This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles
See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:
Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is related to the British Library. Please copy assessments of the article from the most relevant WikiProject template to this one as needed.British LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/British LibraryTemplate:WikiProject British LibraryBritish Library-related articles
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article states nothing about the current whereabouts of the manuscript. Does anyone know where it is located? Who owns it? If it can be seen by the public?Serpren (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
see belowTruth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures 17:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
How can a ninth century manuscript describe things which happened in the tenth or eleventh centuries? If this is a mistake, it would be nice if somebody with knowledge of the subject was to correct it with the actual dates (assuming they are known or can at least be guessed at). The 'supposed to be' in the first sentence does make me rather suspicious about the initial date, especially as it is not referenced but I know nothing of this subject so some guidance would be appreciated. PamukSoundystem (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Firstly the document was produced in Brittany is stylistically similar to the Landevennec Gospel now in New York Public Library and came to Cornwall later - presumably by monastic transfer?
Second, the languages given are English[OE] and Latin - why no mention of Cornish on the BL data? This is usually cited as the first extant written Cornish, first dictionary and longest list of personal names in Cornish and important due to predating the Norman Conquest - not worthy of mention by BL at all...?
Is this just the usual Anglo-Saxon chauvinism / bias of London institutions or am I missing something here?
