# Talk:Wade's Causeway

Both the listed derivations sound plausible to me, but I have a vague recollection of being/having read that the name is connected to George Wade, the general and road builder.--Yendor1958 13:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you're looking for [Wade] or Waetla, a Germanic god about whom no one knows much at all anymore. I first heard of him in connection with his son Earendel, who as the name suggests was kind of an inspiration for Tolkien. :) There's a little about him in Tom Shippey's The Road to Middle-Earth, but less than there is in the Wikipedia article... ExOttoyuhr (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you might be confusing this (Wade's Causeway) with "General Wade's Road", which is somewhere in the southern Scottish Highlands, IIRC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.19.21 (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've taken this article from stub to its current state this week and I am intending to take this article along the path to FA, so I am initially looking from peer reviews from a few relevant wikiprojects, and then will pursue GA and FA for the article --PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't offer much from a written content perspective, but it looks quite good. My concern is that the picture-space in the infobox should either contain a photograph, such as the 1931 picture in the commons, or a map of perhaps larger scale with a distinct line showing the route of the causeway. If you have the software or some nice watercolours, maybe even an artists interpretation of its heyday? The current map just seems too vague. Regards (Cesdeva (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC))
OK, thanks for the suggestion. I'm no artist, but I have lots of data here about the placement of the various sections that are extant now or that were recorded at various times, so I'll see if I can knock up some kind of image of sections visible over time or something -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I have attempted to add a more detailed map now showing where various sources have placed visible parts of the causeway over time, and moved a photo into the infobox to add more visual interest -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The map's nice, but please also include the coordinates in the prose, using {{Coord}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Look's great (Cesdeva (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
Excellent work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


### Comments by Brianann MacAmhlaidh
There appear to be a few original research and synth problems. For example the paragraph on Skivick.

It is thought that Skivick /skɪvɪk/, the local name for the extant section of structure visible on Wheeldale Moor,[41] could derive from the Old Norse skeið or skaj, meaning a track or course[31] and vík, meaning an inlet or bay[32] or nook between hills.[41] An alternative derivation could be from the surname Skivik, which is common in Norway.[61] Either derivation suggests that the name may have been given to the area or the structure some time during or after the Viking era (c. 798 AD[62] to 1085 AD[63]) when Viking peoples migrated to the Yorkshire area.[33]
I don't have access to Ref 41, so I can't verify it. Refs 31 and 32 combine non-reliable Wiktionary entries. Ref 61 is not a reliable source (being a MyHeritage page) and doesn't even show any info about the place name either. Ref 62, a reliable source, just notes two sources recording Viking incursions in 798. Ref 63, a reliable source, doesn't give the date "1085"; and really only concerns the attacks and death of Sweyne Forkbeard and the attacks of Canute shortly afterwards. Ref 33, two reliable sources, cover Viking settlement in England.
So other than Ref 41 (Hayes), none of the other sources appear to have anything to do with the place name at all. So, just give the derivation that Hayes gives. If a reliable source doesn't break the place name Skivick into specific word-elements (skeið, skaj, and vík), don't do it yourself. The unreliable Wiktionary refs need to be removed, and any info you gleaned from them. The surname sentence needs to be removed (unless a reliable source is found). Same goes for the last sentence, since none of its sources actually have anything to do with the place name. Remember, if there are no reliable sources stating when the place name originated, don't string along totally unrelated sources to argue or explain a possible origin.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


