Talk:Cornwall/Archive 5

New Cornish Town/Village info boxes
"Necrothesp, 'English' is a competing identity with 'Cornish' as, in fact, it has been for others within this island generally. You are an outstanding example of how suppremacy of this island was achieved by the Anglo-Saxon and then 'English' (also euphemised as British) Imperialism over the past 1500 years - a process still very much active within Cornwall today.  I have no doubt that you hold your view of identity sincerely, but it is incredible that as, allegedly, a Cornishman that you have found it so easy to dismiss what has long been an ongoing debate within our Cornish Duchy - and talk pages of wikipedia."

"I do not consider my sensibilities to be "more important" than yours, but I do feel that they are equally as important to be considered and respected. My sensibility respects the rights of the Cornish people to exist and to be seen to exist and, by inference, the rights of others.  Yours, on the other hand is built upon historical misrepresentation, repressive lies and deceit, and some inate imperial desire to destroy.  You, of course, will neither see this nor accept it! Probably best if we leave it there! -- TGG 12:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)"


 * "Once again, I must emphasise that this is your opinion, whereas you seem to treat it as a fact. I do not dismiss the debate or contest the fact that some Cornish people hold that opinion, nor that they have a right to do so. I certainly have said nowhere that the Cornish have no right to exist or to be seen to exist, and I would never say such a thing. But what I do contest is your view that your opinion is the truth and your incredulity that anyone else could see it otherwise. In my turn, I find your opinion and the way you express it a shining and very sad example of how hatred is perpetuated and will never be laid to rest. That, of course, is only my opinion! -- Necrothesp 13:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)"

The above has been extracted from this section within the the recent archiving (#4) of this page[], not to perpetuate this particular aspect of the discussion but simply, in closing my input, in responce to the penultimate sentence of Necrothesp.

It is you that has chosen to use the word 'Hatred' and I find it offensive that you accuse me of perpetuating it, by the way that I express my opinion. You do not say hatred of what! I could easily fill this page with just disecting what it is you have stated and implied but I only wish to draw this to a close. If you consider 'hatred' to exist then, as an intelligent person, you will understand why. If you understand why, then you will be on a path to resolving/reconciling what you consider to be the cause(s) of this hatred. Regrettably, such enlightenment has no place within the Imperial/Establishment mind-set. -- TGG 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a single quote from your own post: "Yours, on the other hand is built upon historical misrepresentation, repressive lies and deceit, and some inate imperial desire to destroy." If that's not offensive against the English (and therefore, by extension, myself) I don't know what is. I would point out that I was merely trying to point out that yours was not the only view; it was you who chose to turn the discussion into a forum to insult the English. -- Necrothesp 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If the cap fits, then wear it! I have never pointed any finger at the English people either as a human community, or as individuals, (many of whom are friends and relations) and treat people as individuals (wherever and whenever).  You have chosen to interpret what I said without seriously thinking about what I was saying.  I certainly hold accountable for Cornwall's ill, those who are parasitic purveyors (innocent or otherwise) of the inertia of English Imperialism and fully paid up members of the English Hegemony.  Something that you will find explained in some detail on the TGG website.  The use of the English flag on Cornish pages is neither innocent nor NPOV! -- TGG 13:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Superfluous Information
"Whilst I feel sure that there is someone out there, who will surely oblige, has anyone yet said that the use of the 'Cornish' flag on a 'Cornish' page is offensive? I am not arguing for, or against, the Cornish flag but that does not preclude it from some judgement - which will not be forthcoming! - that use of flags are unneccessary and should be removed. If that is what it takes, then so be it!"

"If we may return to the "one particular England-related template" that I have objected too and the superfluous nature of its inclusion at the foot of the page. May I remind you that you previously stated that "a link does not replace a template" when you restored the said infobox (that I had deleted). Why, then, are there any links at all and all such links are properly(?) replaced as individual templates/infoboxes?"

"The concept of 'Green' and 'Parkinson' were only semi-serious because they helped to prove a point which I was well aware would not be signed up to - as has been confirmed. They are, however, probably more serious than you think.  But, what the hell does it matter, it is only our children's future! Those who defend the status quo are only seemingly interested in the here and now! -- TGG 15:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)"


 * "Well, if the use of the flag of Cornwall is an attempt to show Cornwall as separate from England (and I think here it actually is attempting to do that), then it is offensive to those who feel that Cornwall is rightfully part of England. The only reason you find the flag of England on the template under discussion offensive is because you find the idea of Cornwall being a part of England offensive.    Until Cornwall ceases to be a part of England, however, and ceases to be a ceremonial county of England, the template is perfectly acceptable for this article, and the flag is perfectly acceptable as an icon of the template's place in the group of England-related templates."


