Talk:Galloway

Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norse history and culture

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

This article needs to be split up as there is also a breed of cow by this name. GerardM 12:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Bernicia?[edit]

Wans't Bernicia on the east coast?

Yes it was. There was some Anglian settlement (cf Ruthwell Cross), but I find the idea that the entire area became Bernician a stretch. The article is very Anglo-Saxonist in many ways. --MacRusgail 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed there. This article is of low quality, esp. compared with the information otherwise available on wiki on the ancient kingdom. I'm tempted to put a clean-up tag on it. It certainly does badly need to be rewritten. Calgacus 22:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs a rewrite. I think the other problem is that of Galloway, which has fluctuated in size over the centuries. There's definitely better stuff in other articles like you say... perhaps a paragraph or two could be pinched from elsewhere if it's relevant? --MacRusgail 21:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bernicia wasn't English because England didn't then exist (except in the more general sense of the lands where Angles lived). Neither did Scotland as such. Bernicia was just one kingdom of the Angles - whilst the north west was home to a kingdom of the Scotii . So maybe Anglic is a better word than English. (The historic existence of Bernicia is of course the reason that Scots speak English and not Scots i.e. Gaelic, as did the Scotti tribe from Ireland who eventually gave their name to the whole country of Scotland, but not their language or culture). The Scots-gaelic word 'sassenach', today commonly used to mean the English in England, originally meant the 'Saxons' i.e. the English-speaking peoples who lived (and live) in the lowland half of what is now Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.10.115 (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote for a rewrite[edit]

OK, well, I am a biased and partial observer, since I am the son and literary executor of the 'popular author' who happens to be the major serious scholar of dark age Galloway over the past half century (see if you can find any professional Scottish early medieval historian who disagrees with that assessment).

But the passages in the article as it currently stands on the early history of Galloway are a half understood mishmash of prejudice, willful misunderstanding, and ahistorical nonsense. There are only two or three references to 'Gall-Gaidhill' ('foreign Gails') in history - in the Irish annals, to be precise - all are ambiguous, and none refer to people said to be from Galloway or in any way related to it. There is absolutely no historical basis to associate the name 'Galloway' with 'Gall-Gaidhill'; even if Galloway were a Gaelic name it would make not etymological sense, and, in any case, the name was in use long before Gealic was even spoken in Galloway. How do I know that? Oh... because I gifted to the Stewartry Museum the popular author's copious and detailed research notes compiled over sixty years of reading every existing document surviving from Galloway pre 1500 in its original form, and indexing every occurance of every placename.

The fourth/fifth century forest of Caleddon (Cit Coit Caleddon) was in Eskdale, not in the area now known as Galloway. However, we don't know how large the province known as Caleddon was; it may have been the whole of Rheged north of the wall, or it may only have been the eastern part of that area, in which case if Caleddon and Galloway are the same name then the name must have moved. But the phonetic mutation from Caleddon to Galloway fits with the phonetic mutations of other Brythonic placenames, so it's a more likely candidate than not.

Gaelic placenames start to appear in Galloway from the tenth century, spreading from the west; somewhat later than Anglian placenames, which begin to appear in the seventh/eighth century (e.g. Whithorn, Kelton, Gelston). Before this date all placenames are Brythonic (e.g. Threave). There is evidence of very major depopulation and population shift through the Wars of Independence, with some settlements disappearing altogether and others having name-shifts from Welsh or Anglian to Gaelic, e.g. Hazelfield ('stony field') becomes 'Auchencairn' (also 'stony field').

But then, hey, what do I know? Simon Brooke (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upper and Galloway[edit]

Morwen - I'm reverting your additions on Upper and Lower Galloway. This source suggests a north-south split rather than an east-west split. By the way, I'm not sure the upper/lower terminology is common enough to merit first-paragraph inclusion. Any better sources would be welcome. Regards, - Crosbiesmith 18:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lived in Galloway for very many years, and have never heard the upper-west/lower-east phraseology. It also doesn't logically sit well, "upper" containing the most southern point not only in the area but also in the whole of Scotland. TBH as the gazetteer says, the more common split on things is to divide the relatively flat, settled, farmed, costal plain from the sparsely populated (large areas up there with the highlands for people per sq mile) upland hills/mountains - thus usage of upper implies upland and lower lowland rather than east/west. I have reverted the Wigtownshire and Kirkcudbrightshire definitions for consistency - I don't know what should be done with UG, WG & LG, currently they are implying incorrect definitions - but are probably far too specific for individual articles. SFC9394 18:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the comments on Talk:Counties of Scotland. Seems like these East/West Upper/Lower splits were common in the C19th. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly aren't incorrect! Check any c. 19th gazetteer. "I've never heard of ths usage" is not a reason to believe it is incorrect. I'm going to reinstate my changes, with a specific source this time. Morwen - Talk 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reason to not have it in the intro of an article - to do otherwise is to misinterpret - I quote from the content you inserted "comprising two areas: West or Upper Galloway .... and East or Lower Galloway," - to people in 19C it was - to people today it is not. SFC9394 21:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed it entirely, as if i had made it up or it was spurious. I'm not inclined to make stuff up, even if I don't always cite things perfectly. Looking at my sources I see "East" and "West" Galloway are far more established. I shall be sure qualify things to your satisfaction. I think however that fact that at one point Galloway was being treated as a single unit, with Kirkcudbright and Wigtown as subdivisions, is very relevant to an article about Galloway. The articles about the 2 had in fact said "it was also sometimes known as" which actually is a pretty weak statement. Morwen - Talk 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galloway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717174442/http://www.scotslanguage.com/tags/view/29/793 to http://www.scotslanguage.com/tags/view/29/793

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]