Talk:Cornwall/Archive 6

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

text:  I don't know, Vernon. Can you access them? It would be very good to have numerical evidence additional to MacKinnon/GOSW. I have now found the 2000 language study site: [www.gosw.gov.uk/gosw/docs/254795/mode_of_use.doc] Incidentally, the ipsissima verba is "300 effective speakers of Cornish (with 30 reported for the London area)" - I take "with" to mean "including" not "and also".Crococolana 23:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A better reference to the GOSW study is http://www.gosw.gov.uk/gosw/culturehome/heritage/cornish/. As a result of this study, isn't it the case that a high level officer has been appointed by some official body to steer development of Cornish language studies in Cornwall?. Presumably they would be pleased to tell WP Editors of any improvement in numbers. === Vernon White (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am looking here only at the estimated numbers speaking Cornish. Thanks for reminding me about the language strategy people; on Monday I'll ask Jenefer Lowe, the strategy chief, if she has any more up-to-date estimates (for wikipedia) than MacKinnon/GOSW 2000 and, if so, their basis. The "mode of use" reference I gave for the GOSW site takes one to the part of the study that gives the figures. I'm clear that we should put in only sound and referenced estimates. I'll hold my amendments to the present morass until I hear from Ms Lowe and you have the chance to see if Cornish studies give any methodical figures. Crococolana 12:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Righto, I have now heard from the Cornish language strategy manager about numbers of Cornish language speakers. This will help us to right the present morass.  
Let us suppose someone turns to wikipedia to ask the questions, How many people presently speak Cornish fluently? How many speak it at a lesser level? At present we do not have any uncautioned figures though that should be changing soon. The Cornish language development manager tells me that they hope to commission new quantitative and qualitative research in the “very near future.” The data will be made public and be available for wikipedia. 
Currently seekers after truth in wikipedia will find in four – yes, four - sections in the Cornwall and Cornish Language wikipedia pages figures that are widely different and only one serious source, others being unsourced or taken from a newspaper which does not give the source of its figures.  
I put at the end of this post the story of the numbers. 
At present the only serious study we have that I know of is the MacKinnon/GOSW study of 2000 and I think only this should be what appears in wikipedia until we have the new research. These are the figures that the language strategy department is using currently until the new commissioned research gives its results.
I propose to amend the language number entries now, using only MacKinnon, and rewrite the entries when we have the new commissioned research. 
I do not believe the tentative data we have on numbers needs to be in four different parts of wikipedia. A nod on the main page and then details in the Current status part of the separate Cornish language section are sufficient. For this to be in four sections is overkill.
This is an encyclopedia. Let us put away our crystal balls. As Bacon said, let us not fill up our blanks and spaces with conjecture. Well, not too much at any rate.  
Anyway, here are the minutiae for those who wish to read them... 
FLUENT SPEAKER NUMBERS
MacKinnon offers a definition of fluency: “the ability to hold a general conversation at ordinary speed on everyday topics” (paragraph 2.5.2 MacKinnon/GOSW 2000). 
Here are the figures at present on wikipedia with their sources: 
“somewhere between 300 and 500 in Cornwall” speak “effectively” (MacKinnon, BBC multilingual website – the BBC  website actually says “around 300”)
“around 500” (no source)
“As of 2006...around 500 fluently” (citing an article in the Daily Telegraph of November 2002 – the newspaper actually says 100 are fluent and that 500 have “reasonable conversational ability”) 
“300-400” (Strategy for the Cornish language. I have found figures only in the section 'Where are we now' (www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=7984) where it says, referring to MacKinnon,  “might be around 300 effective speakers of Cornish”)
