Talk:History of Edinburgh

CorenBot
Re:CorenBot - noted. I've just copied the text from the main Edinburgh page - could it be that the webpage has copied its first para from the Wiki page? Berek (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC) I've now removed the first para - can someone else fill the gap left? Thanks. Berek (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell the webpage copied from Edinburgh. Looking at where the first paragraph changed into it's current form here, we see that the one paragraph is the same as the webpage, but the second paragraph from the webpage matches text that's present elsewhere in the article now, but not in the older version of the text, so it looks like they took bits and pieces from around the article to make their own page. There don't appear to be any problems here, so I've restored the paragraph you removed. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Verno - glad to get the confusion sorted!:)Berek (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Article requires revision
I am currently trying to iron out some of the factual errors appearing in this article, the combined effect of which makes it quite misleading. I'm a bit defeated on the first paragraph which brings in too many elements (why mention the Iron Age cultures of the Continent?). I still can't make sense of the Scots (who is meant by that term?) capturing Edinburgh which then has a "Germanic" phase which gives it its name (the sequence is clearly the wrong way round - the Angles came first with their term "burh"). Also, who knows when the seeds of what we call the Scots language were sown? It wasn't seen as a separate language (not that it was) until Gavin Douglas, recognising the divergence taking place, named it as such c.1500. This really has to be completely recast to make good sense. Kim Traynor 00:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I now appreciate that this text is an extract from the Edinburgh article, so I am now attempting to bring the text of that article into line with the changes made to this one. Kim Traynor 00:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have left a note here to report that the "History of Edinburgh" page has been created anew and a slimmed-down version of its content now appears on the "Edinburgh" page. Both will now go their own ways. Kim Traynor | Talk 18:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Steady on there!
Hello Greenshed. While your contributions are well intended (and well informed), may I respectfully point out that this is an article on the overall history of Edinburgh and not of Lothian in the early middle ages. The section covering the 7th to the 10th centuries (when the place is merely a stronghold) is now longer than that covering the 12th to 16th centuries (by which time there was a town). One needs to keep a sense of proportion here. The prehistory of the burgh should not outweigh its later early history. If one wants a history of "Bernician Edinburgh", I would suggest a new article should be created. "Brythonic Edinburgh was part of what is now known as the Hen Ogledd or Old North." immediately raises two questions "What exactly is Brythonic Edinburgh?" and "What, if anything, do we actually know about it?" A town by the name didn't exist yet (and I believe it is the town that is, or should be, the main focus of the article). And while it may be interesting to specialist scholars that a term has been coined for the Old North from Old Welsh, if I ask myself, "Is this relevant to an understanding of Edinburgh", I have to answer truthfully "no". I think this section needs a third party to look at it and decide how much relates to the Edinburgh general readers might wish to read about. Kim Traynor | Talk 00:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. 1. It would be good to expand the 12th to 16th centuries section although it is not one of my particular areas of interest. I would recommend general expansion of the article across the board at this stage and only if we are getting enough content in a particular section to hive it off to a separate article. 2. It might be better to have written "the Etin hill fort was part of what is now known as the Hen Ogledd or Old North." rather than use the phrase "Brythonic Edinburgh". 3. I would respectfully disagree with any assertion that the origins of Edinburgh have nothing to do with the Hen Ogledd - context is important.  While I do take your point that we should not be writing an early mediaeval history of Lothian in this article, links to other relevant articles on wider historical contexts are useful to readers who wish to gain a broader understanding by clicking on them. Greenshed (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm sure the 12th to 16th centuries and other sections will be expanded at some stage, but we should deal with the proportions of the article in its present form. I've added a more informational map, allowing more tweaks of the text in the Northumbrian section. I've also written a little bridge on the transition from Northumbrian to Scottish rule by mentioning the Canmore kings; and have tweaked the lead para to make clearer the original castle-town distinction. (My intention was to create an article on the town founded in the 12th century; the castle being already well covered on the Edinburgh Castle page.) I am still averse to applying a modern academic construct (Hen Ogledd) to the past. I believe in always aiming for the simplest, hence clearest explanation without more unfamiliar terminology than is necessary. I gather from the linked article that it is more a cultural label based on Old Welsh literature than primarily an historical-geographical term. Wikipedia guidelines do state that links should be particularly relevant to the subject (in this case, an overview of the town of Edinburgh) and I don't feel this is. Kim Traynor | Talk 13:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Good map. Greenshed (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Article should cover the city's culture & world roles
