Talk:Sheela na gig/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sidhe lena Gig

Sidhe lena Gig explanation of the name. As far as I am aware there are no verifiable sources to back up this interpretation of the name and was made up by a user on a mailing list. Could you please cite a verifiable source for this interpretation? As it currently stands this part of the entry contrvenes the Wikipedia verifiability policy and is liable for deletion (Pryderi 12:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree, this page has been very well-referenced and needs to continue to be so... please reference the "Irish academics" that are being referred to in order to prevent deletion of that paragraph... -Fennel 08:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the "Sidhe lena Gig" info, but it seems not unreasonable, given that transliterations of Gaelic into English vary quite widely. This interpretation seems to have come from the writer of [1] and how "academic" he/she is I don't know. They certainly have a point about "listening to" rather than "reading" the name.

An online dictionary of Irish slang [2] confirms at least part (perhaps the most controversial) of the definition "Gee, Gee-box (n): female genitalia (hard G sound)".

"na" means "the" or "of the" (as in Daltaí na Gaeilge = "Students of the Irish Language" [3])

"Shee" also spelled "Sí" is a common Gaelic root word for "Fairy", as can be seen from this list from Kellys' Manx Dictionary[4]: ben shee = banshee, fairy woman; cabbyl shee = fairy horse; cheer ny mooinjer veggey = fairyland; fainey shee = fairy ring; lhiannan shee = fairy-lover; lhieen ny benshee = fairy flax; Ny Markee Shee = The Fairy Riders; shee = peace; sprite, fairylike, fairy, fairy spirit; ski; shee-skeeal = fairy tale; sheeaghan = fairy spirit; sheean = knoll, fairy hill, buzz, sound, clamour, noise, report, tone; soilshey shee = fairy light

and MacBain's Etymological Dictionary of Scottish Gaelic [5] has: siabhrach = a fairy, sìobhrag (Arran), siobhrag (Shaw), sìbhreach (M`A.), Irish siabhra, Early Irish siabrae, siabur, fairy, ghost, Welsh hwyfar in Gwenhwyfar, Guinevere (?): *seibro-: sìochair = a dwarf, fairy, Middle Irish sidhcaire, fairy host, síthcuiraibh (dat.pl.), Early Irish síthchaire; from síth, fairy, and cuire, host (German heer, army, English herald). sìth.1 = a fairy, sìthich (do.), Irish sídh, a fairy hill, sígh, a fairy, sígheóg (do.), Old Irish síde, dei terreni, whose dwelling is called síd; in fact, síde, the fairy powers, is the pl. (ge. s. ?) of síd, fairy dwelling or mound, while its gen. sing. appears in mná síde, fir síde: *sêdos, g. sêdesos, as in the case of sìth, peace, which is its homonym (Stokes); root se, sêd, Greek @Ge@`dos, a temple or statue, literally an "abode" or "seat"; Latin noven-sides, noven-siles, the new gods imported to Rome. Thurneysen has compared Latin sîdus, a constellation, "dwelling of the gods". Hence sìthean, a green knoll, fairy knoll.

Unfortunately I can't find a good online Irish - English dictionary to test these suspicions.

There has been some discussion of the derivation at [6] which casts doubt on the basis of this interpretation, because of the shift of the meaning of the word "si/dh" from its Old Irish meaning of "seat, mound, tumulus" (but tumuli were, of course, the "fairy hills" of folklore) to the "modern" one of "fairy". SiGarb | Talk 12:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well my original point was that this name is not a well known one and is basically someones pet theory. It does not appear in any of the main books on the subject. As such from my point of view it falls under "primary research" and should not be included as Wikipedia is not the place to publish such research. I've put up a list of the names and variations of sheela na gig that the figures are known as here [7] with sources Sidhe Lena Gig does not appear in any of the books. There's an equally interesting but equally as speculative etymology of the name here [8]. To sum up it's speculation therefore it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. (Pryderi 16:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC))

The source linked to above [9] that is suggested as a possible origin of this theory also sells "quality bronze sheela-na-gigs", "fun to own and a great gift to give"... Fennel 04:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The shee lena gig bit is back... Can the person who keeps putting this back on please discuss it in here? If it's a unpublished thesis then should it be on Wikipedia? It can't be verified! (Pryderi 07:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

