Talk:Cornwall/Archive 12

Geographical area of Duchy
The introduction to Cornwall states; "The geographical area of Cornwall also constitutes the Duchy of Cornwall."

Whereas the Duchy of Cornwall article states; "Nearly half of the holdings are in Devon, with other large holdings in Cornwall, Herefordshire, Somerset and Wales."

Should the sentence be changed in the introduction to; ""The geographical area of Cornwall also constitutes part of the Duchy of Cornwall."?

Serpren (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not expecting a simple, or single, answer to this because I know there are different (sometimes politicised) interpretations - but we really need to sort out the relationship between Cornwall as a geographical area, and the Duchy of Cornwall. On one hand, there are those who see the Duchy as simply (or pre-eminently) a property owning organisation, in possession of an estate which covers some parts of Cornwall and also land elsewhere - according to its own website, "around 53,628 hectares of land in 23 counties, mostly in the South West of England".  On the other hand, there are those who argue that the whole of Cornwall is a Duchy with a special constitutional position in relation to the monarchy.  This article seems to be confused as to which meaning of the Duchy is being used.  Edits today have gone from one view to the other, without any clear explanation.   My view is that there are likely to be sources supporting each approach - but, it is important that this article (and others referring to the Duchy) explains them and does not confuse readers.  Thoughts on taking this forward, anyone?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a Duchy of Cornwall article about the estates owned by the Duke of Cornwall and it is this context which should be used in the article. I don't see another article about the more ephemeral duchy and ntil that exists there can't be any meaningful use of it within the Cornwall article. If we can find proper sources (not for example the ultra-soapbox site duchyofcornwall.eu) then we should put something in the article. Wikipedia is not a platform for soapboxing and unfortunately that is exactly what is being done by some people. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know that different views exist - that the Duchy is not simply an estate-owning organisation, but has wider legal and constitutional authority. That is not simply the view of political extremists - it is the view expressed, for example, in this article, as well as in our article at Duchy of Cornwall, which says (based on at least some legal opinion) that "the Duchy of Cornwall is broadly the same extent as the modern county".  I don't have a view on which approach is "right" - what I am saying is that WP should present a balanced view in its information for readers.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in one sense if you have a "Duchy of Cornwall" and a "Duke of Cornwall", Cornwall as a whole is, of course, a duchy by definition, as one could argue are Westminster, Lancaster etc. But in reality and in common usage, when we talk about the territorial extent of the duchy, we are surely referring to the estate that is actually owned, ie the hodge-podge of properties that are found in Cornwall and elsewhere, as originally given to the duke by the 1337 charter, along with certain rights, such as that major one these days of appointing the sheriff, across Cornwall as a whole. By contrast, when people talk about "Cornwall", the primary official designation and standard reference is, simply, that of a county. Now, maybe the lovely duke and the government are engaged in a plan to pull the wool over our eyes, but the official duchy website makes a clear distinction between the "title" or "honour" and the "estate"; the charter linked to just now is very clear when it lists those properties in Cornwall and elsewhere that make up the duchy estate that those properties fall in the "County of Cornwall". Now, obviously people, common usage and official definitions can be "wrong" but they are the key starting point - and if they all converge, one has to ask how much weight we want to give to an alternative formulation.
 * The problem is that this inevitable and quite usual fuzziness over words, together with the usual odd constitutional quirks you find in the UK, as well as some one-off quotes, eg from the land registry/TSol in the guidance notes referred to - which are very definitely not legal rulings or declarations and which don't actually seem to reflect those organisations' usual descriptions - are seized upon in a bid to create and claim some kind of real-world Passport to Truro-type situation. Now, there are issues about terminology, and, as the recent tribunal ruling made clear, about the public/private status of the duchy. That should all be dealt with in the appropriate places on WP, but I don't think we should be getting too excited about much of this in the main Cornwall article. There is a brief section here currently on the duchy's status and scope, as well as more regular and significant mentions of broader issues about identity and calls for greater autonomy, and I'm sure that's about right. Putting something in the lead on the duchy issue specifically, for example, is just a diversion. In my view, anyway.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, I agree with most of your comments. That's why I took out all the references to the Duchy from the lead - it's clearer without them.  I also agree that we need to give due (and not undue) weight to any claims about the Duchy having wider powers than those of a normal landowner.  However, I think WP should (continue to) recognise that there are views - held in some legal comments that we cannot simply dismiss, as well as by small political groups that I think we can largely dismiss as "fringe" - that hold that "the Duchy" does have some standing over the area of Cornwall as a whole.  We should give some weight to those claims, but not undue weight.  It's a question of balance.  I'm actually not completely sure that the Duchy's own website is reliable in relation to those claims - it's reliable in relation to its ownership and management of land, no doubt, but not necessarily on the wider issues.  And I don't think we can base what WP says wholly on what we, as individuals, think is "reality and ... common usage" (and "surely refer to"), when I believe (WP:OR warning) that "reality and common usage" in England as a whole is not necessarily the same as "reality and common usage" in Cornwall itself.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the three of us at least are broadly in the same area in terms of principle but there's obviously the practical issue of how to implement that on this page (and others). I agree as well that we have to be careful of original research and easy assumptions - and be aware of our own possible subconscious biases - as well as avoid too much reliance simply on the duchy's own site, but at the same time, I don't think it's controversial to assert that common and mainstream use is pretty clear. Yes, we should refer to the claim about duchy status, attributed and with due weight; and also state the verifiable and uncontroversial facts about the extent of the duchy's rights over the county (here, and more so on the main duchy page). I think that's done about right at the moment and in the right part of the article. One thing that perhaps does need a bit more of an acknowledgement on the page is that people beyond the more fringe nationalists do sometimes casually refer to "the duchy" (I believe David Cameron did this recently), even if only to clear up any confusion. Aside from that, it's worth noting that this thread was kicked off by someone slightly confused by the terminology/territory issue - but only in fact, it would seem, because of a very bold statement in the lead, of the sort that all three of us would rather not have here.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I've not posted here for sometime. I'm a Cornish nationalist but I hope my POV I won't be dismissed for this as being fringe. A rather facile approach don't you think? Anyway you will find that there are more than just 'casual' references to the Duchy being coterminous with Cornwall. Take for example the Cornwall Heritage Trust who write: "Cornwall Heritage Trust was founded in 1985 to help preserve important sites in Cornwall and to protect and promote the Duchy’s rich heritage. We own or manage some of the most iconic and important historic places in Cornwall. We are proud to have HRH The Prince of Wales Duke of Cornwall as our Royal Patron and the Rt Hon The Viscount Falmouth as our President". Need I mention the Bona Vacantia website that is also quite explicit. Oll an gwella (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The Celtic Sea - is part of?
In the introduction, the geographical area of Cornwall was described as between the Celtic Sea, English Channel and Devon. However, for some reason a few contributors deem it necessary to state it is part of the Atlantic. This is a very odd statement, as the Celtic Sea is recognised in its own right. Observing many of the posts on the Cornwall page, I am leaning towards the opinion that there is an agenda at work - to the detriment of the area. Perhaps I should edit the English Channel to state it is part of the Atlantic, and then edit Europe to state its part of the planet Earth? Now that would be silly, wouldn't it. Please, lets respectfully keep this consistent with other references.

