Talk:Cornish people/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Image use

Hello, concerning the pictures that have been deleted, I'd like to say that I support their inclusion here. They are not in any way sub-standard and for me they enhance the article. I am surprised by the claim that these were not agreed by other editors. Wiki publications encourage collaborative editing and nothing has to be agreed up front in this way. FootballPhil (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A poor quality image

This image is clearly a photograph of another photograph, or poster, or leaflet. Not only that, but its a badly framed snapshot, and is obviously the work of an amateur. The image description is missing, and I do not believe that "own work" is satisfactory for the source field given my concerns about the image.

MacRusgail you'd have a much easier time if you didn't sling insults and accusations around. Parrot of Doom 10:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that's a poor quality image and shouldn't be included in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Parrot, you still need to inform the image author on commons that you have nominated the image for deletion, also it would help the deletion debate if you could give any reasons for your suspicions. DuncanHill (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

'Obby 'Oss festival

Old County Hall in Truro

Regarding the other two images (right), the County Hall one seems reasonable enough, but the festival one is badly framed. The lens is too zoomed in for my liking. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'Oss picture conveys the feeling of the festival to me, crowded, almost claustrophobic. Would be nice if the editors who originally objectd came here themselves to give their reasons. DuncanHill (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that there's also an alternative photo of the festival at File:Red obby oss party 20050502.jpg. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Which doesn't include an 'Oss. DuncanHill (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, and I sense that may be important. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Traditional use of Cornish: Restormel motto & Coat of Armss.

Modern use of Cornish in a welcome sign - modified from other upload from Geograph

I still fail to see what's so terrible about these pictures. By the way, if you're going to remove pictures, please substitute better ones. That way the article is improved, rather than depleted.

Going through them:

• The Cornish language one is maybe the worst of the lot, but the reflection on the image is clearly on the "Rooms" banner, not on the photograph. It is difficult to find better images of Cornish language use on Wikimedia. Otherwise we're reduced to road signs which use Cornish place names - and they're really loans into English, rather than proper Cornish language use. Two other options to replace first image are on the right.
• There is no way to frame the "Obby Oss". It takes place amongst large crowds of people, often on old streets. Other than that, I can't see what the big deal is here.
• The County Hall picture is fine as far as I'm concerned. (However, if you wish a better one, there may well be one on Geograph which can be transferred onto Wikimedia.) It's a non-partisan image, and can't be accused of pandering to any political tendency.

"MacRusgail you'd have a much easier time if you didn't sling insults and accusations around." - If I wished to insult people, I'd use much stronger language! What I object to is the use of deliberately obscure (and dubious) abbreviations to justify edits, without a decent explanation as to why. Personally I would have preferred some kind of reasoning. At least that seems to be happening just now.

"obviously the work of an amateur." - Most of the images on Wikipedia are amateur by definition. The professionals get paid for their images, and they don't give them away for everyone to use. A bit mean, but that's how things go. Since I live several hundred miles from Cornwall, it is a bit difficult for me to pop down and take better ones! --MacRusgail (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Section break

My editting time is critically compromised at the moment, but, quite rightly, I have been called to speak on this matter, as I may have prompted the original concern/objection.

In short, I am more the comfortable with the present version of the article. Cited material is present (has not been censored), and a few, well considered images are present. It remains, in spirit, the same article that passed the GAC a couple of months back.

I am disappointed however, that we seek to take that retrograde step towards this beauty - what I think should be the posterboy for how an article shouldn't look (and I think it goes against virtually every policy going!). Note the use of pictures here too.

We shouldn't need to put an image next to every paragraph, and by that just use whatever we can. If an image isn't of a befitting quality, then leave it out. this image tells me absolutely nothing about Cornish people or Cornish life; it is blurry, discoloured, unclear, and could be halloween festivities in any part of Britain, Ireland or the Western World. Do we really have that strong a conviction to edit war it into what is Cornwall's only decent article? Wouldn't are time be better served bringing other pages upto scratch? Both this image and its caption are now the weakest parts of what is otherwise a very strong article; and we should be absolutely ashamed of the 'Obby 'Oss festival page, or even linking it - who's written that?

There is another element to this too which I feel isn't been considered (or openly discussed), namely, that the Cornish people article doesn't have to be dripping with and oozing 'Kernowyon' ritual played up the Nth degree. Remember that in discussions it was pointed out that the Cornish operate within macro English and British culture (go to Tescos, the pub, read the papers, watch TV, eat fish and chips, speak English - all part of the daily lives of the Cornish people), while not all (by some way) the people of Cornwall divorce themselves from Englishness or Britishness. Cornish language is important, but part of an alternative / marginal way of life, and that Bonfire Night is celebrated in Cornwall just as 'Obby 'Oss festival is....

On this basis, wary I can not presently be one of the guardians of this great page, I really do call us to adopt a "less is more" approach with images in the long term, and really be mindful about what we add and how we work with one another. Our focus would be better served improving other articles to this standard. With that, I rest my plea. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Many Cornish may well go to Tescos, listen to terrible manufactured pop, live in hideous concrete/breeze block buildings and eat junk food etc (Heaven help them), but that's not notable, for the simple reason that it's not actually distinctive. However, go to Cornwall, and you will see stuff which is distinctive. The language is fairly visible now (compared to the 1980s, for example), and so is the Cornish flag, which turns up everywhere. Of course you're more likely to read, than to hear Cornish, but it certainly is there, right after you cross the bridge on the Tamar and many other places. The Cornish relationship with Englishness and Britishness is a complicated one, and multilayered, as I've pointed out before. One size does not fit all.

The old version you mention is nowhere near the worst wikipedia articles I've come across. (Have a peep at some of the "celebrity"/pop culture ones, they're often really bad e.g. this one). It's worth pointing out that the image of Cornish people at the top of the current edit is more or less an enlarged one of the old one of my creation, so it's hardly all bad. Some people complained that the Cornish in it weren't notable enough. Well, that was simply because of the difficulty in finding appropriate images, especially modern ones (although someone found one of Jethro, I see).--MacRusgail (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mac, I see absolutely nothing wrong at all with the image of the shop described as "poor quality". There are far worse elsewhere in Wikipedia. The quality of it is actually not too bad, and it does demonstrate the Cornish language very well. I would put it back and see if you can get any other support for it. FootballPhil (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we put a low res image of a pub in say, Wolverhampton, called say, The Kings Arms, on the English people article, and present it as an example of the English language? -- because it's ridiculous of course. Just think what Encarta or Britannica would do, and that's the standard of work we should be aiming to surpass. I strong oppose the addition of such imagery. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for the English language it would not be necessary. Have a look at Scottish people and you'll see that there is a photo depicting the Scottish language. I don't see the picture as low resolution. You certainly can't tell it from just looking at it. I don't have any problem with it. I am amused how such a minor point as this brings out such an aggressive attitude in some editors. FootballPhil (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If Jza84 can find a better image to replace the language one in question, I'm sure we would all be grateful. Maybe he could propose one here. As to the 'Oss picture - it doesn't look like any Halloween celebration I have seen anywhere. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if I was writing about English people, the traditional English pub would be a good example of their culture. It's certainly one of the things which springs to mind as English. Happy New Year! --MacRusgail (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite in favour of the image just added by MacRusgail. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad you like it. As I've said before, I'm well aware that Cornish isn't spoken by many people (and the vast majority of them are learners), but it is noticeable in some parts of Cornwall.

