Talk:Selkirk, Scottish Borders

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)

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)

Gaelic, to be or not to be included
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


 * Galashiels is An Geal Ath - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auchencrow

"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. http://www.spns.org.uk/watsloth.html

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.

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. Berwick: 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. http://www.spns.org.uk/watsloth.html#Berwick

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.)

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/p.l.younger/documents/TheGaelicFoundationsoftheGoldenAgeofNorthumbria.pdf

92.235.167.172 (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

just like to have the opportunity to state that deleting Scottish Gaelic names from articles on Scottish towns is the real act of vandalism and claiming the opposite is pretty desperate. 92.235.167.172 (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

I'm glad you judge books by its cover and ignore the fact that the Stòr-dàta is a lexicographical resource compiled by Scotland's main Gaelic HEI on the basis of its rather simplistic design.

Just where do you take the knowledge/justification from to claim any place in the borders never had a Gaelic name? And that aside, what does it matter if the root is Goidelic or English? Thousands of place names across Scotland are clearly Goidelic in origin, yet we mysteriously have English forms. Are you the one to decide that Gaelic may never develop its own form of a place name based on an English root?? And, since you're such a place names expert, may I remind you that a lack of recorded place names does not mean a language never existed. East Anglia isn't exactly packed with Brythonic place names, yet we know from the historical record that Brythonic languages were dominant there for centuries. So the fact that many place names in the borders are English on the face of ot may simply be down to the fact that underlying Celtic names never were recorded. It may come as a surprise to you, but English did not originate in Britain.

And yes, the numbers of Gaelic speakers are small. So? I was simply pointing out the fact you're making sweeping statement with NO factual evidence to back up your claims at any level. I have yet to see you quote a SINGLE source. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You're edit warring. Not a good idea. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Fortunately there can be wider consensus on such questions that go beyond individual pages. And besides, you're just pushing your own agenda, you have not sought to seek consensus anywhere. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

