Talk:Cornish people/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Revision points

The Cornish (Cornish: Kernowyon) are the people of Cornwall, the most southwesterly part of England and the United Kingdom. As an ethnic group, the Cornish are interpretted as modern Celts - badly worded... interpreted by whom. They are generally accepted as a Celtic people...now we get into that merry-go-round again!!!

, the lineal descendants of the ancient Britons who inhabited southern and central Great Britain. -not really. The Ancient Britons were not one defined ethnic group, there were different waves of "Celtic" emigration to pre-Roman Britain. The Cornish are not lineally descended from the the Dumnonii/Cornovii group alone, there must be mention of Anglo-Saxon, Norman and Breton influence too, to be accurate.

In this capacity, it is widely claimed that many Cornwall-born people are culturally and ethnically distinct from the English,[3] and instead share cultural and ancestral commonalities with the people of the Celtic nations, the Bretons, Irish, Manx, Scots and Welsh. -statting the obvious here. I don't like the word claimed- claimed makes it sound false- a bit of a weasel word. Why not avoid these sneaky passive sentences and say with an active sentence, "Many Cornish people feel ethnically distinct from the English".

PARAGRAPH ON ORIGINS? BRYTHONS etc? The Cornovii were the Celtic tribe who inhabited the far southwest peninsula of Great Britain, during the Iron Age, Roman and post-Roman periods and gave their name to Cornwall. BLA BLA, and were so were historically known as the West Welsh. The Dumnonii were the British tibe inhabiting the SW, the Cornovii issue is complex and not yet full understood.

MODERN CORNISH - In the United Kingdom Census 2001, the population of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly was estimated to be 501,267, with a Cornish diaspora. The Cornish have absorbed migrants, such as XYZ, as evidenced by ABC? The culture of Cornwall is BLA BLA. Good point For purposes of the Office for National Statistics, the population of Cornwall is subsumed in to that of England, but the Cornish self-government movement has called for greater recognition of Cornish culture, politics and language. BLA BLA BLA as a distinct (sub-)identity of British people in the United Kingdom Census 2011. The Cornish language has been recognised.... Cornish symbols, cuisine and expressions are cherished by the Cornish people as part of a pan-Celtic culture. - the word cherished sounds a bit too emotive- "highly valued" sounds better. Brythonek (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's still an early draft. I'll try and weave in some of your points, but others seem to supplant opinion for opinion. I'll try and nail this so it's ultra tight.

One pretty big issue though - we simply cannot say that all Cornish are Celts, or that they are blanket Celts- that's just one point of view. It's clear from census material that the whole of Cornwall doesn't identitfy as Cornish either. Sure I think the Cornish are a Celtic people (or at least hold a Celtic tradition), but what about intermarriage, assimilation, or even the fact that some simiply don't buy it, and that the Cornish are subsumed into the English and/or British? At its most uncontrovertial, the Cornish are the people of Cornwall - its the demonym you see. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This proposal seems to be talking about the inhabitants of Cornwall when it says "The Cornish are the people of Cornwall". The current Cornish people article is about the ethnic group found throughout the world, not the inhabitants of Cornwall, which would be better served by the article Demographics of Cornwall, if it existed. Most people in Cornwall don't identify as Cornish. Country infobox templates point to a "Demographics of" article when the demonym is clicked on, and while "Cornish" is used in a sense to mean anything that originates in Cornwall, is isn't used in the same way as Welsh, English or Scottish to mean the inhabitants, as there is no Cornish nationality, and as such I don't think using the UK nationalities articles as a basis for the Cornish people article would be that advantageous. --Joowwww (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well "Cornish" applies to both the inhabitants of a specific area and an ethnic group - open up any dictionary to see. For me, it's very important that we make that distinction from the outset. That the "Cornish are the people of Cornwall" is it's most basic, uncontrovertial and is even readily verifiable. Indeed, you could be Cornish and be black, rendering notions that all Cornish are descended from Brythons void. You may also be Cornish and be a 2nd generation migrant from England, Scotland, France or anywhere else in the word, which again asserts the same point.

But that's just the opening line. After that it explains why this page is notable (as opposed to a Lancasterian people article), why they are distinct, and what their culture is. I'm still confident this is a positive step. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it still seems to be moving away from the focus of the article. Your comment about a Lancasterian people article seems to back up my point, that to you the article is merely about the inhabitants of Cornwall, and that there is no Cornish ethnic group, just as there is no Lancasterian ethnic group. Any article about the people of Lancaster would be at Demographics of Lancaster, not Lancasterian people, and information about the demonym would be in the Demographics article. You claim that Cornish people being the people of Cornwall is the most uncontrovertible point, however most people in Cornwall do not identify as being Cornish. I don't dispute that some black people in Cornwall might identify as Cornish, but identity and ethnic group are different things. The Cornish as an ethnic group is recognised by the UK and Canadian government in their census. It is impossible to make a comparison between Cornish people and Lancasterian people because the two are used differently. There is no Lancasterian ethnic group, but then again there is no automatic Cornish nationality. Someone born in Cornwall may still decide to not identify as Cornish, and someone born outside Cornwall, perhaps in Plymouth due to the hospital being nearer, may choose to identify as Cornish.

IMO Cornish can mean three things, a demonym meaning from Cornwall, a national identity, and an ethnic group, and I think this article deals with the latter two, the lattermost especially as it is recognised by the government and academia. The former should be explained either on a Demographics of Cornwall article or on Wiktionary. --Joowwww (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I studied Ethnicity and Culture at MA level (for what it's worth!), and so there are a couple of issues here which I can elaborate on.

Ethnicity is a negotiated label, and never (just) about nationality or ancestry. Liam Gallagher may be ethnically White, White British, English, Anglo-Irish, British Irish, or even ethnically Mancunian or Northern (yes that's true). An ethnic group is a community that presumes a shared kinship or affinity with others, identifies a territory or homeland as their own, and (importantly) can be identified by others. So, I could be ethnically Liverpudlian on the basis that a) I have ancestry in Liverpool, b) I have language and expressions that identify me as from Liverpool, c) Liverpool is my home territory, d) I share a Liverpudlian culture and history, e) I have a name indigenous to the area (something like Prescott or Whiston) and f) people identify me as Liverpudlian..... So where would that leave us? What's the definition of Liverpudlian? - well Liverpudlians are the people of Liverpool, end of. Anything about ancestry or ethnicity is secondary. So that somebody identitfies as Cornish is only half the story - others have to identify them as Cornish too. Indeed I could say I'm African (which I'm not), and therefore be part of an ethnic African community, unchallenged.

That said though.... you raise an important point which I'd overlooked. The hospital phenomina. I think I can rectify this though, if you give me some time. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine, just one editing point and an infobox sample

Cornish people
Kernowyon

Row 1: Bob Fitzsimmons • Humphry Davy • Edward Boscawen • Jethro Row 2: Joseph Trewavas • Richard Trevithick • Emily Hobhouse • William Bligh Row 3: John William Colenso • Arthur Quiller-Couch • William Pengelly • John Couch Adams
Total population
Population of Cornwall in 2005 estimated at 519,400; 37,500 identifying as Cornish in 2001 UK census; 1,550 identifying as Cornish in the Canada 2006 Census
Regions with significant populations
Cornwall (including Isles of Scilly)
United States
Australia
Canada
Transvaal
Mexico
Languages
English (see West Country dialects) · Cornish
Religion
Mainly Christianity mostly Protestant (Anglican and Methodist), also Roman Catholic
Related ethnic groups
Celts (Bretons, Gaels, Irish, Manx, Welsh, Scots) · English

The sandbox Cornish entry here is fine for what I know about the subject and vastly better than the live page. Only one worry, the lack of a any citation for the important third paragraph. This may have been addressed, pardon me if it is already under consideration.

I have done some revised coding for the infobox which I believe improves on the styling of the caption to the collage of Cornish people, shown here as a sample. The changes I made are:

1. Enclosed the entire "image_caption" text in a span tag to solve the text size problem. The first line of both the Cornish and English infobox picture captions has the first row in a slightly smaller size than the second and third rows on my Firefox browsers, both Mac and PC, but not on Windows Internet Explorer. Using the span causes it to render the same size on all three.
2. A personal preference, just shown here as an option: change the superscripted ordinals i.e. "1^st row" to "Row 1" etc. I really don't like the distraction caused by having those characters jumping up in the air. I am a professional typographer so it may be something that only bothers me, but I always prefer the style shown in my sample.
3. Inserted manual breaks between the third and fourth names in row 2 and 3, to avoid having the lines break between the first and last names. Jethro is obviously not at issue there.

I also added a template for the bullets, but it didn't change the line breaking between names so it ended up being moot. Let me know if you like the suggested formatting, I won't be bothered at all if you would rather not worry about it. Good work - Sswonk (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll get on to these right away - great advice, and thank you. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

More possible infobox images

As well Phil Vickery and Caroline Fox already discussed, also possible is Kristen Scott Thomas, born in Redruth, but I haven't seen anything to imply that she identifies as Cornish, and Julia Goldsworthy, Cornish MP, probably a safer bet. --Joowwww (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any Olympic gold medalists from Cornwall? Bodrugan (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny enough i came across a "cornish" gold medalist for the Commonwealth games earlier today Nick Nieland. Theres no image of him, and im not sure if he considers himself Cornish, he competes for England / Great Britain. Found his name on an article ive put up for AFD earlier today Cornwall Commonwealth Games Association.

I really am getting concerned about all matters relating to cornwall across wikipedia. Take this "Nick Nieland", its described as a Cornwall Stub.. surely that should be English people or England stub? The only people who should be described as Cornish and appear on this image box for Cornish people should be people who can easily be sourced as considering themselves CORNISH, not just people born in Cornwall who may only consider themselves English. I can just about tolerate wikipedias "policy" of not having a policy on English,Welsh,Scottish and British people but its getting to the stage where we need a policy on Cornish people now. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Either have a policy for them all or don't. I will reject any "one rule for us, one rule for them" mentality. --Joowwww (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but it is simply reality that English,Welsh,Scottish and Irish are viewed in a different way to Cornish. That may not be fair or justified, but it is the case and we all know it to be true. Articles on different cornish people could possibly say nationality : English, "ethnicity" : Cornish. But i may start changing articles i come across with people whos nationality is "cornish", and correcting it with English. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I will revert you. There is no such thing as English nationality. You as such an ardent unionist should be well aware of that. --Joowwww (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you do, I hope you give evidence that they refer/referred to themselves as English. Many people in England prefer not to label themselves as English, but rather as British. British is their official nationality, so unless you can give evidence either way, Cornish or English, it may be wiser to call them British. Bodrugan (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to label them as British rather than English, that is how i view everyone anyway and its just Wikipedia policy which prevents commonsense in calling people who are British citizens British on their info boxes. I have made certain changes to the article i mentioned Nick Nieland. Considering this man plays for England in commonwealth games and it says he plays for Great Britain / is British number 3 in the first two sentences, i changed Cornish to English there. This is in line with articles on British sports people, for example Andy Murray is a "Scottish" tennis player and is British number 1, its also in line with articles about English footballers. I also removed a Cornwall stub and replaced it with British athletes / Sport in England.

And i agree with your point about references in general. I have no problem at all with people having Cornish as their ethnicity in the infobox, but i want evidence that they consider themselves Cornish. Just because someone is born in Cornwall doesnt mean they should be labelled Cornish, thats what im objecting to here. They are English/British, and thats certainly the case when they play for the English or British teams. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are Cornish people who play for the English team simply because there isn't a Cornish team. I could go and play for a Scottish team it still wouldn't make me Scottish. This issue has hopefully been resolved, see your talk page. --Joowwww (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ive replied on my talk page, i agree the Nick Nieland is ok now and whilst i dont like this idea of only saying British to appease Cornish nationalists and vandals i can accept that aslong as in cases like football where someone ONLY plays for England they say English. In other cases just saying British is fine and my prefered choice anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Classification section

Well i have read through the article, without doubt it is far superior to the current article (especially the intro). If im honest i still have concerns about this idea that Cornish people must be considered separate and distinct from English people, plenty of counties or regions have historic and current differences within England, but i accept this is well sourced and i just have strong views on this matter which im too stubborn to change. :)

One thing i would like to see changed which i think is very important is the Classification section be right at the top of the article, after the intro and before the history. I think this is the most important section of the whole article which explains the current situation on "cornish people" that people really need to know about before they get into all the history, geography, culture and politics.