I think more can be done on Cornish dialect though (which often gets overlooked because of the Celtic language).--MacRusgail (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Census info

The census info has been edited to omit the fact that Cornish people had to opt in to record themselves as Cornish. There is no Cornish tickbox on the census, meaning that the number is actually far lower than it probably should be. If there was a tickbox, the number would be higher.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation? --Jza84 |  Talk  16:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The basic facts about the tick-box are fairly uncontroversial surely, although here's an Independent article discussing the point, just for the record. I agree though that any assertion that the number recording themselves as ethnically Cornish is "far lower" than it would otherwise be is speculation, and, indeed, probably unverifiable. I'm sure more would sign up to the option, but we have no idea how many. And doesn't this bring up a wider point? We have the figure of 7% who identified as Cornish according to the 2001 census, which the article notes in its body along with the debate about the whole notion of "Cornishness". I've seen polls that would suggest that, even where the option is presented to people directly, only a minority would claim a Cornish identity ahead of or in distinction to an English/British identity or whatever - however the lead of the article is far more assertive, claiming that the Cornish "are the people of Cornwall" and "are interpreted as modern Celts", and that they are asserted to be "culturally and ethnically distinct". What, all of them? Everyone who lives in Cornwall, whether more recent arrivals or those whose families have been in the area for generations? --Nickhh (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a dictionary defintion. Lancastrians are the people of Lancashire, of course, but that doesn't mean they have a shared (enforced) heritage, ethnicity, culture etc, it's just what the noun means at its most fundamental. I may be a Cornishman, for example, but simply by geographic locale, not ethnicity. I may identify as English, but the media may choose to call me a Cornishman because I was born and bred in Cornwall.

However.... "as an ethnic group", as it says, things change. They become tied with Celticity. It's an extremely thorny and difficult opening to please everyone. I find the present situation the only neutral, verifiable way.... unless new evidence comes to light that is? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not the issue - the issue is that people have to opt in. Please read the original subject. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Nickhh is discussing another issue though here. I have asked for the "actually" and "probably" claims raised earlier to be backed up by sources (I'm sure we've discussed that opinion doesn't trump WP:V). It's hard to assess and progress without verifible evidence IMHO. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I did move on to a slightly wider, but related point. I just think the lead needs to be a bit more vague, in a good sense of that word. Eg something very roughly along the lines of "The Cornish are the people of Cornwall ..." or "Cornish is a term used to describe people living in, or whose family origins lie in, Cornwall, an English county in the southwest of the UK, many/some of whom assert a Celtic identity distinct from an English one". Or something less clunky. As to the specific census point, there's no problem of course with adding the opt-in point, without speculating on the possible effects of that. --Nickhh (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the current intro is fine. --Joowwww (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You folk are way off beam here. I'm not talking about the intro paragraph, just the simple fact that the figures are determined by a conscious opt-in. This would produce a smaller result than if there was a tick box. I guesstimate that there would be at least double the given figure if people were given a tick box. The same would happen if people had to opt in to being Scottish, Asian etc.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but as was pointed out above, you'd need a reference for that if you wanted to add it to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this worth including in some form?

Unfortunately, the pledge to which you signed up did not meet its target in the required time. It required 1000 other people, but achieved only 639.The pledge, created by Chris Jones, read: 'I will refuse to fill out the 2011 UK census unless there is a Cornish ethnicity tick box option but only if 1,000 other people will do the same.'

http://www.pledgebank.com/Cornish-Tick-Box Serpren (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. The fact that 639 people signed a pledge on a random website isn't really worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If a petition had been organised and had received significant media coverage, then perhaps it would be worth mentioning, but not this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Census tick box

MacRusgail - I've added something about the tick-box, using the reference I pointed to above. And please, people are entitled to discuss more than one thing at a time on this page, and even in this thread. No one was ignoring your point - everyone understood exactly what you were saying, and responded directly to it. Telling them that they are "way off beam" for daring to at the same time broaden a topic seems a little much. However, just in case, I'll split the two topics to keep it simple for everyone. --Nickhh (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a brief point, but an important one, which should be stuck to. As soon as people get off the topic, it will branch into various other things which are irrelevant to it. How off topic do we need to get? Should we discuss users' star signs for example? --MacRusgail (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted, your point was answered and discussed. In fact I even added content to cover your concerns, now added to by others. My raising on top of that initial point that the Census info is not properly reflected in the way the lead is written is hardly off-topic, even for the thread, let alone the page. In any event, the issues have now been split. Problem - such as it was - solved. Please don't make silly comparisons with star signs, or suggest that any one editor has a veto over the agenda or structure of a talk page. --Nickhh (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New information is coming out on the Cornish tick box in the UK's 2021 census. Right now, there is not a planned Cornish tick box on the form. Government action is being taken. Though currently changing, I went ahead and added some brief information on the current state of what is unfolding. It will need to be added to and updated in the future. For now, it is really all that is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliviaJaramillo (talk • contribs) 16:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Intro: is it fair to imply that everyone living in Cornwall is "ethnically Cornish"?

Jowwww - could you explain a little more why exactly the intro is fine? As I say, it seems to suggest the above - that everyone living in Cornwall is ethnically or even nationally Cornish. As far as I can tell, this is quite an assertion, whether we try to justify it objectively (were such a thing possible), or by reference to people's subjective self-identification. --Nickhh (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There are actually similar issues with Scottish people, because of the hazy legal definitions. I think we can take Cornish to mean several things - 1) born in Cornwall (John Nettles?!), 2) from an established family of Cornwall (Jethro), 3) self-identifying as Cornish (Andrew George), and 4) not originally from Cornwall, but "gone native" (e.g. Daphne du Maurier). These can overlap, or even be contradictory, but such is life.

