User talk:Bretagne 44

Come on then lets have it, out with it. Spit is out then!


 * Salut! Bravo ; tes contributions jusqu'ici sur la Cornouailles sont magnifiques ! Dis-donc, tu parles cornique, par hasard ? Parce que je suis toujours à la recherche des cornouphones pour contribuer à kw – dont je suis pour l'instant le seul contributeur actif. Comme c'est triste la solitude ! Ciao et bravo, QuartierLatin1968 03:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Salut, non je suis desolé, je ne parle pas Cornique à ce momont. Maintenant j'habite à Paris et il faut que j'apprenne le Francais et pour les Britaniques la langue étrangère est un vrai boulot. Mais apres j'ai envie d'apprendre les langues Bretonne et Cornique a Paris. Cependant il y a beaucoup de cornouphones qui peut etre vous aide.


 * Agan Tavas&mdash;The Society for the Promotion of the Cornish language
 * Cornish Language Fellowship

Merci pour votre encouragment

Excellent stuff
I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia, and that you can improve the section on modern Breton history.

Thanks for that, but i need to learn much more about Breton history first.

Cornwall
I'm sorry, but I have very little stomach to contribute to such pages. I've already had battles on subject areas I don't care about (beyond a certain general wish to see the status quo fairly represented), and have got sick of it.

Whether or not Cornwall is a county seems irrelevant to me. Flintshire is a county, but is not part of England. Greater London is not a county, but is nontheless part of England. I can't speak for the contents of the 1888 legislation, as I don't have a copy, but I can assure you the 1972 Act treats Cornwall no differently to Lancashire, and re-creates it a "county", in "England". It seems to me to be evidently a county palatine, though I know it hasn't historically been called that. An actual survey of usage over the centuries would be interesting, rather than just clipping out the pro-Cornish-nationalist highlights as seems to have been done when that section of the page was compiled. Morwen - Talk 21:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, as to the survey of usage I totally agree and i need help to do that. In fact i am going to move the information from the Cornish nationalism page to the Constitutional status of Cornwall page. I would ask though if you have very little stomach to contribute to such pages why did you contribute in the first place? "Whether or not Cornwall is a county seems irrelevant to me" that seems to be a odd attitude for someone who wants to contribute to pages about counties and add comments about the constitutional nature of Cornwall. Bretagne 44

English (people)&#8800;Cornish (people)?
I am going to ask you one simple question. Are the Cornish people English or not? As far as I know, Cornwall is an English county just like all the others, without that meaning that all counties are the same. The culture of Cornwall differs from the culture of Northumberland, and the culture of Cumbria differs from the culture of East Anglia. Therefore there is no reasonable reason for Cornwall to be accorded any special treatment. Anyway, to get to the point, you left a message on the Talk page of the English (people) article and it began with if you are going to include all Cornish folk as a type of English person, what does this mean? Are the inhabitants of Cornwall not English people, if not who is? Also, I don't think much of your edits to the English (people) page. The page is now centered on Cornwall and the nationalistic feelings of just SOME Cornish people. REX 13:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As i have said i recorded myself quite legally as Cornish (not English) on the last UK census in 2001, and in 2004 Cornish school children had the option to record their ethnicity as Cornish instead of English. These two facts mean that Cornish people have the option to describe their ethnicity or nationality as Cornish instead of English. Cornwall may have a de jure status as an English county however a large minority of Cornish folk think of themselves as Cornish not English and Cornwall as being a de facto Duchy and extraterritorial to England (but not the UK). In fact the de facto status of Cornwall as a Duchy was proved in case law in the 19th century please see the Constitutional status of Cornwall.

I think Cornwall and the Cornish merit being viewed as a constituent people and nation of the UK for the following reasons.