Kyttow (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The Celtic Sea is recognised as one of the seas that comprise the Atlantic Ocean. As is the English Channel. However, the English Channel is a well-known sea area, but outside the British Isles, the Celtic Sea is not well-known. The Atlantic Ocean is included to provide that information to those readers that do not know this. It's as simple as that. Your analogy with Europe is simply ridiculous, unless you can point me to someone who does not know what Europe is. Mac Tíre  Cowag  15:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mac Tire is correct. Just read Atlantic Ocean and Celtic Sea - the link between the two could not be more clear. It is very easy to turn on edit protection so that no IP editor or newly-registered editor can update the article. That would fix the symptoms but it wouldn't address the cause which is people acting in a childish manner and engaging in silly edit wars. Please stop. If you want to make your point then go over to Wikia where there is ample opportunity for you to write anything that you wish - there is even a Cornish nationalism section there. --Bob Re-born (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In the minds of most English people, Cornwall is inextricably associated with the Atlantic - hence the A39 being called the Atlantic Highway, and the Atlantic Coast Line, and the numerous businesses and holiday properties / parks that use Atlantic in their name. Cornish companies do it - Sharp's Brewery talks about "The Brewery's unique position on Cornwall's Atlantic coast is a major influence." As such it would be wrong not to mention Atlantic. Explaining that Cornwall has its coast on the Celtic Sea will probably come as a surprise to a lot of people who will never have heard of that sea, but further explaining that the Celtic Sea is part of the Atlantic (which is a fact beyond dispute) serves to educate the reader, which is the purpose of an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. --Bob Re-born (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more with the two above posters. Nothing more to say. Would rather be removing vandalism (Like I recently did on the Alan Rickman article, go check! It's funny what I removed) or doing my usual cleaning work, than getting into debates, but these really annoy me. I'm going to teeter on the edge and say these "debates" are mildly disruptive, an edit summary should be good enough for the likes of the OP, and in this case they were. No one here is an English Nationalist who despises the Cornish, no one here has an Agenda. We are actually rather nice :) this girl is signing off ^_^ --Nutthida (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter either way. Celtic Sea links directly to an article that describes it as part of the Atlantic Ocean, so, arguably, it's not necessary to say it twice.  But it doesn't matter either way.  Maybe half the time the article should say it's part of the Atlantic, and half the time it doesn't.   It makes no difference.  There is simply no excuse for either side to revert the other.  See WP:LAME, and stop arguing over nothing.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ghmyrtle, you do realise there is a print version button on the side of the screen? The idea is that information, where appropriate, should be presented and it should be able to stand by itself without confusing the reader. A printed version of this article doesn't have links for the reader to click. Leaving Celtic Sea without any clarification would alienate pretty much every English-speaking reader from outside the British Isles, and probably a very substantial amount of readers from within the British Isles. I for one am from the British Isles - born and bred in Ireland - but I only "discovered" the Celtic Sea about 10 years ago. There are many more like me (perhaps in Ireland it is due to our education system), and we all referred to that sea to the west of Cornwall and south of Ireland as the Atlantic Ocean - nothing else. Secondly, and I'm not insinuating this is the case here, but the last person to constantly remove or tamper with the Atlantic Ocean part and to do so in a similar manner, went on to be an excessively disruptive force on the page, removing anything "English" and highlighting or reinforcing everything distinctively Cornish in a very blatant POV agenda. That/those person(s) eventually left Wikipedia to found their own Cornish wiki project which seems to have imploded due to lack of contributors/contributions. Basically what I am saying is that this article seems to be a sensitive one, and one which should require consensus prior to any change. Mac Tíre   Cowag  21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Without thinking too hard about it (and forgetting we'd had this discussion a few weeks ago as I was concentrating on other things), I removed the mention of the Atlantic on the basis that in my view it's unnecessary. But if the consensus is that it be re-added, I won't lose any sleep.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mind either. Maybe that kind of thing would be useful on the Simple English Wikipedia. I wasn't fussed but agreed there was no real issue, and accusing others of bad faith nationalist editing like the OP wasn't good. --Nutthida (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a good debate to be had about the historic naming of seas (for example when map makers started calling the Severn Sea the Bristol Channel and the British See the English Channel. Perhaps it would be more constructive to move any debate about what the seas are called to a separate version but refer to them in the main text by their present map names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artowalos (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Egbert
According to Orme, Nicholas (2007) Cornwall and the Cross: Christianity, 500–1560. Chichester: Phillimore in association with the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London ISBN 1-86077-468-7; p. 8:- "...a period of obscurity ... ends only after Egbert's conquest in the early 800s. Later records claim that he used his power to grant estates in Cornwall to the bishop of Sherborne, especially Pawton in St Breock and Lawhitton near Launceston. Egbert may have intended that the bishopwould visit Cornwall or send deputies there to supervise or develop the local church."Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A lot can happen in eleven years.
Ref no. 9 is currently eleven years gone by, maybe it should be replaced with something a bit more fresh, as it is dealing with an ongoing/debate issue in Kernow? :) --Τασουλα (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from David Cameron's statement two years ago, I don't think very much has changed.--Cymru123 (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole paragraph "Some people question the present constitutional status of Cornwall, and a nationalist movement seeks greater autonomywithin the United Kingdom in the form of a devolved legislative assembly, and greater recognition of the Cornish people as a national minority" should be deleted from the introduction. it is totally undue weight to a fringe view that is of no significance and certainly does not justify mention in the lead, far more of the article content is more worthy or notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You almost make it sound like you've never brought this up before. It's been discussed, more than once. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ...BW, I have no idea where that even came from but it really had nothing to do with the issue I originally bought up, which has been answered (Thank you Mr. Wales, not Jimbo though). A far as I can see this article is well balanced and free from most POV. The self-governing movement is not fringe. If you are basing your opinions on Cornish nationalism/nationalists on a few individuals who have disrupted the article (Along with spouting racist rhetoric and blatant lies) then I suppose I should go around and judge all British Nationalist on the BNP, aye? >:) --Τασουλα (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The petition is part of the historical record in support of the ongoing calls for an assembly and the source is used to support a specific mention in the body of that petition. There may be a need for more updating, but not to replace it outright. As for the general references in the lead to autonomy calls, I'm fine with that. It's a registered issue and one that does not affect any other English county in the same way. Yes MK get few votes but the mainstream parties in Cornwall - whether through bandwagon hopping or sincerely - often talk about Cornish issues in an MK-lite way. It was - correctly - watered down a while back after some discussion (several threads in the archives here) but now seems about right to me.
