Talk:Pseudoarchaeology of Cornwall

Basque related pseidohistorical material

I came across this when looking at pseudohistorical assertions concerning Basque. I decided not to include it based on a very peripheral relevance to the topic at hand.

There is an idea that people from what is now the Sahara desert colonised Europe as a consequence of climate changes in the North Africa region, and that the Basque language is descended from the language of these people. Thing is though, the promoter of the assertion I found is such an extreme crackpot that I don't think it would be beneficial to readers of this article to link to Edo Nyland's book as a citation. Although some mainstream scholars have considered the possibility of a migration from North Africa to the Iberian Peninsula in prehistoric times based on genetic evidence, the linguistic hypotheses of Edo Nyland are not supportable from the evidence available (and he appears to have other ideas which are even further out). Some of the geneticists authoring the paper appear to have been taken in by fringe people in historical linguistics based on the abstract of the cited paper. There is no conclusive evidence of Basque being anything other than a language isolate.

Govynn (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename or merge?

I have several issues with this article. Firstly, it overlaps with Cornish folklore. Secondly, why use a term like "pseudoarchaeology", which is not what the article describes? My interpretation of "pseudoarcheology" is that it relates to the work of people like von Daniken, through which real things like stone blocks are given unscientific explanations. We have, for instance, Welsh mythology - an article that includes "Welsh folklore". To be consistent, should we merge this article with Cornish folklore, and rename the combined article as "Cornish mythology"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm game if nobody is going to complain, I think the article could do with a tidy up in any case. AdamCaputo (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It certainly needs a good tidy-up at the very least, though I'd support a renaming as well. I'd let it lie partly because I was expecting some of the regular Cornwall editors to turn up here and rip it to shreds - but that hasn't happened, so feel free to rehash it as you see fit. The original article creator, who was extremely active here for a short period, now seems to have vanished again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A number of his articles were deleted. Some of his stuff was original research or used unreliable sources. He also seems to have used at least one other account, but wasn't blocked. It was at the time he was asked not to use any other accounts that he stopped editing. He says on his talk page he was going to take a break and he has. His insistence that Corby is a Scottish town was a bit of a problem. His talk pages notes others. I'd support a renaming and possible merge. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the merge and rename. It would make this article easier to digest, given it would be put more in context. Also I think Ghmyrtle is right in saying that some of the content doesn't really belong under this article title as it is. Zangar (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Eleven years on! All the above comments are still relevant and this should definitely be merged into Cornish mythology. I'll have a go before the end of the year unless anyone beats me to it.  —Smalljim  20:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge done. This is now a redirect to Cornish mythology  —Smalljim  12:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)