Talk:Cornish people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New information

Added the following:

the Myth of Descent

An ancient legend, the Brutus Myth, recounted by Geoffrey of Monmouth gives explicit reference to the Cornish people in describing their decent. The legend tell how Albion was colonised by refugees from Troy under King Brutus, how Brutus reamed his new Kingdom, Britain, and how the island was subsequently divided up between his three sons - the eldest inheriting England, the other two Scotland and Wales. Additionally according to the legend; it was two groups of Trojans who originally arrived in Britain. The smaller group was led by a warrior named Corineus, to whom Brutus granted extensive estates. And just as Brutus had ‘called the island Britain…and his companions Britons’, so Corineus called ‘the region of the kingdom which had fallen to his share Cornwall, after the manner of his own name, and the people who lived there…Cornishmen’. No other region is picked out for such special treatment; it is clear that, as far as Geoffrey was concerned, Cornwall possessed a separate identity. Cornishmen and women continued to regard themselves as descendents of Corineus until well into the early modern period.

|- |align=center| 1652 || The English puritan preacher, Roger Williams complained that "we have Indians...in Cornwall, Indians in Wales, Indians in Ireland". |}

Bretagne 44 09:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Tidied it up a bit. "No other region is picked out for such special treatment; it is clear that, as far as Geoffrey was concerned, Cornwall possessed a separate identity," strikes me as rather too PoV (and if that's what the evidence shows, it shouldn't need stating); whilst "Cornishmen and women continued to regard themselves as descendents of Corineus until well into the early modern period" needs a citation. sjcollier 11:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr Mark Stoyle, West Britons, Cornish Indentities and the Early Modern british State; chap 1 page 13. ISBN 0 85989 688 9, University Of Exeter Press.

I have reverted your changes.Bretagne 44 14:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"The legend tell how" Sorry?

"under King Brutus" No "Brutus Rex" in the Historia; just plain Brutus. And why is it linked to a non-existant King Brutus article when he already has his own article at Brutus of Troy?

"Additionally according to the legend;" That's a novel use for a semi-colon.

"it was two groups of Trojans" Eh? Surely "there were..."

"it is clear that, as far as Geoffrey was concerned, Cornwall possessed a separate identity." "It is clear that" is still PoV.

"Cornishmen and women continued to regard themselves as descendents of Corineus until well into the early modern period." Your source for this claim being?

I've removed the whole lot. If you're not happy to let somebody else try to make this look like an encyclopaedia article, please do so yourself. sjcollier 18:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, just spotted the citation. Other points still stand, though. sjcollier 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and just spotted the TalkPage section title. I'm guessing you mean the Myth of Descent, unless your point is that Brutus was a thoroughly nice bloke. sjcollier 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the page in a hissy fit!

An ancient legend, the Brutus Myth, recounted by Geoffrey of Monmouth gives explicit reference to the Cornish people in describing their descent. The legend tells how Albion was colonised by refugees from Troy under King Brutus, how Brutus renamed his new Kingdom, Britain, and how the island was subsequently divided up between his three sons - the eldest inheriting England, the other two Scotland and Wales. Additionally according to the legend there were two groups of Trojans who originally arrived in Britain. The smaller group was led by a warrior named Corineus, to whom Brutus granted extensive estates. And just as Brutus had ‘called the island Britain…and his companions Britons’, so Corineus called ‘the region of the kingdom which had fallen to his share Cornwall, after the manner of his own name, and the people who lived there…Cornishmen’.

No other region is picked out for such special treatment; it is clear that, as far as Geoffrey was concerned, Cornwall possessed a separate identity. Cornishmen and women continued to regard themselves as descendents of Corineus until well into the early modern period. Bretagne 44 11:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You carry out a revert in order to reinstate bad grammar and shoddy English that had been removed from an article, and then accuse me of vandalism? Never mind. I've corrected the Brutus link (again), and removed the word "King", because he's not called that. Anyway, "it is clear that, as far as Geoffrey was concerned, Cornwall possessed a separate identity" is still not NPOV, because it is an opinion, not a fact (see here). It needs rewording or removing. sjcollier 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(PS. I feel I should declare that I am, more or less, "on your side" - before you resort to labelling me an "English nationalist". I simply don't think that bad English or non-NPOV assertions are going to help convince critics of this article that it's not just a load of nationalistic rubbish.)

1) Apart form the spelling mistakes i used the words of Mark Stoyle! 2) I did not label you an English nationalist. 3) It is an opinion yes, one more opinion to add to the list. Bretagne 44 16:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Do you have permision for that, or is it breach of copyright? 2) No, but you have done in the past when someone has disagreed with you over this article. 3) If it's an opinion then it needs to be made clear that it is an opinion, eg "The historian Dr Mark Stoyle has claimed that it is clear from this..." or something similar (with a reference). sjcollier 20:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

References

Made the following changes:

# ^ Philip Payton, Professor of Cornish Studies at Exeter University, Cornwall – A History ISBN 1-904880-05-3

1. ^ Dr Mark Stoyle, BA (Soton), DPhil (Oxon), West Britons– Cornish Identities and the Early Modern British State ISBN 0-85989-687-0.

There is a wealth of other books on this subject like the Cornish Studies series and Our Future is History by John Angarrack. Should a list of books be provided for further reading? Bretagne 44 16:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A further reading list might be nice; I suspect that there is other relevant stuff by Payton and co, as well as things in the Cornish Studies series, old RIC journals, etc. If you're going to do it, I could have a poke around a few libraries and see if I can unearth anything on nationalism within the British Isles more generally that mentions Cornwall. I would be slightly wary about including Angarrack, though; at least without making it clear that he is someone who is (quite openly) writing with a political agenda. sjcollier 20:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have slightly reworded the sentence I keep grumbling on about, to make it clear that it is Dr Stoyle (and not the article) who is making assertions about what GoM thought. Hope this won't be too problematic. sjcollier 20:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's all good.Bretagne 44 13:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Link not working

The link that formed the basis of the following paragraph was not working, so I removed it:

':Another survey, Quality of Life in Cornwall, offered Cornish inhabitants the choice between description as Cornish or English, but not both. 35.1% of the 15,000 people surveyed chose "Cornish", compared to 48.4% who chose English.'

Not sure if whoever knows about these things can fix the link, however. --Robdurbar 09:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Green Party

Added the following to the politics section:

The Cornish branch of the Green party also campaigns on a manifesto of devolution to Cornwall and Cornish minority issues. In the 2005 general election the Green party struck a partnership deal with Mebyon Kernow [1].

Bretagne 44 13:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Italic text== Most Britons and Western Europeans are of Iberian Origin. ==

Take your time and read well.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Y-MAP.GIF

World Haplogroups Maps (As recent as 2005)

Origins of haplogroup R1b. (Very interesting too)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29

http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe.htm

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Maps.htm

HCC

• Stop posting this information everywhere, its nothing new or anything that isnt already found in other sources. Most importantly, please stop claiming that Britons are of Iberian origin when posting this statement since this is not what these Y.chrom analysis and other sources are claiming. These Y-chrom haplogroups are only one very small section of genetic inheritance, date back to paleotlithic times and none are for example are claiming that they are chacteristically or originally "Iberian" or from some other specific European region. Epf 22:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Take your time and read it well. HCC.

Removed citations

taken them out from these two sentences:

Many in Cornwall consider themselves British and then Cornish, so use the term "British" to describe themselves.

Just check the last UK census for the number of people who ticked British.

Many others use only "Cornish" as a description of their ethnic or national identity. This is a phenomenon with a long historical precedent.

1)Over 37,000 wrote Cornish on the last census 2)Just read the historic quotes for proof of a Cornish identity. Bretagne 44 18:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornish diaspora

Is emigration of people from Cornwall really called the Cornish Diaspora or is this someone's personal application of that term to this phenomenom? I haven't heard any emigration of people from the British isles referred to as a diaspora. The diaspora article states: The term diaspora (Ancient Greek διασπορά, "a scattering or sowing of seeds") is used (without capitalization) to refer to any people or ethnic population forced or induced to leave their traditional ethnic homelands; being dispersed throughout other parts of the world, and the ensuing developments in their dispersal and culture. Cornish people have never been forced to leave the country unless they were deported as any number of thousands of Britons were to the colonies. I think in many ways it is insulting to refer to emigration from Britain as a diaspora as that term seems more related to ethnic clensing or mass emigration due to natural events. I think this might be someone's attempt to make Cornish emigration sound dramatic or harrowsome when this isn't the case. I think that the same argument should apply to other British 'diasporas' too, such as eliminating Scottish diaspora. Does anyone agree? Should it be better kept simply to Cornish emigration or Emigration from Cornwall? Enzedbrit 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"forced or induced" (my italics); economic emigration certainly applies. In any case, today "diaspora" has acquired the meaning of the worldwide community of people of any particular ethnic origin, regardless of why they emigrated to their new homes. Plenty of the examples at diaspora constitute largely economic emigrations; I think you're attempting to give the word a finer meaning than it rightly has. EdC 03:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you care to Google 'Cornish diaspora' you will find numerous references to it. Professor Philip Payton, has written extensively on the Cornish Diaspora. UNESCO, whose acceptance of Cornish Mining as a World Heritage Site this week have acknowledged the Cornish Diaspora and the effect their expertise had upon the wider world. This BBC website acknowledges the Cornish diaspora - there are many more examples and the page should be left as it stands.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.170 (talk • contribs)

There are over a thousand hits for a google of "Cornish diaspora". Whatever one may think, it seems to be a recognised and verifiable term. [3] Alun 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There are actually more google hits for "Cornish emigration". I've commented on this at the Talk:Cornish emigration page Mammal4 10:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely Cornish emigration is different to Cornish diaspora? Doesn't emigration refer to the act of emigrating from one place to live in another, whereas diaspora refers to the people who are already emigrants and their descendants? They are not synonyms. Alun 12:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

replied at Talk:Cornish emigrationMammal4 13:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see this is NOT in fact being currently discussed at Talk:Cornish emigration., it has hardly been discussed at all and it appears that a consensus of three people have decided to change the name, start deleting links and redirecting pages. The committee of three has decided that the Cornish diaspora of some 6-10 million people does not exist. May I refer you to Professor Philip Payton's books "Cornwall" and "The Cornish Overseas". The Cornish diaspora refers to Cornish emigrants and their descendants in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Mexico. The diaspora was caused by a number of factors, but due mainly to economic reasons and the lack of jobs in the 18th and 19th centuries when many Cornish people or “Cousin Jacks” as they were known migrated to various parts of the world in search of a better life. Should this be deleted also ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_diaspora#The_Scottish_diaspora