 * The only issue I do have there is the "some people question the present constitutional status of Cornwall" - if that means some people want changes, that's a common view and worth noting in some way (although "constitutional status" may be a bit strong and it's also repetitive given that we say immediately afterwards that there are calls for greater autonomy); if it's meant to refer to the idea that Cornwall is not really, even now, part of England but an independent duchy of the UK within the borders purportedly defined forever by Aethelstan in the 10th century, with Prince Charles as absentee head of state or whatever, as confirmed by the flying of St Piran's flag on the royal barge etc etc, then we are in fringe territory. I'm also not sure about the nationalist boosterism about "homeland of the Cornish people" etc, and how informative that actually is, and have concerns about how the Celtic nation description is presented as something semi-official and universal, but equally I'm not sure it's worth arguing over.  N-HH   talk / edits  07:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I find a little disturbing is how the article presents Cornish being the only ethnicity/culture in the county...it clearly isn't. People identifying as English or British probably outweighs anyone who declares themselves Cornish (excluding someone who sees their Cornishness in a similar fashion to someone who considers themselves a Scouser or a Cockney) I agree that the statements could do with a bit of clarification. The barge thing hasn't crept into this article (despite the actions of a few ignorant individuals which was swiftly stopped) thankfully so no fringe on this. If the claims in the lead come from parties such as MK then it is massive undue weight as they are a tiny political party indeed. Time to update. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am also uninterested in arguing over this anyway. I think we just need some clarification. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I'd go so far as to say that virtually everyone who describes themselves as Cornish would also describe themselves as British. Many would also describe themselves as English - though many would also describe themselves, vigorously,  as not "Anglo-Saxon".  Of course, many people in England would not describe themselves as "Anglo-Saxon" either.  The whole question of identity among people in Britain (and Ireland) is so variable, flexible and nuanced, for many residents, that over-simplification can easily lead to misinterpretations and confusion.  So far as this article is concerned, I agree with NH-H and Tasoula.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it true that black people would be banned from an independent Cornwall?--feline1 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Anglo-Saxons? They don't exist any-more. If you're going to talk about the past we may as well be all called Africans as that is where we originated. Or perhaps we can stop this silly Ethno-nationalism based on events that happened 100s of years ago. As a Jew I find that has been a bit of a problem in my people's history...LOL, as for the "Black People" comment, I did see some Cornish nationalist state he was "glad that N*ggers, Kikes, Chinks" ect weren't so common in Cornwall. Oh no how unwelcome I feel, I'm a "Kike" with a "Chink" for a partner :(. Luckily, as I previously said, the extreme nationalist fringe theories don't exist on this article. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I usually find it's more common that people from other parts of the UK, especially the South East, like to think that Cornwall is some kind of "whiter" place, like a last bastion of white Englishness. I'm also sure that some people come to live in Cornwall for that reason. I usually attempt to put them straight. Neither that nor any other fringe theory belongs in the article, but I don't feel that the movement for self-government is fringe. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully it is a myth that the English are in anyway inherently anti-Cornish or that Cornwall is purely Cornish/English/White/Anglo-Saxon/Jewish/Elfish/Pixie. And no, not everyone who lives in Cornwall but identifies as English moved there... another myth. It's also a myth that Cornwall is a bastion of ethnic diversity - which isn't touched upon very much in the article. I have relations living in Cornwall that identify as British, Cornish AND English (not Jewish, wrong side of the family). My Cousin just completed his PhD in America, will it be Cornish VS English as to who can claim him!? Er, no. Family is generations old in Cornwall but the guy simply ain't Cornish per what he describes himself as. He also has NO intention of ever coming back to the UK! Why am I going so off-topic? To make a point. I don't think this articles demographics section is very extensive and pretty one-dimensional - I agree with keeping the Cornish stuff in but we need a bit more representation from other Ethnic groups and identities. Are we going to get one? No. Probably not ^__^. I think the Cornish stuff is really worth while because there is no place in England/UK that is quite like Cornwall. The article does not mislead about the whole Duchy issue as well. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway...if a more up-to-date source could be found it would be nice. I'll be keeping an eye out. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again I have found the childish and blatantly political reversal of edits intended to add value to this article. Stop it please, it is vandalism. You know who you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artowalos (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead - esp "celtic nation"
I would just revert this, but don't want to do that before at least posting a note here, as I don't want to start a massive war over it, having already reverted the bigger, previous changes of which this was one part. The description Celtic nation is already in the lead, in the fourth paragraph. It's repetition to have it again. And that's quite aside from whether the description should be attributed and how much weight we want to give the term, which is after all simply a self-designation by an activist cultural organisation. Outside of nationalist circles, it's not a term that is commonly in use or applied. None of the other related pages have it as one of the primary descriptions in the first sentence - Scotland and Ireland don't even mention the point at all in the lead currently.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the mention in the fourth paragraph - which at least begins to place the term in a cultural context - is sufficient, and the mention in the opening sentence should be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad, I didn't spot that at the end. Should not edit when 15 hours jet lagged.  Happy with the revert  Snowded  TALK 14:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I do, however, feel that the paragraph order is odd. Para 1 seems to be in the right place - it's a general description of the territory and its constitutional status, but then it is followed by pre-history (Para 2), then tin mining (Para 3) and lastly the people and origins of the territorial division (Para 4). Not only does this not flow and is awkward but a description of the territory's people and ethnography are considerably more important and should therefore be more prominent. How does everyone feel about re-ordering these crucial paras to 1,4,2,3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artowalos (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The main problem with the lead is that there is (at least in relative terms) too much history, and not enough about what Cornwall is like now - its basic geography and economy, for instance.  The current paragraph order is not a problem, but the text as a whole needs some rewriting to give a better summary of the whole article.  See WP:LEAD and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with your suggestion is that is it highly prone to a particular POV. The 'perception' of how Cornwall and the Cornish are today will always be highly suspect and dependent on the sources you choose (an Anglo-centric or etic view will never be the same as a Cornu-centric or emic view of the same subject matter). The view that there is 'too much' history is itself a POV. In my opinion (feel free to disagree) this Wiki suffers far too much from conflict between these discourses. Politically loaded terms are permissible when the topic is itself politics (as long as both view points are included) but should be avoided entirely when referring to Cornish ethnography for example. If I was writing about the period 500 to 1000AD I would completely avoid terms such as 'Anglo-Saxon' for example as they would introduce an unnecessary dialogue that could be avoided by using the term 'early medieval'. This Wiki remains entirely unsatisfactory for this reason and will continue to do so until these issues are resolved. 217.39.98.35 (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)artowalos

