Talk:Cornwall/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Cornubia

Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:[1] [2]

Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. [3]

George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.

Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.

Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.

Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.

From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?

Bretagne 44 16:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As I have told you about eight times, Local Government Act 1988 established Cornwall County Cornwall as an ENGLISH County Council. Legally, now Cornwall is part of England. It doesn't matter when it ceased to be "independent". How were Northumbria, Mercia etc incorporated into England? There is no record of an Act of Union if that's what you are after. If they don't need one, then neither does Cornwall. Britannica and Encarta call Cornwall an English county. I can tell that you haven't read Wikipedia:No original research yet. Here's the gist: it doesn't matter what you can prove or think you can prove on your own. Even if you were to spend ten years in the law library in the Houses of Parliament with Giovanni di Stefano and found some "loophole" in the law which said that Cornwall is an independent country, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Cornwall is an English county. Rex^(talk) 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You really have trouble keeping up at times don't you? This is the start of an investigation into the change that occurred at this time (1600) which resulted in the general view of Cornwall being revised from country to county. It happened at the same time as a number of other changes in the way the British Isles where portrayed and I think this change is relevant to Cornish, English, British and UK pages on Wikipedia. It was a radical change that the establishment brought about in the way all Britons perceived their land.

Bretagne 44 19:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As it stands (28 December 2005) the article is unacceptable because it over-emphasises the "Cornwall is England" view of Cornwall in an attempt to minimise the view of Cornwall as a distinct region, let alone one that is attitudinally separate from England. Clearly this cannot be neutral point of view. The wording is excessively "Cornwall is England", and it has to have the highest usage of "county" of any Wikipedia article, even though this is likely to offend and infuriate a large proportion of Cornish people. This tendency is clear from the opening line and the template ("Ethnicity: 99.0 white"? If you're following official statistics you would also have to write, "Ethnicity: 99.0 white, 6.7 per cent Cornish"), and I believe the information could be put across without being provocative to either strand of opinion on Cornwall's status. (And the same goes for the Cornish nationalism article). This is in-keeping with Wiki etiquette in contested areas (see Brittany, Basque Country, etc.) If we can't come to any conclusion I would rather we had separate pages for Cornwall (administrative county) - which could be written by the "Cornwall is England" contributors - and another, Cornwall (historic region) which could be written by everyone else.

Take for example the first few paragraphs. In my view these should be re-written to read:

Cornwall (Cornish language Kernow [insert IPA pronunciation]) is an historic region of the south-western peninsula of Great Britain, west of the River Tamar. To the north is the Celtic Sea, to the west is the Atlantic Ocean, and to the south is the Channel. Cornwall is thus nearly entirely surrounded by water, though it is not an island because of a short land border (with Devon) in its extreme north east. Cornwall is usually also taken to include the Isles of Scilly, although Scilly has often been administered separately from it and is, presently, a separate unitary authority. Cornwall (with Scilly?) covers an area of 1,376 square miles (3,563 sq km). Its population at the census in 2001 (excluding Scilly) was 501,267, compared to 468,000 at the time of the 1991 census. The main driver of this increase has been migration from south east England.

(As it stands, inclusion of population density is relevant, but to call its population density relatively low is intensely subjective. Relative to where? England? The Netherlands? Singapore? Monaco? Australia? Canada?)

Cornwall is administered as a county of England. Cornwall is also recognised as one of the six modern Celtic nations alongside Brittany, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. There is some dispute about the current status of Cornwall (see Constitutional Status of Cornwall). On the one hand, Cornwall is viewed as just another county of England; on the other, it is seen as its own country. There is a significant Cornish nationalist movement which emphasises what is seen as the traditional Celtic identity of Cornwall (see Mebyon Kernow). In recent years the calls for Cornish self-government (specifically, devolution) have increased, based on a desire for the recognition of unique and ancient political rights pertaining to Cornwall (see Duchy of Cornwall).

In 2001, for the first time, Cornish was permitted as a write-in ethnic identity on census forms alongside White British, Chinese, etc. The results revealed that 33,000 people in Cornwall (6.7 per cent) and some 5,000 in the rest of Britain (don't have figures to hand, will add them for final version before I edit) considered themselves to be of Cornish ethnicity. This compares with 67.0 per cent in Wales who considered themselves Welsh.

The Cornish language - the form of Brythonic that developed in Cornwall after the Anglo-Saxon invasion isolated various groups of Britons (including those who later develop into the Welsh) - is known by around 3,500 people, of whom some 400-500 have fluency (a few dozen use it as an everyday language and have raised children with it). It is taught to children in many schools in Cornwall, though its teaching is not compulsory. There are around a hundred adult learners of the language in evening classes at any given time. It is also used in civic and religious ceremonies.

What do you all think of the above effort? I have tried to be as neutral as possible.

Doire, 28 December 2005, 16:24 (UTC)

I don't see how stating what something is could be conscrewed as POV. Cornwall is a county, so therefore references within the article need to be "it", "cornwall" or "the county". The use of county in cornwall is more important than other counties to prevent confusion with the Duchy. The use of region is unacceptable. Cornwall is part of the South-West region not a region itself.

I think we should be clear that there isn't any dispute (other than in the eyes of a minority of the county). The disputes have never been tested in the courts (the 1856 case was about rights not the legal status). Most of the cornish identity stuff is in there (if not put it in yourself). josh (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"No dispute (other than in the eyes of a minority..." And then there's that "county" word dropped in for added insult. Nice one. Have you ever discussed this matter either in Cornwall or with a Cornish person? I think you are passing POV off as fact. If you read my proposed changes my very first line is "Cornwall is administered as a county of England". I'm not denying or obscuring that. But you are deliberately misrepresenting Cornwall when you say there "isn't any dispute". Even the most diehard anti-nationalist Cornishman would admit there is a dispute. (And would be ambivalent toward England.) You are being tendentious here, not factual. Doire 21:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"County" is used 27 times in this article. Dorset and Hampshire are approximately the same length and use the word 43 and 47 times respectively. Northumberland is slightly shorter and uses it 37 times. Even Bristol uses it eleven times and that's principally referred to as a city. I'm not unsympathetic but we have to write an encyclopedia about the world as it is, as well as how various groups would like it to be. The fact is Cornwall is currently administered as a county of England. Some residents would prefer it not to be, and we also discuss that in depth. People often consider Cornwall, as with the (other?) English Counties, to be something more than just administrative areas, and we discuss these issues as well. I have confidence that our readers, having been informed of the issue, do not need us to remove every instance of "The county..." in order to understand that some would prefer it wasn't. If you don't like the word "county" you're complaining to the wrong people - we describe, not decide how the world is. Joe D (t) 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