References etc

I did a general tidy up of the references. I have used the <ref> tag as per the footnotes how to. There were several instances of the punctuation (full stop or comma) comming after the reference, please remember that punctuation comes before the reference like this. I included some additional references like a cite for Federal Union of European Nationalities. I have also made requests for some references to unsupported material, for example I can find no reference to the people who identified as ethnically Cornish on the 2001 census on the census page for Cornwall. I do not dispute that these people exist, but we still need a cite for it. There is also a map called 1937 Bartholomew published a Map of European Ethnicity prepared by the Edinburgh Institute of Geography, I don't doubt that this map is as it claims to be, but the source for the map is just an unatributed webpage, so we need a proper cite for the map and for it's source. Before anyone gets in a huff remember that verifiability is a policy that is non negotiable, you always have to provide it. I have also added a noncompliance tag to the article as I suspect some original research, and it is not fully verified anyway. Alun 07:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Many in Cornwall consider themselves British and then Cornish, so use the term "British" to describe themselves. This is a form of weasel words, how many? is it a significant minority? or a majority? or what? It appears to state a fact but is unattributed. There especially needs to be a citation for this as weasel words are particularly misleading. Alun 16:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed unreferenced and weasel. There is some discussion of the Morgan Stanley survey later in the article which provides some reference and more importantly, context. I don't think it is helpful to include these types of claim in the intro. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to find the Morgan Stanley survey online but could not find anything. The BBC report on the survey is very sketchy, it gives a figure of 44% for for Cornish people being Cornish first, but no data for how they responded to Britishness or Englishness. There is also no mention of this 37% of people in Derbyshire and East Sussex also identified themselves with their county first in the BBC article cited (so it would be good to get hold of the original Morgan Stanley report). The BBC article is primarily about Welsh people, and the Cornish data are given to provide a comparisson of how English people (sorry I know Cornish is not the same as English, but the article assumes this) identify more strongly with their region (ie county) compared to how Welsh people identify more strongly with their nation (ie Wales). There's a good piece of work on just this sort of thing Devolution, Public Attitudes and National Identity but unfortunately they only include Wales, Scotland and England in the study. Alun 17:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I managed to open this link that had been dead before, but it's a downloadable .doc file, it opened fine with OpenOffice.org writer. [4] Here they gieve a figure for Cornwall of 11% White British; 35.1% White Cornish; 48.4% White English, they also give a host of tiny minority data for Cornwall (I mean less than 2%). I'll use the data here and cite it. Alun 17:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that - it's just the sort of survey this article has needed for a long time. I was going to add the year of the survey, but couldn't find it - nor could I find the question(naire). If you have either, or a webpage giving an overview, that'd be great. In respect of the census, as you may know, some 6% wrote-in Cornish (see archive). I'm not currently aware of any publication of the information, but wonder if it could be got published with a FOI request or something. Perhaps it has. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame about the census data not being published, I'm sure that they should not be included in the article unless they are published, as this constitutes original research. Generally speaking wikipedia policies work very well, but the verifiability not truth condition can be frustrating for this sort of thing. I wonder why no local newspapers or magazines have published the census data? Here's the website I got the data on Cornish identity from, [5] the year was 2004, this website is linked to in the reference for the data on the article page as well. Alun 04:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The best I can come up with on an online search for the census data is this, but it's from a blog, granted it's a letter from Bernard Moffatt, Secretary General of the Celtic League, which is good, but the letter is still only on a blog and blogs don't constitute reliable sources. Much of the content seems to be lifted from the wiki article anyway, or at least it uses almost the exact same data, which is suspicious. Alun 04:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I got the Morgan Stanley press release by emailing them asking them for it. I can forward on request. The Cornish data was I believe gotten by writing to the ONS. Morwen - Talk 16:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It can be a bit of a problem with the verifiability policy, but it is quite clear that unpublished information is not acceptable, how do we know it's not just made up, or OR? I suppose it makes sense really, it's about anyone being able to check any statement by getting hold of the same source. The data for Cornish people in the 2001 census are not published (there is a relatively comprehensive set of census data available online) and so should not be included. I think the Morgan Stanley data can be cited as a pamphlet or booklet, it's published. If we know the publication year, the name of the publishers (presumably M-S published it themselves), authors (names of the authors are not necessarily essential, many BBC articles do not give the names of the author) etc it should be fine, you could even mention in the footnote how to obtain a copy. Alun 17:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bartholomew Map

If I have understood the copyright flow chart properly then the Bartholomew map (1937) copyright expires next year (2007), in which case it can be uploaded and included in the article. Alun 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't English copyright law irrelevant on wiki? I thought US and Florida apply, though I don't know what that means in this particular case. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You may well be right, I am a complete duffer when it comes to copyright stuff and tend to err on the side of caution. The reason I make reference to this map is that it is used as a citation, but the link is nothing but an image of the map, with no reference of where it comes from. In this case it might just be better just to upload the image and include it in the article and cite the image as a Map of European Ethnicity by Bartholomew, currently it is the wrong way around, with the image as a link in the references section, and the source of the image in the main body of the article, this is because the image does not provide information regarding it's source. I don't really know how to address this problem without including the image in the article. Alun 07:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

William Borlase

Added the following: |- |align=center| 1769 || The Antiquarian, William Borlase wrote that "Of this time we are to understand what Edward I. says (Sheringham. p. 129.) that Britain, Wales, and Cornwall, were the portion of Belinus, elder son of Dunwallo, and that that part of the Island, afterwards called England, was divided in three shares, viz. Britain, which reached from the Tweed, Westward, as far as the river Ex; Wales inclosed by the rivers Severn, and Dee; and Cornwall from the river Ex to the Land's-End". |} Bretagne 44 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Numbers from the 2001 census

I have added the following:

About 34,000 people in Cornwall and 3,500 people in the rest of the UK wrote on their census forms in 2001 that they considered their ethnic group to be Cornish. This represented nearly 7% of the population of Cornwall and is therefore a significant phenomenon.

The source is from Cornish ethnicity data from the 2001 Census Malcolm Brown Cornwall County: [[6]]

Bretagne 44 16:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

'The Cornish were recognised by the government's ONS as an ethnic group on the 2001 Census - see Census 2001 Ethnic Codes, code 06 - but they have been invisibilised in previous censuses. They are an indigenous national minority of the United Kingdom and possessors of a recognised minority language of these islands under the Council of Europe's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. If the UK government has made legal undertakings with the Council of Europe to take "resolute" action in support of this language, how on earth is it going to measure its compliance with international legal obligations with respect both to this language and to the people associated with it, if it does not include relevant tick boxes in forthcoming censuses ? - please see - Cornish demand 2011 Census tick box. 195.92.67.74 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see the usual rightwing nut jobs come crawling out of the woodwork, I am going to leave your offensive remarks on the board because they serve as a good case in point.Bretagne 44 12:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

MC1r Gene

The bit about the MC1R gene sounds incorrect. When one follows the link, one finds that MC1R codes all people's (and many animals) pigmentation. From the sounds of it, there is nothing about carrying MC1R, per say, that has anything to do with being any particular ethnic group. The Cornish may carry some specific mutation on MCR1 that is common amongst Celts, but that is unclear from either article. I will delete this item soon unless someone can elaborate with references.Sandwich Eater 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Cornish Diaspora

Why does the Cornish diaspora in the box mention Mexico and not Canada, which has 10 million people of British isles origins! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.154.247 (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More famous people in the infobox?

Come on folks... 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, my friend. But I could only use the ones which had PICTURES in their articles. Perhaps you can provide copyright free pictures for "more famous" peeple. Fitzsimmons was certainly a star in his time.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How about Richard D. James? - themodelcitizen (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added RDJ, and surprisingly, it doesn't look as out of place as I thought it would. - 24.57.133.60 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Belerion

So, was Belerion really the first place named in the British Isles? The British themselves had no names for places in their own island during the previous 8,000 years of British civilisation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.70.222 (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "first recorded name", is meant here. MacRusgail (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's still wrong. Kent has that honour, having been recorded in a cognate form by Pytheas of Massilia c. 300 BC. I have changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.170.240 (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Kent counts either. Pytheas recorded a number of names.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Silver ball Pubsign.JPG

The image Image:Silver ball Pubsign.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Introduction needs changing

First of all, the part saying Cornish people are usually described as celtic people is very misleading. Quite a few people would say Cornish people are English people not celtic people, but either way it is certainly not backed up by the source which doesnt even mention celtic people.. just that Cornwall has a celtic background.

Im also unhappy with the way Cornish people are described as an ethnic group. This may be the case however i think better sources are required, if the only justification for this claim is the 2001 consensus, the fact it will not appear on the next consensus needs to be pointed out and explained.

We need an expert on this subject with a balanced view to shape a reasonable introduction. However if noone is able to help on this matter in the coming days i am going to remove the "usually described as Celtic people" from the introduction because i consider it misleading. It will leave the intro very short, but id rather a short introduction than a misleading intro or incorrect one. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you consider them English, they are not an ethnic group. They are frequently described as a Celtic people. The Census does NOT record Cornish people - at least it doesn't offer it as an option, but an opt in.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that, in improving the intro here, editors could usefully draw on the intro to Welsh people, which I think is a good model. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify that the Cornish people ARE recognised as a separate group from the English by the UK government on census results. No, there isn't a tickbox on the form, but there is a separate category on the results. --Joowwww (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet including them on the census only happened once and its not going to be done in the next one so we need to becareful about using that as the base for "cornish peoples" status. Some people would describe themselves as Cornish because they are from Cornwall but they certainly wouldnt consider themselves Celtic which is why we should be careful about saying they are usually described as "Celtic". Surely people from Cornwall are usually described as English not Celtic. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that there won't be a Cornish category in the results of the 2011 census? I fail to see why the government would include a "Cornish" census code (06) in 2001 but not in 2011. --Joowwww (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the question was raised during consultations on the 2011 Census here, but a decision was taken not to include it - see this White Paper. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I gathered those PDFs are about the census form, not the results. Of course there won't be a Cornish tickbox on the next census, that's not being disputed. I'm talking about a separate census code in the results for the people that write Cornish under Other. --Joowwww (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but I think whether it is listed in the results will depend on whether the numbers writing it in under "Other" are deemed to be sufficiently significant in numerical terms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i thought they did provide a tick box in 2001 but wernt going to in 2011, i didnt realise it was simply written in by some which they will be able to do again. However if that means the only justification is because it got its own code, what impact does that have on religion? According to the BBC [7] Jedi got a code. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the census code was announced before or was a result of the 2001 census. I've read a lot about a "lack of publicity" surrounding the issue which would indicate to me it was announced before the census. But campaign groups are gearing up to publicise it a lot for 2011 so I'd imagine the number who write Cornish is to increase. --Joowwww (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought a code was given based on numbers after the results are collected but im not sure. Ive seen comments on a lack of publicity, but i think that was simply not telling people they could write in Cornish in that box (although you shouldnt have to be told what you consider yourself so i dont get the publicity point). The other problem was it stopped people from saying they were British if they chose Cornish, looking at the white paper linked above they intend to do the same thing in 2011 forcing people to choose between White British -English/Scottish/Welsh/NI or writing in Cornish. However they will be able to write it as their national identity as well as ticking, English + British if they wish from looking at that. So it will be very interesting to see how many describe Cornish as a national identity and how many describe it as their ethnic group.

