Wikipedia

Talk:Cornwall/Archive 13

< Talk:Cornwall
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Roger 8 Roger in topic Third paragraph, first line.
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Ferries

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cardiff and Swansea, across the Bristol Channel, are connected to Cornwall by ferry, usually to Padstow. Swansea in particular has several boat companies that can arrange boat trips to north Cornwall, which allow the traveller to pass by the north Cornish coastline, including Tintagel Castle and Padstow harbour. Very occasionally, the Waverley and Balmoral paddle steamers cruise from Swansea or Bristol to Padstow.

Is this true anymore? I've not heard of them, nor can I find any evidence of any. They do still run passenger ferries to Devon for tourism, but not, as far as I can see, to Cornwall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpren (talk • contribs) 04:09, 21 May 2015

This site suggests the possibility of reinstating ferries, but they certainly don't run now. The Waverley website here and the one for the Balmoral here don't give any suggestion that they travel to Cornwall. And, I can't find any sites that say that boats from Swansea travel to Cornwall. Best to remove the whole paragraph, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cornwall. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Briton/Brython?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The term 'Brython' in the introduction to this article links through to the article 'Celtic Britons', which is the term used in the body of the Cornwall article.

The 'Celtic Britons' article refers to 'Brython' as "The Welsh word... introduced into English usage by John Rhys in 1884 as a term unambiguously referring to the P-Celtic speakers of Great Britain, to complement Goidel; hence the adjective Brythonic referring to the group of languages."

Outside Wales, it seems clear that'Brython' is a linguistic term; used principally in the form Brythonic. There is no mention of 'Brython' in terms of a prehistoric population of Britain. I question the use of 'Brythons' in such phrases as:- "It continued to be occupied by Neolithic and then Bronze Age peoples, and later (in the Iron Age) by Brythons with distinctive cultural relations to neighbouring Wales and Brittany." and: "Cornwall was the home of a division of the Dumnonii tribe – whose tribal centre was in the modern county of Devon – known as the Cornovii, separated from the Brythons of Wales after the Battle of Deorham."

This looks like pseudo-history (Apart from anything else, isn't "Brythons of Wales" an anachronism?) perhaps with a tinge of Celtic cultural nationalism- with which I have no quarrel. It simply robs the article of authority in this instance.

For the sake of consistency if nothing else, surely the term 'Briton' should be used throughout. JF42 (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree it does seem to be somewhat of an affectation, and is not the commonly used term for those peoples. Polequant (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cornwall. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cornwall. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Cornwall. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 16:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Cornwall. 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:

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) 17:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cornwall. 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:

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) 01:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Cornwall. 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:

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) 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cornwall. 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:

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) 07:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

No criticism of the independence movement? Cornwall could never become an independent nation - who do you think pays for all their shit? Do you think the interior of Cornwall is able to generate enough tax wealth to pay for its public services!? HAHA! And the coastal regions...sure do get some wealthy outsiders there, but gee I wonder what sort of opinion your average Cornish nationalist holds for these individuals? The article massively overstates the support for independence at that...giving no mention as to how both main nationalist parties never manage to get over 10k votes each, and yet they are promoted over far larger parties such as the Lib Dems - who have in general lent themselves to calls for devolution. SURELY there has to be some criticism out there relating to this? Has anyone actually proposed how Cornwall could manage on its own, or do they want England to continue subsidizing the less well off districts? (Camborne...Redruth...lol)--109.149.121.129 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You should know that nationalists are capable of endless self delusion. The general claim is that Cornwall sends £300 million a year more to Westminister than they get back (really I think they cribbed UKIP's Brexit pamphlets here). The Lib Dems were (until recent Tory gains) the dominant political force, but tend not to commission press attacks criticism on Cornish Nationalists (for fear of losing loony local support I guess). I'm not aware of any serious reports on how Cornwall would fare as a separate country, just lots of people who want to it to become the new Channel islands and lots of people who think that if the bloody English basterds dropped dead left then everyone could happily live in huts made of sheep dung. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the OP's criticisms. Neither the current article nor the article as it existed two months ago discuss independence. The word "independence" doesn't appear at all. The topic of Cornish nationalism is discussed, mainly in a single subsection. But Cornish nationalism is not the same thing as advocating independence (unlike, say, Scottish nationalism). In fact, it often means campaigning for devolution and the promotion of Cornish culture. That is the position of Mebyon Kernow, for instance. So rather than giving undue weight to the idea of Cornish independence, the article doesn't really mention it at all. That's probably fine, as the idea is rarely discussed or promoted in Cornwall. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Anywikiuser. Our article on Cornish nationalism is a disaster zone, I doubt anyone could get any useful information from it. I really think it should be split into a set of articles to deal with this (see Talk:Cornish nationalism). There is no way bringing that problem onto this page is going to help explain Cornwall to a reader, so the current brief mention is fine. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  12:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