The arts section demonstrates this well. Some of the artists were true blue Cornish, but others had moved in, and don't appear to have regarded themselves as such.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. By all means though, Nickhh, if you think you can make improvements, using references, I think we'd all be happy to see a proposal and discuss it (that's not intended to be challenge/flippant, it's a genuine prompt for progress). I fully confess had real difficulty with this issue, but I'm something of a militant referencer - I'm not keen on inventing defintions or going against source material. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that the lead does not clearly distinguish between the vague idea that is implied by describing someone, sometimes quite casually, as "Cornish", and the much stronger and specific assertion that there is a substantive and distinct "ethnicity", which can be applied to all those same people. I'd agree that anyone in the four categories noted above could happily be described as Cornish or a Cornish person, just as we would talk about Yorkshiremen or whatever. However, according to all the evidence, the majority of Cornish people haven't made that leap to a defined ethnic identity, so it seems a bit misleading - not to mention presumptuous - for Wikipedia to make it for them. I suggested above an alternative wording, eg something like "The Cornish are the people of the English county of Cornwall some of whom assert a specific and distinctive identity/ethnicity etc etc". I would look for specific references, but it seems broadly fair to me as a summary of the content of the article, and as part of the lead shouldn't need them. In an ideal world. --Nickhh (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a difficult approach to take. We have to remember ethnicities are a two-way ticket, i.e. self-identity is only one part of the equation. I describe my ethnicity as Anglo-Scottish, but others could say I'm exclusively English or Scottish. Who's to say I'm right over them? At what point does an ethnicity become true? A census records my ethnicity as White British, so is that my ethnicity? If I declare myself to be Cornish, then, is that my ethnicity, or nationality? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, and I don't disagree exactly, however, I read my suggestion as making allowances for those issues - or rather it avoids them altogether - in that it doesn't make any specific claims about "ethnicity" as such one way or the other. It simply notes that some people living in Cornwall - the "Cornish people" in the broadest sense - do make that assertion in respect of themselves. That seems to be to be entirely accurate as an observation.--Nickhh (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above comments (mostly mine, admittedly) and to the point being made below, I'm slightly astonished that this article reached GA status, something that's only just registered with me. What scrutiny exactly were some of the fairly broad and definitive claims in the lead put under as part of this process, or did it sail through on the basis that "it's got a footnote, must be OK" and that it was written in moderately decent English? N-HH talk/edits 15:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I still have concerns about the article, i think it is written well. But people know i think this article is about as justified as an article on the Yorkshireman would be. I am not comfortable with the way it comes across as being completely separate from English. It may have been at one point and thats notable, but now Cornish is just a strong english county identity in the same way others have identities, to a lesser degree admittedly. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see the justification for this article on the basis that it is about the Cornish people as a separate historical, and even contemporary, "ethnic" group of people - given the existence of other similar pages here - as well as possibly about the people of the modern county as a whole, but the main problem, as I have noted, is with the way with article makes definitive assertions that conflate the two. As currently written, the intro asserts without any nuance or qualification that all the people of Cornwall are part of some single ethnic group that is distinct from the rest of England and that they are all "modern Celts", who are either the "lineal descendants" of ancient Britons, or who have taken on that identity. This is, to be quite frank, utter bollocks. N-HH talk/edits 17:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed that is problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue seems to be with the line "are the people of Cornwall". I also have a problem with this line as there are some people in Cornwall who don't identify as Cornish. There is also a worldwide Cornish diaspora - people who have never set foot in Cornwall identifying as Cornish. There should be a separate Demographics of Cornwall article. --Joowwww (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it again it seems to be a larger problem with the whole intro. It can't decide whether it is referring to the Cornish people or the people of Cornwall. It needs to be one or the other - the case for the former is stronger than the latter, much to BW's chagrin. --Joowwww (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The way this was worked round in Wales was to differentiate between "Welsh people" - meaning the "ethnic group", including the diaspora - and "Demography of Wales" - meaning the population within the current boundaries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is an article on Demography of Cornwall - though we do have Demography of Greater Manchester. There's nothing wrong with the principle of having such an article, in my view - or, indeed, having an article on Yorkshire people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Equally, we should be wary of going too far the other way and suggesting a clear split between "real" Cornish people, who are indeed "modern Celts", and those who are not quite so real, either through choice or lack of family lineage. The basic fact is that there are people living in Cornwall - some of whom identify more strongly in a certain way than others, and that's what the article should somehow make clear. All parts of England - including Northumbria, Yorkshire and Cornwall - have mixed histories and cultures that were over the years developed, assimilated and merged, to a lesser or greater degree, into a broader "English" whole. N-HH talk/edits 14:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Genetics has never been an argument that holds much water. Indeed it is usually English nationalists that perpetrate the myth that that's all the Cornish care about, in an attempt to disparage. The modern Cornish identity/ethnicity has nothing to do with genetics, and the vast majority of Cornish people would agree.

You seem to be confusing the geographical area of Cornwall with the Cornish people - exactly the thing you were warning against. As a side note, Cornwall is part of England, but the difference is that Cornwall is the only part of England where there are people born there who don't automatically consider themselves to be English. There is also no Yorkshire or Northumbria diaspora. --Joowwww (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? Some people from Yorkshire live in Manchester you know. Anyway, I wasn't claiming it was (solely) about genetics, hence why I talked about "choice" and "taking on" identities. Nor, if that was what you were implying, am I an English nationalist. I'm kind of detached from all this sort of thing, I just try my best to make sense of what I can see in front of me in. And my point was we have to be careful both ways - "Cornish people" or "people of Cornwall" are vagues phrase that can cover a lot of different things, and have quite a wide range of meanings. I'm just allowing for all of them. N-HH talk/edits 14:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant a worldwide diaspora that identifies as such. It would be easier to treat Cornish people and the people of Cornwall as different subjects like they are. --Joowwww (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That was an attempt at a joke, although my quick Google search for "Yorkshire diaspora" did reveal some use of the phrase, albeit more informal and less common than "Cornish diaspora". Anyhow, I think it's slightly arbitrary to suggest that the two phrases should be taken to mean distinct and clearly different things, but equally, they're not necessarily exactly the same - which is at least where we can agree in terms of problems with the article as is, since that is what the page says and assumes currently, from the opening sentence onwards. N-HH talk/edits 15:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Cornwall is the only part of England where there are people born there who don't automatically consider themselves to be English" A small minority of people may not think of themselves as English, so what? Thanks to mass immigration you can find people born in many parts of the country who do not consider themselves English or British and have no loyalty to the state. As for the idea that Cornish have a diaspora but people from Yorkshire dont, that is simply not true. and that is the reason i have big concerns about this article. We are treating Cornish people in a special way to other regions or counties of England. English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish and Cornish all appearing along side each other is very very very very misleading. Cornish are English. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

They are called immigrants, BW. Cornish people aren't immigrants. "Cornish are English" = your opinion, not fact. --Joowwww (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree that "Cornwall is the only part of England where there are people born there who don't automatically consider themselves to be English". I've never considered myself particularly "English" even though I was born in (what was then) Cheshire - my father was born in Ireland and most of my grandparents were of Welsh origin, so my personal default position has been to consider myself "British". The point is that all these questions are complicated and depend very much on personal perceptions and family backgrounds - many, many people born and brought up in all parts of England would consider themselves, primarily, something other than "English". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, i consider myself British not English. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is my country, England was just where i was born/live. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So you say you can choose not to identify as English, while insisting that all Cornish people are English? You're such a hypocrite. --Joowwww (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall is part of England there for people of Cornwall are English and British and European. How we choose to identify ourselves is another matter. The point it is not just in Cornwall where some may not consider themselves English. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a fair point to make that Cornwall is one region of England where a significant - albeit still fairly small - number of people nonetheless might say they are not English, based simply on the fact that they are from the region. That's a slightly different point from those to do with immigration, or mixed British (and/or Irish) parentage. But having said that, Cornwall is not equivalent to Wales, Scotland etc, either in terms of political status or "national" identity - regardless of whether some Cornish are English or not in terms of self-identification, Cornwall is indisputably part of England. And indeed, arguably has been for longer than, say, Northumbria. N-HH talk/edits 15:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Indisputably" is inaccurate, given Cornwall's constitutional status. "Still fairly small" - do you have any references to back up that assertion? Again we are not talking about Cornwall's political status here, we are talking about the Cornish as a people. You're still conflating Cornwall with the Cornish. Many Canadians and Australians that identify as Cornish do not also identify as English. --Joowwww (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, who exactly disputes Cornwall's "constitutional status", or that Cornwall is part of England? That'll be interesting, even if, as agreed, not central to the issue here. It does though inform the background of course. And I think the onus is on those claiming that the numbers claiming to be Cornish but not English might not be small to provide references for that assertion before I have to go looking around for any to rebut it. And, again, I'm not conflating anything - it's the article that's doing that, from the opening sentence "The Cornish are the people of Cornwall", to where it calls them all "modern Celts" and onwards. That's the problem I'm trying to resolve - when we say "the Cornish people", do we want to talk about the people of Cornwall as a whole, including all those living there in 2010, in which case we should not be saying they are all ethnically Cornish and/or descendants of the ancient Britons; or, conversely, do we mean more strictly the historical and modern "ethnic" Cornish, in which case we should not be saying this includes all the people of Cornwall. N-HH talk/edits 16:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