"veryfiable", verifiable, or variable?
Agree with above, but with exception to "Saxon". The kingdom of Northumbria, of which Selkirk was part, was Anglian. Saxons were the ancestors of the west country and the home counties of England, Mercia and Northumbria and East Anglia were settled by families from Angeln not Sachsen. Brendandh (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With reference to the above comment, I agree, I apologise. The Borders, were part of the kingdom of Northumbria. Its history and its culture followed a complete seperate path than that of the Gaelic speaking regions. I think its unfair to label an entire region as Gaelic on the basis of 374 speakers, especially when the influence of Gaelic is almost non-existent. Culturally its a different region and I dont feel this article, and others like it, reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DvdScott (talk • contribs) 03:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And why do you feel that the entire region is labelled as Gaelic just because we allow the Gaelic name to be included in the article? ·Maunus· ƛ · 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not just this article but other Border articles. The problem I have is that the region, culturally, has as little to do with Gaelic as the English borders, relabelling town names into a Gaelic form doesent reflect the true nature of the region and its history. Why do you think its important to have Gaelic names? for the 374 speakers of the language? because of the Gaelic Language act (which really only effects the Scottish civil service in areas where there is a high number of Gaelic speakers)? How can someone say that a line on a map is the difference between what should be Gaelic and what shouldnt be. Surely these things come down to a regions history and culture as Ive seen in other wikipedia articles. I strongly feel that the borders is misrepresented when Gaelic is forced onto articles and is not indicative of the regions unique culture and heritage.DvdScott (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My point of view is that of making sure that minority languages are fairly represented in wikipedia. I am used to dealing with people who say "hardly anyone speaks that around here" why should the name go in. I am usually able to explain that a given language is also official in that region or has an historical connection to the area. But I am always baffled at why they think providing additional information to readers is a problem - it is not as if we are going to delete selkirk and call the article salcraig, selkirk is still the main name, now we just offer those who might be interested in gaelic placenames that piece of information. Selkirk or the borders doesn't become more or less gaelic because we supply that information. Also whether or not you like it the Borders is part of Scotland and Gaelic is a co-official language and gaelic speakers also speak about the places in scotland where they don't themselves live.·Maunus· ƛ · 06:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody who speaks Gaelic would call Selkirk 'Salcraig' though. Everywhere Selkirk is referenced as 'Selkirk'. Putting it in a translator doesent mean thats its Gaelic name. I dont speak German but Berlin is Berlin regardless, its not like Munich which has a name the Germans have historically used and one the English have historically used. There is no historic use of Salcraig. Its a modern reworking of a name that has been used by both Gaelic(what few there are) and English speakers for generations. DvdScott (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can show that even Gaelic speakers when speaking Gaelic are more likly to use Selkirk than Salcraig then I'd be one step closer to being convinced. How is it that you know what word Gaelic speakers use about the town?·Maunus· ƛ · 06:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, lets face it, the chances of me knowing any of those 374 speakers is very small. But I can say for certainty that nobody knew any other name for Selkirk other than Selkirk until some Gaelic translator came out of the blue. There is no historical evidence of 'Salcraig' ever being used as far as im aware.DvdScott (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dvd, can you for once back up something you say with evidence? According to you, no Gaelic speaker knows it or uses it. Unfortunately "DvdScott sez so" is not a reliable source. According to you, Gaelic has no relevance on anything Borders related. Unfortunately "DvdScott sez so" is not a reliable source. According to you, Salcraig was made up by "some Gaelic translator" and has "no historical evidence" behing it. Unfortunately "DvdScott sez so" is not a reliable source. The Stòr-dàta, however you may hate its design thus far beats anything you claim so why exactly should Maunus, I or anyone spend time arguing this point? For all we know this could just be a windup to see how long you can keep us going with a pointless discussion. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And incidentally, I just checked the source of the Stòr-dàta for Salcraig. That would be Iain Mac an Tàilleir of the School of Scottish Studies and the Scottish Place-names Society. He does not make up place-names. He's one of the top authorities in Scotland on Scottish place-names. The kind of person that gets hired by the Scottish Parliament to provide lists with authoritative forms of Gaelic place-names in Scotland based on the historical record. If he lists Salcraig as a Gaelic form for Selkirk, he has good reason based in research to do so. So sorry, but "DvdScott sez so" cuts even less. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to calm down. Firstly a Gaelic expert(as few as those as they are) I imagine are quite popular at the moment with the SNP run parliment. Secondly, my point is that there are no sources for the Gaelic name, thats my argument. Thirdly he doesent reference his source, he just puts it up on a website, then puts it in a book, and now all of a sudden through the epochs of time the town has always been 'Salcraig'. If you give me one source, one cast iron historical source, for this supposed Gaelic name I will drop it and move onto the next town, if not then it needs to be changed.DvdScott (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heres a source from that society you mentioned. Give it a read and see what you think, http://www.spns.org.uk/MayWilliamsonComplete.pdf. Mentions some possibly gaelic names, but selkirk aint one of them.~
 * That's not how it works on here. We don't have to check the actual research of the source if the source is bona fide. Ergo we don't have to get sight of whatever musty old documents he pulled the Gaelic from. And if you think I'm going to get drawn into a debate about whether Iain Mac an Tàilleir, whose work incidentally predates the SNP government, fakes his work. That's just silly beyond belief. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So did you check my source? I mean im sure I can find some more, and then we can play a game of who has more sources.DvdScott (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Negative evidence isn't evidence. The title of the pdf is "Non-celtic placenames of the scottish borders" that is of course why it doesn't mention any celtic names - they are outside of the scope of the study. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Anyway the same study shows that there were originally goidelic speakers in the scottish borders, especially in selkirkshire before the arrival of OE - and it mentions that several tribes inhabited the area around Selkirk. You'll have to find a source that says that directly Salcriaig is an invention and/or that no gaelic speakers use it.