Talk:Cornwall/Archive 2

message: This is misrepresentation. Less than 10% of the Cornish population signed the petition for a devolved assembly. How is that "many"? By the way, the article should mention 41,650 Cornish people signed the petition, not 50,000. The rest were from outside Cornwall . Deus Ex 12:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is misrepresentation too. As Cyr below says, the petition did not reach many Cornish, but 10% is a hell of a large chunk for what was effectively a private petition. The idea has much more support in Cornwall than a bureaucratically inspired South West England "monster" assembly. --MacRusgail 11:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: As have I. I am a Scot myself by the way, and although there isn't the same assertion of identity as here, there is definitely some. Other than the flags, the placenames and local surnames are noticeably different, although I find the accent similar to Devon's (English accents have also infiltrated parts of Wales too). As for quantitive data, there is some on the Constitutional Status article, which reflects the legal state, and I think there is something on Cornish ethnicity (something different again). The health service in Cornwall certainly offers a Cornish tickbox for ethnicity. I doubt any other "English county" health service does likewise. --MacRusgail 11:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Re the Cornish language, I think that many people know a phrase or two, but haven't gone to the lengths of learning it. Cornish has certainly been picked up by the tourist industry, and it also provides a great deal of the distinct nomenclature in the area. --MacRusgail 11:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Disagree. I think England never lost its parliament. It merely absorbed others. The old English parliamentary traditions are still carried on in it. The same can't be said for pre-union Welsh and Scottish traditions. --MacRusgail 11:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Many residents think of Cornwall as a separate home nation...."

message: In the sport section: "Cornwall's other national sport is hurling", yet it says at the top of the article that Cornwall is a county and not a nation. So therefore how can it be a "national" sport? Surely it should be a "county" sport? -Jasoncart 19:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jason, I suggest you go through the backlog of stuff here, there's been a hell of a lot of argument on this topic. There's also several articles. I consider Cornwall to be a nation (treated like a county), but many consider it to be a county (sometimes talked of as a nation!!!)--MacRusgail 15:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't really mind what it is called as long as it is consistent. The article (or indeed Wikipedia as a whole) can't contradict itself! Jasoncart 18:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  National? 

message: Isn't Cornwall legally an English county? Why then does it use the country template? It looks like Cornish nationalism and seperatism are very strong here on Wikipedia. GrandfatherJoe 18:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country or County? 

message: The new version is substantially different. It removes the info that Cornwall is a county of England, SqueakBox 01:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't.  Please read it again.  It says "for all practical and official purposes it currently has the status of a county of England".  You can't get much clearer than that.  Look, in my experience many, maybe most, indigenous Cornish people do not think of themselves as English.  In fact, they can get quite cross if you insist otherwise.  Now you may think they are daft to feel that way, but nevertheless that is the way they feel.  In this respect (if no other) the nature of the Cornish identity differs from, for example, the nature of Yorkshire or Kentish identities.  Can you not see that starting the article off with a bald, unqualified, definitive statement that Cornwall is a part of England would be offensive to such people?  It is inviting trouble.  Are there any factual errors in the "sensitive" version?  If not, other than bloody-mindedness, I can't see any justification for reverting to the "insensitive" one.   GrahamN 01:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmmm.  I see.   GrahamN 02:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the page has been corrected. Excellent, it seems that NPOV is creeping ever so cautiously back into Wikipedia. GrandfatherJoe 17:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, the Cornish people article says that According to a recent Morgan Stanley Bank survey, 44 per cent of the inhabitants of Cornwall believe themselves to be Cornish rather than British or English.  I think this qualifies as "many".  Given that a large percentage of the population of Cornwall are actually recent incomers, rather than indigenous Cornish, this statistic is remarkable.  If the survey was somehow restricted to indigenous Cornish there can be little doubt that most would deny being English.  The principle of NPOV is that where there is a difference of opinion about a fact, the article should report the difference without editorially taking sides.  So the article should no more report as fact the notions of crackpot self-declared "Cornish Patriots" than the opposing ideas of crackpot self-declared "English Patriots".   GrahamN 15:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Phrasing of opening paragraph