We also need to find a source for the opening sentence, the current one no longer exists and i cant find where the ONS say Cornish is an ethnic group even if they got enough for a code, like i mentioned before that would make Jedi Knight a religion. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Its interesting to see how the White British article introduction is written which is also based on the 2001 census. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It was assigned code '06' before the census, which you had to write in the 'other' box. The publicity issue was because some felt that as this wasn't advertised, people didn't realise that this option existed. for 2011 there is going to be the same options (i.e. no tickbox), but I'm pretty sure that there will be much drum banging beforehand by interested parties before the census this time Mammal4 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cornish people or People of Cornwall

I feel it is important to point out that this article is about the Cornish people as national identity or ethnicity, NOT about the inhabitants of Cornwall, which the article Demographics of Cornwall would be for, if it existed, but is covered by the Demographics section of the Cornwall article. The Cornish people were given their own ethnicity code on the last census results, which I would say is evidence of the UK government's regarding the Cornish as a separate identity or ethnicity. That and the Canadian government's recognition of Cornish ethnicity on their census too.

This topic has been gone over many times in this article's history, so please read the talk page archives in full before you wish to question the legitimacy of the claim. This article was also a Collaboration of the Week by a UK Wikiproject, so I think the many issues regarding this article would have been sorted then.

Please also read the references given to gain an understanding of the subject, before using your personal opinion as a basis for any argument. --Joowwww (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They were given their own code due to a lot of them putting Cornish down as their ethnicity. Its the way computer systems work. See also; jedi knight. Given codes for purposes of calculating results but still not an official religion. You should stick to facts, they really are not generally regarded as a seperate ethnicity. --Him and a dog 12:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who should stick to facts, the code was given BEFORE the census. And stop edit warring, the reason I suggested see the talk page is to sort out the issues here instead of constant and disruptive reverting. --Joowwww (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst its open to improvement i think the current wording restored by Josquius is far more accurate than the previous version. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What you "think" is accurate is irrelevant. What is verifiably true is what matters. --Joowwww (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And that is far more varifiably the truth. Rather than making the blanket statement that 'The Cornish ARE a seperate ethnicity' it says 'Some Cornish regard themselves as a seperate ethnicity'.--Him and a dog 10:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You still seem to be confusing Cornish people with the people of Cornwall. This article deals with the former. --Joowwww (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You are the one making this mistake.--Him and a dog 13:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A comparison of Cornishness to the stupid (humorous) Jedi knight phenomenon is both facile and facetious. Cornishness is an identity which goes back at least a thousand years, is not an invention of a money grubbing Hollywood producer, and is something which has been shared by hundreds of thousands of people. The only people who have a problem with regarding the Cornish as an ethnicity are the English, and a few other British, maybe because of their vested interest, and the fact that their hold has been loosened on Scotland, Wales and most of Ireland. Continental minority groups have no problem in identifying them as a separate ethnicity. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lmao im sorry but he made a good point, Jedi Knights were given a code in the 2001 census and yet that seems to be the justification for describing Cornish as an ethnic group on this article so it does raise the question couldnt Jedi knights be described as a recognized religion in the UK if its based on a code.

Also you should be careful about offending people of the Jedi religion, whilst we may see it as a joke many care deeply about their faith in the force and i can think of some world religions which are just about to grab money and power from people. Scotland, Wales and Ireland are different countries, the relationship between the different countries of the United Kingdom does not compare to the situation on a County of England although you can be sure the British government (or an English one) will not be loosening its hold on Cornwall if you want to look at it that way. lol

Finally you say the only people who have a problem with this are the English.. Well considering less than 10% of the population of Cornwall described themselves as Cornish ethnicity, the people of Cornwall have a problem with it too. :)BritishWatcher (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer Jedi was given code 896 on the 2001 census as being a common response[8] (you had to write Jedi, then they categorised it after the event). 390,127 people put Jedi - bear in mind that it was confirmed before [9] the census that entering frivolous answers in this box would not result in criminal prosecution. For Cornish nationality, they assigned code 06, prior to the census and you had to write 06 in the 'other' box, as presumably Cornish is deemed a valid and expected answer in its own right. Mammal4 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say that Cornish was given a code before the census was carried out? I was under the impression people wrote in Cornish not a number representing cornish that was known by people before hand? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't answer your question but finding news from 2001 that is still on the net is hard, I will keep looking over the next few days to back up the ethnicity/identity facts above. Here's a passing reference to the UK Government formally recognising the Cornish separate identity: "[November 1996] the Commission for Racial Equality formally recognised the separate identity of the Cornish people for the first time" [10] --Joowwww (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if the code was assigned before the survey (lets assume for a second there's no doubt) this still remains just a computer code and not official recognition. They could have expected Cornish to be a answer that some people would give (given that they've been doing that since the 60s and the Cornish nationalist party exists) so its for the better to include it from the start.

And MacRusgail...Just....no.--Him and a dog 10:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a code assigned beforehand as I remember a certain amount of publicity about it at the time, although I realise that without a proper reference this doesn't stand up by itself. There isn't a great deal about it on the web (lets face it, its not a big deal to most people on the net), but I will see if I can call in some sources and find something more concrete. I agree that all it proves is that Cornish was an expected answer, and probably not just since the sixties, but that it itself is telling. Mammal4 (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a reference that says Cornwall County Council campaigned for a separate ethnic group code: [11] "1999 (February) Cornwall County Council vote in support of the campaign to include Cornish as a minority ethnic group for the purposes of the forthcoming 2001 Census. The Government's Office of National Statistics subsequently agrees the inclusion." And your "just... no" isn't a valid argument. --Joowwww (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It is to what Macrusgail was saying.--Him and a dog 18:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Would be better to have access to a more primary source, but this local government page seems legitimate (and probably the best we can hope for) - good work, go put it in :) Mammal4 (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem here with your edits is they're unverifiably broad. You're just blanketly saying they are regarded as a seperate ethnic group when this is just compeltely untrue, even if we assume for a second they are 100% officially recognised as a distinct group (not the truth) the general public is not aware of this at all and so generally don't regard them as such. This article should keep a neutral lead of some self-identify as a seperate ethnic group then in the article back this up with hows and whys (and also hows and whys against them being a seperate group)--Him and a dog 18:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop presenting your personal opinion as fact. The many references provided do not agree with it. Just because you or the public aren't generally aware of the fact does not make it false. If 60 million people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake. Most people do not know where in India Ghandi was born but that does not make the answer of Porbandar any less true. Just because you think the Cornish aren't a separate ethnic group does not automatically mean they are not. The references provided prove that they are. Your suggestion of what should be written is wrong, as this article is not talking about the inhabitants of Cornwall, who are sometimes all simply (wrongly) called "the Cornish". This article is about the Cornish identity/ethnicity, that many people inside and outside of Cornwall choose to have. How many people in Cornwall identify as being Cornish is not the sole subject of the article, it is covered within it. The Cornish are already recognised as a separate identity/ethnicity, regardless of how many people who say they are Cornish know that. I have looked at your previous edits and see you have a tendency for edit warring, then claiming the warnings you receive for doing so are "vandalism", so I am expecting nothing but the same type of behaviour from you. Perhaps instead of mindlessly removing article content just because it doesn't match your opinion, you could read the many references provided in the intro and come back later when you've found an argument other than "no they're not". --Joowwww (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? YOU are the one presenting your personal opinion as fact. Any neutral looking in here would clearly agree with me there. You are the only one stating "Cornish are a seperate ethnicity- and that's a fact. Pretty much eveyone agrees.", I'm keeping a neutral line (it would be nice for you if I was taking a anti- line but I'm not) and keeping purely to the facts given in the sources- some Cornish do regard themselves as a seperate ethnicity.

And with regards to edit warning and undoing vandalism- you clearly don't know what you are talking about, so stop trying to be sneaky and stick to the subject.--Him and a dog 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah but you see the difference is, my statements are backed up with references. Yours aren't. Not that references mean anything to you, you would most likely read what you want into them, sort of an eyes closed, fingers-in-ears "la la la I can't hear you" mentality. There is no consensus here for the changes you are proposing. --Joowwww (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Other way, its the neutral version that is backed up by the references, your version isn't at all. Only 40,000 out of 500,000 (even assuming a lot originally from elsewhere in England many of those will be Cornish born) doing it clearly says some. As with regards to them often being considered another ethnic group- theres nothing that says that anywhere that I've noticed. --Him and a dog 13:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at previous edits these Cornish/Irish/Scottish/Welsh subjects seem to attract the obsesive edit warring pro-unionist/ English nationalist brigade - sad really !Ofennian (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to Britishwatcher

As for random unnotable incidents. If they were unnotable then they wouldn't be here, quoted in a number of sources, on the news etc. As for random incidents, well, that's like saying that unless there is some orchestrated plan of ethnic cleansing or discrimination tantamount to the Shoah or apartheid then it is not worth considering these incidents. The incidents quoted on the Welsh page and the Anglophobia page may well be seen to be just as random and unnotable, such as the outlandish claim that evil characters have English accents in American films. I don't see your disputing those however. To take your last example, the matter was taken up by a Kerrier District Councillor, was reported on the BBC News and the president of the Student Union apologised and had the material removed. This article is about the negative portrayals of Cornish people, as you can see they are all strikingly similar. Now, why don't you find some positive portrayals if you feel the article should be balanced more? I was thinking about doing some research on the portrayal of the Cornish in literature and on the media but that is much more lengthy work. Perhaps you could help? Just one point, you use the phrase above Cornish/English people- this is a blatant denial of the Cornish as being an ethnicity separate to the English, perhaps you should dispute the whole page then seeing as it forms part of ethnic groups.

Brythonek (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall 24 forums

lmao, it appears that separatists and other people with a certain point of view are being encouraged to come here to influence articles on Cornwall matters, perhaps in a negatve way. A look at the "Cornwall" on their sites wiki page is a complete joke and shows their intentions. Someone thinks government spies are making edits to these cornwall pages, anyone wanna declare themselves??? lol. [12] This certainly explains why articles on Cornish matters have become so biased in recent times. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look more closely you'll see I asked anyone who was interested in contributing to provide references to back up their arguments. While there are a lot of nutters on that forum, people who know far more about the government's views on Cornish identity/ethnicity than I do also regularly visit the site, so I asked for their assistance in finding references. I don't see what's wrong with that. --Joowwww (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Guessed as much. Its the problem with such niche topics really; only those with a vested interest in them tend to care enough to bother with them en masse hence they get skewed towards their viewpoint.

Jow, you say you're just asking for input but...I'd imagine a bit of a skewed input there; people trying to find facts to prove the pro-Cornish side rather than just the truth.