See above. I appreciate your stance but if you bother to read my proposed replacement text I state in the first sentence that "Cornwall is administered as a county of England." If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any dispute about its status. Now, you can lecture me about how hard it is for you, or you can critique my proposed text. Yes we describe. But in so doing we decide how the world is. No description of Cornwall can be considered authoritative if it ignores, or attempts to elide (as has been done here), the realities I (and many others in the discussion have described at length). I don't like the word "county" and I don't like the St George's flags all over an article on Cornwall (and, by the way, the St George's flag isn't official in England so if you're dealing with reality you shouldn't be using it in relation to England or perceived parts thereof... seems to me some Wikipedians use the word "fact" very selectively), but if you look at my proposed text I manage to provide a solution which mentions the administration of Cornwall as a county but also minimises use of that word, in keeping with the reality in Cornwall where the usage "county" would elicit a very swift and sharp verbal correction. Oh well. My fault for trying to be inclusive. Perhaps next time I should simply delete everyone else's hard work without a second thought. Saves hearing the same old "Cornwall is England" records over and over again. I repeat: look at what the practice is for Brittany and the Basque Country and other disputed areas and then tell me the Cornwall article as it stands is neutral. Doire 21:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I read your revision and it reduces the mention of Cornwall being a county to a single very short sentence in a paragraph about independence and nationalism -- that is not "in keeping with reality" when the nationalist movement is a minority in Cornwall (my Cornish housemate, rather than taking offense at the word "county" would take the movement a lot less seriously than I am here -- to most it's just not an issue). You don't like the word county. Is this position held by a significant minority? If so Wikipedia can mention the fact that a significant minority don't like the word "county", but we can't the fact that that's what Cornwall is. The mention of the modern administrative area is relegated to the second pargaph while the first paragraph makes the reader think it's a mere historic region with no official modern usage at all - something like Wessex maybe. You mention the Channel? Do you mean the route from source to reciever or a route through a membrane?

Is dislike of the word county held by a significant minority? No. It's held by a significant majority, including those who would have nothing to do with the Cornish nationalist movement(s). I don't know how Cornish your housemate is, but as a Cornishman myself I am as much a source as he, I am sure. As I said earlier, I think it would be best for their to be two Cornwall pages, one for "Cornwall (administrative county)" and another for "Cornwall (historic and cultural region). That way the reality of the situation is maintained and we can stop trying to outdo one another. Doire, 22:11, 28 December 2005. (UTC)

Since the two areas are the same place the two articles would be pretty much the same, with slightly different terminology, and certainly wouldn't help readers understand Cornwall. If dislike of the word "county" really is the majority position (and references are always great) we should mention that. Joe D (t) 22:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is and a mention would be a great help. What is your proposed wording? Doire 22:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Remember, we're mainly discussing the introduction here. We have three or four paragraphs in which to set out the most significant and interesting things about Cornwall. We have the rest of an unlimited encyclopedia in which to go into detail. I'm satisfied that the current revision does that. Joe D (t) 22:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not. I think the article, as it stood, omitted more than a few salient facts. You're pleading brevity over accuracy now. Doire 22:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not in the slightest, the introduction is also factual and includes all of the principal relevant facts. Where in my "we have the rest of an unlimited encyclopedia" sentence did I plead brevity? Many of your edits elsewhere in the article I'm comfortable with, but your introduction is quite simply inferior. It omits to mention the county town, hides the fact that it is a county in a paragraph about nationism and has a whole paragraph each on language and culture when Cornwall is known just as much for its spectacular landscape and its pasties. Joe D (t) 22:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"We have three or four paragraphs in which to set out the most significant and interesting things about Cornwall." If pointing out a three or four paragraph limit is not a plea for brevity, I don't know what is. I am quite happy to see the article improved in any way. I think you've made fair points on the geographical bits, which is why I don't understand why you deleted the valuable section on Cornwall being surrounded by water on nearly all four sides... I didn't want to omit Truro (my mother is from there), but "county town" isn't acceptable. Most people describe Truro as Cornwall's "capital" (and they are not trying to make a nationalist point in so doing). "Main town" might do. As for the bit about Cornwall being a county and your determination to reiterate, see above, previous threads, etc ad nauseum. Sorry you find pasties and landscapes more important than language and culture (I love all four, and pasties are strictly speaking a part of culinary culture, so it's three). Perhaps that's the closest you'll get to admitting that this article has massive POV problems. Doire 22:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm calling for brevity in the introduction. The introduction has to be brief, otherwise there's little point in having one at all. We have sections, indeed whole pages on culture and language, we do not need to repeat the whole thing in the introduction, merely introduce them. I have changed "county town" to "administrative centre", a more descriptive and universal term. I have indeed seen the above threads, and collaborated on the current introduction. I will add something more on being surrounded by water now. Joe D (t) 22:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If we compare our updates, from the top. What's wrong with "south western peninsula of Britain" (mine). You write "south western peninsula of England" but Britain is the geological island, not England. Again you have "relatively low population" but don't reference what it is supposed to be relative to. As a region of Britain, Cornwall is about average in its population density. Your edit of the constitutional status is confusing, changing my precis of the matter into a POV "it's their problem, they're weird" description. You write about "Cornwall's unique culture" and fail to explain it, a pointless addition. Bizarrely, you add something about Cornwall being "somewhat isolated from Britain's more popular tourist centres". Cornwall is one of Britain's more popular tourist centres! Quite where you're comparing it to unfavourably is beyond me. Bognor Regis? Skegness? And where are all these "hidden wooden valleys"? We need definite locations... i.e., "hidden wooden valleys such as x". Doire 23:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't expand on the culture or give an example of a wooded valley because, for the last time, this it the introduction. We have a culture section and we have a physical geography section which are there to expand on it. I don't think my edit to the constitutional status sentence makes it look like it's saying "they're weird", as far as I can tell it conveys exactly the same thing as before but without the awkward "see also:" bit. I have no attachment to my phrasing of that sentence, but I don't like the way it was done before. The England, rather than Britain, bit is because Cornwall is a county of England. Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales, do local government different to England so calling Cornwall a British County wouldn't be correct. Joe D (t) 23:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

For the last time, there's no need - even for the purposes of comprehension in an introduction - to reiterate that Cornwall "is a county of England". The formulation "Cornwall is an historic region [true] of Britain [true, geologically more accurate than England], administered as a county of England" is more than appropriate and twice as accurate, with the added benefit of not setting out to annoy Cornish people. The problem with your constitutional status rewrite is that it says "some dispute" that status, as if it's an insignificant minority. Minorities dispute the status of Scotland and Wales, yet they're not insinuated to be insignificant, petulant or needlessly troublesome. Still no answer on why you feel Cornwall is a piss poor tourist destination. In your hurry to delete you also eliminated the population comparisons between the 2001 and 1991 censuses, which are important in terms of demographic change in Cornwall. Doire 23:29, 28 December 2005

