Talk:Cornish nationalism

Feasibility

Serious question - do you guys actually think Cornwall could make it as an independent state? It's said in several places on the Wiki that it's one of the poorest regions of the UK, so how is cutting ties to England/Britain going to help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.32.84 (talk) 13:36, 9th February 2007

This is a misinterpretation of the article - self government wouldn't necessarily mean ceceding from the UK. Many Cornish would like to have more say in there own governance but wouldn't want to cut ties with the rest of the UK.

As a philisophical point could Cornwall make it as an independant state, I would probably say yes, but it wouldn't necessarily be advisable. If Cornwall were to maintain membership of the EU then it would have access to much more financial support and the poorest regions thing would act in its favour here (just look at Eire as a good example of how EU investment has been successful). Alternatively outside of the EU, given full control over its own taxation policy then I think Cornwall would probably do better than you think (think tax havens and the Isle of Mann). Do I think it'll ever happen? NoMammal4 13:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that many Cornish people would like recognition of their Cornish ethnicity (for example on UK census forms), recognition from the goverment under the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and more say in self governance in the form of a Cornish Assembly, similar to that of the Welsh Assembly. As mentioned above not many would advocate full independence because the vast majority wish to remain part of the UK - here are some examples.

• Cornish ethnicity on the UK census

Deadline to sign up by: 1st January 2011 639 people signed up, 361 more were needed, petition failed to meet target

• Cornish awareness and culture

A protest at which ten people showed up. The event went ahead as planned.

• Cornish ethnicity and identity

The webpage cannot be found

• Cornish Stannary Parliament

last updated 2008

• Cornish and English identity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.134.78.135 (talk) 10:22, 1st April 2007

Another dead link.

All told the links above are either non-existent, or show the paucity of support for the matters raised. Serpren (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is that surprising? They were added here almost four years ago. If you wish to start a new thread, please do so at the bottom of the page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

People tend to forget that before the British government started slapping extra taxes onto the tin miners, halting our china clay production and before the Duke decided he'd use all of our money externaly, we we're one of the richest places on earth. If we were given greater control of our nation then we would quickly be able to support ourselves once more. Fletch 2002 (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Blood of the Isles

I think that it is worth typing in the bit from the famous genetics book "The Blood of the Isles" on this issue. In it, the author says that the Celts may have never existed as a tribe. The Celtic language group was identified, and some people then got the idea that these people must have all been part of the same race initially. The Cornish language is actually just a version of Welsh that has altered over time.

I would put up this commentary right now if I had the book on me. As it happens, I can't even remember what the author's name is. Once I find the book, I'll find the relevant page references. Until then, just thought that I'd put it up here in case anyone has any strong objections. Epa101 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bryan Sykes was the author. Epa101 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Welsh and Cornish (and Breton etc) are both versions of a former British Celtic language. They have diverged over time due to geographical isolation and other factors. Cornish is not "just a version of Welsh". Mrscruffy 18:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A nation does not exist in the blood of people but rather in culture, production (artefacts), territoriality and time. It seems that Cornwall exhibits these characteristics: Cornish people have a common original language and share some specific traditions (culture), they have been living on a specific territory for a long time, and they have produced some works of art, an original architecture and some literature (artefacts). 207.134.187.165

I don't understand why everyone assumes these people are talking about "race"/genetics. Celtic identity (infact, cultural identity in general) is not about those irrelevent factors, it's about language and culture. It's almost as if people are wilfully misinterprating Celtic nationalism and related movements as being racially motivated in order to both discredit them and portray the supporters as racists. --86.144.101.168 (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Cornish language is actually just a version of Welsh that has been altered over time.

Funny. That's like saying "The English language is actually just a version of German (or Dutch, or Swedish) that has been altered over time." Or, that said, "Humans descend from chimpanzees."

