![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 14 |
I have archived the previous discussion (see links right) as the length was getting unwieldy. Please do not continue discussions in the archive. If people feel a need to respond to comments that are now archived, could they please copy the relevant sentances "and place them in italics" with their responses on this page, taking care to mention where the original comment comes from. This should help keep things tidy. Many thanks Mammal4 09:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose using the MiszaBot to automatacilly archive this page. I would suggest setting it to archive threads with no activity in the previous 30 days, what are other editors' opinions? DuncanHill ( talk) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds a good idea to me Duncan. Tinminer ( talk) 10:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The recent insert stated that "the later Cornish Kings (as they would still have considered themselves) would probably have had to shown their allegiance to early English monarchs by the reign of Edward the Confessor" There is no evidence that there were Cornish Kings. Two responses were given (i) that the article on Cornish Kings has names and (ii) "refer to King Dungarth - Annales Cambriae "rex Cerniu" and King Huwal". In respect of the first argument, the article concerned deals with legendary figures and does not constitute evidence that there were actual Kings in Cormwall. Dungarth, IF he was a King was ruler of Dumnonia which may have included Cornwell but covered most of the South West or may even reference West Wales. Huwal relates to the same area and some think he is the same as Hywel Da the Welsh Law Giver. Annales Cabriaw include legends of King Arthur! This is a murky area with few records. However this is an article about Cornwall and needs to be accurate. -- Snowded TALK 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The introduction also says "and is considered one of the six "Celtic nations" by many residents and scholars" This claim requires better sources, again what is "many"? The Celtic league and congress may consider cornwall a celtic nation but they have a clear political agenda.
Can we please have some reliable 3rd party sources that state Cornwall today is a celtic nation? If not it should be removed or reworded.
Also further down in the article it says "Cornwall is usually described as being one of six Celtic nations alongside Brittany, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales." This should state by who, because its more often described as an English county not a celtic nation. I am very concerned about biased claims on some of these Cornwall articles, if better sources can not be found or things are not reworded, misleading claims should be removed. BritishWatcher ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible references for "many residents would describe Cornwall as a Celtic nation." ?
Teapot george Talk 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
As a Cornishman myself, I have never read such a load of condescending and positively insulting rubbish as I have here. The status of Cornwall as a Celtic nation has never been in doubt. Where shall I begin? Genetics, history, language, culture, the fact that Cornwall is in the Celtic League? The fact that all over the world people of Cornish and non-Cornish origin will tell you that Cornwall is a Celtic nation. I do not have any political affiliations and as a Cornishman may I claim to be Celtic? As for the other comments, it is not clear how many Celtic nations there are? Says who? It's quite clear to us Celts, the doubts are with Gallicia. Although "genetically" and "historically" Celtic, Gallicia was refused admission to the Celtic League because it was felt that it had become more Spanish/Romance and lost too much of its Celtic character, much as with the debate for Cumbria. The comments BritishWatcher make are nigh on as idiotic as refusing to acknowledge the Latin/Romance world merely because there is no single, agreed official definition.
14.05.09 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.43.228.114 (
talk)
23:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL!!! Yes and on both of those Google Searches you will see Cornwall listed. To debate whether Cornwall and/or the Cornish are officially a Celtic nations is the biggest piece of intellectual masturbation I have come across, if you pardon the pun, in a long time. It is interesting how the de facto argument as opposed to the de jure argument is used when denying Cornwall her status and identity and yet twisted around the other way by those who would wish to argue agains the "pro-Cornish lobby". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brythonek ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Please note that I have definite evidence that the poster BritishWatcher is a member of the BNP and therefore his comments should be viewed with extreme suspicion —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedPawl ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have seen some pictures of palm trees there. How about citrus? Olives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 ( talk) 05:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Jza84 has proposed a complete rewrite of the Cornish people article. If you agree, disagree, want to help write a new article, or want to improve the existing one, please join the discussion at Talk:Cornish people#Rewritten completely?. -- Joowwww ( talk) 10:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Cornwall be classed as a country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.221.244 ( talk) 19:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the actual need for the St Pirans Flag to be shown at the top of the page? To the best of my knowledge St Piran is in fact the patron saint of tin-miners, not of Cornwall - regardless of modern usage. Surely the image would be best placed within the article?