Well done, its clear a huge amount of work has been put into the rewriting of this article, you must have too much spare time ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not nearly enough spare time!... actually I'm lucky enough to have some free time at the moment, but that's due to change soon, so I need to nail this one. The Classification section is located in a point that is compatible with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template. I'm a sucker for consistency - perhaps the template needs to change? I don't know. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

lol always so much to do and so little time to do it in, i wake up with thousands of things i want to do but i only end up doing one or two things, i dunno where all the time goes.

On the template i think it should be at the top for all articles, i notice it says its optional so not always needed. But the English people article basically has a "classification section" at the top, they just dont call it one there.

In the case of the United Kingdoms people, i think all probably need such a section, Scottish people certainly lacks one and infact that article does not even mention British people or British citizenship. Cornish people certainly needs one, Rightly or wrongly many people in England do not know about and some dont accept this distinct "cornish identity". The introduction doesnt really touch on this matter and in a way id like to of seen the basic message in the classification section be a paragraph in the intro but if it was the first section of the article that wouldnt be a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently disputing the English people layout, so possibly a bad example! (That's also a terrible, terrible article - a national embarrassment even). The Scots and Welsh pages need to get their house in order too. I've been working on some possible "upgrades" to the lead sections at User:Jza84/Sandbox3 actually, and intended to get round to proposing them after the rewrite of the Cornish people.

I'm conscious of trying to strike a balance in this article, and trying to accomodate as neutral an article as possible - there's clearly alot of scope for national(ist) pride here, as well as belitting and ridicule and rejection from outsiders. Certainly it is verifiable that the Cornish have a tradition and ethnicity that extends well, well beyond something like a Lancastrian people article would assert, and we need space for this on Wikipedia. Not sure I'm happy with how WP:CORNWALL have dealt with other aspects (like removing mentions of England, and linking Cornwall at every opportunity), but that's for them to sort out at a later date.

Anyway, I'm rambling - I have approached WP:ETHNIC for a possible revision to its template, and finding out how active it is being used. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that theres probably no other part of England with such a separate culture or identity in the past but im not convinced about Cornwall and "Cornish people" today being very different to other English counties and people. The real thing that bothers me is the link between being Cornish and the idea they are celtic. Now we hear of wonderful surveys about many people calling themselves Cornish, but they say that because they were born in Cornwall, id like to know of those who said they were cornish how many considered themselves celtic because that is a very different matter.

With the classification section at the top which really is the vital section of the whole article as far as im concerned, i think the article is about as neutral as it can be. In truth its a nationalists breeding ground but its all well sourced and reasonable.

Ive noticed a few articles on people where it has said they were born in Cornwall instead of England and ones saying they are cornish rather than English, something i find rather troubling but nothing can be done about it if we accept cornish is an ethnic group or peoples ethnicity. I am really looking forward to the next UK census where it gives people the option to list or tick what they consider there national identity. Will be great to see how many write "Cornish" for that. Following the census results dozens more "people articles" may be needed so make sure you got some spare time for that. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no way of reliably finding out how many Cornish people consider themselves Celtic. However I would probably say that very few don't, they generally go hand in hand. The only thing that this article can do is to focus on the Celtic aspects of Cornwall's culture and history. --Joowwww (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think its very questionable just how many do consider themselves Celtic, Just because Cornwall has celtic history and culture does not mean that most of those who consider themselves Cornish think of themselves as Celtic. I accept ive not found any information on this but we should not just presume the two go hand in hand for most. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't "presume" anything, I'm talking from first hand experience here in Cornwall. Where are you talking from? I'd like to know how you define someone's considering themselves Celtic, as I could probably better make my case if yours was clarified. --Joowwww (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Im not suggesting any change to the proposed wording which currently does point out its not all Cornish people who view themselves as celtic. Id define someone that considers themselves celtic as someone who considers themselves "Celtic", something ive yet to see any surveys or reports on to do with cornwall. Just because someone considers themselves Cornish and Cornwall has a Celtic history / culture does not mean they consider themselves Celtic and i would put money on a poll asking about both finding far more say they are Cornish than say they are Celtic. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jza84, did you get any feedback about position of the classification section? Is it going to be possible to move it to the top so its the first section rather than right near the bottom, because it sees like the most useful part which puts things into context before going on to history and other things? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the Classification section would be better further down the article as it originally was, rather than upfront. I also think it needs some editing for balance. In particular, there is a strong emphasis on a BBC article which is actually about history (pre-1700), when it seems to be being used in these paras to describe the current position. I'll try and give the content of it some more thought. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Some initial thoughts

I'm just starting to go through this - most of which seems excellent - and have a few initial thoughts. Basically, I think you may be going too far in overemphasising the arguments over "are the Cornish/ to what extent are the Cornish 'really English' ?" - and downplaying the positive aspects of Cornish (or, as some may see it, "pseudo-Celtic" / "romantic" / "national") identity. In my view, there are two ways in which consensus can best be reached in areas like this - by leaving unstated those contentious statements which are unnecessary, and by putting both sides of the argument where helpful (and where there are references). So, just looking at the first sentence, I'd suggest simply writing: "The Cornish (Cornish: Kernowyon) are the people of Cornwall." Stating that Cornwall is "the most southwesterly part of England and the UK" is unnecessary - it is also contentious in that, although administratively it is part of England now, there exist all sorts of questions about the extent to which it is culturally part of England, as well as whether it should be part of England administratively - and those questions do not need to be raised in the opening sentence of this article. I'd also modify the next couple of sentences to take out unnecessary verbiage - I'd suggest: "As an ethnic group, the Cornish are interpreted as modern Celts, the lineal descendants of the ancient Britons who inhabited southern and central Great Britain, sharing cultural and ancestral ties with the Bretons, Irish, Manx, Scots and Welsh." Personally, I don't think that the second and third paras, on history, are needed in the lede section at all, but the fourth para is just fine! I may have further thoughts in due course.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

These are good observations. I too was concerned that the article (my input even) was too focussed on this "not English" thing. Having said that, a huge quantity of the stuff I've used (mostly from Google Books) seems to revolve around this issue. I think this could be combatted, like you say, by integrating more about other (positive?) aspects of the Cornish - contributions, culture, persuits, customs, architecture - I guess the thin sections, or bits that need work in this draft are all the areas were this would normally happen, and so I think it is these I need assitance with in bringing about a significant expansion. I guess something about Cornish customs, ignoring the politics, would be very useful in this capacity (something like Cornish greetings, naming conventions, sensibilities)....

Re Cornwall being "the most southwesterly part of England and the UK", I agree to an extent, but my concern is three fold a) leaving this out may give the impression of Cornwall being an independant state, b) it lacks context, and will be challenged at FAC, c) international readers may be confused what or where Cornwall is, particularly when using something like Wapedia or a printed version of the article when navigation is nullfied.

I'm hoping User:Jooowwww is able to make the animated Cornish language shift map too - that will really make the article much more professional. Do please let me know your thoughts. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but i strongly the oppose the idea we leave out the fact that Cornwall is part of England, although im not too concerned about the UK not being mentioned there but i dont see the harm in either. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that the whole Cornish issue is closely related to England and the English - I would opt for including this clearly too in the opening paragraph, hense why it's there I guess. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

How about: "The Cornish (Cornish: Kernowyon) are the people of Cornwall, an area which has been administratively part of England since the 10th century, and the most southwesterly part of the United Kingdom". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I find the intro as it stands pretty darn good. --Joowwww (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The current article or Jza84's sandbox proposal? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jza84's proposal. --Joowwww (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall is part of England, there is no need for the "which has been administratively part" bit, it gives too much weight to the tiny minority of people that question or challange Cornwalls status as a county of England. I dont see a problem with ur suggestion of trying to remove some of stuff which is about the rest of England rather than just Cornwall (except for the Classification section), but the fact Cornwall is part of England in the intro should not be watered down. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The text of this article should not unnecessarily raise issues which do not need to be raised. The issue of Cornwall's relationship with England - especially in terms of genetics and culture, which are what this article considers - is, in fact, contentious, and not just for a "tiny minority". I'm getting increasingly fed up with BritishWatcher's insistence that his personal opinions are in some way relevant to this and other debates about the content of WP articles - they are not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agreed with you about too much mention of England in the content itself, however we are talking about the introduction. It says Cornwall, people need to know what Cornwall is.. its a county of England (should probably say County too) and part of the United Kingdom. I see attempts to hide the fact that Cornwall is part of England rather misleading and see no reason why readers shouldnt be provided with more information explaining where/what Cornwall is.

There is nothing wrong with giving an opinion, and on talk pages my opinion doesnt even need to be Neutral or backed up by fact, in this case the facts back up my opinion that Cornwall is a county of England and i see no justification for not including that information. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing wrong with giving an opinion, so long as you don't expect anyone else to take any notice of it! My suggestion did not "hide" that Cornwall is "part of England" - it just didn't mention it because, in this article, it doesn't particularly need to mention it. But I'd go along with a compromise that says it "has been administratively part of England since the 10th century". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not keen on this "administratively part of" either. Cornwall is part of England, verifiably, and I've been pleasantly suprised by how many books - books about Cornwall and the Cornish - make mention of this.

This "administratively part of" is POV weasel wording AFAICT - it's like saying Bolton is "administratively part of" Greater Manchester; immediately we know the article would be compromised at that point by someone with a gripe with Greater Manchester. Indeed, is London "part of England" or "administratively part of England"? This article is not the right place for stating the case Cornwall isn't in England, and even so, the article makes its own case for the Cornish not being English etc. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bolton is indeed "administratively part of" Greater Manchester, as any fule kno it is really in Lancashire. Let's not go there, perhaps... The serious point, so far as this article is concerned, is that the current administrative arrangements (which are undisputed) are not the subject of this article - but the genetic and cultural background of "Cornish people" is, and that is, to an important extent, distinct from that of "England" as that term is commonly used in its historic and cultural senses (i.e. post Anglo-Saxon). Giving too much emphasis in this article to the "Englishness" of Cornwall, in any sense, is (IMHO) unnecessary, misleading, and contentious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

But it doesnt, this whole article goes out of its way to highlight the differences between English people and Cornish people, the very existence of this article serves that purpose. The intro doesnt say Cornish people are English, it just says Cornwall is part of England which is reasonable and informative. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement that "Cornwall is part of England" is unarguably true only if you believe that administrative arrangements override all other considerations. From other perspectives, such as culturally, it is less certain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrative arrangements certainly override cultural differences. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I think it's a noble point made by Ghmyrtle, but we're at risk then of being in the realms of 'Scotland being "administratively" part of the United Kingdom' and such. But I suppose some of the English stuff needs to be balanced with other material - which I think was Ghmyrtle's original point. In doing that I think we'll make a better article. Certainly I found the Anglicisation and rebellion section useful in this respect, as the page needs space to explain it. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to push this much further now. I just think that baldly stating that Cornwall is "part of England", without further explanation, in the first sentence of an article of this nature, which - to an extent - only exists because Cornwall is in some senses not "part of England" to the same extent as other "parts of England", would give a misleading and unbalanced impression to readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(<-) There's a lovely quote that, for me at least, adequately summarised the situation of the Cornish. It's in the Classification section, where it says: The Cornish have been described as "a special case" in England, with an "ethnic rather than regional identity". I found this quote after working on the lead, but on reflection, I'd like to work in to the introduction somehow. Would that go some way to achieving a consensus at all? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral on those words. I think the issue boils down, in a sense, to what is meant by "England" and the "English" - the terms derive from, and are commonly interpreted as, a post Anglo-Saxon heritage, whereas in fact genetic and some cultural and linguistic evidence in lots of more peripheral parts of (the area administered as) England point to the retention of Brythonic and indeed much earlier traits. Recognition of that mixed ancient historic heritage of "England" is missing from a lot of the discussion and texts, which focus on the Anglo-Saxons and their language as the core elements of "Englishness". Hence, it is understandable why the Cornish (and, to a lesser extent, people from other areas where the Anglo-Saxon settlement was less intense, or happened later) feel themselves to be less "English" than the residents of, say, East Anglia or Sussex. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree to an extent, but (<devils advocate>) I suppose then we could say Glodwick is not in England because its inhabitants are not derived from the Anglo-Saxons, and do not feel English (</devils advocate>); the notion that a place being in England depends on whether its people feel English could equally apply to persons from Black and minority ethnic groups as it would to Cornwall IMO. I myself don't feel especially English, so is the chair I'm sat in part of England? For me therefore England relies on legal and conventional definition, i.e. as defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 - the extent of England we would expect in any normal publication. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Cornwall (and Glodwick) are part of England administratively - no question. But I suggest that the usual conventional interpretation of English identity, as deriving from the Anglo-Saxons and essentially ignoring the older genetic and cultural roots of much (if not all - debatable) of what is now England, helps explain why areas like Cornwall consider themselves as places which are different from (the rest of) England. If your sole or overriding criterion is the current administrative arrangement, then Cornwall is just another part of England and we can all ignore the issue and go home. But (even ignoring the historical constitutional issues which I'm not qualified to go into), the fact is that many in Cornwall (and elsewhere) reject that approach, and take a broader and longer term approach to their identity. Any encyclopedia must reflect that - it should not just describe the current administrative arrangements, or indeed give them undue weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancestral roots