Well, if you use German to mean (West) Germanic (which even makes sense given the classification of West Germanic and the amount of dialects the term German covers), it is true that English is but a German dialect ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the references in the article to this curious work. With all due respect to the author of said book, any attempt to include this information would be outdated since the matter has been resolved (in 2014 - see minority status articles). Any indication to the contrary, or infact any "racial" distinctions such as this is inflammatory in its nature. It could also be considered racist by members of said minority group. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk page maintenance

This talk page was becoming rather long, and many comments had not been signed. I have added {{unsigned}} to those comments which needed it, and have also archived all threads which did not shew any activity this year (2008). I have also added a "talk page header", which includes a link to the archive, and will automatically generate a link to further archives as they are added in the future. DuncanHill (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

History Edit

There is a problem with the Treaty of Bretigny here in relation to Conrnwall.Please see my talk page where I have pasted the original text and pointed out what is wrong- Any additions or suggestions welcome.Brythonek (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti Cornish sentiment in the UK section

I have some big concerns about this new section which has been added or is being expanded today.

" It is not within the scope of this sub-article to discuss the rights and wrongs of Cornwall and her history but rather to give instances of genuine anti-Cornish sentiments expressed in order to be able to approach the issues of Cornwall in a more rounded fashion. "

This is an unacceptable way of describing something on wikipedia. I would of undone the whole edits but i dont want to be accused of trying to hide something or pushing a point of view. Id like to know what others feel about this matter. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you say why? Why not edit and re-word it?

Brythonek (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

e/c I agree (twice in one year BritishWatcher, it's becoming a habit). Recent additions to this article are unsourced and some are possibly libelous (the Carrick District Council 'quote' for example). I request that the originator engage here and agree that any unsourced information will be removed to a sandbox until it can be verified. Otherwise, I suggest that we ask for admin involvement, and soon. Daicaregos (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

lol Daicaregos, lets keep that a secret shall we? ;) We dont want to ruin our reputations BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher and Daicaregos. Now this is really unprecedented.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I may take a pageprint and frame it. :-D Daicaregos (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, let's not get umpty about things. I found the Carrick Comment on Cornwall 24 a while back. I included it and then went back to check the source as the link was broken- Cornwall 24 have recently updated their site. I requested a reliable source for this comment. I received a reply to this and I must admit that it is not verifiable whatsoever and therefore the item has been removed duly.Brythonek (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The section is certainly inappropriate within this article, which is about the self-government movement. A referenced, neutral, paragraph, which summarises the attitudes of the English towards the Cornish, and with notable quotes (such as William of Malmesbury), should in my view be included in the article on Cornish people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on a neutral paragraph about it on the Cornish people article, however ive had to undo a recent change there which i found totally unacceptable too. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you say what? I notice you say "I found" unacceptable. That may be a bit subjective.

Brythonek (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Brythonek doesn't seem to know about or understand Wikipedia's basic guidelines, mostly the ones about notability, verifiability, and what Wikipedia isn't. --Joowwww (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of wikipedia that people volunteer to edit and contribute and that others with more experience help and offer advice, other than snipe all the time?

Brythonek (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there are guidelines we all have to follow. The more experienced users are indeed there to help, but they are also there to make sure things don't go astray. These aren't just rules for the sake of rules, they are there to keep this website encyclopedic and prevent any old information being presented to unsuspecting viewers as fact. --Joowwww (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Duchy of Cornwall

Hello guys- Right the Anti-Cornish issues have been resolved I am glad to say. Sorry if there was any "fiction" on my part.

I have included an official description of the Duchy of Cornwall here, taken from the Duchy of Conrwall homepage, and referenced. I am sure that this cannot possibly be disputed- and in the spirit of fairness I feel that the "official" position on the Duhcy should be included in ANY discussion of these issues. If anyone would like to edit more/add please do.

I would also like to ask, on Decairagos' advice too, if there be any case for a separate article discussing the disputed status of the Duchy. I have a lot of sourced material and I feel it would overload the page to include it all here---

Please let me know what you think, here or on my talk page. Much appreciated. Brythonek (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved section. Daicaregos (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There is already an article about it, see Constitutional status of Cornwall. --Joowwww (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well yes and no. The article you site is a general handling of all the subjects, I was thinking about an article specific to the disputes with the Duchy of Cornwall. Nevertheless, there is a lot more material that could and should be added to the "duchy" parts of the article- they are the fundamental ones afterall aren't they? Brythonek (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt a separate article would pass the notability criteria, a paragraph in the existing article would probably be more accepted --Joowwww (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair point! Ynweth gwyr. My a wel pandra ty a lever. I'll follow Deca's advice and have a good look at the article and my material, sandbox the paragraphs to add and we can go from there. How about that?Brythonek (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There is already an article at Constitutional status of Cornwall as mentioned above but what about Duchy of Cornwall, surely thats where those matters would be covered?? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Cornish self-government movement → Cornish nationalism — This article should be renamed "Cornish nationalism". This is because the article's focus is not just the autonomy/devolution movement in Cornwall - it also deals with culture, identity, ethnicity, and constitutional issues in Cornwall, all of which can come under the umbrella term of "Cornish nationalism". This would also make it in line with articles for other nationalisms in Europe, e.g. Breton, Welsh, Catalan etc. --Joowwww (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Introduction

