Talk:St Piran's Day

Untitled

Needs more information - Can anyone help me provide examples of the events that occur across Cornwall ??

I'm not editing it in, but essentially there's mostly just clog dancing and getting drunk. The vast majority of events in Cornwall revolve around mostly just clog dancing and getting drunk.--84.130.190.30 (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

National ?

Last time I checked, Cornwall was a county, not a nation. Better wording perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The cows want their milk back (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The definition of a national day is "The National Day is a designated date on which celebrations mark the nationhood of a nation or non-sovereign country", unless someone can provide evidence that Cornwall is a nation or non-soverign country then that phrase has to go. I'll leave it a day but will then delete it. Without evidence WP:BRD cannot be used to sustain a non factual statement. --Snowded ^TALK 22:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

First comment - the first editor in this thread is blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet. Second - "non-sovereign country" is an arguable descriptor of Cornwall. Where do you get that "definition" Snowded? DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

From the linked wikipedia page. The issue of what is or is not a country has been extensively debated and there is no evidence that Cornwall is a country in any sense of the word. While I am personally sympathetic to Cornish Nationalism WIkipedia is about facts. A National Day implies a Nation. Without evidence it goes. --Snowded ^TALK 22:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You haven't linked any page apart from BRD. As for the "country" issue - that is irrelevant, the day is here described as the national day of the Cornish people, NOT of "the Country of Cornwall". DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussions on what was or was not a nation/country all took place at the linked page - check it out. If you want to say "National Day" then you have to provide citation support. A national day (see the pipelink) assumes a nation. Cornwall is not nation. As I say I'll leave a day, but without a citation it has to go. --Snowded ^TALK 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WHAT LINKED PAGE? Telling people to read a linked page when you haven't linked a page is less than helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that an ultimatum of just one day is unreasonable and unhelpful, and I do not accept it. Discuss here, and give other editors time to contribute. This is not a BLP issue, so there is no urgency. DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

National Day, sorry I thought that was obvious. As I said I fully sympathise with Cornish Nationalism, but we need to be objective here and reflect the facts. You might want to check out the various discussions on the talk page of Cornwall over the last couple of years as well. --Snowded ^TALK 23:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

One does not need to be a Cornish Nationalist, or to have sympathy with Cornish nationalism, to be able to accept the description of St Piran's Day as "the national day of the Cornish people". As to the debates at the Cornwall talk page, I am very familiar with them, and the many sockpuppets who have muddied the waters there. I am also very familiar with the efforts of the Cornwall Wikiproject to find forms of wording which minimise the risk of future edit-wars while reflecting a neutral and reasonably objective position on a vexed issue. Sudden changes & sharp ultimata do not help find either a stable or a neutral and objective wording. I have listed this debate at the Wikiproject, and hopefully this will bring more editors, with sources, to the debate and to the article. In the meantime, as this is a non-urgent matter, I urge you not to seek to impose your preferred form on the article. Give it time. DuncanHill (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not urgent either way, so the default should be to a non-contentious wording. This has been changed twice now and you have reverted on each occassion without providing any evidence or argument on the talk page. Its not a "sudden change" to remove national day and its certainly not a "sharp ultimata". If you feel strongly about this you really should be able to find a citation. --Snowded ^TALK 00:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor who first made the change made no attempt to start a discussion, and neither did you until challenged. It is a sudden change, and your "one day" ultimatum is far too short. Given the history of disrruptive sock-puppetry in this are I feel strongly that it is best to allow the debate to continue. I do have my doubts about an editor with little or no previous history of involvement suddenly demanding changes to suit his own timetable. DuncanHill (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to learn to address the content issue being raised rather than attacking other editors. I have no idea why you keep talking about sock puppets, that has nothing to do with the issue. This page was listed as evidence elsewhere which is how I came here. I then saw an obvious error of fact and corrected it. When you reverted I fact tagged and made my point here. Normal wikipedia process. You would be best occupied trying to find some evidence to support your position. A statement without citation can be deleted, many other editors would simply do that. --Snowded ^TALK 00:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Another way of phrasing that is to say you saw a statement being used to argue against the point you were trying to make somewhere else, and edited it to suit your position. You fact tagged - fine, no problem with that. You also demanded a one day deadline, which is not acceptable and not collegiate. You referred to previous debates on the Cornwall talkpage, which I am sure you are aware have been marred by sockpuppetry, and you chose to make your first contribution here in a thread started by an abusive sockpuppet. Give people time to do their research, and don't impose deadlines, and try proposing wording here on the talk page and gaining consensus for it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed wording is per my edit pending any citation. Reasons are given above, if there is no citation support available now then it should go. If you find some later it can always go back in. Please lay off the sockpuppet stuff, it has nothing whatsoever to do with this. --Snowded ^TALK 00:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue here as far as I can see is the definition of "nation". Let's see what the article Nation says: "A nation is a grouping of people who share real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, often possessing or seeking its own government." Cornwall/the Cornish people clearly fit that definition, so can be considered a nation. This is also the academic definition of "nation", used in studies of nationalism and identity. It's when "nation" is used to mean "country", that the confusion appears. This is not helped by governments and the media who use "nation" when they mean "country" or "state". There is no doubt that Cornwall is not a country. But it is a nation. It self-identifies as a nation in a way that Yorkshire or Berkshire don't. Would "is considered by Cornish people to be the national day of Cornwall" be a reasonable compromise? --Joowwww (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Lots of things could be reasonable if there is citation support. If someone can find a reliable source that says that St Piran's Day is the National Day I will withdraw my objection. To say that it is regarded as a national day by Cornish People would require a citation as well, and to be honest if there is one that says that it would also support a simple use of national day. --Snowded ^TALK 00:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, but the synthesis of material (i.e. St Piran's Day is a cultural event for Cornwall (ref1) + Cornish people have an ethnic dimension to their identity (ref2) X ethnicity is related to nationhood (ref3) = Cornish people consider it the National Day of Cornwall) should be treated with great caution, if not outright rejection. There should be no attempt to 'compromise' on this because because it spoils Wikipedia already mixed reputation: consensus will not trump verifiability (WP:OR...).

