DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Former good article nomineeCornwall was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 13, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

See also

[edit]

UK sub-national geographic flags discussion

[edit]

I've opened a new discussion at WikiProject:UK geography about sub-national UK flags, including county flags. The last one wasn't particularly productive, so second time lucky! Anyone is welcome to participate. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Infobox English county' flag and coat of arms discussion

[edit]

There is a discussion taking place at Template talk:Infobox English county#Flag fields again about disabling the flag and coat of arms fields from the 'infobox English county' template. Anyone is welcome to participate. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the status, as the term county was removed some years ago and for the UK govt is not longer applicable 90.84.127.70 (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in Cornwall

[edit]

I've unhidden the Christianity in Cornwall section that was commented out during a reorganization of the article at 10:22, 5 September 2017. There was no mention of this in an edit summary and no talk page discussion. It is a readable summary of Christianity in Cornwall and much easier to understand. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This inclusion is useful since the history of Christianity in Cornwall has been different in various ways from that of other parts of England. The churches and chapels have been of great importance in the history of every Cornish parish so omitting this section would unbalance the general account of Cornwall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsoniensis (talk • contribs) 12:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish national identity

[edit]

Since there is a subsection titled Cornish national identity in the article, and since leads should summarize an article, can someone explain the reasoning behind removing the short phrase a recognised national minority in the United Kingdom from the lead? StarryGrandma (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's "contentious", which is rather silly. It's factual, stated in greater detail in the body of the article, and absolutely belongs in the lead of the article Bejakyo (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of this article is contentious as people have different ideas about Cornish nationality. This means it's best to discuss changes before implementing them to help establish consensus.
My own feeling is that the lead doesn't need to mention that the Cornish people are considered national minorities under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. This level of detail is more appropriate for the body, where as you mention this fact is already mentioned and cited. The same fact is not mentioned in the lead of Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland despite the Welsh, Scottish, and Irish people also being considered national minorities under the framework. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One's personal conception of nationality don't really bare meaning on this. We should put forward the facts, not hide them. The brief mention is appropriate Bejakyo (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But not for the lead. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text is sourced and present in the body. "controversy" is not a valid reason to remove it. We're here to present the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions Bejakyo (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is over consistency of presentation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not at all. This discussion is about either including or removing a verified fact from the lead Bejakyo (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to agree. Why do you think this fact should be included in the lead? A.D.Hope (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe removing it from the lead due to "contention" would be counter-productive, and risk being a wp:notcensored violation. Wikipedia doesn't hide something because people might disagree, but because it's the best way to allow readers to come to their own conclusion Bejakyo (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The passage was removed from the lead for discussion because changes to how the lead handles topics related to Cornish nationality have proved contentious in the past. That doesn't mean that this particular passage is inherently contentious, just that it needs to be discussed to ensure there's a consensus before adding it; this avoids edit wars and the like.
Given the information in the added passage is present in the body of the article, not including it in the lead would not be a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. As I said above, I don't think it should be included because this level of detail is usually left to the body. The lead of the article is about Cornwall as a whole, after all, not just Cornish nationalism. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cornish nationalism has nothing to do with it. It's a brief 7 words about the Cornish people and is an entirely apprioritate level of detail. It doensn't need to be a whole paragraph as that would be undue weight, the simple mention is fine and what is expected of a lead article Bejakyo (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead mentions the Cornish people in the second sentence, giving them a high level of prominence. Mentioning that the Cornish people have been granted national minority status under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is additional detail that is not appropriate for the lead, but is appropriate for the body. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The brief mention of recognition by the UK as a national minority in the lead is a reasonable level of detail. It's just a brief seven words in the lead, with greater detail of information appropriately in the body Bejakyo (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Tallys1579 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's rather clunky as it is now, this is something more appropriate for the body.Halbared (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this opinion. My comment was erroneously placed. Tallys1579 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm minded to agree that detail like that is better placed in the body only and not in the lead. Dgp4004 (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, actually. That the 'national minority' phrase is used in the 'Cornish people' article, including in the pop-up box, is more than sufficient, upon reflection. Tallys1579 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason it can't be in both. A the brief mention presently is perfectly reasonable, with a deeper level of detail provided elsewhere, particularly so as the pop-up box doesn't appear for mobile users (where most wikipedians browse) Bejakyo (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the phrase in the lead. Since the British government recognized the Cornish people as a national minority over 10 years ago this seems to be fact rather than something in contention. Recognition is new for Cornwall and an important part of current discussions. It does not need to be consistnat with other articles mentioned. For Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales such nationality is taken for granted within England and included as choices on the census forms. They were independent countries (most of Ireland is back to an independent country) so their residents have not had to distinguish themselves from the English in the same way that those of Cornish ancestry have had to. That there are now controversies about what it means to identify with the "history, culture, and language" of Cornwall and about devolution in Cornwall doesn't mean the statement of national minority of the Cornish should be removed from the lead. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with StarryGrandma, support this information remaining in the lede, especially since it clarifies the status of Cornish people which precedes this information.  Tewdar  16:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And while I'm here, is there really anyone on here who think that the ponies on Fowey Moor are a more important and notable part of Cornish heritage than St. Piran's flag??  Tewdar  16:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a topic for a separate discussion, Tewdar. I would suggest opening it at Template talk:Infobox English county, which is where the decision to disable the 'flag' parameter of the county infobox template was made. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the photos, not the flag icons.  Tewdar  17:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then start a new discussion here about which images to use in the article infobox. My point is that this discussion is about the second sentence of the lead, not flags or images. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you I understood your point.  Tewdar  17:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question to ask should be about wp:weighting. Reference in the lead depends on what is in the body, as does its importance to justify mention in the first sentence of the lead. Therefore we should return to the article below. The Cornish language is an interesting story but it is also one driven by activists who punch above their weight, something we should be aware of and resist if we want a truly neutral encyclopedia. There has been plenty of debate about whether Cornish 'is' an endangered language, as this article indicate or whether it is extinct, and the official status is being misrepresented. The European Charter is also about cultural identity, not just naturally L1 spoken languages, something Cornish is not. Even the normal meaning of revived has become twisted to mean more than it used to, with Hebrew once being known as the only truly revived language. There will be more people in the UK, even possibly in Cornwall, with a better grasp of Latin than Cornish. Some people might say there should only be a few lines about the language in the body that does not therefore justify any mention in the lead, certainly not in the first sentence. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger 8 Roger, I assume you are talking about a different part of the lead, the last sentence that reads The Cornish language became extinct as a living community language at the end of the 18th century, but is now being revived. Are you proposing that sentence be removed? StarryGrandma (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I was not clear. I meant the first sentence but also was referring to the rest of the article in general. My point is we should determine just how relevant the Cornish language and Cornwall's position as a distinctly different part of England actually is. There are a lot of suspect assertions made. For example, where is Cornish or the Cornish people recognised as anything by the UK govt other than English? Recognising the 2002 Charter does not mean the UK govt recognises Cornwall as distinct in anything. That is blatent WP:SYNTH. The uk govt putting money into promoting Cornwall culture has nothing to do with anything - the govt does the same for other parts of England that it wants to promote in one way or another. "Cornwall was administered as part of England, though it retained its own culture" from the article is also SYNCH, and weasel wording. Retaining your culture is not directly related to how you are administered. 'Though' indicates the person who wrote this has a pre-conceived idea of what to write, rather than repeating what sources say. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"for example, where is Cornish or the Cornish or the Cornish people recognised as anything by the UK govt other than English?" The 2014 decision made by the coalition govt, cited in the lead, explicitly states that "Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, today (24 April 2014) announced that the proud history, unique culture, and distinctive language of Cornwall will be fully recognised under European rules for the protection of national minorities." Tallys1579 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an international encyclopedia, and there are millions of overseas Cornish all around the globe, far more than in Cornwall itself. I am an old lady and I learned very young from my Cornish relatives that the Cornish are not English. What matters is how people think of themselves, not how the government classifies them. Being recognized for what they are is important and should be mentioned. That this may be used to argue for changes to Cornwall itself is beside the point.
We have Native American communities that have finally gained governing rights over their treaty lands, using those rights to run casinos and to forbid people from carrying guns without a license for example. But the Cornish are no more than half the residents of Cornwall and have no treaty lands. I understand there are recent statements pushing for real nationhood in some form. Hopefully sanity will prevail. The mother country could take lessons from us in the US (and Canada) on how to have meaningful and financially independent local governments. And Cornwall, as a small and relatively poor county, should join with its regional neighbors in encouraging that for regions. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, pretty soon Cornish people and culture will be completely extinct too and this article will have to be rewritten.  Tewdar  17:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what? Bejakyo (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica seems to agree Cornish became extinct but has now been revived, just as we say. Aaand UNESCO classify it as endangered, not extinct. There may be some debate about this topic that would be more suitable for the body or even better on our Cornish language article.  Tewdar  17:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tallys1579 "for example, where is Cornish or the Cornish or the Cornish people recognised as anything by the UK govt other than English?" The 2014 decision made by the coalition govt, cited in the lead, explicitly states that "Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, today (24 April 2014) announced that the proud history, unique culture, and distinctive language of Cornwall will be fully recognised under European rules for the protection of national minorities." Where does it say the UK govt recognises Cornish as an official language, or gives Cornwall any special status.? I can't see it. The decision to recognise the unique identity of the Cornish, now affords them the same status under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities as the UK’s other Celtic people, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish. For the first time the government has recognised the distinctive culture and history of the Cornish. This is what the source actually says. (The source isn't secondary BTW) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that "the UK govt recognises Cornish as an official language," nor does it give "Cornwall any special status." It does, however, implicitly say that Cornish and the Cornish people are "other than English," to use your diction, by affirming the Cornish people's "unique identity" and grouping them with "other Celtic people" under the Framework. It is indeed primary; that ought to be remedied. Tallys1579 (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to a conclusion

