Jump to content

Talk:Cornwall/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 14

Introduction

Closed: Thread starter is a sock puppet blocked for disruptive POV pushing edits.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Shouldn't the introduction state the type of county it is, like it does in every other article about english counties? It's not very uniform. I suggest it be change to: 'Cornwall is a ceremonial county and unitary authority in the south west of England.' Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Phat Cow (talk • contribs) 20:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It probably isn't there because it'll open up a whole new ten page discussion about the constitutional status of Cornwall. Leaving the status quo would probably be for the best, it's the version that's been stable the longest. It says it in the infobox anyway. --Joowwww (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Although saying that I see you're just another English nationalist sock puppet, and would probably best be ignored. Nice try. --Joowwww (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Well after viewing your User page, Jooowww, you are quite obviously a cornish nationalist, so I guess we'll just ignore your comment too (:. The Phat Cow (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, but the difference is, I'm not a sock puppet. --Joowwww (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying I am? How can I be a sockpuppet of someone who's blocked? This is my only account. The Phat Cow (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You could pick a slightly less obvious name. Jeez, worse than Multiplyperfect. (Sadly, his sock hasn't been blocked yet Edit:Yes, yes he has!) --大輔 泉 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, the County bit is linked to Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England. --大輔 泉 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cornish

Closed: Thread starter is a sock puppet blocked for disruptive POV pushing edits.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This query is not just about this article, but about all articles on Cornwall in general. Are the Cornish names really necessary? There are no native speakers of Cornish, and all people in Cornwall speak English, so I really don't see why all this hassle should be made to include a Cornish name after the English name on every single article on Cornwall. It just makes it harder to read. 82.1.157.16 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Such a question would be better asked at the Cornwall Wikiproject. DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Executive: Liberal Democrat?

The above line appears just under the council details, though I can't find it in the source. It's misleading, in any case; since the 2009 elections Cornwall appears to have a Conservative/Independent coalition running it (look at http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=20247 and check the party affiliation of the various cabinet members). 92.233.172.103 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Its plain wrong. I tried to change it but couldn't. How are you meant to edit this? --89.242.210.110 (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. After a bit of hunting, I found it comes from Template:English district control. Cavrdg (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

St Michael

St Michael's Mount gets it's present name from the monastery, which was given to the abbey of Mont Saint Michel in Normandy in the time of Edward the Confessor. The Norman connection is also clear from Robert, Count of Mortain's record that at the Battle of Hastings he had fought under the banner of St Michael (habens in bello Sancti Michaelis vexillum). Is there any evidence of a connection between Cornwall and St Michael prior to this? AJRG (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

By Norman times the cult of St Michael was Europe wide, stretching from Kiev to Ireland. Earlier centres were at Monte Sant'Angelo in Italy and Skellig Michael off the west coast of Ireland, so a specific connection to Cornwall is not established. Is there any evidence that the association continued, for example, under Alain de Bretagne, 1st Earl of Cornwall? AJRG (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Atlantic Ocean

I thought I would point out that Cornwall does not meet the Atlantic, but the Celtic sea instead. Maybe it would be an idea to create a section to explain the misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.9.37 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, most people (Like me!) made that mistake. Perhaps a little note about the confusion would be fine. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The Celtic Sea is part of the Atlantic Ocean, so either is fine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
And Atlantic Ocean would be the term normally used in general discourse, surely? As noted, it's just as correct, but far more usual, and far clearer to the casual reader. It would seem to be much the better option to keep in the lead. N-HH talk/edits 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Fully agree. We should use the common name, Atlantic Ocean, which is what most people are familiar with. That's one reason why the A39 is called The Atlantic Highway not the Celtic Sea Highway. By all means mention the Celtic Sea in the geography section, but keep Atlantic in the lead. --Simple Bob (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Also worth noting that celtic sea has no hits if you search at www.cornwall.gov.uk, whereas atlantic has several pages of hits. --Simple Bob (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. I think it needs to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.9.37 (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
IT IS??? I was wrong again...agreed though. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Census question on ethnicity