My point? - Where is the third part reputable source that explicitly says "St Piran's Day is the national day of Cornwall and/or the Cornish people" please? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• My point? Give people some fucking time and stop trying to railroad people by setting unrealistic and unreasonable deadlines. Jza and Snowded, both of you need to consider whether your edits, over a period of time, could be considered collegial or NPOV in issues relating to the peoples of Britain. DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That comment's not entirely conducive to collaborative editting Duncan. Please reread my comment and your own and consider a retraction. I have 2 good articles under my belt on the issue (amongst others) - things that don't get past scrutiny easily I assure you. I'm merely asking for a source - without a deadline too you will note; it's a fundamental part of discussion and editting, not a POV railroad Duncan. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You're a good editor in many ways, but not perfect. I've got no problem at all with asking for a source, or applying a fact tag, but a very big problem with an editor who demands change on a one day deadline. I've asked Snowded repeatedly to allow time for sourcing and debate - something he seems profoundly reluctant to allow. This isn't a BLP, so there is no rush, no-one's going to get hurt if he can bring himself to shew a little patience. Be nice for you to suggest it to him, as he seems to have more regard for your opinion than mine or Jooow's. DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I see validity in both sides; my personal view on whether it is or is not a national day is, well, indifferent. The only way forwards is to cite a source, and quickly; Snowded is within his rights to remove unsourced content 'on the spot' per WP:BURDEN ("...any material [without a source] that is challenged or likely to be challenged... may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace without exception... "). I imagine, with passions burning with so great a conviction, that simple sourcing should be easy here??? What do you see as a reasonable timeframe for finding a source Duncan? -- 3 days, 7 days, 10 days? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Is the national day" The Mirror: [1], The Plymouth Herald: [2], Andrew George [3] (or is he not NPOV, being Cornish). Or are you looking for a source along the lines of "Her Majesty's Government hereby officially proclaims St Piran's Day to be the national day of Cornwall"? --Joowwww (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no, I was merely hoping we'd be good (even mediocre) Wikipedians and just find a source. This looks good to me - makes me wonder why the swearing, accusaions and drama over a google search (admittedly I didn't check it because I thought that would've been done by now).

