From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reform Acts[edit]

The page Reform Act of 1832 has links to a number of other Reform Acts: might the one mentioned here be Reform Act of 1884? -- Tarquin

Wales and Berwick Act[edit]

I suppose you could say that Berwick is really part of Scotland, on permanent "loan" to England. (Hence the neccesity of the Wales and Berwick Act 1746.) Doops 05:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Berwick is, at present, not part of England or Scotland. As far as I recall, the Wales and Berwick Act simply states that the laws that have effect in England shall have effect in Berwick. That's not the same as being an integral part of England - at best, it is a semi-intergrated territory. I think this article should be amended to reflect that, although due to my inexperience with wiki-editing, I will not be doing it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:23, 9 October 2005

Why no mention of the massacre of the population of Berwick in the 1290s, this seems a pretty big event for the history section to miss out. Surely this is a disgrace, this event should live in infamy, not be brushed under the carpet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Berwick, Pennsylvania[edit]

Please link to Berwick, Pennsylvania as it is the sister city to Berwick-Upon-Tweed, there is an annual exchange between the two municipalities and a close relationship between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:31, 3 December 2004

This must be an odd place to live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:20, 15 January 2008

Exclamation mark[edit]

I was under the impression that exclamation marks were a Wikipedia no-no, as they don't really give a sense of NPOV. I pretty much always remove them when I see them (except when they're in things like quotes), so I'm surprised that there's dispute on this page.