Now the Irish Academic referenced is Edmund O'Riordan, but there is no published source referenced... who is Edmund O'Riordan? This is really getting tiresome, will the editor responsible please speak up or source this appropriately? The statement that O'Riordan "studied Sheela na Gigs while in Cork University" isn't very informative... I studied a lot of things myself in University, you should have heard the theories I came up with... doesn't mean that they belong on a wikipedia page... wikipedia:verifiability...-Fennel 04:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Irish speakers DO interpret the name 'Sheela na Gig' as 'Sidhe lena Gig.' They are well used to interpreting anglicised versions of Irish names given that all the placenames in the country have been anglicised. Surely, Pryderi should accept that he is not a native Irish speaker and is not in a position to contradict someone who is apparently fluent in Gaelic? Veritas

"The term "sheela-na-gig" has no etymological meaning and is an absurd name" The absurdity here is, of course, the fact that such prominence is given to the opinions of authors who have no knowledge of the Irish language. It's rather like an Iranian suggesting that a German phrase is absurd while having no knowledge of the language. This Wikipedia page is one of the most biased I have ever seen and would not get past first year in public school. Hamish

Veritas, please cite an actual, academic (that means, has an advanced degree in Irish archaelogy and/or Gaelic languages), Irish-speaking source that sees this "sidhe lena gig" theory as even vaguely credible. --Kathryn NicDhàna 03:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

True I dont speak Gaelic neither do I speak Inuit which is about as relevant. The objections to the shee lena gig theory appearing on the page are nothing to do whether it's good gaelic or whether it's a good theory. The objections are to do with verifiability wikipedia:verifiability. Since the theory has not been published in a reputable source it can't be verified. Websites are not reputable sources. Wikipedia is not the place to publish primary research (wikipedia's rules not mine). I would like to point out that editors other than myself have deleted the entry for the same reason. Personally I think the interpretation has some merit. In fact it appears on my website on sheela na gigs here [10] which is the right place for it. If you feel strongly about this then can I suggest you look here Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal for informal mediation. It may help your case if you register as a user though. If you feel the article is biased Hamish then edit so it is not. (Pryderi 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Speaking as someone with a small bit of Gaelic, the "Sidhe Lena Gig" thing is not at all credible. It is exactly what another editor called it: one, non-Gaelic-speaking, individual's pet theory, propogated only on the Internet. His restructuring of the name makes absolutely no sense in Gaelic. He has posted it on listserves, and at various points has written a number of us who are doing Sheela research asking us to consider his theory. So it's not that other researchers are unfamiliar with his theory, rather that those of us with any knowledge of the languages find it not worth consideration. So, I have deleted it. It is not a theory that is credible or widespread enough to merit Wikipedia inclusion. --Kathryn NicDhàna 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Veritas, Hamish or more accurately the person using the eircom account to continually edit these pages. Deleting dissenting opinions is no way to deal with this issue it's just vandalism. Will you please enter into discussion on this page. Register as an editor and you can put forward your point of view. (Pryderi 11:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

"His restructuring of the name makes absolutely no sense in Gaelic." It's shameful and a discredit to your declared intention to be impartial to allow comments like this. "Deleting dissenting opinions is no way to deal with this issue it's just vandalism." For once we agree on something: Ms. Price has no problem in deleting my comments. I would appreciate hearing what knowledge she has of the Irish language, the language I was brought up with. (Forgive me for ending that sentence with a preposition) One other point, some people keep referring to the fact that Sidhe is not "old-Irish" for Fairy woman.. That may well be... Others say it is modern. I agree in the sense that seventeenth/eighteenth century is 'modern' for a language. But I also agree with the proposer of the Shee lena Gig theory. The people who coined the phrase - even if it was in the seventeenth/eighteenth century - probably could not write. It is a spoken phrase that was recorded in writing by someone who misheard the words. The words are typical of a peasant vulgarity and humour. If one looks impartially at the phrases Sheela na Gig and Shee lena Gig one will see that the only difference is a space. They are pronounced the same. Scholars should be grateful to Pryderi for helping in the furthering of the Shee lena Gig theory. He quotes (HC Lawlor in Man Vol.31, Jan 1931 (Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland)who says "The term "sheela-na-gig" has no etymological meaning and is an absurd name"! Perfectly correct Mr. Lawlor! Well spotted, Pryderi! The words Sheela na Gig AREabsurd. This is the key to the whole argument!! On the other hand, The words Shee lena Gig are very sensible and are full of meaning and quiet easily translated even by someone with a basic knowledge of the Irish language. Kathryn NicDhàna can delete the words from this page but she cannot delete the truth. No matter how many thousands of words have been written on the subject it has to be remembered that a ton of twaddle does not have the merit of an ounce of truth.(PS, There are over one million Eircom accounts used as webmail throughout the world.)[Veritas]

Veritas, I see you are the vandal. Thank you for fessing up. I did not delete any of your comments from the talk page. I did an edit on the article itself - an edit that the majority of editors discussing the issue agreed was needed and, from looking back over this discussion, had happened before and been reverted. Editing articles to meet Wikipedia standards is not the same as vandalizing talk pages.

As has been repeated abundantly -- it simply does not matter how much you like this theory, it does not meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion. Specifically, it violates the Verifiability and No Original Research policies. Please, go read these pages. These are the official policy of Wikipedia, not some arbitrary decision made by the editors of this article. My various hypotheses on the name don't meet the standard either, so I haven't tried to promote them here. Then again, I'm not as attached to my theories on the name as you obviously are <g>.

(An aside, not relevant to the theory's inclusion in this article: While it is possible to cobble together the "Sidhe lena Gig" thing by using words from very different points in history, and the meaning is perhaps psycholgically/emotionally satisfying, the problem is that these words would not all have the meanings you ascribe to them at the point "Sheela na Gig" was recorded. The only way the name could be interpreted that way is in retrospect: by someone referencing all the dictionaries available now (Modern, Medieval and Old Irish all together) and forcing that construction. It does not appear possible to have found "Sheela na Gig" or "Sidhe lena Gig" as a phrase in use meaning "Fairy with her Vulva" during the time period in question. For more on this see what happened when this discussion happened on Old-Irish-L. SiGarb linked to another post in the thread above, and Googling on the phrase will turn up other posts from that and related listserves.)

Again I ask, if there are any sources that meet Wikipedia standards of Reliability, please cite them. As a student of Gàidhlig and other Celtic languages (a bit of Gaeilge and OI, a miniscule amount of Cymraeg), I would be delighted to see solid citations. --Kathryn NicDhàna 19:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Veritas As Fennel, Kathryn and myself have stated above all of the objections to this theory appearing on the page are to do with Wikipedia's rules. If you think the HC Lawlor quote is biased and not based on Neutral Point of View (NPOV here's the Wikpedia page on it Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view then give some reasons why in here and remove it. I just added it in beacause it was further confirmation of the chorus of verifiable writers who have dismissed the name as an interesting sideline, which too much shouldnt be read into. I have my own theories on the name being partially Norman. They don't appear on here because its my pet theory, its not verifiable and would contravene Wikipedia's rules. All the editors who have removed the Shee Lena Gig theory have done so because of this reason. Whether or not they agree, disagree or are completely disinterested in it is irrelevent. The theory breaks Wikipedia's rules end of story. The name Veritas would seem to indicate a concern with "truth". Wikipedia is not about truth it is about verifiability.

If you dont believe me look here.[[11]these are Wikipedia's rules not ones that have been made up to stop someone publishing a theory. I am getting a feeling that this argument is based on misunderstanding what Wikipedia is and isnt. Read the rules and you should see where the editors deleting the theory are coming from.(Pryderi 21:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Okay, Pryderi, point taken. One last word from me. I actually agree with HC Lawlor that the words 'Sheela na Gig' are absurd and hope you allow the quote to remain. It's a view that I support. Kathryn, you ask for a solid citation. Lawlor goes halfway and agrees with the main thrust of the argument; the words Sheela na Gig are absurd. As someone said on a website...the words are an aural misrendering of Shee lena Gig. The truth will out. SiGarb, I realise that you did not delete my intrusive paragraph. Kathryn 'fessed up' to that. I think it takes a brave academic to claim that he (or she) knows what dictionary some peasant was using in the seventeenth/eighteenth century. Medieval and Old Irish had certainly predated the incarnation of the phrase. And how do you know that people of the seventeenth/eighteenth century did not use some of the words that are in use today as slang. The date of compilation of a dictionary is not the date the words were invented. That argument of yours about 'Old, Medieval and Modern' just does not hold water. Here it is again: SHEE LENA GIG = Fairy Woman with her gee.

I won't bother you all again with the truth. You were privileged that someone offered it to you and some of us do agree with his theory. A few of you suggest it is a pet theory. It is much more than that. A few of you have argued against the theory and I have felt justified in writing back in support of it. Kathryn suggests the proposer of the theory is non-Gaelic Speaking. Where on earth did she get that idea? I believe he (or she) is the most enlightened of us all. Out of respect to Pryderi's request and to Wikipedia's rules, I now withdraw. Good luck to you all.