The beggining of this article treats Cornwall as if it is not part of England, using phrases such as 'seperate from that of England' or 'seperate from that of English people'. I tried changing this to 'seperate from that of the rest of England', which I think is perfectly reasonable and neutral. Cornwall is undeniably part of England (And I don't mean this in an offensive or nationalist way, it is simply an encyclopediac - I think thats how you spell it - fact) so can you not try to argue that it isn't. If you have any reasons for why this is unjust then please say, but stop changing it without giving reasons. 82.1.157.16 (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to insist on "Cornwall, England" on this article. And, as this has been reverted several times, it must be obvious that it is against consensus. I also reverted a one word edit that had been misspelled. Poor spelling is unencyclopaedic and may be considered vandalism. Please check in a dictionary if you are unsure how a word is spelt, or just use a speillchucker. Please gain consensus here first (as has been requested on your talk page) before making controversial edits. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not inappropriate at all, it in very appropriate actually. The whole point of the article is that some Cornish nationalists believe Cornwall is a seperate nation to England, as oppossed to the well known fact that it is part of England. As for your claim that someone has mispelled a word, you are wellcome to correct it, but that is irrellevant to this discussion. The point I am making is that the article itself states that Cornwall is not in England; '(Cornwall has a cuture which is) seperate from that of England'. This should read, '(Cornwall has a cuture which is) seperate from that of the rest of England'. Therefore the article contains incorrect information and is misleading to readers. I do believe Wikipedia was designed to be a reliable and neutral source, but with articles like this, I don't believe it is even close to that. 82.1.157.16 (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal would be inaccurate. Since nationalists consider Cornwall to be legally a distinct entity from England, it is correct to say "from that of England". The article is not saying that Cornwall is separate, but that nationalists believe it to be. --Joowwww (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Have changed "In the United Kingdom", to "England". I have never seen a more obvious attempt on wikipedia to appease a separatist movement. Cornwall is part of England. This Cornish nationalism has a beef with that fact. To try and gloss over it by putting "In the United Kingdom" in the first sentence is silly. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have amended BritishWatcher's wording, which was as provocative and unhelpful as the earlier unnecessary reference to the stannary parliament. The fact is that Cornwall has been administered as part of England for centuries (the precise date is arguable); but this article specifically relates to the argument that it should not (and in some senses, arguably, is not) be so administered. The introduction to the article needs to set out a balanced summary of the position, which neither a bald reference to "Cornwall, England", nor an unexplained footnote to the stannary parliament (in any case, inappropriate in style per WP:LEAD) would do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept there needs to be any balance at all when it comes to stating a fact that Cornwall is in England. However the change you have made is a reasonable one and worded well so i can support that. Thank you. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Map of Cornwall

The map of Britain highlights the County of Cornwall. The map should highlight the Duchy of Cornwall. Doesn't the Duchy include Devon?  Randall Bart   Talk  03:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No. There is a map of the Duchy's land ownership here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The current map

The current map shows the Isle of Man and Channel Islands as though they are part of the UK, which they are not. Should a different map be used? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Now resolved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Degree of identity

It seems to me that a fairly important missing part of this issue is the number of Cornish people that actually identify with a Cornish national identity, rather than an English one. Could we include some polls on this? 80.231.172.154 (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

One editor has been changing the wording of the lead from:

Cornish nationalism is an umbrella term that refers to a cultural, political and social movement based in Cornwall, the most southwestern part of the island of Great Britain, which has for centuries been administered as part of England, within the United Kingdom.

to:

Cornish nationalism is an umbrella term that refers to a cultural, political and social movement based in the county of Cornwall, the most southwestern part of England, which has for centuries been administered as part of England, within the United Kingdom.