I'm not sure I see how the use is 'perfectly valid' here, as, like the other examples I've found, it makes Wikipedia look like a informal, jokey encyclopaedia, which of course it isn't. BillyH 13:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think exclamation marks are only for humour? Judging by some of the crap on wikipedia elsewhere, e.g. articles on every aspect of Pokemon, your talents would be better employed in other places. --MacRusgail 16:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the name for a phobia of exclamation marks anyway? --MacRusgail 11:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Literacy. - Mark 14:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. MacRusgail, why have you inserted it back in again? From what I can see, MarkGallagher rewrote the section both to improve the grammar and make it so that an exclamation mark was no longer needed, and to end this (admittedly silly) war once and for all. And now you've put it back in, almost as if you're making a point.
Let's try and get a consensus on this, please. I don't want the page locked because of one punctuation mark. BillyH 15:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd also be pleased if User:MacRusgail would temper his/her remarks on this page. Other wikipedians do not share his/her view; they are not phobic (i.e. suggesting an irrational fear of exclamation marks). Insulting people is never a way of winning arguments, and to date you have failed to set out any rationale for the mark. And whilst their talents undoubtedly are employed to good effect elsewhere on wikipedia, that does not diminish the legitimacy of their concerns in respect of this article. Like four others who have to date been involved, I would prefer not to have the exclamation mark. I think the words speak for themselves. I note that to date two users support the mark. --Tagishsimon (talk)
I am perfectly "literate", thank you, and am well aware that "!" is as valid as a means of punctuation as anything else, particularly when highlighting bizarre situation of allegedly being at war with Russia for a number of decades. That I consider to be worthy of an exclamation mark.
Again, if you think Wikipedia is not "jokey", I suggest you go visit the reams of pages about trash culture, computer games, non-notable popgroups etc etc. You'll find exclamation marks, spelling errors, horrific grammar, and abysmal translation galore out there. --MacRusgail 15:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC) p.s. No personal insults have been tendered.
I'm not going to argue over an exclamation mark (lamest edit war since Lincoln's Darwinist birthday!), but I'd like to point out that you're explicitly referring to poor writing as an example for good writing to follow. I don't think you'll be convincing Mark, Billy, or Tagishsimon with that. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The thing you appear to be missing is that in highlighting [a] bizarre situation you are by your own explanation expressing a point of view. Why not let the readership judge for themselves whether they think a thing is bizarre or not? That is one essence of NPOV. --Tagishsimon (talk)
So you think it is not bizarre for a small town of under twenty thousand to be technically at war with the world's largest state for much of the twentieth century, while the rest of the UK is not? Most people would consider that somewhat bizarre. Or perhaps you consider that normal, perchance. --MacRusgail 15:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC) p.s. Would strongly recommend exercising NPOV tactics on Pokemon articles (please).
You still have not got the hang of this NPOV lark, have you? It is your opinion that it is a bizarre thing. It is your opinion that most people would think it bizarre. It is my opinion that the words should speak for themselves, leaving readers to decide for themselves whether they think it bizarre or not. The use of the exclamation mark imposes your world view on what would otherwise be a neutral treatment of the subject. And that is POV. To answer your question: my views on whether or not it is a bizzare thing are entirely irrelevant. The thrust of your question - what is my opinion of the event - demonstrates your lack of grasp of NPOV. Your repeated allusions to the pokomon articles are completely and utterly irrelevant. Umm. Can we have the fullstop back now, please? --Tagishsimon (talk)
You could have used a few exclamation marks in that one. Here's one if you need it! Unfortunately, the opposite is true as well. By leaving a perfectly valid piece of punctuation out, you effectively claim such a situation is normal. You obviously have a good few "points of view" yourself (anyone who wishes to avoid the vulgarity of exclamation marks should, for consistency's sake, avoid abbreviations too.) --MacRusgail 11:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC) p.s. My repeated allusions to "pokomon" (Pokémon, if you wish to spell it properly) are perfectly valid. You have made general claims about Wikipedia to justify your argument here. The Pokémon articles are also on Wikipedia, and contain all the things I stated.
Sigh. I do indeed have point of view. Unlike you, I try to keep them from article pages and take them out for walks only on talk pages. I do not think I have made general claims about wikipedia, so much as pointed to the NPOV policy. I disagree that "the opposite is true". Lack of opinionated comment does not imply normalcy, merely lack of opinionated comment. The fact that Pokemon articles may be shite does not in any way serve as justification for introducing POV in this article: what a cruddy argument that is. Why are you so opposed to letting the words speak for themselves. Why must you qualify words with your opinion? What's wrong with you? --Tagishsimon (talk)
You still haven't answered the question about whether you think that Russia's "war" with Berwick was somehow normal. If we let "words speak for themselves" we would use no punctuation then we wouldnt know where one sentence began and the next ended and the same goes for exclamation marks MacRusgail 1346 6 October 2005
What difference does it make whether he thinks it's normal or not? I don't think it's normal, but I agree the exclamation mark is inappropriate – especially in the new version. Your comment about other punctuation is not merely twee, it's irrelevant. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, if s/he thinks it's normal, they can get rid of the exclamation mark, if not, then perhaps they ought to ask why it isn't there. --MacRusgail 13:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
You still haven't answered the question about whether you think that Russia's "war" with Berwick was somehow normal. I have. I've told you that that is at the heart of this disagreement - that to have a neutral point of view one avoids inputting one's opinion into the article. Techically, the situation - apparant war with Russia - appears to have arisen. And, err, that's it. I'm quote happy to leave it there and seek to ascribe neither normalcy nor extraordinarines to it. You're wasting our time by deploying fatuous arguments such as a) if we should not have exclamation marks then we should not have any punctuation or b) other articles are crap so we should not take exception in this article. Judging by the debate above, we are not going to change your mind. So looking at the debate and the edit history in the article, I find that 5 people are against the exclamation mark and two people are for it. Will you now have the good grace to give way and allow the exclamation mark to be removed without revertion, or are you going to dictate to the rest of us how this article should be? We've wasteed entirely enough time talking about it. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Just one more against voice. An exclamation mark is punctuation that marks an exclamation and an exclamation is a short, often shouted, complaint or outcry. Stop! Ouch! Shut up! are exclamations. Exclamation marks are not used to highlight odd or bizarre information, a smiley would be better but certainly not encyclopedic. The bizzareness of the 'war' is obvious enough it does not need highlighting with misused punctuation. O.K. I admit it I don't get invited to enough edit wars so I thought I'd try to put this lame one out of its misery. MeltBanana 15:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You'll find plenty of exclamation marks in respectable novels for all the things that you've just claimed they're not used for. Such as longer phrases and sentences. Obviously not very long ones, because that destroys the point, but Faulkner, Hemingway and Norman Mailer certainly used them in the ways you say not to. --MacRusgail 13:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Faulkner, Hemingway and Norman Mailer wrote encyclopedias. Once more: Will you now have the good grace to give way and allow the exclamation mark to be removed without revertion, or are you going to dictate to the rest of us how this article should be? --Tagishsimon (talk)
I used them all as examples of writers of good English. Unlike many of those on Wikipedia. I suggest you set up a wikipedia caucus for the abolition of extraneous and frivolous punctuation. --MacRusgail 18:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. But you did not consider, and throughout this debate appear not to have considered the context of the writing. It is a wee bit arrogant of you to so ostentatiously ignore the question at issue: will you give way on this matter or do you insist on dictating the form of the sentence under consideration? If you would be so good, at the third time of asking, to respond ... it is getting a little difficult to believe you are in good faith in this matter, and whilst it is your prerogative to jerk us around as you see fit, it is more than a little impolite. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I've added the Coat of Arms of Russia to the "at war?" section, because something so momentous as to require an exclamation mark surely cries out for an image. I'd actually thought to draw up some "clash of symbols" graphic, but I couldn't find a symbol for Berwick (apart from the river, which I feel would be inappropriate). Despite the temptation to remove the exclamation mark while I was editing, I've left it in. I suspect it would be best for all concerned if, assuming the offending punctuation is to be removed, it were so done by MacRusgail, and not by Yours Truly. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Come on guys, you can't actually be having an edit war over one tiny exclamation point! The situation with the 'war' being 'bizarre' is POV, pure and simple, and thus if an exclamation point is used to illustrate that bizarreness, then the point itself must be POV. And POV has no place in an encyclopaedia. I have chosen to be bold and remove the exclamation point. - ulayiti (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I for one think that the exclamation point deserves to be left in there. If such a mark should be anywhere, it is in a situation as this. For what is an exclamation point, if not to designate things deserving of exclamation? And certainly this deserves exclamation.
Exactly, if it should be anywhere in a serious encyclopaedia, which shouldn't. - ulayiti (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
If the exclamation mark implies that it is bizarre, and the full stop implies that it is not bizarre, maybe we should invent a new type of punctuation that signifies no emotion whatsoever. But that would be implying that other punctuation marks are not good, wouldn't it(!/.) Damn, it seems we shall never rest. Daniel 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to love wiki. A whole host of individuals visiting this page saying they can't believe there is an argument over an exclamation mark, then proceeding to add thier POV and fuel the arguement. By the way, what is wiki policy on whether it is an axclamation point or exclamation mark? My entirely personal POV is: 1) The exclamtion mark shouldn't be there. 2) It is a mark, not a point. 3) Debates, even as trivial as this one, are an essential part of the value of Wikipedia. It would be better if they were kept civil and avoided buggering about with the main page through sheer cussedness, however. Epeeist smudge 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely if, on Wikipedia, we really needed to call attention to a situation which many people would consider bizarre, you could just write "<whatever it is>, a situation many people would consider bizarre", rather than relying on the vagaries of people's understanding of what an exclamation mark means. But of course we don't need to do that at all. 01:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Forget about it for 5 seconds, will ya? <unsigned comment>