92.12.48.82 ( talk) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Given that the wall in Cornwall is unstressed, shouldn't the IPA be /ˈkɔrnwʊl/ ? Welshleprechaun ( talk) 23:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I know there's been a big debate about some of this stuff and I assume it was more or less settled by consensus at the time, but it still reads a little oddly, and gives too much weight as far as I can tell to a fairly fringe view, focused on Cornish nationalism. In particular the statement about language - while broadly true - is surely nonetheless misleading. To say that Cornwall "continues to retain its distinct identity, with its own history, language and culture" suggests anyone visiting the county would need to take a Cornish phrasebook with them if they were going to get around at all or do any shopping. Whereas the reality is of course that Cornish is barely spoken by anyone, let alone as a first language. The entry for Wales for example - where the local language is much more widely spoken - seems to deal with the issue with a little more clarity. -- Nickhh ( talk) 10:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
How about:
I'm very conscious that this thread has not involved any Cornish editors so far. Comments? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If we look at Texas for example, an entity which has widespead media coverage on scessionism in recent times, there isn't a single mention of it in the intro. Yet here on an article where we're dealing with a tiny fragment of the population its given front seat, full and exclusive coverage in the article of the obscurantist position. This proposed text is still unacceptably dominated by non-mainstream agenda to the point where it fails WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It reads like what should be the intro for the "Cornish nationalism" article instead, rather than an intro on Cornwall itself. A short paragraph in the body of the article is OK, but not the intro. I think to form a new intro we need to see other encyclopedia's coverage as a preccident and then go from there. The only reason its currently like it is, is because a small but proactive group of obscurantist regionalist activists have had free reign since roughly 2007 to try and subvert the database without review. Fortunetly its been spotted now and the tide is starting to change. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 10:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been done over and over again. What we have now was the agreed compromise. -- Kernoweger ( talk) 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
On the basis that a clear majority in this discussion have not dissented from the view that my proposal at the top of this section is an improvement on the previously existing wording (with one dissenter, so far as I can tell), I have gone ahead and changed it. There are clear views on both sides here - some saying that the "Cornish nationalism" viewpoint is overplayed, and others that it is underplayed. I've tried to take a balanced view, but those on one side or the other will clearly disagree. All I hope is that future discussions will be on the basis of improving the wording I've now put in, rather than the previous wording. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 08:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Closing this per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP |
---|
I have noticed that just about everyone born in Cornwall who has a biographical page on Wikipedia is described as “Cornish” in there ethnicity-This is clearly bias for many reasons-
This pro-Cornish agenda to undermine the fact these people could have been English has got to stop.-- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 17:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Meh, it hardly matters.-- Schellen ( talk) 18:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with this though, Humphrey Davy has always been described as English...I vote that reliable sources declaring these people considered themselves Cornish or English be used, or there Ethnicity is best not mentioned. -- Schellen ( talk) 19:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I have removed “Cornish” from the info boxes of several well known people born in Cornwall, reason being that unless a reliable source can be found that specifically states these people considered themselves Cornish and not English, as Frank points out, it should be left out. Never heard Humphrey Davy being called Cornish… It's pretty simple really, I'ts clearly a breach of NPOV.-- Schellen ( talk) 19:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
BritishWatcher is a Unionist so his political opinion is most likely effected by this, Talskiddy is someone who clearly doesn’t like the English (Claims to have never been to England, What did you do-Catch a ferry to Scotland?) and just about everything else has been sucked into a mass of nationalist agenda and other rather petty notions of delusional self beliefs and nationalist point scoring. This discussion is worthless from that point as it is a violation of NPOV and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. But labeling everyone born in Cornwall’s Ethnicity as “Cornish” is a blatant factual error, they could be Cornish, or they could be English and no matter how strongly you feel, that must not get in the way of the facts. My opinion is that Ethnicity really has very little to do with the person in hand and is best not mentioned, oh but for the point of nationalist agenda point-scoring of coarse… -- Azhar Badr ( talk) 12:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are we trying to deny the truth here? Davy could be English, he could be Cornish. By the way, the false notion that the “Cornish” are Celts is a Myth. REMOVE Cornish from these infoboxes NOW.-- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 18:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