The initial wording has stood since 2010, so the correct procedure is to leave it at that version until a consensus is achieved here to change it. I disagree with the proposed change. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not the policy. You don't get to keep an incorrect version just because you like it. So far you have failed to supply an actual argument in support of your position. My reasons for retaining the new lead (it was someone else who first amended it) are that given it is a political article the current political status of the county needs to be placed prominently in the lead and not swept under the carpet with vague terms. The status is clearly that Cornwall is a county in England[1][2][3]. If you think otherwise then you have to provide reliable source that states that Cornwall states the contrary. Eckerslike (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the thread above on "Introduction", which related directly to this discussion? The article is about the view that Cornwall should not be and in some respects has never been a part of England. It is perverse and POV to start off an article about Cornish nationalism by stating baldly that Cornwall is in England - although personally I would have no objection to a statement that it is currently administered as part of England, which is obviously true. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Eckerslike, that would be true if a) WP:BRD was a policy (it isn't, it's an essay) and b) you were the arbiter of what is correct and what is incorrect. The wording has stood since 2010 because nobody had a problem with it. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, you're supposed to bring an argument here once you've been reverted once.

This is not an article about the current political status of Cornwall, it is an article about an alternative view of the way Cornwall should be administered. To start the article by making uncompromising statements regarding its status is to defeat the point of the article. The county status is dealt with in the article, and in the lead already. The initial sentence regarding the island of Great Britain is to define the geographical location of Cornwall in an unpolitical way. You have reverted that to a political definition, which I believe should specifically avoided. An article about a political belief written from the point of view of an opposing belief is unencyclopedic and pointless.

The established wording was agreed upon above in a previous discussion between parties who disagreed. These changes [4] were agreed upon and constitute a consensus. You're going to need another consensus to change them, and you do not currently have that consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You're starting to make a good case to have this article deleted. Wikipedia is not about promoting minority (or any) views but presenting a factual account of a subject. If these facts "defeat the point of the article" then it shows up a problem with the article (or its intended purpose). The lead as it has stood is in no way apolitical. In particular, stating that Cornwall is "administered as part of England" implies some special status or that it is a situation that could potentially change. That Cornwall is a county in England is a fact not a point of view. Again if you think otherwise provide the reliable sources state your position.

The problem is that any statement about the location of Cornwall will be inherently political because it is primarily a political entity. One possible out is to word it along the lines of

Cornish nationalism is an umbrella term that refers to a cultural, political and social movement that views Cornwall as a entity distinct from the country of England.

or some such. Eckerslike (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Cornwall is the southwesternmost part of the island of Great Britain is a statement of geographical fact, with no political implications. That is precisely why that form of words is used. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) There's no problem with having articles on Wikipedia about minority views, providing those articles are not weighted towards or against those views. This isn't an article about Cornwall which states facts about Cornwall. It's an article explaining the Cornish nationalist view, stating facts about that view without promoting it or undermining it. The lead is apolitical because geographically it refers to Cornwall in relation to its location on the island of Great Britain, which is an apolitical entity. Politicising the lead by stating categorically what Cornwall "is" or "isn't" in terms of England would be unencyclopedic solely in the context of this article. Elsewhere it would be pertinent.

