Talk:St Kilda, Scotland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleSt Kilda, Scotland is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 2, 2008.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 15, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 16, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 30, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
June 23, 2011Featured topic candidatePromoted
June 26, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 29, 2011, August 29, 2014, August 29, 2017, and August 29, 2020.
Current status: Former featured article

Untitled[edit]

"The St Kildians may be ranked among the greatest curiosities of the moral world." Kenneth MacAuley (1764) The History of St Kilda.

Early Talk[edit]

The article states that only Rockall is further from the mainland, yet if you look at a map, The Shetlands are clearly further away. People should check facts before scribbling what ever they think on here.

What are the facts then? They are not as clear cut as you may believe. The Shetland Islands as a group are closer to the mainland than St Kilda as a group. Only if you look at the main islands of the groups, or if you do not consider Fair Isle a part of the Shetlands (this is no clear issue either), then the Shetlands are further from the mainland than St Kilda. You should look better at the map before scribbling what ever you think on here.--Ratzer 20:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Place Names of St Kilda / Nomina Hirtensia by Richard Coates, pub. Edwin Mellen, Wales 1990 states that the kelda well hypothesis is the most likely source of the name. Caltrop 02:00 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

I think it is funny, that scholars come up with all sorts of contrived ideas about where the name "Saint Kilda" could come from, there was no Saint Kilda of course, they think, if they knew anything about the people that lived there and their Gaelic culture they'd know that there are ALOT of places in Ireland and Scotland where Saints no one else has heard of exist, like Saint Barr, on Barr Island in the Hebrides. Saint Kilda prolly IS named after a Saint, who is prolly actually a Christianised pre-Christian Deity (most of the Saints, like our example Saint Barr were more than just names, they had feast days associated with them, could be appropriated for healing or protection of one's animals, too, so they were not just names).

I believe the generally accepted explanation of the name is that it is a corruption of the Norse word skildr meaning "shield."

I know it has become gospel, but it makes no sense to label the name "St. Kilda" (with a period) as incorrect. The name is pronounced "Saint Kilda." Thus, "St. Kilda" would be a correct method to indicate how to pronounce the name in English. It doesn't matter that there is no "St. Kilda" in the cannon or what the origins of the name are. It is called "Saint Kilda." What does the "St" (with no period) stand for? If it isn't "Saint," then please spell it out phonetically. Whether it is spelled St or St., it stands for "Saint" and therefore, both spellings should be acceptable. I note that many older books and documents use the period, such as "Life and Death on St. Kilda" and others. The ship, "The Lady of St. Kilda," appears to have had the period originally." I realize that the "Wikipedia effect" will now mean that all modern publications and other websites will have used Wikipedia as a source and therefore reinforced the "no period" view. Why not just call it "Kilda." I don't expect the "owners" of this article to care, I just wanted to note the reasons for getting rid of the period are based on questionable logic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaperBill (talk • contribs) 11 April 2013

Many people do just call it "Kilda", but only informally. The official name in English is St Kilda, and common practice in British English is not to include a full stop after a contraction (as opposed to an abbreviation, i.e. where the final letter of the abbreviated word is retained). So St Kilda, with no full stop, is the appropriate way to do it. See WP:ENGVAR. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

area?[edit]

What is the overall area of the archipelago?

670 ha according to Haswell-Smith (2004) making it the 50th ranked island by size according to his definition. Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article use ha instead of square kilometers and miles like other articles on locations? - Rick Apt

Spelling[edit]

Why isn't the name St Kilda as used in the Ordnanace Survey grid reference NF095995 and every book I've ever seen on the subject? It seems that only widkedia-derived articles use this spelling. --JBellis 18:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name St Kilda is actually commonly used. Ordnance Survey prefer to use native names for places, and St Kilda always has been (and still is) Hiort to Gaelic speakers. Lianachan 13:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

St Kilda, while remote, is still part of Scotland... Does anyone know?

  • What is its postcode and area telephone number?
  • What is its constituency?
  • What is its local authority?

None of this really matters as long as no-one lives there permanently but it would interesting to find the answers.

It'll be Western Isles council, and the same for constituency. Grinner 10:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Postcodes - the Geoplan Postcode Atlas does not show St. Kilda (not surprising) but it would probably have a HS prefix as the Western Isles. Mail to the military base would get a BFPO address, I suppose.Tony Corsini 09:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postcode: Possibly "HS" but not necessarily routed through the Outer Hebrides. Constituency:

(I don't know why slightly different Gaidhlig forms are used for the different constituencies.

Local authority: Na h-Eileanan Siar

Rockall incidentally falls under the same. --MacRusgail 01:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no post code - it is the only habitable place run by the UK that doesn't have one. The military base has been privatised, no army there now and sadly you cannot get a drink in the Puff Inn anymore - the private company will not allow it. Glad you liked my photos - I have loads more if you want !! Stephen Hodges 86.27.177.218 22:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which Marquess?[edit]

In 1931, the Marquess of Bute was the 4th, who died in 1947; his son the 5th Marquess died in 1956. Which of them bought St Kilda? —Tamfang 16:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson, Francis (1970). St Kilda and other Hebridean Outliers. David & Charles. ISBN 071534885X. says that Sir Reginald MacLeod sold St Kilda to the fifth marquess John Crichton-Stuart, 5th Marquess of Bute--JBellis 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Island Template[edit]

I have created a Template:Infobox Scottish island for use with Scottish islands which is based on the existing Template:Infobox Scotland place but which contains parameters which may be more useful for smaller islands which don't have their own police force or Lord Lieutenant. See Talk:Hebrides for more information and Dubh Artach for an example. Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having created an island infobox for St Kilda, I am intending to merge this with the existing Scottish infobox. I don't see any point in having both. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up[edit]