 * Cornwall and the Cornish have had an identity distinct form the English for centuries as is evidenced by the existence of the Cornish language as a mother tongue up until the late 18th or early 19th century and the subsequent successful revival of said language in the 20thy century. The language exits also in our First, Familial and Place names.
 * The Cornish had and arguably continue to have a perceived national identity other than English. I would refer you to Mark Stoyle recent book "West Britons, Cornish identities in the early modern period". Additionally on the UK census of 2001 and the recent local school census it was possible to record oneself as Cornish (as opposed to English).
 * Many treaty's and documents up until the 18th century made reference to there being a distinction between Anglia and Cornubia. Additionally maps of the Isles produced up until the 18th century often showed Cornwall as a distinct entity on a par with Wales, look for the maps of CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") 1564 at this site Mercators Atlas by walking tree press. I am happy to provide further examples if required?
 * Constitutionally the nature of Cornwall and its description of being a county of England are disputed see the following wiki pages for information: Cornish nationalist, Constitutional status of Cornwall. If correct these arguments would indicate a de jure status for Cornwall as a Duchy and a crown dependency not a county of England.
 * I present the following link to support my points.Look for "The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?" by M Stoyle on this BBC site

So you see REX your one simple question is just that 'simple'. Not all the people that live within what you think of as the boarders of England consider themselves English. Chechens are born in the Russian Federation but that does not make them Russians, Tibetans are born in the Peoples Republic of China but that does not make them Chinamen. Bretagne 44 22/3/05

So, what does all this have to do with the article? The article is about the people of England. If Cornwall is (de facto or de jure) an English county then it should be included in the article. I am from Durham, we too have a slightly different culture, history, form of English etc. from that of, say Kent. In November 2004 we were offered local autonomy (the NE Regional Assembly) and we rejected it even though Durham was a County Palatine and a Bishopric and part of the kingdom of Northumbria during the early Middle Ages (independent of Modern England, just like Cornwall), beacause most of us feel that England should not be divided up into parts, as if the people of each region or county were a distinct nation. However, this is what you are asking for. The article originally describes English people as a nation from England with various minor differences in each area. Do you think that the article should be named English (people) &#8211; Cornish and that there should be a separate Cornish (people) article? REX 18:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes maybe there should be a separate Cornish people page, what good idea. However as i have said the article before i changed it depicted all the inhabitants of Cornwall as English. Now as far as i am aware the only legal onus on me is to recognise that i am a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is no legal requirement for the people of the UK to call themselves Cornish, English, Irish etc etc. Bearing that in mind i have pointed out that many (not all) in Cornwall consider themselves to be Cornish and not English, i have also pointed out concrete instances of where this sense of being Cornish and not English is officially recorded and recognised. This would seem to indicate that there are people who live in Cornwall who perceive themselves to be Cornish not English and that this is officially recognised. It is your POV that they are English but it is not the POV of the office of national statistics, Cornwall LEA / county council, the Council of Europe plus others. in Durham you have a regional English identity but this is not the same as believing yourself to be other than English as is the case for many Cornish folk. So what i am after is that if you mention Cornwall in this article you should say that many Cornish do not think of themselves as English, you do not have write English (people) &#8211; Cornish just tell the truth and that is a large minority of the Cornish do not think themselves English. Please see my latest changes and tell me if they are more acceptable to you.

Below are two extract from a document produced by the human rights organisation Cornwall 2000.

1.3 The Cornish are a pre-English minority group constituting some 175,000 - 200,000 people mostly living in their historic homeland of Cornwall/Kernow. A recent survey by Plymouth University found that, if given the opportunity, over a third of pupils in Cornwall schools would identity as Cornish. Elements within the group strive to maintain their region&#8217;s constitutional position and the group&#8217;s unique social outlook, linguistic heritage and cultural identity. 1.4 UK Census 2001 carried a 'Cornish' ethnic group category. Some public authorities carry out ethnic monitoring of the Cornish. The Cornish language has been accorded international protected status. The Council of Europe has urged the Government to extend the cultural, educational and other benefits of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities to the Cornish. Bretagne 44 23/3/05