However, stating that Cornwall is administered as part of England is entirely neutral because it's a fact that neither "side" would dispute. It's administered as such like every other county, I don't see how that implies some kind of special status. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Either formulation is entirely and equally accurate. As for avoiding explicit mention of the fact that Cornwall is a county of England, a justification based on not upsetting a fringe minority, while having some value in a practical sense, is a pretty weak one overall. I agree with Eckerslike that to regard that statement as a "point of view" or politicising the issue would be nonsensical by any rational standard. As for the page as a whole, it's obviously a notable topic, but it's a real mess which seems more interested in arguing the toss over said bizarre debate as to whether Cornwall "is" part of England or not, rather than actually offering any history or details about Cornish nationalism. N-HH talk/edits 10:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It's always a little dangerous to describe a position as "nonsensical" and "bizarre" when, in fact, experience shows that some editors find it anything but nonsensical or bizarre. Clearly, this article is and always has been something of a battleground between those who are fervent supporters of Cornish nationalism, and those who think the whole idea is patently ridiculous. Some of us try to mediate between those two positions - but I don't disagree about the article being "a real mess". What concerns me most of all is the overlap between this article and the article on Constitutional status of Cornwall. An independent perspective - from someone who can demonstrate neutrality and balance - would be welcome, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't think it's an unfair description. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that Cornish nationalism is a bizarre or nonsensical idea (well, no less bizarre than any other kind of nationalism) just that any debate about Cornwall's actual, current status as a county is. Anyway both these pages popped up on my watchlist this morning. Personally, I'd argue for the deletion of the Constitutional status page, which is even more chock-full of meandering original research and debate and anyway covers much of the same ground as this one. We need one article, which documents the history and arguments of Cornish nationalism, not two pages, both of which attempt to actually have that argument. Plus it's quite telling that when you type "Constitutional status .." into the search box here, the only two results you get are Kosovo and Cornwall. N-HH talk/edits 11:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There's another problem with the lead sentence as it stands. It does not give a description of what Cornish Nationalism is actually is about it simply states that it is based in Cornwall then launches into a convoluted explanation of Cornwall's location and political status. It is pretty clear that a movement about Cornwall is going to be based in Cornwall. The view of the movement is the most important fact about it and yet a concise description is lacking in the lead sentence. This can be rectified by ending the sentence with "that views Cornwall as a distinct entity within the United Kingdom". As an added bonus the location is also implied. Eckerslike (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the opening sentence could be clarified, but I'm not keen on your formulation. Probably the key feature of Cornish nationalism is that Cornwall is seen as, or should become (depending on which strand of nationalism it is) a nation distinct from England. I'm sure there are some Cornish nationalists who want to be out of the UK altogether, but its relationship to the UK is, I think, a secondary issue compared to its relationship to England. My suggestion is:
Cornish nationalism is an umbrella term that refers to a cultural, political and social movement that seeks the recognition of Cornwall - the south-westernmost part of the island of Great Britain - as a nation distinct from England.
Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree that describing the debate or any part of it as nonsensical or bizarre is pretty unhelpful. If it's accepted that the topic is notable and deserves an article, that article cannot then either rubbish one side of the debate or suggest that the debate is over. In my experience very few Cornish nationalists want to leave the UK, whereas all of them want to be considered distinct from England, and not a mere county within it. With that in mind, I'm happy with Ghmyrtle's wording of a proposed lead sentence. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I was actually quite limited in what I described with either term, relating them solely to the WP:FRINGE debate about whether Cornwall is or is not currently a county of England. That's a separate point from whether it is culturally distinct or whether it ought to remain as a administrative county. No serious third-party authority or source suggests there is any genuine constitutional question mark there or even discusses the issue at all (hence why I think the "Constitutional status .." article is a candidate for deletion – the fact that a small minority even of the nationalist movement do hold that view can be noted here, as their view, not as a notable topic in its own right). Anyway, I'm fine the proposed opening, which at least tells us a bit more than the current one. N-HH talk/edits 10:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it a go, and await any further comments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a legal element to the idea that Cornwall is not legally a county because of its status as a duchy. It's a murky area which neither the Duchy nor the government have really explored, so it's not quite a fringe debate in the 'loony fringe' mould. It's doubtful that the issue ever will be fully satisfied because legislation does not apparently exist to answer the question either way, something that has ensured the longevity of the debate. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Come on, it's not a murky area at all or a long-standing debate in any real sense. It's something that's occasionally put forward by a few amateur self-appointed "experts" on personal websites and forums. No serious legal authority attests that Cornwall might be an independent duchy with Prince Charles as its head of state and/or might not actually be a county of England. No serious source even raises the topic to examine it and dismiss it. It's pretty much the definition of WP:FRINGE, even more so than 9/11 theories, which at least see the latter happening. The fact that no one serious has really looked into the claim is evidence of its fringe implausibility, not evidence that it's an open question at all. Anyway, it's not relevant to the point at hand really, although it might have some import in any wider discussion about how such theories are presented on WP. As I say, I think they should be noted as being espoused by some campaigners but I'm not sure there should be a page devoted to presenting the argument per se, which is what this one effectively does (even if it also presents counter-arguments). N-HH talk/edits 21:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, you're right, this is a side issue and I don't mean to be argumentative about it. But I am not talking about Cornwall actually being an independent duchy with Prince Charles as a head of state, or that Cornwall isn't really administered as a county. That and the county/duchy debate are delicately separate issues and it isn't as set in stone as one might think. Contrary to what you say, a lot of serious people have looked into it, including Cornwall Council (note that it's no longer called Cornwall County Council unlike nearly every other county in England – even County Hall's name was changed so as to remove the word 'county') (and here's a Cornwall Councillor wishing the High Court would deal with the question [5]), and Mebyon Kernow, although you would perhaps not consider them serious. The Royal Commission on the Constitution (United Kingdom) steered well clear of dismissing the question and recommended that Cornwall be referred to as a duchy. Andrew George MP specifically asked a question about it in Parliament and got a very non-committal answer, and at least two Cornish MPs have complained about the government's unwillingness to answer questions about it. A number of official bodies have looked into it recently due to the fact that it's at the very crux of dealing with the incredibly murky tax affairs of the Prince of Wales. So we're not just talking about a couple of hairy blokes in a pub in Redruth. If only it were as simple as that. You're right in that it hasn't been examined and dismissed – if you have found a judicial statement on the de jure constitutional status of Cornwall, I've never seen it. Without it, it is an open question, and if it could be easily answered, it would have been by now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The case often cited as showing Cornwall's distinctiveness is the Cornish Foreshore Case - but I'm not a lawyer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That case is cited in exactly the way I'm talking about and probably given far too much prominence here on WP (and the page itself was written incredibly misleadingly until a year or so ago) – I know of no serious legal analysis that gives it the import some claim it has. As for some of the other points: Cornwall Council may not use the term county in their own title – and actually they're not alone by any means in doing that – but I don't think they deny that they administer one; the Kilbrandon commission is quite explicit in referring to Cornwall as a county in its own text, and one that has been "governed as part of England for a thousand years", and only suggested occasional use of the duchy terminology in certain contexts and on account of the royal relationship (plus, as usual with royal commissions, the recommendation was never taken up anyway); and the government seem to be quite explicit on the point in response to those questions from Andrew George. I'm not disputing the murky nature of the tax affairs of the Duchy of Cornwall, but that's a genuinely separate point, even if it has put the spotlight on the estate, and one of even less relevance of course to Cornwall per se. I've never seen the results of a formal medical examination, analysis or statement that confirms George W Bush is a human being and not a lizard. That doesn't mean it's an open question, it means no one takes the suggestion seriously in the first place. This is real Passport to Pimlico stuff – and, of course, is far from being the only or main thread or argument of any nationalist position. N-HH talk/edits 09:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are now starting to take a POV tone. How can one article out of the millions here give it "too much prominence"? There are extreme views on either side, but no-one disputes that Cornwall is administered as a county of England. The argument which serious groups have is the extent to which that administration has historical legitimacy, or whether it should be changed in the future. Having a couple of articles which set out that case in a balanced way, taking all points of view into account, is not giving the argument undue weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