Watchers of the page will have noted the lengthy addition to the History section posted by an Anon IP. I have dropped this individual a short note requesting that they provide references. This section was already atrocious in this regard and will almost certainly need splitting into various sub-sections. I am planning various other additions in the hope of getting the article up to GA standard sometime this year. If others are planning anything similar it might be helpful if we co-ordinated our efforts. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have transferred material over to History of St Kilda, perhaps work can be done on making the main page section shorter. --MacRusgail 10:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic spellings[edit]

I'm not sure if some of the Gaelic placenames are spelled correctly although these may have been taken directly from ordinance survey maps, copying the incorrect spelling. The article mentions 'Stac an Armin' a number of times yet surely according the universal Gaelic spelling rule leathann ri leathann agus caol ri caol (broad with broad and slender with slender) this should be 'Stac an Armain'? An Muimhneach Machnamhach 09:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that some Gaelic spellings are incorrect, but could you give an example? 'Stan an Armin' may well be an anglicisation, but it is certainly the usual spelling. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to tidy up some of the spellings. Some of the names are semi-anglicised of course. Also "á/ó" should be replaced with "à/ò", as acute accents have been "officially" eliminated from modern Scottish Gaelic in the last few years by the Gaelic Orthographic Convention. I think, where possible, however diacritics should be included. NB - I tend to agree with An Muimhneach about caol ri caol etc. This is basic Gaidhlig.
One more thing. I don't know a great deal about the subject, but I suspect the St Kildans/Hiortaich probably spoke a highly unusual dialect, and this may be reflected in names of a type you wouldn't see elsewhere. --MacRusgail 18:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a source can be provided then by all means let us include the alternate Gaelic spelling of Stac an Armin. However I know of no English-speaking source that uses 'Armain'. Even Martin calls it 'Stack-Narmin'. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Ordinance Survey has a lot to answer for. They've bastardised some names beyond recognition, and I think I'd prefer a spelling like "Stack-Narmin", which at least looks anglicised than one like "Stac an Armin" which looks Gaidhlig, but isn't. "Armin" wouldn't be in a dictionary "àrmann" or "àrmainn" (genitive) would be. --MacRusgail 10:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though not to the extent that the British Ordinance Survey did with placenames in Ireland. It is clear that the British had Gaelic speakers with a knowledge of written Gaelic working with them in the Scottish Gàidhealtachd which mustn't have been the case in Ireland. Even when the Ordinance Survey of Ireland was founded shortly after independence, the OSI continued using the corrupt names. However, one must admit that the English corruptions have now gained some official status although I seem to remember reading somewhere that the British OI are now in the process of revising all of their maps and are working with Gaelic speakers to correct any spelling errors in Gaelic placenames. Seeing as St Kilda never had a resident population of native English speakers, I think it best to have the indigenous Gaelic names first with the English corruptions following in brackets. I have a book at home called 'St Kilda and other Hebridean Outliers' published in the late sixties, I think. Fascinating reading. Any of you familiar with it? Are there any articles on the Gaelic of the St Kildans? If so, it's inclusion in the article would greatly add to it, I think.

An Muimhneach Machnamhach 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the subject, but the odd word turns up in Dwelly etc with (St Kilda) after it. I have made an effort to add in grave accents where necessary (acutes are out the window now). As Stac an Armin seems to be the common spelling, I have located the article there. Hamish Haswell-Smith for all his great work in his book on all the islands makes a few spelling mistakes, and other minor errors. --MacRusgail 16:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that a something about the Gaelic of the St Kildans would be in order - although this could be whole article in itself too. However we must stick to common modern English language usage even if it is a 'corruption'. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. But would it not be a good idea to include the original Gaelic names as well? Just did a quick Google and found this: http://www.kilda.org.uk/weekildaguide/guide23.htm Not sure how accurate it is, though and it's only a tiny handful of words. Not so sure 'faire' is a unique St Kildan word. Surely 'faire' just means watching out for something, surveying? And the St Kildan meaning of 'crathadh' would seem to be just a variation on the original 'shaking, vibrating', if it is actually originally 'croitheadh' which as a Munsterman I pronounce 'crathadh'. Can't find any references to academic papers on St Kildan Gaelic. Is there a Scottish equivalent of the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies? They brought out monographs on the Gaelic of Arran, Kintyre and East Perthshire as well as a list of words from South Uist a number of years ago. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 09:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support providing the 'the original Gaelic names' - assuming that you are not suggesting we provide more than one Gaelic variant, which might work as a footnote but would make the text rather hard going. I'm sorry I can't advise on formal Scottish studies of 'Erse' - I am lamentably ignorant in this regard. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humm.. I'll put it onto my growing to do list ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template, New 'History of' page and GA candidature[edit]