If there truly is a Cornish nation, then it shouldn't even be on the article, which is about the English nation. A nation which is (linguistically, culturally and possibly genetically) related to the Germans, the Dutch, the Lowland Scots, the Protestants of Northern Ireland, the Danes, the Norwegians etc. Remember, a nationality may or may not be tied to a land. The English are a nation who now live all aver the world and consists of people who see themselves and are seen by others to be English. Therefore the article is not necessarily linked to England, so the Cornish don't have to be a part of it. As you have mentioned the census of 2001 allowed the inhabitants of Cornwall to choose their ethnicity (English or Cornish). Have the results of this census been published, if so, what percentage said YES? If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation. REX 12:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the figure are for either the 2001 or 2004 census all i can provide is what is above. You wrote: "If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation"

Says who? This is just your POV and it is not a formula for proving the existence of a nation or national identity. Some people in Cornwall see themselves as Cornish and not English that is a fact. This is officially recognised by numerous organisation. OK if the Cornish don't have to be part of it then all reference to them should be removed. This for me would be unfortunate however because many Cornish people also think of themselves as English and so should be part of this article. Bretagne 44 23/3/05

This really isn't getting anywhere. Let me propose something, let the English (people) page be used in reference to the inhabitants of Cornwall who do see themselves as English, such as roughly two thirds (the majority) of Cornwall's schoolchildren, like you stated above, and present them as English people with Celtic roots such as the Cumbrians. Then everybody's happy. The inhabitants of Cornwall who see themselves as English are in the article, and the ones who don't are not. REX 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why are you not prepared just to have a brief mention of the other Cornish who are Cornish, it does not distract from the main article, adds interest and is truthful. It shows that the identity of the English may not be as clear cut and as simple as saying they are the people who live in "England". I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate. Bretagne 44 24/3/05

I think that mentioning the Cornish who don't see themselves as English would be unnecessary IF they are not part of the English ethnic group, which is what the article is about. As I have already mentioned, the term English ethnic group does not refer to the inhabitants of England, it refers to people of English culture, who see themselves as English. I am also confused about the Cornish people's status. Are they a separate ethnic group or not? Almost all evidence is contradictory. I mean in Scotland everything is quite clear. While the Highlanders could be seen as a separate ethnic group from the Lowlanders they are not. They are of different descent; they speak different languages and have a slightly different culture. Nevertheless, they all see themselves as Scottish. There are similar examples in America and all over the world. We all know that constitutionally, England does not exist; it (including Cornwall) is merely the part of the UK without home rule. There are no official documents which mention the name England (except for the odd legal document which might mention England and Wales). Whatever we write could be seen as POV. I would like to know what is wrong with writing that the inhabitants of Cornwall are people with Celtic ancestry, that they used to have a Celtic language and that there is a separatist movement in progress. Also, what do you mean by I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate? REX 13:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

REX you said "this is not getting us any where" i agree so lets see if we can ask for a third opinion hopefully that of a wikipedia administrator. However it appears what you are saying is that you will give no ground and not try and work to a consensus. The changes i have made are minor and barely change the article what is it you do not like about them, give me some good reasons. In fact there is much about this page that need attention because it at times reads like a pamflet for the BNP as you have pointed out. "Almost all evidence is contradictory" says you, this is your POV, i have provided concrete examples of where official bodies record and therefore consider the Cornish an existent ethnic group. At the end of the day your perceived identity or ethnicity is a purely subjective phenomena. You talk about "official documents which mention the name of England" and then ask "Therefore, how can it be known if the Cornish are a separate ethnic group?". What have official documents got to do with the existence or not of a perceived ethnicity? You said it yourself "they all see themselves as Scottish" not all the Cornish see themselves as English and what you see yourself as is the best yard stick for measuring ones ethnicity. We still have a Celtic language which is officially recognised by the the UK government, the Council of Europe and EU. Around 3500 people speak it fluently and many more know some conversational Cornish and most know a few words. The demand to learn Cornish has at present out striped the supply of courses. I propose the following the traditional inhabitants of Cornwall are people with a Celtic ancestry, some speak the Cornish language and a minority claim Cornish ethnicity. Bretagne 44 24/3/05