One of ther problesm with this debate is that Yorkshirian and Britishwatcher are both declared nationalists, one of them a known sockpuppeteer, and that makes it hard to assume good faith. DuncanHill ( talk) 18:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You all should be barred from editing because of your nationalist agenda, ALL of you. Unless you be good boys (Sorry if you are Female) and make edits based on fact, with reliable sources and what not.-- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 18:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
|
I have undone todays changes for several reasons and i will undo them again if its re added. First of all promoting small organisations in the introduction is totally unacceptable as far as im concerned, especially when their titles are designed to be very misleading. Also the bit about 10% was highly misleading. 10% may have signed a petition calling for an assembly quite a few years ago, however that 10% were not questioning Cornwalls constitutional status. The stable wording should remain. BritishWatcher ( talk) 16:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
-I understand the 10% section, but the names of the organisations have little relavance. There is no guideline against groups with "misleading" names, any word, title etc can be infered to mean anything, that is why additional information is given. Edit it if you must, but don't continue to re-add weasel words. AnOicheGhealai ( talk) 13:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to say the so called "Duchy of Cornwall Human Rights Association" while a fancy name, is just John Wilton, a washing machine repair man. The "association" (in reality just his website) is "headquartered" at his washing machine shop. Obviously one obscure mans WP:FRINGE hobby doesn't belong in the intro on an encyclopedia article about a georgraphical area. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 05:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well if that is the case, than the source is unreliable, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnOicheGhealai ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the CCC and Angarrack sites are inappropriate for the lead, so I've moved them from there. The footnote itself for the Angarrack site was also designed to confuse, so I've corrected that, and moved the refs instead to the Constitution section where they are listed among those pressure groups seeking constitutional change (or administrative recognition, if you prefer). That, in my view, represents a neutral position. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have manually archived all threads which shewed no activity after the end of June 2009. I have also set up MiszaBot to automatically archive threads after they have shewn no activity for 31 days. I hope that this will help stop this page becoming unmanageably long again. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
in the education section you have truro, and penwith as seperate colleges they have ow merged ad are known as Truro and penwith college. here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.35 ( talk) 22:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Although the statement above is true, I don't think it's very helpful to the reader from, say, China or even Oklahoma, who might think that they are spoken equally, or by different groups of people. We should say that English is spoken by everyone (well, possibly 99.9%), and Cornish, as a learnt and additional language, by a very small (but growing, I wouldn't wish to denigrate it) minority of those. Do we have refs to support that? - they may not exist simply because, to a UK resident, it's obvious. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
"Cornwall is recognised as one of the "Celtic nations" by many Cornish people, residents and organisations.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] It retains a distinct cultural identity, reflecting its history, and modern use of the formerly extinct Cornish language is increasing.[11] Some people question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, and a self-government movement seeks greater autonomy within the UK.[12] Contents [hide]"
Closed: Thread starter is a sock puppet blocked for disruptive POV pushing edits. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Under the section about the Flag of St Piran, it refers to the Flag as the national flag of cornwall. But cornwall isnt a nation, it is a county in England, with only a small minority of people believing it is a nation. Perhaps a different way of putting it (e.g. it is the county flag of cornwall)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The cows want their milk back ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
All sock puppets should review past discussions. I don't see why we should bother repeating ourselves over and over every few months. -- Joowwww ( talk) 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 14 |