100  (not on wikipedia but from the Daily Telegraph November 2002, if one follows the DT link which is on wikipedia)
NONFLUENT SPEAKER NUMBERS
I have put all the nonfluent under one head as I cannot surely distinguish the degree of speaking ability implied by the phrases “some knowledge,” “basic conversational level,” “some knowledge of basic phrases,” and “reasonable conversational ability.” I think nonfluent is a reasonable way of subsuming all these. MacKinnon has a detailed breakdown of claimed and attributed ability and, as he is given as a source, those details can be accessed by those who wish to know. 
The figures given in tables 3.1 and 3.2 by MacKinnon (2000) vary greatly and come with a serious caution from him. I am not at all sure now that we can give a realistic figure for nonfluent speakers beyond “several hundred” until we have the new research data. People can read the tables if they wish to know more.    
“upwards of 3500 are said to have some knowledge or are learning the language” (Daily Telegraph November 2002)
“now around [3500]” (says “4000 Cornish speakers, around 500 of whom are fluent”)(no source)
“500...having reasonable conversational ability” (Daily Telegraph November 2002, if one follows the DT link; the original “reasonable conversational ability” in the newspaper has been translated into “fluent” in the present wikipedia article)
“As of 2006...around 3500..to a basic conversational level” (Daily Telegraph November 2002)
“approximately 3500” (no source)
“in excess of 5000...some knowledge of basic phrases or could understand basic sentences” (no source)  
I think we should try to resolve the contradictions in the figures not merely reinstate them. We should not claim a precision that we do not have; and giving a round number and qualifying it with something like “about” does not overcome that.    
SOURCES FOR THESE FIGURES
Now look at the two sources given for the present wikipedia figures: 
i the MacKinnon/Government office of the south west(GOSW) study in 2000; this is the source of the language strategy figures and presumably the MacKinnon BBC article
ii an article in the Daily Telegraph of 17 November 2002 which gives figures but does not give any source for them. 
For some of the figures presently on wikipedia no source is given.
MacKinnon in his 2000 study – which informed the subsequent government recognition of Cornish -  explains exactly where the varied language-speaker estimates in that report come from: see tables 31.and 3.2. They are basically the estimates of language activists and groups. For fluent speakers he gives his own estimate of 300 in all of which 30 are in the London area, ie 270 in Cornwall.  The ipsissima verba are: “there may be 300 effective speakers of Cornish (with about 30 reported for the London area).” I have taken “with” to mean “including” not “and also” but am happy to use 300 for Cornwall if others think that is a better interpretation. www.gosw.gov.uk/gosw/docs/254795/mode_of_use.doc
MacKinnon does not give one figure for nonfluent speakers but quotes others' several very differing figures. I think “several hundred” is a reasonable interpretation of these. 
Note that the BBC website cited as a source is an undated article by MacKinnon in which he puts the current number of fluent speakers in Cornwall at “around 300” (not 300-500 as put for this source on wikipedia) with another “50 reported” for London. This is a minor variation on his 2000 study figures.  A dated reference is preferable to an undated one.    
I do not think the Daily Telegraph figures are acceptable as no source is given for them. Additionally, the present citing of the DT figures is selective - note the DT figure of 100 fluent speakers is not put on the present wikipedia pages.
Crococolana 11:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  How about people who have taken an exam on the Cornish language? Are there figures for this somewhere? Talskiddy 12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that would be an interesting figure, Talskiddy, and it would be useful to include it as it indicates a serious interest in the Cornish language and success in mastering it. [MacKinnon] gives some figures for this. The language board will have statistics. The living successful candidates are presumably included in the fluent  "300" and in the non-fluent figures. Some of the candidates will be deceased, alas.Crococolana 13:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of current speakers of the Cornish language