Hello, I recently added a bit about the 2001 census data on ethnicity question, to which 7% of respondents in Cornwall defined themselves as "Cornish". In a recent revert, Jowwww has argued that "census data does not provide accurate information regarding Cornish identity". I am very surprised by this line of argument. The census is the most comprehensive data source available in most demographic issues and surely therefore it must be highly notable that a remarkable number of people in Cornwall, utterly unprompted, defined their nationality as "Cornish". I can't think of any good reason to justify the assertion that it is not accurate - clearly it is. The existence or otherwise of other survey data, provided they themselves are unbiased, accurate and comprehensive, could also be mentioned. Surely this goes to the heart of the question. I won't revert yet or edit war, but a better reason is needed to argue against notability (I assume that's what we're arguing here - and not POV!) than just claiming that census ain't no good. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I suspect the objection is down to the fact that the 2001 census did not offer the specific option of identifying as Cornish - ie people had to "opt-in" and insert the description themselves. Nonetheless, the census is of course the best source of information available on such things generally, and the statement that "7% of people in Cornwall defined their ethnicity as Cornish" is 100% accurate. It also seems highly relevant to me, although perhaps would be better in the demographics section rather than directly in the lead. Other census data is included in the article, as is a lot of information about the supposed separateness of the modern Cornish people. I think adding a note about the perceived limitations of the census questions, and maybe a second figure, from a more recent - and authoritative and reliable - opinion poll would help deal with the issues? N-HH talk/edits 09:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In order to identify as Cornish it was necessary to first deny being British, by crossing out the British option, and then write in Cornish in the others box. As there was no tick box for Cornish, the numbers are not formally comparable to the options that did have tick boxes, and may underestimate the true figure. The campaign to add a Cornish tick box to the 2011 census was unsuccessful. AJRG (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This in itself is pretty notable AJRG - I would suggest we allude to the census data with a brief note about how it was done in the lede and then have more about this and other attempts to survey it in the main text. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Well the 2011 census will have a national identity question where people will be able to tick, English and British but still write in Cornish if they feel so strongly about it being their identity. It will be very interesting to see the results. Sadly the 2011 census may be the last census held in this country, which is a damn disgrace if true. It is one of the most authoritive ways of tracking certain demographic change. The census will highlight government failures, like the massive demographic change down to labours immigration policy, certain breeding patterns and its ability to promote certain identities and ethnicities at the same time as grossly undermining British identity and unity. No wonder they want the census scrapped. Lets hide the evidence of the damage being done and hope people dont notice. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The final paragraph of the introduction goes into heavy detail about "cornish people", nationalism, Cornwall being a "celtic nation" etc. I think a mention of the census data of how many identify as Cornish is useful and justified to put things into context. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be highly misleading to state that "7% identify as Cornish". However, it would be accurate to state that "In the 2001 Census, 7% rejected all the available options in order to identify themselves as Cornish". It's likely (but unprovable on current information) that many people would, unprompted, identify themselves as "Cornish and British" (or even, possibly, "Cornish and English"), but only ticked the "British" box on the form because that was the best option apparently available. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem with it saying something like 7% of people in Cornwall rejected all available options to identify themselves as Cornish in the census. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The whole census Cornish identity story is very interesting and needs clarifying in the article and notabalising (if that's a word) - the current sentence way down in the demography section There is some ambiguity over how many of the people living in Cornwall consider themselves to be Cornish, since results from different surveys (including the national census) have given results varying from 7% to 79% is both a bit misleading and also uncited at present. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
"from 7% to 79%'" is rather misleading yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I would support Ghmyrtle's proposal in the Demographics section, along with other information about Cornish identity, such as the PLASC survey, providing the reader with a fuller picture. A passing reference in the lead could be misconstrued if it isn't worded properly, and would have to go into too much detail to be in the intro. --Joowwww (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure we can come up with something - it's highly significant and the subject of many news stories in the media at present. Cites needs to be right - at the moment, I'm struggling to find a mainstream media analysis referencable that justfies the description of the exact process AJRG describes above - eg, that people had to opt out of being British - that only appears in nationalist blogs, etc. The main media outlet stories seem to describe it as simply ticking the "other" box, although I suppose they are similar - still a notable story! The national statistics site itself is a little unhelpful on the mechanics of the selection in 2001. The wave of stories and the controversy about inclusion in 2011 is highly notable and should be in the article as well. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
"campaigners insist that without an explicit option the census will fail to record the true number of people who consider themselves Cornish." [1] "It shows that a sizeable proportion of the population defined themselves foremost as Cornish, rather than English or British. Even though it was not a tick box option in the census, 37,000 people wrote Cornish on their forms." [2] --Joowwww (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen those articles Joowwww - the first is about inclusion of specific identity in the 2011, which I agree is a big story on the Cornwall article and helps justify it being in. The second ref you supply simply confirms the 7% figure. Neither supports it being un-notable as it obviously is a big issue. So far I have been able to find no reliable source (or indeed any source) to support the 79% claim - can't see anything about it in the talk archive either. A starting point will be to remove that claim unless it can be reliably sourced. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The 2001 census form is here(ethicity is on page 6). See also the separate campaign by Sikhs. AJRG (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that AJRG, very interesting. Dimly remember filling that in. In fact, your point above that the British box had to be "crossed out" (seen that statement on Cornish blogs/nationalist sites as well) does not appear to be quite accurate - people could tick "other white" and then write-in. I agree though that the outcome is similar in that there is an implicit denial of Britishness and of course many people would doubtless claim multiple identities like British, Cornish, etc. Not that this type of personal research helps too much, other than to cast doubt on some sources. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not my point - I was quoting the source verbatim. I agree that the wording is emotional - on the other hand, Choose ONE section from A to E, then tick the appropriate box to indicate your cultural background. would seem to make British and Any other White background mutually exclusive. AJRG (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry AJRG, I wasn't meaning to imply it was your opinion, I did mean the point you were referencing. I agree about the emotion and I don't think we can rely on nationalist blogs or campaign sites as objective references for any of the UK-related pages, unless perhaps to illustrate strength of opinion. On the census form point, I read it as meaning you were free to tick the Other box and write something in but this implied you don't regard yourself as British (in Box A) - even the fact we see it a little differently, factored up by hundreds of thousands, from our little personal research shows it was quite a mess! Still, personal research aside, I do think we should get something in about this as the current census question debate is big news (it was on the main BBCR4 Today programme last week for example) and this ties in closely with the objectivity or otherwise of the 2001 response, which we can explain. We also need to clarify the survey sources. 17:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinderbyshire (talk • contribs)