To sum up: REX 09:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Let's ask for a third opinion.
 * In my opinion, how a group sees itself is the minimum requirement for the existence of an ethnic group (a nation). You may want to check the respective pages to see why.
 * In the article the Cornish are only mentioned:
 * 1) Others, notably the Cornish and the Cumbrians have Celtic roots, a minority in Cornwall going so far as to say they are not English but Cornish.
 * 2) The only other language traditionally spoken is Cornish, a Celtic language originating in Cornwall that almost became extinct.
 * 3) The English (along with the Scots, Irish, Welsh and Cornish) found their old identities undermined somewhat in favour of 'Britishness'.
 * I can't help feeling that Wikipedia is being used to promote nationalism and (possibly misleading) propaganda in favour of Cornish Separatism, not in references 1 and 2 above, but in reference 3. Cornwall has not yet separated from England like Wales did in 1955 (before that Wales did not exist as a country but as an English region See Acts of Union 1536-1543). So mentioning Cornwall above like that is like implying that Cornwall in no longer part of England, which is not true. Given that Cornwall was and still is part of England, Cornish identity should have been undermined in favour of Englishness even before the Union with Scotland, so to mention it in my opinion above is not necessary. Personally, I find reference 3 above very POV as there has been No original research. In my opinion it has to be removed or at least changed as that sounds like something from the manifesto not from the BNP, but from the English Independence Party or the English Democrats Party.
 * About Arbitration, as far as I know, they only monitor the behaviour of editors (such as offencive language on Talk Pages, edit wars etc) not the issues. But, there is no harm in asking.

When Britishness was promoted to the public it interacted and worked to undermine Cornish identity in the same way English identity had before. The Cornish identity was very distinct in the early modern period as is described in the book by Mark Stoyle " West Britons - Cornish identities in the early modern period". The advent of British nation building was just one in a line of assaults on the Cornish national identity. The same for the Welsh in fact, Welsh identity should have been undermined by union with England before the union with Scotland but Wales is still mentioned in reference to the British project following the union with Scotland so why not Cornwall? I do see some double standards on this page. It is OK for the page to mention thousands of people in other countries such as the USA or Australia. They are described, near enough, as being English and the grounds for this is purely the way they choose to describe themselves as being of English decent. However when a group of people who live in what is commonly thought of as England say they are not English, even when there is a historical precedent for people in this region to think of themselves as Cornish (or other than English) then this causes a problem. Is this English chauvinism, as long as other groups in other countries say they are of English decent and bolster the numbers thats OK, even if they are Americans or Australians but when a small 'internal' group says "no actually we feel we are Cornish and descended from the Britons and people have been feeling that way for centuries in this area" this causes a big problem, why? How about "The English along with other peoples of the (isles) (Archipelago) (Celtic fringe) found their identities undermined in favour of the new British identity". Are we reaching a deal here REX? Bretagne 44 25/3/05

There is common sense in what you are saying, so to reach a conclusion quickly, I propose that you edit the article so that it is free from the influence of POVs and is not too pro or anti Cornish nationalism. When you are done, let me know and if there is something specific I disagree about I will tell you what it is and why so that we can reach an agreement. I think that you should do it because you know more about the issues than me. REX 20:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, and thank you for a spirited debate, a refreshing change for what often passes over the Internet. Bretagne 44 26/3/05

Knizar
Hey, I saw you removed Knizar's listing from the New User Log, but I couldn't figure out why; I don't mean to pry, but, why? -- Essjay ·  Talk 17:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hells teeth that was quick!!! I think i have blundered i removed Knizar by accident whilst adding myself to the log, sorry. I hoped no one would notice. Bretagne 44 13/7/05


 * I was watching real-time Recent Changes, that's why I saw it so quick. (Nothing around here doesn't get noticed by somebody.) Don't worry, Kinzar went by and put it back in on her own, so no harm no foul. By the way, Welcome! ; - ) -- Essjay ·  Talk 17:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Category:Wikipedians in Cornwall
This is (technically) improper use of a category. The right way to do this is stick Category:Wikipedians in Cornwall to the end of the userpage of any users who want to appear in the category, and remove the - see Category:UK Wikipedians for examples on how to do this. It definitely shouldn't have a list of people manually maintained in the Category description! I'll leave you to sort this out. Thanks, Morwen - Talk 15:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

uhhh what?


