Talk:Salisbury/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name

Sarum not 'original' name

The article says that the Normans built a castle and called it Sarum. This is not correct. The name Sarum is a corruption of the name Sarisberia, Sarrisbirie, or some similar form, used by medieval scribes. The first recorded use of the actual word "Sarum" is on the first seal of St. Nicholas's Hospital in use in 1239.

Demonym: Sarumite ... Provide references

There should be a documented use of this seemly unsubstantiated neologism, or it should be removed. The only other reference to it on the entire of the World Wide Web uses the identical wording in definition, down to the key stroke – as it's on a mirror site – and was seen first here before anywhere else. Christian Gregory (talk • contribs) 08:06, 6 October 2006.

Well there a pretty good online reference to substantiate the claim from Wiltshire County Council. However, it only confirms that 'Sarumite' was being used by The Salisbury Times to describe a resident of Salisbury in the first half of the 20th century. More generally it concludes that the correct term to use today is 'Salisburian', although they don't seem entirely comfortable with that conclusion.

To be honest I can find a number of other web pages using the term Sarumite in this context, but I would still tend to agree that the article should be changed to say 'Salisburian' with a note about the archaic use. In fact it would probably be a good idea to move all the discussion of New Sarum down the page a little in order to tidy up the lead para and keep it focused. -- Solipsist 09:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have only ever heard Sarumite used. Where is Salisburian used to define someone from Salisbury? It sounds like a more modern invented work to be honest. Mallanox 10:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Same reference. For Salisburian they are citing the Salisbury Times and South Wilts Gazette. Mind you all their citations appear to be from local newspapers published around 1914 and more recently the internet, so their conclusions are open to question, but they are looking to advise the OED.

The current Google hits would;

• 449 - Salisburian
• 329 - Salisburian & Salisbury
• 1360 - Sarumite - but most are not obviously related to Salisbury
• 49 - Sarumite & Salisbury - and many are Wikipedia mirrors, but its not a particularly fair test either

So that's somewhat inconclusive, except to say that neither term seems particularly popular. There is something of a bias in favour of Salisburian, based on the quality of the linked articles and the difference when Salisbury is also included in the search. -- Solipsist 11:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be very wary of looking this up on the net. Given how many Salisbury's there are in the world, Salisburian could easily be in general use for one of them. I've lived in the city for 28 years and have never heard the word Salisburian. Sarumite clearly stems for the classic name, Sarum. I will have a look in Salisbury library, they have the Salisbury Journal on microfilm going back a very long time. Mallanox 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

'Salisburian' is, admittedly, somewhat rare. (For the same reason, I didn't think there was much in the way of merit to adding it in). On Google, ' "Sarumite" +definition' yielded nothing other to this article as late as a month ago, and even now only includes one other reference, simply a Wikipedia mirror. An implication that such an arcane word as 'Sarumite' – or 'Salisburian' for that matter – is currently in popular or common use is inaccurate. Whether in time, either gain currency to the point that they be included in the O.E.D., their omissions back me up. I don't find 'period flavour' a moot point myself. Not when the writer above has lived in Salisbury for 28 years and can say 'I have only ever heard Sarumite used', whereas I could say the same of 'Salisburian' ... although so very rarely that I'd never bother to do. If either enjoyed any real popularity at some period, this comes as news to me. Thank you both for your contributions, and insightful information. Christian Gregory 7 October 2006.