Again, I think this section gives too much evidence to "the rest of England" rather than Cornwall specifically, and raises issues unnecessarily (for instance, Oppenheimer's views on Celtic languages, which I don't think carry much weight - unlike his views on genetics, which are important). As I suggested above, para 2 of the lede should IMHO be incorporated here. I also think that, where material in the existing article is reliable and relevant, the default position should be that it should be retained. So, how about something like (obviously with refs and links added):-

DNA research investigating the genetic history of the British Isles suggests that three quarters of contemporary British people—including the Cornish—share a common ancestry with the hunter-gatherers who settled in Atlantic Europe during the Paleolithic era, "after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands". Archaeological evidence supports prehistoric human habitation in Cornwall, at least as early as the Lower Paleolithic. The next historical immigration to Great Britain occurred during the Neolithic period, interpreted by Bryan Sykes—professor of human genetics at the University of Oxford— [and Oppenheimer?] as the arrival of the Celts from the Iberian Peninsula, and the origin of Britain's and Ireland's Celtic tribes. It is these people who are considered the progenitors of the Cornish. A study by the Wellcome Trust, led by Sir Walter Bodmer and published on Channel 4's Faces of Britain in April 2007, showed that the Cornish people have a particular variant of the MC1R gene identifying them as a Celtic race more closely related to the Welsh, Irish and Breton peoples than to their English neighbours.

Throughout classical antiquity the ancient Britons spoke Celtic Brythonic languages, and formed various tribal cultures and identities in Great Britain. In the extreme south west, the Dumnonii and Cornovii inhabited what was to become Cornwall during the Iron Age, Roman and post-Roman periods. The name Cornwall and its demonym Cornish are derived from the Cornovii. There is evidence that a semi- or fully independent pagan kingdom of Cornwall existed, sometimes governed by its own monarchy, either by the title of duke or king, while also acknowledging wider Dumnonian or British overlordship [needs clarification]. After the Roman departure from Britain in the 4th/5th centuries, Cornwall experienced an influx of Celtic Christian missionaries from Ireland [and Wales?] who had a profound [?] effect upon the early Cornish people, their culture, faith and architecture. Many Cornish saints appear to have Irish origins.

A watershed in the early history of Cornwall was the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain in the 5th to 6th centuries, which pushed Celtic culture to the northern and western fringes of Great Britain. The Saxons of the Kingdom of Wessex eradicated Celtic and Romano-British culture across much of southern Britain, expanding their territory westwards towards Cornwall. The Cornish were frequently embattled with the Saxons, who used their Germanic word walha (modern English: Welsh) meaning "stranger" or "foreigner", to describe their British opponents, later specifying them as the Westwalas (West Welsh) or Cornwalas (the Cornish). The Battle of Deorham between the Britons and Anglo-Saxons resulted in land links between the Brythonic peoples of Wales and Cornwall being severed, encouraging the development of a separate Cornish identity. Brythonic culture in Britain became confined to Cornwall, Wales and North West England. Conflict continued until King Athelstan of England agreed that the River Tamar be the formal boundary between the English Saxons and the Cornish in the year 936, making Cornwall one of the last retreats of the Britons. Although a treaty was agreed, Anglo-Saxon political influence stretched westwards until around the late-10th century when "Cornwall was definitively incorporated into the Kingdom of England".

Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Could you give me some time to work this in to the article? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As much time as you like - it'll take me plenty of time to work through the rest of your draft! Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Institutions and politics

"More "militant" variants of Cornish nationalism however claim that because of historical constitutional peculiarities regarding the status of Cornwall, the law of the European Union does or should not have jurisdiction over Cornwall on technicality." - Possibly undue weight? In all my time researching Cornish nationalism I have never come across the idea that EU law does not apply in Cornwall.

Also, it hasn't been written yet, but I'd just like to clarify that Mebyon Kernow isn't the only nationalist aspect of Cornish politics. 2 of Cornwall's Lib Dem MPs have often taken up nationalist issues, Andrew George [3] and Dan Rogerson [4], and the Lib Dems as a whole ran on an Assembly campaign in 2005. Cornwall Council also saw some nationalist independents elected in June. --Joowwww (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Those who question the "extent" of Cornish nationalism should recognise that the number of votes cast for MK only shows those who prioritise nationalist issues over and above all other issues - I'm sure there are members of, and voters for, all parties in Cornwall who would consider themselves "nationalists". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Mebyon Kernow obviously need a good old mention, but I am hoping we can say that they are not the only body. That's fine by me. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancestral roots

This looks interesting http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2009/01/oxford-study-aims-to-trace-cornish.html.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's gone dead I'm afraid. Sorry, --Jza84 |  Talk  22:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions of things to look at

While I think this article certainly needed rewriting and its good to see it is been given some attention, it doesn't really take into account the fringe nature of claiming this is a "separate" ethnic group in 2009, or the claim that people in Cornwall are not simply English people. I think this needs to be put across loud an clear, currently it asserts a collectivist claim based on eccentric pressure groups and an unsuccessful political party, which doesn't seem to be a solid foundation. A few concerns;

• So called "culture" differences are very much overstated here, especially in the intro. Its very much fringe to say this county has more in real world practice, in common with Ireland or Scotland than Devon or Dorest, keep in mind the Celtic League is an obscure lobby group that was actually founded by a Breton Nazi collaborator (Alan Heusaff). Psuedo-Celticism itself was created mostly by English people during the Victorian period and is a form of the philosophy Romanticism, rather than a racial or entirely historic reality. Most of the faux-imagery passed off as "traditions" (such as "tartans" for so called "nations" and also the psuedo-Druidic organisations) have been invented very recently and do not have any anquity. I'm also not sure how relevent these entities are to the average person in Cornwall, when compared to their participation in general English culture.
• It mentions that there was once a Cornish language, yet doesn't mention that it died out completely and only in very recent times have 0.01% of the people who live there learned a newly invented patched together mix of Breton & Welsh as a hobby. It doesn't mention that the two things are not the same (no continuity) and that the English language is the native tongue of demographically absolutely all of the people who live there.
• The main sports in Cornwall are rugby and football, not Cornish wrestling, yet this obscure form of wresting which is not particpated in by most people who live there has been given the image slot.
• The statistics in the box are given for all people who live in Cornwall (532,000) when many of these people are simply migrants from other English counties, who have moved out there from urban areas since the 1950s due to recent third world migration (particularly London, Birmingham other major cities). I think less than half of the people who live in Cornwall are from a background of not recently moving in from other English counties (its 40-something %).
• There is no evidence that during the Iron Age a tribe called the Cornovii inhabited this area. The only map we have to show evidence from this time, is Ptolemy's Geographia, where the entire area is classed as part of Dummnonii territory. The Cornovii in the map, are marked down as inhabiting the area around Shropshire. Various people have tried to explain this, for instance Oxford University Professor Morris suggested the Cornovii later invaded Dummnonnia and set up a fief. The voice I have found disputing this is the rather dubious Philip Payton, a psuedo-Celticist (in the Rousseaun primitivist/"victim" mould) from Sussex who has reinvented himself as a Cornish nationalist. Since he became head of the Institute of Cornish Studies, he has moved the insitute away from its previous role of archaeology, medieval history and the natural environment towards modern politicing and theorising. He has a non-scholarly (Marx + Braveheart) agenda.
• The use of the word "partition" in regards to the Middle Ages is very much incorrect. It means to divide a political state. There is no evidence that there was some sort of political state which stretched across Wales and the South West before Wessex was created. In fact quite the opposite—Wales itself didn't even become one unified state until the 12th century. Before that time the area was a collection of divided and warring petty kingdoms. Wessex were doing exactly the opposite, since the area they reigned is roughly synonymous with Dummnonia.

Sorry if this is too long!

- Yorkshirian (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just got back to the PC now and had a skim read and most of it looks interesting. I'm just about to start a expansion on the Revival at User:Jza84/Sandbox5#Industry.2C_revival_and_the_modern_period, so will try to weave in some of the above.

Strangely, I agree with the majority of the above at a personal level, but (surprising - for me at least) I've struggled finding material that is, well, anti-Cornish or anti-Celtic and attempts to blow the whole thing apart. Something along those kind of lines would be interesting to weave in to give a different (perhaps mainstream?) perspective.

Disclosure: I've no personal investment in the Cornish - have no ancestry, family, or affinity with/from the region. Never even visited Cornwall. So hopefully that shows a neutral spirit. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think mostly neo-nationalisms seek to negate a prior recorded academic consensus, in a very sly and subtle way, that is quite under the radar until somebody actually looks at it and sees its intellectual dishonesty. For instance, the example with the Ptolemy map and Mr Payton. With mainstream culture like people in Cornwall listening to the Beatles, watching Eastenders, eating a Sunday dinner, shopping at Marks and Spencer, going to watch a local rugby game, heading off to the pub for a pint or reading the Times, the same as anywhere else in England doesn't need pressure groups to put it into a set of slogans since it organically and naturally exists in the real world, if you get what I mean. While neo-druid groups, faux-tartanry, obscure wrestling and other things which are of no concerrn to the majority, needs nationalist eccetrics and pressure groups on the fringe of society to make a noise and say "hey, look at me! I'm different!". - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with some of Yorkshirian's comments. But (as always) we need to remember that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and what is verifiable is that a distinctively Cornish (and specifically non-Anglo-Saxon) culture does exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I suppose we need to find a good published source that can elaborate upon Yorkshirian's inclin. All the material (effectively every sentence) in the draft presently uses strong sources, making points that a unambiguously present in the original reference.