Good work on the creation of the template and the new Stac pages. However, I'm not sure what the current purpose of the History of St Kilda page is - it simply repeats what exists here. Do you intend to extend it? As this article builds up to GA candidature - which I hope is imminent, assuming it becomes more stable soon. My suggested strategy is as follows - if the article passes GA and continues to grow the easiest way to reduce its size would be to summarise the Architecture section and move some of that material onto the individual island articles. I don't think the existing history section can be summarised without losing material that is important to an understanding of St Kilda in general. Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea will be to shorten the text on the main page, and have a link going into the history page. The computer's complaining that the article is too long, so most of the history stuff can go into the appropriate article. There can be a separate article for the geography of the island etc. --MacRusgail 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The computer is not 'complaining', it is only pointing something out. A substantial percentage of GA candidates are 'long'. This is, given a little time is a possible FA candidate which would need the whole story to be told. The history section is fine the way it is. It is really not OK to have a 'main' redirect, to a page which contains no new or useful information and has none of the features of a credible article such as lead section, references or categories. (Sorry I see it has two. BM) As I said above, by all means expand the new page. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree entirely. Been following the article's progress (pretty good, BTW) and a redirect that doesn't provide added value is pointless. Actually, I think you're not far from FA standard right now. Regards --Bill Reid | Talk 08:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use "complaining" in a metaphorical sense! Of course it doesn't add any information - the point was to transfer the history section over there, and make the section on the main page considerably shorter, as has been done with other articles, e.g. Scotland, Devon etc. The history should have its own page. It isn't a redirect, by the way, but a new article.--MacRusgail 14:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could even start on GA now or at least a peer review. Peer reviews take forever with the current backlog anyway. All that's needed is some copyediting, looks like. nadav 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna[edit]

Can I suggest small articles be written on the wren and the two mice of the islands? --MacRusgail 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means - I think they could make excellent articles. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added pictures of buildings[edit]

I added some pictures of newer buildings, and the hideous tracking station. I think St Kilda is too often portrayed as a wildlife reserve, and/or somehow prehistoric/mediaeval place - perhaps a few of the images may alleviate that notion.--MacRusgail 18:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - good images. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about the three cows! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.137.50 (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image size[edit]

I have to find a lot of the images are possibly too small now, but then again I am short sighted. On some of them it's hard to see much detail. --MacRusgail 16:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norse heritage[edit]

Although there seem to be few, or no, primary sources dating from the Norse period, it does seem apparent that the islands were affected by Norse expansionism.

Firstly, there is the evidence of placenames such as Soay, which point at settlement. Secondly, the island's parliament is interesting, because I'd suggest tentatively that it resembles the þings of Iceland, Faroe and the Isle of Man. Thirdly, I was interested to hear that the island's mouse is similar, if not related to a type in Mykines, which would suggest further connections. Fourthly, the cleitean, while a Gaelic word, is obviously cognate with klettr (?sp) which is Norse for something rocky.

It's difficult to find solid evidence, but the placenames, and the dialect suggest that there must have been some kind of settlement, albeit minor in the islands. --MacRusgail 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How old are the cleitean?[edit]

One should be careful not to endow the cleitean currently visible with great antiquity: Their lifespan, in Hirta's harsh environment, cannot possibly have exceeded a few centuries at most, provided of course they were properly maintained (which, by the way, is no longer the case for most of them today since the departure of the last St.Kildans).

Archaeological evidence has revealed several periods of occupation:

- the Bronze Age;

- the Iron Age;

- a period extending from the 6th-8th centuries until the 15th century in Gleann Mor in the northern part of the island;

- the 10th century (brooches of the Viking era),

but no proof of any continuity has been forthcoming.

Two incised crosses were found in reused stone blocks, the first one in a village house (could it not have been a foundation stone?), the second one in a cleit, but it really takes an act of faith to see vestiges of early christianity in them.

See Alex Morrison, An Introduction to the Later Settlement History of St. Kilda, dans A Rock and a Hard Place; Perspectives on the Archaeology of St. Kilda, Scotland, World Archaelogical Congress 4, University of Cape Town, 10th-14th January 1999.

C. Lassure (cerav@pierreseche.com)
As of now a contributor to Wikipedia
--Christian Lassure 21:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of August 15, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes, very well-written (I made a couple of minor changes).
2. Factually accurate?: Accurate, also well-referenced
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes. One suggestion- I'd like the article to include the present name of " Skildar, the old name for an island much nearer the west coast of the Outer Hebrides." from the "Origin of name" section
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.
5. Article stability? Yes
6. Images?: A very impressive and comprehensive collection of good-quality images.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Lurker (said · done) 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Sands[edit]

Sands visited several Scottish islands including St Kilda and Papa Stour. He is variously described as a journalist who worked for Punch magazine, a poet and an MP. He may have come from and/or been MP for Ormiston.

I am drafting a short biography article about him and have gleaned some basic info, but I can't find any definitive corroborating evidence he was ever an MP. He was possibly one in 1875 and assuming Ormiston refers to the village in East Lothian, it was part of Berwickshire (UK Parliament constituency). It has a list of the MPs that held the seat - John Sands isn't included.

The sources I have which mention him being an MP are:

Details of his political career are scant and some sources that refer to his St Kilda visit at length do not mention it all. It is possible there was another Johns Sands with whom Maclean confused the writer who visited St Kilda.

If anyone has/can find any other details please let me know. Many thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - see John Sands. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 21:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox conversions[edit]

When I was copyediting, I noticed two hectare and metre quantities in the Area and Summit section of the infobox that did not have conversions to square miles (or acres) and feet. I think they probably should have conversions, though the infobox has no built-in place for them. Other geographic infoboxes such as the one for Lethbridge, Canada, have built-in lines for conversions. I'm wondering if (a) we should add the conversions to the St Kilda infobox in particular and (b) if the infobox template for Scottish Islands could be improved by adding places for the conversion numbers and units. Finetooth (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and added them to the infobox. I used acre with hectare and feet with metre, but I was not sure of the abbreviation for acre Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - according to United States customary units its is just 'acres'. Re (b) above, whilst its is more than likely that an FA adventure will need both units I think its just clutter myself and wouldn't trouble the existing infobox template. In any decent article it will be spelled out in the text anyway, and none of the successful GA's have needed it, so far at least. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 12:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I feel we should go for consistency across the islands and use the {{Template:Infobox Scottish island}}, which may have been developed since this page was started. I have done a mock up. The differences are:

  • no Constituent country or Sovereign state;
  • Title will be St Kilda, Scotland on both infobox and included map;
  • Image in preview becomes the "Street" image rather than the blue map;
  • Map
I think the standard infobox is fine. Can I ask you to upload it?
I note the use of imperial units. I have no difficulty with that but it does create a precedent. (See also below).
Don't know what you mean by preview image... is this some fiendish PC thing?
possibly - info

I think all are OK. To avoid the disambiguation name, it may be worth altering the template to allow another name to be specified, over-riding the default page name. This will also be useful on other pages.