The exclamation mark is inappropriate. Inflection has no place in encyclopedic writing. Let the reader judge what is bizarre. 08:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Correct - and well said, that User! Some people need to go outside, breathe in and out a few times and say "Hello World - what's this Real Life I've read so much about in Wikipedia?" 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've no idea what's going on with this exclamation point row and I'm not getting involved. I just dropped by to say that I've diverted an incorrect redirect away from this article. The article WP:! was created by User:Poiuyt54 (their only edit) on the 18th of October. I've now directed it to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion just as WP:!VOTE is. Strange days... Witty Lama 12:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh my... Did you know that I got to this page from WP:LAME? --Drahcir my talk 01:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • ^-- Yeah, I did too! Ansh666 (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Cleanup Notice[edit]

This notice was on the main page, although it seemed to pointlessly upset the formatting of the page, so I have put it here instead. I assume it refers to the 'Berrick' bit, which seems perfectly acceptable to me.Rob 23:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've put it in IPA. Hopefully I understood the intent of the original author. -- Arthaey 07:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Richard III and Berwick[edit]

Berwick was taken, for the final time, by English forces commanded by Richard in 1482, when he was still duke of Gloucester, not king. Rcpaterson 23:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

see Capture of Berwick (1482).13:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Language of Berwick[edit]

Are we certain that we a) believe b) want the list of local words in this article? Some appear to be common to the north east (e.g. gadgie) and all are unsourced. Might we not be better with a pointer to an article which covers borders dialect - which is what we're really talking about? That said, I guess there is or was a difference between berwick lingo and Jedburgh.