See Constitutional status of Cornwall. --Joowwww (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly easy to identify personal positions at either end of the spectrum in this discussion - much of which, in my view, are not particularly relevant to the article itself. I think it's best to go back a bit, and agree that this article needs some clarification to explain that it relates to people who consider themselves ethnically or culturally Cornish; and, also, to consider whether a new article should be started on Demography of Cornwall, along similar lines to Demography of Greater Manchester. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A demographics article would probably help, and be useful in any event, but equally I'm slightly wary, as noted, of the risk of heading down the road of making a definitive split between "real" ethnic Cornish people, and others who live in the county. There's a whole range of "Cornishness" of course - people whose families have lived their for centuries and who buy in wholeheartedly to a non-English Cornishness; those who can trace a similar ancestry but don't have much truck with it; those who moved more recently but have signed up to the idea; those who consider themself both English and Cornish; those who would claim to be "Cornish" but don't mean much more by that than that they happen to live in the county etc etc. As long as this article tones down the claims it makes from the intro onwards, it can plausibly cover that whole range. However, I don't see how it can claim to be a "Good Article" when it has this level of fundamental problems, relating to the very definition of what it purports to describe. I'd suggest, as I have previously, something along the lines of the following, which simply waters down the current wording somewhat - "The Cornish are the people of Cornwall, a region and county of England that has historically seen itself as to some extent distinct from the rest of England, having more in common with the other "Celtic" parts of the United Kingdom such as Wales/retained its own Celtic identity. For some, the Cornish represent a distinct ethnic group within the UK that can trace its roots to the ancient Britons who inhabited central and southern Britain, and many in the county today continue to assert a distinct identity, separate or in addition to their identities as English or British." N-HH talk/edits 18:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support a demographics page for Cornwall, if this article clearly explains this is just about people that consider themselves ethnically/culturally Cornish, be they in Cornwall, other parts of England or anywhere else in the world. It should also make clear that some may identify as Cornish but still consider themselves fully English like Yorkshireman might, just like a "regional trait". I am also concerned about the "ethnic group" label. Just because some people filled in a census saying they consider their ethnicity to be Cornish, does not make it one. The British government recognised the language, it never recognised the Cornish people as far as im aware. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

N-HH: That suggestion is still presenting the Cornish as all the people of Cornwall, which is exactly the thing you complained about at the start of this discussion.

BW: The UK government is not the arbiter on who is or isn't an ethnic group. Cornwall Council, the Council of Europe and Canada recognise the Cornish as an ethnic group. --Joowwww (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No Joowww, my problem was, to quote myself verbatim, as follows - As currently written, the intro asserts without any nuance or qualification that all the people of Cornwall are part of some single ethnic group that is distinct from the rest of England and that they are all "modern Celts", who are either the "lineal descendants" of ancient Britons, or who have taken on that identity. From the outset I've been pointing out that "Cornish" actually covers quite a lot of ground - ie not simply the defiantly, "ethnically" Cornish, but also those who simply have a bit of "county pride" and on to those who simply happen to live there (rich, second homers probably excluded though). My suggestion attempts to include them under the umbrella term "Cornish people", which, I think, is probably how common sense and most people inside and outside the county would view the situation. If, on the other hand, we are going to have a page about the "ethnic Cornish", then half the claims and content in the page as currently written need to go, because it is currently claiming pretty much everyone in the county as being part of that group, which is, as I noted, a simple falsehood - because only a small minority of people in the county make that claim for themselves, and very few objective third parties make it either. N-HH talk/edits 15:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested first para

Ok, further to the above, how about an amended amended version as follows -

• The Cornish are a people associated with Cornwall, a region and county in the southwest of England that has historically seen itself as to some extent distinct from the rest of the country, having more in common with other parts of the United Kingdom such as Wales as well as with the other "Celtic nations" of Europe. For some, the Cornish represent a distinct ethnic group within the UK that can trace its roots to the ancient Britons who inhabited central and southern Britain prior to the Roman conquest, and many in the county today continue to assert a distinct identity, separately or in addition to their identities as English or British. Cornish identity has been adopted by migrants into Cornwall, as well as by emigrant and descendant communities from the area, the latter sometimes referred to as the Cornish diaspora.

Any specific comments or suggestions for improvement? N-HH talk/edits 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Id change " has historically seen itself as to some extent distinct from the rest of the country" to something like seen by some as historically distinct, A county can not see itself as distinct, only people can. Also repeat England rather than "country" to avoid confusion with the UK. I am not exactly sure on the precise wording (i am no good at the MOS stuff) but i 100% agree with the attempt to clarify the situation in the introduction to explain this more clearly and put things into context.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair points, although I'm personally OK with giving collective voice to places, as long as the wording doesn't suggest every single person in the place thinks exactly the same way. I would just clarify as well the "associated with .." phrasing, which is a bit woolly - my underlying thinking is that it gets away from the issues that come with saying "The Cornish are the people of Cornwall", and also covers the historical and diaspora aspects of Cornish identity, whole also leaving it open - when read in the context of what follows - as to how "Cornish" you have to be in order to be "Cornish", as it were. N-HH talk/edits 19:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

ps: and I note that the Welsh people page uses "associated", so there is at least precedent.

Change "separately or in addition to their identities as English or British" to "separately or in addition to English or British identities" and I'll support the proposal. At the moment it sounds like all Cornish people also have an English identity, which is not true in Cornwall or worldwide. --Joowwww (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, cheers. All noted - I'll wait a day or two more and then add it, when I can gear myself up to adding all the links and footnotes (possibly moving the latter, where possible, into the main body to de-clutter the lead). Unless someone else wants to crack on with it .. N-HH talk/edits 12:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've given the opening sentence a couple of tweaks (not really WP:BOLD, but I'm aware I haven't contributed to this discussion recently). In particular, the word "region" seemed redundant, so I've removed it. Happy to discuss. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Good changes and the new paragraph overall is a big improvement. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Marvellous (additional changes are fine with me as well btw - I'm not wedded to the exact wording I started with, more to the broad sense of it). Everyone's happy then, so far. How often does that happen? N-HH talk/edits 14:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good intro, nice one. --Joowwww (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Are the scare quotes around "Celtic nations" serving any purpose? Daicaregos (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I put them there not as scare quotes as such, or to disparage, but because it is a minority term that doesn't really have a wide purchase outside of a group of activists, or any quasi-official recognition, when being used in that sense, AFAIK. Quote marks are used for the term, even by such activists eg here and elsewhere on WP, eg here. And a reference to Celtic nations in many English langage sources is as likely to be in a sports report talking about simply the Scottish, Irish and Welsh rugby union teams as it is about Brittany or Cornwall, hence I was trying to suggest it was a specific - and different - use of the term. But not too fussed either way. N-HH talk/edits 13:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI the term used in some academic works on nationalism, identity, regionalism and ethnicity. Unfortunately I don't have any references at hand but there's a few on Google Books and Scholar. --Joowwww (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide total population

All the other British peoples have a worldwide population figure based on surname studies in the total population box, rather than the population of their country. The English, Welsh and Scots articles do not claim that these people are English, Welsh or Scots, just that they are of that origin.

