Talk:Devil's Causeway

Arthurian legend
The Arthurian section should be removed as though it is interesting, it is also merely quoting a non-notable website's theory on where a (possibly fictitious) Arthurian tale is set. The text in question does not mention the location and the quote (and it is quoted almost word for word) is not taken from a scholarly source. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I created the article and included that section as the question has been raised elsewhere. I agree it is not completely on topic, but does that mean that all side issues relating to an article are to be ignored? It is clearly separated from the main description, and is properly headed so that readers are aware that it only a legend. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed this. I agree with Sigurd Dragon Slayer, this is simply speculation base on one article self-published by an author who writes novels and stuff for esoteric publishers. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Why "Devil's Causeway"?
It would be good list why the road is called that. Surely there's a reason. Coinmanj (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is an explanation for the name in this Newcastle Journal article, The rocky route of Devil's Causeway (National Trust): "'There was a tendency in the Anglo-Saxon period for people to attribute any large Roman remains or structures to the work of giants, devils or the supernatural... The Devil's Causeway would have been very evident in the landscape but with no obvious settlements along the route it would have been very mysterious to the Anglo-Saxons.'" I should probably add something about that.--FeralOink (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be cool to see some cultural legacy related to it in addition to the historical data. For one, the bogle article mentions the road was associated with giants. Who is like God? (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Copy violation
I removed the entire portion about the discovery of the Roman coins as a copyvio. It was copied verbatim from a Newcastle University press release published in 2003. It was multiple paragraphs in length, for which a reference is not acceptable. See Newcastle University:Roman coin hoard points to early recycling (10 February 2003) for primary source, which was reproduced in news media (Recycled Roman coins shed light on past) and science blogs. The entire passage needs to be re-written in order to be included in the article.--FeralOink (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)