Talk:Penrith, Cumbria

Archaeology

The church yard has some (possibly early Anglo-Saxon) standing stones in it, known now as the "Giant's Thumb" and "Giant's Grave"

I wonder at the legitimacy of saying 'possibly early Anglo-Saxon'. I will remove this, not that I'm an authority, but I do know that Anglo-Saxon as a cultural element was very late coming to Cumbria, possibly about 10th century, and as such could not be 'early' Anglo-Saxon (more likely just Angle?) unless these people were invited into the kingdom to dwell, which I doubt. Enzedbrit 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is one reference and it cannot be correct. For a start, the Angles came to northern Britain, and in Cumbria, they arrived much later than the Teutonic invasion. Dates do not fit. Enzedbrit 06:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, why would Saxons, who we accept as residing in the south, erect a monument in the north, beyond what was taken even as Angle territory, to a British king? Enzedbrit 22:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the article intends to mean "Anglo-Saxon" since as you state, the more "Saxon" areas were in southern England. The wide consensus is though, that whatever level of Anglo-Saxon settlement, it was varied across most of England, including Cumbria, but more intense throughout the east of England, from Northumbria all the way down to Sussex. It needs to be noted that Rheged (and therefore including Cumbria) was annexed by the Anglian Kingdom of Northumbria by the middle of the 8th century, so the cross could very likely be an Anglian (or Anglo-Saxon) cross. Ciao, Epf 00:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Doubt it: http://www.visitcumbria.com/pen/chp2.htm - I'll take this over someone's blog. Enzedbrit 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, thats an excellent site that you referenced, the photos are quite detailed. Turns out you're quite right, "Giant's Thumb" is in fact a Norse cross, although it appears there are still many Anglian crosses elsewhere in Cumbria, the finest example being at St. Cuthbert's in Bewcastle. Ciao, Epf 02:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dialect

The article says: "The Penrith dialect known as Penrithian, is a diasystem of the Cumbrian dialect spoken around the Penrith and Eden district area" but this use of "diasystem" doesn't seem to match up with the Wikipedia entry for diasystem. Also, is Penrithian a dialect or an accent? Northernhenge (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's quite amazing that the article doesn't mention anything about the massive Viking and Scandinavian impact on the dialect and history, both cultural and genetically. Look at this documentary from 3.30 and onward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C9c_dEhzbE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.52.190 (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Unparished area

Penrith is certainly not the least populated unparished area in England. There are numerous examples with smaller populations, including Longdendale, Riddings, Audenshaw and Wardle, to name just four. I have deleted the comment, which was uncited. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Genetics

It seems to me that this piece should mention the fact that Penrith had the highest levels of haplogroup R1a1 of any place tested in the British Isles in the landmark study conducted by Capelli et. al, "A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles." Penrith's rate of R1a1 was estimated at some eight percent by Capelli, and was seen as an indication of the heavy Scandinavian influence in the area, which boasts other signs of Scandinavian settlement like hogback tombstones, archaeological remains and linguistic traces in place names. MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (November 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Result:Consensus that Penrith, Cumbria it cannot be established as the WP:PRIMARY use of the term Penrith and that while Penrith New South Wales has a marginal claim to being the primary topic it isnt sufficiently self evident as such Penrith should remain as a disambiguation page. Gnangarra 13:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Penrith, Cumbria → Penrith — Clearly the prime topic, check the google results. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 21:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. When the page was previously moved to that title, I found a significant number of incorrect incoming links to it (as was pointed out to you on your talk page shortly after you made an undiscussed move), in addition to incorrect categorisation based on the "People from.." category not including the disambiguator. Retaining the Cumbria disambiguator makes it easier for editors to ensure that links are correctly directed, and this benefits readers by making it more likely that they will be taken to the correct article when clicking on a link. I have to add that based on my experience disambiguating the incoming links to Penrith, that I am not at all convinced that the English town is a clear primary topic. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Does Penrith, Cumbria not give it's name to the other Penrith, therefore being the source of the word Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 22:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: You can't support your own nomination. Bidgee (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not a vote Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 20:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Did I say it was? Trying to support your own nomination twice is a big no no on Wiki. Bidgee (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Just because the UK originates many names, doesn't mean that the UK gets to be primary just because it was first. Your google search is highly biased, in that it uses Google UK results, not Google Australia results. My Google Search clearly shows that AUSTRALIA is primary [1] ... 76.66.194.212 (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Both Penrith's (Cumbria and New South Wales) are just as notable to each other and Google US (no UK or AU bias) results proves that is the case. Bidgee (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty obvious that it's not the primary topic; no problem with having them both disambiguated. Frickeg (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jenks24 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I meant that neither Penrith is the primary topic, so they should both be disambiguated. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Multiple notable articles rely on same name, no primary topic. WWGB (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose both Penriths have aruably equivalent claims to primacy and so we should follow normal Wikipedia practice in such cases and pre-disambiguate each town's entry and "Penrith" should remain a disambiguation page. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - something of a pile-on, but neither Penrith meets primarytopic guideline criteria. Disambiguation is surely better in this case. Euryalus (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Both are regional centres for a surrounding area - a closely-populated rural area of ~60,000 in the Cumbrian case, an urban area of ~200,000 in the Sydney case. Both have representative sporting teams and would be known outside their immediate area. They are about equivalent on this basis (I'd argue NSW is slightly bigger and more notable, but not so much so that it would assume primacy) so leaving both disambiguated seems to make the most sense. Orderinchaos 12:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose; whilst it's plausible that a UK google search returns more results for the Penrith in the UK, that may not be the best test of notability. Since there are multiple Penriths on Wikipedia and this one has a smaller population by a factor of 10 or so, this Penrith clearly doesn't have the primacy required by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Wikipedia policy - and common sense - should give little weight to article naming arguments based on the inheritance of names. bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Penrith in Cumbria may be a bit smaller than the other Penrith but it is a major junction (on junction 40 of the M6 motorway), for the A66 road. It is signposted everywhere, while the other Penrith is just a suburb as it states on the disambiguation page Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 20:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  The Penrith in Australia has a nearby motorway, too, which is not surprising considering its much greater importance and population. However, access to a major road carries little weight in Wikipedia policy. bobrayner (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - Crouch, Swale, you've nominated and then supported twice! I hope the closing admin has a word with you about discussion etiquette. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