German sheela photo

Is the image from Germany seen as a sheela by any of the sources listed in this article? I suspect that there would be questions, particularly because it is beside an "acrobatic" figure in a non-sheela pose... possibly just coincidentally in a sheela-esque pose? any thoughts? -Fennel 07:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO It's not really an exhibitionist but certainly is interesting... I passed it on to Anthony Weir and he said I quote. "This Schleswig-Holstein figure certainly fits in with French (etc.) capitals denouncing entertainers and states of undress. Nice to get an example from Germany - in a rustic style also found in Denmark." As far as I am aware it's not a documented sheela na gig so probably falls under primary research. I will admit though it's of interest to researchers such as myself but probably shouldn't be on the page.(Pryderi 07:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC))

As I'm sure you know, not all Sheelas use both hands to indicate their genitals, so when I saw this image in Commons I thought it fitted here. It's not very clear from the photo how detailed the genitals are now – or were originally. Perhaps the caption should be amended to say that there is some possible overlap in the iconography of "exhibitionist figures" and sheelas, and the two may – or may not – be related? SiGarb | Talk 12:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think this is a bit of a find especially as its from Germany. The only problem is again its not been published anywhere so we are back to primary research again. (Pryderi)

I agree, seems like primary research to me, should be removed from the article according to wikipedia guidelines... Fennel 04:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the German picture. I've been re-reading the Wikipedia guidelines and the German picture definitely violates the verifiabilty rule. A nice discovery SiGarb but not for publication on here. (Pryderi 15:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

OK, fair enough. But, to play devil's advocate for a moment, is publication elsewhere absolutely essential before anything is illustrated (or quoted) in Wikipedia? Taken to its logical conclusion, we should therefore only use pictures that have been published somewhere else first (which would raise copyright problems). Say I find a Green Man (there are thousands of them) and take a picture of it, do I have to publish it in a book, or at least make sure that someone else has referred to it in a book and confirms my identification of it as such, before I can upload it to these pages, even if it is quite obviously sprouting greenery from every orifice? Web publication seems to be acceptable, indeed preferable, for some kinds of corroboration, yet you are disallowing some reasonably plausible research on name origins (see above) because it "is basically someones pet theory. It does not appear in any of the main books on the subject." Fine, but every theory was "someone's pet theory" once! (And often still is!) And how, exactly, do you decide (and who decides?) what is a "main" book on a subject? For every academic with a theory you can find another one who will rubbish it. (And yes, I have read Wikipedia:No original research, which takes a fairly hard line on written sources but has a remarkably naive attitude to photographs, basically, I suspect, out of pragmatism – because otherwise, for the reasons given above, there would be no photos in Wikipedia.) SiGarb | Talk 23:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question "is publication elsewhere absolutely essential before anything is illustrated (or quoted) in Wikipedia?" Here's Wikipedia's entry on Verifiability not truth [12]. As for the "plausible research" bit as far as I know Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own research. There are loads of periodicals which are peer reviewed where research can be published. There are lot of short articles published in these journals which are only about one figure. As far as I understand it if you have doctorates in art history coming out of your armpits and you have just found a new sheela na gig you still can't publish it on here. If you have failed crayon drawing in art class and find an article on a little known sheela in a respectable publication then you can. Anyway I am pretty new to wikipedia and this is the only subject I really contribute to so I am going to let more experienced hands deal with deleting bits. (Pryderi 20:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC))

There's a really good reason for wikipedia guidelines such as "no original research"; without such guidelines wikipedia will quickly become completely useless, buried beneath infinite amounts of baseless drivel. Believe me, it would be a matter of days before there would be nothing helpful about wikipedia. I contributed the photo of the Fethard town wall sheela seen on this page, and I did so because I had read about it in two of the books listed as sources on this page, and then went and took my own photograph of it. It worked out quite well, and anyone can do the same with any topic in wikipedia. Please take up issues that you have with the guidelines in the appropriate forums, not here, you won't find any satisfactory answers here. Maybe guidleines need changing, but it isn't going to happen here. --Fennel 21:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"BBC" site

I'm removing the quote attributed to the BBC website because it is from a site run by the BBC that is edited by the public, much like wikipedia, and therefore doesn't meet wikipedia:verifiability standards. -Fennel 04:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ireland and Britian

I imagine that in The Sheela-na-Gigs of Ireland and Britain Joanne McMahon and Jack Roberts use "Ireland" and "Britian" to mean "the island of Ireland" and "Great Britian", not "the Republic of Ireland" and "the United Kingdom". Laurel Bush 09:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC).