North east of where? The words listed can be found in both Newcastle and Edinburgh in many cases. The language itself is a mixture of the Scots language and the Northumbrian dialect of English. It shouldn't be written off as slang though - this underestimates its great age and usage.--MacRusgail 16:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Good to see it has been deleted today. unreferenced, unverified, mostly cobblers. --Tagishsimon (talk)
That was me. We really don't need to assemble a local dictionary of unreferenced material, much of which is far from being unique to Berwick. --Guinnog 09:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. A load of utter hogwash. I have been in Berwick countless times and have not noticed the locals speaking a language I did not understand. Slang should not be held up as a language, local or otherwise; "great age" means nothing unless it is being claimed that because people spoke badly for long enough that it somehow transforms into a language. English has been the language in Berwick for at least 1000 years. People either speak the Queen's English, or they don't. No excuses for bad speech. David Lauder 10:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Then presumably "hoose" should always be proninced as "hise"?! Dialect and linguistic existence of speech varieties do not depend upon how near or far they are from the way any monarch speaks (otherwise, 18th century English would be "bad Hanovarian".) (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section; it was unencyclopedic, unreferenced and proved to be a cruft-magnet. If anyone feels strongly that it should be re-included, please provide reliable sources. --John 17:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


The article is still very Anglo-centric. The fact that it has been contested by Scots for centuries has largely been written out of it, not to mention the anomalies, or the fact that its true legal status makes it a town which is not fully part of England. Not that the historical legal situation seems to count for much in the eyes of the English council which now runs the area. But then again the "Brits" (if they can be called that) have always been good at putting borders where there were none e.g. Hong Kong, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, or ignoring ones that were already there e.g. Iraq, Palestine, Scotland and Wales.

Also, I think it is worth pointing out that Berwick's position in Scotland was always far more prominent than in England. In England it has been a provincial town, a minor port, and a garrison. In Scotland, it had a mint, was a major port, and a county town. --MacRusgail 16:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

I think your last paragraph is very fair comment (the first a little too political). The simplest thing to do is to source the info you mention and add it it to the page. David Lauder 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the article is Anglo-centric just because it is missing information, jumping the gun? I think a short piece concerning the people of Berwick and their feelings on nationality may be interesting, i have read that the youth feel English while the older residents identify with Scotland. gazh 14:05, 24 Apr 2007 (UTC).

As someone who was born in Northumberland and knows that part of the world extrmely well, I am heartily sick of Scottish Intellectual Expansionism. Berwick has an interesting history that is for certain, but having been to the town many many times, I can tell you at present it thoroughly enjoys being Northumbrian and English. I see no reason other than petty nationalism why anyone would advance that it is somehow Scotland administered by England, as the poster suggests and as much of his former editing wished to make out. The Brits that you speak of (and you are quite correct) contained a disproportionate amount of Scots. Wikipedia is not an appropiate site to make out petty ethnic nationalist claims on neighbouring parcels of land.

"People in Berwick-upon-Tweed have been polled by their local newspaper and a national TV company.

Both results showed a clear preference for a political move north of the Border.

A referendum for ITV1's Tonight programme saw 1,182 voters in favour of becoming part of Scotland and 775 in favour of staying in England.

The programme, to be screenedon Monday, said the poll reflected "concerns" about better services including free personal care for the elderly, better access to new medicines, the absence of upfront university tuition fees, and the promise of free school meals for young children in primary schools.

The findings follow a similar poll on The Berwick Advertiser newspaper website in which 78% said they would like to see the town return north of the border. " (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Easily manipulated dodgy "phone polls" are not reliable academic sources. All the poll reveals is that some people in northern England are fed up of mostly Scottish governing politicians in the Labour Party using England as a meal ticket, while trampling on the rights of the working classes of England itself. Also if you do a google search, you can see actively Scottish SNPers starting threads encouraging Scot-gnats to vote in such polls. Fringe SNPerialism, should be kept in check and purged - not even Salmond himself supports such dodgy claims, its left to loons like Christine Grahame. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed. (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Yorkshirian. "Easily manipulated dodgy "phone polls" are not reliable academic sources." And neither is your interpretation of them. However, the former are more reliable then the latter and should be taken at face value when mentionned in the article (as they ought to be in the culture/society section somewhere). Furthermore, it is fair to say that Berwick was more important as a trading port for Scotland, than it has been for England, and this should be mentionned as well. As for "Fringe SNPers, what makes you think that Berwick residents polled as wanting to join Scotland are SNP supporters? and what is your evidence (dodgy or otherwise... although ITV's tonite is an English based production outside the control of Christine Grahame as far as I can tell!) for your own negative interpretation of the findings? Surely they should be taken at face value unless evidence is offered for why not. (Or do you speak for the whole of the English people?) Cheers (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed clear from that Sky article that a clear majority of Berwickers are in favour of having the sort of unsustainable Celtic spending on them that Scotland enjoys. Who wouldn't, the majority of people in Surrey would similarly vote in large numbers if it meant getting Celtgeld. Nothing conclusive about the identity of Berwickers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


I have added the category "Berwickshire". I hope people don't mind this, I realise it is no longer considered to be in Berwickshire, but it is relevant to it for several reasons, including the fact that the county is named after the town. --MacRusgail 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It was in Scotland as long as it was in England. In addition it is in the Scottish, not the English, football league. David Lauder 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, though, I think it would belong in a "History of Berwickshire" category, if such a thing existed.--Pharos 20:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Was Berwick a separated entity from England and Scotland?[edit]

In 1746 the Wales and Berwick Act (since repealed) was passed, which deemed that whenever legislation referred to England, this encompassed Berwick. The act did not attempt to formally annexe Berwick into England however and no act has yet done so. Berwick remained a county in its own right however, and was not included in Northumberland for Parliamentary purposes until 1885.

According to the current version of the article, it seems that Berwick(-upon-Tweed) was a separated entity not included in both England and Scotland until 1885. Therefore, did the mainland of the Kingdom of Great Britain until 1885 technically consist of England (including Wales and Cornwall), Scotland and Berwick-upon-Tweed? Was Berwick recognized as a separated entity in Great Britain? If it was right, since when? Since the Union of the Crowns? It looks very ambiguous. ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 10:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If it looks very ambiguous it is because the situation was ambiguous. Although it is possible that prior to the Wales and Berwick Act it was technically part of Scotland under English military occupation. PatGallacher 11:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, according to the "Treaty of Perpetual Peace" (National Archives: E 39/92/12) of 1502, England and Scotland agreed that Berwick, a bone of contention for centuries, should belong to neither country and although of England was not in the English kingdom. The position is still complicated today, with Berwick falling within the structures of English local government, but their football team plays in the Scottish League. I am currently in correspondence with the museum there, trying to find chapter and verse on the "at war with Russia" canard, but even with their assistance, authoritative sources are difficult to find. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Want to become part of Scotland[edit]

Current story that they want to become part of Scotland. [1] Been reported on BBC News 24 and the website. Worth a mention? Icecold (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Also to be mentioned is that Berwick Upon Tweed used to be a District, and Wooler was a part of it. Today , Berwick is now one or more postcode areas. Bit strange how it was easy enough to gear all the Districts in Northumberland to one super-county. More strange how it has not been mentioned by the BBC since I do not know when, the fact that they want so and so (please take Wooler with you).-- (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

2014 poll-Berwick votes "yes" [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaelic name[edit]

Why do we include the Gaelic names for Berwick, which differ only by the inclusion of the Tweed? We give the etymology (uncertain but Germanic), and this was never part of the Gaeltacht, but of Northumbria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Auchencrow From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Auchencrow.Auchencrow is a small village in the Scottish Borders by the Lammermuir range of hills.

Its name comes from the Scottish Gaelic Achadh na Craoibhe meaning "Field of the Treis"."

Perhaps because Gaelic was certainly spoken historically by some residents of Berwickshire (of which Berwick was the county town). (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tis the work of greedy hands, they might aswell put gaelic translations for Newcastle, Sunderland and Carlisle. (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Gaelic translation and it will require a source, as far as i am aware (and from the history section of the article) there is no attested history of Gaelic in Berwick. Gazh (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Obviously a dead language with no evidence of anybody speaking it here does not belong in the article. The name itself originates from Norse. I agree with the consensus. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone care to look for any sources that Gaelic has been spoke here? I doubt it. [3] Jeni (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The website you have presented is about North Berwick in Scotland which is miles away, on the banks of the Firth of Forth. What does this website have to do with the topic at hand? - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless Yorkshirian, you miss the point. Bearaig a Deas/South Berwick and Bearaig a Tuath/North Berwick both bore the official names of the Kingdom they were part of's language... namely Scottis/Gaelic and not Inglis/Scots. The Gaelic name for the town is important because it is nearer to the town.s official medieval name than the English one DESPITE the lack of Gaelic speakers presently in Berwick/Abaraig/Bearaig a Deas. (although there are Gaelic speakers and learners in the Border tv region who will enjoy MG Alba when the switcheover takes place in a few months time of course!) (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn google and me not reading. Jeni (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
[4] A search in the local paper implies that gaelic has a certain amount of importance in the area. Common sense (and WP:PRESERVE) dictates that we should be preserving information, rather than remove it on the whim of English who don't like it (for what its worth, I'm also English) Jeni (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Its not about whether people "like it" or not (although the woaded up SNPery which motivates such people to try and insert it is worth keeping in mind), its about whether it is relevent (see, WP:UNDUE) to the article at hand or reliably WP:REFERENCEd. The burden of proof is on those who wish to insert the dubious information into the article. No acamdemic reference has been provided that says 1) it was significantly spoken there (in fact this seems very unlikely 2) nor is a reference given which presents explicitly the translation of the name Berwick upon Tweed. People spoke Latin, Brythonic, Old English and Norse in the area, which is far more significant to the topic than Gaelic, should unreferenced translations in these languages be given in the intro too? - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"During the short activity of the Irish Church from Iona in Northumberland (635-664), the monastery of Melrose was founded by Aedan of Lindisfarne, and the mixed monastery of Coldingham in the time of his successor Fínán. The superiors of these monasteries were Angles, and whatever Irish character they may have had disappeared after 664. Nevertheless, to the influence of Iona must be due the commemorations of Baithene, Columba's successor, in St. Bathans or St. Bothans, the old name of the parish of Yester, 'ecelesia collegiata de Bothanis,' 1448 (RMS), etc., and in Abbey St. Bathans, 'ecelesia sancti Boythani,' 1250. Patrick MacGylboythin of Dumfries signed the Ragman Roll in 1296; his father's name means 'servant, or lad of St. Baithene.'

Kilbucho in Peebles is Kilbevhoc, c. 1200 (Chart. MeIr.) Kylbeuhoc, c. 1200 (Reg. Glas.); Kelbechoc, 1214/49, ib. Kylbocho in Boiamund; Kilbochok, 1376 (Chart. Mort.) Kilbouchow, 1475 (Chart. Hol.). The saint commemorated here is Begha, probably the nun called Begu by Bede, who lived in the time of Aedan of Lindisfarne and of Hilda. She is not mentioned by Irish writers so far as I know, but the termination -oc in her name is the affectionate diminutive common in names of Irish saints ; her connection was with the Church of Northumberland. Gillebechistoun or Killebeccocestun, c. 1200 (Chart. MeIr.) in Eddleston parish, Peebles, means ' the toun of St. Begha's servant '; 'toun' is doubtless for an earlier baile. 'St. Bais wall' (well) at Dunbar, on record in 1603 (RMS) may commemorate 'the very mythical Irish saint Bega, whose name is preserved in St. Bees.'"

Plummer's Bede, vol. fi. p. 248; i. p. 431.

Gaelic was spoken by at least one of the Northumbrian Kings under the influence of Iona on the development of Lindesfarne. English history does not cancel out any Gaelic influence on a region in other words. (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Note - again with the link you've provided on this talk. A quick check reveals no such suggestion as to what you're claiming. The news website of the Berwick Advertiser, which covers news items from all over the UK, mentions the word Gaelic in some articles specifically about Scotland. None at all in articles about Berwick upon Tweed. This is the second time on the talk you've done a quick google search and presented a link without actually reading what you're presenting first. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
*yawns* It'll be important to the town if the local newspaper feels it needs to report on it. Jeni (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm presuming the yawn means that you're still too lazy to bother checking what is in your own link? Again, your link you provided is a selection of search results specifically relating to news articles about Scotland, not a single one of them even mention Berwick upon Tweed and Gaelic in the same source. The newspaper reports news about the United Kingdom in general, including specific sections dedicated to the West Midlands, South West, North West, Yorkshire, Scotland and even Ireland. Getting it yet? - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Under Righ (Medieval Gaelic: Alaxandair mac Alaxandair (Alexander III, born in nearby Rosbrog/Roxburgh) Scottis/Gaelic would still have been an important language in Bearaig/Abaraig, and along with Inglis/English/Early Scots and possibly French and Low German (the language of the Hanse traders throughout the North Sea and East Coast of Britain), spoken and understood by the local inhabitants. (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