film Comment

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

nothing on film, Cornwall is full of film sets, treasure island was one of the first, poldark one of the latest, i suggest a brief section after visual arts. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Culture of Cornwall has a section on Cornish film.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
That's a start I suppose, but I was actually referring to a section in this article. I see film crews everywhere, put I don't think anyone has bothered to collate anything on Wikipedia to explain they are actually filming or where the most popular sites are. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
We have Cornwall film locations. As a general point, we should not really need to add much new material into this article, as there are many more specialist articles on aspects of Cornwall's geography, history, culture, etc. etc. in which details should be placed. If anything, material should be moved away from this overall article into those other articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Excellent, somehow i had not found that article. My thoughts were along the lines of a few sentences included on this page, something like: 
Cornwall has a rich and varied landscape often used as the backdrop to [[films]] and [[TV series]]. Recently Cornwall has received international attention from the new [[BBC]] production, [[Poldark (2015 TV series)|Poldark]] which is filmed in a number of [[Cornwall film locations|locations]] around Cornwall.
Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Can I make a suggestion that the addition you propose be edited so that it is "timeless"? At the moment, the production of Poldark is new, but eventually it will not be, and I think we should be trying to write material that doesn't need to be kept updated by removing descriptions that are linked to a particular recent event like that. Try to refer to the date just as 2017 or something like that.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes also this ignores the 1980's production of Poldark, which was equally popular at the time. It still needs some work. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  22:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

At the end of August/early September Aguyintobooks unilateraly made substantial changes to the lead. When I made further changes to eliminate the problems with his version of the lead he reverted me with the comment "Reverting unhelpful changes made without consensus". Given that he didn't seek consensus for his edits the same applies to his edits. On that basis I have reverted the lead to the last stable version. We can then discuss any further improvements here. Eckerslike (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Eckerslike: Diff [1]. Can I have some feedback on what the problems with my improvements was, I was under the impression it was better because it is less focused on recent sources, and made more of an effort to balance the available sources. "Cornwall" (this article) is many things, both historically, culturally and politically. With this current lead you may as well call it Cornwall since 1885, because it is impossible to integrate the other sections of the lead without adequate representation in the lede paragraph. (btw I don't mind if you want the "Cornwall is in England" bit to come first, It occurred to me that could be the problem.) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  12:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Refering to a subject's current status prior to its previous incarnations is not recentism but normal practice. For example, non of the other Celtic nations' articles make reference to this status in the lead paragraph. In a sense this is an article about Cornwall since 1885 in the same way that the United Kingdom and Germany articles primaraly refer to the post-1922 and post-1990 incarnations. I agree that the lead paragraph could benefit from a sentence referencing the various incarnations that Cornwall has taken however it should come after its current status is addressed. The switch from talking about current status in the first sentence, historical status in the second and then back to current status creates a confusing opening. Perhaps following the description of the territorial extent with "This area has been reconised as a single political and cultural unit for over a thousand years having previously been a...." could work. Eckerslike (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
After your idea to remove the duchy information I have less opinion of your knowledge in this area than before, however I will break down the lede structure for your convenience, (and note it has been modeled to take note of the fact it is not a sovereign country unlike United Kingdom and Germany).
"Cornwall... is a Celtic nation and ceremonial county in the United Kingdom. It was formerly a Brythonic kingdom and subsequently a royal duchy. It is a unitary authority area of England, administered by Cornwall Council. Cornwall has been a unitary authority area since the 2009 structural changes to local government in England. The administrative centre of Cornwall, and only city in the county, is Truro. The ceremonial county of Cornwall also includes the Isles of Scilly, which are administered separately."
It starts with the name, as is explained in MOS.
the current status comes next; "is a Celtic nation and ceremonial county in the United Kingdom" this is both uncontroversial and factual, I don't mind switching the order, but the Cornish Diaspora and various cultural associations might.
It then describes what it was previously, "It was formerly a Brythonic kingdom and subsequently a royal duchy" various nationalists will argue it still is one or the other of these, but there is no need to discuss that here.
After establishing what Cornwall is, it then moves onto the administration of Cornwall. "It is a unitary authority area of England, administered by Cornwall Council" this is also factually accurate, this article is not of course actually about the unitary authority area (see Cornwall Council for that) but this fact is necessary in the lede.
the next bit is basically filler, but it adds some useful facts straight off. "Cornwall has been a unitary authority area since the 2009 structural changes to local government in England. The administrative centre of Cornwall, and only city in the county, is Truro. The ceremonial county of Cornwall also includes the Isles of Scilly, which are administered separately."
I feel some improvement can be made, and will do so, changing the order slightly (per your comments), but also making the lede longer, to deal with your concerns, I will ping you when I am done. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually Ghmyrtle‎ has fixed it already. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I have re-edited the lead somewhat. The issue here is to recognise the (widely acknowledged and accepted) cultural distinctiveness of Cornwall - while not giving it undue weight, and recognising that, both administratively and (in many respects) culturally it is part of England. Cornish nationalism is very much a minority position, but recognition of Cornish distinctiveness as part of England and of Great Britain is an orthodox position which the lead paragraphs should reflect. One more comment - all editors here should comment on edits, not cast aspersions on editors, and must remain civil. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ceremonial county