You still seem to be deluding yourself that Cornwall isn't a county of England. The introduction presents the facts, your intro is POV, I see no need to carry on bashing heads on this issue. Apparently I think Cornwall is a piss-poor tourist destination. At 4 million visitors, it does get marginally more than the London Eye (3.7 million) though. Joe D (t) 23:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And you still seem to be deluding yourself that your Cornwall article is objective. Whilst you continue to elide large bits of Cornish reality you will find yourself having to continuously delete updates and re-instate your original article, all the while claiming - of course - that you have found the holy grail of NPOV and that it's everyone else's problem. A trip to Cornwall should help you to realise what's accurate and inaccurate here, but I'm sure you'll just carry on deleting back to your original ad nauseum. Hey, I tried. It's not my fault. For saying you spent four hours refusing to alter one introductory sentence to make it more reflective of a NPOV your "bashing heads" remark feels more like a headbutting fit. Doire 23:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As Kippling once said, what do they know of England, that only England know? Perhaps you need to get out of Cornwall for a bit. You're simply being disingenuous now. I have compromised on several aspects of the introduction, but your proposals do not improve NPOV and mostly bloat the introduction with facts that belong elsewhere in the article. And having been to Cornwall about forty times, the most recent about six months ago, and lived with Cornish people, I can see through your bluffs. Joe D (t) 00:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bluffs? Thinking you're a world authority on Cornwall because you live / lived with "Cornish people" and have visited the place has to be up there with the biggest bluffs one can try on. Shame you can't see through your own, eh? Forty trips and you learnt not a thing. But enough of this petulance... I think we've both learnt constant deletion is the only way to resolve POV arguments with this article. Neutrality / compromise is apparently impossible, alas. Doire 00:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You told me to take a trip to Cornwall. I mocked you. And you came back looking like a hypocrite. Brilliant. Joe D (t) 00:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A hypocrite? How so? I'm thick as well as hypocritical, see. Doire 00:24, 29 December 2005.

The sentence "the poorest statistical region in the United Kingdom" needs to be changed. At the moment it reads like "don't go to Cornwall, you can't get a statistic for love nor money". While we're on the subject can anyone get sources for the "6% to 54% do not consider themselves to be English" stat. The highest i've seen is 30% (with a self-selected sample). josh (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"region" should not be used unless qualified as it has a defined meaning in the UK. Perhaps "area" would be better. What also needs to be defined better is "poorest" which I assume means GVA but it could mean [4] deprivatition index or something else. MRSC 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

33,932 people in Cornwall (6.8 per cent) put their ethnicity down as "Cornish" in the 2001 census. The 55 per cent is from a survey. See Cornish people. Doire 00:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is far from succinct with loads of details that, while perfectly valid, should be in the body of the text. Needs to be edited down & moved into the article leaving two paragraphs at most. MRSC 22:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask that you do that? The introduction is now heavily disputed, and anything I or others write will simply be deleted (along with any other edits). A third party is needed here. Doire 22:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've edited this. Please note that I have reused all the text removed from the introduction in the body of the article so please edit the article as a whole rather than expand the introduction again. It should be a succict summary. MRSC 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, so this is the current introduction:

Cornwall (Cornish: Kernow) is that part of Great Britain's south west peninsula that lies to the west of the River Tamar.
The county's administrative centre and only city is Truro.
Including the Isles of Scilly, located 28 miles (45 km) offshore, Cornwall covers an area of 1,376 square miles (3,563 km²).
There is a population of 513,527 with a population density of 144 people per square kilometre (373/mi²) [1].

• We establish that it is a region of the island of Great Britain, but don't mention what country it's in.
• We mention's "the county's administrative center", before even noting that it is a county. The county links to the Non-metrapolitan counties of England, but we don't explain that it is one.

There is some dispute as to Cornwall's precise constitutional status within the United Kingdom,
some people maintaining that it is a separate home home nation and not a part of England,
while others insist that it is an English county, or a dutchy.

• This makes it sound like there are two equal positions: one camp say it's a home nation, the others say it's a county. Everybody agrees that Cornwall is currently an English county, the dispute is about whether it should remain one. The independence movement point to Cornwall's independent history and culture, similar to that of e.g. Wales, and would like it, to varying degrees, to revert to that independent state as a home nation. Saying that people dispute whether it currently is a county makes the independence movement sound like a load of parochial loonies pretending to be independent while the rest of the UK just carries on the same. The previous wording was just fine in this respect.

In the 20th century there has been a revival of the Cornish language.
Tourism forms a significant part of the local economy.
However, it is the poorest area in the United Kingdom with the lowest contribution to the national economy. [2]

• Previous on this talk page I argued for the need of a concise introduction. The introduction briefly got bloated yet only discussed one or two aspects of Cornwall. Now I think we've gone too far the other way: we've gone so short that again we're only introducing a few aspects of the county. I added a sentence or two about the landscape, which has already gone despite being the aspect that non-Cornish people know the area best for.

In summary: the new wording, in an attempt to please nationalists (who were represented adequately in the original, IMO), has made a characature of the issue. The edit war was largely about whether to mention the words "England" and "county" (unavoidable unless you want an article that says "Some people want the status of Cornwall to change. We can't can't say how because we're not telling you what the current status is."), yet the cure for the war has been to gut a couple of paragraphs that were perfectly adequate. Joe D (t) 23:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I see plenty of recent revisions. I also read an introduction that looks highly POV in favor of Cornish nationalism. Durova 06:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Eeek. That was not the intention of my last edit. I just wanted to remove loads of details that didn't belong in an introduction. Please edit the introduction further to make it less POV. MRSC 07:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Dispute about Cornwall's constitutional status"? There's absolutely no dispute that Cornwall is a county of England. That's a plain fact. The dispute is whether it should be. I've edited the intro to reflect the objective facts about Cornwall, rather than nationalist desires. It's fair enough to mention that some want it to be independent and don't think it ought to be part of England. I grew up in Cornwall, and I understand the sentiment. But it's not right to say it's not part of England because this is an extreme minority view, not at all reflected in the facts on the ground. Compare Chechnya before seeking to revert.James James 04:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In my view the number of people who seriously dispute that Cornwall is legally part of England and therefore the United Kingdom is so small as to be practically negligible, and not worthy of mention in the lead paragraphs of this article. David | Talk 20:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

On what do you base this view? Anybody who says "There's absolutely no dispute that Cornwall is a county of England" plainly doesn't know many Cornish people. What's more, they haven't read the archives on this Talk page. In my experience a fair proportion of Cornish people do not consider themselves to be English, and feel strongly that Cornwall is not a part of England. You and I may consider this to be a strange thing for them to believe, but neveretheless that is what they believe. Our role is not to make any judgement on the question, but merely to write an article that is presented from a neutral point of view. Neither being right, nor being in the majority, gives you licence to impose your point of view on the article. Many people, like yourself, consider it blindingly obvious that whatever the Cornish would like to be the case, the fact is that Cornwall is currently a part of England. As it happens, personally I tend to agree with you. But we can't write the article from that point of view any more than we can write an article about young earth creationism (which is even more blatantly and demonstrably false) from a point of view that says that that is false. To repeat, our role is not to make any judgement on the question, but merely to write an article that is presented from a neutral point of view. This means we cannot say in an article "Cornwall is in England" any more that we can say "the Earth is 4.6 billion years old". We have to find a form of words that is acceptable to all parties, no matter how nutty. GrahamN 02:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the point of NPOV. NPOV does not mean that we should present all views equally, and never has done. Minority positions should not be given the same prominence as majority ones. Otherwise we would have to give equal space to people who believe that the earth is flat, or that the hollocaust didn't happen etc, etc which is a patent absurdity.