Also as a note a bit of lol: 'No doubt, government agencies are active on that site, as well as here, to protect the interests of the Duke of Cornwall at any cost.' --Him and a dog 10:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed, if they are facts that prove the pro-Cornish side, then that would mean the pro-Cornish side is factual. Your message indicates your personal opinion that the pro-Cornish side is not "the truth". Your personal opinion is irrelevant. --Joowwww (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than JUST the truth.--Him and a dog 13:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The truth is not just expressing your personal opinion, as if it is gospel, without bothering to provide any backing for your argument.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for backing me up Mac :) --Him and a dog 11:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't backing you up. He was talking about you. --Joowwww (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So he intended but quite ironically he actually talked about you.--Him and a dog 11:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. By the way, why do you insist on using more than one name? --MacRusgail (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"it appears that separatists and other people with a certain point of view are being encouraged to come here to influence articles on Cornwall matters, perhaps in a negatve way." - Apart from the fact I've never posted on Cornwall 24, and have edited Cornish articles for years... haven't you just done something similar on the UK board, trying to encourage people of your viewpoint to come over? What we need here would be sources. Quite a few have been given by both sides, but there seems to be a concerted attempt by some people to remove them.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC) p.s. It would seem that some of the "British" (for want of a better term) editors hide behind more than one name.

Who?--Him and a dog 11:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ive not accused anyone here of anything, i simply thought it was right to inform people that a request for more contributions had been made on the site in question and looking at some of the content of that site it may be to influence the article in a negative way.

As for the comment about doing something similar on UK boards, i havnt posted on any third party site about this matter. Ive not advertised for people to come here and influence the debate, although someone did make a post on the Cornwall wikiproject but thats not a "UK" one. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about third party sites, but certainly some people have been on the UK project site recruiting. Wouldn't WikiProject Cornwall have been a more sensible first port of call? --MacRusgail (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it active recruiting to leave a note on a relevant board. And why would Cornwall be a more relevant first port of call? Cornwall is in the UK is it not? Its covered by the UK broad category.--Him and a dog 11:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

London is also in the UK, but if I was going to start a debate about London, I'd go to the London project page first. The UK has a lot of articles, and only a handful of Cornish articles. For that reason, I think Cornish matters are low down the priority list... but to state the bleeding obvious they're top priority for the Cornish project.

Of course, there's a more obvious reason for going to the Cornish project page. You might actually find people there that know about the subject matter.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop this insanity

This is really getting crazy. Won't you please listen to reason on this?
Read: Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX.
I couldn't care less about the Cornish nationalist movement, I'm not a British nationalist (hell I'm not even British), I'm just a guy trying to fix a few pages on wikipedia so that they conform to sourced facts.
If you look at my edits clearly instead of seeing what you want to see you will find that I really am not taking a anti-Cornish side, the side that I am taking is one that attempts to make the articles conform more to NPOV and be factual.
So. Why don't we actually work at fixing this article rather than just blankly reverting and warring? (whatever dubious means are being used they can be forgotten).
So. Tell me. What is wrong with the fully sourced edit "Some Cornish people (Cornish: Kernowyon) self-identify as a distinct ethnic group or national identity originating in Cornwall."--Him and a dog 11:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it's inaccurate. And if you don't know anything about Cornish nationalism, or you don't come from Cornwall, or you aren't even British then I fail to see how it makes you such an expert on what Cornish people think (although your user page did once say you are/were from County Durham). You are assuming what you think is right is fact, even when faced with many references that prove otherwise. Your preferred option of "some Cornish people self-identify as a separate ethnicity or national identity" is wrong because:

1. All people who consider themselves to be of Cornish ethnicity, treat it as different from English ethnicity. Do not confuse this with "Some people in Cornwall" (which is accurate), but is not relevant to the article's subject. "Some Cornish people self-identify" is a misleading sentence, if they are already Cornish people then they already consider themselves separate, or they would call themselves English.

2. Not everyone in Cornwall is Cornish, or considers themselves Cornish, therefore everyone in Cornwall cannot be called "Cornish people". Furthermore, not everyone who considers themselves of Cornish ethnicity is in Cornwall.

3. The 06 ethnic code on the 2001 census was granted two years BEFORE the census took place, indicating the government's view of the Cornish as a separate ethnic group. That Cornwall County Council specifically endorsed the campaign for it suggests local government in Cornwall also considers the Cornish a separate ethnic group. Cornish ethnicity recognised on the Canadian census results is also strong support for their government's view of Cornish being a separate ethnic group.

4. Use of the term "self-identify" is made irrelevant by point 3. If the government identifies the Cornish as a separate ethnic group, there is no need to state that Cornish people do too.

5. That a lot of people in the world are unaware of the difference does not mean it isn't true. Being born in England does not automatically make one English, because there is no automatic English nationality. English is a personal choice, the same as Welsh and Scottish is. People born in Cornwall or elsewhere in England are automatically British upon birth, then choose to be English if they want to. A baby of Pakistani descent born in London is automatically British, but not English. Whether he chooses to identify as English is up to him or his upbringing. It is the same with Cornish people. Both Cornish and English can be identified with, and often is, but people who know that Cornish is recognised as separate do not dispute otherwise. That some Cornish people don't know it's recognised as different by the government doesn't make the fact any less valid. Wikipedia is here to educate, not reinforce people's misconceptions.

6. If you do not want to read the many references provided, you should not be claiming that the phrase is POV, nor should you make empty claims on what is or isn't factual, which without sources to back those claims, will only be taken by others as arguments based on your personal opinion, as it being now.

7. Your claim that your proposed sentence is "fully sourced" is misleading. You haven't provided a single source to back up that sentence, and the many references I supplied for the majority's preferred sentence do not apply to your sentence, which makes a completely different statement.

--Joowwww (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Read: Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX. I couldn't care less about the Cornish nationalist movement," - you evidently do. Classic case of Freudian projection. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Cornish in history

The entries for 838 AD and 878 AD have been transposed: hope it can be fixed.----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Brétigny- request for clarification June 2009

The article says:

''1360 Treaty of Brétigny: "John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, Earl of Anjou, confirmed the aforesaid; and Richard, King of Germany and Earl of Cornwall, in like manner, confirmed the aforesaid".

I don't know where that quote comes from, but the fact is that the Treaty of Brétigny of 1360 was between King John II of France, and Edward III of England. TharkunColl 12:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

NB- original comment made in 2007 by TharkunColl yet information is still on page and leading to false edits.-

• I have moved this comment here in order to clarify-

• I have checked the Treaty of Brétigny and what is quoted here does not correspond to this treaty.

• On doing a word search to find the document it leads me to the conclusion that we have a serious error here-

• The opening appears to be part of Magna Carta and the rest does not fit.

• I am going to remove this part of the article as it is inaccurate and place the information on my talk page until it can be sorted out. Brythonek (talk) 10:07, 23 June

2009 (UTC)

Genetic origins of the Cornish people June 2009

I have unified the fragments referring to genetics in one sub-article. I don't think genetic origins should be discussed in Mythological origins to be honest. Furthermore, there was additional genetic information in descent, therefore I put them together under the title I quoted above. I have also included the following-

The genetic markes M167-SRY2627 forming the haplogroup R1b1b2a1b3 (R1b1c6) has been attributed to the Cornish people[13]. This group is calculated to have originated 2,850 BP and is predominantly found in Spain (esp. Catalonia), Western France, Cornwall, Wales, and the Basque country among Catalans, Gascons, Bretons and Cornish respectively. The so-called Italo-Celtic haplogroup R1b1b2a1b with markers P312-S116 is calculated to have originated 4,500 BP and is found in Western Europe.

The Eupedia site has quire a lot of good information on DNA and European genetics from verifiable sources, so I hope this doesn't upset any apple-carts. Brythonek (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Giles Coren quote

It is also quoted in ANGARRACK, J. (1999). Breaking the chains. Bodmin p4 Re the comment below, I don't see how it has been taken out of context honestly, the first paragraph is offensive, the second paragraph in poor taste, in my opinion at least, and the following ones just as bad. In fact, in my opinion, it's more kernophobic than I had thought before!

Brythonek (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This shows the problem with people like Giles Coren being too clever by half. If you read the opening part of the article, he comes across as being a nasty bigoted racist - and many people will take that at face value, not read the whole article, and select the quote as evidence of racism against the Cornish. It's only when you take the trouble to read the whole article (which, of course, many people won't bother to do) that it becomes clear (or should become clear) that in fact he is trying to be ironic, by setting out arguments that he considers to be ridiculous and racist, so that he can then go on to demolish them later in the article. In my view, it doesn't work - Coren only has himself to blame if people think he is racist, because many of his readers will not have his refined (metropolitan) sense of irony and will inevitably "take things out of context". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the Giles Coren article. He is well known for his abrasive style and I seem to read somewhere that he enjoyed being rude. Nevertheless the article is offensive whether it is parody or not. Just like Bernard Manning was considered by many to offensive and racist and yet he said he was only joking. Remember the Anne Robinson controversy involving the Welsh, that was "humour" too wasn't it? Remember when Ian Botham's team got up and walked out of a reception in Australia when they found the impersonator of the Queen to be offensive? The Australians said it was only a joke and the poms got bashed for having no sense of humour. The Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper were only a joke...weren't they? Whatever the interpretation of the presumed intentions of the creators of such articles/comments etc the fact remains that they are considered by many to be offensive. In the case of the Coren article to Cornish people amongst others. Nevertheless, I will reword the Coren quote to include the fact that it was a parody. I also think that people can be clever enough to say what they really think and get away with it under the guise of humour, many a true word was said in jest- however that is my own opinion and obviously not part of the scope of Wikipedia.Brythonek (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In my view, you should add words like: "Although Coren was apparently intending to be ironic in his use of language, his words have been taken as evidence of anti-Cornish racism." Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Text of the Coren article

I have accessed the full article from Nexis. As you will see it is usually taken out of context.

The Times (London) August 13, 1999, Friday A Truro lass can eclipse me any day BYLINE: Giles Coren SECTION: Features LENGTH: 871 words

I hate the Cornish. I'm glad that nobody went to the eclipse, and that those who did couldn't see it. I hate their poxy language which they make such a fuss about, and their stupid morris dancing clothes. And I hate their fancy foreign food - like clotted cream - which makes the place stink, and I hate their fatuous demands to be treated as a nation.

I am delighted that little old Cornish ladies stood on their doorsteps crying, not knowing what to do with three hundredweight of rum-and-raisin flavoured fudge, specially cooked and parcelled into neat little hessian bags with commemorative badges. When I read that the Cornish pasty industry was in meltdown, I was so delighted that I felt like exhuming some Cornish corpses and impaling them on stakes.

And as for the quality of their workmanship, you couldn't make it up. A friend got me round to look at his fuse box the other day. It was a flipping disgrace. "Looks like it was put in by a bleeding Cornishman," I said.

I'll give them one thing, though: Cornish birds are in better shape than they used to be. Time was, you wouldn't climb over a nicely trimmed llama to get to a Cornish girl.

But these days they've sorted out the clothes problem, dropped all the bells and lacy bits, and lost a bit of weight. I would by no means say no to a bit of southwestern fluff every now and again. I wouldn't want one marrying my daughter, but that's another matter.

Salubrious, isn't it? But then, you see, I want to be a proper writer one day. And you can't unless you occasionally tempt people to wonder whether you are a loony racist.