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

To resolve issues in the lead, comments are requested regarding the definition of the ceremonial county. Including when it was established (which may have been 1888 or some other date). And whether the ceremonial county is in England or United Kingdom. Dysklyver 14:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

From Ceremonial Counties of England#Definition:

The Lieutenancies Act 1997 defines counties for the purposes of lieutenancies in terms of metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties (created by the Local Government Act 1972, as amended) as well as Greater London and the Isles of Scilly (which lie outside the 1972 Act's new system). Although the term is not used in the Act, these counties are sometimes known as "ceremonial counties".

Ceremonial counties only exist in England. Eckerslike (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
As a PS, the Lieutenancy of Cornwall - which is effectively synonymous with the ceremonial county - has existed since the 1540s. See https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/cornwall-lieutenancy/ , which states: "The office of Her (or His) Majesty’s Lieutenants for Counties was established in England by the Tudors in the sixteenth century....." Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
It is unclear if the Lords Lieutenant prior to the 1997 Act covered the Isles of Scilly, which are in the currently defined ceremonial county, but were never part of the 1888 administrative county, and are not part of the modern unitary authority of Cornwall. Quite apart from the usual fruitless arguments over whether or not Cornwall is, or may be said to be, in England, there is the problem that the word "county" has several different meanings, for example "registration counties", being based on Poor Law unions often had different borders than "ancient counties", also known as "counties proper", the borders of which were adjusted at various times, notably in 1832. Administrative counties were added to the mix in 1888. There is some information about this here at pages 54-55.
There is an established convention for places in Cornwall to use the "Cornwall, England, UK" formula on Wikipedia.
This article seems to be trying to be about several different "Cornwalls" - the modern ceremonial county, the modern unitary authority, the historic geographical county, and the even more historic Cornwall going back before the arrival of the English in these islands.
The lead of the article is no place to hash out all the arguments and details, it should offer a succinct overview. To avoid any mention of England seems to me to be an extreme point of view. It would also seem to me to be extreme to the point of idiocy to try to put an "established" date for "Cornwall". There is a ceremonial county of Cornwall, established by the 1997 act. There was an area called Cornwall under a Lord Lieutenant dating back to at least Tudor times. There was an administrative county called Cornwall from 1888. There is a unitary authority area called Cornwall, and "Cornwall" is a traditional, or ancient, county. None of these entities have the same borders, the same administrative arrangements, yet they share essentially the same geography, the same history.
In short, keep the lead simple, confine comparisons of historical entities to appropriate sections or articles, don't use the lead or any part of Wikipedia to promote nationalist POV (whether English or Cornish). But we do need to be clear that the ceremonial county and the unitary authority are not coterminous. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
statement by Dysklyver
I will make my position clear, as a member of the recognised minority group that inhabit Cornwall, I firmly believe Cornwall is foremost a Celtic Nation, and that the administrative county is a secondary factor. You ought to be able to find my prefered version of the lead in the edit history.
However the current consensus is that the primary topic of this article is that of the pre 1888 historic county, which for your information was formed by constitutional convention sometime directly after the closure of the last Stannary Parliament in 1753, when Cornwall effectively ceased to be a Duchy and became a county for most legal purposes, this county includes the isles of scilly and follows Athelstans Tamar boundary.
An administrative county (without the Isles of Scilly) was established in 1888.