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Legal Referencing 

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

message: The latest edit puts the Vikings back in 721/722. The Annales Cambriae do not mention the Vikings at this date. See
[www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/annalescambriae.html] (in English) and [www.kmatthews.org.uk/history/annales_canbriae/ac_a.html] in  Latin. I have removed the Viking reference until a firm reference for it is put up. Crococolana 12:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vikings again] 

message: 100110100 05:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is cleanup required for ==History source==? 

message: The present Cornwall-politics item (and the main item Politics of Cornwall) are unbalanced in their presentation of politics in Cornwall and I think a visitor to them would get a misleading view of the range and scope of politics in Cornwall.
For example, in the article on this main Cornwall page 3½ lines are given over to the Liberal Democrats and 14½ lines to Cornish nationalist issues, these latter lines even including a reference to a by-election for a parish council. 
I don't know how on wikipedia one goes about suggesting major changes so I'll do it here.  I suggest the following for the politics item on the main Cornwall page:   
	
<<Cornwall currently elects five MPs to the British House of Commons, all of whom are Liberal Democrats (2005 general election). New parliamentary boundaries will create a sixth parliamentary constituency in Cornwall which will be fought for the first time at the next British general election. 
The organisation of the local government of the county is presently subject to debate and may change but the current arrangements in early 2007 are as follows.
 
There are eighty two county council seats. The majority are currently held by Liberal Democrats (2005 county council election).The headquarters of the county council are at Truro.
There are six districts in Cornwall with a total of 249 council seats. From east to west they are North Cornwall, Caradon,  Restormel, Carrick, Kerrier, and Penwith. The numerically largest main groups represented on them are Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, and independents. 
The chief registered parties contesting elections in Cornwall are Conservatives, Greens, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Mebyon Kernow, and UKIP.
There are several groups advocating varying forms of devolution or independence for Cornwall and campaigning on issues of the identity and rights of Cornish people: for example Mebyon Kernow, the Cornish Stannary Parliament (CSP), Cornwall 2000, and the Cornish Constitutional Convention. The main nationalist political party is Mebyon Kernow. In 2001 a petition calling for a devolved regional Cornish Assembly and carrying 41 650 signatures of residents of Cornwall was presented to the British government.
 
See Constitutional status of Cornwall>>Crococolana 13:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it could be argued that this is a little unbalanced but I think it would be wrong to remove material from the article as what is there is well written and neutral.  The point is that there are some important differences in Cornish politics compared to other places(I can't think of any other county that has this particular devolution slant to its politics).  Which is worth more than a casual mention because it is a unique situation, and makes the article interesting.  Encyclopoedias should let the reader learn new things, not just tell them stuff that they already know.  By all means balance up the content on the other political parties, but i don't think the devolution stuff should be cut Mammal4 14:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am writing about the item Politics on the Cornwall main page (not the item Politics of Cornwall which has its own page and which I shall get around to).
 
“a little unbalanced”: well, that’s a droll way of putting it. About 80 percent of the current item is about Cornish nationalist politics. This vastly overstates the level of support for and interest in political nationalism. I suppose there might be an interest that elections do not reflect though I do not know how to test that supposition reliably.  
 
I have taken a deep breath and rewritten the item. I have left much of the nationalist parts untouched - I have removed the reference to a parish council by-election. That is too embarrassing. 
I think details about the nationalist and non-nationalist parties and groups are best dealt with on their own websites or the main article on politics in Cornwall or on their pages on wikipedia rather than in an introductory item like this.
Two queries: Does the Cornish Nationalist Party still exist? I know TGG as a website; is there accessible evidence of it as a group?
I have removed the last sentence (The British government however has no plans...) as current invitations for future plans suggest it is misleading. Crococolana 14:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics

message: Don't take my edits to the section the wrong way. I'm not trying to 'de-Celtify' this section merely improve it.
I deleted a reference to 'huge nationalist support' or such-like as the section was about sport rather than politics and the issue is discussed on the team page. Ironically the phrase was mine originally though I don't remember the word 'huge' being there when I wrote it.
I've changed rugby to 'rugby union' in a couple of places too. Rugby can be as ambiguous a term as 'football' as a lot of rugby league fans refer to rugby league as 'rugby' as well.
I clarified that the Cornish rugby team play in the county championship because from the original text, it is not clear what the difference is between them and say Cornish Pirates.GordyB 16:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cornish rugby