I have archived the previous discussion (see links right) as the length was getting unwieldy. Please do not continue discussions in the archive. If people feel a need to respond to comments that are now archived, could they please copy the relevant sentances "and place them in italics" with their responses on this page, taking care to mention where the original comment comes from. This should help keep things tidy. Many thanks Mammal4 09:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose using the MiszaBot to automatacilly archive this page. I would suggest setting it to archive threads with no activity in the previous 30 days, what are other editors' opinions? DuncanHill ( talk) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds a good idea to me Duncan. Tinminer ( talk) 10:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The recent insert stated that "the later Cornish Kings (as they would still have considered themselves) would probably have had to shown their allegiance to early English monarchs by the reign of Edward the Confessor" There is no evidence that there were Cornish Kings. Two responses were given (i) that the article on Cornish Kings has names and (ii) "refer to King Dungarth - Annales Cambriae "rex Cerniu" and King Huwal". In respect of the first argument, the article concerned deals with legendary figures and does not constitute evidence that there were actual Kings in Cormwall. Dungarth, IF he was a King was ruler of Dumnonia which may have included Cornwell but covered most of the South West or may even reference West Wales. Huwal relates to the same area and some think he is the same as Hywel Da the Welsh Law Giver. Annales Cabriaw include legends of King Arthur! This is a murky area with few records. However this is an article about Cornwall and needs to be accurate. -- Snowded TALK 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The introduction also says "and is considered one of the six "Celtic nations" by many residents and scholars" This claim requires better sources, again what is "many"? The Celtic league and congress may consider cornwall a celtic nation but they have a clear political agenda.
Can we please have some reliable 3rd party sources that state Cornwall today is a celtic nation? If not it should be removed or reworded.
Also further down in the article it says "Cornwall is usually described as being one of six Celtic nations alongside Brittany, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales." This should state by who, because its more often described as an English county not a celtic nation. I am very concerned about biased claims on some of these Cornwall articles, if better sources can not be found or things are not reworded, misleading claims should be removed. BritishWatcher ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible references for "many residents would describe Cornwall as a Celtic nation." ?
Teapot george Talk 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
As a Cornishman myself, I have never read such a load of condescending and positively insulting rubbish as I have here. The status of Cornwall as a Celtic nation has never been in doubt. Where shall I begin? Genetics, history, language, culture, the fact that Cornwall is in the Celtic League? The fact that all over the world people of Cornish and non-Cornish origin will tell you that Cornwall is a Celtic nation. I do not have any political affiliations and as a Cornishman may I claim to be Celtic? As for the other comments, it is not clear how many Celtic nations there are? Says who? It's quite clear to us Celts, the doubts are with Gallicia. Although "genetically" and "historically" Celtic, Gallicia was refused admission to the Celtic League because it was felt that it had become more Spanish/Romance and lost too much of its Celtic character, much as with the debate for Cumbria. The comments BritishWatcher make are nigh on as idiotic as refusing to acknowledge the Latin/Romance world merely because there is no single, agreed official definition.
14.05.09 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.43.228.114 (
talk)
23:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL!!! Yes and on both of those Google Searches you will see Cornwall listed. To debate whether Cornwall and/or the Cornish are officially a Celtic nations is the biggest piece of intellectual masturbation I have come across, if you pardon the pun, in a long time. It is interesting how the de facto argument as opposed to the de jure argument is used when denying Cornwall her status and identity and yet twisted around the other way by those who would wish to argue agains the "pro-Cornish lobby". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brythonek ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Please note that I have definite evidence that the poster BritishWatcher is a member of the BNP and therefore his comments should be viewed with extreme suspicion —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedPawl ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have seen some pictures of palm trees there. How about citrus? Olives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 ( talk) 05:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Jza84 has proposed a complete rewrite of the Cornish people article. If you agree, disagree, want to help write a new article, or want to improve the existing one, please join the discussion at Talk:Cornish people#Rewritten completely?. -- Joowwww ( talk) 10:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Cornwall be classed as a country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.221.244 ( talk) 19:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the actual need for the St Pirans Flag to be shown at the top of the page? To the best of my knowledge St Piran is in fact the patron saint of tin-miners, not of Cornwall - regardless of modern usage. Surely the image would be best placed within the article?