The ceremonial county was defined by statute in 1997, the Wikipedia article covering the act is not accurate, and I ask you not to quote wikipedia in this debate, because sadly very little of Wikipedias legal content is accurate, particularly in areas connected to public law and obscure acts of parliament, better information is available at the house of commons archives (they have a website).
A unitary authority area, separate to the 1888 administrative county, was established in 2009 with the creation of Cornwall Council.
prior to 1758 Cornwall was technically a duchy, but elements of county administration have existed since the mid 1500's.
In the distant past, Cornwall was a Kingdom, it is generally believed that the Normans put a stop to this, however it continued as a distinctly governed region within the Norman realms and did not get legally settled as not being a kingdom until 1201.
Cornwall became a duchy in 1337, however the Duchy of Cornwall is now merely a private estate and title of Prince Charles. (killcarrick report notwithstanding)
From a legal standpoint all of these areas are in "the United Kingdom", and by current consensus, only the 2009 unitary authority area is "in England", and given the years of debate in getting to this point - this is unlikely to change.
My recommendation if any change should be made, is to remove the unitary authority from the lead, make it clear the main topic of this article, and cover all these conflicting entities on separate pages. Dysklyver 19:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

As of the four editors commenting on this section you are the only one insisting that Cornwall is not in England I don't think you can claim any consensus for that position. Your claim that the primary topic is pre-1888 is flat out wrong. When people refer to Cornwall they will be refering to present day Cornwall. For your information the "County of Cornwall" is actually referred to (several times) in the 1337 charter that created the duchy so your assertion that it was formed in 1753 is also false. It would be helpful if you actually state what is wrong with the Wikipedea article on the Lieutenancies Act 1997. However as you show such distaste for its content I will quote from the act directly. In schedule 2, under the heading Counties in England it states 

2 The counties in England for the purposes of this Act are—
(a)Greater London (excluding the City of London);
(b)the areas which are to be regarded as counties for those purposes by virtue of paragraph 3; and
(c)any other areas in England which are counties for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972

.... 

5 The Isles of Scilly shall be treated as part of the county of Cornwall for the purposes of this Act.


Eckerslike (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Look I will try to put this in a simply way which a layman could understand, I can clarify if needed. The ceremonial county of Cornwall existed before the 1997 act, as someone pointed out already, Cornwall has had a lieutenant at the common-law since 1540. Therefore the 1997 act did not affect or create anything in Cornwall, it simply codified what was already there. (this is very common in british law, which is a common law system, if this argument was about somewhere in Germany, it would have been resolved long ago)
Furthermore the fact that the 1337 charter refers to Cornwall as a "Coṁ" (meaning area) is not directly relevant, since a Duchy was referred to in the same way in the Old Law French, it is merely a reference to an administrative landholding. (NB. the charter was not written in English, the translation does not use the modern usage of words not coined at the time).
The current ceremonial county of Cornwall was created in 1753, when the last stannary parliament closed.
the three incarnations of the administrative 'county' created in 1888, 1972 & 2009 are not the focus of this article.
I think we safely dispense with the UK/England bollocks, given that the Lieutenancies Act 1997 states which areas are considered to be in England, as areas in England by virtue of the Local Government Act 1977 are considered to be England for the purposes of the 1997 act, which would imply the ceremonial county is also in England. I suggest that Eckerslike's point about any previous consensus being irrelevant is followed and something similar to the lead for Devon is used. Dysklyver 20:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Arms