Agreed

The default map (by entering lat/long) will match the other islands, but loose the detailed "vivid blue" map. I have moved that down into the Geography section (with minor change to the position of the Stac Levenish image). Using "Map=Kilda2876.png" adds the blue map in the infobox, but with a map width of only 115px, which is rather small. If there is demand for specific maps, then I think we need to be able to specify a width (up to 280, the infobox width) - again by altering the template. Comments? Finavon (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's not to like about the blue by the way - is there some kind of Rangers/Celtic thing going on here : )? I don't think it is necessary to keep with the revised infobox. I like the colour but 'Saint Kilda' grates.
- merely to identify the image; I have moved it down, but it can be removed.
Note also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Metric vs Imperial - I will alert all at WP:ISLE asap. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 11:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standard infobox imported into existing page. As has become standard, I have left out the imperial units. Area rank has no meaning for an island group. No more editing for a few days (and not much editing in January, so I don't know when I will get to look at the template). Finavon (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. Let's discuss the 'former county' issue on your return too. Have a good wiki-break. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes[edit]

I changed some en dashes to em dashes per what I thought was the standard defined at WP:MOSDASH; per Sandy's recent edit I may have misunderstood it. I'll post to her talk page and ask. Mike Christie (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all truth it is an area of MOS I have not yet properly understood (or perhaps understood the need for). Every time I try read it I fall asleep at my keyboard. Thank-you for your help - it is much appreciated. (Sorry, that's probably wrong use again). Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 11:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view text?[edit]

The following seems problematic:

"Unfortunately, Mackay, the new Free Church minister, was a religious zealot who may have done more than anyone to destroy the St Kildan way of life. "

One man's religious zealot is another man's righteous campaigner for truth. Opinion as to whether Mackay's presence was "unfortunate" for St Kilda might very well depend who was asked. The idea that Mackay did more than anyone to destroy the St Kildan way of life seems to be editorializing. The next paragraph after the one I have quoted above also suffers from similar problems, although starts to move back towards describing rather than judging the situation. I note that for both paragraphs, only one source is quoted (Maclean, 1977). Given the fact that late 20th century Scottish attitudes towards free church presbyterians varied considerably (particularly in the Highlands and Islands), it is far from inconcievable that Maclean took a dim view of the frees. Greenshed (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an addition to my last comment, are there any other reliable sources available which cover St Kilda's religious history and the influence of Mackay? Greenshed (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the comment about doing more to destroy the way of life, but the term "zealot" is a legitimate and neutral term for someone who places uncommon emphasis on religious observance, so I intend to remove the neutrality tag. Abberley2 (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look in the Shorter Oxford dictionary yields the following:
  • Zealot 1. A member of a Jewish sect ... (clearly we are not using the term in this technical sense).
  • 2. A zealous person (for a cause, etc.); esp. one who is carried away by excess of zeal; a fanatical enthusiast
We are using the word in the second sense and is worth noting the the meaning tends towards having too much zeal or being fanatical. It is POV as to what is "too much" zeal and "fanatical" hardly has a neutral sense. To say Mackay was zealous would be NPOV; to say he was a zealot is not. To use your words, it would be descriptive and NPOV to say that Mackay placed an uncommon emphasis on religious observance. Greenshed (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article is great[edit]

Some sentences perfectly put things into perspective: "By 1758 the population had risen to 88 and reached just under 100 by the end of the century. This figure remained fairly constant from the 18th century until 1851, when 36 islanders emigrated to Australia on board the Priscilla, a loss from which the island never fully recovered." hahaha, oh man. Wikipedia rules. 24.84.9.62 (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I love this line: "Launched when the wind came from the northwest, two-thirds of the messages were later found on the west coast of Scotland or, less conveniently, in Norway." 98.111.85.100 (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNESCO Designations[edit]

Hi folk, I appreciate this isn't an article I'm involved in, but I thought I'd better make some amendments and let you know what I've done. I changed the line in the intro that included marine as part of the mixed classification as it seemed to imply that there was such a UNESCO classification. I also changed the line in the Nature Conservation section. In both cases the references provided don't include the word marine at all. Regards, Psychostevouk (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great article by the way, really well put together! Psychostevouk (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thanks for fixing this. Ben MacDui 09:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early inhabitants[edit]

Hi there

I couldn't read the article thoroughly, but it seems there is no information as to the whereabouts of the first inhabitants and how they got there. If the literature offers any solution, it would certainly be interesting to mention it in the article. Cheers--Zenit (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The archaeological evidence suggest that the first settlement occurred during the Neolithic. It's pretty safe to assume they arrived by boat, but what they were called is unknown. Ben MacDui 09:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot.--Zenit (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pollution of soil by arable farming?[edit]

Should this article reference the findings of Professor Andy Meharg and his team regarding the effects of pollution on the island population? This puts a very difference perspective on the factors leading to the failure of the settlements. --Norsktrad (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farming practices pollute St Kilda[edit]

Further research by the University of Aberdeen is about to take place into the high levels of soil pollution discovered in the soils of the St Kilda archipelago, following a grant of £168,000 from the Leverhulme Trust.