Politics and administration: map
Can anyone explain the map under "Politics and administration"? This shows Mebyon Kernow winning six seats at the Cornwall Council election in 2009. The detailed breakdown of seats at Cornwall Council election, 2009 shows that they won only three seats. Are there any other discrepancies? Skinsmoke (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It does seem odd, I agree. Given the question mark I have temporarily commented it out from the article. --Bob Re-born (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mebyon Kernow won 3 seats at the election. However, it now has 6 councillors (due to by-election and/or defection) - the current breakdown is provided by the council here - the map is correct and can be used as long as the text accompanying it explains it.
 * However, I'd rather not use that map for aesthetic reasons, and would prefer a new image derived from File:Cornwall UK mainland electoral division map (blank).svg. That means better consistency with other UK electoral maps, and its easier to verify than a PNG map (the wards are labelled in the SVG). I'll probably do that later today.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Viability of Kingdom of Cornwall
Just a notice that there's a discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Cornwall about the viability of that article. Opinions and comments would be welcome over there. —S MALL JIM   19:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Article converted to a redirect and content merged. —S MALL  JIM   21:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Poverty/prosperity
I would just have reverted this edit, since it seems rather unlikely to me (and no source or evidence was provided for it), but since it was subsequently finessed by another editor I guess it has tacit support. Obviously there are relative pockets of wealth, eg Rock and Padstow but are even those parts of Cornwall really among the most prosperous in the UK? More so than Belgravia, Alderley Edge and Gerrards Cross? And are subdivisions of Cornwall or towns in the county really best described as "regions" themselves? subsequent edit did of course address that point ... main point stands though  N-HH   talk / edits  10:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I began by seeing that for "regions" "districts" would be closer to the truth. Now there are two separate but similar statements. Greater detail would need to appear in the Economy of Cornwall article anyway; some of the more prosperous parts may be that way because relatively wealthy people go and live in them. I hope someone who understand economics can sort this out.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cornwall - as a whole - is in many ways a special case economically, in that average GDP per head, and average household income, are low, but many indicators usually taken as indicators of prosperity - such as house prices - are high. There are also great variations within different areas of the county in apparent prosperity - between, for example, Redruth and Rock.  The ONS statistics (for which a better source needs to be found) refer to the county as a whole, and to gross domestic product per capita - that is, output divided by total population.  A relatively high proportion of Cornwall's population is retired, so that GDP per head is not necessarily a good indication of prosperity.  The current section needs to be rewritten to make these points, perhaps drawing on information such as that prepared by Cornwall Council here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We can probably sort this out to a sufficient level of detail for this page, without necessarily being working economists or sorting through the raw data ourselves, by using decent third-party secondary sources that comment on the overall position. Even a newspaper article like this is probably good enough for our purposes here (it briefly makes the point, for example, about low incomes but high house prices due to retirees and second-home owners).  N-HH   talk / edits  11:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked your wording a little. It's not simply a matter of differences between areas, it's also to do with different ways of measuring real or apparent prosperity - e.g. between average incomes (generally low) and house prices (high in some areas).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I prefer the changed version. I was slightly worried for example that my wording also gave the impression that elevated house prices were necessarily a good thing, which compensated for the problem of lower overall income, when in fact, for most people, they if anything exacerbate that problem.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiVoyage: Cornwall
WikiVoyage has an article on Cornwall which maintains that Cornwall is a "Duchy" rather than a county. It also includes a very incomplete list of settlements; it is not clear how these have been selected.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty dreadful isn't it? I must admit I never look at those pages - does anyone?!  "County" was changed to "Duchy" back in 2008 -here.  It needs a good edit, but I'm really not sure I want to get involved over there.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Who the hell would go to a wiki for travel info?! I mean really, really now...no no no. NO. Somchai Sun (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No doubt it is advisable to let those contributors who choose to work on WikiVoyage to write the content in their own way. The "Duchy" description has often appeared in writing about Cornwall intended for tourists.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are they Shills for Charles then? :p no seriously, if they want to turn it into a nationalist propaganda piece then let em'. They probably wont mention anything about places such as Callington due to it being around 90% English, hehe. What's really sad is that Cornishness doesn't need to be "promoted" by playing the "Duchy card". Somchai Sun (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Population figures
I noted query regarding the size of Penzance/Newlyn vs Truro in thread above. The following are the relevant results from the 2011 census:

The built-up area of Truro covers a larger area than the parish, as Threemilestone is in Kenwyn. The reverse is true for Penzance, as the parish includes Mousehole as well as Newlyn. So is Truro larger than P+N? Probably, but it depends how you define them. Its also worth mentioning the largest conurbation in Cornwall is Falmouth/Penryn.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nilf. The article actually claims that Redruth and Camborne together form the largest urban area in Cornwall, so that's another anomaly. But as far as the immediate issue is concerned, it's probably best if that sentence in the lead simply points out that although Truro is Cornwall's only city, it's not the largest conurbation. —S MALL  JIM   15:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, that was a mistake on my part - I forgot to check Redruth which is the number 1.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

SPI
See Sockpuppet investigations/Ajaxverifier. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * With Ajaxverifier as puppetmaster, 7 confirmed and one very likely, all blocked. Dougweller (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Code of Practice for the Cornwall Page
Suggested manifesto for this page: (i) Consider the views of the Cornish and people living in Cornwall – this is as much their wiki as it is anyone else's, (ii) Remember there are ‘etic’ views that an external observer might take about a people, and an ‘emic’ view coming from that people – both are valid and should be given equal weight, (iii) There are subject matter experts in Cornwall about Cornish subjects just as there are subject matter experts from outside Cornwall – be prepared to defer to Cornish subject matter experts who may well have better access to sources and a broader understanding of the subject, (iv) Remember that the term ‘county’ is a contested term within Cornwall itself – do not over use this term as this will be seen as pushing a POV or politically motivated agenda, (v) Whilst others might prefer the term ‘Duchy’ please do not over use this term as there are many places where it would simply be inappropriate.