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Comments on the arms of Cornwall requested, generally the arms of the Duchy of Cornwall are used for Cornwall itself, however some people here seem to disagree, whats sources say that the arms of Cornwall are now only used by the Duchy estate? Dysklyver 11:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Coat of Arms are granted to an individual or institution by the College of Arms. The Coat of Arms of the duchy therefore belongs to the duchy alone. Cornwall council has its own coat of arms featuring a bird instead of a crown on top of the shield.

Perhaps we could use this ? Dysklyver 19:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The same argument that applies to the duchy's arms applies to the council's coat of arms. Unlike the flag, which belongs to the county, the coat of arms were granted to the council and represent that body alone, so it shouldn't be used alongside the flag. We did on this article, however, used to include the council's logo in the administration section of the infobox. It would work if the logo was again included. --Inops (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The infobox says the county was created in 1889, and was "preceded" by the Duchy of Cornwall. Neither of these are correct. The point where Cornwall became a county of England is probably a bit hazy, but it was well before 1889. The county certainly developed in part out of the Duchy, especially in administration, but it's far too much of a simplification to say the Duchy preceded the county -- the Duchy still exists, for example. These complexities are better described in the article, not in the infobox where they can easily lead to confusion. I've changed this part of the infobox back to the way it was a few months ago. --Inops (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes are pretty useless for anything dubious, complex or controversial. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I concur. Dysklyver 15:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the picture of Cornwall should be put back. Dysklyver 21:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed - that has not been discussed and there was certainly no agreement to remove it. Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I removed it from the infobox for a few reasons: (1) it doesn't show the county boundary, and the image includes a large section of Devon (2) it doesn't have the Isles of Scilly included, which are part of the ceremonial county (3) it's already included in the article, and would go better with the geography section. --Inops (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the first two points are relevant - the article deals with several different definitions of Cornwall, not only the modern administrative one, and so whether or not Scilly and parts of Devon are included or not is essentially trivial. It is a good, clear image, long established in this article, and in my view appropriate for the infobox. But I accept that it should not be included twice in the article - I did not notice it was in the Geography section - and so the solution would be to take it out of that section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"Swedish turnip"

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

We're told this is the British term for "rutabaga" (which is indeed unknown in Britain - I first came across it in the Betty McDonald book "The egg and I", and had no idea what it was, except that it was some kind of vegetable, like the equally mysterious "Swiss chard"). But according to the Wikipedia article "Rutabaga", "Swedish turnip" is in fact an alternative American term for the vegetable. All Brits I've ever known - including myself - call it a "swede" (written with a small "s"), and many developed a lifelong dislike for swedes after being forced to eat them, boiled to a pulp and without seasoning of any kind, in low-quality British school dinners - "ugh, swedes again!"213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't have the faintest idea what a rutabaga is, but as a Briton who grew up in Cornwall I can confirm that a swede (known in Cornwall as a turnip) is also known as a Swedish turnip in Britain. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah these are turnips all right. Also known as swedes in Tesco, and as Swedish Turnips by people with proper diction. Dysklyver 22:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Delicious in pasties by any name. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cornwall. 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:

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) 22:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Partial Protection

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've partially protected the article temporarily to stop an anonymous editor who is changing IP addresses to make the same edit to the article which has been subject to discussion before, and has had its wording agreed (which the editor obviously takes exception to).  DDStretch  (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Add in in Demographics, according to a census of 2011, Cornwall is a very Christian area of the UK, with over 59% following Christianity. Ilovejellybagels (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: as the requesting user is indef blocked as a sockpuppet. I have no prejudice against a user in good standing making this edit if it can be reliably sourced. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't be done anyway, as 59% of the population of England and Wales identified as christian in the 2011 Census, so Cornwall would be an averagely christian area.[1]DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "How religion has changed in England and Wales". Office for National Statistics. Retrieved 12 February 2018.

Duchy, not county.