[edit]

It's coming up to a week since this discussion was opened, so I'd like to gently encourage us to try and come to some sort of resolution.

In my opinion there is not a consensus to include the passage "...a recognised national minority in the United Kingdom' in the lead, and it should therefore revert to the wording used before the recent round of edits that led to its introduction.

@Bejakyo@Dgp4004@Halbared@Murgatroyd49@Roger 8 Roger@StarryGrandma@Tallys1579@Tewdar. Yours, A.D.Hope (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly still of that view. I think including it in the body is quite correct but not the lead. Dgp4004 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that body=yes, lead=no.Halbared (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to - body but not lead. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Tallys1579 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that it should not be in the lead. Remove the phrase from the lead and add a sentence to the last paragraph instead: The lead in Wales mentions "the emergence of strong national identity", the lead in Scotland "the continuation of Scottish culture and national identity". There is no reason to leave out the recognition of the related Cornish national identity. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead paragraph mentions the Cornish people and that Cornwall is a Celtic nation, the second paragraph that there is a Cornish nationalist movement, and the fourth the Cornish language. Do you think this is insufficient recognition of the Cornish national identity? If so, how does mentioning that the Cornish are considered a national minority under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities rectify this? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the time the UK ratified the Framework Convention the Cornish were a Celtic nation, had a nationalist movement, and were reviving the Cornish language. That is not enough, since the UK's ratification excluded the Cornish from being recognized as a national minority. Years later the 2014 announcement of that overdue recognition has the title "Cornish granted minority status within the UK" and says, "For the first time the government has recognised the distinctive culture and history of the Cornish." StarryGrandma (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose what I'm asking is what is gained in the lead by mentioning that the UK government recognised the Cornish as a minority via the framework convention? The lead already makes it clear that the Cornish people constitute a nation, and the recognition seems to be the type of administrative detail that is usually left to the body.
There is I think a case for re-writing the fourth paragraph of the lead to more fully explain Cornish nationalism, and I think this would be more appropriate than adding in isolated facts about what the UK government has done. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what StarryGrandma. There's no reason to remove this brief phrase from the lead with the fuller detail being in body. Removing it seems at best undue. Bejakyo (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the passage from the lead. Another week has passed and it seems unlikely that a consensus will form, with the discussion having stalled. It may be a good idea to have a wider-ranging discussion at some point about how Cornish nationalism is treated in the lead and what exactly should be included. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no consensus because more than half of the people with an opinion are English nationalists and or racists, with an agenda of revisionist history who refuse to recognise fact nor the legal status, as known and stated by the UK govt. How about if you are anti everything Cornish, just get out of the conversation and the wiki pages about anything about or to do with Kernow, yes the name is Kernow, like Czechia, Cymru, Turkiye. Just concentrate your efforts on the bit of Britain that the Germanics migrated into, Pow Sows/Engeland, Inglaterra, whatever, who cares, and leave the rest live their own lives without your bile and hate 90.84.127.70 (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]