G-Man * 03:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[G-Man pasted a lengthy quotation from NPOV policy here. GrahamN removed it so as not to clutter up this page]

[And I restored it. Don't be so rude to remove what another editor has posted and call it 'clutter' especially when you don't like what it says. Play fair or not at all]. MRSC 07:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing the NPOV policy to our attention. But please don't copy and paste great swathes of text into the middle of discussions. It just makes them hard to follow and discouages other people from reading them. GrahamN 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if the people who deny that Cornwall is in England were an extremely small minority (which they aren't - according to this survey, 44% of people in Cornwall do not consider themselves to be English) that wouldn't give you licence to adopt a POV editorial voice and say that Cornwall is in England. At best it would give you a reason for not mentioning that some people disagree. But that isn't the case here. Please read through the archives of this talk page before continuing to edit this article. It's a real pain to have to go over the same ground again and again for the benefit of people who haven't read the archives. GrahamN 03:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that study shows 44% do not consider themselves to be English. The survey tells us about identity/ethnicity, it didn't ask "is Cornwall a county of England?". A person identifying themselves as Afro-Carribean or Indian and living in London doesn't lead us to the conclusion that they believe London isn't in England. Joe D (t) 03:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, since you bring up the issue of talk page archives and history, why are you editing out things from the introduction that were agreed upon many months ago? Joe D (t) 03:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed it because it is plainly POV. You and your mates may well have agreed it amongst yourselves six months ago, but that doesn't make it NPOV. I don't undertand your analogy at all. Where is the parallel between a person who thinks of himself as Cornish and who lives in Cornwall and a person who thinks of himself as Indian and lives in London? I don't think anybody has ever suggested that India is a part of England. If a person can be Cornish but not English then Cornwall can't be in England. That is elementary logic. A Cornish person's claim not to be English is therefore also a claim that Cornwall isn't in England. But this is an irrelevance. We might have a fruitful discussion about how much prominence should be given to the ideas of people who think that Cornwall is not in England, as against the ideas of people who think that it is, but we cannot say in this article in an authoritative editorial voice, definitively, that Cornwall is in England without breaching the principle of NPOV. GrahamN

What facts are undisputed here? Principally that Cornwall currently has a County Council which has the same powers as an English County Council. How about stressing the current nature of that situation? Adapting the present wording, the opening sentence could read "Cornwall (Cornish: Kernow) is an area currently administered as a County of England, located on a peninsula in the South West, west of the River Tamar." The next sentence could summarise the dispute over the constitutional status, and put the boring stuff about the administrative centre into the second paragraph of the introduction. Would that allay GrahamN's concerns? David | Talk 10:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Good compromise Robdurbar 11:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice the tendentious clique obsessed with eliding Cornish nationalism on here base their stance on a single untruth - namely, that the Cornish nationalist / regionalist / self-government movement is, they insist, an "extremely small minority". There are no objective facts to back up this slander, and they rely on their reputations as established Wikipedians to pass it off as NPOV. One contributor actually wrote a paragraph saying that Cornish natioanlism / regionalism "receives very little attention in Cornwall", right before a paragraph on the Constitutional Convention and petition! The reality is that Cornish nationalism / regionalism is about as popular in Cornwall as nationalism / regionalism is in Wales and Scotland. The persistent misconception / mistake the clique makes is in equating votes for Mebyon Kernow (less than five per cent) with the extent of nationalism / regionalist / pro-Cornish, non-English sentiment. The reality is that regionalism has been a plank of the Liberal Democrats in Cornwall for years, and this attracts a large proportion of nationalist / regionalist voters. Similarly, in local councils there are many councillors who stand as independents who are well known as being nationalist / regionalists and who are elected because of this.

Similarly, the clique keeps on reiterating that "there is no dispute that Cornwall is a county of England". Again, this is tendentious. There is no dispute that Cornwall is administered as a county of England, but only a tiny minority of Cornish people would say Cornwall is a county of England. Non-Cornish people might not understand the distinction but is a very widley held one in Cornwall regardless of one's stance on Cornish nationalism. That's not me making a nationalist point - the objective reality of life in Cornwall is that few Cornish people consider Cornwall a county of England. (This doesn't stop most Cornish people wanting to remain a part of Britain.) Even virulent anti-nationalists would not call Cornwall a county of England or consider themselves English, and will swiftly correct anyone who says otherwise (often in the same sentence that they mock nationalists). There were widespread protests, from nationalists and non-nationalists, when the British Government included Cornwall in a "Greater" South West region. This is because the primary identity in Cornwall is "Cornish", then "British", regardless of the point of view. "English" just doesn't get a look in. What the clique attached to this article (whose acquaintance with Cornwall is minimal) is pushing is in fact English nationalism / chauvinism, which is an extreme and unwelcome minority point of view in Cornwall limited mainly to immigrants from England. Doire, 16:19, 2 January 2006.

What I was referring to was the fact that Cornwall is now, at this moment in time, in England. Not that it should be, not that it always was, not that it ought to continue to be, just that it is. You find me more than a tiny minority who will assert that Cornwall is not at this moment part of England and I will be very surprised. Describing the state of affairs at the moment is not an endorsement of them. David | Talk 16:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet again the basic distinction is not being understood. Saying Cornwall is in England does endorse a certain point of view, namely English chauvinism and an acceptance of an English POV. Saying Cornwall is administered as a county of England is neutral. It recognises the state of affairs without endorsing the belief that Cornwall is an inseparable part of England. (And without endorsing the belief that it should be separate from Britain.) A good comparison, I think (although I am sure I will be howled down), is the Golan Heights. That is Israel under Israeli law, annexed in 1980, yet it is hardly ever recognised as such and accepted practice is to disregard the legal reality in favour of a more neutral description. As for your comments, "You find me more than a tiny minority who will assert that Cornwall is not at this moment part of England and I will be very surprised". No, go down to Cornwall and do it yourself. I don't have to prove reality to those who refuse to face facts. You make the effort, as your assertions to the contrary are rather effortless.Doire 16:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Doire, can you please source your claims that most Cornish people feel Cornish not English but that most also want to remain a part of Britain, as if you can't source these claims your arguments about POV fall apart, SqueakBox 16:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. I notice the ones against me here are all from England, not surprising. I must be pricking a few English nationalist bubbles. SqueakBox, your response is based on a misperception that Cornish people consider themselves English, and that I have to prove otherwise. Go to Cornwall. Speak to Cornish people. Unfortunately few surveys of Cornish identity have been done (although the one quoted above would be a good start for you) so I'm afraid I can't dance to your rhetorical puppet strings. The onus rely should be on you to prove, via sources, that Cornish people consider themselves English. If you can't, your own reponse falls apart. Doire, 16:46 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Doire, you're skirting no personal attacks here. Comment on contributions and not people. An English nationalist is just as welcome to contribute here as anyone else. David | Talk 16:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, David. English nationalists are welcome to contribute, and have done so habitually to the Cornwall article. But don't you think it's an interesting double standard that Cornish people aren't welcome to contribute to an article on Cornwall? Apparently our views are those of an extremely tiny minority and we can't source what we live day in day out and therefore our contributions can be disregarded / targeted by a clique. I also think it's an interesting double standard that I am continually asked to stick to "official reality" when English law - the presumable "official reality" the "Cornwall is England" contributors define their opinions by - doesn't consider the St George's flag as official. Yet it's plastered at the bottom of the article. So it seems that some things are unofficial and all right for inclusion here when they serve the views of English nationalists. Doire 16:58, 2 January 2006.

