and pragmatic. And he said he would make no further comments as "the publicity is exactly what the defendants seek and I shall deny them that satisfaction."

As you said on another article - "mentioning a political fact concerning this site is not against wikipedia rules so long as neutrally written". So when you write a neutrally written article, it can stay. Your current paragraph is absolutely one sided. Putney Bridge 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My view, as expressed elsewhere, is that the topic is relevant to this article (though not to some others), and deserves a neutral paragraph or two. While the previous text (which is reproduced above by User:Av151) seems neutral in tone to me, it expresses a POV by omission: i.e. it does not include the end of the story. May I suggest the following text, which may be reproduced mutatis mutandis on other articles dealing with this publicity stunt? — mholland 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine, except that it should state that the Revived Stannary Parliament is unofficial, and not accepted as a successor body to the former, historical Stannary Parliament. Totnesmartin 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Tintagel, as it will make it easier to copy to all the other articles. I would be hesitant in putting the unofficial Revived Stannary Parliament, as it may seem like POV, in deriding the CSP. Putney Bridge 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how unofficial is derisory. It simply explains that the CSP isn't actually the Cornish Parliament or something, which people might assume if they don't know much about Cornwall (ie most people). Totnesmartin 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that unofficial is a fact. I was thinking that the Stannary Parliament probably feels that it is official, and emphasising unofficial could cause a conflict. We want to find an acceptable to all paragraph, so conflicts are best avoided. I did say hesitant though, so feel free to add it to the new paragraph if you can find a good way to word it. Putney Bridge 01:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Roget's Thesaurus suggests: independent, unaffiliated, breakaway, dissenting, and unauthorised. There are many others, but they're too POV. "Independent" looks best. With a small i. Totnesmartin 12:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed text (feel free to edit, but please record your changes):

Other issues to consider are

• The reinstatement of Cornwall, England from Cornwall, UK. Someone has already reverted this on the Tintagel article earlier, quoting a previous discussion.
• An IP has added a link to "Cornish Stannary Parliament tackles cultural aggression in Cornwall" under external links.
• The biased paragraph appearing on the talk pages. Is there a Wiki policy for talk page content?

Putney Bridge 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1. 1. The intro now reads Cornwall, England, UK, which complies with the consensus which was thrashed out at great length on WP:UKGEO. According to that consensus, the 'UK' part is optional, but I see absolutely no benefit to be gained from arguing it further.
   2. The link to the CSP article is one of two valid sources for the 'Controversy' section which we are now debating. I am of the opinion that it, and the link to the BBC News story, should both be cited in the references. I have invited the anon who added the link back in to this article (and other articles) to join this discussion.
   3. There is no relevant policy covering POV on talk pages. I see no reason why the old text should not remain here while we debate it. No user should remove it, but if User:Av151 wishes to strike it out, it is his/her prerogative. I assume that the paragraph was added in good faith.

   — mholland 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the point about this text is that it takes up such a large percentage of the total article that it inflates its importance somewhat - in the thousands of years of history of some of these sites just how important is this incident? Obviously worth mentionning, but shouldn't be 80% of the text as it is in some examples. Might I suggest a separate article describing this incident in full (expanded on what is used here) and then only a reference to it here - something like In 1999 there was some [[Stannary parliament English Heritage incident|controversy]] regarding this site and others under the care of the English Heritage organisation.

and leave it at that?

There is no policy regarding the text on talk pages so long as its not abusive or vandalism - its there to talk about stuff on so shouldn't be censored!

Regarding the England/UK issue consensus that I helped to hammer out - the majority of people wanted the home nation to be included in some form, but that use of UK as well was not wrong. The most important thing we were trying to address was POV changes to established articles (often from unregistered users across large sections of wikipedia) where the only alteration was removal of either UK or England, showing a clear POV intent. These are reverted as a matter of course, as disregarding personal opinion, most established editors agreed that this was disruptive to Wikipedia.Mammal4 10:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The episode is already considered at Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament. I wouldn't want to pre-empt the community, but if it was split off from there, it might well be merged back in. — mholland 11:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That still works then - the link can be made to Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament#Operation_Chough which will take the reader to the relevent section only Mammal4 11:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. — mholland 12:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the current text, with the link to operation Chough (which I have changed), and removing the extraneous links where they have been added. Putney Bridge 17:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought this had been settled, but then someone added three references to the agreed paragraph. Please may I have some comments on whether the paragraph needs to quote three sources, even when the sources are not really relevant to the article. Example articles are Tregiffian Burial Chamber Carn Euny and Halliggye Fogou.

Finally, a message to the people promoting Cornish Heritage. May I suggest that it would be more productive expanding these articles, so we can learn about the ancient Cornish, rather than highlighting modern day protests. Putney Bridge 15:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the two refs which had already been in circulation here - the BBC one and the CSP page. The third ref (from the Guardian) is User:Av151's (diff). I agree that three refs are not strictly necessary (particularly since all of the material in the 'agreed' sentence above can be accurately verified and attributed to the BBC article alone), but I can't bring myself to complain about over-referencing. I wish more articles had that 'problem'. Yes, it would be very nice indeed if these articles were longer: then it wouldn't be the case that the refs are longer than the text itself!

I wouldn't object to pruning the refs, but others might. — mholland 15:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)