Rule of thumb: Remember the dualistic nature of Cornwall as part of the Celtic world and as an administrative part of England. Please give proper weight to both and remember its complexity as a subject. Thank you fellow wikipedians for all your great work!!! Ajaxverifier (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Ajaxverifier


 * This page does not need a "manifesto". There is little in your "manifesto" with which I, personally, disagree.  But, we make decisions here based on what established sources say - and through discussion and consensus rather than adherence to what a single editor (or even two editors, or even several editors with an agenda) thinks is appropriate.  Labelling edits which are merely reverting to the established wording as "vandalism" - here - is, frankly, rather silly, and doesn't get the discussion off to a very constructive start.  I suggest that you and User:Britanniabackbone stop edit-warring; raise your concerns on this page about the established wording; check whether they have been discussed previously (almost certainly, they have been); and see what other editors think.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the page of course needs neither a manifesto or edit-warring and claims of vandalism. As to the points in the initial post here, whether things are "contested" or "preferred" by individual people, wherever they are from, is also a moot point when it comes to drafting content on WP. Equally, the subjects of an article, or people who live there, let alone any self-declared "experts", do not get to own pages about the topic. We go by what reliable, mainstream sources say, which are quite clear and more or less unanimous about Cornwall currently being, for better or worse, a county of England (among, yes, other things) and about what, by contrast, the Duchy of Cornwall is.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. This page will have no 'code of practice' other than that which applies to any other Wikipedia article. Nor will it have any 'manifesto'. If people (Cornish or otherwise) wish to contribute to this article, they will have to do so on the same terms as elsewhere. That is how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your instant, furious and clearly coordinated reaction to my entirely reasonable request to "Live and let live" is a clear confirmation that you are not willing for others to contribute in the spirit of cooperation. This has been going on so long now that it has drawn attention from a large number of people. Over the past three years you have collectively reverted hundreds of well-meant contributions and people are understandably very angry. It's game over: Play by the rules or leave this Wiki page well alone.