### Response by PocklingtonDan
Hi Briannan. Thank you for your comments. I am happy to work with you to address this and any other paragraphs that you have concerns over. Obviously I can only address the single paragraph you mentioned specific problems with, since you have not listed concrete issues with any other paragraphs. I'mnot sure that I agree with you that there are OR/synth problems with this paragraph for the simple reason that every statement is cited and the sources support what I am stating in the article. In particular:
Reference 41 is to Hayes, a copy of which I have. I don't think its particularly reasonable for you to challenge this cite on the grounds that you don't have access to the source. I can by all means provide you with a scanned copy of the relevant page that I can upload to the web somewhere, but I'm confused as to why you are challenging this cite in particular when I imagine that you, and many others, would not have immediate access to many of the cites given, both for this and for most articles on wikipedia? This seems biased against any article using print sources at all. Reference 41 clearly states that the local name for the causeway section on Wheeldale Moor is "The Skivick", and that this derives from meaning a track/course and an inlet or bay via the etymology given. The additional sources 31/32 (including wiktionary) provide additional support for the meanings of skeid and vik, sine Hayes is an archaeologist, not an etymologist. The Hayes paragraph in question is para 8 on p48 and it reads, in full:
"The first element in the name Wheeldale is from the Old English hweal 'a wheel' and is obviously derived from the arc-shaped course of the valley (PNNRY, 131). Rutmoor or Rudmoor is from the Old Norse rotinn and myrr, 'the rotten bog'. The length of the Roman road on Wheeldale Moor is known locally as the Skivick, a name preserved in the Skivick Crag (Ordnance Survey 6 inch), a rocky outcrop overlooking Wheeldale Lodge. The first element may be from the Old Norse skeid 'a track, a racecourse' (EPNS, II, 124) and the second from vik, 'a nook in the hills'."
So I am not breaking Skivick into specific word-elements myself, as per OR/synthesis, the sources do this splitting, and I am just citing the meanings from multiple sources. I don't see a problem here. I have added an additional cite now specifically stating that there is a common link between skeid  place-names and ancient Roman sites. I really think this is a fairly uncontroversial and settled issue.
References 31 and 32 combine multiple references that say the same thing, one of which is wiktionary, but the cite does not depend on you trusting wikitionary, since the same information can be found in the other sources cited too. I would hope that there isn't such paranoia of wikimedia sources that we believe it counts as a "negative" cite that somehow cancels out the worth of the other cites given. And if wikimedia data is not reliable on the grounds of being crowd-sourced, I would question why we are bothering contributing wikipedia content at all? I find this deeply confusing. In any case, since you are the second person to raise this (it was raised int he article's GA review by another reviewer), I have replaced the wikipedia cites with another source now.
Reference 62 is cited purely for the start date of the Viking era, hence its positioning
Reference 63 is supporting 1085 as the end of the ingress of Vikings into England. The reference says "In 1085....England never again suffered a large-scale attack by Scandinavians", which seems pretty clear to me.
Reference 33 cover Viking settlement in England, as you say, and the cite is positioned in the para to support this:
"(c. 798 AD[62] to 1085 AD[63]) when Viking peoples migrated to the Yorkshire area.[33]}}"
To respond to your more general comments:
"If a reliable source doesn't break the place name Skivick into specific word-elements (skeið, skaj, and vík), don't do it yourself."
I'm not doing this myself, this is from Hayes.
"The unreliable Wiktionary refs need to be removed, and any info you gleaned from them."
I still don't understand the hostility to the wiktionary refs, but they have been removed.
"The surname sentence needs to be removed (unless a reliable source is found)."
On what grounds is a website on surnames unreliable as a source on surnames? What kind of source would you prefer? Can you recommend an alternative source on Norwegian and other surnames that you believe is more trustworthy please?
"Same goes for the last sentence, since none of its sources actually have anything to do with the place name."
The last sentence simply states that a Viking name for the structure (which Hayes says it is) must have been given to the structure during or post the known period of Viking settlement in the UK. To suggest otherwise would be original research!!!
As I say I'm happy to provide a scan of the Hayes source if this is the one that you are really questioning? I'm not particularly clear what it is about this paragraph that yourself and another wikipedia reviewer seem to take such exception to. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for quoting Hayes. I see that he derives Skivick from skeid and vik, but doesn't give skaj. Where does skaj come from? The only problem with the word element bit now is that the article attributes this last one to Hayes.
 Done No problem. As I say, i can provide a scan if needed for some greater context. The "skeid/skaj" difference is complicated and I'm not sure that I understand the differences or the derivation. I can certainly remove the mention of skaj if necessary. I believe that it comes from the fact that the Norse (Old Norse) was a plethora of dialects and linked languages (see eg Faroese_language) and that the two words are the same, but stating a derivation from skeid makes more of a supposition that stating a derivation from either skeid or skaj since it presupposes a particular branch of the language. Judging from a couple of sources, skeid/skaj is compared in Svabo's Dictionarium Færoense, but that's not something I have a print copy of or have access to online. It is certainly possible to remove skaj since I cannot find a clear explanation of the difference to use in a cite. Its a pretty uncontroversial position to either remove it or leave it in, its hardly central to the article so I will do this now. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
MyHeritage is a social networking website. It isn't a reliable source. Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. A published book on Scandinavian surnames would be a place to start. A good rule of thumb is that reliable publications tend to be cited by others. If you find a particular surname book in your library, Google it and see how often it turns up in bibliographies in Google Books, or in various theses published online. Unfortunately I don't have access to such a book, or know of one to point you to. Out of curiosity, how does the MyHeritage page associate the surname with the place name?
OK, let me see what I can find in terms of published sources on this. This is certainly not the kind of book I have in my own very limited collection of books! I'll see what my local library or university library can turn up on this. It out to be possible to find some kind of published book on Scandinavian surnames but this is hardly bestseller list stuff, so this may take me a while to dig something out as an alternative source... -PocklingtonDan (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done I had to resolve this by removing the cited source you objected to, as well as the cited statement. I cannot find a more authoritative source for this information. It is a shame to have to remove this information completely for lack of an alternative source, but this is what I have done - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The last sentence is you're own original research. As far as I can tell, no source dates the origin of the place name. All Hayes gives is an etymology (he's not even certain of the first element). You've personally taken his Norse etymology as evidence that the place name dates to the "Viking era", and you've only dated this (debatable) era by cobbling together unrelated sources. It's original research to 'connect the dots' like that. In the end you're the only one who has given the place name a "Viking era" origin or assigned dates to its origin. We can't "suggest" or assume possibilities when our sources don't. See?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done Just to clarify, the last sentence reads:
Either derivation suggests that the name may have been given to the area or the structure some time during or after the Viking era (c. 798 AD[70] to 1085 AD[71]) when Viking peoples migrated to the Yorkshire area
I think I do see what you're saying. so I really need to figure out exactly what it is you're objecting to so that I can figure out how you need me to restructure this. The sentence is realy only stating 3 things:
1. That the use of a Norse name for a UK place may link indicate the name being acquired during or after the Viking era. This seems so obvious to me that it doesn't require a cite. Old Norse existed from approximately the 8th to 13th centuries, so
2. That the Viking era of settlement in the UK was approximately 798 AD to 1085 AD
3. The Viking people migrated to the Yorkshire area
4. 'That the period during which most Viking settlement in the UK was occurring would be the time that a place had the greatest chance of aquiring a Norse name
Is that an accurate summary? I'm just wondering if you're happy with me finding a cite for each of the four claims of the sentence as laid out above or if that would still not satisfy you? You are correct that Hayes doesn't say "the fact the road has a Norse name means it must have been given the Norse name after the Norse language was invented", but surely to god that's incontrovertible? I'm happy to try and reword and qualify this in a sensible way that doesn't involve using weasel words but basically Hayes identifies the name as being Norse (and talks about other nearby local features also being Norse), clearly believes it was given a Norse name by Norse people (the idea it was given a Norse name by someone who didn't speak Norse is identical. Is it really OR or synthesis to then given information on the period when people who spoke Norse are known to have settled in the North York Moors area? After all, this is exactly what Atkin says is happening - that Norse place names are evidence of Viking people naming earlier Roman structures when they come across them. Its very difficult indeed to put Hayes statement into any kind of context without assigning some kind of wider context around his claims. I'm just not sure that I believe that removing any context from around Hayes statement is the most encyclopaedic thing to do, and the context I have put around it is cited and supports what I am saying. I'm not sure that we're getting anywhere with agreeing on this last point. Is there any chance that you can provide either a) a proposed rewording of or alternative to the last sentence that you are happier with or b) a bullet list of all the claims that I am making in the last sentence that you count as OR or synthesis, and then I can look for further cites if needed for each one?
Thanks! -PocklingtonDan (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Aha, I've been readying Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position and Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not and I think I have a clearer idea of what it is that you are objecting to. I will try reworking that paragraph now. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Right, I have reworded the paragraph, removed the sentence you liked the least, put somre more cites in, and tried very hard not to provide any synthesis of facts. What do you make of the revised paragraph? It meets your criteria I think but to me its a lot less clear as a paragraph, I think it feels like it needs some kind of synthesis to tie all the elements together without stepping over into risking claims of original research - PocklingtonDan (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I took a hack at the prose; although I think more could be done, it is looking a bit better now. What can we do with the references? I have never seen such an odd system; the two-layer approach and the use of the Greek alphabet for notes are not calculated to be easy to use. Any suggestions? --John (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(Not expecting to revive this thread, but I'm leaving a note here to explain the forthcoming changes to the article.)
The current system is convoluted, making attribution less clear. On top of this, the Greek letters used in the footnotes section for some reason present as numbers in the body of the article making manual cross-checking much harder. Because the Greek letters are a custom setup and done manually there is room for errors to creep in. For example, I found two footnotes labelled β and the body of the article was only pointing to one.
It's not a small task, but I think the article would be significantly improved by untangling this reference system. While I appreciate that WP:CITEVAR strongly encourages retaining an article's referencing system I think the clarity that an alternative approach would bring means it is worth changing. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