OK, some better references here and here. AJRG (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Off to watch the World Cup now, but aren't h2g2 pages reader-contributed? So anyone can write one I thought? The BBC Wales one looks good and can be used as one of our proposed new bit on referenced survey data. Still nothing referencable from anyone to back up the 79% claim in the article - that needs deleting I suspect. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Here then (Kernow: The Cornish Reality Rising By Philip Hosking). Also this, this and this may be of interest. AJRG (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Given up watching the footie, as it's dull. Your last few refs I knew about already and they are all good evidence about the notability of bringing in the census data and show some interesting survey data too, none supporting the 79% figure. Your first ref neatly illustrates the perils of relying on nationalist POV sources from any camp. The author, Philip Hosking, makes a claim that "ethnic data from the 2007 Cornish schools survey showed that 27% of children consider themselves to be Cornish rather than British or English" - in support of this he cites as reference a document from LSE - link broken - to the BSPS Annual Conference Proceedings of 2006. I tracked down the original documents for this on the LSE website [3] - no mention whatever of a Cornish schools survey. Instead, the proceedings discuss the usual 2001 census question dispute. Hosking's (fabricated?) figure is widely cited elsewhere on Cornish nationalist sites. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the BSPS reference is to The results from the 2001 UK population census show over 37,000 people hold a Cornish identity instead of English or British. It would be difficult to have a 2006 reference to 2007 figures... AJRG (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what point you are making. I thought you drew attention to this ref as evidence for the schools data. There is no evidence for that in either the article or the reference it draws on. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
What weight would you give the Launcells Parish Plan 2009 - p22 (21/23)? AJRG (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a small ward survey report and it repeats the claim about returns from a survey of schoolchildren without referencing that, so there is still no information about the origin of that figure. Drawing to the end of this now - no evidence has been put forward to support the (unlikely) 79% claim and there is good evidence for the inclusion of material about the census issues, so we need now to write some new sentences for the article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The PLASC datasets are available to researchers, so the figure is potentially verifiable. There are three appendices to the Parish Plan which are available upon request from Launcells Parish Council (01409 241319). One of them is the North Cornwall District Council Ward Profile - March 2008, which would typically contain this kind of data. AJRG (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Does it support the 79% claim? If not, it may be evidence for the other school survey data anyway. Is it not online anywhere? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I've never supported the 79% claim. References don't have to be online or even freely available, though personally I always try to find ones that are. PLASC data is sensitive because it is data on individual pupils, and only aggregated summaries may be published. I have no reason to believe that the figures quoted in the Launcells Parish Plan are incorrect. A properly authoritative source on the rest of the argument is here (p20-21). AJRG (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Should someone be bold and just remove the 79%? Keep the 7% from the census - with a brief note about the opt-out point - and then find a source that includes some of the more recent poll figures, which seem to be in the 20s or 30s rather than nearly 80%. N-HH talk/edits 12:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The survey here gives 44% in 2004. AJRG (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping we would replace the 79% claim with something more structured, giving a more accurate range of figures and showing sources, hence (part) of this discussion N-HH. Not far off now but can we discuss a revision sentence here? Will formulate or you can if you wish of course. AJRG - I wasn't doubting that these sources exist (eg, the schools ones you refer to) - just hoping for online things we can directly reference and also wanting to write text about context into the article showing briefly what the basis of the different surveys were. As you know, many people try to "prove" POVs in Wikipedia using survey results of varying credibility. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just usually quite keen to dump dubious information or opinionated content, rather than letting it sit around for ages with a "citation needed" tag on it. Even if the information is in fact accurate, and a reference is in principle out there, no one ever gets round to adding it. Anyway, how about something on the lines of
  • "In the 2001 census, 7 percent of people in Cornwall identified themselves as Cornish, rather than British or English. However, activists have argued that this underestimated the true number as there was no explicit "Cornish" option included in the official census form.<independent ref> Subsequent surveys have suggested that as many as 44 percent identify as Cornish.<BBC ref, as above>"
We don't need too much detail, as this is the article about the county, not Cornish nationalism, but that seems about right to me. May need some tweaks for style and to be 100% accurate to the refs, plus it may be worth digging a bit deeper into the survey being discussed in the BBC story. Note, in respect of the Philip Hosking material discussed earlier, it all looks very quasi-academic and respectable, but I'm afraid anyone who cites the duchyofcornwall.eu site and talks about people being "loathed" to do something can probably be safely put to one side. N-HH talk/edits 13:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree it needs removing, just want to do it properly, so thanks for your help. Hosking is already shown to not be an objective source as above, he quite clearly gives a fallacious reference in support of supposed statistics. Happy though to include other survey stats sources where we briefly show the background to their collection. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
He doesn't give a fallacious reference: he fails to give a reference. Both are inappropriate but please don't confuse one with the other. AJRG (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the Jedi's deserve their own tick box in ethnicity as well, its not just a religion. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
"In the 2001 census, 7 percent of people in Cornwall identified themselves as Cornish, rather than British or English. However, activists have argued that this underestimated the true number as there was no explicit "Cornish" option included in the official census form.<independent ref> Subsequent surveys have suggested that as many as 44 percent identify as Cornish.<BBC ref, as above>" looks reasonable enough as a compromise. There could also be some reference to the Launcells survey results and an appropriately worded reference to the Hosking article (admittedly the "duchyofcornwall" site is not a good sign but defects of style like "loathed" for "loath" mean very little).--Felix folio secundus 06:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent start. Don't forget the Office for National Statistics reference here (5.4 p20-21) which explains the 37,000 figure often quoted. AJRG (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, the demographics section is in better shape now. Removed the unsupported 79% figure ([4] by an IP user in March 2009 and completely unverified) and also taken out the h2g2 ref - just because h2g2 is hosted by the BBC doesn't make it a quality source - they are user submitted pages. We can now go on to my original point at the top of this section - why not mention the census and survey figures in the lead in the interests of NPOV? The current lead rather gives the impression that a consensus exists within Cornwall about identity - having spent a lot of time there, I doubt this is true, but more importantly, the figures suggest otherwise, not least the highly notable census figure. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