The Duke of Edinburgh may have swiped the headline space reserved for toe-curling faux pas from Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare. But that is irrelevant. I do not want to be a royal consort. I want to be a writer. A proper writer like Archer, Taki and A.A. Gill.

Gill, a writer who in other respects is greatly to be admired, is famous, I believe, for something he once said about Welsh people. I didn't read it - I was too young at the time - but I assume it was a bit rude and mentioned sheep.

Then he was rude about the Germans, and Taki (who I think has it in mainly for Puerto Ricans) wrote a rude response full of daft stereotyping. And then Gill called him a smelly dago lesbian.

It must be a generational thing. Because I just don't get it. Men over 45 seem to be obsessed with race, believe themselves to be proponents of free speech, believe their pronouncements to be humorous, and have no idea how spookily out of kilter they are with the way things now are.

Archer insists that if you look at his "answer in full", you will see that he was not denigrating black women but highlighting how far minorities have come in 30 years. I had a look. It was even worse in full than I thought.

"Your head did not turn if a black woman passed because they were badly dressed, probably overweight and probably had a lousy job. If you walk down London streets now, there are the most staggeringly beautiful girls of every nationality. That is part of getting rid of prejudice and making things equal."

It is not the allegations of fatness against a sexual-racial section that is most grim. It is the characterisation of Britain as a place where white men patrol for birds to ogle, and are pretty damned sad if a girl is a bit on the porky side or works in a shop. The suggestion that equality is achieved when Archer is prepared to cop a black bird from across the road, nudge his mate and shout "tits out for the lads" is as nefarious as making monkey noises and throwing bananas. Though I am sure he didn't mean it like that.

Men have never had trouble fancying women of races they otherwise did not respect. Slave owners raped their slaves. White settlers in America had sex with the indigenous women - passing on unfamiliar venereal diseases was a favourite genocidal tactic.

Archer's comments are more than a minor problem. The poor man believed he was saying something liberal and folksy. He thought that to say he occasionally fancied black women showed what a man of the world he was. He thought it separated him from old-fashioned Tories who wouldn't have considered interracial sex. Like so many men of his generation, it is when he tries to sound liberal, reasonable and progressive that he most finely highlights how far behind he is.

• As someone who once worked at Tatler, I think I know a thing or two about pashminas. I say a thing "or two" because anyone who knows three things about pashminas knows too much. That person may well be Sophia Swire. For she has declared September 15 National Pashmina Day.

The problem, apparently, is that these plain little cashmere blankets are supposed to cost Pounds 200 and to be available only to posh girls. But some Johnny Prole has started banging them out for Pounds 50. The result is that the elite cachet of the pashmina has been compromised. Extinction beckons.

Are we really going to stand up for an endangered garment? Why not a National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Pashminas (NSPCP)? Or a law that you can't make alterations to a Grade II listed pashmina without going through National Heritage?

LOAD-DATE: August 20, 1999

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Copyright 1999 Times Newspapers Limited

So it should actually be removed from the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I just see another article from an overpaid, broadsheet hack. But he is dreadfully witty for a bigot, what ho! --MacRusgail (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at my edit. I have stated that the article was intended as parody and I have given reference to where it is quoted neutrally and where it is taken as an offense. In my opinion it is balanced enough at this point to allow any reader to descide for themselves. Whether the article was meant to cause offense or meant to be a parody or not is of no consequence in that it describes Cornish people insultingly, relies on stereotypes and did cause offence to Cornish people. A few other points:-

• The sub-article is entitled "negative portrayals" of the Cornish in the UK. These are all negative portrayals, there are a lot more that could probably be added but lacking the references or the validity of the sources they have been left out. The article does not say "These people are racists" or "These people hate the Cornish" etc.. it simply quotes and references.
• If the Coren article is to be read as parody then perhaps he does the Cornish a backhanded favour by naming and shaming a few of the negative sentiments that are often expressed towards the Cornish as being looney and racist.
• I also draw your attention to Anne Robinson's comemnts about the Welsh that provoked an outcry and a police investigation by North Wales police. According to wikipedia she issued an aplogy after and many felt that it her comments were not to be taken so seriously. However whichever way you look at it, her comments DID offend a lot of Welsh people. Therefore to say that comments are offensive, however they were meant, is not unreasonable as long as the comments are accurately quoted, sourced and no theorising is built around them.

Brythonek (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect also that people like Coren and Robinson are guilty of a subtler form of racism, in suggesting or implying that people in Wales/Cornwall who "don't get the joke" must be a bit stupid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Romantic portrayals of the Cornish

I have added a sub-section about the romantic and literary portrayal of Cornish people within the greater areas of West Country and Celtic identities. The subject is vast but I had tried to keep it as brief as possible and hope it doesn't read too much like an essay. Romantic views of Cornwall and Celticity have been and are still important in forming many notions and ideas about Cornwall and also Cornish people's ideas about themselves- I also think that the iclusion of this theme helps to balance out the negative portrayals of Cornish people that some have taken exception to. Brythonek (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The negative portrayals of the Cornish section

Im sorry but i have a problem with this section still, do all people articles have a mention of negative comments or portrayals of people? People say bad things about the Jews all the time, should every such mention be listed on the Jewish people article? The Jewish people article rightly mentions the Holocaust, but it doesnt mention Mel Gibson making offensive comments about a Jew.

Yet some of the things in this list are just so pathetic they are not notable enough to include in an article in this way. "

"2007: Leo Benedictus, in The Guardian in January, listed the following reasons not to move to Cornwall:- "Niche nationalism, Darkie Day, everyone's a Lib Dem, the missing generation, terrible football and cider."[89] - Thats an attack on Cornwall not "Cornish people" so it has no place there.

"2008: Students from Imperial College London were condemned for branding people from Cornwall as "inbred"" Oh my goodness a bunch of students said something offensive on an internet site??? Like that doesnt happen all the time. For god sake, im sorry but that one is just really pathetic.

If you have examples of genuine oppression of Cornish people it should be listed, but not these minor silly things. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The comparison with Jews is inappropriate - there are long articles and whole projects devoted to Antisemitism, and no-one is suggesting that negative portrayals of Cornish people are or should be classed in the same league. But there is anti-Cornish sentiment - referenced - and, rather than there being a separate article on it (as had been suggested) it is appropriate that it be included in this article. The section does need to be proportionate, and perhaps I'd question the need for the Imperial College reference - but, on the whole, the section is fine and should stay. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

PS to BW: if you really find it necessary to add a POV tag, why not apply it just to one section, not the whole article? And please don't make threats in edit summaries just because you don't like something. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit summary wasnt meant to be seen as a threat, i was trying to point out that i was very unhappy with this section and putting a POV tag up is probably a better idea than deleting the whole section which may start an edit war.

On the issue of the Jews, i think its a reasonable comparison but obviously i wasnt saying unless there is a holocaust nothing should be mentioned. Just pointing out the difference between clear oppression which is totally justified to be mentioned on the peoples article and minor matters. At the moment i think most of the things listed in that section are pretty minor, what a few people say on an internet site certainly isnt notable enough. This article goes out of its way to point out that "cornish people" are not just those people that live in Cornwall and yet one of the sources is an attack on cornwall, not the cornish people. If i say Israel is a dump, is that an attack on the Jewish people or an insult to the state? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's hold on here. The problem Britishwatcher has is that he doesn't like the whole idea of Cornishness apart from Englishness. That's as may be and his opinion. I find the neutrality of Britishwatcher's tag debatable as he states "I have a problem with..." Let's look at the precedents :

• Anglophobia In 2000,----the vice-president of Plaid Cymru, Gwilym ab Ioan, was forced to resign when he said that Wales had become a "dumping ground for oddballs and misfits". Both comments were reported to the Commission for Racial Equality although the cases were dropped after an apology. This was less of a blatant attack on anyone than those in the Cornish section- it's in the article aforementioned and referenced.
• I also draw your attention to "BBC presenter Jeremy Clarkson is well-known for his xenophobic comments which sometimes take an anti-Welsh direction, e.g. "It’s entirely unfair that some people are born fat or ugly or dyslexic or disabled or ginger or small or Welsh. Life, I’m afraid, is tragic."- another commented included on Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English.

• All of these anti-Cornish portrayals are sourced and referenced.
• The Coren comment even adds that it may well have been taken the wrong way by many in Cornwall in an attempt to be balanced
• The Dick Cole comment includes Coles words about negative comments by Cornish people
• The nitpicking over the use of the word Cornwall or Cornish here is none other than semantic gerrymandering.
• If you read all of the comments as a whole they confirm the negative stereotype of Cornish people as backwards, inbred, etc etc. Just like negative stereotypes of other nations, here we have citations and evidence. The comments that did not have bona fide verifiable references were removed with immediate effect, I hasten to add.

I sorry but I am digging in on this one. Brythonek (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This isnt about my views on Cornwall or Cornish people / English people. Its about this becoming just a list of random unnotable incidents where you feel Cornish people are being treated badly. Serious reasons should of course be listed in a balanced way, im sorry but a few students posting on a damn internet site is not notable. I think everyone involved here may have a conflict on interest on this matter, we need some neutral third parties to see if they agree with what has been listed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry BW, but you're not getting away with saying that everyone who disagrees with you has a conflict of interest! I've never lived in Cornwall, have no Cornish ancestry, but admit that I enjoy visiting there. And I think that a short, referenced, section in this article - as that one is - is entirely informative and appropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with the section Ghmyrtle, just aslong as its valid points. U said urself u wernt sure about the need for the imperial college one. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are proposing deleting that one ref, and then removing the POV notice, that would be a reasonable suggestion worth considering here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

But its not just that one. The first in the list is a good quote and certainly belongs there. But the ones in recent years are far more trivial. As i mentioned before one is an attack on Cornwall, not an attack on Cornish people theres a big difference. The final one again is just moaning about random people making comments on an internet site, how is that notable enough just because the separatist party wants to make a big deal about it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to Britishwatcher

As for random unnotable incidents. If they were unnotable then they wouldn't be here, quoted in a number of sources, on the news etc. As for random incidents, well, that's like saying that unless there is some orchestrated plan of ethnic cleansing or discrimination tantamount to the Shoah or apartheid then it is not worth considering these incidents. The incidents quoted on the Welsh page and the Anglophobia page may well be seen to be just as random and unnotable, such as the outlandish claim that evil characters have English accents in American films. I don't see your disputing those however. To take your last example, the matter was taken up by a Kerrier District Councillor, was reported on the BBC News and the president of the Student Union apologised and had the material removed. This article is about the negative portrayals of Cornish people, as you can see they are all strikingly similar. Now, why don't you find some positive portrayals if you feel the article should be balanced more? I was thinking about doing some research on the portrayal of the Cornish in literature and on the media but that is much more lengthy work. Perhaps you could help? Just one point, you use the phrase above Cornish/English people- this is a blatant denial of the Cornish as being an ethnicity separate to the English, perhaps you should dispute the whole page then seeing as it forms part of ethnic groups.

