A fact from Moot hill appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Due recent edits, the article now begins "Moot hills in Scotland". Why is this? There are moot hills elsewhere in Great Britain. Surely the intro should be generic and the the material that is specific to Scotland should be in the Scotland section? (Recognising of course that the concept became far more developed and lasted longer in Scotland). -- John Maynard Friedman 12:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys. Mote is the Scots term & Moot is the generic term used by Scottish Authors, archaeologists, etc. Let me know if I am wrong. Rosser 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have begun adding Google Earth coordinates for all these, will try to finish before the ennui sets in Cosnahang 12:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Thats great. I was having problems with Flashearth. Rosser 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Rosser for the encouragement. I am just doing this in my breaks at work (my home PC is too old for Google Earth! Thanks also for the local Authority bits. Mostly I am takig the National Grid Coordinates (NX000999) and putting them into http://www.nearby.org.uk/coord.cgi to swap them into lat & long. Cosnahang 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cosnahang. I tried to add a few co-ordinates. I used the Flashearth co-ordinates - are they just less accurate or am I getting it all wrong? Rosser 10:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I have not tried those ones, I just use the Wikipedia template:coord standard Cosnahang 12:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This section (and it was presented as a main section, not as a subsection) seems completely irrelevant to a discussion of moot hills, so I am removing it here.
If it actually serves some purpose in this article, please splice it where it belongs. 71.204.204.249 12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just a bit of Scottish pride. Seemed harmless enough. Rosser 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
References
The section on Baronies seems to go on a bit long, and contains info that would be more relevant to an article on baronial titles or estates. It's not irrelevant here, but I'm not sure that so much info is required for an understanding of moot hills and their purpose.
In particular, the following passage is a verbatim copy-and-paste from the cited source ( http://www.scotsgenealogy.com/online/baronage_of_scotland.htm). It's the tenth paragraph down from the top of the page of that article, after the subtitle, "The Barony":
I'm fairly sure that a freeform etymology of "baron" like this is actually irrelevant to the article, but I'll leave it to someone else to make the decision to remove or rewrite. 71.204.204.249 12:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
What a lot of cut & paste! Baronies were central to the pit & gallows & thus the moot hills.
I usually enjoy the process of editing by others when one of my articles appears on DYK. Do I get the idea that I should read and then rewrite sections from other sources completely? They are given a reference. No attempt is made to hide their origin. Rosser 20:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This page has lots of citations; and some of those citations include links to external websites. Following those links, we can immediately see that many phrases, sentences, and whole paragraphs of this article are direct plagarism from those websites.
Of course, this leads me to wonder about the books and other non-online sources cited— are there other phrases, sentences, and whole paragraphs directly plagarised from them? Quite possibly.
Apart from the copyright / academic honesty concerns raised (which are huge, and obvious), this also greatly takes away from the credibility of the article.
Taken together with its rapid growth to its present length (practically overnight) and the air of false expertise projected by it (as in the following passage, chosen at random: "It is interesting to note that several moot hills were clearly located at sites that were surrounded by water, such as Mugdock, Mound Wood and Court Hill at the Hill of Beith; others may well have been, such as Hutt Knowe. Such inaccessibility would obviously have required the use of a boat or raised walkway.") I can't feel much confidence in something so obviously semi-digested.
I seriously feel that blanking the page and starting over from a stub might be the only way forward. Doops | talk 13:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Come now. Academic dishonesty, blatant violation, semi-digested, lack of credibility, etc. Please, calm down and be sensible. I have had a go at alleviating some of your concerns and I will continue to hone the sections into a more digestible meal. Remember, this is not fiction, this is the assembly of facts which the authors got from other authors in most cases. I usually rewrite or cut out what I don't like, but is hard and a little pointless to rewrite every factual statement. Has someone plagarised you in your professional life recently?
Please give me some links to where Wikipedia denigrates such underhand, cheating, low life, half-baked, deleterious, World destroying behaviour as mine appears to be in your eyes. I will then mend my ways and be born again.