message: :Bretagne 44, you have said many times that there are serious questions of British case law concerning the constitutional status of Cornwall! Firstly, there is no such thing as British case law. Even if there were, that would mean that you are excluding statutes from consideration, but oddly enough, most of your "evidence" seems to be statutes. In other words, that sentence is meaningless. You are talking about English law as a whole, not just English case law. You are blindly juggling with the words on these statutes. If you took the purposive approach, which is now required of all courts of England and Wales, you would have to take in to consideration the intentions of the legislators (MPs) when passing the Local Government Act 1988. The question is did the legislators intend to exclude Cornwall from the rest of England. And the answer is "no". Leaving aside the fact that the word Cornwall is never mentioned in the Act, the establishment of Cornwall County Council under the statutory provisions for England and Wales while there was no separate reference to Cornwall, prove that Cornwall is nothing more (as far as English law is concerned) an English county just like any other. It is treated as such by law and given that all statutes dating at least back to 1988 have treated it as such prove that, at least through the purposive approach, any former status that Cornwall may or may not have had have long since been repealed. All subsequent (and possibly many previous Acts) have treated Cornwall as an English county and have done so without any separate reference to Cornwall. Through the purposive approach, it is perfectly clear that there are no serious questions of "British case law" concerning the constitutional status or Cornwall or any other English county for that matter. You are just playing games and wasting our time. Britannica, Encarta, the Hutchinson Encyclopedia and even the legislature of the United Kingdom call and treat Cornwall as an English county. Forgive me if I'm going too far here, but I sense Cornish nationalism here at the expense of NPOV. Your "British case law" (lol) is not evidence, but something relatively irrelevant. If we are ignoring the Cornish culture and language because Cornwall has its own language and a competing national identity next to British or English, then I must say that Britannica, Encarta etc are also guilty of this grave offence, because they also view Cornwall as an English county. If you take the time to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research you will see that Wikipedia policy requires us to treat Cornwall as an English county because fellow encyclopaedias treat it as such, and even if the were questions in law regarding the constitutional status of Cornwall we would have to ignore them because Wikipedia policy requires it, and treat it as an English county. REX 16:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bretagne 44, I can see that you haven't read Wikipedia:No original research yet. This is a Wikipedia official policy which directs us on what can and cannot be used in articles. Britannica and Encarta (at least), call Cornwall a county. According to that policy, even if you spent ten years in the law library in the Houses of Parliament with Giovanni Di Stefano and found some loophole which says that Cornwall is not an English county, that would be original research on your part and Wikipedia policy says that only what can be verified (see Wikipedia:Verifiability) through reliable sources can be used in articles, in other words what other encyclopaedias and other reliable sources say. Britannica seems to indicate that the Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate consisting of lands, honours, franchises, rights, profits, etc., held by the eldest living son of the British sovereign, in other words, something distinct from the modern county of Cornwall. This concurs with the statutory interpretation of the Local Government Act 1988. If Cornwall is not an English county, then why was Cornwall County Council (see, a county council) established under the statutory provisions for England and Wales, not England, Wales and Cornwall? Quite simply, because Cornwall is part of England, it is an English county. This does not mean that it cannot have its revived regional identity, of course it can. Every English region has its own distinct regional identity; there is no doubt about that. Even if you are right, and some loophole in the law exists and makes Cornwall a separate country from England (lol), that can only be proved through original research and will be inserted in the article without proper verifiability, in other words it cannot be used in the article. I know that this is the last thing you want to hear, as it conflicts with your agenda, but those are the facts. As for Cornish identity, no one denied it. Just know that placing pro-Cornish nationalist propaganda on Wikipedia is inappropriate and wrong. Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of thing. And SqueakBox, believe me, Cornwall has a looooooooong way to go before they have pubs like that. REX 17:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to express my opinion that it seems to be perfectly clear that Cornwall is an English county and that there are no questions regarding the constitutional status of Cornwall. These only exist in the far away fantasies of Cornish nationalists and not in real life. I'm actually quite surprised that Bretagne 44 is so insistent in promoting this stuff. Well, Bretagne 44, it's time to wake up! Cornwall is for all purposes an English county; you can shout, scream, even burn yourself alive in protest, and Cornwall will still be an English county. Cornwall has no special status that all other English counties lack. I appreciate the fact that it makes Cornish nationalists feel important when they feel that Cornwall is singled out from amongst the chaff (the other English counties), but this is not the case. Cornwall does indeed have its reconstructed language and its revived culture, very very good! That does not change the fact that the status of Cornwall is an English county just like all the others. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Bretagne 44, I think that you have failed to notice that Britannica (who undoubtedly knows better than you) seems to indicate that Cornwall the county and Cornwall the duchy are distinct bodies and not the same thing. Therefore the Kilbrandon Commission was not refering to the county but to the duchy (ie a private estate consisting of lands, honours, franchises, rights, profits, etc., held by the eldest living son of the British sovereign). In other words, it is irrelevant. I have noticed that you have failed to explain why Cornwall County Council was established under the stautory provisions for England and Wales, if Cornwall is not part of England or Wales. I can explain why you didn't, you didn't because you can't. Cornwall is an English county. Wikipedia policy requires only what can be verified can be used in articles. What Britannica and Encarta say can be verified, as they are reliable sources, whereas what you say, can not; it is original research and is prohibited under Wikipedia policy. No established body says what you say. You are isolated in saying this and it is just your POV. If you like though, you can take the case to court, and give us all a good laugh :-) You should observe Wikipedia policy on what can and cannot be included in articles. If the British Parliament, Britannica and Encarta can treat Cornwall as a county, then it must be true. If you want to promote such lies, then you should start you own encyclopaedia, the "Encyclopaedia of Cornish Nationalist Fantasies". REX 17:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I would like to point out that while you are accusing us, Britannica, Encarta and the British Parliament (where Cornwall has 5 MPs) of "English Imperialism", you see fit to profess and write the most outrageous lies in your own language, and when in the English Wikipedia, present yourselves as innocent paschal lambs about to be slaughtered. This blatant hypocrisy has got to stop. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 13:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Bretagne 44, your views are original research and Wikipedia cannot use them (see WP:NOR). Can you provide us with a link to a website which confirms your views as true like Wikipedia policy requires (see Wikipedia:Cite sources). Royal Commissions are nothing more than suggestions to the Government and are not accorded the same status as an Act of Parliament, such as the ones I have cited above. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability: It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources. In other words, even if what you say is true (something which I highly doubt) as no reliable source endorses it and even the British Parliament contradicts it, then as far as Wikipedia policy is conserned, you are wrong. According to WP:RS Britannica and Encarta qualify as reliable sources and what they say is assumed to be correct. I am aware that you are trying to change the subject by talking about what Grandfathejoe said, which in my opinion was not a personal attack as he was not explicitly refering to you. I would also like to say that I agree with him, I cannot say much in Cornish, but I know that England is called Pow Sows and that word doesn't exist in the Kernow article. What was it you were saying about integrity? Maybe you should have a word with whoever wrote that article. Or is that just for us? I urge you to read Wikipedia policies and apply them to our circumstances and recognise that at least for the purpose of verifiability, what you say doesn't stand. REX 19:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, until a court ruling, the British government is presumed innocent. If or when this case reaches the International Court of Justice and it is proven that the British government is acting illegaly, then Cornwall will receive its "true" constitutional position. Until now, all legislation relating to Cornwall passes through the British Parliament and has come into effect as if Cornwall is a county of England. I have no problem in mentioning that the status of Cornwall has been questioned, but I think that it would be ludicrous to say directly that it isn't a county, because for official purposes at least, it is. This is all speculation that it may not be a county. No one has admitted anything. So you cannot impose those commissions' and groups' POV here. Their views are not officially established. REX 14:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bretagne 44, I think you may have misunderstood me. I was not accusing you, I was accusing the users of the Cornish Wikipedia (who presumably are Cornish nationalists). You cannot believe that what is written in that article is true. If you get a freelang Cornish dictionary and translate a few words of that text, you will see what I mean, "propaganda". Is your name anywhere in the accusation? I was speaking in the plural; unless you perceive yourself to be royalty and use the Royal We, I would say that you are been overly sensitive. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If it is a Duchy, that doesn't stop it being a county of England. Lancaster is also a county of England AND a Duchy. The fact that Cornwall is a county of England has been proved by the Local Government Act 1988 and the existance of Cornwall County Council is living proof of that. Also, I find it quite interesting that you are citing Acts of Parliament, which according to you, are illegal when legislating for Cornwall. Or does than only apply in selective cases? REX 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I don't know if Wikipedia:Mediation would be accepted. You have to show that you have attempted to solve the dispute using other means, such as WP:RFC. I don't even know what we are arguing about anymore, administrators have said that Wikipedia articles should state all POV's and support none. Why can't that be done here? My greatest fear is that this article become like the article :kw:Kernow, a base for propaganda and POV. Anyway, If you want mediation or rfc, go ahead and request it, I have no objection. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What? Look Bretagne44, if you have any evidence, please "sing" it to the world; otherwise shut up, you are not funny. How is your sockpuppet GrahamN by the way? If we want to get this over with it will have to be established what we are disagreeing over. What are we disagreeing over? What do you want? GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Constitutional status of Cornwall]]