92.12.48.82 ( talk) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Given that the wall in Cornwall is unstressed, shouldn't the IPA be /ˈkɔrnwʊl/ ? Welshleprechaun ( talk) 23:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I know there's been a big debate about some of this stuff and I assume it was more or less settled by consensus at the time, but it still reads a little oddly, and gives too much weight as far as I can tell to a fairly fringe view, focused on Cornish nationalism. In particular the statement about language - while broadly true - is surely nonetheless misleading. To say that Cornwall "continues to retain its distinct identity, with its own history, language and culture" suggests anyone visiting the county would need to take a Cornish phrasebook with them if they were going to get around at all or do any shopping. Whereas the reality is of course that Cornish is barely spoken by anyone, let alone as a first language. The entry for Wales for example - where the local language is much more widely spoken - seems to deal with the issue with a little more clarity. -- Nickhh ( talk) 10:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
How about:
I'm very conscious that this thread has not involved any Cornish editors so far. Comments? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If we look at Texas for example, an entity which has widespead media coverage on scessionism in recent times, there isn't a single mention of it in the intro. Yet here on an article where we're dealing with a tiny fragment of the population its given front seat, full and exclusive coverage in the article of the obscurantist position. This proposed text is still unacceptably dominated by non-mainstream agenda to the point where it fails WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It reads like what should be the intro for the "Cornish nationalism" article instead, rather than an intro on Cornwall itself. A short paragraph in the body of the article is OK, but not the intro. I think to form a new intro we need to see other encyclopedia's coverage as a preccident and then go from there. The only reason its currently like it is, is because a small but proactive group of obscurantist regionalist activists have had free reign since roughly 2007 to try and subvert the database without review. Fortunetly its been spotted now and the tide is starting to change. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 10:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been done over and over again. What we have now was the agreed compromise. -- Kernoweger ( talk) 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
On the basis that a clear majority in this discussion have not dissented from the view that my proposal at the top of this section is an improvement on the previously existing wording (with one dissenter, so far as I can tell), I have gone ahead and changed it. There are clear views on both sides here - some saying that the "Cornish nationalism" viewpoint is overplayed, and others that it is underplayed. I've tried to take a balanced view, but those on one side or the other will clearly disagree. All I hope is that future discussions will be on the basis of improving the wording I've now put in, rather than the previous wording. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 08:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Closing this per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP |
---|
I have noticed that just about everyone born in Cornwall who has a biographical page on Wikipedia is described as “Cornish” in there ethnicity-This is clearly bias for many reasons-
This pro-Cornish agenda to undermine the fact these people could have been English has got to stop.-- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 17:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Meh, it hardly matters.-- Schellen ( talk) 18:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with this though, Humphrey Davy has always been described as English...I vote that reliable sources declaring these people considered themselves Cornish or English be used, or there Ethnicity is best not mentioned. -- Schellen ( talk) 19:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I have removed “Cornish” from the info boxes of several well known people born in Cornwall, reason being that unless a reliable source can be found that specifically states these people considered themselves Cornish and not English, as Frank points out, it should be left out. Never heard Humphrey Davy being called Cornish… It's pretty simple really, I'ts clearly a breach of NPOV.-- Schellen ( talk) 19:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
BritishWatcher is a Unionist so his political opinion is most likely effected by this, Talskiddy is someone who clearly doesn’t like the English (Claims to have never been to England, What did you do-Catch a ferry to Scotland?) and just about everything else has been sucked into a mass of nationalist agenda and other rather petty notions of delusional self beliefs and nationalist point scoring. This discussion is worthless from that point as it is a violation of NPOV and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. But labeling everyone born in Cornwall’s Ethnicity as “Cornish” is a blatant factual error, they could be Cornish, or they could be English and no matter how strongly you feel, that must not get in the way of the facts. My opinion is that Ethnicity really has very little to do with the person in hand and is best not mentioned, oh but for the point of nationalist agenda point-scoring of coarse… -- Azhar Badr ( talk) 12:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are we trying to deny the truth here? Davy could be English, he could be Cornish. By the way, the false notion that the “Cornish” are Celts is a Myth. REMOVE Cornish from these infoboxes NOW.-- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 18:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
