This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nico Ditch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Nico Ditch is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 23, 2018. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Local History in the Dark Ages is scarce and when sources are found about it, they often come from local historians who have researched the area as a "Labour of love".
Please comment on some of the following:
Mike33 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've gone over the article adding sources and information from those sources and changing the structure structure. There was some stuff that I was unable to find a reference for such as "Nico comes from Noecan the Anglo-Saxon verb to kill". Also the date given in the introduction (890-910) for the construction of the ditch is unreferenced.
More straight foreward is the description of the ditch as being "5 ft (1.5 m) wide and 16 ft (4.8 m) [high]". This seems to be the wrong way round as the information I have is that the ditch is the other way rounf. Furthermore, since the ditch survives in similar dimensions today, I think the reference to Victorian interest is superfluous. I've tagged that sentence as needing a source, but will remove it unless one can be provided.
I don't think the see also section is necessary either. Nev1 23:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
broken link to manchester city council antiquities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.68.141 ( talk) 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a nice article. I think it's well worthy of a GA. Anyone agree? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 14:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
[1] depicts the ditch marker in Platt Fields Park (which I'm going to have to go search for sometime), which says that the ditch is "Described fully in Vol. XXIII of Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society", which might be worth taking a look at. There were also a couple of refs in the article a while ago which have since been removed, namely:
Did these not contain anything of use? Mike Peel ( talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's worth a punt. It's a short article but well written. Given its short length I think we'd get a lot of input from the reviewers at FAC. My only (minor) gripe is I think the Etymology section might be better at the start of the article, but it isn't a big issue. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 19:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking good so far, touch wood, six supports and no opposes. Youre getting an easier ride at FA than I'm getting at bloody GA with [2]! I'll tear the liver out of the next person who tries to tell me that GA is all about the opinion of one reviewer. -- Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
My award for the lowest-importance fa EVER :) Res Mar 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
While looking at the OS's spiffy new map viewer, I happened to spot the line of Nico Ditch (or so the OS thinks), here (joining Haworth and Derbyshire Lane W). Do the sources make much of this? Its right around the corner and simple for me to get a picture, if there is anything visible (discolouration of the grass and such). Parrot of Doom 18:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
"Although no date was established for the ditch's construction, the investigations revealed that the bank to the north of the ditch is of 20th-century origin. Together with the ditch's profile, which is U-shaped rather than the V-shape typically used in military ditches and defences, this suggests that the purpose of the earthwork was to mark a territorial boundary." I don't follow this -- how does the 20th-century origin of the bank help indicate the purpose of the earthwork? Mike Christie (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not undo my corrections. "Hough Moss" no longer exists. It's Ryebank Fields. Look at a map of Manchester. The course of the ditch goes nowhere near Burnage. Again, consult a map. Go out and look, you'll see parts of the ditch in the places I specify(Gorton, Chorlton). The source Vol 23 of the Lancs/Cheshire Antiquarian Society is wrong or out of date. Until you actually go out and look for remnants of the ditch, with respect I don't see how you can correct me. And Carr Ditch is on exactly the same line as the Melland/Platt Fields sections of the Nico Ditch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclegray ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The sources are contemporary maps, and the work I've put in, walking around south Manchester and using my eyes. You're not bothering with the truth? OK, then I'm wasting my time. You have my sympathy. Go out and have a look, you'll see I'm right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclegray ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The most likely origin for Carr Ditch, and the associated north-south alignments, is that they were dug specifically to delineate local boundaries. From the medieval period onwards, mosslands became an increasingly important resource, serving as pasture for cattle and providing peat for fuel. Disputes over their ownership were common, and within otherwise featureless landscapes, ditches provided the easiest means of defining the portions of mosslands held by neighbouring townships of manors. There is no evidence to indicate that Carr Ditch was related to the Nico Ditch system, an enigmatic earthwork of probably early medieval origin that ran from Ashton Moss in the east to Hough Moss in the west.
The continuity of landscape boundaries within the Manchester area, both natural and artificial, was very high. One of the longest-lived boundaries was Nico Ditch, a large earthwork comprising a ditch and possibly a bank that runs from Ashton Moss in the east (SJ 90998) to Hough Moss in Manchester in the west (SJ 8281 9419), and studied fitfully by scholars since the late nineteenth century.
This alignment seems to finish in Urmston at SJ 7829 9504, a point which possibly marks the eastern edge of the moss known as Moorside. A further length of ditch, known as Carr Ditch, runs on a similar alignment west of this point across the main body of the moss but is offset by 60m to the north, suggesting that it is a later extension.
The Nico or Mickle Ditch ran from Ashton under Lyne to Urmston, passing in a curve through Denton, Reddish, Gorton, Levenshulme, Burnage, Rusholme, Fallowfield, Withington, Chorlton-cum-Hardy and Stretford.
Here are some things readers can check: (1) The grid reference/coordinates are way out. Get an OS map of Manchester and see. (2) The use of "Hough Moss" is a giveaway that your source used the Lancs/Cheshire Antiquarian Society as his own source (probably without checking his facts). Hough Moss no longer exists, and again a simple look at a map of Manchester will locate Ryebank Fields just to the east of Longford Park, Stretford. See also Manchester Evening News April 7th 2005, and Oct 1st 2007. (3) Again a look at the map of south Manchester and following the line of the ditch west from Platt Fields will prove that Nico Ditch went nowhere near Burnage. So the BBC site is wrong here. (4) I concede that the Carr Ditch connection is uncertain, but as it followed the Nico Ditch line westward from Platt Fields and Ryebank Fields, it's worth at least a mention. There's a photo from 1927 somewhere on the internet. (5) I could send my photos of the ditch in the Gorton and Chorlton areas - any use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclegray ( talk • contribs) 06:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
So you're not even bothering looking at the maps or Manchester Evening News articles? OK, I won't disturb your cosy little corner of inaccuracies again. The site is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclegray ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
A great deal of effort has been expended since the Victorians first noticed the feature, and more importantly took an interest in its origins. But it should be made clear that no verifiable conclusion has, or can, be reached. In the absence of any contemporaneous mention, and the lack of any extant, unmodified stretch of the Ditch, it's extremely unlikely we'll ever know. Wikipedia in any event does not allow the inclusion of original research. The only sources referred to are of low quality, or refer only to each other, or are purely speculative - as is the result of the GMAU dig. Broadly then, the theories are as follows: 1/. It's defensive. Unlikely, since the labour and time expended would have been better spent fortifying the river crossings on the Mersey. Labour may have been free, but time was often of the essence in safeguarding one's territory from imminent attack. Defending the burgh of Manchester itself would have been more easy and effective by fortifying the marsh islands to its' immediate south, such as what is now Hulme. 2/. It's a boundary marker. Really? The biggest and best marker is the nearby Mersey and its tributaries. The clues in the name, folks. 3/.It's an early attempt to gain extra agricultural value from the mosses, turf-fields and marshes it crossed. Tenuous, especially as we have no record of which land-owner constructed it.
As long as we don't know when, or why, or its' full extent, is made clear - by all means theorise away, as long as that's made clear to the reader. 194.70.181.1 ( talk) 18:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The source you quote above is weak, which sis the whole point 86.12.129.12 ( talk) 11:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The drainage idea does not fit the WP criteria for inclusion, but it is interesting. The path of the ditch appears to follow the natural course of most drainage in the area. The military thesis is unlikely - the manpower needed would exceed known population levels at the time. As far as it being a property marker - the area was of no practical interest to its' major land-owners until the mid-19th century, and was sparsely populated, for obvious reasons, until that time. Therefore the purpose of the ditch is purely speculative on our parts. The phrasing 'more likely' is misleading, as it's no more or less likely - just a possibilty, not even a probability. The sources one would rely on are so weak, and effectively circular in argument, that I think the opening would profit from a clearer statement of our ignorance ! 86.12.129.12 ( talk) 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Tutorial As a proof of concept exercise I have asked Flordian to add a /KML file to Deansgate and added one here. There are many issues. The Map complies with the description in Naming the Ditch, Manchester Area Psychogeographic] but could do with a site visit to finetune some of the locations. THe format of the template may be an issue. I am collecting comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 01:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
We know so little, and what we do know is so unverifiable, and the extant sources go round in circles, that anything other than a physical description seems pointless. There's far too much speculation and favouring of preconceptions in this article. Bastille day leads me to think that this article, like many a French aristocrat, could do with shortening. 193.63.210.2 ( talk) 13:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair point. 212.121.210.45 ( talk) 11:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Stop being a dick. 212.121.210.45 ( talk) 11:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Without wishing to sound like John Michell, has anyone explored the possibility of an arcane ritual or spiritual purpose ? Our ancestors' thought processes are opaque, but if the purpose of similar structures has been divined, might they lend clues ? 212.121.210.45 ( talk) 11:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nico Ditch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Nico Ditch is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 23, 2018. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Local History in the Dark Ages is scarce and when sources are found about it, they often come from local historians who have researched the area as a "Labour of love".