My view is that that is in the article: 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 of Cornwall,[51] and so despite a "real and substantive" identity, the Cornish "struggle for recognition as a national group distinct from the English". I would like a point after that about some of the, ahem, psuedo-romantic contructs that have been developed to advance Cornish ethnicity. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not this site then! Or this one... Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Introduction

"In this capacity, it is widely asserted that many Cornwall-born people are culturally and ethnically distinct from the English, and instead share cultural and ancestral commonalities with the people of the Celtic nations—the Bretons, Irish, Manx, Scots and Welsh." I think this sentence should be deleted. It is both a little weaselly and unnecessary - the sentences immediately before and afterwards cover the ground of "Celtic" identity, and the identification of what is "English" is itself problematic - in particular, the extent to which it is interpreted as meaning simply the "Anglo-Saxon" heritage, or alternatively as itself including both earlier cultural and genetic heritage, and later changes through migration, intermarriage etc. If it is kept, I think a better version would be "In this capacity, [I]t is widely asserted that many Cornwall-born Cornish people are culturally and ethnically distinct from the English, and instead in the extent to which they share cultural and ancestral commonalities with the people of the other Celtic nations—the Bretons, Irish, Manx, Scots and Welsh."
"The Battle of Deorham between the Britons and Anglo-Saxons resulted in a partition between the Brittonic peoples of Wales and Cornwall." This is a common (partial) misconception, as maritime links, which were highly important, remained. I think there should also be consistency in the use of "Brittonic" or "Brythonic".
Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
"..the most south westerly part of England and the United Kingdom.." Identifying Cornwall as part of England in the opening sentence strikes me as unnecessarily provocative. Also true, less provocative, and in my view preferable, would be to say "..the most south westerly part of the island of Great Britain, within the United Kingdom.." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, but Wikipedia is not censored is the first element of this. The second is that it is verifiable. The third is that it adds context to the whole issue of not being English. The fourth is that Great Britain is used in the following sentences to describe ancient geography. That Cornwall is not in England is not mainstream - even Celtic-Cornish books verify Cornwall being in England. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall is defined as one of the "Celtic nations" - although I wouldn't presume to amend your last sandbox edit, I will do if it moves into the article space. Re Cornwall being "English" - in some senses unequivocally yes (eg. current administration, which is not all important) - but in other senses arguably not, and it is those senses that are the reasons for the existence of this article - which explain, for example, why there is no article on "Kent people" or "Staffordshire people". A perfectly good article could be written here without it becoming unnecessarily contentious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Cornwall article says Cornwall is in England. It's in the first sentence. There's nothing contentious about this. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before, and clearly we disagree. Yes, Cornwall is administratively part of England now, and that is important. But this article isn't about that - it is about the extent to which "Cornish people" is a different entity, to some extent, to "English people", as both terms are usually defined. It is therefore likely to confuse the issue if this article specifies that "Cornwall is in England" without identifying that there are, in fact, features of Cornwall which differentiate it from England. Not administratively (though others would dispute that), but culturally and historically. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re your footnote - the difficulty is that your phrasing seems to be wholly about legislation, administration, and political groups. That approach is a partial one. What is important is the culture and the history, which cannot be simply reduced to issues of current administration and politics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It was meant in the spirit of compromise - I can revert it out if you wish? I think we've been through the culture issue. Glodwick's inhabitant's are not, perhaps, "English", but Glodwick is in England. I need only pick up a few books to verify Cornwall is in England, and then I'm afraid your suggestion is trumped by WP:V. You say that there are features of Cornwall which differentiate it from England - I agree, and think the article goes a mighty way to show that, paritucularly in respect of culture and history. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's better in than out, but I don't think it explains the position well enough and, rather than rewriting the footnote, would prefer to rewrite the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, can you cite your position? i.e. can you support, unambiguously, that it is cultural and historical reasons which exclude Cornwall from England? This is not something I've come across hense my reluctance here. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that "cultural and historical reasons...exclude Cornwall from England", I'm saying that they differentiate Cornwall from the conventional Anglo-Saxon view of England - not the same thing at all. The differences are discussed at Culture of Cornwall, as you know - an article which also needs improvement. Changing tack slightly, I'd be happy to see a sentence along the lines of "Administratively, Cornwall was absorbed into England in the 10th and 11th centuries", or something similar, within the footnote, immediately before the final sentence starting "However.." - in order to give a bit of context. Would that help? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

All Cornish, Welsh and in essence, Brythonic/Brittonic content needs a huge upsurge in improvement. It's something of a major pet-hate of mine at the moment, that we seem to have so many editors with mad-passion for Celts, but who spend their days on talk pages rather than attempting to improve the coverage of their culture and history. Just look at Britons (historical) - linked to so many pages, but to an insider or outsider, an embarrassment to be sure. Even the Irish people, a "Western European ethnic group... from Western Europe"... horrific. </rant> Sorry.

Anyway, yes, sure, that hits the spot for me. For me, Cornwall not being in England is certainly a very minority view, and like BritishWatcher (I guess), don't want to give this WP:UNDUE-weight. Even, to my surprise, Mebyon Kernow only recieved 4% of the vote at the last Cornish local elections - 4%!!! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, although im sure people here already know my feelings on this matter. Cornwall is a county of England, this is undisputable fact and i see no reason to water it down in anyway way although i dont have a problem with saying something like "since so and so, Cornwall has been (something) part of England etc". The relationship between Cornish and English is rather confusing, thats the reason why ive wanted the Classification section at the top of the article like it is now, which goes into better detail about the relationship than the intro. Thanks for moving it up there by the Jza84 BritishWatcher (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Grr... No-one (well, virtually no-one) is saying that Cornwall is not in England, legally and administratively... but that is not the point. The message must surely get through one day! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont think i will ever "get" this matter :) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I hold my hands up, I don't think I understand your point. I mean that sincerely, not as a dig - I am genuinely confused about what you're suggesting. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall is administratively and legally (almost all would argue) part of England, and has been for 1000 years or so. However, the extent to which it is culturally part of England depends on your view of English culture - the extent to which that is defined as Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian/Norman culture, which to a significant extent differentiates it from Cornish "Celtic" culture - or whether you accept that "English" culture is a broad realm which contains within it many elements of "Celtic" culture which predate the Anglo-Saxon invasions. For example, are Cornish piskies part of "English culture", or not? Elements such as Saint Piran's Flag are important in signifying Cornish distinctiveness, even though I accept that a lot of what is now seen as Cornish culture actually derives from fanciful romanticism. There is also the question of any genetic differences between Cornish and other GB people, which I think is an unresolved question. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Although User:Yorkshirian and I have been at each other's throats many a time, I find his post above to be something of a truism about Cornish culture. Every region of England has its own cultural perculiarities (I think Cornwall's are far far FAR more prominent and, I guess, pretty substantive). Cumbria has very comparable Celtic/Brythonic heritage, and there are many a Celtic place name in the northwest (Wigan, Chadderton (part), Mytholmroyd). Getting into the realms of personal perpective here, I personally don't buy the Anglo-Saxon exclusive claim to England and the English - that might have something to do with me being an Anglo-Celt, or Anglo-Scot even, but rather that English history is a melting pot of various cultures (Anglo-Saxon being the predominant one). Having thought about this in Wikipedia terms though, I still don't know how we verify or quantify Cornwall not being English (as opposed to not being in England). I'm hoping the note system can go some way to satisfying NPOV issues though. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be in Mousehole at the weekend - I'll give it some more thought there... Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lucky you. I'm hoping to get to New Lanark, Glasgow and Edinburgh, from my base in Paisley this season. Haven't been north of the border for a couple of years (well, since the SNP have been in power at least). I suspect though the weather will be better in Mousehole than in the central belt of Alba. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice places, isnt it funny how one of those is in Scotland and the other is in the United Kingdom! =) lol BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In the intro it should only say Welsh and Bretons IMO, since its the lingering on of the Brythonic language into the early Modern period, which is propagated as the specific connecting point to Cornwall. I don't see a particular connection to Ireland, Mann, Scottish Highlands (Gaelic & Brythonic are not mutally intelligable), especially it seems ridiculous to claim that Cornwall has more in common with the people of the Scottish Lowlands (which has even less residue Celtic culture than Cumbria) compared to Devon or Dorest. Even in the case of Brittany for instance, its much more of a historic than a present reality, which this doesn't get at, in Nantes for instance they speak French and are solidly part of French culture today.

About the above in regards to the whole "Angles" and "Celts" things. I don't think that either culture exists in a significant or legitimate sense today, exponents of both seem to be escapists. The residue parodies of both seem to be very tacky, with the Oddinist and Neo-Druidic shams, which are about as "authentic" as an American website selling "True, Totally Ancient, not invented by the English Sobieski Stuarts Clan Tartans". :p The modern Psuedo-Celtic movement is mostly based on political radicalism and ideals of Jacobinism of the 18th century, closely related to leftist "noble savage" romanticism (for instance the Ossian fraud, which created a parody of the Fenian Cycle along Rousseauian lines).

This is mixed in with the victim-worldview of Republicanism in Ireland, a movement ironically development by middle-class Protestant Planters (some of whom were freemasons), all with Saxon names and were attracted to the ideals of the French Revolution. Nothing to do with "Gaelic" culture as its nihilistic modern day exponents try to claim. Perhaps it is because I am philosophically and politically well-read, or rather being a big bad reactionary Catholic, absolute monarchist haha, but even though I'm of half Gaelic Irish descent, I can't respect this fraud movement or have any sympathy with its postions at all. Hopefully it stays out of England, the Trotskyite movement here is more than enough. It seems a bit panto to see a gruff English speaking, Lowland Hearts fan, with a Saxon name talking of "Celticery" like Salmond does though. This has more to do with his radical Marxist and closet-republican political background than culture or ethnicity. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, I think you should write a book on this subject, I really do! It's a very cold, harsh view on the whole issue, and I suspect closer to the truth than even you might think! I hope you and User:MacRusgail never meet, as I think it would be a toxic combination - Yin and yang!

We really need some kind of source along this vein if we're to represent this kind of view in the article though. Is there nothing from a conservative skeptic out there that could act as a reliable source? I happen to think it's a standpoint that's under-represented in the draft. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A good book in that vein in regards to Scotland which you might enjoy is "The Invention of Scotland: Myth and History".[5] With Cornwall specifically I think the relative recentness of this movement (since the 1950s) and the fact that it is so unsuccessful there itself (with nationalists getting 4% of the vote) is probably why there is so little literature published fully analysing. Especially from people not involved in local nationalist groups (ie - the Paytons, the Wiltons). - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've commented before, the fact that MK don't get a high percentage of the vote in no way reflects the degree to which nationalist (or, rather, autonomist) opinion exists in Cornwall - there are many "nationalists" within the other political parties in Cornwall, and the percent voting for MK simply reflects the proportion who think that their nationalist priorities, and the other policies espoused by MK, outweigh the policies on the other bread-and-butter voting issues espoused by the "main" parties. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on "Ancestral roots"

"...it could flourish as a semi- or fully independent pagan Kingdom of Cornwall ... both Cornwall and Brittany were dotted with dedications to the same Brythonic saints." Inconsistency? There needs to be a mention of the fact that Cornwall was Christianised in the 5th/6th centuries from Wales and Ireland. Not sure about the best refs but here are two: [6] [7] Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted - I'll see what I can do. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Do you have a record of those parts of the current article (or, better, the version prior to Brythonek's changes in June) which you are proposing should be removed, with an explanation of why? I know that I or others could work it out ourselves, but in the spirit of consensus it would be helpful if you could indicate why you are proposing to remove large sections, as well as adding others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My proposal and supporting rationale was for a complete rewriting of the article, and was here, and then here and here: "Rationale being that the body of the article is a mixture of bad writing, synthesis, irrelvancy, weasel wording, unsourced opinion, and its at a point where it is basically too difficult separating the legitimate content from the illegitimate. Even the stuff that has a source either broadly has no page number, has gone dead (when it's been a web citation) and/or doesn't support what's being said in the article anyway. It's a sorry state of affairs."

There's been no objection, and I've tried very hard to get as many people on board as possible (not sure if you want me to seek out the diffs). If there's issue with the sections, then, well, I've used a GA- and FA- winning layout recommended by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No question that you're doing a fine job at improving the substance, and the format looks fine, but there will obviously be objections if referenced material from the old version is removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to extract as much as I can from the "old" Cornish people article. Much of the verifiable content, in my view, really falls outside of the bounds of an article about people, and is more related to Cornwall itself, or its politics or symbols. As an example, there's a section, verified with a few sources, named Duchy Symbols, which doesn't add much value to a page about Cornish people, in my view. I'm confident that the rewrite will be seen as a refreshing and much needed change in direction. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, you've been the most reliable and persisent editor here. I've thoroughly enjoyed your input and wanted to say thanks. Is there anything else that causes concern prior to moving this draft over to the main page? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and look at it again tomorrow - spending too much time here today! BTW, the fact that I haven't commented on some things doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. There is some stuff in the article I don't agree with myself, oddly enough, but have found references for. I'm thinking of pasting the article over Cornish people some time this evening. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A late change

User:Yorkshirian's edit ([8]) has prompted me to think we need to be 100% sure about the opening. So, how would the following sit with editors?