Researchers from the Plant and Soil Science at the University of Aberdeen have discovered that the arable farming practices on the remote islands of St Kilda, combined with the local custom of eating and composting seabird waste, has led to the build up significant levels of contaminants such as lead, zinc and arsenic in the soils of Hirta, the main island of the archipelago.

This latest award will allow Professor Andy Meharg of the University's Plant and Soil Science Department to lead a multidisciplinary project team to further investigate the particular nature and detail of the soils on St Kilda and other remote Scottish islands.

Professor Meharg said: "The island community on the remote St Kilda archipelago has often been viewed as a utopian society, given their closeness to the environment and local self government, polluted the farmland of St Kilda with a range of potentially toxic elements, such as lead, zinc, cadmium and arsenic. This contamination will change the perception of the St Kildan's living in harmony with their environment."

Robin Turner, Senior Archaeologist for the islands' owners The National Trust for Scotland, is amazed at the results of the survey: "Up to now we thought of St Kilda as an idyllic society living in blissful harmony with nature. The demise of the community is always blamed on external pressures, firstly from the landlord, then from visitors and latterly from the increased expectations of the population. Now we can see that the islanders were unwittingly poisoning the soil on which they relied, and perhaps themselves too. This makes the story even more interesting for us today. The message is: not only do we need to live in harmony with our environment, but we need to be very sure that any apparently sensible changes we make don't have unexpected side-effects."

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/mediareleases/archive/2002/pr1003.hti

Poison in Paradise[edit]

Scientists from Aberdeen University have found evidence that the inhabitants on the remote Scottish islands of St Kilda unwittingly contaminated the soil, which may have been a factor leading to the evacuation of the islands in 1930.

Professor Andy Meharg and his team have been studying samples of soil from different parts of Hirta, the main island of the St Kilda archipelago. Samples were collected from grazing lands, from fields, and from midden pits where in the past waste was collected for manuring. Analysis showed that levels of toxic chemicals from some of the fields and from the pits even now remain at high levels - which may have affected the fertility of the land.

The pollution occurred when manuring practices on St Kilda became more intensive. The pollutants - including lead, zinc, cadmium and arsenic - can mainly be attributed to the use of seabird carcasses in the manure that was spread across the village fields.

Prof. Meharg explains: 'Tens of thousands of birds were captured each year, so a considerable amount of waste was generated. Seabirds tend to have elevated levels of a range of potentially toxic metals in their organs. When traveller Martin Martin visited in 1697 he commented on the island's fertility, but a deterioration in the crops is recorded by the mid-18th century. Our samples from the field systems show chemical concentrations that would be considered unsuitable for agriculture under modern UK legislation because the foodstuffs might be harmful to health.'

Robin Turner, Senior Archaeologist for the islands' owners The National Trust for Scotland, is amazed at the results of the survey: 'Up to now we thought of St Kilda as an idyllic society living in blissful harmony with nature. The demise of the community is always blamed on external pressures, firstly from the landlord, then from visitors and latterly from the increased expectations of the population. Now we can see that the islanders were unwittingly poisoning the soil on which they relied. This makes the story even more interesting for us today. The message is: not only do we need to live in harmony with our environment, but we need to be very sure that any apparently sensible changes we make don't have unexpected side-effects. It is even more ironic that this community might have been affected like this by their principal natural resource - one that had sustained them for hundreds if not thousands of years.'

These results have led to a major research award from the Leverhulme Trust. Over the next few years, this which will allow Prof. Meharg and his team to compare St Kilda with other islands which housed communities with a strong reliance on birds - especially Mingulay and Foula. Scientists from Aberdeen and Stirling Universities will also be able to use samples from recent archaeological excavations on St Kilda to follow the contamination pattern back in time.

http://www.kilda.org.uk/frame12.htm

It's there. See the "Evacuation" section. Ben MacDui 22:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As written, it suggests that the environmental damage occurred in the 1920s prior to the evacuation when there's evidence that it runs back through several centuries, causing a severe reduction in crop quality in the 18th century? I didn't notice the reference in the evacuation subsection.

I imagine that the Little Ice Age might have also caused an agricultural decline at that time, but the long term effects of significant poisons getting into the diet of successive generations may have had an impact on the general health, lifespan and fertility of the islanders. --Norsktrad (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may indeed - but with emphasis on the "may". I am not aware of any direct evidence for any impact on St Kildan health. Indeed they are generally referred to as having been more rather than than less healthy than the norm prior to the "boat cough" and the effect of tetanus. I think one of the more interesting aspects of the tale is how successive generations re-interpret it. It'll be interesting to see the additional evidence when it is published - although as far as I am aware there is no reason to suppose this was a factor on Mingulay. I'll take another look at the wording asap. Ben MacDui 11:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ben MacDui 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of recent structures section[edit]

Could somebody please check that my wording reads correctly? It's two-thirty in the morning here. Ottre 15:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Done Ben MacDui 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