Please comment on some of the following:
Mike33 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've gone over the article adding sources and information from those sources and changing the structure structure. There was some stuff that I was unable to find a reference for such as "Nico comes from Noecan the Anglo-Saxon verb to kill". Also the date given in the introduction (890-910) for the construction of the ditch is unreferenced.
More straight foreward is the description of the ditch as being "5 ft (1.5 m) wide and 16 ft (4.8 m) [high]". This seems to be the wrong way round as the information I have is that the ditch is the other way rounf. Furthermore, since the ditch survives in similar dimensions today, I think the reference to Victorian interest is superfluous. I've tagged that sentence as needing a source, but will remove it unless one can be provided.
I don't think the see also section is necessary either. Nev1 23:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
broken link to manchester city council antiquities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.68.141 ( talk) 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a nice article. I think it's well worthy of a GA. Anyone agree? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 14:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
[1] depicts the ditch marker in Platt Fields Park (which I'm going to have to go search for sometime), which says that the ditch is "Described fully in Vol. XXIII of Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society", which might be worth taking a look at. There were also a couple of refs in the article a while ago which have since been removed, namely:
Did these not contain anything of use? Mike Peel ( talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's worth a punt. It's a short article but well written. Given its short length I think we'd get a lot of input from the reviewers at FAC. My only (minor) gripe is I think the Etymology section might be better at the start of the article, but it isn't a big issue. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 19:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking good so far, touch wood, six supports and no opposes. Youre getting an easier ride at FA than I'm getting at bloody GA with [2]! I'll tear the liver out of the next person who tries to tell me that GA is all about the opinion of one reviewer. -- Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
My award for the lowest-importance fa EVER :) Res Mar 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
While looking at the OS's spiffy new map viewer, I happened to spot the line of Nico Ditch (or so the OS thinks), here (joining Haworth and Derbyshire Lane W). Do the sources make much of this? Its right around the corner and simple for me to get a picture, if there is anything visible (discolouration of the grass and such). Parrot of Doom 18:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
"Although no date was established for the ditch's construction, the investigations revealed that the bank to the north of the ditch is of 20th-century origin. Together with the ditch's profile, which is U-shaped rather than the V-shape typically used in military ditches and defences, this suggests that the purpose of the earthwork was to mark a territorial boundary." I don't follow this -- how does the 20th-century origin of the bank help indicate the purpose of the earthwork? Mike Christie (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not undo my corrections. "Hough Moss" no longer exists. It's Ryebank Fields. Look at a map of Manchester. The course of the ditch goes nowhere near Burnage. Again, consult a map. Go out and look, you'll see parts of the ditch in the places I specify(Gorton, Chorlton). The source Vol 23 of the Lancs/Cheshire Antiquarian Society is wrong or out of date. Until you actually go out and look for remnants of the ditch, with respect I don't see how you can correct me. And Carr Ditch is on exactly the same line as the Melland/Platt Fields sections of the Nico Ditch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclegray ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The sources are contemporary maps, and the work I've put in, walking around south Manchester and using my eyes. You're not bothering with the truth? OK, then I'm wasting my time. You have my sympathy. Go out and have a look, you'll see I'm right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclegray ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The most likely origin for Carr Ditch, and the associated north-south alignments, is that they were dug specifically to delineate local boundaries. From the medieval period onwards, mosslands became an increasingly important resource, serving as pasture for cattle and providing peat for fuel. Disputes over their ownership were common, and within otherwise featureless landscapes, ditches provided the easiest means of defining the portions of mosslands held by neighbouring townships of manors. There is no evidence to indicate that Carr Ditch was related to the Nico Ditch system, an enigmatic earthwork of probably early medieval origin that ran from Ashton Moss in the east to Hough Moss in the west.
The continuity of landscape boundaries within the Manchester area, both natural and artificial, was very high. One of the longest-lived boundaries was Nico Ditch, a large earthwork comprising a ditch and possibly a bank that runs from Ashton Moss in the east (SJ 90998) to Hough Moss in Manchester in the west (SJ 8281 9419), and studied fitfully by scholars since the late nineteenth century.
This alignment seems to finish in Urmston at SJ 7829 9504, a point which possibly marks the eastern edge of the moss known as Moorside. A further length of ditch, known as Carr Ditch, runs on a similar alignment west of this point across the main body of the moss but is offset by 60m to the north, suggesting that it is a later extension.