 * Ok, I've sorted that out for you. If Fulub wants adding to it too, the correct procedure is to add the text Category:Wikipedians in Cornwall to the end of the userpage.  Morwen - Talk 16:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Cheeeeers

Mediation?
Oh Bretagne 44. What prompted you to rush to this without informing the rest of us? Cowardly tactics! You just revealed that you have no sources to support your arguments. Why else would you secretly take action? GrandfatherJoe 21:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

GrandfatherJoe You really are a sad case are'nt you mmmm? I have asked for mediation because you have acted as nothing but an abusive bully and you have shown nothing but double standards Bretagne 44 15:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I most certainly am not an abusive bully. That still doesn't change the procedures for Mediation. Have you read them yet? All I ever did was to question the facts; I never edited the article. What is wrong with me questioning your sources? Are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you reject any possibility that you may have been mislead? As for the English populations, I gave my views. GrandfatherJoe 16:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

As to you abusive nature i will let others make up their own minds after reading what you have writen on the talk page of the Cornish people page.

So GrandfatherJoe, aside from your insults, are you saying that 50 million people in England are English? The total population of England is English? Do you think it OK to use the total population of England as the indicator for the numbers of English in England. If that is the case then for the Cornish people page the total population of Cornwall should be used for the numbers of Cornish?.

Secondly it is not my claim that there are 250,000 Cornish people so what are you going on about? All i have added of late is that a recent survey found that 44% of the Cornish populace thought themselves Cornish rather than British or English.

according to a recent Morgan Stanley Bank survey, 44 per cent of the inhabitants of Cornwall believe themselves to be Cornish rather than British or English 

Thirdly, i also wrote that you could record your ethnicity as Cornish on the 2001 UK census, you asked for proof and i provided it.

Here are some more links so you can find out a bit more about what you are trying to comment on.

In Cornwall, 44% of those asked said they felt Cornish, rather than English or British.  The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?By Dr Mark Stoyle  Learn Cornish with Blas Kernewek at the BBC  Celtic cousins' Cornish campaign  Scots leader backs Cornish assembly  Cornish gains official recognition  Computer help for Cornish language students  Cornish language conference held  Historic signs case trio bound over  Blair gets Cornish assembly call  Blueprint for Cornish parliament  Volunteers can dig in for saint  St Piran's Day  Flags fly to honour Cornish saint  Cornish flag is favourite for signs  Cornish Wrestling  Celtic Frontier or County Boundary? Competing discourses of a late nineteenth century British border  The cases of Protestant Ulster and Cornwall 

Bretagne 44 16:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for aggressiveness
I would like to apologise for being overly aggressive on Talk:Cornish people. I was reading what is written there and I was horrified, that is not how I usually do things. I was worried about other matters and it seems that I let my frustration out onto Wikipedia (I am not trying to make excuses). GrandfatherJoe 13:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

GrandfatherJoe i was at fault as well and would like to apologise for inappropriate comments that help nobody. Bretagne 44 16:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Funding to publicise the Welsh tickbox?
Hi there. I noticed a remark on Talk:Cornish people which intrigued me. In the discussion about censuses, you mentioned the allocation of a census code for Welsh and said "the Welsh received substantial government funding to publicise that fact". This (government funding) is complete news to me. Was this the Westminster government or the Assembly? I missed it totally. What I remember is an aggrieved response when it was discovered that there would be no box saying "Welsh" for people to tick and that we would have to tick "other" and write it in. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/986948.stm is an example of the reaction. I had no idea that there was government funding involved in these campaigns at all. Can you provide a cite? I'd be very interested to know more about this. Telsa 14:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

please stop wiki-spamming
Caution: You have been wiki-spamming. Please stop - people have been blocked for that kind of thing. Rex(talk) 18:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean, i have raised questions that are relevent to the all pages i posted on. If you have a problem then just try and block me, if not keep your threats to yourself. Bretagne 44 19:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Your User Page
Hi; I don't want to seem rude or insultive, so please excuse me if I do, but I believe that your user page probably goes against the following Wiki Policy:


 * Use Your User Pages Appropriately

Notably, it says "Generally, you should avoid any substantial content that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Examples include...Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material". I understand that your opinions on Cornwall are central to many of your edits, so I think it's reasonable for you to include something about this on your page, maybe with one or two links... but at the moment it seems a bit excessive.