Nope, the onus is on you to prove they think they are not English. They are in England after all. I am far from convinced that you represent the will of the Cornish people. Were I to investigate what Cornish people think it would come under original research. I am not aware of being an English nationalist (or any sort of nationalist) but even were I it wouldn't make any difference as my primary duty while working here is to keep to NPOV and thus to create a reasonable, balanced article. You are expressing a point of view as if it is reality, and it is a point of view you won't even source when I question whether it is true or not (I simply don't believe what you say about what people in or from Cornwall believe to be true without good sources, SqueakBox 17:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all there wasn't a survey that found that 44% of Cornish felt that they weren't English. The survey in question asked what region they felt most affinity with (county, country, UK or Europe). Nationally, 1 in 5 answered with their county. Conwall had the highest percentage but there was a couple of counties (Derbyshire and Surrey I think) in the high 30's. This proves that Cornish identity (never mind nationalism) is in the minority.

Lets be clear. There is no legal dispute about the status of Cornwall. These claims have never been tested in an English court. The BNP could claim that there's some 15th century piece of legistation that allows them to kill all Muslums (there is stuff that stupid if you go back far enough). Would we then have to state that in Wikipedia? The problem is that the English/British consitution isn't contained on a single peice of paper. It takes up an entire room, and that is just the Acts of Parliament (there are also other ways it can be ammended). That makes it impossible to determine which parts of a 700 year old charter still apply.

The way the English legal system works is that the status quo is entirely legal. It is up to the Cornish nationalists to prove that the govenment is acting illegally. They are trying to reverse this and want to imply that it is up to the government to prove they are acting legally. Anyone remember innocent until proven guilty.

Cornwall is a county of England. That is how the article should start. It is the standard template for every other county and to start this one differently implies some special relationship. Even the most favourable survey has the Cornish identity in a minority. It should be treated as such and the information restricted to the sections. josh (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear. The St George's flag isn't official under English law. Get rid of it from the article. If you believe in the primacy of English law, that is. Your elision of reality is quite breath taking in its persistence. I've said many times that Cornwall is administered as a county of England. That acknowledges that status without being offensive. You prefer Cornwall is a county of England because you want to push an English nationalist POV. Simple fact. Doire 17:21 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting a little bored of the idea that there are editors who are "English nationalists" who want to silence the Cornish minority. I for one could not care less if Cornwall were a country on its own, part of England or part of France for that matter. I, like others, want to write a neutral and credible encyclopedia. If all you want to do is try and push unreferenced assertions into the text I can tell you now, from experience, that those assertions will not last very long. MRSC 17:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether you are bored or not is irrelevant. No one is forcing you to contribute. Tell me whatever you like, but POV from either side will not last very long. That is rapidly becoming a reality of this article and I've long since stopped contributing to it. If you want to hang around here engaging in endless edit wars then you're a masochist. Doire 17:25, 2 January 2006.

It would serve the cause of the people who want the county to be an independent country much better if they acknowledged that the current status-quo is that Cornwall is not independent and is a part of England as that well serves their Cornish independence cause, whaereas pretending that Cornwall is already not a part of England doesn't serve their cause at all, as it indicates that the status quo is fine as it is (which I don't believe Cornish nationalists think). First of all get Cornish independence then we can record it in the encyclopedia, SqueakBox 17:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Cornish nationalism is not identical with Cornish independence. Some nationalists (including myself) want an independent Cornwall, other want it recognised as a home nation, other want it to have a status like the Isle of Man based on the Duchy of Cornwall. Not my fault you do not understand, but you must try harder. Doire 17:37, 2 January 2006.

The article says the issue is controversial, (which you are all proving), and leaves it at that. If you want to engage in that controversy and continue your verbal jousting, please take it to Talk:Constitutional status of Cornwall. Even better, please try to channel your energies into improving the wording of Constitutional status of Cornwall, or indeed of any other article. I remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Thank you for your attention. GrahamN 17:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

---

This argument doesn't prove that the issue is controversial. It requries more than a few nationalists trying to use Wikipedia as a public forum for their views to prove something is controversial. josh (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant controversial to wikipedia (where all it takes is a tiny group of militants) not within the UK itselfd where it isn't even slightly controversial, SqueakBox 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahem

[5]. David | Talk 21:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I echo the Commonwealth Games Federation chief's advice that these nationalists need to address their issues to the politicians and not to we encyclopedia writers, SqueakBox 21:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Commonwealth Games Federation chief mentioned anything about Wikipedia or encyclopedia writers in his advice, so I don't see how you could "echo" it. Further, in the context of Wikipedia, anyone is an encyclopedia writer, and that includes "those nationalists" you seem to so abhor. (Though you don't seem to abhor English nationalists.) Doire 22:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You what? He said ther nationalists should address their issues with the politicians not with the CGF, I am saying you should address your issues with the politicians not with us encyclopedia writers, SqueakBox 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

He didn't mention encyclopedia writers. Having trouble with basic sentence construction and comprehension? He could sue you for libel for implying that he endorsed your view of yourself as a doughty "encyclopedia writer" (although if writing Wikipedia is all you do you should probably classify yourself as unemployed or underemployed). Doire 22:30, 2 January 2006.