Auchencraw is Aldenecraw, 1333 (Bain's Cal.), apparently Gaelic but rather doubtful as to meaning. Aldcambus, in Cockburnspath, now Old Cambus on the Ordnance Survey Map, is Aldcambus, c.,1100 (Lawrie); Aldecambus, 1126, ib.; Aldcambhouse, 1298 (Ragman Roll); Auld Cammos, 1601 (RMS); Old Cammes (Macfarlane). 'Cambus' is doubtless G. camas, old G. cambas, a bend in a river, a bay; Aldcambus is an old parish name, and the ruins of St. Helen's Church there are close to a small bay. The traditional explanation of 'ald' as 'old' is probably right, as in Oldhamstocks, Aldehamstoe, 1127 (Lawrie), the name [139] of the parish adjacent to Cockburnspath on the north. Blanerne is probably bail an fhearna, 'alder stead.' Bogangreen may be for bog an g(h)riain 'gravel bog,' i.e. resting on gravel or near gravel. Bondriech is 'foot of hill face' (drech, dreach). Boon seems to be simply bun, 'bottom, foot.' Cowdenknowes is Coldenknollis, 1559 (Lib. Melr.); Coldunknowes and Coldin- in Blaeu ; here 'Cowden' stands for colltuinn, calltuinn, hazel, as it usually does in Scots; the name is a hybrid, meaning 'hazel knolls.' Dron Hill is dronn, a hump ; compare Dron, a hill in Longforgan parish, Perth; also the name Dumfries. Knock, for cnoc, small hill, occurs in Duns and in Gordon. The Long Latch in Coldingham is 'the long boggy rivulet.' Longformacus, Langeford Makhous, c. 1340 (Johnston), is 'Maccus' longphort,' i.e. encampment or hut, dwelling. Longskelly Rocks, off the coast, contains sgeilig, a reef, as in Sgeilig Mhícheil, 'Michael's reef,' off the coast of Kerry; long may be English or it may be G. long, ship. Poldrait was the name of a croft at Lauder 'between the Kirkmyre and the land called Gibsonisland,' 1501 (RMS); compare 'the land in Hadingtoun called Sanct Androisland in Poildraught' (Ret.); the first part is poll, a pool. or hollow; the second part is probably drochaid, a bridge, causeway, as in Frendraught, Ferendracht in Reg. Arbr., 'bridge land,' Aberdeenshire. Powskein, on a tributary of Cor Water, Tweedhead, is for poll sgine, 'knife pool' ; compare Inber Scéne, 'estuary of the knife,' the old name of the mouth of the Kenmarc River in Ireland, from its resemblance to a knife slash; also Loch Skene, Dunskine. Ross Point, Ayton, is ros, a cape, promontory.

In other words, Gaelic was spoken at least by some of the population in Siorrachd Bhearag/Berwickshire (of which Bearaig a Deas/Berwick upon Tweed, was the county town.) (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Gaelic appears to have been present almost throughout Scotland in one way or another (it would be hard to explain the 'dun' in Dunbar in a way dissimilar to the 'dun' in Dumbarton or Dunfermlin), but for the placenames outside the Highland line it would make more sense to give the Scots name before the Gaelic one, especially when the etymology is not Gaelic. (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

War with Russia[edit]

Ok at the risk of starting something bad (no exclaimation marks please (: ) but I've noticed the lack of citation on the incident. I seem to remember that a copy of the original document was produced in QI, although I would have to obtain a copy of the show from somewhere to be sure.

The question is, is this legend verifiable as either true or false? There appears to be no consensus either way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stui (talkcontribs) 12:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is that the story is utter twaddle, but worthwhile trundling out whenever a passing journalist is ready to be taken in if he shows that the town is worth a visit, which I am sure it is.
To verify this, by all means find a copy of the Declaration of War. Berwick is not mentioned. Neither are Wales, Scotland nor England, as they are all but regions of the United Kingdom, which declared war.
LG02 (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
For "closure" regarding the reference to QI above, it is what brought me to this page: No copy of the declaration of war was produced in QI. (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic Article[edit]

Hello there. Id be grateful if somebody could link the Gaelic article on Berwick to this one. I mean, what with MG Alba coming soon to the town when the analogue to digital switchover takes place in the Border tv region and the recent sentiment regarding rejoining Scotland, Im sure it will be of interest to some residents and other Borderers.

cheers (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Done :) Jeni (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jeni:D (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


Can someone justify the NPOV flag which an anon user has just put on the article? This smacks of disruptive editing. PatGallacher (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

