User talk:Watling

Place names
Hi

Your etymological edits are very interesting, but it would be really useful if you quoted sources? Oppenheimer springs to mind, but you may have better. Regards Motmit (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also in several cases controversial, I have rv several on this basis given that you have also provided no sources. Given that this is general theme for you (downgrading Celtic origins) you might want to discuss the issue on the UK Notice Board before editing any more articles  -- Snowded   TALK  12:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I also suggest that you would be well advised to read this - Wikipedia is not a place for setting out your own research or theories. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead right, Wikipedia is not a place for setting out unsupported theories. My edits that have been removed (i.e. vandalised) basically amount to pointing out that existing entries about Celtic roots for place names in south-east England are unsupported theories. They originated because people working to the old paradigm - that 100% of people in Roman times spoke a "Celtic" language - did some inspired guesswork. Then their successors elevated these guesses to the level of a dogma. Even brilliant scholars such as Ekwall or Jackson could not achieve a 100% hit rate, and some of their guesses are (to modern eyes) laughably wrong. Not only that, even some etymologies that Ekwall and others were careful to qualify as doubtful are stated as definite in Wikipedia.

As for references, it gets a bit foolish repeatedly writing something like "see the Oxford English Dictionary" or "talk to any modern Dutch speaker" or "look up any standard list of hypothetical proto-Indo-European roots". What is the point of cross-referencing ten river and place names with their Wikipedia entries if some trigger-fingered pundit is going to remove your work 15 minutes later?

Take London for example. What sort of reference can one give for pointing out the trivially obvious cognate of "landen" in modern German or Dutch? How far does one go in repeating the Oxford English Dictionary's analysis of the original etymological sense of the Teutonic root underlying modern English "lands": pieces of useful ground or places to settle. This is exactly how a founder population, travelling up the early Thames, post ice age, would have described the spot that became modern London.

Just because a huge amount has been written about a possible Celtic root for London does not make it amount to more than intellectual nonsense: a huge circular argument. The historical record goes back to a latinised form "Londinium" and a few variants - nothing clearly "Celtic". What is the basis for the argument that early London ever spoke a Celtic language? Go on. Look it up. Almost zero lexical words in modern English are of ancient Celtic origin. That just leaves place names.

The "big four" of supposedly Celtic place names in the south-east of England (as listed for example by the 2004 Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language) are London, Thames, Kent, and Dover. NONE of them is definitely Celtic. The most that can validly be said is that Celtic roots have been suggested by Celtic enthusiasts who did not look hard for (or were prejudiced against) roots in Germanic languages.

Take Kent. It means "edge". The proto-Indo-European root *kantho- for the iron rim of a wheel has passed into many languages. So why on earth is it claimed to have been an originally Celtic word?

Take Dover. It means "the beach" (etc) in modern Dutch. It was close to the site of Julius Caesar's beach landings. So who in their right mind imagines that the Romans would give a sea port such a daft name as "harbour of the waters"?

I could go on ..... It isn't fashionable to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

The issue here is not advancing pet theories or new research. (That could go on for pages and pages.) The issue is how long Wikipedia will allow old errors to persist, long after they have been pointed out by many people, just because they have been invested with spurious authority by long repetition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.102.123 (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All very interesting. However, you have still not cited any references for the conclusions which you consider are obvious.  They are not "obvious" to others, so unless and until you provide suitable references to support your opinions they will continue to be reverted.  The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your contributions are really interesting and valuable. Unfortunately, you seem to have crossed swords with a couple editors with strong views about celtic origins on English placenames. It is disappointing to see this when you are a new editor with something to offer. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and thrives by accommodating alternative views. You do not need permission to make edits, and when challenged like this the answer is to provide sound references. You are welcome to consult me for advice. Regards Motmit (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was to discuss the issue centrally rather than make multiple OR edits. That was intended to be constructive before the edit ended up having multiple reversions on many articles.  You shouldn't interpret that as having "strong views about celtic origins" rather having strong views about controversial edits been inserted without citation, neither can I see anything which would indicate that this user is being told to seek permission to make edits.   All new editors are welcome, but they need to be helped (good to see this offer from you) but also need to be pointed to Wiki policies on OR etc.  -- Snowded   TALK  14:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you?
Are you editing as 86.1.102.123? I note the comment above and the fact that this IP has also made edits on celtic names on other articles. Please note that editing under two names is not permitted if you do not declare them. -- Snowded  TALK  23:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)