This seems to be the most widely agreed upon for the Cornish:

"... in the period dubbed The Great Migration (c1815-1930), losing some 20% of its adult male population overseas in every decade from 1861-1901; three times the average for England and Wales. With a population that never exceeded 500,000 in the nineteenth century, Cornwall lost anywhere between a quarter to half a million people, making it an emigration region comparable to any in Europe. Today there are over 6 million people of Cornish descent worldwide." http://www.cornish-mining.org.uk/story/migrat.htm

http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/cornishcom/transnationalism.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.64.100 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As per other articles such as Irish people, I think there is a strong case for including this information in the infobox, in addition to the figure for people who can currently be described as "Cornish people" by virtue of the fact that they live in Cornwall. I'm unhappy with both the insistence that the info be added as it is, and the actions of other editors in reverting info which does have some credibility and is referenced. Can we get a consensus on this, please, rather than edit warring? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In principle, this seems OK to me as well. However, some of the figures currently placed there appear somewhat overstated, and I can't find corroboration for them in any of the references being used in support. 1m in Australia? 1-2m in the US? Also there are still issues with the definitions, similar to those noted above in respect of the lead, which suggests that anyone who currently lives in Cornwall is by definition ethnically Cornish, and a "modern Celt", whether they identify that way or not. In terms of the emigrant population and their descendants, do we mean those who identify as ethnically Cornish? Those who claim ancestry from a Cornish family? Anyone at all who has at least one ancestor from Cornwall? With countries - eg for Irish Americans - these issues are clearer. With sub-national divisions, especially for those such as "Cornish", where AFAIK there is often not a census option for that category, they are not so clear cut. --N-HH talk/edits 18:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

a few observations

Many people in here seem to imply that Cornwall has a monopoly on "celticness" in England (I hope I'm wrong here). It should be known that many other regions of England, from Cumbria to the Forest of Dean, retained celtic languages until recent times, and celtic-influenced dialects and folk practices survive today.

Also, I would imagine it to be the case that much of the modern Cornish identity arises from the presence of huge numbers of tourists and holiday-home owners in the county. Locals can feel threatened by this and I fully understand it. Cornwall shares this blight with much of the rest of rural England and indeed the UK. Would the Cumbrians and Foresters not exhibit a sense of pride similar to the Cornish, had they too a cool-looking flag? Ezkerraldean (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article Celts (modern):

Elements of Celtic music, dance, and folklore can be found within England (e.g. Yan Tan Tethera, Well dressing, Halloween), and the Cumbric language survived until the collapse of the Kingdom of Strathclyde in about 1018. England as a whole comprises many distinct regions, and some of these regions, such as Cumbria, Lancashire, Western Yorkshire and Devon , can claim more Celtic heritage than others. In 2009, it was claimed that revival of the Cumbric language was being attempted in the Cumberland area of England.

--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh great another possible "revived language". We will all be returning to our own caves at this rate. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

BW - why do you feel that you need to stick your oar in where it is not wanted, attacking people for what they believe, introducing snide narky and nasty comments wherever you feel your own sense of identity is threatened. Are you that insecure in your feeling of Britishness that you must insist on everyone else in the UK be British and ignore their own inner desires? I would have thought, seeing as how you are so proud of that great democratic country, that you might "allow" others to express themselves in whatever way they felt. Perhaps it has never occurred to you that many in the UK do not consider themselves British, and some even seek to separate themselves from an English or British identity, simply because the concept of a British identity has failed them in some way. People do not give up an identity because they love it - they give it up because they do not feel part of it. If you don't like that, why don't you do something about it rather than attack them, which only serves one purpose - to further alienate them from "your" British identity. --MacTire02 (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"ignore their own inner desires?" lol that is not exactly how i would describe it but wed best not go off topic too much. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my point. It is not how you would describe it, but it is how they describe it. They, by which I mean certain people from Wales, Scotland, and Cornwall, do not describe themselves as British. You do though, along with millions more. If you wish to describe yourself as British then that is your desire/wish/choice. If they wish to describe themselves as Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, etc. then that is their desire/wish/choice. Or do you wish they should not be allowed to express themselves as they see fit? Simply to satisfy your own feeling of Britishness? The only thing that separates you from Americans is a sense of belonging to a country. Do you see Americans as British? They fulfill the vast majority of criteria - same language (albeit with minor alterations), Christian for the most part, share much of the same literature, same music, same television, same theatre, same Anglo-Saxon (economic term) view of the world, same belief in individual freedom, same belief in democracy. For those who subscribe to being Cornish rather than British there is a belief that they have been subjugated by the English, they have slightly differing musical tastes (not really apparent in the global culture preferred by the youth which is apparent in non-English speaking countries too), different sports (Cornish wrestling, hurling), as well as a language that is radically different to English - albeit not spoken by many. Although, would you consider the Navajo no longer Navajo, simply because they are in America and many no longer speak Navajo? --MacTire02 (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't seem to belong on this page, which should be to do with the article not any particular editors. If you wish to discuss these issues further with the editor concerned, can I suggest you move it to his talk page? Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ive replied on my talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cite your sources!

Although spelling and stylistic corrections are always welcomed, I'm a little, or rather, very alarmed that a great deal of changes are taking this article away from what source material says, and even more alarmed that longstanding editors are condoning this. This article was constructed with an absolute necessity and strictness that it precisely mirror what source material says - for example the two first references do not say anything about being "associated with Cornwall", and other references have actually been removed since this article was awarded GA status! Words like "many", "some", "today", "several", "may be", "sometimes", "considered by some" are weaselly, ambiguous, weighted, unneccessary and wholly rejected at an FA stage!

I am inclined to ask users to return to the fundamental principal of citing sources, remove personal commentary, and restore the article (particularly the lead) to something more in touch with academic sourcing (the process of constructing the lead was painstaking, and has since been modified despite no new evidence being submitted by users!). I feel I cannot help myself ranting here to stress that we must cite and respect our sources on Wikipedia, because it advances articles and kills off alot of unproductive, speculative debate. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont know about the sources, but the first paragraph now gives far more context to the situation than it did before so i think its an improvement. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jza, could you narrow it down a bit to some specific diffs that are problematical? Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This diff shows the changes between Jza84's last edits in March and the current version. Some of those changes probably do need better referencing, but I suspect that they are less fundamentally problematic than Jza84 sems to suggest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the one he already supplied, and includes dozens of edits. I was asking for specific diffs, as some of the edits within that range are helpful, some unhelpful ones were reverted, so it does not help us narrow down where/what the problem is. DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So it is. Obviously I was seething so much after reading his "assessment" that I didn't take in that bit - sorry! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK! DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the previous intro was that it didn't adequately distinguish between Cornish people and the people of Cornwall. If we can find new references to go with the intro's current wording it might be the easiest solution to Jza's concerns. --Joowwww (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite what I meant. The "old" version was supported by references - it didn't need more to verify it, just more to advance it and give it more depth. The "new" version is not directly supported by references (infact it uses references that go against what it says!) - it's a breach of so many core policies (WP:OR & WP:V immediately come to mind). I'm not such a stick in the mud to make exceptions, especially where there is a good consensus, but really, the lead is frightfully terrible! I feel so disappointed in the discussions above that the opening has allowed to become composed of three huge sentences that read so poorly. I don't draw anything of value from it; it's not consise, professional, well researched, well constructed etc etc... Please, re-read it yourselves guys and tell me if I've lost the plot? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you could point me to the diffs that concern you, I'll do my best to help. The diff you did provide included too many edits to easily see what you were getting at. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Equally, if you wish to make reasonable further changes to deal with any issues, feel free of course. As the person who pushed for some of the recent changes to the first para of the lead - which seems to be where some of the problems lie - I can only repeat what I said in the discussions above, for example that I was not stuck on the exact wording, more simply the broad sense of it. Also where I acknowledged that some of the wording was "woolly". The fundamental problem, as noted/agreed by others, was that the previous wording claimed far too much and confused issues through its slightly exaggerated statements about who the Cornish people were and what they supposedly were - modern Celts, all of them, for example, whether they agree or not. Yes, we have words like "some", "many", "sometimes" (as there were before btw). But that's because the issue, like 101 others in the real world, is full of grey areas. Such words and phrasings are only weaselly or misleading when they're used in order to fraudulently downplay or overplay things that are more clear cut. N-HH talk/edits 07:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cornish DNA - Study by Oxford University