I lived there for 20 years and I never saw or heard either being used. Not a lot of help I know, but it seems an odd reference. 80.43.94.114 23:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Salisbury & Sarum

There appears some disagreement on the relationship between the two names. Here Sarum is listed as a contraction, but I have read elsewhere that Sarum was the orginal name of the town but it was renamed after a local aristocrat named Salis (or something like that) and the name in the Doomesday book reflects that. Could someone shed some light on this? If there's disagreement or two plausible explainations, it should be noted in the article. Josh 17:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The names appear interchangable. For example, visit the cemetary on London Road and you will see a plaque on which the city is referred to as New Sarum. I believe the cemetary is not that old (comparatively). Judging by it's surroundings it probably isn't any older than Victorian. Mallanox 23:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They are interchangable, but that's not what I was really asking about. There is a parargaph in the history section on the names of the town and their relationships to each other, but it's not entirely convincing or clear. The whole business about confusing a Latin contraction seems like speculation. At very least, it needs to be rewritten for the sake of clarity and documented better. Josh 13:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

New Sarum again

The lead mentions the alternative name "New Sarum". It rightly says it is barely used (except in romantic flights and on shop signs), but suggests this is just a sort of counterpoint to Old Sarum.

I am no expert on the city's history, but "New Sarum" appears an official name constantly in the records, or perhaps an official name of the civic organisation; the Borough of New Sarum or the City of New Sarum appear in the London Gazette with more frequency that "Salisbury" (see one example among many.) It is clearly though one of those "only officials use it" names, and that standing would have vanished when the ancient borough was abolished. Nevertheless, it is a valid place name that has been in actual use in the modern period. Howard Alexander (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Burh/Byrig

We've got sources on ~byrig forms of the name, but those are just another case of burh. I think we should ignore or standardize them if it's just times when burh was in the dative case (we don't treat "Caesaris" as another name for Caesar). It could have also been sources using ~byrig to give a plural name, though: Salisburies. In that case, we should keep it...

But I'm at a loss to explain where even one other 'Salisbury' would have been. There's pretty much just this hillfort that was the major settlement at the time. (At the same time, you have the bishop's estate in the bottomland called 'Old Salisburies'... but it was a different and uninhabited place.) — LlywelynII 13:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Pitt Rivers

I have asked for a citation (or more, if it is often) for the stated epithet. His article makes no reference to him being the "father of modern archaeology" Richard Avery (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Notable people

Edward Heath

If no-one can provide a good reason to the contrary I'm going to remove most of the info about his death, funeral and Arundells as it is either repetition or better to be placed on Edward Heath's page. Richard Avery (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Julian Noyce, notable?

I suggest this name is removed from the list of 'notable people' until notability is demonstrated. I wish him well, but one new book a reputation doth not make. Richard Avery (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion has my support. Nev1 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. For a GA further radical pruning, along with turning the retained entries into prose, similar to the section in the GA Southampton, would be needed. The GA Bristol has no such section, and they are magnets for weak 'me-too' additions, especially when in list form. I've added a comment to discourage 'drive-by' additions and facilitate their removal. William Avery (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Remove the whole section and I'll be happy. --Bob Re-born (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can't do it to make just you happy Bob :-), get a few more and we'll zap it. Richard Avery (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections I shall remove it shortly. William Avery (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

History

There's more (and more sourcing) at Old Sarum, Old Sarum Cathedral, and at the pages of the Bishops and Deans of Salisbury. — LlywelynII 09:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Some other sources:

• Much more at the James Easton book provided, including the price of a cow in the 15th c., the time 14 persons were thrown over Fisherton Bridge and the plumber cooked lamb on the cathedral spire, the burning of divers heretics, royal visits, other plagues, &c.;
• More on a 17th century 'witch' in the city here (from the POV of someone arguing for her guilt);
• Works by Henry Hatcher and Peter Hall;
• This page, in particular, has a map of the street plan of the 13th century city.

 — LlywelynII 10:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Notable residents

There appears to be some regrowth of this weed following the pruning and eradication in 2011. I propose the recent list be extinguished before it gets out of hand. Richard Avery (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

My opinion hasn't changed since I last delivered the coup de grâce William Avery (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

gone. William Avery (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Neighbouring areas of Salisbury"

This section is inaccurate and thus not helpful. opinions please regarding its removal. Richard Avery (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Support removal. A list of surrounding places was recently added under Geography, which would benefit from grouping by compass direction. Wire723 (talk)