Talk:Cornish nationalism

message: This talk page was becoming rather long, and many comments had not been signed. I have added  to those comments which needed it, and have also archived all threads which did not shew any activity this year (2008). I have also added a "talk page header", which includes a link to the archive, and will automatically generate a link to further archives as they are added in the future. DuncanHill (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page maintenance 

message: There is a problem with the Treaty of Bretigny here in relation to Conrnwall.Please see my talk page where I have pasted the original text and pointed out what is wrong- Any additions or suggestions welcome.Brythonek (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: History Edit

message: I have some big concerns about this new section which has been added or is being expanded today. 
" It is not within the scope of this sub-article to discuss the rights and wrongs of Cornwall and her history but rather to give instances of genuine anti-Cornish sentiments expressed in order to be able to approach the issues of Cornwall in a more rounded fashion. "  
This is an unacceptable way of describing something on wikipedia. I would of undone the whole edits but i dont want to be accused of trying to hide something or pushing a point of view. Id like to know what others feel about this matter. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you say why? Why not edit and re-word it?
Brythonek (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

text: lol Daicaregos, lets keep that a secret shall we? ;) We dont want to ruin our reputations BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with BritishWatcher and Daicaregos.  Now this is really unprecedented.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I may take a pageprint and frame it. :-D Daicaregos (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Look, let's not get umpty about things. I found the Carrick Comment on Cornwall 24 a while back. I included it and then went back to check the source as the link was broken- Cornwall 24 have recently updated their site. I requested a reliable source for this comment. I received a reply to this and I must admit that it is not verifiable whatsoever and therefore the item has been removed duly.Brythonek (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The section is certainly inappropriate within this article, which is about the self-government movement.  A referenced, neutral, paragraph, which summarises the attitudes of the English towards the Cornish, and with notable quotes (such as William of Malmesbury), should in my view be included in the article on Cornish people.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed on a neutral paragraph about it on the Cornish people article, however ive had to undo a recent change there which i found totally unacceptable too.  BritishWatcher (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you say what? I notice you say "I found" unacceptable. That may be a bit subjective.
Brythonek (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

text: User:Brythonek doesn't seem to know about or understand Wikipedia's basic guidelines, mostly the ones about notability, verifiability, and what Wikipedia isn't. --Joowwww (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the whole point of wikipedia that people volunteer to edit and contribute and that others with more experience help and offer advice, other than snipe all the time?
Brythonek (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but there are guidelines we all have to follow. The more experienced users are indeed there to help, but they are also there to make sure things don't go astray. These aren't just rules for the sake of rules, they are there to keep this website encyclopedic and prevent any old information being presented to unsuspecting viewers as fact. --Joowwww (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti Cornish sentiment in the UK section 

message: Hello guys- Right the Anti-Cornish issues have been resolved I am glad to say. Sorry if there was any "fiction" on my part.
I have included an official description of the Duchy of Cornwall here, taken from the Duchy of Conrwall homepage, and referenced. I am sure that this cannot possibly be disputed- and in the spirit of fairness I feel that the "official" position on the Duhcy should be included in ANY discussion of these issues.
If anyone would like to edit more/add please do.
I would also like to ask, on Decairagos' advice too, if there be any case for a separate article discussing the disputed status of the Duchy. I have a lot of sourced material and I feel it would overload the page to include it all here---
Please let me know what you think, here or on my talk page.
Much appreciated.
Brythonek (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an article about it, see Constitutional status of Cornwall. --Joowwww (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes and no. The article you site is a general handling of all the subjects, I was thinking about an article specific to the disputes with the Duchy of Cornwall. Nevertheless, there is a lot more material that could and should be added to the "duchy" parts of the article- they are the fundamental ones afterall aren't they? Brythonek (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt a separate article would pass the notability criteria, a paragraph in the existing article would probably be more accepted --Joowwww (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point! Ynweth gwyr. My a wel pandra ty a lever. I'll follow Deca's advice and have a good look at the article and my material, sandbox the paragraphs to add and we can go from there. How about that?Brythonek (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is already an article at Constitutional status of Cornwall as mentioned above but what about Duchy of Cornwall, surely thats where those matters would be covered?? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duchy of Cornwall 