To warrant a standalone article, topics have to be notable by our policy standards. It's genuinely not clear that that arbitration case is, in terms of it being a landmark legal case that changed the law or whatever. As for nationalism, I'm wholly in favour of having this page and having it explain in some detail the varied things that different Cornish nationalists believe, including the duchy-not-county claim (which of course is but one thing among those, and probably a minority belief even among nationalists). The issue I have is whether we treat fringe arguments as worthy of note in themselves and whether we have pages devoted to discussing them in themselves and whether they might be correct or incorrect. Balance does not mean treating everything as equal, as NPOV policy, at WP:BALANCE, makes clear. N-HH talk/edits 09:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that your persistence in writing off the duchy / county debate as a fringe argument, "a minority belief even among nationalists", and "no-one takes it seriously anyway" is, apart from being factually bereft, taking something other than a neutral point of view. Good job it's a side issue here at the moment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The "no one takes it seriously" strictly applied to the George W Bush as lizard thesis, which in turn I was invoking as an extreme example for comparison. And sorry, but all I'm doing is pointing out that a theory posited by some nationalists is only found in internet forums and self-published books and is not one that is accepted by anyone mainstream writing on British history or constitutional law – I'm not offering my own opinion on whether it's a reasonable belief or not. It's not me expressing a point of view, let alone a non-neutral one, but a reflection of reality, which has significance for how WP pages should be addressing the topic, per site policies on reliable sources and (actual) neutral point of view. That said, it is indeed less a direct concern for this page and more one, as noted, for Constitutional Status of Cornwall. I'd also happily recant my observation about lack of mainstream acceptance if anyone could provide me with actual evidence to the contrary. Show me a serious history book or analysis of constitutional law that makes the claims made by John Angarrack and a few other activists. I've never seen one (believe me I've looked while trying to make sense of some of the rubbish that's been dumped in pages here over the years) that even covers the substance of these "constitutional" claims, let alone endorses them. N-HH talk/edits 18:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