Alternate Names

In the "Origins of the Name" section, do we also want to include more of the alternate names? Haven't some been referred to as "St. Catherine"? --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea on the alternate names thing. I think St Catherine was the saint which a lot of sheela bearing churches were dedicated to. Not really come across this in the UK though so I am not sure how watertight that theory is, but it may be more common in Ireland. I think St Gobnait is a name associated with one figure though. (Pryderi 21:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

It seems to me that we could list a few of these, and any patterns of particular saints' churches that tend to have Sheelas. You and/or Gay or Shae would have a better overview on that that would I. --Kathryn NicDhàna 02:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I had a look at this when I started looking for figures and it's a bit of a mares nest. Basically the dedication may have and usually has changed over the years and the original dedication if there was one may not be available. I'm pretty sure that the St Laurence dedication at Church Stretton originated well into the medieval period for instance. Looking at the orientation of figures is much the same as well because they move around a lot. Dr Theresa Oakley has done some work on the orientation and couldn't really find an overall pattern. The Copgrove figure has moved at least three times since the 19th century. The inclusion in church "rituals" like the one at St Gobnait would be worth looking at.(Pryderi 18:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC))

I only just noticed that a lot of material in this section was deleted as it was compressed. I think some of it deserves to be included. I'll see if I have a chance later today to go over it. --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put the material back in. The previous edit took out nearly everything bar the first paragraph. I assume this wasn't the intention bearing in mind most of it was referenced?(Pryderi 10:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for reverting to the proper version! I have no idea what happened. I think it must have been a system glitch, because I didn't delete anything. I simply reverted to the last version before the latest, er, problem. But I think the system either chose a much older version, or did something completely bizarre. I was baffled as I thought somehow I'd missed a decision to do massive cuts on the piece, and that now we'd have to go back and put things in. Glad it's straightened out now. (But I'm still going to dig through the history and try to figure out what happened.) And to further clarify: My edit summary, about the need to cite reliable sources, was in response to the deleted bit that claimed there is "a growing body of scholarly opinion (concerning Ed's pet theory)" for which no Wiki-standard sources have ever been cited. --Kathryn NicDhàna 19:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah right! Mystery solved. Pryderi 13:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Question on Dates

'Eamonn Kelly writes that the name is an Irish phrase, originally either Sighle na gCíoch, meaning "the old hag of the breasts", or Síle-ina-Giob, meaning "Sheila (from the Irish Síle -- a hag or old woman) on her hunkers".' Is the year on Kelly's book 1993? I'm pretty sure I heard these theories before then, but I may be off by a couple years. Do we know who originated them and when? Was it Kelly? --Kathryn NicDhàna 02:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty sure it was Andersen for the Sheela Na Cioch (sp) theory. (Pryderi 18:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC))

May have been originally put forward by someone other than Kelly... I included his reference to the Sighle na gCioch (that's how he spells it in "Sheela-na-gigs - Origins and Functions") interpretation because Kelly's book was the first place that I read it, please do give an earlier reference if there is one. -Fennel 05:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Gig and Gigh

I've separated these two as the previous edit was potentially a bit confusing. It looked as if the Northern English "Gig" was pronounced the same as the Irish Gigh (Ghee). As far as I know Gig was pronounced Gig. (Pryderi 07:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

Irish lesson

From www.englishirishdictionary.com (Yeah I know, it's an online dictionary so you will use that as an excuse to discredit it.) Anyway, from that dictionary comes entry below - and I draw your attention to the last three words in the English sentence and see how they are translated in Gaelic in the last two words of the Irish sentence.

dismissal includes the termination by an employee of her contract of employment with her employer

folaíonn dífhostú fostaí d'fhoirceannadh a conartha fostaíochta lena fostóir;

Ed, how about getting an account and signing your posts? In the meantime, linking to your blog is not an acceptable way to get around Wikipedia policy: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I imagine 'ED' might not want to join such a cosy little club. Wikipedia also advises against being over zealous in deleting other peoples comments for perceived infringements. And might I say your bias is showing, Kathryn. One of the external links which you did not delete boasts that it is 'exploring new interpretations...'

Protection from Evil

Good additions, Pryderi! --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)