Reports carried in the Sunday Times 17th June, 2012, the Daily Mail 18th June, the Daily Telegraph 17th June, 2012 and various other news sources as follows:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160853/For-truest-Brits-west-Welsh-Cornish-ancient-Britons-DNA-analysis-finds.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9336923/Welsh-and-Cornish-are-the-purest-Britons-scientists-claim.html

"Welsh and Cornish are the purest Britons."

"Peter Donnelly, professor of statistical science at Oxford University and director of the Wellcome Trust centre for human genetics, confirmed the distinctiveness of people from the two regions."

Please read the articles and consider including in this Wiki entry to bring it up to date. Of course, we Cornish knew all along that we aren't English. I won't change the main page because of Wiki's propensity to Anglo Imperialism but Oxford University are a fairly reliable source.

Morgawr1 (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in those that prove the Cornish aren't English - just as it wouldn't prove they necessarily were English in the unlikely event they were found to have identical genetic ancestries. Ethnicity and identity is a bit more subjective than that and also about more than simply ancestry and genetic "purity" (which all sounds a bit unpleasant to me anyway). The idea that "English" in the modern sense means "Anglo-Saxon" and therefore cannot include Cornish people has never had much basis, in terms of genetics or ethnicity, and this research doesn't do much to change that. English people and culture have a wide range of ancient and more recent origins, and beyond that, the term "English" can anyway simply mean "from England" to those of us not obsessed by ethnic and national flag-waving, whether we are "Anglo Imperialists" or not.

That said, the research, assuming it's been reported reasonably, is interesting and would seem to be a valid addition to the entry here in terms of backing up what's been known/assumed for a while: that the modern population of England (and Britain as a whole) has a range of genetic backgrounds, which vary and gradually shift across the country, and - as already noted in the article - that Cornish people probably have a greater proportion of "older" pre-Roman ancestry; just as people in northeast England have a higher proportion of Viking genetic and cultural input along with the same older roots as those in the southwest, and those in the south and southeast a greater Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Norman inheritance etc etc. And all of us now have a much wider genetic pool than even that. I'll happily add something that reflects the apparent facts of the research, without drawing any wider ethno-political conclusions from it. N-HH talk/edits 18:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the usual Anglo Imperialist denial. The study from Oxford University funded by the Wellcome Trust shows that we Cornish are not English and the inevitable desire to make everyone English continues. The Cornish are not English. They and the Welsh are the original Britons. England and the English are recent arrivals on this Island. I am Cornish not English - God forbid - by choice and by genetics. Cornwall is not England. And the English remain their snooty Imperial selves. Morgawr1 (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm very happy for you. Meanwhile, one day you might understand the difference between "X shows Y" as an assertion of fact and "I interpret X to show Y" as merely an expression of legitimate but not conclusive opinion. Anyway, this kind of bickering and name-calling hasn't got much to do with improving the article. I have, as noted, added something about the basic facts as apparently reported in this survey, without adding any interpretation beyond that, one way or the other. N-HH talk/edits 10:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Cornish children

Apparently 37% of school children in Cornwall put down their ethnicity as Cornish this year. Can anyone find a reliable source for this. "Here are the ethnic results from the school census (PLASC), taken in January each year, for the overall proportion of pupils described as White Cornish: 2006: 24 percent 2007: 27 percent 2008: 30 percent 2009: 34 percent 2010: 37 percent" http://mudhook.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/cornish-numbers-2010-update/ Bodrugan (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As a source that is generally critical of the Cornish I believe the information given is reliable enough to be included, but please tell me if you think otherwise.Bodrugan (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cornish Ethnicity

"For some, the Cornish represent a distinct ethnic group"

The Cornish are a distinct ethnic group.

Who exactly in the academic world denies that the Cornish are an ethnic group? Where are these views published and what evidence did they base their arguments on?

The Cornish are considered an ethnic group in the UK, on the Census, Schools Census, etc.

In Canada, on their census. In Australia, on their census as well.

In academia, worldwide you get such books as:

• The Australian people: an encyclopedia of the nation, James Jupp, 2001 link

• Encyclopedia of Canada's peoples, Paul R. Magocsi, Multicultural History Society of Ontario, 1999 link

• Harvard encyclopedia of American ethnic groups, Stephan Thernstrom,1980 link

Bodrugan (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To avoid confusion I'm going to change the sentence to read:

"For some, the Cornish represent a people within the UK, which can trace its roots to the ancient Britons..."

and change the opening sentence from people to ethnic group. This is something that is done in the Welsh people article. Bodrugan (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read the various threads above, and make a proposal before unilaterally changing the very first sentence. The obvious problem here is what is meant by Cornish - people who happen to live in the modern county, or a verifiable, historical and distinct ethnic group, which would exclude a lot of people who live there in 2010? Or some grey and overlapping area inbetween? The whole point, for the time being, was to avoid anything too definitive. Thank you. N-HH talk/edits 00:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe there needs to be two articles, one on the ethnic group, and the other on the people who happen to live in Cornwall.Bodrugan (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, can we get a consensus for the above change to the opening sentence?Bodrugan (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's long been suggested that there should be a separate article Demographics of Cornwall to describe everyone living there. Not everyone in Cornwall is Cornish, just as not everyone in Scotland is Scottish, and when you have 10,000 people outside of Cornwall describing their national identity as Cornish in the 2011 census, it's clear that Cornish national identity is not confined to Cornwall. --Kernowek (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with such a page. There's no doubt interesting details about how people view their identities in Cornwall – according to more focused surveys as well as simply via the census – and the relationship between being Cornish, English and British, as attested both by people's own perspectives and third-party analysis. Not least because the distinctions are very definitely not as clear cut as when it comes to, say, Scottish, English and British, where being Scottish is defined, pretty universally and subject to issues of mixed parentage, in direct distinction to being English. That is simply not the case with being Cornish, where many Cornish people (and not just those who may have moved there recently from elsewhere in England) and many third party sources will define/assume the Cornish as one part of many that make up the English and where there's a gradation/overlap at play – whether some people like that or not.