Two things: It's "Cornwall's national day" - nothing to do with Cornish people, Cornish nation, Cornish ethnic people, Cornish society, Cornish republic etc.... and... Andrew George is from Cornwall, which may or may not make him a Cornish person (even if he says "I am Cornish", we have no idea what definition he elludes to - ethnicity, nationality, regional identity, adjective of his birthplace - or that he identifies with multi-layered cultures such as Cornish identity, English ethnicity, British nationality...); we need to be smarter on the whole issue, and not invent interpretations which we force on others. Please - Cornish content is really bad for it. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A little less drama please Duncan Hill, Jowwww did what you should have done, namely challenged for a citation he provided one. I am not sure about the strength of this to be honest - The Daily Mirror is a very brief recitation and the web site does not really stand. It does not justify the pipelink (if you check that page Cornwall is not listed and the issue of nationality of more precisely defined). For the moment I think the Mirror is enough to allow the removal of the fact tag. I'll check some other sources in my Cornish Histories when I get home and see what they say, so that may change my position. --Snowded ^TALK 05:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just coming to this debate, but I hope that the issue is now resolved with the refs provided by Joowwww. Cornwall is a "nation" but not a sovereign state; it is a "Celtic nation". (Feel free to remove the parentheses if you like.) It is also, administratively, a county of England. No inconsistency there, just the commonplace UK fuzziness over definitions. All this has been discussed at wearisome length on multiple pages, so I find Snowded's approach more than a little surprising - it's almost as though he were to suggest that Wales was not a nation prior to devolution. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not surprising Ghmyrtle - any material around the use of the word "nation" in the context of UK and Ireland articles needs citation to support it. We need a common standard across all articles. On the issue of whether Cornwall was a "nation" at any stage (which has nothing to do with that article) then it is more of an issue. They were part of group that included Wales and Brittany and had a degree of quasi independent for a long period, however that position (which they are one of the Celtic nations) is far weaker than Wales or Scotland so its not a clear cut issue. There has been zero support for making them one of the constituent countries of the UK for example. Calling Cornwall a nation on the article on Cornwall has been consistently rejected for example (despite some isolated citations). Allowing it here is an exception, at the moment based on a couple of isolated citations. --Snowded ^TALK 09:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite "zero support" - but otherwise I broadly accept that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just being shamefully pedantic, but Cornwall isn't a "nation" because Cornwall is a division of land, not a group of people. A nation is (broadly) a society with ethnic or civic ties. Cornwall is territory made up of land, not people. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Cornwall is territory made up of land, not people." Not so much "pedantic", as a particular - and extraordinary - point of view which flies in the face of much human geography study over the last century or two. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Deacon, Cole and Tregidga (2003) describe Cornwall as "politically incorporated into the English realm but culturally regarded as a distinct nation". See, for example, The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?, Cornwall, Great Britain A Celtic Nation, Peoples and nations today: Cornwall, The Nations within Britain and Royal charters applying to Cornwall. AJRG (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now linked the word "national" to the article on nation - which, to me, seems uncontentious and helpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it. And its not point of view Ghmyrtle - it's fact:

Nation, From the Latin natio (meaning tribe, race). Ther term nation is taken to mean a group of people united by culture, language, traditions and common interest.

— The Dictionary of Race Ethnicity & Culture (2003), page 195

nation n. people with a common history living in the same country: a race of people

— Chambers Compact Dictionary (1969)

Somehow I get the impression people think I just make this stuff up, sneering with their minority POV and forcing POV down each others throats... all while I'm writing articles with stuff that actually comes from sources. So, Ghmyrtle, keep pecking away at me if you like... I've still got more great content added by myself that all those gathered here today put together. I wonder why... --Jza84 |  Talk  12:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly blessed by modesty, as usual, I see! I will keep plugging away at my opinion that your position on administrative boundaries, and their overwhelming importance, is an extreme point of view. Incidentally, I genuinely fail to understand why you think the dictionary definitions you quote are relevant to what I wrote. But, going back to the subject of the issue of where to link "national day", I prefer linking to "nation" rather than to "National Day" simply because the latter one is an article which is clearly, to a very large degree, about sovereign states, as suggested by the capitalisation of the term in that article - and that is not the right article to be linked from this article which is clearly not about a day which relates to a sovereign state. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on guys calm down, we all know this area of old and we know that escalating taunts don't help/ The references given by AJRG are (with the possible exception of the BBC one) weak as far as I can see. I am in Singapore at the moment with access the various books I bought to validate some of the prior claims but I will look at them when I get home. As far as I can see the definitions in National Day do not match the citation support here, and Nation is contentious. For the moment I will remove the pipelink, leaving the phrase which is in the citation to stand alone pending further investigation. --Snowded ^TALK 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You haven't provided any references to support your point of view. AJRG (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I genuinely don't see why "nation" - "A nation is a grouping of people who share real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, often possessing or seeking its own government" - is contentious in this context. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How about national day? --Snowded ^TALK 14:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK for me - I just thought nation would actually be less contentious than that one (and there is an ongoing discussion on merging that article anyway). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see how "nation" is in any way contentious. It is pretty indisputable that Cornwall (or the Cornish people for Jza) is/are a nation. --Joowwww (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article National Day lists places that aren't sovereign states. --Joowwww (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That is correct in so far as Wales, Scotland, and the autonomous regions in Spain are listed (and maybe others). However, it is the case that the position in Cornwall is different in that, in practice, it does not have administrative autonomy (any more than any other county). I would support a pipelink to either nation or Celtic nation, but not to National Day as that article is currently organised. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is about nations and non-sovereign countries. It makes no mention of a need for autonomy for inclusion. The header above the list says "List of national days". --Joowwww (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall is clearly a nation in some senses, but whether it is either a nation or a non-sovereign country in the context of that specific article is, I think, a different matter. These terms have fuzzy and ambiguous definitions - Cornwall is not clearly or unambiguously one thing or another (other than, of course, to individuals who each have their own clear views). Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't Cornwall's status as a nation and a county, it's the unwritten arbritary criteria for inclusion that I have a problem with. The article doesn't specifically mention any criteria for inclusion - it merely talks about national days. If the article was titled National days of sovereign states and autonomous territories then obviously St Piran's Day couldn't be on it. But it isn't. It's just "national days". Either the article should be edited to say it only lists such national days, or St Piran's Day should be included. --Joowwww (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a matter for that article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of citations