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

In 1973 the Royal Commission on the Constitution stated that "the people of Cornwall regard their part of the United Kingdom as not just another English county" and accordingly they recommended that the designation "Duchy of Cornwall" be used on all occasions to emphasise the "special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall." Duchy should therefore be used in this article, not county. Ohworkbtch (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

A Royal Commission does not determine what goes into wikipedia articles. The duchy is a separate defined entity with a separate area. Where is your source for that claim to call the county a duchy? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
"and accordingly they recommended that the designation "Duchy of Cornwall" be used on all appropriate occasions to emphasise the "special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall."" Ohworkbtch (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Did they specify that a Wikipedia page is an "appropriate occasion"? -- Eckerslike (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of the status of the duchy, how does that erase the fact Cornwall is administered as a county of England?--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Cornwall is a county, not a duchy. The Duchy of Cornwall is a property portfolio and most of the estate is actually located outside the county (Poundbury). Indeed, Cornwall isn’t even unique in this regard. There is also a Duchy of Lancashire and, unlike the Duchy of Cornwall, it has its very own minister in the British cabinet. The county Lancashire, which is not a duchy, would have a better claim to being a sovereign duchy than Cornwall because of this, but like I said before, the ‘duchy’ is just a property portfolio. The Royal Commission could just be humouring the people in Cornwall, just like they do with the Welsh, who insist that Wales is a principality. Margalant (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Umm...... the Welsh in general (at least, the Wales editors here) certainly do not consider that Wales is a principality - it is a nation. See Talk:Wales/Archive country poll, etc. etc. etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
"a prince born in Wales, who did not speak a word of English" (ha) --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Recently added tag

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Shortening the lead would not really be an improvement; the present lead took much discussion to evolve and needs to be sufficiently long to give an account both of the territory of Cornwall and of the ceremonial county. It was decided not to have separate articles for these so the result is the present form of the article.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The lead is too long and breaches guidelines. If it was decided in the past to have the lead as long as it is then that decision was wrong. I look forward to thinning it out, if others don't do it first. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Further discussion of this proposal is needed.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not think the lead in particular need of shortening, but if someone has a constructive suggestion for specific changes then of course we should discuss them. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
There are six paragraphs in the lead and 15 references. A barely disguished unbalanced slant towards the Cornish nationalist movement is present. See [2]. Do we seriously need to discuss if the lead is too long? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I entirely support the view that the lead is too long. Per MOS:LEAD, it should be no more than four paragraphs long. The national identity issue does need to be covered in the lead though perhaps in less detail, and the opening paragraph should broadly remain, as should the words about the current economy. In my view what needs to be reduced is the detailed information on history, which should be a more succinct summary of what is in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that most of paragraph 2 uses detail that is already in, or should be in, section 7. Ditto paragraphs 3 and 4 with the history section. Paragraph 5 and section 9. Paragraph 6 and section 3. Once this is all dealt with I think we will be left with a neat, readable summary about a quarter or a third of its current length.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Can I suggest that a relatively uncontentious way forward would be to put a draft revision on this talk page first, so that it can be discussed and (hopefully) a consensus reached - rather than making changes directly to the article which might then be reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that is a very good suggestion. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Can paragraph 6 be reduced to this? Cornwall is noted for its distinctive geology and rugged coastal scenery. The citation could be used in section 3 further down. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we should keep a mention of the area's attractiveness to tourists in the lede, but the 2nd and 3rd sentences of that para should certainly go - too detailed. More generally, I think we should try to reduce the lede by about half - not two-thirds or more - and the number of paragraphs from 6 to 4, mainly by cutting back the history sections. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Cornwall is noted for its distinctive geology, rugged coastal scenery and mild climate, all of which have helped to make it a popular holiday destination Is this any better? It could probably be incorporated into another paragraph. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Third paragraph, first line.

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Few Roman remains have been found in Cornwall, and there is little evidence that the Romans settled or had much military presence there" - I feel this needs to be re-worded. As it stands it's almost as if it's trying to make out Cornwall wasn't a part of the Roman Empire or that they had a causal relationship. The Roman Empire most definitely administered Cornwall! It was just sparsely populated and not suited for settlement among the urban elite. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cornwall/Archive_13&oldid=1136638714"