message: Added yet another great link.
Bretagne 44 17:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cornish History

message: The Coat of Arms used on this page are the Arms of 'the Duke of Cornwall'. I think I'm right in saying that Cornwall as a 'County' doesnt have a coat of Arms?
Talskiddy 17:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms 

message: This section says it is a "list of the main towns and cities".
I have deleted Newtown. I confess to having to look it up and found Newtown-in-St-Martin (in Meneage) as the only place called Newtown in Cornwall. If there is another, larger Newtown that I have forgotten, I apologise.
In any case, I think that some of the other places could hardly be called a "main town or city" - e.g. Coverack, Charlestown. There is another list of places in Cornwall, so in the Settlements section why don't we stick to the major towns -- e.g. Launceston, Liskeard, Bodmin, St Austell, Truro, Redruth, Camborne, Falmouth and Penzance, etc.
Therefore, I've changed the list to include only the most populous towns as per the 2001 Census. The threshold is a population of 8000, but I have used a bit of licence where there seemed to be anomalies caused by parish boundaries. I'm sorry if this has removed your home town, but in a spirit of altruism I have also excluded my spiritual home of Looe (pop. 5280). --Portnadler 18:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not objecting, I wish I could understand what you are doing... Issues like this thow me into a lot of confusion :-) Rex(talk) 18:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: All I'm doing is to list the "main towns and cities" in Cornwall (in fact, there is only one city – Truro), and exclude some eclectic places that I suspect were put in by people with a personal interest in their home town or village, or whatever. --Portnadler 23:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlements