Talk:Bressay

Shetlopedia - The Shetland Encyclopaedia

I can see no reason for reverting my picture change, and deleting the new picture. ?????
I thought it made sense to use the best picture we had of the lighthouse as an illustration, and as the heritage centre is mentioned in the article text it made sense to add.
Just wasting my time as usual.
Robbie 00:59, 22 July 2008 (MDT)

Was that me? sincere apologies, I don't know how that happened. I was trying to change the text. Brian 01:10, 22 July 2008 (MDT)

I see no reason to delete either the pictures or the information about the Hanseatics,,as long as there are many references to Hanseatic activity on Bressay !
--Oddrun 03:08, 22 July 2008 (MDT)

What I deleted was stuff about a mythical Danish settlement on Bressay! Brian 04:10, 22 July 2008 (MDT)

Well, as long as it says "probably", it should be there. It must be for
some reason that the place is marked so on the map...A lot of our history are myths, very few things has been written down at the moment it happened...we can't delete the whole Bible, or Snorri Sturlason's "Heimskringla", as a couple of exsamples, because it is myts and stories told from one person to another through generations, until someone wrote it down...There is always something behind a myth, we will never know exactly what happened..so let myts be, as long as it not states that it IS a fact
PS: When you edit something, preview it before saving, then you will see if you have altered more than you intended to do, like the picured on this page.!
--Oddrun 04:50, 22 July 2008 (MDT)

I once met a gent who thought that the name 'Aith' in Bressay proved the presence in the isle of Celtic gods (because of an etymological theory he had). MaybThe question is: do we want to record someone's wishful thinking, or stick to facts? My view is that this name on the Dutch map is probably a corruption of Cullingsbrough. Much more likely than the notion that Danish fishermen - not otherwise recorded - were settling there! Brian 06:12, 22 July 2008 (MDT)

Well then, why not add something like: "or that could be a osv.....We always have to be open about possibilities,,,,And why could not some Danes settle in Shetland,,Norwegians have.....Germans have, ,,,,I can really not see any "whisful thinking" about it!
--Oddrun 09:07, 22 July 2008 (MDT)

I am thinking of updating Maryfield House to suggest that Mary Queen of Scots probably languished there at some stage. Brian

With all due respect, Brian, you are about to cross a borderline again..Jokes are OK, but bullshit is not tolerated !!
--Oddrun 09:25, 22 July 2008 (MDT)

I'm afraid bullshit is tolerated. That is my point. Brian 09:29, 22 July 2008 (MDT)

This is the end of this discussion from my side, I have said what I mean !--Oddrun 09:34, 22 July 2008 (MDT)

My tippens worth, for whatever use it is, and to get back to the question posed by Brian, "MaybThe question is: do we want to record someone's wishful thinking, or stick to facts?" As I read the contentious paragraph on the page, the presence of German traders on Bressay is a fact not is dispute, nor is the existence of a map which shows a settlement on the north coast of Bressay named "Arentsburgh" a fact in dispute.

To me, simply deleting the reference to the map with the "Arentsburgh" name on it, is to deny facts. The map is there, with that name on it, it deserves to be recorded as such to provide a fully factual overview of the island. What is open to debate, and probably always will be, is what the name means, stands for, and why the place that's marked by it was called that on it.

The theory on the page is simply supposition, that as German traders were known in the area, and as many of them originated from an area in Germany relatively close to a castle and town of 'Ahrensburg', that the names may in some way be connected. I don't think that's an unreasonable speculation.

It may well be that "Arentsburgh" does refer to Cullingsbrough, and is corruption, or indeed may have been what German/Dutch individuals renamed Cullingsbrough as for their own purposes. Again all are pure supposition though. The point is, there are no facts whatsoever to back up any one possible meaning of the name, therefore all plausible explanations for the name deserve an equally fair hearing. Deleting one supposition for it and replacing it by another is simply out of the frying pan and in to the fire..

I'd say you have to choose to go one of two ways, either simply state a Dutch map exists with a settlement named as "Arentsburgh" marked, of which nothing whatsoever is known. Or, you need to try and offer the most likely possible explanation(s) for the name. A castle and town of an almost identical name close to where numerous individuals who are known to have been in that area of Bressay at the time, had themselves originated from, and they may have renamed an existing settlement, seems quite plausible. That the name possibly refers to what we now know as 'Cullingsbrough', too, is equally plausible.

To be blunt, from where I'm sitting, supposing "Arentsburgh" is a corruption of "Cullingsbrough" without any proof, is no less bullshit than supposing "Arentsburgh" is the name German traders from near 'Ahrensburg' in Germany chose, for reasons best known to them, to give to a part of Bressay, without any proof that that was the case either.

Ghostrider 10:35, 22 July 2008 (MDT)