Only as a side note, I find it very interesting that Gaelic spread to this extremely remote, tiny island. Obviously the inhabitants were not originally Celtic themselves if they were there since the neolithic, and it seems unlikely the old idea of a "Celtic invasion" could have happened on such a remote island of only 180 people. I had kind of hoped they would be speaking something altogether different (not that I have anything against my own language). Just makes me wonder how Gaelic got there. I mean if the islanders didn't have our diseases yet and didn't know about George II they clearly didn't go to the mainland much! -Dubhghaill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.60.145 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were isolated, but not completely cut off and there were regular visitors from the "mainland". Don't forget that news travelled very slowly until recently. I believe it took a fortnight for the news of Lincoln's assassination to reach London, for example. The St Kildans may also have spoken a form of Norse at one time. When a Celtic language first began anywhere in Scotland seems to be hard to verify and what language was spoken before that, prior to the first millennium BC, seems to be lost altogether. Ben MacDui 20:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on Norse heritage above. How did they get Gaidhlig? Well, their nearest neighbours in the Hebrides and western Ireland spoke the language for over a thousand years, although it's contentious whether it was there before Norse, or if Norse killed an earlier language.--MacRusgail (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglophone people tend to think monolingualism is the norm - not being nasty, it's just what happens. But we need to remember that multilingualism was and is the norm across swathes of the planet. There are clear Norse elements on St Kilda, the placenames show that - and the sheep. But We shouldn't make the error of assuming that it was simply a case of all or nothing for either language. There may well have been long periods of functional bilingualism. I doubt the Norse totally ignored it but it was hardly paradise on earth either so probably not as much of a target for a full takeover as, say, Caithness or the Hebrides. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. St Kilda is most certainly a paradise compared to Caithness : ) Ben MacDui 11:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL sure, endless forests for timber, rich monasteries, farmland that stretches to the horizon, warm dry summers and mild wet winters... why bother sailing to Normandy :b Akerbeltz (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see one language being used with outsiders, but as just that. In terms of the local vernacular, I doubt such a small population could have stable bilingualism for very long. The first Gaels in St Kilda were no doubt Culdees.

I have a hunch that some of the early settlers on St Kilda may have been castaways, or on a one way trip. Even the primitive sheep and the archaeological remains do not suggest continuous settlement. St Kilda may have been uninhabited for certain periods.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may indeed have been abandoned and resettled depending on climatic changes etc, similar to the Norse in Greenland. But small populations do support bilingualism - though the only one that springs to mind is that of a population where the men speak a different language from the women. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the societies I know of which do that are European, and some of them separate the males and females for long periods of time. The odds are against there being two community languages in St Kilda for very long - the place and the population are too small. Extremely unlikely - I could see it happening in Lewis, Skye, Mull etc, but not in St Kilda. Unless of course, Soay and Hirta spoke different languages - both were inhabited at one point.--MacRusgail (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's rather unlikely; just not impossible. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuation[edit]

I note the edits removing references to the islanders rather than the island being "evacuated". This is a very commonly used phrase, especially re the transfers of children from cities during WW2. My dictionary is quite happy with usage referring to people. Is this a GB vs US English issue? Ben MacDui 21:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly consistent with GB usage which is what we should be following here. Islands and islanders can both be evacuated AFAIK. --Michael C. Price talk 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope this is not just an American thing, it's a pedant thing. If you say "the St Kildans were evacuated", it literally means that their insides were scoured out (with diarrhoea etc). However, it's alright to say that "the people were evacuated from St Kilda" or "St Kilda was evacuated".
I know this partially because of what I've heard about demanding newspaper editors. It may be colloquial usage, but it's technically wrong, and as every newspaper editing fule kno, they'll receive a number of letters pointing out this error.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely not colloquial. The Collins Concise has a definition of "to send away from a dangerous place to a safe place: 200 people were evacuated from their homes because of the floods." The evacuation of a place is the second definition and discharging waste is the third. Ben MacDui 07:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked my (American) Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary and it lists the fourth meaning of evacuate as removing people from a hazardous area. It also sounds OK to my ear (which is used to AE), but I am a bit of an Anglophile (and Hibernophile) so my ear does not always notice BE. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely bad usage, evacuation means to clear out something. The people didn't get their insides cleared out, the island got cleared out. This isn't US vs GB usage at all. Besides which, this article will be edited til Kingdom come if it sounds as if the St Kildans had severe bowel trouble.

BTW, another pedant point, "Anglophile" properly refers to the English, not to the Scots! They're the ones in Angleland... --MacRusgail (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I tried to say I was also a Scots-ophile (sounds like something you could be arrested for) with "Hibernophile". What is the proper word? As for the definition, I am just reporting what one of the more popular American dictionaries lists as a definition. I note with interest that no one thinks it means that the St Kildans had all the air and other gases in them pumped out (what most chemists might think of when reading that something was evacuated) but then Biology is more popular (and messier in this case). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scotophile. I can see no evidence that the "evacuation of persons" is incorrect and plenty that it is, but its not a major issue. Ben MacDui 07:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, no one but the most retentive pedant is going to pick up on it, but these are just the type of people who edit wikipedia mercilessly, so I don't think it's worth employing the more comical usage.
This debate has even raged over The Wire - see here --MacRusgail (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the point being made but "the people were evacuated" is actually correct in British English and American English. The example given for the use of the word in the OED is "I am in charge of a contingent of nurses just evacuated from the Belgian front" and there is a similar example "after the earthquake, residents were evacuated" given in the definition from Princeton University here. The Macmillan dictionary has "If the alarm sounds, all students should evacuate immediately" in both the British and American versions. Richerman (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The inhabitants eschewed fishing?[edit]

I have found a newspaper cutting from Read's Weekly Journal Or British Gazetteer (London, England), Saturday, May 4, 1751 that reads:

By the Master of a Boat from St Kilda we are told, that Cod and Ling are in such Quantities round that Isle, that the Inhabitants frequently catch them by a Hook and Line.

It seems they did do some fishing. Richerman (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is my guess that this was either shore fishing or casual fishing from a boat whilst they were out fowling. The statement in the article is rather glib and needs amending - it should probably say that they did not indulge in organised fishing trips or similar. I will revert asap. Ben MacDui 08:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - see this diff. Thanks for pointing this out. Ben MacDui 18:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done :) Richerman (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is by no means unusual. Until the 20th century, the main industry of the Faroe Islands was sheep farming. Presumably, boats were mainly for transport, and wood was hard to come by as well.