It is asserted, though with some difference in opinion, that Cornish people are culturally and ethnically distinct from the English, in the extent to which they share cultural and ancestral commonalities with the people of the Celtic nations—the Bretons, Irish, Manx, Scots and Welsh.

Just a suggestion, and tweaks can (if needbe) considered, of course. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think that is much clearer to the reader. But also it should incorporate the other suggestion above, in regards to the Brythonic language been the specific link asserted to connect Cornwall to Welsh and Bretons. Supposed links to Scottish and Irish are far more dubious (especially when we take intro consideration ethnic riots in Cornwall during the late 1800s). The "Celtic nations" concept pushed by outsider-pressure groups like the Celtic League isn't really solid. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have an authoritative ref which explicitly disagrees with the premise that "... Cornish people are culturally and ethnically distinct from the English". Otherwise your revised suggested wording might be seen as WP:OR. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support that change or just something like "It is asserted by some"... or "It is asseted by orgs, scholars and people etc". I think the introduction could be alot more clearer in atleast one sentence about the status of Cornish / English like something from the classification section. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

On that basis, every single statement in every article in WP should be prefaced by the words "It is asserted by some..." Please provide reliable refs for the idea that Cornish people are not culturally and ethnically distinct from the English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well theres a couple of sources for sentences in the classification section which mention the position that Cornish is not different to English, (although i dont have the books). Id say the fact only 7% saw the need to write that they consider themselves Cornish in the census and the overwhelming majority said they were English is also a bit of a hint. Id hope everyone here would accept the fact its a minority view that Cornish are somehow distinct from English in the way for example that English and Welsh people are distinct. I do not consider the Cornish any more or less different than any other different county which all have their own histories and quirks. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What you "consider" to be the case, BW, is not only utterly irrelevant, it's also demonstrably and irrefutably just plain wrong, as any casual examination of refs and websites should demonstrate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst we are talking about late changes, there are a couple of points id like to mention. "replaced by the English language and British identity." in the introduction, should there be a mention of English identity there rather than just British?

Also i am still a bit concerned about the use of the term "Ethnic group", is this just certain point of view or does the British government accept this? The most recent information i can see on it show the British government do not accept that Cornish is a racial group (not sure how they feel about "Ethnic group") which is why they reject the claim Cornish people should be considered a minority group under the European human rights conventions. As we mention that the language now has protection under European conventions, should there not be a mention of the rejected attempt to get Cornish considered a minority group somewhere in the introduction? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple references to Cornish ethnicity, and I've a reference which states "both geographical and historical factors distinguish the Cornish as an ethnic group" (infact I ought to put that in somewhere).

Ghmytle is right about finding a source that unamibuously disagrees with Celtic ethnic Cornishry. I think it would make for a better article. But, until that time, the phrase "It is asserted that Cornish people are culturally and ethnically distinct from the English,[10][11] in the extent to which they share cultural and ancestral commonalities with the people of the Celtic nations—the Bretons, Irish, Manx, Scots and Welsh." is true by way of WP:V. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what about mentioning in the introduction (and possibly is needed somewhere else in the article as well) that whilst the British government is "Very much aware of the strength of feeling about Cornwall's separate identity and distinctiveness" it has not been convinced or seen the need to recognize Cornish as a national minority or afford it protection under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities [9], [10], [11] This really should be mentioned as we mention the language protection in the introduction, why do we ignore the failed attempt? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How's that? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No problems with adding that bit in, but I don't see any need to delete "Cornish symbols, cuisine and expressions are increasingly valued by the Cornish people and others as part of a pan-Celtic culture." Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes that change helps explain the situation better in the introduction now thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(To Ghmyrtle) It was just a bit of unsourced filler really, a remnant of an eariler draft. It also stops the lead sprawling out of control too. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Just a note that I've done some archiving. Some of the discussions were quite recent I know, but thought with the new article we could start a fresh period. Hope that's OK. Thanks all, --Jza84 |  Talk  10:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really, surely you should have archived only the inactive discussions? --MacRusgail (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. ...and why was some of the more recent discussion put in Archive 2?

Culture of Cornwall

Arranging subsections in alphabetical order is not normal in an encyclopedia article and other sections on the culture of a people (e.g. Turkish people) are not arranged this way.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Turkish people is not really an example I'd like us to aspire toward - it is not a GA or FA and has alot of problems. Your change is not neutral as one's man's significant topic is another's insignificant (e.g. MacRusgail may argue sport is more important than language, and I might argue folklore etc). Alphabetising the subheadings is the only neutral approach AFAICT. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed i think thats the best way for the culture section and the one on other parts of the world. Looking at the headings in the culture section apart from language being at the top, i cant think of a reasonable order for the rest of the headings that wouldnt just be random. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If this logic was recommended the Culture of Cornwall article would need to follow the same pattern.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Visual arts?

Looking at the section above it's just dawned on me that there really needs to be a section on the visual arts, such as the Newlyn School, St Ives School, Alfred Wallis, Bernard Leach, Barbara Hepworth, and many many more. There seems to be remarkable little on WP at the moment - unfortunately this is pretty poor so far as that is concerned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it could be merged into the Performing arts bit somehow (Performing and visual arts?)? Presently that's just a dablink. To be truthful the visual arts of the Cornish hasn't really come up in the stuff I've been reading, but I guess that's because alot of it has been ethno-celtic based. I'd welcome expansion. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the issues may be that, although visual arts are important in Cornwall, most of the main figures historically were not Cornish-born. How about something like:

Celtic crosses are found in many locations in Cornwall, and have been used in the area's later decorative arts. At the end of the 18th century, John Opie was the first Cornish-born painter to gain widespread attention. Soon afterwards, artists who recognised the special qualities of the area's natural light, such as Turner, began to visit, with more following after the opening of the Great Western Railway, notably Whistler and Sickert. Stanhope Forbes and Frank Bramley settled in Cornwall in the 1880s, establishing the Newlyn School of painting en plein air. By the 1920s, the ceramicist Bernard Leach was established at St. Ives, and a school of more abstract artists formed there, influenced by local naive painters such as Alfred Wallis, and involving such internationally renowned figures as Ben Nicholson, his wife Barbara Hepworth, Naum Gabo and Patrick Heron.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks good. I'd like it better if we could double up the references a little more (i.e. draw some verifiability from a few additional sources as cornwalls.co.uk looks a little weak). Being as annoyingly pedantic as I am, I'd be very happy if we could accomodate the following (it looks worse than it actually is in a preview! - sorry!):

Celtic crosses dating from ????? are found in many locations in Cornwall and have been used in the area's later decorative as inspiration in modern and contemporary Cornish visual arts. At the end of the 18th century, John Opie was the first Cornish-born painter to gain widespread attention national acclaim. Soon afterwards, [A]rtists who recognised the special qualities appreciated the quality of Cornwall's natural light, such as J. M. W. Turner, began to visit, with more following after the opening of the Great Western Railway, notably including James Abbott McNeill Whistler and Walter Sickert. Stanhope Forbes and Frank Bramley settled in Cornwall in the 1880s, establishing the Newlyn School of painting en plein air. By the 1920s, the ceramicist Bernard Leach was established at St. Ives, and a school the St Ives School of more abstract artists formed there, influenced by local naive painters such as Alfred Wallis, and involving such internationally renowned figures as Ben Nicholson, his wife Barbara Hepworth, Naum Gabo and Patrick Heron.

How would that be? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Best I can do:

Celtic crosses, many dating from between the 7th and 15th centuries, are found in Cornwall and have been used as inspiration in modern and contemporary Cornish visual arts. In the 1780s, John Opie was the first Cornish-born painter to gain widespread attention; his work was exhibited at the Royal Academy and he was described by Joshua Reynolds as "like Caravaggio and Velázquez in one". Artists who appreciated the quality of Cornwall's natural light, such as J. M. W. Turner, began to visit, with more following after the opening of the Great Western Railway, including Whistler and Sickert. Stanhope Forbes and Frank Bramley settled in Cornwall in the 1880s, establishing the Newlyn School of painting en plein air. By the 1920s, the ceramicist Bernard Leach was established at St. Ives, and the St Ives School of more abstract artists formed there, influenced by local naive painters such as Alfred Wallis, and involving such internationally renowned figures as Ben Nicholson, his wife Barbara Hepworth, Naum Gabo and Patrick Heron.

Someone else will need to format the refs! Personally I much prefer using short names of well known artists, as is conventional, rather than full names, esp. in cases like Whistler where their full names are disproportionate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Love it! --Jza84 |  Talk  12:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that many of the artists are not originally from Cornwall, and I do not know how many of them would self-identify as Cornish either. Instead, what we are seeing here is the English equivalent of Parisian artists such as Paul Gauguin (amongst many others) who went west to Brittany to see what they thought was a more primitive and wild lifestyle.

Alfred Wallis is obviously Cornish, but Bernard Leach? Barbara Hepworth? --MacRusgail (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

I made a revert here, but given the odd preceding edit summary, thought I'd best be clear: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. This isn't negotiable - cite your sources!

There's no evidence that there are Cornish people in Wales or England. The definition of England being east of the Tamar is also unhelpful. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I see it's been restored again with no references here. I am assuming good faith this is not a POV mission or a breach of WP:POINT. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a significant community of Cornish people in London. [12] --Joowwww (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

--Thanks Joowwww, it looks like this has been resolved, and using that reference too. No sign of a community in Wales mind. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've not heard of a significant community of Cornish people in Wales. Perhaps it is being confused with the significant community of Cornish speakers in Wales. --Joowwww (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed Wales. I suspect you are right. Probably we're talking about Cornish speakers, with one well known exception - Gwenno Saunders - whose father is a Cornishman. On the other hand, it may be possible that some Cornish moved to Wales to work in the mines, much as they did in Mexico, Australia, South Africa etc. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote all the abbreviations you like, but when there is an "in use" template on something don't use it or you shall cause edit conflicts as in fact you did.

"The definition of England being east of the Tamar is also unhelpful." - It's there for a simple reason. Many people consider Cornwall part of England, but "England" here refers to places other than Cornwall. I have removed Wales, as I have not been able to find much evidence of a Cornish community there. The Cornish community in Scotland is almost non-existent (although there is at least one Cornish placename in Ayrshire), and not significant.

There is in fact PLENTY of evidence of Cornish communities in London, Plymouth etc. And why would you remove New Zealand from the list?

By the way, why the hell do all the dates in the citations have to be backwards? I thought only Asian countries did that. Certainly not appropriate on a UK article.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. Do you intend to archive this discussion by tomorrow as well?

If you want to be flippant (about archiving a year's worth of content about an old version of an article that had only you soapboxing about Cornwall in it, citing no sources, and not helping progress the article forwards), then I suppose I could retort about your very odd reverts claiming I'd removed citation? Why? No seriously, why did you do that? As if I'm in the wrong!

I don't doubt there's "PLENTY of evidence", but I do doubt that you provided citation. Have you ever taken an article to GA or FA? Do you know how strictly WP:V is applied? Do you feel you should not be bound by the rules of it like everyone else simply because there's "PLENTY of evidence"? I'm not interested if it's true, I'm interested if it's verifiable.

And, um, please don't threaten me with "in use". Look at my diffs - you added that after you restored your uncited content. This doesn't fill me with confidence MacRusgail, that this was in the spirit of collaboration... which ties me into my point that "in use" is a courtesy only: I am entitled to edit the article.

And "England. i.e. east of the Tamar" is going. It's uncited POV. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"England, east of the Tamar" refers to places in England outside Cornwall, since some people consider Cornwall itself to be part of England. Not that hard to understand.

'please don't threaten me with "in use".' - the template is there to let other people know that an article is being edited at that moment. In fact, you yourself might have considered using it at a few points. It's there as a matter of courtesy. Maybe you should concentrate a bit more on that, than the bureaucracy.

"the spirit of collaboration"... usually involves more than one person. You removed information about NZ. You removed information about the Cornish minority in (the rest of?) England. You also archived discussion which was not "over a year old", but thoroughly active within the previous week. Were you trying to mug the discussion by any chance?