No Wikipedia:Legal threats as it creates such an unpleasant atmosphere that users who engage in such activities are often blocked from participating at all. Please don't repeat, SqueakBox 01:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for stalking other editors and their edits. That also creates an unpleasant atmosphere. I would appreciate it if you and Steinsky ceased stalking me and deleting my contributions. As far as I know neither of you are acquainted with the Cornish language or tides at Perranporth and therefore you have no reason to delete my additions which relate to such facts. Wikipedia does not tolerate internal vendettas. Thanks. Doire 14:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? First you engage in legal threats to deliberately poison the atmosphere then you go on about some weird vendetta that is only in your imagination. People have the right to edit whatever article they want without being an expert in the subject, nor is it for you to dfecide who is anj expert in what (why would that decision be left to you?). You do not have the right to make legal threats. Stop being angry and showing bad faith in your comments. That is not the way we work here at wikipedia. Please learn some etiquette and study the policies and don't engage in threats as nobopdy wants that kind of poisonous atmosphere you seem determined to inject into the discussion. Also don't modify my headers. Start a new section if you want a new title, SqueakBox 15:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the article and must admit I don't see the parrallels. The views of the nationalists are clearly an important one, though I agree that the balance must be maintained between representing their views and aloowing Wikipedia to be used as a political canvass (which I don't think this article is doing, at the moment). Though for what it's worth, I feel all nationalists - English, Cornish, Welsh, Irish, Kurdish, German, Brazillian, Thai or whatever - are equally misguided. But let's not less this talk page become full of abuse, eh? Robdurbar 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Robdurbar 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Royal Charter

I have found the royal charter which created the Duchy of Cornwall[6]. It is under the foreshore case. Only read the first charter (of 3) so far but it makes for interesting reading. Cornwall is refered to as the "county of Cornwall". It also states "and hereditarily to succeed as Dukes of the said place, in the kingdom of England" (twice). This appears to state that Cornwall was, a will continue to be, a county of England. josh (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth games

Following the recent story about Cornwall being refused entry to the 2006 Commonwealth Games. How is it that Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man qualify? Are they not administered as Counties?
Would the Isles of Scilly qualify under the same rules?
(Just curious) Talskiddy 08:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, IoM, Jersey and Guernsey aren't just not counties, they are not part of the UK (though they are British dependencies). The Isles of Scilly is a unitary authority, meaning it is administered similar to a county (but has no real ceremonial status). There are many other unitary authorities in England, including most medium size cities. Joe D (t) 08:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are NOT "British dependencies". That term is meaningless and has been since the Overseas Territories Act (2002), which applied to the Caribbean, Atlantic and Oceanic entities often referred to as "dependencies". Mann, Guernsey and Jersey were never "British dependencies". They have always been direct possessions of "the Crown" and the Crown in the Isle of Man is known as the Lordship of Mann (and Elizabeth Windsor is Lord of Mann). In the cases of the Channel Islands each have their own distinct relationship with the Crown but the Crown in the Channel Islands is considered the Duchy of Normandy. Their inhabitants are British citizens but this is at least partly because of convenience, due to the islands' membership of the Common Travel Area, and before citizenship law changes between the 1970s and 1990s they were considered "subjects of the Crown", a status that was later converted to British citizenship. Doire 14:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

Then perhaps you should go to those talk pages and tell the editors how wrong they've got the Isle of Man etc articles. Joe D (t) 02:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the pointless dig that was the CGF link: existence of a nation / nationality is not contingent on them receiving representation from the CGF or IOC. It's nice and usual that they do, but hardly proves much if they don't. In the CGF areas Québec, the Inuit, the Zulu, Xhosa (plus all other African groups), Zanzibar, the Tamils, Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Pitcairn Island and Tokelau are not recognised as competitor nations, even though these groups are generally understood as distinct constituent nationalities at home. Likewise, though England, Wales and Scotland (constituent parts of Britain) are permitted to compete separately, the provinces of Canada and the state and territories of Australia, or the states of India, also constituent parts, are not. Similarly, for years East Timor was legally considered the "27th province" of Indonesia and its athletes had to compete internationally as Indonesians. That didn't mean there wasn't a dispute about the status of East Timor or that East Timorese nationalists should have been forced to refer to East Timor as a "province of Indonesia". (The formulation used on Wikipedia would probably have been "East Timor is administered as a province of Indonesia", oddly enough. And thankfully East Timor is now a sovereign independent country.) Likewise the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem with regard to Israeli law. Following the logic of "Cornwall is England" contributors on here the Golan and East Jerusalem would have to be included as Israel proper because that's what Israeli law says they are. In fact, the Wikipedia practice in such instances is to tell the truth without offending anyone. The CGF link was a great example of a double standard, but not much else. Doire 14:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My point about Cornwall and the CGF was not a dig or trying to prove that Cornwall is a nation, but as you say it would be 'nice and unsual'if Cornwall could compete. I'm also still curious what criteria did IoM and Jersey meet to qualify? Talskiddy 21:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I see also on Talk:Isle of Man that Iom is not a member of the Commonwealth, yet they still compete at the games.

Its a County

Cornwall is a county. This is not something we can compromise on, its a simple fact. It was refered to as a county as far back as the Royal Charter of 1337 and probably earlier. This compromise of calling it an area/historic region or whatever does exactly as nationalists intend and puts doubts in the mind of the reader as to whether it is part of England or even the UK. The only part of the UK that is administered as a county but isn't is the Isles of Scilly (they are a district of Cornwall). josh (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No they're not. Get your facts right. The Isles of Scilly are a unitary authority, and Scilly is not administered as part of Cornwall. 100 per cent of FACT. And we can't compromise on those. Doire 14:35, 3 January 2005 (UTC)

A unitary authority is a modern version of a county. Most of them do not belong to a county. Isles of Scilly are unique in that, although administered as a seperate authority, is also included in the ceremonial county of Cornwall. josh (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A unitary authority is not any "version" of a county. They are completely different entities which cover different areas, are designed differently, and operate differently. They cannot even be described as "inheritors" of counties because, for the most part, they cover completely different areas. Your insistence that Scilly is a district of Cornwall (a la Kerrier or Penwith), above, is simply wrong. Doire 15:22, 3 January 2006.

Unitary authorities generally do remain associated with their ceremonial county, they just have no shared local government. Poole is still ceremonially in Dorset, Plymouth in Devon. Unitary authorities are merely a form of local government which perform the combined functions of a county and district council. Joe D (t) 02:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Using the term administered implies some special relationship between the area and the government. No such thing exists. There is an unusual relationship with the crown (although not to the extent that nationalists will have you believe) but in modern day terms the only important thing is the relationship with the government, which is no different (nor has it ever been) to any other county in England.

I am sure I will now be accused of being an English nationalist trying to supress the facts. The problem is that every solid fact i've found points to Cornwall being just another county. These are then being twisted by Cornish nationalists to imply some doubt in the situation. If we have to bend to minority opinion like this then Wikipedia will become a mess. josh (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Troll

I think Doire is trolling. His insulting comments and legal threats are proof of it. Is there any point in engaging with him? How does it serve the encyclopedia to engage with someone who won't keep to basic standards of etiquette and seems only interested in insulting people, winding them up to get a reaction, etc, SqueakBox 15:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be an odd "troll" that had to look up what "troll" meant on Wikipedia,m wouldn't it? Nevertheless, I found a revealing snippet in the article on trolling, which sums up how I think this talk has degenerated (and which follows as an appendix*) - it's become a personal argument involving three or four people (myself, SqueakBox, Steinsky and josh), for I have long since stopped engaging in edit wars on the article with any of you. As no one is forcing me to carry any of this on, I will demonstrate good faith and "etiquette" and leave you to your edits and opinions.*"Many (perhaps most) people, labelled "trolls", are simply being called thus by someone else in the course of a religious, political or other ordinary type of dispute; in other words, they are labelled as one for acting as a dissident or heretic [...] Many debates, between those with and without administrative or legal powers, seem simply to resemble a heated, personal, argument. On the Internet in particular, the holding of technological powers (such as the power to ban users or block IP addresses) is not necessarily a sign of any superior political or moral judgement. Similarly, one may be labeled a troll for simply disagreeing with someone(often the topic starter)." Doire 15:55, 3 January 2006. (UTC) Mer ras ha nos da.