I would also add that a) demographics is of course about a whole lot more than ethnicity and nationalism; b) further to the above and discussions elsewhere, I think there's a danger of getting too hung up about those who are "real" Cornish people and those who are not, and about defining the English as ethnic "Anglo-Saxons" in distinction to the "Celtic" Cornish. That's a pretty narrow view. N-HH talk/edits 10:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's an issue that every other sub-state national/ethnic identity has to deal with. While it is true that there are people who consider the Cornish to be a local variant of "the English people", it is also true that there are people who consider the Scottish to be a local variant of "the British people", just as there are people who consider the Bretons to be a local variant of "the French people". But this isn't anthropology, it's politics. The French Wikipedia entry for the Bretons describes them as "a part and a distinct component of the French population", while their English wikipedia entry describes them as an "ethnic group located in the region of Brittany in France". While both are correct, the French version gives weight to political considerations over anthropological ones. I'm not saying politics should be discarded (it is of course a potent and powerful aspect of identity), but it shouldn't be allowed to unduly cloud the study of ethnicity that ignores the geopolitical borders of 2012. I'll wager that the situation in Scotland is just as complicated as the situation in Cornwall, despite the additional Cornish=English dimension. --Kernowek (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"where being Scottish is defined, pretty universally and subject to issues of mixed parentage, in direct distinction to being English."

Ahahahha, that's a good one. The idea that there is a 'universal definition' of modern 'Scottishness' is rather laughable. I guarantee you the distinction between 'Scottish' and English is absolutely as hazy and muddled and evershifting as the distinction between 'Cornish' and English.

In fact for most of history the people south of the Firth of Forth (70-80% of the region's population) weren't even considered 'Scottish'.

Nor were a lot of people in many regions north of the Firth of Forth, to be honest. 92.14.215.192 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Cornish web design industry

Sorry for my vandalism last night, there is a web design industry in Cornwall, which included an attempt to start a Cornwall based social networking site, called Cornwall's coolest. It now exists as a web portal Muggetypie (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Petition

That petition seems notable for even getting up - why did you revert the edit ?Jembana (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can start a petition at the government's epetition site. Notability has been set, by the government itself, at 100,000 signatures - the point at which it a petition is eligible for debate in the house of commons. Less than 500 signatures makes this one non-notable. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Erm, you do realise that the entire site has been up for a matter of days. Aside from the numerous petitions about immigration, the EU, and capital punishment, this one's actually quite far up the list already, and has more than 500 signatures. And moreover, it hasn't been rejected.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. I do believe the threshold is 10,000 signatures, but I may be wrong. p.p.s. "Anyone can start a petition at the government's epetition site" - No, they can't actually, it has to be submitted properly, look at the number that have been rejected for one reason and another.

Andrews et al. citn

• Andrews, Robert; Brown, Jules; Humphreys, Rob; Lee, Phil; Reid, Donald; Whitfield, Paul (2006), The Rough Guide to Britain, Rough Guides, ISBN 978-1-84353-686-4

It is hard for the reader when it is done this way.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll see if I can find it now. Have you read it ? Seems a bit dodgy as a reference if it is a tourist guide book - does the writer have any research credentials ?Jembana (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Felix, I feel that we should be citing something more reliable here like Peter Berresford Ellis The Story of the Cornish Language which might be the original source for this anyway. I would like to replace it with the original rather than use a guide book as a secondary source. Any thoughts on this ? BTW I understand your question mark - this seems a very unlikely statement. Have you seen the Welcome Trust study ? Devonians may be distinct from Cornish but they certainly aren't Saxons - that is very clear.Jembana (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The citation style was part of the work on this article in 2009/10. The Rough Guide will be synthetic and the work of a group of writers. Peter Berresford Ellis's The Cornish Language and its Literature would be much better and I have a copy; but I have not seen the Rough Guide, it was probably cited because the editor had a copy. I also wonder how Paul Magocsi decided that there was a treaty; he is not according to the article about him a "Canadian academic" but an American who teaches in a Canadian university.

Different parts of Devon were incorporated into Wessex at different times; the inhabitants would not become West Saxons because they were ruled by the Kings of Wessex. There are also districts west of the Tamar which were part of the county of Devon before borders were changed in 1844 and 1966. Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead: duchy/county again

I've restored the previous and long-standing wording for now. Describing Cornwall itself as a duchy, analogous, say, to Luxembourg is not accurate and not common, and linking to the estate article only adds to the confusion. We could lose "county" too if that's really a problem, but it all seems a bit petty and about bending to the claims/sensitivities of a minority of nationalists rather than asking what this place is commonly described as being in most official and usual classifications. N-HH talk/edits 13:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that describing Cornwall as a duchy is either "not accurate", or implies that it is "analogous, say, to Luxembourg", given that I linked the word directly to the article on Duchy of Cornwall. I certainly agree that the sentence should not describe Cornwall solely as a duchy, and I agree that Cornwall is not like Luxembourg. But this article is not about the administrative county, or necessarily about the historic county, as defined in UK or English statute - it is about people who identify with the entity called Cornwall. Some of those people (it may be a minority, but given the emphasis on Cornish separateness that exists in that part of the world, I'm not so sure) have a sense of Cornwall's identity - that indefinable something with which Cornish people identify - which goes beyond the meaning of the word "county". So, in the spirit of compromise, I proposed a wording which links both to "county", in the strict administrative sense, and to the distinct and widely-used term "duchy" (the term preferred by another editor). Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

But the Duchy of Cornwall article - correctly - talks about the estates owned by the duchy, most of which are not even in Cornwall. The Cornish people do not have any special association with Poundbury for example. Also, I would assume that when people see place X described as a "duchy" they would indeed think of it as an autonomous or even independent territory ruled by a duke (in a cermonial capacity or otherwise - indeed analogous to Luxembourg). I know that is what some Cornish nationalists believe to be the case, but it is simply not the reality or the mainstream view of Cornwall today. It's probably "more wrong", for example, even than describing Wales as a principality. That said, I agree that for an article such as this, which is about people and culture etc, it might be simply better to drop the explicit "county" too, as simply redundant, so that it simply says "a people associated with Cornwall, in southwest ..". Asserting neither seems the better way to avoid antagonsing people rather than asserting both (which risks doubling the trouble). Although then we come to whether we say "southwest England", or "southwest Britain" ... N-HH talk/edits 13:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to drop both "county" and "duchy", and I don't have a problem with it being described as in England (which it is). But, I don't think it's at all fair or accurate to imply that everyone who identifies as Cornish is a "nationalist". The sense of Cornish identity and separateness does not necessarily imply any degree of support for a nationalist political agenda. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll take it out. Btw my criticism above was aimed merely at those nationalists who see Cornwall as some sovereign ducal territory to this day, and even then only on the basis that it is a slightly odd fantasy at odds with the real world. I wasn't making a point against anyone who asserts a strong Cornish identity or thinks that Cornwall should have greater autonomy or even independence (and in fact I'd guess many of them, especially the latter, wouldn't have a problem with being referred to as nationalists). N-HH talk/edits 14:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

OK with me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Distinct from

Although I agree with this reversion, or would agree with the replacement of the phrase in question with, for example, "seen by some" – since the description of Cornwall as "distinct" needs some qualification, however weaselly – to be fair it's not an actual quote as far as I can tell. It does though broadly reflect the Magocsi text cited, which talks about Cornwall being "fully anglicized" and argues that Cornish identity is something that has been "refashioned" and even goes so far as to talk about an "invented tradition". He also talks about the "belief", which he ascribes to Cornish nationalists, that the Cornish are a distinct people from the English. That encyclopedia is not the last word on the subject, but it's hardly a ringing endorsement for a definitive phrasing in the lead here that Cornwall, or the Cornish, are, without qualification, distinct from the rest of England or the English respectively. Other academic sources and identity polls will equivocate just as much, if not more so, I'd guess. N-HH talk/edits 10:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