In my opinion, the article should cover the entire history of the city, including its very important intellectual history. The books and articles I have looked at most all take this broad view, going well beyond issues of geography to cover culture and society as well. That's why I have been expanding the brief section on the enlightenment era, showing Edinburgh's importance was Empire-wide and more. Being the originator and host of the ''Encyclopedia Britannica" for over a century fits that role too Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I was just expressing the caveat that it shouldn't be taken too far, given that the Scottish Enlightenment has its own page for those interested in the subject. I've no problem with the Britannica info appearing on this page, though I would have thought that the detail was more relevant to the main Scottish Enlightenment article. Kim Traynor | Talk 20:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In my view, it's ok for a reader to come across the same info twice--2x is much better than 0x. In old the paper encyclopedia days, duplicate text was $$$ and not done. Rjensen (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean duplicate text was £££, surely? Kim Traynor | Talk 20:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * :) good one. After 1898 the American owned the EB and last year I was at the Wiki Educational Group which held a planning meeting across the street from the old HQ, with a big "ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA" sign faded but still readable. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I confess to having felt slightly perturbed when the Scottish Enlightenment seemed to take on a life of its own which broke the continuity of the text on the page. But now, after appropriate amendments have been made and the new text has settled down, the added content is a welcome addition and will certainly benefit the reader. Kim Traynor | Talk 13:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I felt I had to revert the info on Aikenhead, as I don't see how it is relevant to the history of the city. It is more of a comment on the intellectual climate of Scotland and just happened to occur in Edinburgh. It would be relevant if added to an existing statement about the Episcopalian-Presbyterian issue, but that's not mentioned; and it belongs chronologically to the period before 1707. It would also be relevant if one was comparing the intellectual climates between the 17th century civil-war period and the 18th-century Enlightenment, though that would belong in the Enlightenment section. Also, I didn't understand the reference to Episcopalians being purged, as they co-existed with Presbyterians throughout the 16th to 17th centuries, and in fact enjoyed the upper-hand institutionally for most of it until 1689. In Aikenhead's case the old Covenanters, now back in the Privy Council, were re-asserting themselves in a last attempt to dominate the culture; most moderates in the Kirk were against the sentence and represented the new intellectual climate that prepared the way for the Enlightenment. Kim Traynor | Talk 18:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we agree on what happened. Is it important? yes indeed, in my opinion: the Aikenhead episode demonstrated to everyone in the most graphic possible way that ANYONE in Edinb. who blasphemed was in deep trouble-- and that changed radically (with Moderates winning) to allow people like Hume to survive & thrive 50 years later. How big a change can you imagine? Was the hanging itself important? Yes, it helped mobilize the Moderates to finally take action. Does it embarrass the city's history to put in these unhappy events? I think it shows how fast real change can happen and that should be a proud development. As for "just happened to occur in Edinburgh" -- that's not true--it was the Edinb. ministers who made the decision; and Edinb. got the outcry from people like John Locke. (something similar happened in the small town of Paisley but it got far less attention). As for the Episco faction, it got purged after 1690 and never again played much of a role.  hanging a boy tells us a lot had to change in the city before it becomes an "Athens"--and a lot did change but this will grab the readers' attention.  Rjensen (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ps hold the bated breath for a day or so; I have to work through the Graham book on Aikenhead firrst & a couple other items. Do you think a new section on religion might be the best solution? it could bringing together lots of new material which I am adding now. Rjensen (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Heresy
The Presbyterians certainly did worry about "heresy". Eg: "In 1728 Mr. Simson purged himself from all heresy, and answered questions very orthodoxly, and as they would have him." or "But the Church at this period had analysts who could discover heresy anywhere — and Mr Wright belonged to the Moderate party. In pursuance of a remit of the Assembly of 1839, he was libelled by his presbytery in 1840" (Cunningham, 1882); 3) " Dr. M'Gill, minister at Ayr, published a book in 1786...a formal charge of heresy...was brought against the author." (Grubb 1861) -- the M'Gill heresy trial was famous. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd suggest you find a way of introducing that info in a paragraph explaining the contrast between the intellectual climate of the 1690s and later. I don't think it fits in chronologically where you placed it in the article. As I tried to convey in my last comment, it was not the norm to hang people for blasphemy. This was a very specific period that came right after what one might term the triumph of the Whig-Covenanter faction over the Royalist-Espiscopalian faction after a long period of strife in which the former were, in power-political terms, the underdogs. They were trying to make an example of Aikenhead in order to re-assert the power of the Kirk. Also, Aikenhead may appear to us today as "a boy", but that's a modern (mis?)conception. At a time when young men started studying at the universities at the age of thirteen or fourteen, he would have counted as a young adult (who, it might be argued, should have known better - oops. that's my Calvinist upbringing coming out), not as a teenager in the modern sense. In a violent society where many died young, they grew up pretty fast, unlike the Cafe Latte generation! As for heresy, I'm well aware of how the word is used in Protestant sources from the period, but I don't know if first time-readers would appreciate its meaning in the context of the Church of Scotland. Maybe I underestimate people. Be that as it may, what were the heretics "purged" from? Remember, this is meant to be the history of a city. That can't mean that everything that ever happened there deserves a mention. (If you add Aikenhead, you might as well add George Heriot schoolboys hanging a dog because it refused to take the Test Act oath in 1681.) Personally, I don't think the Aikenhead episode throws much light on the history of Edinburgh, though I do think it's an important episode in the religious history of Scotland and is relevant to the changing intellectual climate in the period we're discussing. Kim Traynor | Talk 19:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Edinburgh is really important as the intellectual and religious center of Scotland--that point is repeatedly made. Hanging a young man for blasphemy was not exactly like hanging a dog or hanging a person in effigy. This was the real thing done with calculated deliberation by high officials. [Like stoning adulterers to death in Arabia, perhaps? or shooting a girl in Pakistan who speaks out for educating girls?] It was done deliberately to warn all of Scotland against the crime. If it had happened in a small village it would be invisible and be of little value to the ministers who were seeking to maintain their total power. We can't say that a) Edinburgh is a really important place in Scotland and b) it's no big deal when extreme events like this hanging happen. And yes, the defence did make a big deal about his age. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By all means, mention Aikenhead if you can justify its inclusion by explaining the importance of the episode in context; otherwise it is no more important an incident than all the other executions which took place in Edinburgh's history, of which there have been many. It might be worth noting that until 2010 the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland was eight, and most of the population had no problem with that. (p.s. like a Saudi Arabian stoning, yes; like a Taliban execution, no, because the latter does not have a strong social consensus and the force of law behind it.) (p.p.s. the 'piscies' are, as far as I know, very happy in their own church!) Kim Traynor | Talk 20:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK I'll add a paragraph--and use a recent book on the episode:  published of course by Edinburgh University Press. Rjensen (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I await your new paragraph with bated breath. It looks to me as if it should be inserted after the first paragraph in the Enlightenment section. I still maintain that the manner of Aikenhead's death has nothing intrinsically to do with Edinburgh. If a mob rampages, as in the Porteous Riots, that is part of a town's history. What has it got do with a town if a country's political leaders and chief legal officer put someone studying there on trial, resulting in his execution? If Edinburgh ministers willed it, they were presumably representative of ministers all over Scotland who would have willed the same. It's a comment about the country or its politics, not the town (and that has nothing to do with trying to defend Edinburgh's reputation out of a sense of civic pride, which I think you implied above. That would be silly and indefensible.). Kim Traynor | Talk 22:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * An execution in a remote village would not be noticed (eg the witches that got killed in other Scottish villages well into the 18th century and have been forgotten). The whole nation of Scotland would know if it happened in Edinburgh, and that's why they picked Aikenhead and made sure both civil and church authorities signed off. It seems to me the episode tells a great deal about who was running Edinburgh. The fact the kid was a university student is also important, and that limits the choice of a venue as well; it had to be a university town.  If the same group had been in power a few decades later, people like David Hume would of course never show his head. He'd be at the top of their list. Edinburgh is more than buildings and streets -- it's a reputation, an image, a symbol. Call it "Athens". Rjensen (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you've added info on merchant control of the town council. It doesn't seem to follow on from the statement that James returned only once in 1617, so I've split it off into its own paragraph. The detail about the King's agents' attempts to manipulate it begs the question "to what purpose"? Your statement that religion played no part in the selection of councillors is at variance with one of the foremost authorities on the subject. Michael Lynch in his 'Edinburgh and the Reformation' (1981), as well as his 'Scotland. A New History' (1991), maintains that the Council was taken over by a small group of Protestant activists, and that the majority of the population was apathetic to the new regime until placed under its godly discipline. Also, not sure why you include detail of Mary QofS's reception. It breaks the continuity of the text and is chronologically misplaced. The Reformation had already taken place. The correct way forward here is to expand with