No, I said troll because of your insults and legal threats, nothing to do with your opinions. It is possible to argue any opinion on wikipedia without engaging in attacks on other editors or making legal threats. All I am saying is please do so, SqueakBox 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

English county?

I have found the royal charter which created the Duchy of Cornwall[7]. It is under the foreshore case. Only read the first charter (of 3) so far but it makes for interesting reading. Cornwall is refered to as the "county of Cornwall". It also states "and hereditarily to succeed as Dukes of the said place, in the kingdom of England" (twice). This appears to state that Cornwall was, a will continue to be, a county of England.

josh this phraseology has been specifically commented on by TGG within its comments "Foreshore Case" [TGG Comment]. The logic of the [the opposition] argument would be also to refer to counties in Wales as 'English counties' or 'in England'. Cornwall and the Welsh counties were considered to be in the Realm of England but not to be the country of England. Wales was also part of the kingdom of England!

Retrospective Imperial Misrepresentation There will be many occasions, during the reading of the various bits of argument, comment and legal evidence, which will give some succour to those whose 'denial of the truth' see the Cornish people as dispensable to English Imperial interests. These notes will identify some of these and add a comment which, hopefully, will allow the reader, the ones with integrity and an open mind, at least, to distinguish between Imperial retrospective misrepresentation and to view a particular comment from a 'Cornish' context.

Among the opening remarks of the Officers of the Duchy, in their "Preliminary Statement" was the following comment:

"That, at the time of the Conquest, and subsequently, it was still treated in many respects as distinct from England; and when it afterwards became an English county it still retained many, if not all the rights of a county palatine, and was granted, sometimes with more, sometimes with fewer, Jura Regalia to the successive Earls of Cornwall, and was ultimately granted as a Duchy, when, for the first time, a Dukedom was created in England in favour of the eldest son of the King,..."

How, then, does all this fit in with the subsequent Duchy argument which clearly shows that Cornwall is a territorial possession which is distinct both from England and the Crown? There is also the Act of the Council of the first Duke in 1351 that sought property clarification of persons in "Cornwall and England". Other references, such as that of Polydore Vergil (Cornish Milestone for 1485), more than confirm this historical truth.

If we revisit the recited Act of Parliament which created the Dukedom we see that it refers there to the 'Realm of England' and this definitely does not coincide with the territory of 'England' but covers the whole territories under the Dominion of the English king. This facilitates the fabrication of yet another Imperial English half-truth with which to beat the Cornish into obscurity in much the same way that the ambiguity of translations of Earldom, comitatus and vicecomitatus to 'county' have done.

Cornwall may well be seen as the first Dukedom within the 'Realm of England' but it certainly was not 'in England' nor English. Most of the English kings of that period were also Dukes of various areas of France - which Dukedoms where no more 'in England' than was the Cornish Dukedom. The same argument also is true for the Earldom, or County.

There is undoubtedly a civil administration within Cornwall and always has been. Historically referred to as the vicecomitatus, or shrievalty. What should not be forgotten is that this civil administration exists within, and is annexed to, our Cornish Dukedom.

None of the above are 'in England' except by expressions of Imperial prescriptive arrogance.[8] Bretagne 44 19:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The charter refers to the Kingdom of England, which is the same as the country. Also, it is not the civil administration that is annexed to the duchy, its the [[[High Sherriff]]. The arguments for the government also point out that Cornwall was treated the same as every other county in the Domesday Book. josh (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You have not picked up on any of the other points which shows Cornwall distinct from England! So are you saying Wales is also part of the country of England?

You need, however, to read the wiki defs for realm and kingdom to observe their flexibility and synonymy. eg Consider that the Kingdom of England [including Wales and Cornwall] has now been replaced by the United Kingdom.

Notwithstanding the obvious synonymy of the terms, you are focussing on the expression of the 1st Charter, but, the original Act [preceeding the 1st charter] - see Foreshore Case [The Duchy][Investiture] to see an extract of the original Act included as part of later Acts. Showing that 'the County' was augmented and passed 'as a Duchy' by the investiture and the vicecomitatus/shrievalty enumerated and annexed within the 1st Charter. These were only enumerations of what already formed the corpus of the former comitatus/county/earldom/ (not to be confused with the relatively modern definition of 'county')

The title 'The Duchy of Cornwall' has been misappropriated and reserved for the purpose of political and commercial gain - I would say, 'fraudulantly'! - and deliberately obscured the true identity of Cornwall and the Cornish people. The reason, of course, for these discussions. Bretagne 44 17:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"In 937 AD, the Saxon king Athelstan decreed, 'The border of my country of England and the country of Cornwall shall forever be the eastern bank of the River Tamar'. This decree has never been revoked." That is a direct quote from "Cornwall: Land of Beauty, Myth and Legend", published by "A Moment in Time" and sanctioned by the Cornwall Tourist Board. Sbz5809 09:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but at that time Northumbria, County Durham, Strathclyde (which incorporated Cumrbria) and other places were independent countries, or County palatines. Various decrees about them will have gone unrevoked; dont make them any more valid now Robdurbar 10:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Royal decree is the highest authority, and if it has not been revoked, it remains in force, surely, regardless of later de facto arrangements. I've given a source showing that Cornwall was and remains a country; where's your source showing that it's not? Sbz5809 10:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, im not claimng its not per se(though countries are outmoded racist institutions anyway) - I acutally believe that it doesn't really matter - however your source does not make it so. That is a decree that will have been superceeded by numerous other ones on the status of cornwall. Where one decree is followed by another, contradictory one, the latter is left invalid (hence the inaccuracy of the urban myth that you can be hung for treason in the UK). Robdurbar 10:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is not that something is true but that it can be "verified". (Although that word actually connotes truth, it's not used here in such a sense.) To that extent, my source does indeed make it so, unless a contradictory source can be cited, and possibly not even then. Sbz5809 10:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well that depends whether you think sources claiming cornwall as a county explicitly contradict your source. If you don't believe that, then you could claim that your source is still valid. However, I (and many others) would say that the various government documents referring to cornwall as a county would negate your source.

The Local Government Act 1888, 51 & 52 Vict. c. 41 is sourced at Local Government Act 1888. By this explicitly stating Cornwall as a county, it supercedes your source. Now then, opinion over whether Cornwall SHOULD be a country may differ; however, this source shows that it clearly IS NOT a country at the mo. Robdurbar 11:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

...and the Local Government Act 1894, Local Government Act 1974, European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, The County of Cornwall (Electoral Changes) Order 2005....