One of ther problesm with this debate is that Yorkshirian and Britishwatcher are both declared nationalists, one of them a known sockpuppeteer, and that makes it hard to assume good faith. DuncanHill ( talk) 18:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You all should be barred from editing because of your nationalist agenda, ALL of you. Unless you be good boys (Sorry if you are Female) and make edits based on fact, with reliable sources and what not.-- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 18:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
|
I have undone todays changes for several reasons and i will undo them again if its re added. First of all promoting small organisations in the introduction is totally unacceptable as far as im concerned, especially when their titles are designed to be very misleading. Also the bit about 10% was highly misleading. 10% may have signed a petition calling for an assembly quite a few years ago, however that 10% were not questioning Cornwalls constitutional status. The stable wording should remain. BritishWatcher ( talk) 16:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
-I understand the 10% section, but the names of the organisations have little relavance. There is no guideline against groups with "misleading" names, any word, title etc can be infered to mean anything, that is why additional information is given. Edit it if you must, but don't continue to re-add weasel words. AnOicheGhealai ( talk) 13:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to say the so called "Duchy of Cornwall Human Rights Association" while a fancy name, is just John Wilton, a washing machine repair man. The "association" (in reality just his website) is "headquartered" at his washing machine shop. Obviously one obscure mans WP:FRINGE hobby doesn't belong in the intro on an encyclopedia article about a georgraphical area. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 05:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well if that is the case, than the source is unreliable, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnOicheGhealai ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the CCC and Angarrack sites are inappropriate for the lead, so I've moved them from there. The footnote itself for the Angarrack site was also designed to confuse, so I've corrected that, and moved the refs instead to the Constitution section where they are listed among those pressure groups seeking constitutional change (or administrative recognition, if you prefer). That, in my view, represents a neutral position. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have manually archived all threads which shewed no activity after the end of June 2009. I have also set up MiszaBot to automatically archive threads after they have shewn no activity for 31 days. I hope that this will help stop this page becoming unmanageably long again. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
in the education section you have truro, and penwith as seperate colleges they have ow merged ad are known as Truro and penwith college. here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.35 ( talk) 22:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Although the statement above is true, I don't think it's very helpful to the reader from, say, China or even Oklahoma, who might think that they are spoken equally, or by different groups of people. We should say that English is spoken by everyone (well, possibly 99.9%), and Cornish, as a learnt and additional language, by a very small (but growing, I wouldn't wish to denigrate it) minority of those. Do we have refs to support that? - they may not exist simply because, to a UK resident, it's obvious. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
"Cornwall is recognised as one of the "Celtic nations" by many Cornish people, residents and organisations.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] It retains a distinct cultural identity, reflecting its history, and modern use of the formerly extinct Cornish language is increasing.[11] Some people question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, and a self-government movement seeks greater autonomy within the UK.[12] Contents [hide]"
Closed: Thread starter is a sock puppet blocked for disruptive POV pushing edits. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Under the section about the Flag of St Piran, it refers to the Flag as the national flag of cornwall. But cornwall isnt a nation, it is a county in England, with only a small minority of people believing it is a nation. Perhaps a different way of putting it (e.g. it is the county flag of cornwall)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The cows want their milk back ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
All sock puppets should review past discussions. I don't see why we should bother repeating ourselves over and over every few months. -- Joowwww ( talk) 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
|