7% is the best figure for Cornish and not British and the figure invites comparison with support for Mebyon Kernow. 44% (or whatever) includes people who consider themselves Cornish and British, but not English. After all, Cornwall was part of the Roman province of Britannia a long time before the Anglo-Saxons arrived. AJRG (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Would the following be acceptable in the lead section as well as the existing statement?:

"There is some ambiguity over how many of the people living in Cornwall consider themselves to be Cornish, since results from different surveys (including the national census) have been varied. In the 2001 census, 7 percent of people in Cornwall identified themselves as Cornish, rather than British or English; however, activists have argued that this underestimated the true number as there was no explicit "Cornish" option available. Subsequent surveys have given variable results with 44 percent identifying as Cornish being the highest credible figure."--Felix folio secundus 05:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's too lengthy - we need something shorter for the lead and also something that counterbalances the current POV, which makes it sound as though Cornwall is about to secede at any moment. Also, the edit in the demography "the question and content recommendations for the 2011 Census provide an explanation of the process of selecting an ethnic identity which is relevant to the understanding of the often quoted figure of 37,000 who claim Cornish identity" seems to bear an element of personal research and needs modifying. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Separate identity

Reference here: Hansard, 12 Jul 2005 : Column 237WH, Para 2. AJRG (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

From what I know of IPA, it seems that it should be pronounced Cornw'l with a swallowed second syllable. Now granted I've never lived within 150 miles, but I've always pronounced it at full value (i.e. CORN-wall, to rhyme with cornball) and I have NEVER in my life heard anyone - friends, business colleagues, newsreaders etc. etc. - say Cornw'l. Are we ALL wrong?? Or is it a case of local pronunciation differing from that used outside the area, as when locals refer to the large city in north-west England as Man-chis-tor? Draggleduck (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did used to live within 50 miles of Cornwall, and I have always (even before I lived there) pronounced it "Cornw'l" not "CORN-wall", which sounds so wrong to me that I thought it must be an Americanism.  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I'm amazed! If I'd ever heard, for instance, a news report speaking of disastrous floods at Boscastle in Cornw'l it would have really jarred! Seriously, I'd doubt you'd ever hear anyone outside the West Country and with no particular connection to, or knowledge of, the area saying Cornw'l. Suppose it's like the recent Ralph Moat carry-on, where every news report referred to Prudhoe and Ponteland as 'Prood-hoe' and 'Ponty-land'! Draggleduck (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
See what you make of this. AJRG (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
When I played this it had no soundtrack.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Y'see that doesn't sound odd to me because, to my Yorkshire ears anyway, it isn't exactly the schwa implied by the IPA character - more Corn-wul than Cornw'l, if yous get what I mean. But there you go, laisse tomber because I'd hate to get the IPA retentives all in a lather! :-) Draggleduck (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Language section

It currently says "Both the English and Cornish languages are used in Cornwall." This clearly needs expanding and explaining., English is used in Cornwall, along with a limited amount of Cornish. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a bit of explanation already under the Cornish Language section and of course the main page at Cornish language. What would you say - that Cornish was the majority language for perhaps two thousand years and that English has been for only the last three hundred? AJRG (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, if there were sources for that AJRG, you could put it. I would say a better sentence would be "As well as English, Cornish is spoken by a small number of speakers in Cornwall" or some such. What do the sources say is the percentage of Cornish speakers? That would be the best figure to have as it's more accurate. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The history of course is very interesting, but that - more than any other observation - belongs on the specialist language or history pages (as noted, with sources). The sentence that was queried was about the situation now - ie the simple point of what language[s] is/are normally used and found in Cornwall in 2010. Can't quite see why we should be trying to obscure the details of that, or bury them under discussion about what might have been the case 2000 years ago, on the page about the modern county. The current wording will imply to anyone skim-reading the page or who reads no further than the sections first sentence that Cornwall might even be a bilingual region. I'm fine with either alternative proposal, although "used" may be better than "spoken", since we are often talking about signs etc as much as we are people using the language on an everyday basis for regular conversation, AFAIK. It should be briefly made clear from the outset that it is occasional usage, among a very small minority of people and/or in very limited contexts. N-HH talk/edits 19:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Well the Cornish language article says there are 2000 fluent speakers in total, although that is a pretty high estimate, sources a few years back such as the BBC said it was a few hundred i seem to recall. The population of Cornwall is over 500,000 which is why its clearly problematic and misleading for it just to say "Both the English and Cornish languages are used in Cornwall" as if the two are in some way equal in usage. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I would be fine with something like
"English is the primary language used throughout Cornwall like the rest of England. Between "enter date" and "enter date" Cornish was the majority spoken language but its usage died out until a recent "enter date" revival, now there are around "enter number" able to speak the language fluently, about "enter % of Cornwalls population". "
Something like that anyway, but worded much better. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I just expanded it briefly for clarity, rather than waiting to agree on a perfect text here before changing anything. I'm not sure we need much more for that brief opening sentence of this section on this page, as opposed to the following short paragraph or even the language page itself, but happy for everyone to improve/amend/extend of course. The other thing about being specific with numbers is that it gives no indication of how often and when those people actually use the language, even if they can speak it to some degree. However small the number is, simply stating it probably overstates the prevalence. If we wanted to be completist, we could talk about other languages as well. Not sure if there are any stats on these, but I'd suspect that even in Cornwall there might be more people who regularly speak Chinese/Mandarin or Urdu than Cornish. N-HH talk/edits 19:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The 2001 census (quoted here) identifies the proportion of Cornwall's Black and Minority Ethnic population as 0.99%, an increase of 95.5%. The small BME population now totals 4,956 in number, with the Chinese (531), Black Caribbean (307), Black African (307) and Asian / Asian British (969). AJRG (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
There being, for example, 531 people of Chinese origin in Cornwall does not mean that they all speak Mandarin or another Chinese dialect. The one "Chinese Cornish" person I know, for example, does not speak any Chinese dialect. The same would go for the Asian / Asian British population. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Pasties