And get rid of those awful backwards dates. It's hard enough trying to work out which is the day and which is the month. Who in the UK puts the year first? --MacRusgail (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The backwards dates are staying as ISO 8601 is an international standard, widely used across Wikipedia, and preferred per template:citation. Nev1 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Who uses these dates in the UK? Which is the month and which is the day? I notice you yourself use "10 September 2009 (UTC)" in your signature. Can we use a system which is at least intelligible? (The sensible thing, surely is to have the name of the month, rather than a number). The only part of the world that I have seen these backward dates widely used is East Asia. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with template:citation, take it up at that talk page, because I really don't care enough. Accessdates in template:citation should be in ISO 8601, and the only way that's going to change is if you raise it in the right place. Nev1 (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is fast (or sluggishly?) becoming the type of bureaucracy that would make the pen pushers of Gormenghast weep. The simple fact of the matter is that Wikipedia has to be easy to use/edit/reference. Yet every other time I try to contribute something useful, someone invents another unnecessary rule, in a corner of WP only half a dozen editors are aware of. It's enough to turn one into an anarchist. You're right, I am going to bring this up there. It's hard enough trying to work out which dates are American usage (month first), and which are British usage (day first), without having to deal with a third. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of basic English grammar appears to be no better than your understanding of npov and verifiability MacRusgail. "England, east of the Tamar" means that England is east of the Tamar. If you'd meant to describe the rest of England other than Cornwall you would have said "England east of the Tamr", without the comma. Have you ever wondered why all these types of article are in such poor shape? Perhaps because pov warriors like you have historically succeeded in driving other editors away? Well let me tell you, things are going to change. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

'"England, east of the Tamar" means that England is east of the Tamar.' - Actually no, it doesn't necessarily. The point here was to mention that there is a significant Cornish minority in the likes of Plymouth, London and so on. People have completely misunderstood the point of the phrase "east of the Tamar" here - it means England outside Cornwall. Now I don't think Cornwall is a bona fide part of England, however, "England" in this particular context was referring to other counties etc. How would you put it? --MacRusgail (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're pushing the boundaries of civility. Also assume good faith, please. --Joowwww (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If that comment was addressed to me then I suggest that you don't waste your time in future making similar ones. I have no interest in your or anyone else's prissy ideas of what constitues "civility", only my own. As far as I'm concerned AGF is a charter for rogues, bur even so, it doesn't demand the suspension of critical thought, at least in rational individuals anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"some people consider Cornwall itself to be part of England" per WP:BURDEN and WP:V, if you disagree that Cornwall is part of England, you are going to have to provide reliable sources to back that up. I would be very impressed to see them. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote me in context, please. You're confusing two different issues that I brought up here. The main one in this particular instance was not whether Cornwall is in England, but that there are a number of Cornish people living in England (i.e. outside Cornwall). London is not part of Cornwall. Plymouth is not part of Cornwall, although its commuter belt goes into Cornwall, and it is the big city for Cornwall (since Cornwall doesn't have any large urban centres of its own). There are a lot of Cornish living and working in Plymouth. Many east Cornish people are born there, because of the hospital facilities. London has a similar draw. To a lesser extent, Exeter, Bristol and other English big cities have Cornish minorities but are not within Cornwall itself.

In the same way, if one was talking about (native) Hawaiians, one could talk about there being a significant Hawaiian minority "in the USA outside Hawaii", i.e. not just in the Continental USA, but also on some of its non-Hawaiian islands as well. A number of native Hawaiians live in California and Utah in fact. I don't actually like the way the Native Hawaiians article has tried to explain this, because it doesn't differentiate between Hawaiians living on their home turf, and Hawaiians in other parts of the USA. In the same way, we should differentiate between Cornish people living in Cornwall, and Cornish people living in England, but not in Cornwall itself.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Quote all the abbreviations you like, but when there is an "in use" template on something don't use it or you shall cause edit conflicts as in fact you did." - I suggest you take that back MacRusgail. You are wrong. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I put that template on there so that I could work on it for five minutes. If people are discourteous enough to ignore it, I don't see what the point of having such a template in the first place is. This is the second faux pas the user has made. They also archived discussions which were active within the last four days.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Heavens above!

The discussion appeared to have reached consensus, and BritishWatcher, Ghmyrtle, and Yorkshirian – three of the four editors involved in the discussion, the fourth being Jza84 – are hardly shrinking violets and would say something if they thought Jza84 had made a faux pas by archiving the discussion. If you disagree with the consensus, you are free to open a new discussion. Nev1 (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually no it hadn't. There are plenty of other editors contributing to articles such as these, and their comments can be found in the archives. The editors you mention represent only one side of the debate, and have been pushing it on Wikipedia's general UK noticeboards, but curiously not WP:Cornwall, which would have been more logical.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a bare faced lie. Or perhaps you made a faux pas? Nev1 (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not, because I wasn't referring to that particular discussion. Earlier this year Britishwatcher, Yorkshirian and friends were pushing their agenda on general UK boards, but not on WP:Cornwall until I protested about it. The basic tactic has been to wait until the editors on the other side of the debate go off for a while, and then to make the articles agree with their viewpoint - rather than representing both sides as they should. In the instance of Cornwall, a number of English people seem to have a problem with recognising the Cornish as an ethnic group, yet they are perceived that way in Wales and Brittany in particular, and also by several Continental bodies as such. I don't have a problem seeing them as one, since they have most of the necessary characteristics (as do the Shetlanders, Channel Islanders, Manx etc) They certainly have more of a right to be called one than the so called Ulster Scots.

By the way, I notice yet again there is something strange going on with the archiving there. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How are you defining "English". Are the Cornish not English? What is the evidence for your claim—evidence, not opinion—that the Cornish are a separate ethnic group from the rest of the country? Any more than those from Lincolnshire are a separate ethnic group? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The people of Lincolnshire have never been a nation, and have not claimed to be, at least not until recently. On the other hand, there is evidence of a distinct Cornish nation over a thousand years ago, continuing up to the present day. The relationship of Cornish people to Englishness is a complex one. In fact, they have a triple, or even quadruple, identity in some cases, if Britishness, and European sentiment are included. In Scotland, we only have to contend with a double (or triple) identity. Some Cornish consider themselves English, some do not. More bizarrely, some Cornish consider themselves to be a nation, and to be English at the same time. The range of sentiment goes from Cornish-not-English through "Cornish-and-English" to "English with a Cornish background".--MacRusgail (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well what about the people of the Kingdom of Wessex, should we class them as an ethnic group and give them a whole people article? Also you say there is just "Scottish" identity in Scotland, what about all the different clans, isnt that a sort of identity? or Highlanders / people from the Lowlands? What about those on from the sheltland islands? Do they all identify as just Scottish? This is the problem i have, where do we draw the line when describing something as an ethnic group. The British government certainly dont view cornish as an ethnic group, in the past an excuse has been used that Cornish people got a code in the 2001 census, but Jedis got a religious code, it doesnt make it a religion, or does it? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Shetlanders have already been mentioned. Do try and keep up. --MacRusgail (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cornish people are English people, this is fact. As for my "agenda" when i first arrived and saw some of these cornwall articles i was horrified, some articles have been grossly overplaying fringe views on this matter, and that was backed up when someone advertised on a separatist forum calling for people to come here and push their propaganda because it was being challenged. Also id just like to point out its alot easier for 3rd parties or nations to see something as separate its not Wales being undermined. Its debatable how many people in such places hold the views you suggest. Its commonsense that separatist parties like PC and the SNP seek to undermine England. Such attempts to encourage a break up of England itself helps their cause for breaking up the UK. Separatists stick together. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Some Cornish consider themselves English, some don't. Simple as that. I've met plenty examples of both.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Separatists stick together." - Actually, no they don't. Ever follow the breakup of Yugoslavia? At one point, Plaid and the SNP used to vote against each other regularly. You also won't find much support for, let alone an opinion on, Cornish nationalism within the SNP. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have done you much good, since you're unable to appreciate that other people may have differing opinions from you.

By the way, "separatist" is a totally POV term and pejorative, and doesn't belong on wikipedia. Equivalent to referring to Labour as Stalinists or the Tories as Fascists.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Its commonsense that separatist parties like PC and the SNP seek to undermine England." - Wrong. The SNP has no interest in "undermining" England. They just want Scottish independence from the United Kingdom. (And there is an argument for saying England would actually be better off without Scotland) As for undermining, isn't that exactly what you're trying to do on every other Cornish article? The Cornish have a complex relationship with England, and Englishness, with some of them considering themselves English and some not. I've met both. But you'd better face facts, the Cornish have more of the hallmarks of an ethnic group than many other well known ones do. Including the Ulster Scots, whose identity has been encouraged to develop in such a way to strengthen Irish unionism.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Lmao, ofcourse these parties seek to undermine England along with the United Kingdom, thats their goal in life but i wont get started on some of the separatist propaganda put out by them, attempting to stir up trouble here in England with their lies. The overwhelming majority of people in Cornwall consider themselves English not "Cornish", this sort of conversation would come as a shock to many of them. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

These parties seek to break up the UK, which is not the same as undermining England.

'The overwhelming majority of people in Cornwall consider themselves English not "Cornish"' - Most of the people in Cornwall consider themselves "Cornish". Many of them consider themselves to be English, many do not. Your argument is like suggesting that because someone in England identifies as British, that they do not identify as English as well.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

These parties seek to undermine England to help their cause of breaking up the United Kingdom. They dont really give a damn about "cornish people", we all know that following a break up of the United Kingdom if it happened, one of the first things a new English government would have to do is secure its borders and ensure England itself isnt broken up because of separatism, according to wikipedia articles clearly Cornwall is going to be the biggest threat.

Please provide me with evidence the majority of people in Cornwall consider themselves Cornish. Also, please provide me with evidence the majority who consider themselves Cornish think of themselves as being celtic? One certainly does not equal the other, yet sadly becasue its backed up with a few books this article says Cornish people are Celtic people, something i reject. Cornwall having a distinct celtic history doesnt make the "cornish" people of today Celtic. The overwhelming majority of the people in Cornwall consider themselves English rather than Cornish, this is backed up by the census that many cornish nationalists often obsess over. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you knew anything about "these parties", you'd also know that the SNP doesn't have a policy on the Cornish, and I don't think they've ever made a statement that way. Plaid Cymru has raised questions in Westminster, but you won't find anything about Cornwall in its manifesto either. You should stop confusing your personal feelings with the facts.