My mistake over describing it as a "verbatim quote". Taken out of context, the Magocsi quote (on p.379) - that Cornwall has become "fully anglicized over the last two centuries" - is ignorant and plain wrong, as I think anyone who has ever been to Cornwall would agree. I assume he must be referring to the loss of the Cornish language. Multiple sources highlight the ("Celtic"-based) differences between Cornish culture and what is generally regarded as English culture - perhaps they need to be cited as well. In my view that falls short of there necessarily being an "ethnic" divide, but opinions on "ethnicity" vary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess he is referring mainly to language, but also to other aspects of culture, even if not to all of them (let's not forget that much of that also applies even in Wales and Scotland). Also I was, slightly cheekily, taking some of the more "negative" phrases from his text, albeit more with the intention of highlighting that even commentary that is overall quite focused on and sympathetic to the idea of difference and variation – rightly in many respects – does not do so without equivocation or qualification. N-HH talk/edits 11:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Minorities decision & lead

This obviously needs to be noted in the lead and elsewhere – as it is currently in the final para – but I'm not sure it yet warrants a rewrite of the lead or the opening sentence, which was deliberately widely drafted and was much discussed in the past. Any additions also need to avoid recentism: I think it could be higher up than the bottom, and perhaps linked in with the census point, but I'm not sure it needs to be almost the very first thing said on the page. Although there wasn't much wrong in itself with the content added by these recent edits, as noted in my reverting them, it was mostly repetition of information that was already there and the changes also lost the current fairly coherent four-para structure. N-HH talk/edits 09:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

this section no longer matches.

The notion that the Cornish are to be classified as a nation comparable to the English, Irish, Scots and Welsh, "has practically vanished from the popular consciousness" outside Cornwall,[33] and so, despite a "real and substantive" identity, the Cornish "struggle for recognition as a national group distinct from the English".[34] In 2014, after a 15-year campaign, the UK government officially recognised the Cornish as a national minority under the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, giving the Cornish the same status as the Welsh, Scots and Irish within the UK.[19]

I'm deleting the first bit as it is out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.118.23 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 October 2014

You need to demonstrate, with reliable sources, that the Council of Europe decision has materially affected the "popular consciousness" outside Cornwall. Simply stating that, in your view, "it no longer matches", is insufficient to justify the removal of referenced text. It may be easily be possible to link both sentences with "However...", or similar. And please remember to sign your posts with four of these: ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Cornish in England

I don't know how many Cornish live in Wales, but certainly in Scotland the number is small. However, there seems to be a reluctance to admit that the largest numbers of Cornish outside Cornwall can be found in England (or other parts of England if you're so minded). Plymouth and London are the two most obvious areas. London even has a Cornish rugby club. -MacRùsgail (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Craig Weatherhill

who in the seven hells is craig weatherhill that he is notable enough to be considered a representative figure of the cornish people but not notable enough to have his own article?176.92.131.223 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

He did have an article once, but it was deleted. Best to remove his image as well.... but it would require someone to alter this composite montage. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Deth da. I always read the items on Wiki about Cornwall and Cornish matters with huge amusement. They are so ill informed. I was part of the large team which eventually secured the Cornish people admission into the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities announced some 14 months ago. Now, you ask in a strange fashion about Craig Weatherhill. Craig is a prolific author of both fiction and non fiction books in Cornish and English. His best selling book 'Cornovia - Ancient Sites of Cornwall and Scilly' is a classic and a reference source in every school library in Cornwall. This reflects his background as an author and historian. He advises Cornwall Council on Cornish matters including bi lingual English Cornish signage which is being taken into use. In this respect, his book, 'Place Names in Cornwall and Scilly' is also in use not only in schools but by Cornwall Council. He advises on many other Cornish and Cornwall related matters and sits with me on the Cornwall Heritage Advisory Group' which liaises with English Heritage which still, just, administers Duchy owned sites in Cornwall. So there you have it. It you want to know about Cornwall, ask a Cornishman, eh? Gans oll an gwella. Councillor Mike Chappell, Caderyor - An Kesunyans Keltek Scoren Gernewek, Myghal Map Serpren /l\ Ordyr a Vyrth, Ovydhyon ha Drewydhyon. Cllr Mike Chappell (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SOFTDELETE - "Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion sees very little discussion even after being relisted several times, the administrator can close the discussion as soft delete and delete the page. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion." The article was deleted here because one person thought it should be, and no-one at the time argued it should be kept. Make a request at WP:Requests for undeletion, if you feel strongly about it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cornish people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090205041736/http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_089/89_055_066.pdf to http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_089/89_055_066.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Cornish people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110120173146/http://projects.exeter.ac.uk:80/cornishcom/transnationalism.htm to http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/cornishcom/transnationalism.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131028072728/http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120703.html to http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120703.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081221161421/http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk:80/article_details.php?id=7817 to http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. As this may result in the removal or reshuffle of the "ancestral roots" section from this article, I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cornish people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613165420/http://www.irb.com:80/jwc/news/newsid=2038641.html to http://www.irb.com/jwc/news/newsid=2038641.html#matavesi+cornish+fijian+feels+home
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110907082518/http://cornish-census2011.org:80/ to http://cornish-census2011.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313090941/http://www.krowskernewek.com:80/celtic-cross-history.htm to http://www.krowskernewek.com/celtic-cross-history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cornish people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160206133316/http://arrow.monash.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/monash%3A63895/DOC to http://arrow.monash.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/monash%3A63895/DOC
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irb.com/jwc/news/newsid%3D2038641.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720134524/http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/abouttheduchy_history.htm to http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/abouttheduchy_history.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.krowskernewek.com/celtic-cross-history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080325213036/http://www.umcwfb.org/_aboutus/about_us_ourstory.htm to http://www.umcwfb.org/_ABOUTUS/about_us_ourstory.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617142154/http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/uploads/22_tregidga_devolution_for_the_duchy.pdf to http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/uploads/22_tregidga_devolution_for_the_duchy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cornish people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907051219/http://db.cornwall.gov.uk/documents/download.aspx?doc=102495 to http://db.cornwall.gov.uk/documents/download.aspx?doc=102495
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110415125004/http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/trevithic_loco to http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/trevithic_loco/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090912144649/http://www.busby.net/nzca/ to http://www.busby.net/nzca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups.

Shouldn't the realted ethnic groups be listed as In P Celtic the Brythonic Celts Cornish, Welsh, Breton and then Irish Manx and Scottish as they are the Q Celtic group are Gaelic Celts as Irish, Manx and Scottish Gaelic.all these ethnic groups are Celtic and then English last as they are Germanic and not Celtic?

RyTellyFan91 (talk) 19:01,5 March 2019 (UTC)

To class all Scots as Q Celtic is equally problematic. As the Lowlands were traditionally considered English for as long as 1500 years in large areas, or at the very least they were considered Germanic/Teutonic in stark contrast to the predominantly Celtic Highlands (except the historically Norse parts of the Highlands and Islands). This is what happens when you take a modern geographic area which has (or does) contain multiple ethnolinguistic groups and try to impose an artificial all encompassing ethnic identity on it.

The simplest way to sort out the mess the "ethnic groups" of the British Isles have caused to Wikipedia is to go old Medieval style (or contemporary, and for all of history, rest of the world style outside of the English-speaking world) and apply the native language = ethnic belonging. Everything else is tribal/regional/political groupings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)