By the way - it is not very academic to get so upset. Stick to the principles you rather long windedly expound on your User Page. It makes one doubt the reasons for your complaints. I think he protests too much! Rosser 10:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I understood these galleries to be deprecated in favour of link to Wiki Commons like this:
Certainly the Ayreshire gallery really breaks the flow of the article and even seems to suggest a natural end. I propose that it be removed in favour of a commons link. How about "Moot hills in Ayreshire" (assuming that there is such a category in Commons - if not, make one. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The incorporation of all these Scottish assembly mounds into the term "moot hill" is not sound. The first reason is that "Moot Hill" is an English term, and though both the "Scots and the Picts" and the "English" has similar institutions, the term Moot is now used by historians in an ethnic way and implies an English institution. The second is that it doesn't give a role to the Comhdhaill (Couthil, Cuthil, etc), which has quite a lot written about it. Almost all of these hills under the Scotland section aren't diagnostically moot hills and shouldn't be in this article. I'd recommend the Scottish material is moved to something like Assembly mounds in Scotland; the author should do this. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thynghowe was an important Danelaw meeting place, located in Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, England. It was lost to history until its rediscovery in 2005-6 by local history enthusiasts. 83.233.193.166 ( talk) 00:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC) http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndare:Halvdan
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Moot hill. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/CustomPages/CustomPage.aspx?PageID=17707{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/CustomPages/CustomPage.aspx?PageID=17707When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The verb ‘meet’ is derived from the noun ‘moot’, not the other way around, via umlaut of the stem vowel triggered by the verb-forming suffix ‘-ian’. Other examples include ‘bleed’ from ‘blood’, ‘gild’ from ‘gold’, and ‘feed’ from ‘food’. I can revise the entry accordingly if that seems a good idea… 73.174.158.102 ( talk) 02:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I removed the partial list of moot hills from the article Moot hall as these are already covered here, with two exceptions: Dagenham and Godalming Hundred. The Dagenham article does not mention the moot. The section Godalming Hundred § Christian era mentions the moot and the location – but not the nature – of its meeting place. If there is additional information available, these hills could be added to this article. Ibadibam ( talk) 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
A fact from Moot hill appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Due recent edits, the article now begins "Moot hills in Scotland". Why is this? There are moot hills elsewhere in Great Britain. Surely the intro should be generic and the the material that is specific to Scotland should be in the Scotland section? (Recognising of course that the concept became far more developed and lasted longer in Scotland). -- John Maynard Friedman 12:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys. Mote is the Scots term & Moot is the generic term used by Scottish Authors, archaeologists, etc. Let me know if I am wrong. Rosser 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have begun adding Google Earth coordinates for all these, will try to finish before the ennui sets in Cosnahang 12:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Thats great. I was having problems with Flashearth. Rosser 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Rosser for the encouragement. I am just doing this in my breaks at work (my home PC is too old for Google Earth! Thanks also for the local Authority bits. Mostly I am takig the National Grid Coordinates (NX000999) and putting them into http://www.nearby.org.uk/coord.cgi to swap them into lat & long. Cosnahang 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cosnahang. I tried to add a few co-ordinates. I used the Flashearth co-ordinates - are they just less accurate or am I getting it all wrong? Rosser 10:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I have not tried those ones, I just use the Wikipedia template:coord standard Cosnahang 12:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This section (and it was presented as a main section, not as a subsection) seems completely irrelevant to a discussion of moot hills, so I am removing it here.
If it actually serves some purpose in this article, please splice it where it belongs. 71.204.204.249 12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just a bit of Scottish pride. Seemed harmless enough. Rosser 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
References
The section on Baronies seems to go on a bit long, and contains info that would be more relevant to an article on baronial titles or estates. It's not irrelevant here, but I'm not sure that so much info is required for an understanding of moot hills and their purpose.
In particular, the following passage is a verbatim copy-and-paste from the cited source ( http://www.scotsgenealogy.com/online/baronage_of_scotland.htm). It's the tenth paragraph down from the top of the page of that article, after the subtitle, "The Barony":
I'm fairly sure that a freeform etymology of "baron" like this is actually irrelevant to the article, but I'll leave it to someone else to make the decision to remove or rewrite. 71.204.204.249 12:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
What a lot of cut & paste! Baronies were central to the pit & gallows & thus the moot hills.