We all know Cornwall is a county and not a country. This page has long since diverged from discussion about work on the Cornwall article and has given way to general forum. MRSC 11:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you all should be reminded that Britannica [9], Encarta [10] and the Columbia Encyclopedia [11] call Cornwall a county in England (in England, not the UK). This is all mentioned in the archives along with a distinction drawn by Britannica between the county and a separate entity called the Duchy of Cornwall, which it a private estate [12]. What I think should be included is a section on the Jews of Devon and Cornwall. I am still looking for sources; so far I have only found the article in the Jewish Encyclopedia which is not very helpful, but also calls Cornwall a county of England [13]. Izehar 12:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And you get people who will argue to death legal minutiae of long-forgotten documents that bear neither current relevance or scrutiny. This seems one of those cases. The merits of dusty old medieval documents ought to be left to historians and scholars, but Wikipedia is about fact, and the fact of the matter is that Cornwall is generally perceived to be, and treated as though it is, a constituent county of England, and not an independent entity on its own. That Cornish separatists might not like this is both understandable and predictable, but somewhat irrelevant. RGTraynor 22:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity out the window?

A peculiar argument indeed. As someone who has only a vague interest in Wikipedia - and with nothing to do tonight but surf around this and other sites - I am going to throw my oar into this dispute. Firstly, Cornish nationalists have a legitimate cause and the right to contribute to Wikipedia without English imperialists mocking or minimising their nationalism on talk pages. Secondly, what I see here is a petty personal dispute that can bear no claim to objectivity which I would view an encyclopaedia's role. Fact is what you should be dealing with. Fact 1: Cornwall is administered as a county of England (so is Northumberland and Berkshire - saying administered is not offensive or a POV). Historically (prior to 1889) it was separate and legally ambiguous just like Wales. Fact 2: Cornish people are ethnically distinct from their English counterparts - one being Celtic in origin and the other being predominantly Anglo Saxon in origin. This can be seen in language and in culture. Fact 3: Cornish nationalism exists in Cornwall and whether it is a minority as you claim (having first hand experience otherwise I would counter claim saying your assertions are ill founded), it makes no difference whether it is a minority or not. Aboriginals are a minority in Australia (making up a national average of less than 3 per cent), Native Americans and African Americans are a minority in the United States of America (making up 0.7 per cent and 12 per cent respectively) but they are not ignored and their existence is not ridiculed. Some of the comments on here about Cornish nationalism being a minority if applied to these other groups would be blatant racism. Coming to a majority agreement amongst mates is not fact. Wikipedia - as a reliable and objective source of information - will fall in people's estimation if they knew such behind the scenes gutter sniping was taking place. Wikipedia does not exist for your personal egos. Ruth, 23:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What she said. Sbz5809 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Nor does it for the egos of those who make such trivialities major battles that turn to RfCs. Though of course the accusations of the same fly all the time, I don't see anything about pettiness and pedantry that magically vanish if the offenders claim that their opponents are racist. RGTraynor 05:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but is the problem not when people are so insistent on their point of view that the other editors - who intend to create a fair view of the situation - beomc de facto supporters of the opposing view. However, to take this back to content, i would say that the 'region' and 'administered as' is the most balanced Robdurbar 10:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Region has another meaning in England and refering to it as administered as a county implies a different relationship than all the other counties, which simply say 'x is a county in England'. Calling Cornwall a county is not a new concept (the earliest reference i've found is 1337 but the term was probably used as far back as the domesday book). Using the standard terminology to describe a county of England is the only option that doesn't contain POV.

This isn't an ethnic minority like Aborigiones or Native Americans. Due to interbreeding there is no pure Celtic or Anglo-saxon blood and where people come from doesn't always a guide in this regard. Dispite comming from the centre of England (and being accused of being an English imperialist/racist) my blood contains both Scotish and Irish origins. This is more about maintaining tradtions than a race. josh (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"Region has another meaning in England" - region doesnt have a meaning - Cumbria, Furness, Northern England are all regions. Just becasue some beuaraucrats created some officially labeled regions doesn't change its meaning. Robdurbar 16:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As much as you go on about old dusty documents the Cornish foreshore case and the Kilbrandon report are really quite contemporary and reported as fact on the Cornwall County Council website. Both describe Cornwall as a Duchy, so how do you figure these into your description of the legal status of Cornwall or are you just going to ignore them because they contradict you and make life more complicated? Please feel free to read about these at the councils website[14].

--Bretagne 44 16:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been pointed out in the archives that a Duchy exists and is merely a private estate and is distinct from the county, which also exists. You are confusing the private estate with the county, which is recognised by recent legislation. Look at the following sources which emerge after a brief Google test on the subject:

• The Free Encyclopedia says: The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate held by the eldest living son of the British royal family: currently Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales. The Duchy of Cornwall's primary purpose is to cover the costs of the heir's public and private life. The Duchy (the oldest in England) was created by royal charter in 1337 by Edward III. The Duchy holdings, including the 350-acre home estate of Highgrove, are in the county of Cornwall as well as Devon, Somerset, and other counties in England's southwest.

So we are agreeing that the Duchy was created in 1337, but this article claims that the Duchy is in the county of Cornwall, but also in other counties. You see, they are endorsing the position that Cornwall is a county while maintaining that the Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate within various counties in southwest England.

• This position is also endored by Britannica [15]: Duchy of Cornwall: a private estate consisting of lands, honours, franchises, rights, profits, etc., held by the eldest living son of the British sovereign. The holdings and perquisites are found not only in the modern county of Cornwall but also in Devon, Somerset, and elsewhere in the southwest of England.

Looking at our sources further, we have:

• Britannica [16]: administrative and historic county, southwestern England.
• Encarta [17]: Cornwall (England), county, south-western England, bordered on the north by the Bristol Channel, on the east by Devon, on the south by the English Channel, and on the west by the Atlantic Ocean.
• The Columbia Encyclopedia [18]: county (1991 pop. 469,300), SW England.
• Also, we have my favourite, the Jewish Encyclopedia [19]: Extreme southwest county of England.

I think that there seems to be a persistent misunderstanding over what the Duchy is. The Duchy is merely a private estate, part of which is even outside Cornwall (!) and we have the county recognised by recent legislation. The county is a reality I'm afraid, if it wasn't then all the reliable sources I have cited above and the very government of the UK would be wrong (very unlikely). The stubborn fact remains that Cornwall for the purposes of this article is a county of England, just like any other, except it has revived its Celtic indigenous language (Cumbria hasn't). Also, what are you trying to point out with that link of yours? I cannot find anything relevant there. By the way, why do you refer to it as the website of the council. Why don't you use its proper name - the website of Cornwall COUNTY council. Izehar 18:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that there are those of a similar mind who would hotly claim that Massachusetts, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Virginia are not "states" of the United States, simply because said states legally describe themselves as being "commonwealths." RGTraynor 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)