Talk:Selkirk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Selkirk is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Scotland To-do:
|
|||
 |
Selkirk is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] More on Gaelic name
Including a Gaelic translation of Selkirk is simply misleading to readers, because it suggests a cultural connection where absolutely none exists. It makes no more sense to include a Gaelic translation in this info box than it would to include a Cornish translation on the Newcastle upon Tyne page, or a Basque translation on the Madrid page. Indeed, if all Scottish articles automatically include a Gaelic section in the info box then the Scottish info box should itself be changed, because, again, it suggests that the language was far more universal than was ever the case (something I am sure the Gaelic culture lobby are happy to promote, but that doesn't make it true).
I lived in Selkirk for over 30 years and in all that time I do not recall even hearing Gaelic mentioned, let alone used, such is its irrelevance in Lowland Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Koolbreez (talk • contribs)
- Same old nonsense and innappropriate analogies. Neither Newcastle or Madrid are parts of nations which were founded by the Cornish or Basque respectively. Selkirk is (to the eternal sorrow of your ilk) part of a nation which was founded by the Scots - who spoke Gaelic. A painful truth for you i know but a truth it is. The majority of the Lowlands were Gaelic before they became English and no matter how desperately you try to argue for the irrelevance of the language of the very people whos legacy/heritage/name you presumably claim (im assuming that you do, in the typically contradictory fashion of most who are anti-Gaelic/pro-English, describe yourself as Scottish) no amount of ill thought out,old fashioned bigotry will affect the relevant facts which - thankfully with the memories of John Pinkerton and older Anglo-Scottish bigotries mostly if not totally behind us - are happily quite clear.
- Selkirk is a part of Scotland - a nation which would not exist but for speakers of Gaelic and hence it is impossible to argue for the irrelevance of the language ; even if it hadnt been spoken across the vast majority of the country - which it was. Get over it.siarach 16:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- WOW.
Firstly, is there any need for such aggression?
Secondly, can someone who feels so unnecessarily slighted by respectful disagreement really claim to be looking at the question altogether impartially?
"Ilk" indeed.
Koolbreez 15:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ahhh. I see now that I have stumbled into a fight that has been going on since long before I arrived. That explains, even if it does not excuse, sairach's obnoxious defensiveness.
I'll straight back bow out and let you children play then, since it certainly seems to matter a whole lot more to some of you than it matters to me.
Another victory for zealotry over agnosticism then. Ho hum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.93.16 (talk • contribs)
- Hooray for irrelevance (irony ? ;-)). siarach 16:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure if this article is NPOV Jamandell (d69) 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gaelic name
no one in the south speaks gaelic keep it off this page!
- Untrue, and even if it were true, irrelevant. siarach
can we provide a source(s) for the Gaelic name(s) here on the Talk page, in accordance with WP:CITE? --Mais oui! 21:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- The source for pretty much every Gaelic name is the same. All anyone has to do is look up the Gaelic-English/English-Gaelic dictionary available at the website of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig - a source i sited some months ago when User:Retro_junkies (who is almost definately behind the endless line of anon IPs who keep vandalising this page) first started his silly little anti-Gaelic crusade. siarach 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gaelic, to be or not to be inculded
dear all, the point i am trying to put across is that throughout history the Gaelic language has never been spoken in the vast majority of the Borders. Though a user has said there is a Gaelic name for Selkirk, the point I have attempted to make that as this is not a native tongue of the town it surly should not be included on the wikipedia article. I will draw your attention to other local towns that have no Gaelic names. Perhaps in Gaelic there is a name for these settlements, but the manner in which they are being included I strongly feel is not justified. Do the users in question wish to place the Gaelic name on the articles about all cities? I’m sure there must be a Gaelic name for London, Paris or even Rome, but it is inappropriate to add Gaelic names to these places as Gaelic has never been spoken there just like it has never been spoken in the Borders and with reference to this article Selkirk.