Today's pasties usually contain a filling of beef steak, onion, potato and swede....

How do the Swedes feel about this? Sca (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Consumed with passion. Clarificatory wikilink to rutabaga now added to article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Clarificatory — I like that! Thanks. Sca (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Von Ribbentrop's holiday plans

I wonder if other editors have seen this story [5] that Von Ribbentrop fancied Cornwall as his holiday home and planned to take over St Michael's Mount for himself once the Nazi invasion of Britain was complete? Lucky Cornwall! Think it's worth a mention in the article? It does rather show off Cornwall's allure as a tourist destination. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it could also be mentioned under Operation Sea Lion, and in the article on Von Ribbentrop (I can't see it in there, but it's a vast article!). It's already mentioned in the St Michaels Mount article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation required

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closed this because everyone - including Floydian (see his comment at 02:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)) do not agree with it.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Several places, all important in their own right, share a name with this Cornwall. As such, Cornwall (disambiguation) should be moved here, and this article moved elsewhere. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This Cornwall is the primary topic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)The county of Cornwall is clearly the primary topic, as the other places named Cornwall are tiny, with one or two exceptions, and nothing like as important. Cornwall is the original place so named, and the article receives much more traffic than the others, even taking into account any users arriving here looking for other places:

Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's impossible to account for the users that arrive at this page seeking another Cornwall. How about the disambigation page; How many hits does it receive? Being "The first" Cornwall is not relevant to the likelihood that it is the primary topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
503 hits for the disam page last month compared to 84546 hits for Cornwall last month. This article is without any doubt at all the primary topic and deserving primary position. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It's always difficult to gather truly objective evidence for these disputes. For my part, I find it difficult to picture any of the other Cornwalls as having the notability of the British county - certainly not Cornwall, Ontario, perhaps the strongest rival, a small Canadian town. Things are right the way they are on notability grounds. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I see no compelling reason to move the disambiguation page here. Even if all the visitors to the other Cornwalls that Bretonbanquet listed got to their destinations via this page, we still have at worst 2316 for this article vs 484 for all the rest. DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is without a doubt the primary topic for Cornwall. This article should stay at its current name. Jolly Ω Janner 18:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose then, based on the same concept of page statistics, I should move Scarborough, Ontario to Scarborough, as it receives five time the hits of the disambiguation page, and ten times the hits of the borough, castle, or town in Yorkshire. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what traffic tool you're using, but mine gives me 14,412 for Scarborough, Ontario last month, and 12,423 for Scarborough, North Yorkshire. Hardly ten times. In any case, you would need to take it up at the relevant talk page, not here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll just add my 2p worth here - this Cornwall is definitively the "primary topic" for the term Cornwall. Looking at the disambiguation page the next most significant place is Cornwall, Ontario (none of the non-geographic term have any real significance). The county of Cornwall has a well established culture, a significant history and even a language and distinct ethnic group. It was historically a country in its own right, and in some (albeit POV-charged) ways retains the trapping of a nation today (cf Cornish nationalism). The Cornwall in Ontario by comparison is a "typical" city, which while it may have local cultural differences to neighbouring cities, and so an independent "culture" its not anything like as significant as the UK Cornwall's culture. The relative importance is actually reflected by the number of articles in Category:Cornwall (4,634 articles) and Category:Cornwall, Ontario (144 articles).