noted, my next stop Gnangarra 13:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (December 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedy Decline as WP:POINT. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Penrith, Cumbria → Penrith — This a separate town, a very important primary route destination, while the other Penrith may be bigger but is just a suburb.

An example of how minor the importance of a suburb can be would be Chantry, Suffolk (population approximately 60,000, was around 30,000 before the new estates were built) 1 which only had 1 internal link leading to it until it was created a few months ago (now it has 7) 1.

Also Chantry, Suffolk gets 137 hits while Penrith, Cumbria gets 3936. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 14:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• And Penrith, Cumbria gives it's name to the other Penrith. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 14:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons given so recently in the previous move discussion, immediately above this. DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • What's you responce to my comments above in this section about Chantry, Suffolk. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I did not and do not see any relevance. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Crouch, Swale, what part of editing by consensus do you not understand? Nobody has supported your proposal.--Charles (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notable people

May also note Chris Dale (1962-2011):

Chris Dale was a 198-centimetre-tall mountaineer with a passion for solo climbs among the hardest peaks of Scotland, Wales and the Alps. He was also an equally enthusiastic cross-dresser who went by the name of Crystal.

And more, identifying him as born in "Penrith, England": Daily Telegraph (London), 3 March 2011 --Rofish (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

He needs to have his own WP page to be classed as notable, and seems as if he would qualify for one.--Charles (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Toponymy

I have rewritten the section on toponymy, as the existing information cited no sources and contained a lot of opinion and evident guesswork in contradiction of Wikipedia's rules. The original is quoted below:

The name Penrith is Cumbric, the British language spoken in Cumbria and Lancashire until about the 11th century. However, there is a great deal of debate over the meaning of the name Penrith. There are two main strands of opinion. One is that the name comes from the word for "chief ford"; the other is that it means "red hill". It is much more likely that the second theory is the correct one. The main problem with the "chief ford" theory is twofold; first, the nearest ford is located more than a mile away from the original settlement heart of Penrith. Second, the name does not match known Celtic syntax. Celtic languages nearly always used "reversed word order" in place names. That is, the generic term precedes the specific identifier. For Penrith to mean "chief ford" would require the Cumbrians to have abandoned this naming strategy as the place name elements "pen" and "rhyd" are in the order one would see them in English.

The second theory of "red hill" is much more likely. First, it respects the syntax - "hill red". Second, it respects the first principle of toponymy. That is, it identifies what is there at the site (the red sandstone of Beacon Hill) and not a location some distance away. The name "red hill" also gains support from other evidence. The modern Welsh name for Penrith is Penrhudd. This also means "red hill" and is pronounced almost the same, albeit with the voiced eth (ð) sound of "bathe": [pɛnˈr̥ɨːð]. There is a village near to Penrith named Penruddock which is accepted to be a Cumbric name and to mean "little red hill" (pen + rhudd + og), Furthermore, there is an area between Penrith and Penruddock that is still named Redhills.