The Nico or Mickle Ditch ran from Ashton under Lyne to Urmston, passing in a curve through Denton, Reddish, Gorton, Levenshulme, Burnage, Rusholme, Fallowfield, Withington, Chorlton-cum-Hardy and Stretford.
Here are some things readers can check: (1) The grid reference/coordinates are way out. Get an OS map of Manchester and see. (2) The use of "Hough Moss" is a giveaway that your source used the Lancs/Cheshire Antiquarian Society as his own source (probably without checking his facts). Hough Moss no longer exists, and again a simple look at a map of Manchester will locate Ryebank Fields just to the east of Longford Park, Stretford. See also Manchester Evening News April 7th 2005, and Oct 1st 2007. (3) Again a look at the map of south Manchester and following the line of the ditch west from Platt Fields will prove that Nico Ditch went nowhere near Burnage. So the BBC site is wrong here. (4) I concede that the Carr Ditch connection is uncertain, but as it followed the Nico Ditch line westward from Platt Fields and Ryebank Fields, it's worth at least a mention. There's a photo from 1927 somewhere on the internet. (5) I could send my photos of the ditch in the Gorton and Chorlton areas - any use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclegray ( talk • contribs) 06:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
So you're not even bothering looking at the maps or Manchester Evening News articles? OK, I won't disturb your cosy little corner of inaccuracies again. The site is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclegray ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
A great deal of effort has been expended since the Victorians first noticed the feature, and more importantly took an interest in its origins. But it should be made clear that no verifiable conclusion has, or can, be reached. In the absence of any contemporaneous mention, and the lack of any extant, unmodified stretch of the Ditch, it's extremely unlikely we'll ever know. Wikipedia in any event does not allow the inclusion of original research. The only sources referred to are of low quality, or refer only to each other, or are purely speculative - as is the result of the GMAU dig. Broadly then, the theories are as follows: 1/. It's defensive. Unlikely, since the labour and time expended would have been better spent fortifying the river crossings on the Mersey. Labour may have been free, but time was often of the essence in safeguarding one's territory from imminent attack. Defending the burgh of Manchester itself would have been more easy and effective by fortifying the marsh islands to its' immediate south, such as what is now Hulme. 2/. It's a boundary marker. Really? The biggest and best marker is the nearby Mersey and its tributaries. The clues in the name, folks. 3/.It's an early attempt to gain extra agricultural value from the mosses, turf-fields and marshes it crossed. Tenuous, especially as we have no record of which land-owner constructed it.
As long as we don't know when, or why, or its' full extent, is made clear - by all means theorise away, as long as that's made clear to the reader. 194.70.181.1 ( talk) 18:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The source you quote above is weak, which sis the whole point 86.12.129.12 ( talk) 11:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The drainage idea does not fit the WP criteria for inclusion, but it is interesting. The path of the ditch appears to follow the natural course of most drainage in the area. The military thesis is unlikely - the manpower needed would exceed known population levels at the time. As far as it being a property marker - the area was of no practical interest to its' major land-owners until the mid-19th century, and was sparsely populated, for obvious reasons, until that time. Therefore the purpose of the ditch is purely speculative on our parts. The phrasing 'more likely' is misleading, as it's no more or less likely - just a possibilty, not even a probability. The sources one would rely on are so weak, and effectively circular in argument, that I think the opening would profit from a clearer statement of our ignorance ! 86.12.129.12 ( talk) 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Tutorial As a proof of concept exercise I have asked Flordian to add a /KML file to Deansgate and added one here. There are many issues. The Map complies with the description in Naming the Ditch, Manchester Area Psychogeographic] but could do with a site visit to finetune some of the locations. THe format of the template may be an issue. I am collecting comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 01:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
We know so little, and what we do know is so unverifiable, and the extant sources go round in circles, that anything other than a physical description seems pointless. There's far too much speculation and favouring of preconceptions in this article. Bastille day leads me to think that this article, like many a French aristocrat, could do with shortening. 193.63.210.2 ( talk) 13:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair point. 212.121.210.45 ( talk) 11:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Stop being a dick. 212.121.210.45 ( talk) 11:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Without wishing to sound like John Michell, has anyone explored the possibility of an arcane ritual or spiritual purpose ? Our ancestors' thought processes are opaque, but if the purpose of similar structures has been divined, might they lend clues ? 212.121.210.45 ( talk) 11:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)