[1][2] Doug Weller talk 14:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to say that Doug Weller appears to be correct that James L Maxim was an amateur. In general I think that this article has issues with the way it takes pre-modern work at face value, even 1965 is almost entirely outdated in the field of British Archeology. We need modern sources that talk about what these historical scholars (both amateur and professional) believed and if there aren't any their opinions are likely undue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Added to that, the 1965 book was published posthumously so Maxim's interpretation (unless the book's editor updated it) is at least 13 years older as he died in 1952. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for that... I had missed what is in hindsight such an obvious detail. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I've removed the description of Maxim as an archaeologist. He's now presented without any descriptor which isn't ideal but will do for now. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've removed mention of Maxim's view as I think it was excessive detail for the point which is that Blackstone Edge isn't Roman, and we have a professional archaeological unit providing that evidence. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this section recounts research priorities outlined in the 2010s, which seems fine.
The second paragraph suggests that OSL dating could be useful, but this seems one step removed from the above as the cited source does not discuss Wade's Causeway. As well as OSL radiocarbon dating of organic surfaces potentially sealed by the feature or further excavation could also provide further dating evidence but these aren't mentioned. I suggest removing the second paragraph. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the image on the right from the article. While Anderson did assist with the excavation, the source (p 23) doesn't indicate how significant it was. Though I don't think there's a policy to guide us, I suggest that the people who instigated the work should be mentioned, and others if they have a significant role. I don't think that's the case with Anderson, though would be happy to be proved wrong. As an alternative it could be mentioned in Anderson's article, especially as it doesn't mention any interest in archaeology. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The 'Legendary interpretations' section contained the text below:

There is some confusion as to whether the name Bel or Bell relates to Wade's wife or his cow. Bulmer refers in 1890 to "[Wade's] wife, Bell" and Young also assigned the name to Wade's wife in 1817. Hayes (1964) accepts this attribution but antiquarian Hilda Ellis Davidson believes that the folkloric Bel refers to Wade's cow and reflects an earlier tradition of the "fairy" or bountiful cow. The earliest published source of the legend, from 1779, is ambiguous and refers to "Bell Wade's cow".
It was presented without explaining how Bel fits into the narrative. The legend was recounted without mentioning this name, so the sudden introduction is a bit surprising and doesn't serve to explain a point for the reader.
The same section had a subsection on the derivation of the name Bel:

There have been too few published studies on the etymology of the figure of Wade's Bel (whether that refers to his milkmaid wife or the cow) to provide a firm etymological or mythological basis. Wade is firmly rooted in Germanic mythology, and there are parallels between Wade's cow/milkmaid wife Bel and the milkmaid figure of Beyla in Norse mythology, who some authorities have suggested derives etymologically from baula, meaning cow. There is no published work suggesting such a link, so the origin of the figure remains unproven.
The final sentence sounds very much like original research. As the legend has been explained without mentioning Bel by name, addressing the confusion about whether the name refers to Wade's wife or his cow is unnecessary as is the etymology. As such, I've removed both passages but am leaving them here for future reference. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the following material as it appears to be original research.

The structure's average width of approximately 5.1 metres (17 ft) plus 1 metre (3.3 ft) wide lateral ditches flanking either side matches closely to the width of other Roman roads in Britain (e.g. Stanegate at 6.7 metres (22 ft)) as well as to the average of 7 metres (23 ft) for Roman roads internationally;
My conclusion is preliminary as I don't have full access to Grinsell's 1958 book, but a search of the snippet view on Google Book doesn't show any mention of Wade's causeway. It appears that the comparison has not been made by the cited sources. Comparing dimensions to see if the road is typical of Roman design is valid, but the text seems to push it. 5.1m is not close to the one example given. The article on Stane Street states that the average width of Roman roads in Britain is 6.51m but I haven’t been able to access the source. In any case, that is a still substantially different to 5.1m.
As the sources do not seem to make the comparison, I believe that doing so in a Wikipedia article constitutes original research as the purpose is to support the argument that Wade's Causeway was a Roman road. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Codrington, Thomas (1903). Roman Roads In Britain. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
Grinsell, Leslie (1958). The Archaeology of Wessex. Methuen. ISBN 0-416-60180-4. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)