"consider themselves English rather than Cornish" - This demonstrates you have even less understanding of this matter. In fact, there are a number of people who consider themselves Cornish AND English. The world doesn't work in your black and white terms.--MacRusgail (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"please provide me with evidence the majority who consider themselves Cornish think of themselves as being celtic?" - Not that straw man again. Yes, most natives of Cornwall consider themselves Cornish, but that doesn't stop some of them considering themselves English as well.--MacRusgail (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note, I've seen discussion that the Cornish culture section ought to be expanded to include artists like Barbara Hepworth, who was born in Yorkshire. Is she considered to belong to this contrived ethnic group? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question, no I suspect she didn't consider herself Cornish, and no, it is not a contrived ethnic group.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My biggest concern is the link between being Cornish and being Celtic. Just because someone says they are Cornish because they are from Cornwall.. does not mean they consider themselves celtic. Whats really bad is when you have people going around wikipedia removing English or England and placing Cornwall / Cornish despite no sources being provided to say they consider themselves Cornish. How we define who is and isnt cornish is a bit of a problem and people get mixed up about articles on Cornwall rather than Cornish which is completly different. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of a straw man. The whole question of Modern Celts is another issue. Whether the Cornish are actually "Celtic" or not, they fulfil many of the criteria of an ethnic group in their own right.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What's your definition of "ethnic group"? In what way are the Cornish different from the rest of the inhabitants of this island of ours? Is it just "living in Cornwall"? I've been there windsurfing many times, but I can't remember ever meeting anyone who hadn't moved there from elsewhere in England. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"In what way are the Cornish different from the rest of the inhabitants of this island of ours?" - I find your phrasing bizarre here. No, there isn't one ethnic group on the "rest of ... this island of ours". There are three ethnic groups outwith Cornwall, not one. English, Scottish, Welsh. The Cornish identity is obviously much weaker than the Scottish and Welsh, and less tied into the language than the latter. However, issue of how Cornish people relate "Cornishness" to "Englishness" is somewhat similar to the way English people relate to "Britishness", and sometimes completely confuse the two. As an English writer once said, English people say Britain when they mean England and England when they mean Britain. English identity has grown even more complex in the wake of Scottish and Welsh devolution. I hope it develops in a positive direction. This is without getting into the issue of Travelling People. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're painting with too broad a brush. My mother is Scottish, and I lived in Scotland for many years. When English people say "England", they mean England, not Britain. When those unfortunate enough not to have been born in our country say "England", they do often mean Britain, I agree. Is that your beef? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I can guarantee you, English people confuse "Britain" and "England" on a fairly regular basis. It's become particularly acute in the media, with the BBC news reporting certain changes to the law, education etc as if they refer to the entire UK, when in fact, Stormont, Holyrood and Cardiff deal with them separately. In the case of Cornish identity, there are differing conceptions of Englishness. I have met someone who I would consider a proud Cornishman, but called himself English. Learnt the language, didn't vote MK, but would probably count as a Cornish nationalist. His relationship to Englishness was a very complex one. Likewise, some Scottish nationalists self-identity as British, and some do not identify that way at all.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Um how on earth is this similar to the example you gave? Sometimes English people say British/Britain when thinking of England. This is true although thankfully declining, but how does that relate to Cornish? Are people in Cornwall who call themselves English wrong? i dont get the point u were making with that similarity. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"how does that relate to Cornish?" In that Cornish people have widely differing views on how English they are, or aren't, and there is even a degree of confusion amongst them as to what Englishness is. Again, I would blame the British media here, as their attitude towards English identity is an inconsistent and bizarre one. (Their use of terms such as "nation" and "country" referring sometimes to the UK, and sometimes to England/Scotland/Wales)--MacRusgail (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but that is just not the same thing. English people mistakenly some times refer to Britain when they should just mean England. What is the mistake made in Cornwall? People there consider themselves English and part of England.. that is NOT a mistake, despite some peoples best efforts to brainwash people otherwise. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cornish identity goes back over a thousand years - continuously. It gets expressed in many ways. Many Cornish people consider themselves English. Some don't. And others have widely varying identities in between. A bit like people whose families have arrived in a country recently - Italian Americans/Americans with an Italian background range from individuals who consider themselves completely Italian or completely American, or some combination of the two.

As for Britishness, it wasn't even cooked up until the 18th century, and it was only in the 19th century it started going anywhere.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The 21st century matters to me, not 1000 years ago thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not read through the whole conversation here. But from what i can tell its about people in England identifying themselves as Cornish. If there is a reliable source for that just put (outside or excluding cornwall) not some nonsense about east of Tamar. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you have such difficulty understanding "east of Tamar" in the context. There are Cornish people all over England, particularly in the big cities. The reference was to Cornish people in other counties of England (if you consider Cornwall English, as you do), not to whether or not it forms a part of England. They form an identifiable group in London with an exiles rugby club, as the Scots, Welsh and Irish do.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So if those born in Cheshire, like myself, formed a rugby club in London, that would make us another identifiable ethnic group? Looks like the seeds of madness to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Slightly reductionist, and missing the woods for the trees. No, it wouldn't on its own, it would have to taken in association with a number of other things.

By the way, I literally do think I am speaking another language here. The example of the rugby club in London was to show that there is a Cornish community there, which has a visible presence, not to prove that the Cornish are an ethnic group. There's enough evidence of that within Cornwall itself.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not try making your point in Cornish? Or even better, providing some genetic evidence for your claims of ethnicity? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Cornish has its own Wikipedia, my Cornish is only slightly better than yours. Genetics are irrelevant. They certainly play no part in modern Scottish or Welsh identity. A person can be adopted or assimilated into many (most?) ethnic groups at an early age, or if they choose to. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

God knows what is written on the Cornish wikipedia, its probably overflowing with propaganda. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to learn Cornish to answer that one, won't you? (Actually it's very uneven, some Cornish subject matter is barely covered at all, whereas there are articles on South American cities, that type of thing.) --MacRusgail (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo should have given the English language wikipedia authority over all other ones. its worrying that people may use brand wikipedia built up by many good articles and editors here on the English language wikipedia to do damage or spread propaganda on some of the other language wikipedias, some of which probably only have a few dozen editors lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) "Actually it's very uneven, some Cornish subject matter is barely covered at all ...". And that, I think, speaks volumes. I don't recall anyone disputing that there is a language called Cornish. What has that to do with this claim of ethnicity though? There was also a language called Old English. Does living in the places where that was once spoken also confer ethnicity? I live in an area that was occupied by the Romans, but my Latin is probably only slighty better than your Cornish. Does that make me Italian? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"that, I think, speaks volumes" - not really. If I said it was mostly on Cornish subject matter, you would be whinging about that. The Welsh wikipedia is weak on the national religion (i.e. rugby), but that doesn't stop it being a living language. As for Old English. We're still speaking it. In a slightly altered form.--MacRusgail (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A lingering problem, I think, is the difference between simply people who live in Cornwall and those who have a surname of Brythonic origin who live there. Currently in terms of numbers it lists everybody who lives in the county. I have read (but cannot find it again), that more than 50% of the people who live there have arrived since the 1950s, due to the establishment allowing mass third world immigration into places like Birmingham, London and so on (see white flight). That is befoe we take into account people who live in Cornwall, but whose families have never spoken Cornish having moved in from other counties during the last few centuries. It seems dubious that such people would be part of any other ethnicity than English. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a recency effect at work here as well. The last supposed monolingual speaker of Cornish died in the 18th century, so was recorded. When did the last monolingual inhabitant of Mercia die? Am I a Mercian or am I an Italian? --Malleus Fatuorum 10:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet another straw man or is it a red herring? Most people in Sweden and the Netherlands speak fluent English, but to suggest that Swedish or Dutch are dead languages is disingenious. Cornish died out some while after Dolly Pentreath, probably in the 19th century according to Borlase and others, but there are now children who speak it as a native language. As for Mercia - there is no evidence of a continuous Mercian identity.--MacRusgail (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's try starting with some basics. What is your definition of "Cornish people"? --Malleus Fatuorum 11:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

People who self-identify as such, and people with strong links to Cornwall, through family, birth etc. Most people who come from Cornwall consider themselves Cornish. Contrary to what some people are saying here, that doesn't stop some of them considering themselves English as well. It's not an either/or situation. --MacRusgail (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really answering the question. Are you suggesting, for instance, that kids born in London in 1998 whose parents subsequently moved to Cornwall, and who have now learned to speak a rudimentary version of what is believed to be Cornish, are Cornish? --Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the children themselves what they think. This isn't really any different to the questions over Englishness/Scottishness/Welshness, as they don't come with bits of paper either. --MacRusgail (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. Plenty of Cornish people are born in Plymouth, but that's mainly to do with hospital facilities in the east of Cornwall.

This sentence highlights the problem "at 2009 Mebyon Kernow has no Members of Parliament elected to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and in the United Kingdom local elections, 2009 received 4% of the Cornish vote". What does it mean by Cornish there? its talking about Cornwall, not "Cornish" people. Im sure one or two separatists from other parts of the country that live in Cornwall voted MK to push their own agenda. We shouldnt presume just "cornish" people voted for MK. If we are saying all people in Cornwall or of Cornwall are Cornish, then we need to do away with this claim they are modern celts. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. There's a fundamental problem here, a lack of definition. Who are the Cornish? The people currently living in Cornwall, the ancient British people forced to the west by the Anglo-Saxons, or any kid who's been taught Cornish at school and whose parent's have a second home in Bude? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll change that. I meant "votes in Cornwall" rather than votes by Cornish people, in Cornwall or wherever. My bad. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(<- & semi-threadjack) Coming into this exciting discussion having been away from the PC, I'd like to try and take this in a different direction. That is to say, I hope we all agree that the present article is a VAST improvement on the previous version, right? The topic of Cornish people has been incredibly difficult for me to write in terms of pleasing everyone. On one hand we have those who find the very idea of a Cornish people something of a hoax, and on the other those who find that the Cornish are national ethnic group who are probably more distant from the English than any other group on the planet (dispite "obvious" and greedy English medeling no doubt...). I've really and sincerely strived to be as neutral as possible here. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change to that sentence. I agree the new article is by far better than the last one and certainly worthy of GA or even FA. Its well sourced and the article itself is neutral, although i still have concerns about it. I dont know if it clearly explains the situation enough, the intro starts out by saying "the Cornish are the people of Cornwall". the Cornish come from Cornwall and some people consider that to be their ethnic group or national identity (not many of them though) but are most people from Cornwall Cornish or is it just a small group, who identity as cornish / have celtic roots etc? If most of the people from Cornwall and Cornish, then i dont think we should say they are viewed or interpreted as modern celts. When i first saw the article i was confused and shocked that it even existed. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've spent many an hour trying to figure out a way of describing who or what the Cornish people are... and then to try source it and keep the peace, well, that's been tough, and I don't pretent that it's perfect. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Youve done a good job, im not sure how it could be reworded to address this problem and to back it up with sources or id have raised it before. Current article is a radical improvement from the previous one thats the main thing, and it explains the situation far better than before. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly a vast difference, and all to the good. It still leaves me wondering what the definition of "Cornish people" is though, as distinct from "Ayrshire people", for instance. So far it's been anyone who lives in Cornwall, anyone who once lived in Cornwall, anyone who'd like to live in Cornwall, anyone who has a child that's been taught elementary Cornish at school ... the confusion is endless. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually went for the dictionary definition in the end, and I don't think that's been picked up on really... "The Cornish are the people of Cornwall", with all the necessary vaugeness (we can call Jethro "Cornish" in this respect, without any ethnic or national connotations or even requiring he identifies as such, as he's still a person from Cornwall); then "as an ethnic group"... it is more specific; "modern Celts... distinct from the English" sets up the whole arguement from which the article is built. If we assert they are a nation, or national group, or solely an ethnic group, then, well, that's only one POV. It's a minefield. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

BirdWatcher - you have obviously never been to Cornwall - I don't mean hat as a criticism of you by the way. There is a very strong sense of Cornish identity within the indigenous community. They are an ethnic group in their own right in my view, in the same way as the Welsh and the Scots. I don't buy the DNA argument; this is constantly changing and adds no value in my opinion.Donkfest1 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Emigration to Wales

There was some emigration of Cornish miners to South Wales. Robert Morton Nance is a notable example of one born in Wales to Cornish parents.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source? Evidence of the size of migration? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not know of a source: Hamilton Jenkin's The Cornish Miner would be a place to look but I do have the book. The reliance of Cornwall on Wales for the smelting of ores is certainly documented.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This shows that there are two associations of Welsh Cornish people: http://www.cornwall-online.co.uk/associat.htm--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that we need only mention regions that have "significant" migrant populations. No doubt there are Cornish people in India and Scotland, but I don't know how large or notable that may be in terms of reporting on the article. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I did mean to say "do not have the book": I would not put anything in now, I was following up the discussion re Tim Saunders above.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is some evidence of Cornish migration to Ayrshire, but it's negligible. Likewise I think Cornish migration to any part of Ireland probably isn't worth mentioning. I could see Cornish migration to Wales being significant with the mining etc, but can't really say I've ever come across much evidence of it. Certainly a lot of people from the West Country (i.e. the eastern part of it) migrated to South Wales, especially Somerset.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bibliotheca Cornubiensis

I think it would be "further reading" so more suitable for the Cornwall article: no ISBN because out of print though publisher ought to have been mentioned.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bodmer's research

This statement is untrue and misleading and should be clarified or removed; A study by the Wellcome Trust, led by Sir Walter Bodmer and published on Channel 4's Faces of Britain in April 2007, showed that the Cornish people have a particular variant of the Melanocortin 1 receptor gene, identifying them as Celts more closely related to the Welsh than to the English.[40]

It did no such thing. In the program referrenced it is noted that people from Devon tested came out with a higher frequency of the genes than the Cornish, at 23%, as opposed to 16% for the Cornish tested, for the "ginger genes" (R151C and R160W)Also everyone has the MC1R gene. So are we now to consider people from Devon more "Cetic" than the Cornish?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1290113.