This is just meant to be a friendly warning, as I think that such a user page will reduce the respect that other Wikipedians have for you in your editing! Robdurbar 16:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Bretagne 44 18:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

traditional county infobox
Hello. Noting your comments made on the [|deletion discussion], I've added an extra variable to the template to change the way it deals with Cornwall. Please have a look and tell me if you think this is an improvement. Incidentally; it seems somewhat self-defeating to oppose this infobox - one that will call Cornwall what it really is - when the standard, administrative infobox will remain if it gets deleted and will continue calling Cornwall a county. I hope you might therefore reconsider you vote. Thanks. Stringops 22:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Also, please don't delete fact templates. It's Wikipedia policy (see WP:V) to mark any dubious statements with those until a reliable source is found supporting them. Happy editing, Telex 13:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC).


 * Is it wikipedia policy to paste fact templates every where just because you don't like an article. Please have a look at where i removed the templates before making such comments.

Bretagne 44 13:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen them, no sources are cited, there is no proof that they are true. That is why they should be marked. Telex 14:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you go and look for the sources then, it would be a lot more constructive. Mmm, i like this template thing, i can just march around wikipedia and put them where ever i want because most quotes have no citations, so where should i start? Bretagne 44 14:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is on you (or whoever want to include the dubious information) - see Verifiability. Telex 14:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can start wherever you want. If you think I'm lying to you, feel free to ask at the help desk. Telex 14:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No but I think you politics cloud your judgment. For example a citation template on the “The constitutional status of Cornwall, in the southwest of Great Britain, is the subject of ongoing debate ”.!?

Apart from providing links to pressure groups who question the constitutional status of Cornwall it also contains information on the Cornish foreshore case which witnessed the Duchy itself take the crown to court concerning the status of Cornwall, yet a citation is still need for this statement.


 * As far as I know, the government is not debating anything. Telex 14:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The there is ''“The Kilbrandon Report (1969–1971) into the British constitution recommends that, when referring to Cornwall official sources should cite the Duchy not the County. This was suggested in recognition of its constitutional position ”.''

The citation is the Killbrandon report, oh la la!


 * Are those the exact words of the report, or a Cornish regionalist POV interpretation. It would be nice if we could get our hands on the exact words. Telex 14:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The we have this classic already discussed on the Cornish people page “Cornishmen and women continued to regard themselves as descendents of Corineus until well into the early modern period.”

How about Dr Mark Stoyle, West Britons, Cornish Identities and the Early Modern British State; chap 1 page 13. ISBN 0 85989 688 9, University Of Exeter Press.


 * Say then: According to Dr Mark Stoyle in his book West Britons, Cornish Identities and the Early Modern British State, Cornishmen and women... Telex 14:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on try and learn about the subject before you get involved.

Bretagne 44 14:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied. Telex 14:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Is it only the government that can debate such issues, thats news to me? Are you denying the existence of the Cornish foreshore case?

2) Yes they are the exact words, go read the report.

3) Feel free to make this change.

Bretagne 44 14:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your document: WMN, UKIP and Cornwall
Thank you. Someone else sees it the same way. Sees also the way its going. Knows the populist propaganda lowest-common-denominator shite thats poured out morning noon and bloody night by the Daily HateMail Group. I'm Cornish-born, of half Cornish and half London Jewish/Anglo-mongrel parentage. Back here 9 years. Will be follwoing things a bit more now. Ta and all the best Plutonium27 00:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional status of Cornwall
Can you please keep a close eye on this article just now please. A couple of editors keep on insisting on removing material which does not agree with their viewpoint. --MacRusgail 13:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)