The other problem is that there isn't actually a decent harbour in St Kilda.-MacRusgail (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep image questions[edit]

The question has been posed: "- Is this sheep on Soay or Hirta? (Are the Soay sheep ear-tagged?)"

First of all, I don't know for sure and User:Jonesor who posted the image seems to be no more. However, access to Soay island is strictly limited by SNH (in addition to being difficult to achieve) and I would be very surprised if it was taken there - and even more so if it was and not mentioned in the image description. It is clear that Hirta sheep are tagged, and it is stated here that they are not on Soay "Even the wild Soays have to have ear tags, except on Soay island which no-one can get to as the cliffs are too precipitous." It is not the most reliable possible source, but I think this answers the questions. Ben MacDui 18:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's much what I thought. I often have trouble enough catching my Heb and Shetland lambs on flat ground when I see them every day, and I imagine it must be pretty near impossible with even more agile sheep on an inaccessible island when they're weeks or months old by the time they're seen. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Fury[edit]

The reference to this Hammond Innes book is currently uncited. There are any number of "customer reviews" clearly stating the link but they are hardly individual RSs - even if collectively they would sway a jury. The book is on sale for the modest sum of $145. Ben MacDui 08:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of religion -- wording[edit]

restore, rm that breaks the logical chain

I can't see how removing the following sentence breaks the logical flow:

One factor in the decline was thus the influence of religion.

This relates to the previous paragraph but introduces a paragraph which states that states that Buchan had no effect, that MacDonald had some effect (but with no discussion of any damage done) and that MacKenzie actually did some good (the introduction of schooling). It also occurs in a section that is not directly discussing the decline. As such, it is a very inappropriate hypertheme.

Now, should it be included in the previous paragraph? It seems a little bit heavy-handed. Furthermore, I'd question whether the first paragraph is appropriate at all -- this paragraph seems more preoccupied with population decline than either religion or tourism, which is the intended purpose of this section.

The emigration during the Disruption isn't even included in the chronology of this section, only in the introduction.

Prof Wrong (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is always possible to effect improvements but I think you are misunderstanding the processes involved. MacKenzie may, from our perspective, have done a lot of good, but his actions may actually have precipitated the mass emigration and subsequent decline of the population. Prior to the 19th century religion, as their mainland contemporaries understood it, seems to have been largely absent and the combination of tourism and religion—both the "good" and less so—were novel and dominant factors in the life of the islanders and its slip into population decline during the 19th C. I don't think you can treat them all as unrelated issues. For me, yes, this sentence could just as easily go into the previous para. However, the intro para isn't a summary lede, but a way of introducing some of the key themes - there is no need to repeat them again, or to have everything in linear, chronological order. Ben MacDui 19:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Ben MacDui comments above. David J Johnson (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"MacKenzie may, from our perspective, have done a lot of good, but his actions may actually have precipitated the mass emigration and subsequent decline of the population."
Note the two "may"s here. I don't deny that MacKenzie may have been partly to blame, but this is not something that has been proven. As an encyclopedia article, we should be sticking to the facts, but right now this section of the article has an air of the "essay" about it, in that it's trying to prove a point rather than reporting established facts and attributed opinion.
Prof Wrong (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken on two counts. Firstly we are not here merely to record facts per se, we are certainly also able to include the views of authors of reliable sources. Secondly, they are not my opinions. McKay for example is described as "harsh", "despotic", "extreme", his sermons as "repetitious" and "dim effusions". Mackenzie is recorded as having "jolted" the islanders out of their "former ways" and "opened new windows on the outside world". I am not familiar with every last word written about the islands but I don't think the article (or my comments above) make controversial claims that have not been widely recorded. Ben MacDui 15:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings us to the point I was trying to get to. When MacKenzie "opened new windows on the outside world", was this when he read from the Bible or from a geography book? Was education also a "factor in the decline"...?

Page watchers will have seen that this issue has been raised again via recent IP edits. I have no access to a library or any of my books at present but note the mention in the UNESCO description and in this (pdf) paper from the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The idea that religious influence played a part in the eventual abandonment of the islands is not at all controversial, although differnet authors do of course place varying emphasis on the subject. Ben MacDui 20:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ben MacDui comments. I really cannot see why this has been commented again by an unregistered IP editor. David J Johnson (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bad sentence, "One factor in the decline was thus the influence of religion". That's a pretty broad statement and it tends to imply some kind of direct effect, that is, the typical reader is apt to form an impression along the lines that the islanders had adopted some kind of religious doctrine that caused the population to decline. But it's nothing like that at all. Going by what's said right before that, it was the lack of a religious leader that inspired a bunch of people to go somewhere where there was proper religion. Not being able to afford proper leadership is a factor of their size and not particularly a religious issue, so it's "influence of religion" in a pretty roundabout way; to the extent that it is religious, it's more like "the influence of not having enough people to sustain a satisfactory religious life", which is really just a subset of "the influence of not having enough people to sustain a satisfactory life in many ways -- materially, socially, and politically". Going by what's said later, it seems that maybe they had a bad religious leader -- which is mostly a leadership issue, not a religion issue -- and that somehow had some kind of effect -- not clear what actual material effect, actually, and judging by the later material it was a much smaller factor than establishment of modern communication and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be poorly phrased but this is not what is meant. Religion played a part in the abandonment in various ways including:
  • the laird's closure of the church - against the islanders' wishes;
  • Mackay's zealotry, which made an already marginal subsistence lifestyle even poorer in both economic and cultural terms;
It is very difficult, probably impossible, to quantify the effect of the different factors involved. Mackay's philosophy made life more difficult for the islanders than it might have been, but arguably the earlier emigration was more significant. It wasn't the 'establishment of modern communication' so much as the refusal of the government to extend this to Hirta that was another signficant factor, but it is pretty clear that commentators believe religion was a factor and do "imply some kind of direct effect". Perhaps they are wrong to do so, but I'm simply going from the sources rather than any view I might have about religion in general or the Free Church in particular. See also Mingulay. Ben MacDui 12:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I don't have the sources. I don't know as closing a church is a religious thing rather than an organizational thing. The zealotry thing, though, is religious; but I'd construe "religion" narrowly. If the Catholic Church buys a lot of land somewhere for some reason and sends real estate prices up, would we really say "Real estate prices are up because of religion"? Maybe; it's arguable. Since it's arguable I'd be careful about taking the sources' opinion of what is and what is not "religion" too much at face value. It's a great article and it covers the various factors with subtlety and thoughtfulness; that one sentence just seems a bit out of place, a bit unsubtle. Herostratus (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gene stagnation?[edit]