The problems with this section are identified as:

• "great deal of debate" - evidence?
• "It is much more likely that the second theory is the correct one" - according to whom?
• "the nearest ford is located more than a mile away from the original settlement heart of Penrith" - what evidence is there for the location of the original settlement? The medieval town may not have developed in the same location as the original settlement. The course of the River Eamont may also have moved since the early middle ages. In addition, if the purpose of the original settlement was to control the crossing of the river, it would not necessarily have developed on the river itself - site away from the river might have been preferable to avoid flooding. In any case, since the name doesn't make reference to a settlement, it describes a landscape feature, there's no reason to assume per se that the location of the settlement at any time had any baring on its derivation.
• "the name does not match Celtic syntax... English" - this is confused and arrives at a false conclusion. Brythonic place names may consist of: (A) improper compounds, in which the 'normal' word order of noun + adjective is used, or (B) proper compounds, in which the 'reverse' order (adj + noun) is used. Examples of both types can be seen in Welsh and supposedly Cumbric names: eg. (A) Glendue 'glen + black', Nanmor 'valley + large' vs. Culgaith 'narrow + wood', Glascoed 'green + wood'. The assertion that Celtic languages 'nearly always' use proper compounds is therefore false, and the actual word order of Celtic languages has been confused. Penrith, if meaning 'chief ford', IS an example of a proper compound with the 'reverse' word order so the author's dismissal of it on these grounds is unfounded.
• "respects the syntax" - the author's theories about Celtic syntax have already been shown to be false. If they were true, a derivation from 'red hill' would be in defiance.
• "respects the first principle of toponymy..." - where is this set out as a principle? There are numerous examples of place names moving or being transferred. The name Brough was used to refer to three separate villages in the Eden valley but was original to only one. London was also used for several ancient settlements in the general vicinity of Roman Londonion. The town of Windermere isn't actually on the Lake from which it takes its name.
• "Welsh names for Penrith is Penrhudd" - evidence? Is this a genuine survival or a late phonetic or learned development?
• "is pronounced the same" - the modern Welsh pronunciation of penrhudd is irrelevant to the discussion of a medieval Cumbric name.
• "Penruddock" - the derivation of Penruddock itself is open to dispute. Ekwall says 'the second element is obscure'.

Psammead (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

CCHT external link

This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take several years to do). Laplacemat (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Winter Droving

@Thomas.W: @85.189.154.147: The Winter Droving may in itself lack significance for inclusion in the article but it is referenced in the Community Plan and is presumably supported by the BID so could be included under economy or an arts section. I see that in this edit, Thomas.W (talk · contribs) reverted 85.189.154.147 (talk · contribs)'s edit adding the description so I haven't added anything yet myself but I think it merits discussion. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Northernhenge: Then find reliable independent sources for it, such as newspaper articles. The edit I reverted was plain promotion, sourced only to the organisation/organisers, with Eden Arts too prominently mentioned, and inappropriate inline external links to both winterdroving.uk and edenarts.co.uk (masquerading as references without being real/valid references...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Penrith, Cumbria. 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/20141008081047/http://www.roman-britain.org/places/voreda.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/places/voreda.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013213934/http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/news/1.253132 to http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/news/1.253132
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110109072019/http://www.eden.gov.uk/your-council/communicating-with-the-public/media-releases/media-releases-2010/new-squares-proposal-gets-go-ahead/ to http://www.eden.gov.uk/your-council/communicating-with-the-public/media-releases/media-releases-2010/new-squares-proposal-gets-go-ahead/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206164520/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/extremes/monthly_temperature_country.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/extremes/monthly_temperature_country.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612193052/http://eden.gov.uk/main.asp?page=1686 to http://www.eden.gov.uk/main.asp?page=1686
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806015543/http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.6648&lon=-2.7548&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF to http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.6648&lon=-2.7548&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF

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) 19:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Penrith, Cumbria. 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/20081121233506/http://www.penrithnewsquares.co.uk/ to http://www.penrithnewsquares.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324011228/http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/news/king-kong-sculpture-soon-to-tower-over-cumbrian-saturday-market-1.803980 to http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/news/king-kong-sculpture-soon-to-tower-over-cumbrian-saturday-market-1.803980

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) 12:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Citations needed box

The citations needed box dated December 2007, this can now be removed, as the article now appears to have suitable citations.

Devokewater 15:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

2023 changes to Local Government

A date change is necessary - 'The first elections to the new authority will take place in May 2022.'

Came across [Penrith boundary war begins as town is officially placed 'in wrong county' after decades (msn.com)] - a relevant reference? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the language to put 2022 in the past. The source for the "campaign" only seems to mention one petitioner so (just my personal view) I've left it alone. --Northernhenge (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes 'a passing mention on the talk page' (and see what happens) is the most appropriate course of action. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)