Talk:Selkirk, Scottish Borders

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Hooray for irrelevance (irony ? ;-)). siarach 16:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Gaelic name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gaelic name 

message: 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)
thread_title: i have no idea what is going on here

message: 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)
thread_title:  Selkirk Grace 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gaelic in south-east Scotland 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: As a borderer I find that adding Gaelic names to towns, who's origins are Anglian, as offensive. If the town had a Gaelic name on its founding then fine, but you could add a gaelic name to anything with that translator. Culturally the Borders is very different to the NW of Scotland and we share more in common with those a few miles over the border than most in the highlands.DvdScott (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I sound a bit short but this argument is so tired and old and has been disproved so many times that I have tired of it. It is not for any single individual to decide what the historic and/or cultural relevance of Gaelic is to a Scottish area or indeed Scotland as a whole. Secondly, just as looking across the sea to Russia does not make Sarah Palin an expert on Russia, neither does living in the borders make you an expert on the history of Gaelic in southern Scotland. So in short, you have to come up with a much better argument than "I don't think it's relevant". Akerbeltz (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And crowning yourself as King of Gaelic on wikipedia doesent make you an expert on the Borders. Culturally speaking Gaelic might as well be French to the region. We dont speak it, nowhere is named after it. The borders is so utterly devoid of Gaelic its a wonder that this is even up for discussion. An arbitrary border between England and Scotland is not the difference between what is Gaelic and what isnt. You cant go around naming things Gaelic for the sake of it. DvdScott (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide a ref that says that the Borders are devoid of Gaelic place names and I'll shut up. A lack of knowledge of Scotland's linguistic history is NOT a valid argument. While you're at it, you might want to research places such as Innerleithen and Drumelzier... Akerbeltz (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: And incidetally, as for "we don't speak it" - the cesus returns 0.35% Gaelic speakers for the Borders, 0.4% for Selkirk. Not a huge percentage but then the national average was 1.16% in the last census. So unless you're suggesting these are not people you're argument is flawed on every level. I suggest care with sweeping statements. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So since there are some gaelic names a few miles down the road in England should we start throwing all the English town names into some college students Gaelic translator and passing it off as history on Wikipedia? Fact, Selkirk never had a Gaelic name. You know fine well that Gaelic is a regional language from North Western Scotland and has no bearing on the borders. 374 gaelic speakers in the Borders doesent even compare to the number who speak French, or German, why dont we add those while we're at it. This whole thing is just your zealous desire to re-label everything Gaelic with no consideration of the local history at all. DvdScott (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

text: We have discussed this before in other areas of wikipedia and we have previously arrived at the conclusion that if there is a verifiable Gaelic name for a settlement in a an area in which gaelic is a co-official language then that name should appear in the wikipedia article. Scots is a co-official language of scotland (also the borders) (see: Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005). Whether or not some people are offended by this is besides the point as wikipedia is not censored. In essence: If the name is verifiably in use then it should go in the article.  ·Maunus·ƛ· 10:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not in use. The 300 odd who speak Gaelic in the borders will still call it 'Selkirk'. Why? Because there is NO Gaelic name for Selkirk. Let me make it clear, because I dont think you understand my point. Its a web translator, your taking its real name, then calling it whatever the web-translator chucks out then putting it on wikipedia as if thats always been its name. Also the Gaelic Language Act doesent officialy apply, so why even reference it. There is NO verifiable name, put it on a Gaelic language wikipedia if its so important to you. Your simply rewriting history for political purposes and I wont put up with it. And if consensus is important then just look at this article and other lowland entries like it, the consensus is that it shouldnt be used. Its just a small band of gaelic bully boys from the highlands trying to impose their will.DvdScott (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're edit warring. Not a good idea. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've warned DvdScott about the edit war. I've also given him a welcome notice, which has lots of useful links for new editors. It is good practice to welcome new editors, especially if they are making edits which do not conform to some of our policies. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussions above in the article. The consensus is that Gaelic shouldnt be used. So then lets edit it back. DvdScott (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The consensus is for all to see. My agenda is the truth, and the truth is that it doesent have a Gaelic name. Im from the Borders, Ive been to selkirk many times. You are the one pushing an agenda, trying to force Gaelic on a non-gaelic region. If cornwall can have its own rules then why cant the borders? we're not a gaelic region, its a saxon region. Now lets have away with this nonsense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DvdScott (talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually reading above I don't see any clear consensus for or against possibly this means that we should begin a wider discussion on the pages of WP:SCOTLAND to make a strong decision about when Gaelic placenames go.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's where the fundamental debate on this originally took place. In the meantime, I commend WP:TRUTH to your attention ;) And when will you respond to the point that Wikipedia is not about your or my personal (non)experience but about veryfiable facts? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salcraig, hmm? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Selkirk, Scottish Borders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304194901/http://www.scotborders.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/7742/selkirk_june_2014 to http://www.scotborders.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/7742/selkirk_june_2014
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If "The town's name means "church in the forest"" how can this derive "from the Old English sele ("hall" or "manor") and cirice ("church")". Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church in the forest? 

message: Elsewhere on wikipedia its says Ruth Davidson grew up in Selkirk.   Perhaps add her to list of notable people.  []  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.155.194.182 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruth Davidson Former MSP