Serpren (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted, if your points are right the statement should be removed from the page BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? Genes are irrelevant here. People move around. I can trace my ancestry to several different countries, if I go back far enough, which is probably a good thing. But I still consider myself Scottish. --MacRusgail (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fair, but what we "consider' ourselves is not really content for an encyclopedia. I'd have no problem with all this "Celtic gene" nonsense being removed.Serpren (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What we consider ourselves is indeed content for an encyclopedia. Otherwise, why have articles about religions, castes, political movements etc? Certainly some areas in the west of the British Isles, in the so called "Highland" parts do have different genes, but I think it's incidental. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cornish people/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will presently begin reviewing this article and make straightforward changes as I go (explanations in edit summaries). Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Both "geographic and historical factors distinguish the Cornish as an ethnic group" - another way of saying this without resorting to quotes?

--I have attempted a fix to this with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto with any others in the Classification section, although I do concede for some it is well-nigh impossible :)

Traditional accounts of the ancestral roots of the Cornish - in the interests of succinctness I was trying to think of one word to replace the bolded two...

--I have attempted a fix to this with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

who derived from... - looks odd in active tense

--I think I fixed this with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Methodism, the then main form of religious practice for the Cornish, was held with strong conviction by the Cornish, encouraging Methodist sensibilities in a direct rivalry with Catholic Irish people in Australia - need to rephrase to reduce repetition. I am musing on this one - tricky.

--I have attempted a fix to this with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A restored living modern language, most Cornish speakers are enthusiasts, persons who have learned the language through private study - flow issues as the subject changes between the first and subsequent clauses.

--I think I fixed this with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Daily life in Cornwall therefore is conducted in the English language, albeit with some regional peculiarities - rather than leaving this as an easter egg link, I think a few of the most prominent cornish expressions would be good to mention here.

My impression was that Methodism was pretty prominent, and may deserve more than one line in the Religion section (?) Prevalence or some other info?

• As far as the GA criteria go...

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

• A couple of images need WP:ALT text. I need to sleep now.

Overall:

Pass or Fail: (just about...)

The above suggestions are not deal-breakers. I'll adjust it to a GA when we fix up the last couple of images -the suggestions are more of a shove towards FAC :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try fix the last few, but some are "near impossible", but others (like the list of local words) will need someone with local knowledge. I aim to finish the last few ALTs tonight. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. It's going well. I just thought a word or two'd give it a little colour. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some of these would add the local colour. List of Cornish dialect words: selections

• Bal or Wheal - traditional Cornish words for a mine, e.g Bal maiden; Wheal Jane
• Cloam - Crockery, pottery, earthenware, e.g "cloam oven" an old type of housefold oven
• Crib - a mid-morning break for a snack (see below also)
• Crowst - a mid-morning break for a snack
• Dreckly - soon, but not necessarily immediately - like "mañana", but less urgent, as in "Cornishmen do it dreckly"
• Maid - girl, girl-friend
• Proper - satisfactory, as in "Proper job!" = very good
• Scat - to hit or break "Scat abroad = Smashed up"

--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff. Just 4 or 5 main ones should do it I imagine, but we need a reference. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  10:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh, we can leave that for FAC I think then - thus the two (non-deal-breaker) potential content improvements I see as left over from the above for FAC to be (i) a couple of the best known cornish words, and (ii) A sentence or two on the current prevalence of methodism (census figures maybe??). Otherwise we're good to go methinks...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cornish in New Zealand

Under Cornish diaspora this now has a reference so perhaps a summary of it could go back into the Cornish people article. It is the only country present in Cornish diaspora which is lacking from Cornish people. "===New Zealand=== During the 1870s and 1880s, New Zealand had an immigrant drive spearheaded by Sir Julius Vogel of the New Zealand Government. At that time Vogel recognised that the young colony needed labourers, farmers and domestic servants to "bring the country in". Vogel initiated the Vogel Immigration Scheme (1871-1888) in which any New Zealand resident could nominate any British resident to immigrate to New Zealand for free if they qualified under the criteria. The criteria was for fit, healthy, young people with primarily labouring, farming or domestic servant skills. The recruiters were told to focus on Cornish and Scots who were known for their hard work ethic and were therefore deemed particularly ideal for colonial life. As the timing coincided with the downturn of the Cornish tin market, a large number of Cornish took up the offer. Many Cornish went to Auckland, Wellington or Lyttelton Christchurch), New Zealand. Many Scots went to Dunedin, New Zealand. Peak immigration under the scheme occurred between 1872 and 1874. Records of those who emigrated under the scheme still exist and can be searched at most large New Zealand public libraries."--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that some of this material is not exactly supported by the reference. For example, where is "The recruiters were told to focus on Cornish and Scots who were known for their hard work ethic and were therefore deemed particularly ideal for colonial life" supported? I don't doubt it's true, but I wouldn't want us to lose GA status. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the improved Cornish people article can be given a good rating that would be much preferable. The Cornish diaspora version will be available for anyone searching on relevant keywords. The reference now present was about the only worthwhile one I could find when I added it to that article so it would probably need a library user in New Zealand to get any further.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly a few around - Allen Curnow (Kernow!) - for example. A lot of them worked in NZ mines, particularly on the South Island, but the Cornish community, if one can still be said to exist, is much lower profile in NZ than Australia.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Towards FA (?)

Okay then, the two left-over content improvements I could think of here before FA were (i) a couple of the best known cornish words, and (ii) A sentence or two on the current prevalence of methodism (census figures maybe??). Anyone think of any others? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Felix Folio Secundus (talk · contribs) about adding something about the Cornish in New Zealand, but just think that the citation needs to be at that consistently high standard. I'd love to go for FA, even if just for the feedback. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubious claims about Scotland & discussion of images

"The visit of King George IV to Scotland in 1822 reinvigorated Scottish national identity, melding it with romanticist notions of tartan, kilts and the Scottish Highlands."

This is utter nonsense, and has been debunked by mainstream Scottish historians such as Murray Pittock and William Ferguson. Fact is that Scottish identity did not start with Walter Scott, let alone George IV or Victoria's Balmoral. They merely hijacked certain elements in order to use them for their own political ends.

Scottish identity didn't need "reinvigorating" in 1822, it was actually a hell of a lot stronger back then than now. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not been editting for a while, but I'm confident that we still believe that a) Wikipedia is not censored, and b) we still have to provide sources. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you replied to the right thread here? --MacRusgail (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You've removed cited material (example here), then put in your own without providing evidence You must achieve a consensus to have your changes displayed per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. The images your adding are sub-standard, and were not agreed upon by other editors and were not present at the time this article achieved GA status. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"The images your adding are sub-standard" - in your opinion. Also can you speak English please? I'm sick of self-appointed bureaucrats quoting "WP:ABC" at folk in an attempt to try and blind the rest of us with science - it's wrecking Wikipedia. I also suggest you look up the term "consensus" in a real dictionary. You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) p.s. If you had much nous, you'd realise that your use of "BRD" and "Consensus" actually contradict each other. Try and be consistent.

BRD (bold, revert, discuss) and consensus are in fact inextricably linked. The "discuss" part of BRD is meant to establish or gauge consensus. So much for nous. Nev1 (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This bureaucratic nonsense is frankly destroying Wikipedia and is merely licenced vandalism. Just because some savant can quote abbreviations doesn't mean that their argument is valid. The idea that this kind of action "creates consensus" is utter nonsense. No one, including Jza84 has come up with a decent argument for removing those images. The least s/he could do is replace them with better ones, if they can find them.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You may think it nonsense, but the process is intended to preserve the article and to prevent edit wars by getting editors to discuss changes. Discuss the changes you wish to make. It's that simple. Nev1 (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The article hasn't been "preserved" at all. In fact, it's been altered beyond recognition within the last few months. And not by some kind of consensus, merely the persistence of certain editors who have a lot of time on their hands. Some of whom believe that the Cornish don't even exist as a distinct group!

It's only within the last day or two that anybody's bothered to discuss properly why those three images should/should not be there.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No decent argument has been put forward for removing those images. Jzawhatever said that the images were poor. They aren't really worse/better than the rest. If s/he wishes to be constructive, then they can find images to replace them. Two of the most obvious facets of Cornish identity are the language, and some of the unusual folk dances etc to be found in Cornwall. Not many people speak the language - that's perfectly true - but it is now much more visible than it ever was fifty or a hundred years ago.

It's nonsense in logical/philosophical terms. Being "bold" is the exact opposite of "consensus", since one is an individualistic act, and the other requires democratic consultation (or at least the herd falling in line).

And as I have pointed out to you, and others, this has been discussed here. Ad nauseam. What usually happens is that the person with the most time on their hands gets their way. The folk with a social life/other things in their life don't. Much the same can be said about the alphabet soup you keep on trying to impress me with. The only people who think that is consensus are Stalinists and the like. At least have the intellectual honesty to call a spade a spade.

I wish to create decent articles, not to destroy them. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hooray, I'm being called a Stalinist! That is what you were implying right? Nev1 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Don't talk about intellectual honesty when you lie that I participated in any discussion about images, and consistently fail to produce links to the previous discussions relating to your changes. Apply your standards to yourself as well as others. Nev1 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reread what I said - "Stalinists and the like" Are you perhaps the like? If not, then stop behaving as if you are.

I do not consider "manufactured consensus" to be consensus. I've been in a trade union or two in my time, and have experience of this kind of nonsense.

You have failed once again to provide a decent argument for the reversions. Please come up with one. And leave the alphabet soup in the pot please.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've re-titled this thread, as most of it isn't about Scotland. Furthermore, it would be helpful if it could be clarified exactly which images are objected to, and what reasons the objectors have for removing. (I'm assuming that this isn't a orivate argument). Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was what it was supposed to be about. However, Jza84 managed to take it off at a tangent pretty much straight away. That's why I said - "Have you replied to the right thread here?"

Can I suggest that it's probably better if these two subjects are divided?--MacRusgail (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A part Scot myself, born in suburban Renfrewshire, I'm certainly not in the business of making up Scottish history or somehow suggesting it "started with Walter Scott" (it doesn't even say that MacRusgail, or anything about Balmoral, so please, stop being so combattive). Re-read the sentence - it says that the visit of George IV was important for Scottish sensibilities and identity, and tied it with concepts old and new. This is a view shared by a vast array of scholars. Shamelessly putting WP:V to oneside, it simply was important for Scotland, modern Scottish culture and in turn Pan-Celticity. It has relevance, brings context to the article, and explains a major stimulus for the romantic view of Celtic ethnicity in the British Isles. Bringing WP:V back into the frame - just cite your sources if you disagree! Bring some substance, with page numbers, to the debate, please, don't censor Wikipedia on a whim, as this is specifically precluded by policy if not extremely annoying to the users who have spent their time finding the source that backs this up (and I haven't even used Hugh Trevor-Roper's Invention of Scotland!). To be brutally honest, it just makes me think you're not an outstanding editor. I'm not going to argue with sources if you provide them (which is your own responsbility), but I am going to fight censorship and editor's personal comments on the discussion page.... --Jza84 |  Talk  15:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Can we try to keep this above the level of labelling editors as "not outstanding" or anything else please? Failing that, can MacRusgail and JZA84 take the slanging match to their own talk pages and stop buggering this one up? I did try to gently hint above that this thread had become less than helpful, and would benefit from a focus on the specifics of the disagreement. Please try to concentrate on the content - if you think it should be removed, explain here why, likewise if you think it should be kept. Please also refrain from calling up friendly editors who you feel will support your position. This applies to both of you - two editors who I have long regarded as improving Wikipedia's coverage of Cornwall. DuncanHill (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm.... I haven't called up any editors, so please don't suggest I have. I have concentrated on the content, by supplying references and combatting censorship. I should be thanked. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)