 * "Now, for your point about links and templates, it is patently obvious that we cannot replace all links with templates (or, if you will indulge me, links are templates; templates including just what is relevant: the single link). But when a full template is useful, then there is no need to forgo it and instead include just one link."


 * "But... "our children's future"?! Because there's a template at the bottom of the Cornwall article with links to other ceremonial counties of England? Good good, man, you really must have lost it.  Get off Wikipedia now, the future of the human race is as stake!  Why use any precious electrons at all? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)"

The above has been extracted from this section within the the recent archiving (#4) of this page [], not to perpetuate this particular aspect of the discussion but simply, in closing my input, in response to OzLawyer.

I am sure that you are well aware of action and reaction but not sure why you feel that the use of the Cornish flag would be offensive to a Cornish person? However, you deliberately misrepresent my position again, which is that the use of any flag is superfluous unless in a proper context.

We will, quite naturally, have to agree to disagree on the need for links and infoboxes or the philsophical factors surrounding information simply for the sake of information (the Everest syndrome perhaps? Namely, because "its there" or "it can be done").

The Cornish - English dispute clearly throws up the disturbing fact that the 'peoples' encyclopedia is here (and possibly elsewhere?) being used as a bureaucratic and Establishment device. I live and breathe 'Cornwall', which is in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, yet we are constrained to operate within an externally contrived format which insidiously, and excessively, acts against Cornish interests. We should be free to present Cornwall as discussed and agreed by consensus within Cornwall (within wiki guidlines) instead of the present coercion into starting from a predetermined Establishment-orientated mindset.

Your final para contribution yet again misrepresents my position, as argued in this section, by combining various points made by me as if they were just one point. If you found the points being made, too complex for you, there was no need to respond, let alone be offensive! -- TGG 17:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever. You have failed to show why an infobox with links to ceremonial counties of England is superfluous when included on the article for one of those ceremonial counties.  You have also failed to really give any reason why a flag in such an infobox is superfluous in any way.  It connects England-related topics together in an easily-identifiable way.


 * As for the Cornish flag being offensive to Cornish people, who said that? It might be considered offensive to English people.  Since obviously this and other Cornwall-related articles are not read only by the Cornish (in fact, you might think it's read less by the Cornish), then why would we be looking at this from a Cornish-only perspective?


 * Also, I do not think I have misrepresented your position on the "green computing" issue at all. But your comments were outright ridiculous no matter how they were taken.  The entire issue is a non-starter.


 * And finally, no, we have to present Cornwall first and foremost as what it legally is. That you do not believe that Cornwall should be (or perhaps you think even is) part of England is not enough to overhaul completely the way we present the topic.  The Cornish (or the "autonomy for Cornwall") point of view must be presented, since it is a fairly significant point of view, but we must not give it more that its just due.  We must not sanitize articles on Cornwall to remove references to its legal Englishness.  └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Point one - Superfluous becasuse a link already exists within the main infobox.
 * Point two - The flag adds absolutely nothing to the article when used in that context.
 * Point three - I am not arguing for the retention of any flag, for reasons stated, but note that you err on the side of those who might think the Cornish flag as offensive. Therefore, NPOV demands removal!
 * Point four - I have never argued against presenting the 'legal' position only the superfluous nature of the flag and an unnecessary infobox - or, if you choose, infoboxes.
 * Point five - The Establishment sanitisation process already exists in the over-stating of the 'English' status. Your global mis-use of "Englishness" is also noted.
 * -- TGG 13:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Off topic discussion
I ask again, can you guys please take this discussion to your respective talk pages rather than clogging up the Cornwall page. This discussion is becoming increasingly off topic and nothing new is being said. Talk pages are for discussing aspects of improving the article in question, not for rambling political discourse Mammal4 14:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Language issue in intro...
Since it is only a very small portion of Cornwall's population, does this lengthy discussion really belong in the intro? I seems to contain very little real information (just specifics and citation that can be moved) that isn't already in Language, and is probably only there because of media attention and the like effectively blowing it out of proportion. In Ireland we all know about it for reasons obvious to most in Ireland (and probably the rest of the British Isles), but such is not reson to give it mention in the opening paragraphs. While the language may be important to the area's history, and so the attempt to revive it a point of interest, it still seems completely unnecesary. I think at least an explanation of why such a small thing gets such prominent mention is in order. Anyone agree? elvenscout742 10:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No! Cornish is an EU and UK recognised minority language and is funded under the Council of Europes framework convention for the protection of minority and lesser used languages. It is a prominant part of the moden Cornish identity and so shall stayBretagne 44 13:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)