Whilst I can empathise with the position that British articles are unjustifiably located at the main article page inappropriately in some (maybe even many pages), this Cornwall is clearly the primary topic.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I can agree in this light. Perhaps Cornwall was a pad choice. I admit, I just went through the places that popped to mind one by one. However, places such as Peterborough and Renfrew are known to locals, and not universally overseas. Nobody in Ontario relates Peterborough to the United Kingdom. Likewise, nobody in the United Kingdom relates it to Ontario. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It's certainly true that there are lots of more problematic ones and an element of British-o-philia in the alleged primacy of some. A more striking example is perhaps Birmingham, which, as a basically post-industrial large city, seems to have no better claim than Birmingham, Alabama - they have similar populations and claims to fame. There are probably lots of better ones on the scale of small towns and villages. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It would have been helpful if "New" was added to everything lol, i dont get why they only did it for some places. Birmingham would be a clear UK win for primacy though. Double the population and its the UKs second biggest city. I must admit if it wasnt for the search tool automatically displaying the different options and the tool to check page views there would probably be a huge number of disputes over which articles should have primacy. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
@Floydian: This is probably the wrong place to say this (althought it is in response), but I feel how you initially acted here indicates a possible flaw in your thinking. In the vicinity of Cornwall, Ontario if someone used the word "Cornwall" in everyday speech it would be implicitly assumed to refer to the Ontario city. Likewise that word in the UK would be used to refer to the county in SW England. Neither of these two facts provides any indication to which usage is more important in an objective sense. However, consider what the word would mean to someone in New Zealand, where there is no local term. Odds are that it if it means anything, it would refer to the British county. Same situation with eg Renfrew, what would a typical Australian understand that to mean? (At a guess nothing.) Without any prior knowledge of the places which would that Australian conclude was most "important", and how would work that out? Presumably they would read up on the various places, and look at things like population, administrative significance, history etc. This outside perspective is what should be considered not one from a localised POV.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Floydian, might I suggest an RfC instead of the current thread at the Village pump and threads on all the British places you can find? While you're at it, through in Athens, corn, and any other undisambiguated terms you can find. DuncanHill (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
For those who missed it (including me), the discussion at "Village pump" is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose page move, for all and any of the oppose comments above. I am further suggesting, due to evidence and comments elsewhere, that this sudden proposal that concerns several major UK cities among which are featured articles, has been made for reasons that do not concern the neutrality of our encyclopdia. --Kudpung (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
(See Ghmyrtle) This discussion is premature due an ongoing policy discussion on policy that has not yet been resolved. --Kudpung (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
We passed the border a while ago. We're deep in troll-country now. GyroMagician (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I live in Torpoint, which is probably going to be politically cleaved unto to Plymouth (who are also in the line of Floydian-fire). So please do forgive me if I just don't know where the line falls these days :) Plutonium27 (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Best make that Torpoint, Cornwall. Jolly Ω Janner 21:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, perhaps in that case we should lump Torpoint's page hits onto Plymouth's over at that discussion! :) Zangar (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Duchy

The Duchy of Cornwall has been mentioned a lot recently in the houses of parliament. Tories, Labour (and possibly Lib-Dems?) were all referring to Cornwall(the place) as the Duchy rather than a landed estate. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=duchy+cornwall Bodrugan (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall is still a county of England. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
...If that's what you were arguing against... --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that was the argument. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
So what does it entail? I'm confused. I think you are too. Maybe old big ears knows.--Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It's certainly not terribly clear. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The statements here are not enough justification for the change: in the case of "bona vacantia" the law understands the Duchy as meaning the modern county not the landed estate. Usage in debate involves rhetoric so is necessarily less reliable than written text. If anything was to be added it should be in the "Constitutional status" section.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The point I am making is that Cornwall is referred to officially as both a duchy and a county, and that needs to be reflected in the opening paragraph. Bodrugan (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC) The consensus on the constitutional status of Cornwall has been to leave things be unless something should change. I am adding to that old debate, that members of the House of Commons of all backgrounds do refer to Cornwall as a Duchy. This adds weight to the argument that Cornwall is considered both de facto and de jure a duchy as well as a countyBodrugan (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh! This is an old, old argument, I would suggest you familiarise yourself with past discussions, can be very beneficial! (And why are the Cornish seemingly so proud of the Duchy? Old Big Ears treats it like his personal piggy bank) --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say proud, I'm a republican. "Big Ears" has a lot of power which comes from the duchy, but the only way to deal with such hidden influence is to reveal it to the public.Bodrugan (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What sort of republican insists on using an archaic royalist term. The vast majority of the results in the "reference" (since when were random searches considered reliable) refer to the duchy as a landed estate. If anything it refutes your claim as it show that the House of Commons uses the term Duchy of Cornwall to refer to Big Ears piggy bank rather than the county. Eckerslike (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
None of the Hansard references attempt to define the Duchy. Both the county and the private estate are referred to as the "Duchy". --Joowwww (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
(I can define Duchy Originals - Too much salt and sugar) The whole "Duchy" Situation is pretty messy. What's funny is the Duchy never has much to say about the situation, I mean, why should they care about the constitutional status of Cornwall? And I thought the same thing as Joowwww, but as typical of my reserved attitude, I didn't say it... --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
They care very much, they care about telling people that "the Duchy" is not the county, just the private estate (completely contrary to what it says in the British constitution). After all, if people find out their "private estate" is illegitimate, Big Ears might lose all his lovely profits! --Joowwww (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Holt

Removed: "British author Victoria Holt made Cornwall as the setting for many of her novels including "The Landower Legacy"." This belongs, if at all, in "Fiction", but a reliable reference is needed before re-adding it.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall political parties

While after the 2005 election Cornwall constituencies were represented by 5 Liberal Democrat MPs and one conservative, after the 2010 election the balance changed and there are now 3 LDs and 3 conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.61.148 (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Over Referencing

Seven references for the fact that Cornwall is Celtic. Another seven references for Koch & Co's Atlantic-Celtic theory, some simply summaries of the other references. Calm down. Paul S (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Nevertheless, our resident British nationalist was not content for the statement to be unreferenced and this is the result, as the numerous and protracted discussions show: here; here; here; here; here; and finally here. Having read those discussions, do you have a proposal to make any amendments, that has any likelyhood of gaining consensus? Daicaregos (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's only fair to point out that the main reason the refs were included were to explain the use of the term "Celtic nation" - not Cornwall's Celtic heritage itself. In my opinion, the definition of "Celtic nation" is quite adequately referenced in the article on Celtic nations itself, and some of the refs here, which were included so as to prove a point to another editor, should now be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Great, 'cause it looks ridiculous. Daicaregos (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Reduced the 7 Koch, Cunliffe & Co refs to only 3. There are one or two fanatics wandering about evangelising their theory, so this may get moaned about and/or undone. I don't know the story behind the Celtic nation thing so I won't touch that. Paul S (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Some ideas...