Brythonek (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have only just started looking at the anglophobia article following ur previous posting of the link to English/Welsh relations, if anything on there mentions a bunch of random people making comments on an internet site then ofcourse they should be removed too. The internet is full of offensive crap, it doesnt make it notable. The one about Cornwall as mentioned before is an attack on Cornwall not Cornish people.

lol @ the bit about evil characters having English accents, i dunno if thats something English people should be unhappy with, i always liked the fact that all of the officers of the Galactic Empire (Star Wars) and the Emperor himself was British. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get too tit-for-tat here, Brythonek - the idea that Hollywood uses English accents to show villainy is well referenced, not "outlandish". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

e/c I note that the request by Brythonek "I was thinking about doing some research on the portrayal of the Cornish in literature and on the media but that is much more lengthy work. Perhaps you could help?" attracted no response/was completely ignored. I literally loled when I saw it. How about Ghmyrtle compromise proposal: remove the student nonsense + remove the tag? Daicaregos (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

the college one isnt the only thing listed there i have a problem with. The last one is about a bunch of random people posting comments on an internet site, one is about an attack on cornwall not the Cornish people. Im not convinced about some of the other things mentioned there but those ones are clearly problems. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL!!!

PS I did not post the original material about the students, I just expanded it and checked to see if the source was Bona Fide or not. Brythonek (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The forum stuff isn't a WP:RS and should not be noted (unless it is picked up and quoted by a WP:RS of course). The Leo Benedictus material is not all that interesting/noteworthy, but it is an attack on Cornish people, not on Cornwall. Cornwall doesn't 'do' Darkie Day, the people do. Cornwall doesn't vote Lib Dem, the people do. etc. Daicaregos (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The forum stuff can be found on a BBC news website amongst others at this link [14]

Brythonek (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add R. L. Stevenson's comments on the Cornish, which are stlightly negative. Bodrugan (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

June edits 26-06.09

• Have included a short list of famous Cornish people- I have only included people born in or brought up in Cornwall or with a strong Cornish family connection, otherwise it gets out of hand. I saw one website even had Guglielmo Marconi listed... no comment. I also see someone saw fit to delete "Cornish inventions" with no explanation or discussion--- any thoughts?
• I have added some images, see the "National Symbols"- could someone help to tidy them up please, I can't seem to get them to line up nicely! Sorry!
• I have expanded a little bit on the portrayals of Cornish people section, added a few references and included some more information about the origins of these portrayals- this is in order to balance the article more in the light ot the recent neutrality dispute- also because with only "negative" portrayals the article was, I admit, a little negative in itself.
• I have worked on Language in Cornwall, so we now have English, the dialect and Cornish all mentioned- I think this gives a far more balanced view of the linguistic situation in Cornwall- again comments/edits welcome!
• The timeline. I have edited the time line a little and tidied up some of the facts and links. I do however feel the time line is a bit of an eyesore on the article- could it be moved to the end, or scaled down a bit?
• The introduction is still concerning me. At last count there were 13 references where once there were a mere nine! Also all of this some people consider that the Cornish people blah, blah, blah sounds ambiguous and misleading in my opinion.

I think the article is shaping up nicely now, it's a shame the intro lets it down. Dha weles. Brythonek (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're doing a fine job, Brythonek! Just a couple of suggestions - the "Famous Cornish people" list here seems to duplicate, pretty much, the page at List of people from Cornwall. How would you feel about deleting the list from this article, and replacing it with a section of prose - where you could, for example, highlight the Cornish inventors - together with a link (See also..) to the "List.." article? Regarding the introduction, that should really be a summary of the key points in the article (rather than simply or primarily a defence of Cornish identity, which is what it seems to be now) - see WP:LEAD. If you were to come up with a section which summarised key points of the article - along the lines of, say, the one at Scottish people - I'm sure others would be happy to endorse (or edit!) it. Finally, do you think the timeline would be better inserted in the History of Cornwall article? - again, key points (which relate specifically to Cornish people rather than, say, administration) could be summarised in prose in this article. Just my suggestions! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good ideas again Ghmyrtle! I will see how much I can turn into prose. I agree about the timeline, I have also found some problems with some of the facts- anyway...I am getting stuck with these images!-:( which is a bit of a problem. Brythonek (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Like it as well, but why get rid of King Mark?--Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just looking again at the "national symbols" section, I wonder whether most of that ought to be in this article, or elsewhere. It's only marginally "people"-related, I would have thought. Looking at this list, I would say there's a pretty unanswerable case for a separate article on [[National symbols of Cornwall]] (though if you don't want to cause controversy you could exclude the first word!). There is an article already on Saint Piran's Flag, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to the comments above.

• Intro- I have narrowed down that ridiculous intro by getting rid of the thirteen references for one concept, it is narrowed down and the concept of Cornish people is expressed as ethnic, adopted or by descent- that way is fair enough, true enough and in all hope will not offend anyone. Apart from that, most of the issues in the old intro were covered in the article. The intro should only be a basic definition in my opinion, otherwise it could also put people off reading any further!
• King Mark is not necessarily "historical", the timeline of Cornish history should really concentrate on 100% histotic facts, on Dumnonii, Cornovii and related pages there are discussions of the legendary and semi-historic kings of Cornwall.
• National symbols. I hope you notice that "national" is used in inverted commas and I have tried to explain the relevence of these, e.g. the Duchy, the chough etc. Also, there is a precedent for national symbols as Welsh people and Breton people also have "symbols" articles. I don't see what's wrong with that. National symbols are very important to a people and as in the case of the Coat of Arms of Cornwall also tell us a bit about the Cornish people's history.
• Anyway folks, I am worn out, beginning to make typos! Let me know what you all think and comments/suggestions welcome...

Brythonek (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking good, Brythonek. There's a small section on symbols on the Culture of Cornwall article. Perhaps you could merge them into the new [[National symbols of Cornwall]] article. Daicaregos (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't objecting to the symbols being referenced in this article, rather suggesting there was scope for a new article, along the lines of National symbols of Wales or Flags and symbols of Yorkshire, where it would be possible to go into more detail. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

May I recommend that this article be restructed to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template? It would broadly only mean a cosmetic restructuring. Ethnic group articles that have been peer assessed and promoted to FA and GA include Tamil people and the closely related British people. Presently the article is disjointed and not easily readable. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The changes that have been made over the past day or so have been very good, especially the new famous Cornish people section and the Portrayals of Cornish people section to balance out the negative section which also has a good explanation to it now. Well done Brythonek. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep to the article's scope

Some great changes to the article have been made over the past few days but I have the following issues, mainly about the distinction between Cornwall and Cornish people:

• Language - there is too much information about the Cornish language, and too much information about language in Cornwall. This article is about the Cornish ethnic group found throughout the world, not the inhabitants of Cornwall. Information about Cornish should be kept to the Cornish language article, after all only a very small minority of Cornish people actually speak Cornish, and the language shouldn't be given undue weight.
• National symbols - again this is related to Cornwall, not the Cornish people. People of Cornish descent in Australia, Mexico or Canada may not relate at all to these symbols of Cornwall.
• Politics - again this is about Cornwall, not the Cornish people. Information about recognition of Cornish as an ethnic group around the world would go well here, but info about devolution in Cornwall is barely related to this article.
• Religion - is also more about religion in Cornwall instead of the religion of Cornish people around the world.

I would love this article to achieve GA or FA status but at the moment I think this article isn't representing enough of a worldwide view of the subject, needs to be clearly about Cornish people not the inhabitants of Cornwall, and is branching out too far into aspects of Cornish nationalism that are more suited to other articles. Also the ridiculous amount of references in the intro were there because of a recent dispute. If they are removed then expect more disputes in the future, it may be an idea to merge them all into the article. --Joowwww (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Joowwww. I've just restructured the page to something more consistent with WP:ETHNIC. Although there's alot of good stuff been added, there's still alot of weak content in here that needs addressing, particularly in respect of WP:SYNTH and (as pointed out) WP:UNDUE.

I'm going to try and revamp the lead to something more befitting and encompassing (currently at User:Jza84/Sandbox5), but would welcome input. In contrast to Joowwww, I do think there is (limited) scope to include things about symbols, politics and language (as per pages like Tamil people and British people) but only in a context where it relates to the Cornish people, as opposed to the duchy of Cornwall. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand the points above and agree with the restructuring, on the other hand there are a few points I would like to make.

• Symbols- the symbols are an important part of the culture of the people- when Cornwall country rugby reached the finals at Twickenham, look at the symbols the people chose. As far as the Cornish overseas are concerned, the coats of arms, the colours, the chough etc.. I think there is enough evidence to justify that they are part of the culture of Cornish people all over the world. Look at London Cornish RFC, what colours do they use? Just like shamrocks have travelled the world over with the Irish and the Red Dragon with the Welsh etc...
• Politics- who else defines the poltics of a nation/area if it is not the people? How many votes to Mebyon Kernow get ouside of Cornwall? 8 I believe!!!

I think we are splitting hairs hear about the definition of Cornish people and Cornwall and people who live in Cornwall etc. Ultimately, the Cornish at home and abroad will always use Cornwall and what happened/happens in Cornwall as a point of reference for their own "Cornish" identity- as long as it is clear I don't think we should over intellectualise the matter. Brythonek (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are "splitting hairs" at all, not everyone in Cornwall is Cornish, and not all Cornish people live in Cornwall. This article should reflect that reality. Also, people of Cornish descent who were born abroad might feel much less of a connection to Cornish iconography than Cornish people from Cornwall who moved abroad. In the Euro elections MK got 3,388 votes outside of Cornwall, something I don't think is at all relevant to this article. --Joowwww (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone who lives in Cornwall is Cornish, true- what do you define as Cornish? Not all Cornish people live in Cornwall- true- therefore the List of people from Cornwall should not have been changed because it excludes your latter group (Not aimed at you, just an example). I think we are going round in circles again. Most people would accept Cornish to mean of Cornish family, born in Cornwall or identifying with Cornwall for personal reasons, eg. after long residence of association! Let's face it, even the Duke of Cornwall ain't Cornish!:=) As for the point about Cornish iconography, I disagree wholeheartedly, certain individuals "might feel less of a connection to Cornish iconography" and then again they might not. In my experience ex-pat communities tend to hold on to these symbols with more fervour than the "homeland" community. Why should we exclude generally recognised and accepted symbols used by Cornish people, all perfectly well established and with ample evidence of use outside of Cornwall too on the mere speculation that someone or other somewhere might not relate to it? We are not here to psycho-analyse the entire Cornish diaspora population!!! Anyway, the symbols are fairly basic, the chough, the historic colours and the coats of arms. What's wrong with that? Have a look at the Welsh, Irish, Scots, and Breton pages too...

Brythonek (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't adhere to strict definitions of who is Cornish and who isn't. All I use is whether or not someone identifies as Cornish, either in Cornwall or abroad. As for iconography, I wasn't talking about Cornish expats, I was talking about people of Cornish descent who were born abroad - the diaspora - who may not connect with Cornish iconography but still recognise their Cornish descent. Does every American who has the surname Muller relate to German iconography? No we are not here to psycho-analyse the Cornish diaspora but we are writing an encyclopedia here and it would be wrong to deny that most of the estimated 6 million people of Cornish descent probably know nothing about symbols of Cornwall. --Joowwww (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

I'm currently working on a revised image for the infobox. I have been give some suggestions in a private exchange, but I need more input.

