Talk:Ring of Brodgar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Scottish Islands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of islands in Scotland. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||
| Stub | This page has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
This location-related article lacks geographic coordinates. You can help by adding them (please don't be overly precise).(March 2008). |
[edit] Norse
- Norse for stone = sten
- Norse for isthmus = näs (or næs). (the vowel "ä" (or "æ") sounds wery much like a long "e" like in "cheers").
- Stenness (Stennäs) = Stone(s) isthmus.
// Solkoll 11:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What are you suggesting? That Stenness refers to a stone isthmus, or stones on an isthmus, or something else entirely? It doesn't seem very.. radical :P I wonder whether it's good to include more details, such as the graffiti on the stones, those struck by lightning, etc?
Fish-Face 21:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Very interesting. It sounds like a likely derivation for Stenness indeed. Thorf 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dating
If this monument is dated to 2500BC, it is surely contemporary with, and not pre-dating Stonehenge? --Grumpy444grumpy 15:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've always heard that the Ring of Brodgar dates from 2700 BC. I'm not sure what the source is for the 2500 BC figure quoted here - possibly Sigurd Towrie's Orkneyjar site, which mentions that the site has never actually been dated, but the stones are assumed to have been erected between 2500 and 2000 BC. Thorf 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of British Isles
This article can still utilise the term British Isles and remain accurate. I suggest the refereces are left as per Bardcom's edit, but we can also maintain the disputed term. At the risk of 3RR I'll revert again and hopefully other editors will offer an opinion. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- As some of are aware, Bardcom is trying to remove the term 'British Isles' from Wikipedia. In some circumstances remvoval of the term is justified, but not in all circumstances. It seems appropriate here.Doug Weller (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Please be civil and no ad hominen attacks like the one above. --Bardcom (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- how the hell is the above an "ad hominem attack"? This is purely about your on-wiki activity. No remarks on your intelligence, your looks or your mother were made. Address the issue. --dab (𒁳) 08:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm surprised at your needlessly aggressive and admonitory tone. Please look again at the comment "Bardcom is trying to remove the term 'British Isles' from Wikipedia". A baseless accusation that is propagated by a number of editors, many of whom also attempt to paint me as a drooling anti-British Irish nationalist that unjustifiably and irrationally removed the term from Wikipedia. My edits are scrutinized by many editors, and while I don't have a perfect 100% record, my accuracy at identifying and correcting articles that use the term incorrectly is very high - at a guess about 95%+. Since most people assume good faith (as they should), when good editors start flinging baseless accusations like this around, other editors (and even admins) react. Look at your own knee-jerk and aggressive reaction as an example - which also fails to see the sneaky and underhanded method used to undermine my edits. So I say again, comment on the edits and not on the editor - which is exactly what was not done in this case - hence the warning. --Bardcom (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- The source I have just added which was already being used in the article says "the Brodgar ring is the third largest stone circle in the British Isles", therefore I expect no further censorship of this article. Ducks play football (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- There's not much to be suprised about. As anyone can see, almost every last edit by User:Bardcom (for the month of April alone) has something to do with removing "British Isles" from articles, or battling in talkpages about the removal of the term "British Isles"--Celtus (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm surprised at your needlessly aggressive and admonitory tone. Please look again at the comment "Bardcom is trying to remove the term 'British Isles' from Wikipedia". A baseless accusation that is propagated by a number of editors, many of whom also attempt to paint me as a drooling anti-British Irish nationalist that unjustifiably and irrationally removed the term from Wikipedia. My edits are scrutinized by many editors, and while I don't have a perfect 100% record, my accuracy at identifying and correcting articles that use the term incorrectly is very high - at a guess about 95%+. Since most people assume good faith (as they should), when good editors start flinging baseless accusations like this around, other editors (and even admins) react. Look at your own knee-jerk and aggressive reaction as an example - which also fails to see the sneaky and underhanded method used to undermine my edits. So I say again, comment on the edits and not on the editor - which is exactly what was not done in this case - hence the warning. --Bardcom (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- how the hell is the above an "ad hominem attack"? This is purely about your on-wiki activity. No remarks on your intelligence, your looks or your mother were made. Address the issue. --dab (𒁳) 08:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please be civil and no ad hominen attacks like the one above. --Bardcom (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