As references to my argument I quote the books, Border Fury: England and Scotland at War, 1296-1568, Sadler, John. Publisher: Longman
The Thistle and the Rose: Six Centuries of Love and Hate Between the Scots and the English, Massie, Allan Publisher: John Murray User:retro_junkies 01:07, 29 March 2006
In Search of Scotland H. V. Morton
- I've put the Gaelic name back in, since it's better than putting a non-Gaelic name in the spot marked "Gaelic". A proper reference should be added for the name (maybe a link to a Gaelic-language Wikipedia article on it?). Fagstein 20:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to actully read the discussion Fagstein, there was a token debate about the infobox and if it should contain gaelic, but when i placed the latin name (either rightly or wrongly) into the box the page was bombarded by users demanding the gaelic name was there. i have also tried to point out that while they may have a gaelic word for this town, there still exsits no names for towns such as Hawick, Galashiels or Kelso and all other Border towns (with the exception of one) User:retro_junkies 23:07, 29 March 2006
- Either way, the infobox uses "Gaelic" so it should be a Gaelic name. I guess what it comes down to is if Gaelic isn't appropriate for this article, either it shouldn't use the Scottish infobox, or the Gaelic reference should be removed from that infobox (or made optional). Fagstein 23:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all this issue was decided by open vote and debate and this childish crusade of yours and refusal to accept the consensus of the Scottish wikipedians community is really very silly and the discussion irrelevant and simply an example of your refusal to accept any opinion beyond your own. Secondly, your argument "Do the users in question wish to place the Gaelic name on the articles about all cities? " Is so irredeemably stupid that i really shouldnt even bother acknowledging it but what the hell i will. Not all cities are part of Scotland - Hence no, not all cities will necessarily have a Scottish/Gaelic name but to assume/accuse others of intending to provide Gaelic names for completely non-Scottish cities/areas is of course an absolutely logical assumption/conclusion ;). Incidently Hawick and Kelso are Hamhaig/Cealsach respectively in Gaelic(as youd have discovered if youd conducted...oh about 30 seconds of research rather than assuming what you would like to be the case is) while Galashiels is to my knowledge a rare exception in Scotland in not having a pre-English name but i would not be at all surprised if i were proved wrong on that. An Siarach
you are absoulty making these up ive never heard such tosh in my life, where are your sources?
oh its a website that looks like it was made by a college student, well thats trustworthy!
im glad the users who keep adding gaelic were mature enough to listen to the moderator that i requested have a look at this page and "meditate" i will be taking this to the highest possible level in order to have gaelic kept off these pages User:retro_junkies
- If this wasnt so pathetic id be running out of ass to laugh off. An Siarach
- Gaelic is an official language of Scotland, since the passing of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act. It's right that the Gaelic name should be included in the Scottish infobox, if one can be found. Lurker talk 13:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] i have no idea what is going on here
hello, i really have no idea what is going on here, but to me it seems there are two sides two this arguement, first User:retro_junkies who seems very anti-Gaelic, infact he seems to have a thing about being anti-Gaelic. am i right in saying that this user wants the Gaelic part of the infobox because he belives Gaelic has no place in these pages because it is not historically important to this area? and then we have a whole group of people, the pro-Gaelic crew, Calgacus and Mais oui! to name a few, and would i be correct in saying that they wish the Gaelic on the page because names for these towns exsist in Gaelic? Byerswerks 30 March 00:18 (UTC)
- Lets not create a misleading impression by classing those in opposition to Retro junkies as a similarly subjective/biased 'pro gaelic crew'. Those in opposition to him are those who are simply reverting his persistent vandalism/POV edits and upholding the consensus reached on the issue of Scots+Gaelic names in location infoboxes within the Scottish wikipedians community. An Siarach
It seems to me though that User:retro_junkies has a point, very few people if any speak or understand Gaelic in these areas, so it seems quite misleading to have the Gaelic names on there town names, giving the impression that this is considered the norm. Byerswerks 03 April 16:34 (UTC)
- Note that this discussion is happening in the larger context here. Fagstein 17:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possible solution.. keep Gaelic name to Gaelic-language Wikipedia
Really, shouldn't the translated name of a place, where it is not spoken in that town/city/country, only appear on a different language Wikipedia? For example, Munich does not appear anywhere on the German Wikipedia, it appears as München, because quite rightly, people in Munich don't converse with fellow Munichers in English, they use German. Just because they may know English doesn't make it relevat... see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muenchen . If we follow the same priciples, Gaelic names should only exist in towns where Gaelic is a primary language. It is not a primary language in the South of Scotland, for example, BBC Radio nan Gaidheal does not broadcast South of Central and Highland Scotland. Therefore, in Selkirk's case, along with other lowland towns, Gaelic place names should be confined to the Gaelic-language version of Wikipedia (at http://gd.wikipedia.org).