The possible "draft" image is found here.

We need more candidates, and if possible, female ones. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Key-moments in Cornish history

As requested I have translated the key points into a prose form. Obviously prose is more longwinded but I think that anything is better than that "ugly" timeline what spoiled the page before. Please feel let me know how this goes. I need to find a few refs for some of the comments, but they are coming, I'll do it directly. Seeing as the sub-article is "Key" moments I have given sub-headings to the paragraphs in order to break up the text blocks- a few images too would be nice to break the monotony of "broadsheet" text. Let me know what you think, and root out any typos!!!!!!!!! Brythonek (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole History section (and indeed, where possible, entire article) should be prose, and about the history and development of the Cornish people. Some (3 to 5) simple subheadings (In antiquity, Mythological origins, Dark and Middle Ages, Revivalism and the modern period) which groups the text into logical, verifiable sections would be most helpful for our readers. The use of the word "Key-moments" is problematic by way of an implied forcing of a particular point of view of history upon the reader. I believe much of the body of the article needs to be entirely rewritten from scratch. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be fanatical about the template, some variation and individuality with each article is also a plus. I don't really agree with wikipedia about "key moments", personally that is! Never mind! How about "principal events, "moments". The old timeline was not great to work with and I have tried to fouces on moments that had an effect on the people etc using the old timeline as a guide. The original history section at the top is not of my doing, perhaps we could adjust the key moments prose text and combine it with history to unify it more? Brythonek (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think if you take a look at Wikipedia's Manual of Style you'll see that "consistency promotes professionalism and unity across Wikipedia's articles" - it's an aspirational principle of editting Wikipedia. It's not so much being "fanatical", but producing work that is helpful and familliar to our readers. the old timeline should be desconstructed, and merged into a rewritten body of text. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Image files

I have been trying to add some colour to this article with the image files available on wikipedia, inserting them next to or near paragraphs with the same theme. I have has some difficulty with text alignment. Could someone please help with tidying the image files up a bit so that they fit neatly? Please--- mar plek? I just plain don't know how to do it! To pre-empt a question, the reason for the image files is that as a former non wikiholic, the first thing that turned me off a page was a single block of text and no images. Many people scan up and down a page with their page up/down buttons and pictures catch the eye and draw it onto the text. Sometimes people click on a blue link to a page out of curiosity, "surfing" if you like and lots of image files increase the potential audience, and therefore subsequent edits and appraisal of an article. I have no evidence, references or citations to provide for these last comments!!!:)LOL!!!! Brythonek (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. Use images with care and diligence - they are subject to the same scrutiny as text. WP:MOSIMAGE provides more info. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just had to do a large revert to your additions I'm afraid. Please be mindful not to display copyrighted images. This is covered at WP:COPYVIO and WP:FAIRUSE. I will try and fix the rest.

I have just also tagged the article for a cleanup. Some of the headings and introductions of text are getting a little untidy. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

All the images were already on wikipedia pages. Brythonek (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is still an issue. Although an image may appear on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it isn't a copyrighted image. Some images are held on Wikipedia under a fair-use rationale, meaning that the copyrighted image is fair to use on Wikipedia under very certain and very strict and very limited educational purposes. WP:FAIRUSE has more details. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Like images related to Cornwall on Cornish pages being used for a page about Cornish people.

Brythonek (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is stricter than that. For example, under fair use, a copyrighted logo of a computer company can only be used on that company's article, it can't be used on a general article about computer companies, because as the fair use rationale says, it can only be used for "critical commentary". --Joowwww (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, however the images that were moved were all from related articles about Cornwall, i.e. Cornish coats of arms, cornish flags, cornish monnuments and cornish people themselves.

Brythonek (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is still strict enough to exclude them from a related page like this. As Joowwww says, " copyrighted logo of a computer company can only be used on that company's article", so the logo of say Mebyon Kernow can only be used on the Mebyon Kernow, and a copyrighted photograph of a Cornish politician, can only be used on his/her article, if at all. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

They ought to be checked out more thoroughly. Can't see there being a problem with Penwith District Council though as it no longer exists. Brythonek (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still somebody's artwork that they've produced and own the copyright too I'm afraid. I know it's incredibly frustrating, but copyright violations are a blockable offence as it brings Wikipedia into disripute. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates, please

OK, there's been a lot of requests for citation, but if we were to have more pride in this article, we should also be using something like Template:Citation for when we add references. Something like this is only half a job - something more like this is a proper web citation. This brings the benefits of helping find an archive of the site if it was to go dead, as well as present the material in a format that is professional and helps our readers. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Over citation

Some of the citation calls here are getting a little over-zealous. Do we really need a citation to say that the CRFU is the governing body of Cornish rugby and includes all the rugby teams in Cornwall? Would we need a citation to say football is a very popular sport in Brazil?

There are enough blue links on this page to take the interested reader to more detailed explanations on those pages as well. Brythonek (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The England national cricket team represents England and Wales, Manchester United F.C. don't play their home matches in Manchester, and that the sky is blue is not so at night, when its cloudy, at sunrise/sunset etc. Statements that may be obvious or "true" to one person are not always so. All material added should be attributed to a reliable source; unsourced statements may be challenged and removed at any time.

In short, every statement should have a reference, and a good one, and not have its wording/meaning substantially altered from the material it is sourced from. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Festivals

What is the problem with festivals in Cornwall, celebrating Cornish culture, tradition, sport and economy. Part of any ethnic group's culture is its festivals, events and passions- very often the prime means of cultural and ethnic expressionb. Imagine a Brazil page without mention of football? Brythonek (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Are they truly "Cornish festivals" or festivals of specific villages in Cornwall that have been cherry picked by a specific author? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

With that last comment of yours, I suggest you continue to edit this article on your own. Brythonek (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not helpful. My point is should I add mentions of Denshaw's brass band contest in the English people article, and include a photo? Better still, should I cut and paste the material from Denshaw and place it in the English people article?

What should be happening is editors going to a book, getting summaries of Cornish culture, paraphrasing here, and then give a summary style of some of the major components. In contrast, what seems to be happening is editors are going to pre-existing material on Wikipedia, often written poorly and without context or citation, and pasting it here as part of the culture of an entire people, AFAICT. The sections and text in the culture section is arbitary and cherry picked. They go into too much detail and often have fundamental flaws (i.e we earlier had a section on Cornwall's coat of arms - unsourced - when the truth is they were the arms of Cornwall Council, a council authority, not a division of land). --Jza84 |  Talk  12:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewritten completely?

Hello all,

I've been looking at this page now, with some intensity, for around a week (although have watched/read this page for longer than I can recall) and feel very strongly that the article needs completely rewritting. Rationale being that the body of the article is a mixture of bad writing, synthesis, irrelvancy, weasel wording, unsourced opinion, and its at a point where it is basically too difficult separating the legitimate content from the illegitimate. Even the stuff that has a source either broadly has no page number, has gone dead (when it's been a web citation) and/or doesn't support what's being said in the article anyway. It's a sorry state of affairs.

In this capacity, I want to make a radical proposal - possibly the most radical I've ever made during my time on WP; I would like the entire article to be moved to a sandbox/subpage (say Cornish people/historical article) and a new article built at the Cornish people page from scratch. The historical article can be used to see the former content and pluck the good bits out of.

I have been developing a draft version of this possible article at User:Jza84/Sandbox5. I want to change a couple of things and make some additions, but if there's no objection, in the spirit of WP:BOLD, I seek to make this change happen as I believe it is conducive to the good of the encyclopedia and our readers.

P.S. will tag for speedy rewritting now. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The article does need significant work. I don't have the time to help out a lot with a complete rewrite, but if you do then that's fine, but I would be wary of taking the article too far away from other editors. Make sure you don't view it as your own "pet project". Also, before you attempt it, wait for others to give their opinion, and I would suggest you notify the UK and Ethnic Group wikiprojects to see if they are interested in helping out (I have notified the Cornwall and Celts WPs), and also please read all the talk page archives so you know about past issues that have been discussed regarding the article and are aware of the consensus that arose, and try not to diverge too far from it. Also take a look at previous versions of the article to see how it has evolved over the years, that usually helps me when I am making huge changes to an article. Have fun. --Joowwww (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. You make very sound and valid points. Although I don't think I can resist seeing this as a pet project, I certainly won't own the article; I have been trying to get input for the draft version from a few users now so hopefully that should demonstrate a collaborative spirit. Also, I do believe the British people article shows an ability to make good such a page, and keep it ultra-verifiable and neutral.

Since I posted the above, I had a further check through some sources. This one looked good to use until I spotted at the bottom that it's based on Wikipedia (!) - its not a reliable source.

I'm still researching and developing a new version of the article in my sandbox, but I will hold back because I know this is a very bold and sweeping change. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Just a note that I haven't forgotten about this. Infact, I'm nearing completion at User:Jza84/Sandbox5. There are some elements I'm struggling with, so advise here or on my talk page is most welcome. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Festivals and events

It seems to only include festivals and events in Cornwall only. What about that great big one in Australia? Bodrugan (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1. 8.1.3 19th century- Victorian era

Emma Gifford

Was Emma Gifford Cornish? I believe she was Bristolian.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.119.178 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

According to this source she was born in Plymouth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Then she is not Cornish, especially as her parents were Bristolian. Will you amend the article?Donkfest1 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank ee kindly.Donkfest1 (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what she identifies as. Don't forget that some Cornish people are born in Plymouth simply because the hospital is nearer. --Joowwww (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not in 1840. She did live in Cornwall at the time Hardy met her, which probably explains it, but I'm not aware of any evidence that she described herself as "Cornish". If you define anyone who lives, or once lived, in Cornwall, as "Cornish", it's a different matter of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Cracking on...

Just a nudge that I haven't forgotten about this revamp to the article, infact, having had a break, I plan to complete this asap. One major criticism of the sandbox has been the lack of explanation of Cornish culture and iconography and so any assistance in this area, supported by strong references, would be much appreciated. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather busy lately but I will try and help whenever I can. I'm really looking forward to its completion, you've done an excellent job. Do you think FA status is a realistic goal? --Joowwww (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GA should be fairly simple. FA would be a struggle, but not by too much. Feel free to jump in when you can, thanks. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Help needed!!!

I really need some help in verifying the following points. Some of them I've read someplace but lost the source, others are borrowed from various corners of Wikipedia and just need a reference to meet certain editorial standards:

1. Cornwall is the United Kingdom's only region with a subtropical climate.
2. In 1924 the Federation of Old Cornwall Societies was formed to "maintain the Celtic spirit of Cornwall", followed by the Gorseth Kernow in 1928, and the formation of the Cornish nationalist political party Mebyon Kernow in 1951.
3. The exact date of the demise of Cornish is unclear, but popularly it is claimed that the last native speaker of the language was Dolly Pentreath, a Mousehole resident who died in 1777.
4. The piskie is a legendary creature associated with Cornwall.
5. Cornwall (County) Council has a tradition of being composed of members of the Liberal Democrats as well as comparatively large numbers of independents.