(i)It seems that, after browsing several topics about people (BLP'S) and Music Groups, from (But not necessarily self-identifying with) Cornwall, it seems they are all described as either Cornish, or any association with England/Englishness is never present. Due to the delicate nature of the constitutional status of Cornwall, cultural identity/ethnicity should remain unambiguous unless clear sources are found that tell us what group these people/group identify with, if any at all. I don't think this is a POV issue, maybe a little systematic bias!(for instance mostly all Folk/Traditional music groups that show blatant Cornish culture don't need sources to back this up...right?) (ii) There needs to be more guidelines on the lead sections of places(Towns, Industrial sites ect) within Cornwall. It's currently very imbalanced. I would suggest that places very localised, and not of general "international" importance, and specific to Cornish culture don't need to be mentioned as being in England, the UK will suffice, administrative and larger settlements, along with places with historical ties to the rest England, of importance should mention there position in England in the lead, such as industrial sites... (Like the Geevor Tin Mine) (iii) There is a significant lack of quality photos on many of Cornwall's articles, less than I would expect, we need more! (IV) The Cornwall guidelines needs to be expanded and given more detail, as it's just sitting there fermenting. Clearer guidelines on BLP'S/Leads/Ethnicity/Identity are key I feel. Toodle-Doo...--Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Danish Allies"

Any more information on this alliance between the Cornish and the Danes? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It comes from a reference in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - AD 835 in the original. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Rather than editors warring over this, can we have a discussion please? Both pronunciations seem to be supported by reliable sources, but it is unquestionably the case that, within the UK, ˈkɔrnw(ə)l is seen as the normal and correct pronunciation, and ˈkɔrnwɔːl is only encountered as one sometimes used by Americans, seemingly out of ignorance. As this is an article about part of the UK, the BritEng pronunciation should have precedence, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The three sources I've cited are the principal authorities on BrE pronunciation, and all three give /-wɔːl/ as the more common pronunciation in British English. C0pernicus (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. However, they are wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes they are wrong. It is necessary, when citing sources, to actually ask oneself if what they say makes sense. The pronunciation given in C0pernicus' sources does not make sense, as it so clearly differs from that actually heard in Britain. DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid your own impressions are incorrect; they certainly contradict mine, which are the same as those of the editors of the pronunciation dictionaries. C0pernicus (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you actually in the UK? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep. C0pernicus (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
What you need to decide is which pronunciation are you aiming to represent in the IPA, RP or Cornish? Since there is no such thing as a correct way of speaking, I don't see why RP would be given priority over native pronunciation. Here are the two pronunciations of "Cornwall": http://www.forvo.com/word/cornwall/ The first is (to my ears) an exaggerated RP. The second is how Cornwall is pronounced by most people in Cornwall. --Moon (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This is another good one - instantly recognisable as US, and bearing little relationship to the word as spoken in the area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Grammar point

Since we're deprecating US-isms, the grammar really sticks out like a sore thumb as being an Americanism in the first sentence - "Cornwall... is a ceremonial county and unitary authority of England, United Kingdom, forming the tip....". This should read either "of England and the United Kingdom" or perhaps "of England in the United Kingdom" or similar. England, UK, is the US way of saying it, like Hoboken, New Jersey. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