Ajaxverifier (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Ajaxverifier


 * The rules that will be 'played' by here are the rules of Wikipedia. This is not negotiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And speaking of rules, it should be noted that a person using multiple accounts for the purpose of edit-warring is liable to be blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've temporarily semi-protected the page. New user(s), please discuss your proposed changes here first. It will be easier if you deal with the points you want to raise one at a time, so they can be considered individually. —S MALL  JIM   21:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Duchy is such a small part of Cornwall's running. I don't understand why so many Cornish revivalists/nationalists focus on it...rather than their distinct cultural, linguistic and historical elements...the simple fact is, the Duchy is not relevant to most people in Cornwall. Most of its holding's are in Devon, as I know only too well! End of the day, the fact it's administrated as a county of England is not up for debate. It is fact, and while you may not like it, and while I may not care whether it is or isn't, that's the bottom line. This once fact will not be removed as it currently stands. I'm talking about the lead, encase you didn't realize. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It was a wide-ranging edit that we're considering here. I noted the claim that (Penzance + Newlyn) is also larger than Truro - if that's correct it should go back in. Is there "both a nationalist movement and a Cornish devolution movement", as claimed? Anything else that can be considered verifiable enough to go back in? —S MALL JIM   22:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Penzance and Newyln form a conurbation but are often considered separate. It's not really that important if they are bigger together, after all Plymouth is bigger than Exeter, and Houston is bigger than Austin, of but a few examples out there. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * True. I should have emphasised that the article already says that St Austell is larger, so if it's valid to say that P+N is too, then that should be added, or the St Austell bit should come out. Sure, it's not a big point but I'm just trying to avoid slapping the newbie(s) too hard :) —S MALL  JIM   22:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that some small parts of Ajaxverifier's edits were verifiable, and may improve the text. I don't have time tonight or (probably) tomorrow to check through them all, but will do that, unless others get in first.  However, the main thrust of the edit, and especially the description of the existing text as "vandalism", did not encourage me to look too closely at the time.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ghmyrtle. I think a short apology to you for calling your revert "vandalism" would go a long way to show willingness to co-operate – how about it, Ajaxverifier? —S MALL  JIM   22:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We have shown nothing except willingness to cooperate, yet even our offer of consensus has resulted in and ill-mannered response. The ball is in your court to show that the four of you can all work with others (particularly people from within Cornwall) and not reverse their edits as you have done over a five year period simply because you don't like them. We are listening.195.194.77.145 (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Brilliant – that reads like one of those threats made in a disembodied voice by mysterious aliens in the original Star Trek series. More seriously, the problem here is that you've simply taken for granted that the edits you want to make are correct and that it is outrageous for anyone else to object to them. As has been explained, WP works according to what mainstream reliable sources say on a topic and people wanting to add or change information have to refer to those sources, not simply claim "I'm from the place" or "this is the way I see it" or "this is what we want the page to say". And who is "we"? Is it some kind of student club? Do you speak for the whole of Cornwall? I suspect not. And you want to talk about others being ill-mannered, when you're the ones edit-warring and accusing everyone else of vandalism? The responses to your "manifesto" read perfectly politely, if critical, to me.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP was a mistake as the comment should have been made whilst logged in. Please accept our apologies. We know the rules extremely well thank you. Please do not misrepresent us - we have never said our edits should have priority over yours: All we ask for is that our edits are given the same respect. This is something that you four have never done (along with your friends over the years). You have simply taken all our hundreds of hours of effort and flushed them down the toilet and you do not have the right to do that, nor are your edits somehow perfect and everyone elses deficient. You use phrases like edit-warring yet this is exactly what you have done over the past years, reversing hundreds of contributions. The lack of respect shown for other users over the years is equally appalling.Ajaxverifier (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) So, who are you, 195.194.77.145? You use "we" and talk about a five-year period, but you've never edited this page before. I also recommend that Ajaxverifier reads up some material about what wikipedia is and is not. It might help him or her see how things are done on wikipedia. He or she might then be able to appreciate that the writing of an encyclopedia relies on using reliable sources and taking or adopting a neutral and unbiased approach. There is no need for the use of "manifesto" except to endorse the principles of wikipedia here. I suggest these principles are read and understood before this goes further in an unhelpful direction. Some useful pages are WP:5, WP:About, WP:ISNOT. I am assuming that the editing history here is an accurate reflection of the editing experience of the person behind the identifier, even though he or she seem in other respects more informed than his or her editing history suggests. Ajaxverifier, you need to listen to what the other editors are saying here: they are paying close attention to the underlying principles of wikipedia from what I have read, even if you might be unhappy with that. Think carefully about what you want to say, and try to find out reliable sources that back up your position. If you can't do this, then what you want to add to wikipedia cannot really be added, and you may wish to try an alternative approach, like trying to modify your own opinions, though there might be other options that are not disruptive that you can try. This happens to all of us about certain things, so do not get upset about this. It is all part of getting used to the the way the community of wikipedia editors works. DDStretch   (talk)  10:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you kind 'offer'. However, I am not new to Wikipedia. I wonder who, exactly, is 'unhappy' with the rules of Wikipedia? Compliance it seems is in the eye of the beholder.Ajaxverifier (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Being unhappy is quite different from breaking the rules about sockpuppets and being indefinitely blocked, as you have now been, though, isn't it? I think we need give no more attention to this "manifesto" except where there could be some useful bits to salvage...  DDStretch    (talk)  18:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, everything is a giant conspiracy in their eyes here (a vast, vast conspiracy!). They believe a group of Anti-Cornish editors "control" the article and that they have more "powers" than other editors. Unless they shake off these silly beliefs, and play fair like everyone else in accordance with Wikipedia rules, nothing productive will come out of this. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your continuing and highly personal attacks and a special thanks to the malicious banning of my IP by Ghmyrtle. I never mentioned a conspiracy by the way, so thank you for putting words in my mouth. For your information, a group of us set our accounts together, so you didn't only ban me but them too. The fact that the allegation of sock-puppetry was ill-founded. Does this matter to you? TestGap1 (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC) [was Ajaxverifier)
 * Just a point of information - I had nothing to do with the block. And, you should read WP:MEAT. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is clear block evasion and I see TestGap1 has been blocked also. I struck out the sockpuppet comments as we normally do, but I was reverted. The blocks were all per our policy. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocks per WP:MEAT were entirely justified (but not my idea). Censorship of comments on how to improve the article - which were not vandalism, even though made by misguided and misbehaving editors - is, in my opinion, unjustified.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Censorship of comments on how to improve the article" - you're joking, right? Hardly any of these "suggestions" would of improved the article. Oh no wait, I see what you mean. --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect a personal attack from you, Ghmyrtle. Striking through a comment does not make it impossible to see it, it just indicated that it was placed there illegitimately (strikethrough is also used by an editor to show that he has retracted a comment, but that's a different use) - calling it censorship is accusing me of not acting in good faith. So, instead of getting thanked for dealing with a problem (via the SPI), I'm criticised for drawing lines through text? Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it was in no-way censorship. --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My view of strikethrough of another editor's comments is that it is a form of mild censorship, and unnecessary in this instance - but if others see it differently, I apologise. No personal attack intended.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, no real harm done. I believe this topic could be closed now? If the blocked editors get themselves unblocked, they would be welcome to start another discussion. PS - striking through comments is generally done with banned editors. --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've struck through my comments, I accept there was no personal attack meant. And yes, Somchai, you may be right although I think in the case of persistent sock puppetry (not this case though) I believe it is also common. Just as we can speedy delete pages made by blocked or banned users. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I can see no good reason for including any American pronunciations of the name in the opening sentence, let alone two of them. Should we include the way German people, or Japanese people, pronounce the name? Of course not. Why is this deemed necessary to understanding the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never understood why we litter opening sentences with any of these pronunciation "aids": the systems and typography employed are surely incomprehensible to most people and hence no use anyway. I certainly agree we shouldn't be adding even more of them so that we end up with multiple strings of them.  N-HH   talk / edits  20:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ghmyrtle. An American-English pronunciation for a British topic is entirely unjustified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is climate data from the Scilly Isles given?
They're not actually part of Cornwall, and even if they were their climate is not typical of the county. Furthermore, the figures given are different to those in the Isles of Scilly article, despite having the same description and source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.238.95 (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point - I'll remove it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But they are part of the ceremonial county and will sometimes be included in the broader "Cornwall". That said, the issue with the data is confusing. I seem to recall someone regularly fiddling with it on the Isles page itself a while back, so that may be the info that's out of sync, not the stuff (that was) here.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Isles of Scilly are geographically part of Cornwall and climate data is relevant here. Local government boundaries are something different. There are many articles like Flora of Cornwall and Christianity in Cornwall which are inclusive of Scilly.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, I may have been over-hasty in removing it. I've no objection to it being reinstated.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Shall we wait a bit for any other editors to comment? The anon. IP seems to think that mainland Cornwall has one climate and Scilly another. Its government has always been peculiar.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Isles of Scilly are certainly within scope of this article (and therefore, so is their climate). That section of this article is to give an overview of the climate, so it doesn't need to give full climatological data for multiple locations. Even if provided, that doesn't really add much - the 5 tables at Geography of Cornwall don't look much different to me! What is relevant is the significant and noteworthy difference between the island's climate and the mainland (best described in prose).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nilfanion. (Especially the bit about prose). bobrayner (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the text regarding Scilly. The section could do with more work, but that's a general not a Scilly issue :)--Nilfanion (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Toponomy
Text under map says..."Cornweallas" shown on an early 19th-century map of "Saxon England" (and Wales) based on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Map shows Cornfeallas.101.162.215.114 (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What looks like "Cornfeallas" has the Anglo-Saxon letter wynn (which looks similar to a "p" or "y"); however the text on the map is all in capitals and part of the letter is fainter than the rest (cp. WEAL / LAS, i.e Wales which begins with the same letter). The letter "w" did not exist in English until much later.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a little uncomfortable about that map; should it be captioned "An anonymous early 19th-century mapping of names purportedly taken from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles onto a 19th-century conception of the geography of England and Wales, of dubious reliability in many ways"? NebY (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation Felix. I was led to believe that the origin of the name Cornwall is via the cornish Kernow. Refer to Title: A Handbook of the Cornish Language chiefly in its latest stages with some account of its history and literature with cornish tranlsations: Breth, Briton, Brethon; Sows,Englishman,Sowson; Yethow,Jew,Yethewon; Kernow,Cornishman,Kernewon. In cornish, Mî a vê gennes en Kernow, tranlsates as, I was born in Cornwall. 101.162.215.114 (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Cornwall: A British or Celtic nation?
"Cornwall is the traditional homeland of the Cornish people and is recognised as one of the Celtic nations." As there is limited known input from the Celts of Gaul in Cornwall, should it not be a British nation? Like England, Scotland, Wales? Fergananim (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See Celtic nations. And much discussion....  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Mapping the language
I think it might be an idea to map the distribution of Cornish-language placenames. eg Using OS data, it would be practical to plot Tre Pol and Pen. Does that sound worthwhile? It might be possible to extend that further (eg to show density, or the ratio of Cornish to Anglo-Saxon names) but would that end up being original research?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view it's perilously close to being original research. Of course, if reputable scholars have produced such a map it could be redrawn by WP:GRAPHLAB, but I'm still unsure of what its value would be for this article - though it would be perfect in an article on Cornish toponymy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what I was thinking, any follow-on stuff (which has real value - eg showing the English/Cornish divide) almost certainly is OR. However just plotting locations with no interpretation, should be OK. I sgree not really relevant to this article, though it could be to Cornish language (or the Tre, Pol, Pen article).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Minority status
That Cornish people have been designated a minority status under European rules for the protection of national minorities (BBC report here, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10783741/Cornish-to-be-given-national-minority-status.html Torygraph here), is notable and should be included in this article. Should we wait for Danny Alexander's anouncement in Bodmin today, before deciding what is included on the page? Daicaregos (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I only read this note after I'd already added a couple of sentences (attempting to avert IP edit warring). So, it's now mentioned, but in my view any detailed discussion would be better at the Cornish people article.  As I understand it, the decision refers to the Cornish as a minority group, rather than to the area - although obviously there is a very big overlap, there is a conceptual difference which we should recognise.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This clearly merits mention in this article, but we need to be careful to distinguish people from place - as Ghmyrtle's edit does. I think it should be sufficient for now, at least until there are sources which expand on what exactly this entails. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Etymology
"The Corn- part comes from the hypothesised original tribal name of the Celtic people who had lived here since the Iron Age, the Cornovii."