ps: the part of WP:NPOV I meant to refer to earlier was of course WP:UNDUE not WP:BALANCE. That so clearly applies in the broader situation here, from its opening sentence onwards, that I'm slightly surprised this is an issue. Anyway, I don't see that it's helpful to say any more, especially in the absence of anyone providing the evidence requested of mainstream coverage or analysis of the substantive claims. N-HH talk/edits 18:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) It was an unfortunate comparison, because it does damage to your claim to a NPOV. You certainly don't need to apologise, it's your argument and that's fine. To be clear, because I don't think you understand my position – I'm not offering my opinion on the merits of the belief that Cornwall is not a county, and at no stage did I claim or suggest there was any mainstream acceptance of that view. Without making a judgement on what people may or may not believe, and ignoring Angarrack and anyone else who holds views on the subject, I'm merely saying the call for clarity is wider than you claim it is (wider than "some nationalists"). This is proven by the fact that MPs have asked questions in Parliament about it, regardless of the responses given to those questions. Mine was (and still is) actually a fairly innocuous observation, and you've taken it way beyond that for some reason. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cornish nationalism. 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/20150205182630/http://www.kernowtgg.co.uk/ to http://www.kernowtgg.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 10:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cornish nationalism. 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/20110129104538/http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/index.htm to http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/index.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 17:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cornish nationalism. 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/20130103060025/http://www.danrogerson.org/2009/07/14/mp-calls-for-more-power-to-cornwall/ to http://www.danrogerson.org/2009/07/14/mp-calls-for-more-power-to-cornwall/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008011724/http://www.danrogerson.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cornwall.pdf to http://www.danrogerson.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cornwall.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

There is an undeniable lack of neutrality in this article. One might expect this given the emotional nature of the subject and the hawkish uber-vigilant editors associated with its promotion (Reversions made within milliseconds). However, this is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda mouthpiece, and as such due weight needs to be given in the article to opposition to Cornish nationalism within Cornwall, which polls would tend to indicate is the majority view, not least from the majority of people who consider themselves Englishmen and women living in the county of Cornwall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.99.222 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Cornish Nationalism v Cornish Devolution

A lot of this article is confused because it covers too many topics. Cornish Nationalism, Cornish national identity, Cornish ethnicity, and Cornish Devolution are separate topics. While they do in some way overlap, i feel that including them together is creating an overly political article. Additionally this article is not taking into account the two sides of this whole issue. A considerable amount of effort is being put into finding a neutral standpoint, but this has not been achieved. Several parts of the article are also incorrect or outdated. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree. This article assumes there is some support within the general population of Cornwall for the nationalist agenda. However, time after time at the ballot box, in polls, and online, they are rejected.Serpren (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Cornish independence is covered here too. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornish nationalism. 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/20090617142154/http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/uploads/22_tregidga_devolution_for_the_duchy.pdf to http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/uploads/22_tregidga_devolution_for_the_duchy.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

split page

I propose that this page is split into several articles. so I would create some more articles to split certain aspects such as independence and social identity from the nationalist movement. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the topic of Cornish independence is worth a separate article. It's not really promoted or debated much in Cornwall; even Mebyon Kernow prefers to advocate autonomy instead. And it could fit in into this article, as it is related to advocating increased autonomy for Cornwall. The case for having an article on Cornish identity (a bit like Scottish national identity) is stronger. There is a difference between "Cornishness" and advocating for more autonomy for Cornwall. Though the two are not completely unrelated, so they could fit into this article if it was better organised. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

We already have Cornish People so Cornish identity is unlikely to pass muster. Cornish independence is a topic with enough history and established sources to merit a good article, it has the norman time period, then 4 separate invasions of 'England' (these were a while back) the issues in the 1700's, the issues in the and some issues in the 1970-80's. all of which could easily make an article without any of the pseudo-current nationalist idealism that this has in it.

Also an article on cornish devolution would be nice. Its currently a redirect here but could easily have its own article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)