James, it's the result of a longstanding compromise between the Unionists (who consider Cornwall to be just another county of England) and Cornish nationalists (who consider Cornwall to be a Celtic nation within the UK). True, it don't look too elegant, but it beats the constant edit warring that preceded it. See the archives on this page (top right). Daicaregos (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know about that. I'm not querying the meaning, but the format. It really is a mangled sentence and I'm sure we can write it in English and not computer-speak. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
BTW, are you calling on this archive [6] as the basis for the "longstanding compromise" you mention? Looks pretty confused to me - lots of bogus arguments and confusions between the historical and the now in there. The current reality is that administratively and legislatively, Cornwall is no different to any other English county, regardless of local opinion or sentiment. Apart from being ungrammatical, the current wording confuses the reader into wondering if this might not be the case. We can and should do better. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Although it's true that Cornwall has for centuries been administered as a county of England, it is contentious to assert that it is therefore "no different to any other English county, regardless of local opinion or sentiment" - legislatively or in any other way. How about: "Cornwall... is an area at the tip of the south-western peninsula of Great Britain, administered as a ceremonial county and unitary authority of England, within the United Kingdom". Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't assert that it is "no different to any other English county". I asserted that it is no different administratively or legislatively. There is a difference. I don't really see the point of the England in UK assertions (or even less so the ungrammatical variant) as it is just confusing, but since the sentence doesn't exactly say it's about administrative powers, I can see the merits in your alternative. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
To your first point - see Constitutional status of Cornwall. It's still a contentious point, to some. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I've read it in the past - it's a big article for some rather slender arguments, but the article puts it rather well I think: Regardless of the question of whether Cornwall constitutes one of the historic counties of England, an administrative county of Cornwall was set up by the Local Government Act 1888, which came into effect on 1 April 1889. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not opinion or sentiment that creates the ambiguity, it's the constitutional status. The ambiguity is not solved by past or the current government's legislation regarding Cornwall, the constitution and the duchy charters are still there and still law. "The government line" isn't always NPOV. Otherwise, there would be no article at Tibetan sovereignty debate. --Moon (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
No, you are referring to historical issues, not the current position. The current position is that Cornwall is the same as any other English county in administrative and legislative arrangements. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
This is getting back to the old chestnut, beloved of some editors, that current administrative arrangements are all-important in determining the content of WP articles. They're not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
They are important if the sentence says they are. The introductory sentence talks about what Cornwall "is", not what it "was". There isn't a lot wrong other than (1) the grammar which it sounds like we agree needs work and (2) the sense that somehow it makes Cornwall currently different as a County to others. This latter isn't all that obvious but it would be if you look at other County articles. I think at minimum we need to explain it better. Some editors are really talking about the historical perspective and about Cornish nationalism. Both are covered but the current situation needs clarifying. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
My point is that Cornwall is not just, or even primarily, a local government area. It is an area where, unlike any other county in England (and I accept it is currently administered as one), there are issues about the legitimacy of its current administrative arrangements, sufficient to justify more than one WP article. So, the wording of this article should be addressed with some sensitivity and subtlety, rather than simply having a bald statement that it "is" a "county" in "England". Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Inclined to agree with the gist of your last point. Maybe the first sentence of the intro needs some more work to (1) make it grammatical and (2) give a tiny glimpse of the past and present. Fancy a stab at it? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Both Arguments valid. Compromise must be sort via consensus. (And don't you/anyone dare compare the situation in Tibet to that of Cornwall, how pathetically ignorant and Childish, they are nothing alike. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't, if you read it a bit more closely you'll see that I was making a comment about a government line (that Tibet is part of China) being ignored on one part of Wikipedia and a government line (that Cornwall is a county of England) being reinforced on another. I'd like an apology. --Moon (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
James, you are misunderstanding the debate. The issue is not around what Cornwall was, but what it is, now, it is its current status that is disputed. Certain parts of the British constitution such as the Duchy Charters - current and enacted law - raise questions about the legitimacy of the 'county' status the government chooses to give to Cornwall. If the government chooses to ignore parts of the law it doesn't make it any less the law. It would not be NPOV of Wikipedia to toe the constitutionalists' line that Cornwall isn't a county, but it would also not be NPOV to toe the government's line that Cornwall is. Wikipedia isn't an agent of the British government. The law is the law, there is a dispute, and Wikipedia should at least mention it without taking sides. --Moon (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I am misunderstanding it. There isn't anything in the article about the Duchy Charters, so clearly they haven't so far been considered notable enough to mention, or indeed to have a seperate WP article about them. Clearly this is a case of OR or Synth. I haven't read one convincing argument so far to say that Cornwall does not have an identical County status to all other UK counties, regardless of the perception that it's a plot by the despicable scheming UK government to ignore the law. Where is the evidence? 12:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Note also that Cornwall County Council describes itself as a "Unitary Authority" [7], created on 1 April 2009 by merging Cornwall County Council and the six borough and district councils [8]. The new Unitary Authority used the template for Unitary Authorities published by DCLG in 2006. [9] There is no significant difference between the Cornwall Unitary Authority and any other in the UK. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
James, what is the point of this discussion if, after you have said you are "inclined to agree" with some of my arguments, you then completely ignore the case made? Wording that states that Cornwall is "of England" is unnecessarily provocative, as you must know. The case has been made over and over that Cornwall is more than an administrative sub-division that is "simply" part of England, and the wording should reflect that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec)The Council is Cornwall Council, not Cornwall County Council. It is technically a district council (as are most of the unitry authorities). It's worth noting that "county" has many meanings, and the current article attempts to cover all of them. The Isles of Scilly were never administered by Cornwll County Council, and I'm not entirely clear as to when they became part of the Lord Lieutenancy area (whch is one of the things we mean when we say "county"). DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Back to the original argument, Britannica lists Cornwall as "Cornwall (county, England, United Kingdom)", so the "England, United Kingdom" thing isn't really a U.S. thing. Coincidentally, they do that with all British counties. The point is moot.--Cúchullain t/c 13:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
That was just the Britannica index format Cuchullain. The actual entry [10] defines it in the first sentence as "Cornwall, administrative and historic county, southwestern England, occupying a peninsula jutting into the Atlantic Ocean. " Actually much better worded than our article, so happy to use the Britannica version. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, it's the listing. But it's an example of that format being used in British English, so there's no need to make your proposed change on that basis.--Cúchullain t/c 14:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
They aren't comparable. The Britannica one is a snippet from an index entry, picking up words in a computer search format. We are writing English prose in a major article. Actually quite surprised that you attempt to use this as evidence. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
What's surprising is that you're trying to push this change through under the guise of "deprecating US-isms". The format may be used in British English if it's determined to be suitable, and clearly it has been determined to be suitable by editors of this article.--Cúchullain t/c 15:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Or by the most determined ones anyway! But the issue isn't just "US-ism", it's plainly badly written. I think you and others would see that if it weren't for the perception that this is about the national identity or otherwise of Cornwall. Cornwall's modern status is not that of a seperate country or as something different to the other Unitaries. Still waiting in vain for some evidence to be put forward that shows it is. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cornwall/Archive_10&oldid=1136335062"