message: I have added a large update to the Truro page, please take a peek. Cheers... A Cornish Pasty 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truro Update 

message: I have moved my saint comments from the history to the religion item and added two further points.Crococolana 13:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . . .  and I have added a note about the Anglican diocese. === Vernon White (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the explanatory sentences on Cornish saints and place names. The cut to "Many place are named after Cornish saints" was unsatisfactory: it could be taken to mean that the naming is after historically uncontended people. This is not so: many Cornish saints are problematic and the encyclopedia should note this point.Crococolana 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankd for that! I have clarified the link to "Uny" and added a mention of "Wendrona". ==Vernon White (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: Here is the summary for my edits today:
* Reorganised intro to be more of a summary of the article, per the above discussion.
** I imagine the last pargraph of the intro will be the most contentious.  The changes I made to it were to bring in links to the sub-articles that deal with the issue, in the hope of keeping the issue on those pages, and stop the edit warring on this one.
* I tidied up the physical geography section because:
** Geology and landscape were separated, which I don't think makes any sense.
** Moved geology details to the sub-article and cut down a little on the big words on this page -- Wikipedia:Summary style.
** Removed sub-sectioning: IMO it's not neccesary to give every paragraph its own section.
* Used Wikipedia:Summary style for the economy section, and cut down on excess detail from this page.
* Started turning list of settlements into prose, but this needs much more, please expand!  See Dorset (featured article) for an example.
* Moved list of places of interest, per WP:UK geo.
* Cut out history and culture links, per Wikipedia:Summary style -- links to individual sports/teams are fine on the articles about those sports/teams and fine in the Culture of Cornwall or a Cornish sport page, but lets not bloat this article too much.
* Generally cut spam, weasel words, subjective phrases (about the "spectactular" and "beautiful" coast", or the "best" way to travel) and duplicate links.
I'm hoping there should be no issues with any of that, except perhaps the intro.  Next up, the culture section really needs cleanup and cutting down to summary style, but I just can't face that right now.  Joe D (t) 13:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: A message for those editing the Cornwall pages on Wikipedia. There are a few hundred photos of mine which I have released into the public domain and which can be found at http://cornovia.org.uk/public_domain/index.html. The photos are mostly of Cornish scenes and more are added on a more or less regular basis. A link to either the URL cited above or to my Wikipedia user page within your comments on any upload page should be sufficient to convince of their public domain status. Please note though that the rest of my website is copyright. Cornovia 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain images 

message: Pardon an ignorant Yank a dumb question, but how is "Cornwall" pronounced?  My natural inclination is to read it as it's spelled, like "corn-wall", but based on the model of names like Warwick and Southwark (which many Americans also pronounce as they are spelled), I'm guessing it might sound more like "Cornal"?  But then there's the French version, Cornouailles, which does include the 'w' sound.  Perhaps we should have an IPA pronunciation guide in the article? User:Djcartwright 04:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much how it is spelt, stress on the first syllable, the vowel in the 'wall' part is pronounced as a schwa. IPA would be great, but I can't do it! DuncanHill 09:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I pronounce it Corn Wull (rhymes with Hull) - but then I'm Welsh...so lol Michaelyoung83 17:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Should not this section, as it is very bloated, just be a signpost to articles about Culture in Cornwall, rather than an article in itself. It is trying to address too much in too little space - and is a compromise pleasing nobody.
Tinminer 10:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture section 

message: I think it should be pointed out that "Curnow" is used as a Cornish spelling as well. --MacRusgail 15:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it? Would need citation (I've not ever seen it myself).DuncanHill 16:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've seen it only as a surname. Bretonbanquet 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in the "Modern Cornish" revived variety (Richard Gendall's variety). In MC, "Kernewek" appears as "Curnoack".MacRusgail 18:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If this spelling is mentioned, it should be made clear that it's a rare form which has not crossed over into everday usage. Bretonbanquet 18:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Never seen it spelt like that except for surnames. --Joowwww 19:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Curnow