message: The beggining of this article treats Cornwall as if it is not part of England, using phrases such as 'seperate from that of England' or 'seperate from that of English people'. I tried changing this to 'seperate from that of the rest of England', which I think is perfectly reasonable and neutral. Cornwall is undeniably part of England (And I don't mean this in an offensive or nationalist way, it is simply an encyclopediac  - I think thats how you spell it -  fact) so can you not try to argue that it isn't. If you have any reasons for why this is unjust then please say, but stop changing it without giving reasons. 82.1.157.16 (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is completely inappropriate to insist on "Cornwall, England" on this article. And, as this has been reverted several times, it must be obvious that it is against consensus. I also reverted a one word edit that had been misspelled. Poor spelling is unencyclopaedic and may be considered vandalism. Please check in a dictionary if you are unsure how a word is spelt, or just use a speillchucker. Please gain consensus here first (as has been requested on your talk page) before making controversial edits. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not inappropriate at all, it in very appropriate actually. The whole point of the article is that some Cornish nationalists believe Cornwall is a seperate nation to England, as oppossed to the well known fact that it is part of England. As for your claim that someone has mispelled a word, you are wellcome to correct it, but that is irrellevant to this discussion. The point I am making is that the article itself states that Cornwall is not in England; '(Cornwall has a cuture which is) seperate from that of England'. This should read, '(Cornwall has a cuture which is) seperate from that of the rest of England'. Therefore the article contains incorrect information and is misleading to readers. I do believe Wikipedia was designed to be a reliable and neutral source, but with articles like this, I don't believe it is even close to that. 82.1.157.16 (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal would be inaccurate. Since nationalists consider Cornwall to be legally a distinct entity from England, it is correct to say "from that of England". The article is not saying that Cornwall is separate, but that nationalists believe it to be. --Joowwww (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I have amended BritishWatcher's wording, which was as provocative and unhelpful as the earlier unnecessary reference to the stannary parliament.  The fact is that Cornwall has been administered as part of England for centuries (the precise date is arguable); but this article specifically relates to the argument that it should not (and in some senses, arguably, is not) be so administered.  The introduction to the article needs to set out a balanced summary of the position, which neither a bald reference to "Cornwall, England", nor an unexplained footnote to the stannary parliament (in any case, inappropriate in style per WP:LEAD) would do.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not accept there needs to be any balance at all when it comes to stating a fact that Cornwall is in England. However the change you have made is a reasonable one and worded well so i can support that. Thank you. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The map of Britain highlights the County of Cornwall.  The map should highlight the Duchy of Cornwall.  Doesn't the Duchy include Devon?   Randall Bart    Talk   03:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  There is a map of the Duchy's land ownership here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Cornwall 

message: The current map shows the Isle of Man and Channel Islands as though they are part of the UK, which they are not.  Should a different map be used?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now resolved.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current map 

message: It seems to me that a fairly important missing part of this issue is the number of Cornish people that actually identify with a Cornish national identity, rather than an English one. Could we include some polls on this? 80.231.172.154 (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Degree of identity

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cornish nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150205182630/http://www.kernowtgg.co.uk/ to http://www.kernowtgg.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cornish nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110129104538/http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/index.htm to http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cornish nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130103060025/http://www.danrogerson.org/2009/07/14/mp-calls-for-more-power-to-cornwall/ to http://www.danrogerson.org/2009/07/14/mp-calls-for-more-power-to-cornwall/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008011724/http://www.danrogerson.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cornwall.pdf to http://www.danrogerson.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cornwall.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is an undeniable lack of neutrality in this article. One might expect this given the emotional nature of the subject and the hawkish uber-vigilant editors associated with its promotion (Reversions made within milliseconds). However, this is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda mouthpiece, and as such due weight needs to be given in the article to opposition to Cornish nationalism within Cornwall, which polls would tend to indicate is the majority view, not least from the majority of people who consider themselves Englishmen and women living in the county of Cornwall.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.99.222 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition 

message: A lot of this article is confused because it covers too many topics. Cornish Nationalism, Cornish national identity, Cornish ethnicity, and Cornish Devolution are separate topics. While they do in some way overlap, i feel that including them together is creating an overly political article.
Additionally this article is not taking into account the two sides of this whole issue. A considerable amount of effort is being put into finding a neutral standpoint, but this has not been achieved. 
Several parts of the article are also incorrect or outdated.
A Guy into Books (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornish Nationalism v Cornish Devolution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cornish nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617142154/http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/uploads/22_tregidga_devolution_for_the_duchy.pdf to http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/uploads/22_tregidga_devolution_for_the_duchy.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose that this page is split into several articles. so I would create some more articles to split certain aspects such as independence and social identity from the nationalist movement. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  split page