three new paras on 1.the Reformation, 2.the civil-war period and 3.the Wars of the Covenant (immediately following the sentence that mentions these three things). That added detail about Mary strikes me as completely random. She was expecting a warm welcome, but was booed by Protestants. So what? That isn't exactly the most historically important fact about her reign, and as an isolated fact it's just a piece of historical trivia. I don;t know where the information in your source comes from, but Pierre de Bourdeilles, one of her courtiers, describes a warm welcome, "We were coming in to land at Leith, when all the principal people of Leith and Edinburgh rushed up to welcome their Queen.." I think the reference to "Romanticism" needs a brief explanation or a link (now done); maybe "Whig politics" says enough. I like the info you've added about the city's musical life, esp. the Topham quotation. Kim Traynor | Talk 23:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, i moved text around a bit and set off the religious themes more sharply. When does the "modern" era begin? I think the Reformation is a good cutoff point. Rjensen (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note stranded sentence relic re civil war; not sure of justification for saying tensions lasted into 19th century, divisions yes; "following century" in this sequence would imply the 20thC; "Glorious Revolution" applies to England in 1688, but the settlement in Scotland was in 1689, so not good to yoke the two; better to rephrase, e.g. "with the securing of Presbyterianism in 1689". John Knox and the middle class? That's a Victorian construct. I can see no mention of Knox or his support on p.53 of Donaldson. "Episcopalians" is also an anachronistic term for this period, out by about a century; Presbyterianism not established in Knox's lifetime. Also, I'm not sure what point is made by including material on the need for affordable housing. Once again this disrupts the chronological flow of the narrative, these developments occurring almost a full generation after the Chambers brothers mentioned directly after. Kim Traynor | Talk 20:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am finding your changes to this article most curious. What is the point of adding the paragraph on the Irish Catholic experience in the 40s and 50s when there has been no mention of 19th-century Irish immigration in the first place? (You will find this mentioned in a section on the Edinburgh page.) This is another isolated statement lacking context. I'm not sure what you expect the reader to make of it. Also, the sectors of industry mentioned for the 19thC were linked to firms which illustrate them through their history, but you cannot put Hunter Boot Ltd into the text in place of the North British Rubber Company, which it was historically, and Bruce Peebles is only one example of the engineering firms that established themselves in the city. I can't understand why the British Empire explanation of Glasgow's prosperity was removed with no reason given. And why is "other cities in Britain" changed to "comparable cities"? What cities are meant by that? These changes and the work involved in restoring the damaged text is beginning to drive me a little crazy. Kim Traynor | Talk 00:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * May I ask you why you want to elevate a footnote on the 16thC population into its own section? The Timeline of Edinburgh History page gives details of censuses through time for anyone wishing to know more about that particular aspect. Why give the 16thC population here, but nothing on the size of population in other periods? You seem to have a predilection for adding isolated facts outside the flow of the narrative. May I also ask why you continue to make bold section headings to each of your contributions as if to draw particular attention to them? There is no reason why these sections should be highlighted in this manner, as if they are more important than others on the page. We now have two Reformation headings, and you have removed the point that the plague setbacks did not affect the steady growth in population; why make this change? And why do you make changes like this without providing a reason, as is customary? I really don't think your work on this page is having a positive effect. Kim Traynor | Talk 20:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again I've felt the need to revert a change, this time to the bibliography sequence. Until now it has reflected the order of the article's content, with the more individual aspect of the Enlightenment appended. Your change seems to have stood the list on its head, placing books dealing with the Enlightenment ahead of the rest. Arnot (regarded as the first 'modern' historian of the city) should head the list as a recommended starting point for discovering more about the subject, not at the very end, as if his is an obscure work. Kim Traynor | Talk 19:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Temporary Pictish control of Edinburgh during the Northumbrian period
According to Grant, Memorials of the Castle of Edinburgh, p. 5, the Picts temporarily gained control of Edinburgh during the Northumbrian period. Grant cites Bede for this but I cannot find it in Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People or elsewhere. As Grant thinks that Edwin set up court in Edinburgh, I doubt he can be considered a reliable source. However if we could find this in Bede, or better still, in a reliable secondary source, that would be worthy of addition to the article. Can anyone help? Greenshed (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Edinburgh. 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/20131102050435/http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba60/news.shtml to http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba60/news.shtml

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) 17:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)