- No. This argument absolutely does not stand and the "principles" are not the same at all. Munich does not appear on the German wikipedia because München does not derive from Munich and English is not a language of Germany. However the majority of Scottish place names are either directly derived from Gaelic or have Gaelic names which precede them ( such as is the case with Edinburgh - Dùn Èideann ). Going by your thinking we should have no names on Wikipedia but English transliterations. I happily invite you to go ahead and delete the correct/native names from every article dealing with a non-English language area - after all, names like München should be kept on the German language wiki eh? i dont doubt the reaction of other users would be most understanding ;). I dont think any other area of wikipedia has seen such a level of activity from users absolutely hell-bent on clearing entirely pertinent information from articles as we have seen on Scottish pages. An Siarach
My main problem is with the undue prominence given to Gaelic in the infobox, Scots is more widely spoken in the lowlands. If you were to visit Selkirk adn use the Gaelic word, no one would have a clue what you were on about. I feel that it should be clearer that this is not a term used in common language to identify Selkirk.
[edit] Rather then reverting
...pointlessly forever regarding the Gaelic name can i suggest people have a read of the article itself. It is of a pretty poor standard! Thanks/wangi 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. However, it would appear that those wiki users who are Selkirk residents or fairly local ( or claim to be at least) are more interested in promoting a childish and tiresome anti-Gaelic agenda rather than doing something constructive. An Siarach
-
- Agree strongly with Wangi: this article was utterly, utterly appalling until I minorly Wikified and copyedited it a few months ago. It is still far below standard. It seemed to have become the personal fiefdom of one User: hopefully it is no longer, although I await some referenced (see WP:CITE) input from new participants (in possession of a SpellChecker, and at least an O Grade pass in the English language). --Mais oui! 16:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Selkirk Grace
Is the Selkirk Grace linked to Selkirk the town or the Selkirk Arms hotel in Kircudbright, where it was written?
It is so called becasue it was delivered by Burns at a banquet given by the Earl of selkirk Lurker talk 14:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gaelic in south-east Scotland
I'm afraid Siarach is misinformed. There are Gaelic placenames in South-east Scotland, but very few (see Nicolaisen). Little Gaelic would have been spoken here, because before the Angles arrived - and for a long time after - the language spoken here was Cumbric, the northern dialect of old Welsh. the evidence for this is in place names, Abbey records, and much else besides. For a brief time in the centuries before written records begin, it appears from the place names that a few Gaelic-speakers seem to have been moving in from the west, perhaps as overlords, but by the twelfth century that seems to have been over. Brian Holton (formerly of Halliwell's House Museum, Selkirk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:CTbah (talk • contribs)
- Errr misinformed in what respect exactly? I ask becuse nothing youve stated above contradicts anything i have said either here or on any other article talk page im aware of. siarach 11:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Salcraig, hmm?
I agree that Scots should predominate in the naming of the article for all the reasons given by Mr Holton. However the recent little edit war over which box to use is a bit silly. The one which has no reference to linguistic differences, is dangerously close to being politically biased in its reference to Sovereignty. Last time I'd heard sovereignty rested wwith the will of the people of Scotland to be enacted by the Monarch and his/her government rather than the political entity formed after the act of Union 1707. In accordance with the naming of the Kings of Scots from Alexander III backwards I'd suggest having the common English name followed by the Scots followed by the Gaelic in areas where English and Scots names predominate, and vice versa where they do not. Seems easy enough? Brendandh 23:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd just like to have the opportunity to state here that Gaelic should not be used on this article at all...and I think that if the user(s) carry on putting it up...they need to be banned as vandals. Thankyou for your attention Jamandell (d69) 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