They have also raised the issue at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which seems a little unnecessary. Which sockpuppet could it be? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess the IP is user:IKUW who incorrectly added the tag & category that I recently reverted. Keith D (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is what he says on the noticeboard:-

"I hereby give notice that I dispute the tone of this article as it is bias and shows favour to it being considered Scottish. The current area is ethnically and politically volatile and such tones do not do justice to the disputed territory. Especially since the SNP have claims to this area and are calling for independence no wiki article should take sides or appear to do so at this time until the situation is more settled and the land is settled in either England or Scotland once and for all by due democratic process of the people of Berwick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 11:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)"

It's his prerogative to raise this, although it would have been better if he did so here. What is the disputed category? This is the sort of cryptic comment which does not help discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume that was aimed at me. They were trying to add to a category using [[:Category:NPOV disputes from {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}]] which is not how to put articles in the appropriate category. Keith D (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I've wandered over here from the noticeboard, and I have to say the article doesn't look particularly skewed either way to me. We could perhaps rename the "modern history" section to reflect that it seems to be almost entirely concerned with the geopolitical status of the town, rather than anything that's happened since 1700, but it doesn't seem to be pushing some kind of nationalist or irredentist position. Shimgray | talk | 20:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


The article says the local team plays in the Scottish league because it is closer -logistics. It may be closer but I was always under the impression from the locals I knew that participation in the league was part of them retaining some Scottish identity. Someone who knows Scottish Football League history should cover that section.

Gaelic name[edit]

Why is the Gaelic name still in the article? I know it's been stated that there are places in Berwickshire that perhaps had Gaelic-related origins, but Berwick hasn't been part of Berwickshire since the 15th century and Gaelic certainly isn't relevant in Berwick now. (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


"from 1482 (when Berwick became part of England) to its abolition in 1975, Berwickshire had the unique distinction of being the only county in the British Isles to be named after a town in another country."

County Londonderry? jnestorius(talk) 13:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
County Londonderry is named after Londonderry, which, as I'm sure you're aware, is also in Northern Ireland. JonChappleTalk 21:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Though since the London in the name is from the city of London which IS in another country, the original suggestion is somewhat true, the county can be said to be named for (if not identically to) a city in another country 🍺 Antiqueight confer 23:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

Berwick, south of the river[edit]

The part of the present town which lies south of the river, Tweedmouth and Spittal, was never part of Scots Berwick. In 1237, by the Treaty of York, Scots kings gave up all claims to this area - so it is clearly English, whatever ambiguities might exist with regard to the town north of the Tweed. Some two-thirds of the population of the present town live south of the river, clearly in England. Surely it is pragmatically more sound to let things remain as they are than indulge in the couthy sentimentality of some of our neighbours.

AljoAljoro (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


Is the cite about Berwick being comparable to Alexandria really needed twice in the article? ConjurerDragon (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Phone Code[edit]

A large number of websites contain an incorrect spelling duplicating an error present in Ofcom's (previously Oftel) UK area code list for the last decade. 01289 was listed as Berwick-on-Tweed in the official UK area code list and only recently corrected to Berwick-upon-Tweed, see their Errata. (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sack in 1296[edit]

According to our article about the sack of Berwick by Edward I in 1296, as many as 10,000 were slain by the sword; John Richard Green says 8,000 or more; this, combined with the quotation about its population and riches, makes me think that before Edward nearly destroyed it, it was probably the second richest and most populous city on the island. As it was Scottish in the eleventh century, it was untouched by William the Bastard's Harrying of the North. I think this should be looked into. J S Ayer (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Sooth Berrick"[edit]

I don't know about the validity of the term "Sooth Berrick" itself but the spread of some dubious, supposedly Scots versions of place names (often for ones which are Scots anyway) has been concerning me for some time. I suspect that the reference given for Sooth Berrick derives its "Scots" terms, many of them dubious or at best minority alternative versions, from a 1993 source (a map) I regard as questionable and which I've posted about at WikiProject Scotland. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Local pronunciation would render itself somewhat as 'Sooth Berrick' however this is Northumbrian and not Scots, for example people in Gateshead, a good 70 miles to the south (or sooth) would say the same. KO (Punches) (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

South Berwick[edit]

Was Berwick upon Tweed ever called South Berwick? historic documents are all in Latin and it was Berwick super Tweedum or just Berwick. North Berwick was only latterly called north after the English occupation of Berwick upon Tyne.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Berwick-upon-Tweed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)