Snowded, from insisting that citations be added, has now taken to removing citations which contradict the POV he is trying to impose on the article. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Here (diff). AJRG (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Choose one of them Duncan, three is excessive and stop making silly accusations against other editors. You need to learn to address content issues and realise that you may be asked to justify positions and provide citations. Its pretty much 101 Wikipedia --Snowded ^TALK 22:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You haven't provided any citations, nor justified your position. AJRG (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed and then fact tagged uncited material, now its cited. I am not aware that such action requires citations, or what they would relate to. --Snowded ^TALK 22:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

When you removed citations, what Wikipedia policy did you believe yourself to be applying? AJRG (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, in contentious areas, multiple independent references are preferable to single references. Removing references when you have previously demanded them is disruptive and unhelpful. Giving untrue edit summaries, as you did the second time you removed the references, is also unhelpful. DuncanHill (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That is the case only where there are long term edit wars. Where a fact tag is inserted and responded to one is enough. Oh and I am sorry I confused the earlier Mirror reference with the BBC one at the end of list, shock horror. --Snowded ^TALK 22:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There are long-term edit wars relating to the description of Cornwall and the Cornish people. That's one reason why multiple, independent citations are well worthwhile here. DuncanHill (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No long term edit wars on this page that I can see. You have one brief mention in a national newspaper (but not a broadsheet), one local newspaper reference and a party political web site. Aside from the fact that you don't need three, two of those are really weak and damage your case. --Snowded ^TALK 22:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No Snowded - you were having a debate elsewhere and it was in your interests there to remove the "national day" from this article, which you did. Now citations have been supplied, you now want the wikilink to national day removed, and you want to remove some of the citations. That is profoundly dishonest editing on your part. DuncanHill (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Weak" based on whose judgement? --Joowwww (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Duncan you really need to stop these accusations you know. Try reading WP:AGF. I removed the wiki linked national day as the description on that page did not match St Piran's day. When you reinserted it I fact tagged. You have now got a citation which supports local use but not the pipelink. Its also simply wikipedia style not to have multiple references. You really seem to have a problem with contributing without making accusations against other editors (not just here). I recommend paying attention to your behaviour here. Many another editor would have made an "AGF" report for "profoundly dishonest". --Snowded ^TALK 23:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You said you wanted refs - they were supplied. An editor in good faith in such a situation would say "thank you" and leave it at that. Instead, you try to remove the refs. DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I said that you only needed one and trimmed them down, I did not "remove the refs", I removed the excessive referencing, and suggest you trim them down to one anyway. I really suggest you withdraw your "dishonest" remark while you have the opportunity --Snowded ^TALK 23:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You did remove the references (diff). Your statement above that you did not is at variance with the facts. AJRG (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I reduced the number of references to one AJRG, try and keep up. --Snowded ^TALK 23:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep it civil. --Joowwww (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"While I have the opportunity"? What is that supposed to mean? DuncanHill (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Having the common decency to withdraw an unwarranted personal attack would be good practice, doing it now close to the incident would indicate that it was not malicious and could easily be forgotten and forgiven. --Snowded ^TALK 23:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120126105453/http://www.an-daras.com:80/cutoms/cu_stpirans_events.htm to http://www.an-daras.com/cutoms/cu_stpirans_events.htm

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150624110940/http://www.bude-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=8752&searchword=bude%20surf to http://www.bude-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=8752&searchword=bude%20surf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126105453/http://www.an-daras.com/cutoms/cu_stpirans_events.htm to http://www.an-daras.com/cutoms/cu_stpirans_events.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)