Seems a bit convoluted...

Has nobody remarked that Kornog is "West" in Breton?

http://fr.glosbe.com/fr/br/ouest

Cornwall was also known as West Wales.

All seems rather obvious.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.120.104 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Westernmost town
Re: "Penzance, if excluding Campbeltown with less than 25% of its circa 21,000 population, the most westerly town in Great Britain," As St Just in Penwith is also a town there is a problem here.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a source for St Just's claim here and one for Penzance's claim here. It depends on your definition of "town".   But, Penzance claims to be the westernmost town in England, which is not quite the same thing (and arguable to some, of course).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In Cornwall some places with fairly small populations are regarded as towns (e.g. Camelford) while a larger settlement such as St Agnes is not. It looks to me as if Penzance has decided that St Just in Peniwth is not a town. So we could say something differently. St Just in Penwith is the westernmost town in England, though the same claim has been made for Penzance. Cambeltown in Scotland, a smaller town than Penzance, is yet further west. Mentioning Penzance's population makes it read oddly so maybe some revision is needed.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, saying that anything in Cornwall is in England will raise some hackles...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Given that the text now refers to England not GB, there is no reason to mention Campbeltown at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed; "town" means diffrent things, just as "city" does. Size and population are only two of the the aspects which come into consideration here.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)