I usually enjoy the process of editing by others when one of my articles appears on DYK. Do I get the idea that I should read and then rewrite sections from other sources completely? They are given a reference. No attempt is made to hide their origin. Rosser 20:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This page has lots of citations; and some of those citations include links to external websites. Following those links, we can immediately see that many phrases, sentences, and whole paragraphs of this article are direct plagarism from those websites.
Of course, this leads me to wonder about the books and other non-online sources cited— are there other phrases, sentences, and whole paragraphs directly plagarised from them? Quite possibly.
Apart from the copyright / academic honesty concerns raised (which are huge, and obvious), this also greatly takes away from the credibility of the article.
Taken together with its rapid growth to its present length (practically overnight) and the air of false expertise projected by it (as in the following passage, chosen at random: "It is interesting to note that several moot hills were clearly located at sites that were surrounded by water, such as Mugdock, Mound Wood and Court Hill at the Hill of Beith; others may well have been, such as Hutt Knowe. Such inaccessibility would obviously have required the use of a boat or raised walkway.") I can't feel much confidence in something so obviously semi-digested.
I seriously feel that blanking the page and starting over from a stub might be the only way forward. Doops | talk 13:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Come now. Academic dishonesty, blatant violation, semi-digested, lack of credibility, etc. Please, calm down and be sensible. I have had a go at alleviating some of your concerns and I will continue to hone the sections into a more digestible meal. Remember, this is not fiction, this is the assembly of facts which the authors got from other authors in most cases. I usually rewrite or cut out what I don't like, but is hard and a little pointless to rewrite every factual statement. Has someone plagarised you in your professional life recently?
Please give me some links to where Wikipedia denigrates such underhand, cheating, low life, half-baked, deleterious, World destroying behaviour as mine appears to be in your eyes. I will then mend my ways and be born again.
By the way - it is not very academic to get so upset. Stick to the principles you rather long windedly expound on your User Page. It makes one doubt the reasons for your complaints. I think he protests too much! Rosser 10:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I understood these galleries to be deprecated in favour of link to Wiki Commons like this:
Certainly the Ayreshire gallery really breaks the flow of the article and even seems to suggest a natural end. I propose that it be removed in favour of a commons link. How about "Moot hills in Ayreshire" (assuming that there is such a category in Commons - if not, make one. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The incorporation of all these Scottish assembly mounds into the term "moot hill" is not sound. The first reason is that "Moot Hill" is an English term, and though both the "Scots and the Picts" and the "English" has similar institutions, the term Moot is now used by historians in an ethnic way and implies an English institution. The second is that it doesn't give a role to the Comhdhaill (Couthil, Cuthil, etc), which has quite a lot written about it. Almost all of these hills under the Scotland section aren't diagnostically moot hills and shouldn't be in this article. I'd recommend the Scottish material is moved to something like Assembly mounds in Scotland; the author should do this. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thynghowe was an important Danelaw meeting place, located in Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, England. It was lost to history until its rediscovery in 2005-6 by local history enthusiasts. 83.233.193.166 ( talk) 00:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC) http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndare:Halvdan
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Moot hill. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/CustomPages/CustomPage.aspx?PageID=17707{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/CustomPages/CustomPage.aspx?PageID=17707When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The verb ‘meet’ is derived from the noun ‘moot’, not the other way around, via umlaut of the stem vowel triggered by the verb-forming suffix ‘-ian’. Other examples include ‘bleed’ from ‘blood’, ‘gild’ from ‘gold’, and ‘feed’ from ‘food’. I can revise the entry accordingly if that seems a good idea… 73.174.158.102 ( talk) 02:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I removed the partial list of moot hills from the article Moot hall as these are already covered here, with two exceptions: Dagenham and Godalming Hundred. The Dagenham article does not mention the moot. The section Godalming Hundred § Christian era mentions the moot and the location – but not the nature – of its meeting place. If there is additional information available, these hills could be added to this article. Ibadibam ( talk) 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)