·Maunus· ƛ · 06:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No historic use of Salcraig or even any Gaelic in the town is what my source proves. Your source isnt 'definitive' according to this guy who references stor-data, so why should it be 'definitive' for you. The fact is alot of the words in the stor-data are made up, because it contains a great many words which there were never Gaelic words for to begin with. No historical evidence is forthcoming so the name needs to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DvdScott (talk • contribs) 17:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't say what you claim. If anything it shows that Stàr-dàta is a sufficiently respected source for scientific studies. IF you refer to this note: "Throughout this article I am providing interlinear translations in brackets for the quoted lines of Gaelic poetry. These are based on dictionary entries in Dwelly, Stòr-dàta Bhriathrachais Gàidhlig and MacBain and are not to be taken as transparent or definitive." That simply means that the interlinear translations of poetry are not definitive but merely record the corresponding entries in stòr-dàta. I choose to assume that you simply didn't read the two sources you have presented very closely and missed the point that they were actually conveying, as the alternative woud be that you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters by presenting sources that do not support your claims about what they say. You are not presenting any argument, you are just stting your opinions. Akerbeltz has shown that the source for Salcraig is a respected expert on Gaelic placenames. You have not presented anything that would justify questioning his judegement in this case. You personal knowledge about what everyone has ever said in or about Selkirk is not a source that we can use. Please just drop it now, and don't waste our time with more of the same. Get a source that actually supports your claims. ·Maunus· ƛ · 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as the source that this Gaelic name is based on cannot be historically verified then I will continue with this. Stor-Data is a reference book with some words and names that come out of thin air. Nobody can find anything about this 'Salcraig'. nothing. There is nothing out there other than an unreferenced name. This is the first page of an oxford journal review that states that there is no referencing nor any clarification on where the name originates from.http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/8/2/153 If this man told you that there was a Gaelic word for Klingon would it be up on wikipedia?86.131.149.15 (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This pdf does in fact say that stòr-dàta does not source its entries. It is unclear however why this would mean that we shouldn't use it as a source. As the pdf also states stòr-dáta is the most official gaelic terminology database there is. The OXford Dictionary of English also doesn't source its entries - and that is certainly a respected source. If your strategy is now to discredit stòr-dàta as a source rather than find sources for your claim then this is only a beginning. Many dictionaries in the world receive an infavourable review but are still admissible sources by wikipedia standards.·Maunus· ƛ · 08:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Stòr-dàta, incidentally, DOES cite its sources if. Just select the Faic tùsan options. It shows the source of Salcraig to be Mac an Tàilleir. It does not cite any specific document by him for Salcraig but then Mac an Tàilleir does provide unpublished material to certain institutions on request AFAIK. Beyond that, I'm with Maunus. Stop wasting our time. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The view that you and Manus have is that of a tiny minority, a wiki clique who's job it is to plague wikipedia with desperate attempts to put your dying languages all over the place, regardless of the facts. Stor-data is the only reference point for this name, nothing else can be found about it. If someone with an english degree wrote a reference book and put his own words in it then it wouldnt be given the time of day. Its a tertiary source that has nothing else available to back up its assertion of the name. Wikipedia isnt a place for one-man sources let alone one that doesent even reference his own material. If the name stays then its stays because there is evidence of its use, if it is used then it shouldnt be so hard for you to find a source.DvdScott (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case its a minority of two against a majority of one. Unless you get some sources out that actually support your idea that your view is shared by others we're getting nowhere.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was asked to read this and weigh in. 1) DvdScott has a valid point that this area was not a Gaelic area, so the likelihood of there being an old Gaelic name is slim.  BUT, 2) ancient usage really isn't important here because there is a modern usage.  With a modern usage, then listing the alternative name is appropriate.  There is proof from a reliable source that is verifiable that there is a modern Gaelic name for this town.  It looks, as DvdScott points out, that it is a modern formation made to look and sound like "Selkirk" (which has a good Scots English pedigree), but that doesn't matter.  If there is a reliable source that proves a modern usage, then that is enough to place its name here.  If DvdScott doesn't want it in he must provide a reliable source that says, pretty literally, "Gaelic speakers in the area around Selkirk call the place 'Selkirk'".  Otherwise, the single reliable source that we have for the modern Gaelic name trumps all personal observations.  (Taivo (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC))
 * DvdScott's main objection seems to be that Gaelic names should not be imposed on non-Gaelic areas. But this happens elsewhere all the time in Wikipedia.  Ukraine is divided into Ukrainian-speaking areas in the west and Russian-speaking areas in the east.  But the official language of the country is Ukrainian.  So Dnipropetrovsk is given its Ukrainian name and the article is even titled in Ukrainian even though the city is 90% Russian-speaking.  Official usage is a legitimate Wikipedia reason for adding another name in articles.  It's not a good reason to trump common English usage in naming articles (so that Kyiv is still located at Kiev), but it's a perfectly legitimate reason to list an alternate name.  (Taivo (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC))
 * About the namne not being ancient. According to this snippet of a book from 1712 the famous Alexander Selkirk was originally called "selcrag" (quite clearly an alternative spelling of salcraig). This shows that the relation between the English and the Gaelic name goes a long way back and is not somethign someone just invented.·Maunus· ƛ · 08:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The question I would ask, then, is whether the personal name has any relation to the placename. It's possible that a personal name was adapted to an existing placename.  Wouldn't be the first (or last) time that a non-English personal name was Anglicized for one reason or another.  There seems to be evidence for "Selkirk" as an Anglo-Saxon name in 1113.  Indeed, this personal name change may be the evidence that Stor-data uses to provide its Gaelic equivalent for Selkirk.  But, in the end, the antiquity of a Gaelic version isn't the issue here, the issue is whether there is a Gaelic equivalent to "Selkirk" today and Stor-data is reliable and verifiable evidence that there is.  DvdScott must still provide positive and unambiguous evidence that Gaelic speakers do not use it.  But if government documentation written in Gaelic uses it, or if the local community of Gaelic speakers uses it, his task then becomes impossible.  (Taivo (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Actually I am getting so interested now that I think we should write an Email to Mr. Mac an Tàlleir to ask about the names history.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading this page has got my blood boiling, in this educated and changing time for scotland we still have to listen to the anti-gaighlig pro-english brigade! As a teri and a borderer myself i appreciate the differences between the borders region and the rest of the country and also its interesting to note that the same sort of debate has occurred in other areas of the country and there is only one eventual outcome. People are becoming more educated than before and are not willing to listen to the usual pro-english drivel that is spouted on here. Incidentally most names in the borders are of of p -celtic origin but the imbicile who suggested it was a SAXON region needs to check again, a scant 200 year period of definite northumbrian rule does not make that so, also most linguistic studies suggest a norse place name rather than an anglo-saxon one in a large number of placenames in the borders. As a great deal of scots are not too far removed from gaelic speaking ancestry, i have family who are native speakers, i can only hope people like the ones commenting against it here are in the minority, actually i know that to be the case. Suas leis a ghaidlig! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.73.151 (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

Church in the forest?
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)

Exactly. This is fatuous. Ptolemy recorded the people here as Selgovae 500 years before anyone "English" speaking got a look in. I plan to excise the relevant part of the enty. Freuchie (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Ruth Davidson Former MSP
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)