Those are statements that need sources. I would also benefit greatly if anyone knows why or how Methodism became so popular in Cornwall. I read somewhere it had some connection with mining communities in South Wales, but can't seem to hit the spot. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

lol, i cant believe someone is known to have been the last native speaker of Cornish, im not shocked that theres a big article on her. Would any of the sources at Dolly Pentreath do, id hope that article has atleast one reliable source to back it up. Hmm if that article is accurate which i highly doubt anyway, there were native speakers of Cornish a year after Dollys death so how on earth she was the last native speaker i dont know, unless they are talking about 1 year old cornish speakers. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe these will help this source andthis source Maybe not, hope they do --J3Mrs (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

They look good! -- I've crossed out those issues. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this this source--J3Mrs (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify that Dolly Pentreath is considered to be the last monoglot Cornish speaker. She was by no means the last native speaker.

There's a paper on Liberal Cornwall by Exeter University here [15] which may be of use, it has a good bibliography, there's also this book [16] which may be of some use. --Joowwww (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

They help immensely, thank you. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Subtropical climate?

I think the most authoritative source on Cornwall's climate would be this, which doesn't use the word "subtropical" so far as I can see, perhaps because there appears to be several alternative definitions of the term. The WP article on Subtropics states "the far Southwestern fringes of Cornwall in the United Kingdom meet both requirements [for meeting the definition of "subtropical"] —6 °C average in the coldest month and eight months with the average above 10 °C (specifically the Isles of Scilly)....And it is not surprising therefore that there are real palm trees growing in Devon and Cornwall." - but is unreferenced. This site states "Newquay has a maritime subtropical climate but don’t let this trick you; subtropical does not mean ‘almost tropical’. Newquay receives all four seasons and no extremes of temperature, but the winters are much milder than elsewhere in the UK." - but probably does not meet WP:RS. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I definately read this interesting "fact" somewhere, and I'm sure it was reputable. Perhaps "subtropical-like" is the most appropriate way around this? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like "subtropical-like". The Minahan ref describes it as "subtropical", so I assume it passes WP:RS - I think the issue is that the word has no precise definition and is often misinterpreted, but I don't think that's an issue for this article. Maybe it could be explained more fully at Cornwall#Climate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: Just noticed that Geography of Cornwall#Climate describes it as "the UK's only area of sub-tropical climate", but is unreferenced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Subtropical" Millport

This is typical tourist marketing - don't believe everything you hear. The IOM, Channel Islands, Bournemouth, Poole etc all make such claims. Usually they use pictures of so called "palm trees", which are planted throughout the UK in such tourist resorts. In fact, they are nothing of the sort, but cabbage trees, a relative of the lily, which grow up mountains in NZ, and can be found as far north as 'sunny' Plockton and Rothesay in the Highlands (both of which are very damp, despite being pretty).--MacRusgail (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Subtropics, click to enlarge

By the way, a casual look at the 'subtropical' map shows that even Galicia, the Basque Country and the vast majority of France don't make it. I don't believe that Cornwall is warmer than northern Spain.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Stannaries

I'm unsure about certain key facts about the Cornish Stannary Courts and Parliaments. I understand that they were given a charter by King John (saying what I don't know) and another by King Edward I. I know the last time the court/parliament (?) met was 1752. I know they met to discuss tin mining in Cornwall and I know that there is a Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament. Beyond that, I'm a little lost. Can anybody clear this up as the current Stannary Courts and Parliaments article is, well, not great. I also need a reference or two (if not a rewrite) for the following:

Stannary Courts administered equity for Cornwall's tin-miners and tin mining interests, with executive authority vested in the Lord Warden of the Stannaries. Established by a charter by King John of England, Cornwall's tin mines had major economic significance for England in the Middle Ages; Stannators were required to uphold and represent "just and ancient customs and liberties" through special laws and legal exemptions. As the tin mines of Cornwall lost their economic importance during the 18th and 19th centuries, so the Stannary institutions lost political power.

Can anybody help? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the nitty gritty of constitutional status. The CSP's website [17] might be of use, it won't make for a suitable reference but it might help you find a way to narrow down what you're searching for on other sources. --Joowwww (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If I can get that, and something about Cornish pixies, and the performing arts of the Cornish, then I think I will be ready to present my final draft. :D --Jza84 |  Talk  00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Piskies, not pixies. DuncanHill (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I know. It's spelt that way in my draft (although not everywhere else). --Jza84 |  Talk  09:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Final draft ready

Sorry for the barrage of new headings of late, I'm hoping this is my last for some time. Just a note that a rewrite of this article is now ready as a final draft here. If you have any final concerns or suggestions before it goes live, then, well, now is the time please. I can assure readers however that the content is 100% verifiable, if nothing else. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I still feel very strongly the Classification section should be the first section of the article before history etc. It explains the present day situation well and helps put things into context, where as the introduction obviously cant go into much detail about it. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we need to propose that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template is altered. I have raised it before but with little or no response. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  20:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well i posted on a comment on that page, but there has been no activity there for over 3 years so im not sure if anyone will respond. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. It's a project in need of a little, well-meaning kick up the arse in my view - ethnic groups are fundamental to our (human!) culture and history, so that project should be a hub of activity, really. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A few points, the England ref at the beginning is contentitious, secondly, the overseas section should include Mexico, there are a couple of towns with Cornish links there. The rugby section could be stronger, as this is one of the main focusses of Cornish identity/nationalism, with all the complications this involves - see here. There is also an academic study of Cornish rugby and identity, but I don't have the link to hand.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. WP Ethnic Groups doesn't seem to do very much.

Cornwall is verifiably in England (and its Wikipedia article appears to agree), but this has been addressed I believe - WP:NOTCENSORED is applicable. I've no reference to hand about a Cornish presence in Mexico. I'll try to weave in that source about Rugby, I have been conscious that it is presently a little thin. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia article agrees, because Britishwatcher and his mates have spent days and days concentrating on editing it. They've also been at Constitutional status of Cornwall, which still contains some info about the unique position of Cornwall despite them. (I think a proper examination of its status puts it somewhere between that of English counties, and of Wales pre-devolution)--MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

News to me, but confirmed - [18][19][20], etc. Good grief - BritishWatcher has mates ???!!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

lmao, im shocked too! BritishWatcher (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That aside, I trust we need not pull out reams of books and sources that place Cornwall in England? "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." whilse "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects." - Mebyon Kernow for example having 4% of the Cornish vote and certainly not trumping a wealth of material in the published domain. I'm confident that we're representing fair and real world practice. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, Cornwall is a unitary authority, right? And yet the article on its constitutional status doesn't have the phrase. Maybe www.cornwall.gov.uk isn't a reliable source for Cornwall being a unitary authority? Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the Unitary authorities of England infact.... --Jza84 |  Talk  16:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that MK got 15% of the votes in the seats it ran in. Yup, I took the bait. --Kernoweger (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If only other parts of the UK were so loyal! lol :) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, MK are only the tip of the iceberg. Cornish nationalism/patriotism doesn't begin or end with them. Andrew George MP, a Lib Dem, for example qualifies well as a kind of Cornish nationalist. And I've already mentioned the rugby. The flags are another manifestation of this (although many people in English counties have started flying flags more recently - which muddies the water)

Also, the Kilbrandon Commission stated that Cornwall was in a unique position, and there are also other legal arguments for saying this. That said, the British constitutional set up is contradictory and geared towards suiting certain people are certain times. Traditionally there hasn't been a proper attempt to sort out the mess (unlike France, the USA etc), rather the various documents have all sunk to the bottom of the pile, like layers of sludge at the bottom of a river.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but I trust we agree that Cornwall being in England is a mainstream view, or else at least mega-verifiable, hense the version in the draft be respected as within the bounds of policy. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

All lost in some government building somewhere to never see the light of day again. There are some questions, like this nonsense about Cornwalls constitutional status that do not need to be answered. Cornwall is a county of England, thats as good an answer as people need from the Her Majesty's Government on this issue. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the "mainstream" views is that the IOM and Channel Islands are part of England, or the UK. While there are some who may behave that way, and the media may even put such ideas about it's not the case.

I'm sorry Britishwatcher, as a supporter of HM, whose supposed legitimacy is based on hiding documents in buildings (and excluding at least fifty other claimants to the English throne, and a similar number to the Scottish one), I don't think you're in much of a position to wriggle out of this one. For the Royal Family, Cornwall is not just another English county, but a slush fund for the heir apparent.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

lol. well they have managed to wriggle out of it for how many years? Even under this labour government which has committed constitutional vandalism they have managed to not get answered, the Freedom of Information Act hasnt even led to any answers so keep hoping for an answer it wont come. Anyway the status of Cornwall is the least of anyones concerns in these troubled times. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mainly on the basis of religious discrimination - i.e. excluding all the RCs.

"the status of Cornwall is the least of anyones concerns in these troubled times." - Maybe to folk in England, but there are some serious economic questions to be asked in relation to this question in Cornwall. There is a good argument for saying that while Cornwall has been strip mined, very little has been given in return other than tourism, and empty second homes (and complete failure to provide adequate housing for the natives - something not unique to Cornwall either).--MacRusgail (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is going into the realms of a forum-like debate. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Invariably, if I pick any book up in a library or a Waterstones, Cornwall is part of England. Even coming at this from another angle, the UK is made of 4 countries, not 5. Wikipedia is not censored. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(E.C) The folk in England includes the people in Cornwall. The overwhelming majority consider themselves English or British and only 7% saw the need to clasify themselves as Cornish. I share ur concerns about second homes though, this is something reflected across tourist spots in the United Kingdom. But anyway, these are minor local (specific towns or villages) issues, there are far bigger problems after 10 years of labour to deal with now. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, its best to move on from this matter. Wikipedia covers it in a huge amount of detail anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"only 7% saw the need to clasify themselves as Cornish." - this is highly misleading. In actual fact, the census operated on an opt-in basis, rather than supplying a tick box, as for other groups. If one has an opt-in for Scottish, Welsh or English, rather than a tick box, you'd find the figures would be similarly much lower. This figure also masks the true number of people who would consider themselves Cornish and British, or even Cornish and English, but with a distinct identity.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not from or in the draft. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats wonderful, my comment was not misleading simply stating fact and it was probably only that high because of the local campaign, like we saw the campaign for people to put Jedi as their religion (Which got a code too just like Cornish did!).

Anyway the 2011 census across the United Kingdom will include an option for people to state their "identity", so people can tick English, Scottish, British etc, any of them or all of them aswell as the option to enter in Cornish or something else aswell as British etc. It will be very very interesting to see the results of the 2011 census. Whilst the results from Wales and Scotland will be important, ill be looking out for how many consider Cornish their "national identity" with great enthusiasm. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)