How does a population of 180 last for two millenia without encountering inbreeding issues? 71.173.2.53 (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were isolated, not completely cut off. See e.g. the "Religion and tourism in the 18th and 19th centuries" section. Ben MacDui 08:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and compared to certain other inhabited islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans, e.g. Pitcairn, or the Chatham Islands, they're not as isolated as they could be.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soay sheep.[edit]

I was about to offer a contribution from the Daily Telegraph obituaries which claims that Soay sheep, "are in size and strength similar to deer." This should be easy to check but appears to be in flat contradiction to the statement that they are small in size! FWIW I would expect larger animals to do better in extreme weather though I assume St Kilda benefits from the Gulf stream & the article doesn't have much detail on climate. Any thoughts? JRPG (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means that sheep in general are of a size and strength similar to deer. It says in the Soay sheep article that they are "much smaller than modern domesticated sheep but hardier, and extraordinarily agile" and it says here they are tiny - one third the size of most modern domestic sheep. And what's more, it seems that they are getting smaller due to climate change see: [1]. Richerman (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's Razor applies here. It doesn't particularly matter about climate change in this instance (which seems to be the excuse for everything from acne and impotence to political corruption), I suspect that the population is bigger than it used to be, and so as that population density grows, thanks to the fact people hardly eat or kill them like they used to, they become smaller.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eight-days sickness[edit]

I heard a lot of newborns in Saint Kilda died in a thing they called Eight-days sickness, infantile lockjaw o tetanus infantum. There are studies about that:

More sources:

Would it be interesting to add it to the article? Paucabot (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on St Kilda, Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last St Kildan[edit]

Mention should be made of the death of the last inhabitant - [2] and others refer. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flipflop of r-l-d[edit]

The r-l reversal, mentioned in the name section, seems to be quite common in village societies where there is no written language, all over the world. Percy Chatterton notes the reversal in his 40yrs of living alongside Hanubada Village in Port Moresby. The local language is Motu which some 100k native speakers. He observes more than one complete cycle of l to d to r, and back to l. For example Ela (turtle) beach now has a pressure group insisting that the correct name is Era. To the western ear, which first wrote the word Ela more than 130yrs ago, there is a big difference between l and r. More to the point, these were all trained linguists who recorded these languages in precise IPL. It's unlikely that they got Ela wrong. It is the locals who have changed their pronunciation. IPL was the norm throughout the Pacific, and it is the reason for the odd spelling found in Polynesia. When creating written laws, signs, etc., local authorities simply replaced the complex IPL characters with the closest looking Roman letter. Polynesian languages are full of diphthongs. The ng character in IPL was replaced by a simple Roman g. Thus Pago Pago is spelled without the n, but is pronounced pango pango. The word for school is aoga, but pronounced "a-onga". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.78.52 (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waveheights[edit]

Transferring a comment put on the article by Bazzerface

(I served on St Kilda on several occasions from 1967 to 1969 and never saw 12m waves hit the beach in Village Bay. Almost certainly the western sea-facing cliffs of the island would have had such high waves hit it. A 12m wave hitting the beach would have wrecked the entire village area including the actual National-Trust preserved village. I think this report of such waves may come from here which quotes, "Waves heights of up to 40ft (12m) battered the west coast (of Scotland) for much of the day, with the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science saying that one of its monitoring buoys had recorded a wave of 52ft (16m) at 15:00 - the highest it had ever seen.)

JRPG (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Pedestrian Crossing on St Kilda[edit]

During 1957 construction of Road and Radar Station, they install a Zebra crossing on Mullach Sgar. what is a anachronism since there scarcely any traffic or inhabitants for using it. There is Picture of this uploaded on Wiki commons.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Pedestrian_Crossing_on_St_Kilda_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1296926.jpg

2A02:A03F:A48:1600:B862:2B87:74CF:4407 (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like a joke ..in the same style as the 'International Sea & Airport Lounge' Thanks for sharing but I'm not sure it would be appreciated as a photo on this page when there is so much else needing to be shown. I've spent hours looking at the National Trust photos & wishing I could go to St Kilda. JRPG (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here is picture of crossing in 1965, of course it could be a joke of military personal that were station on Island Radar post. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C24lphJXUAEsaj_.jpg 2A02:A03F:A48:1600:2C9A:A761:D21F:1F6F (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is a joke, but it may also have been used for driver training. When I was on St Kilda about 20 years ago, there was a bus stop sign nearby (at the time the only vehicles were army landrovers). AlasdairW (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AlasdairW. This is a featured article so we need to cite everything wherever possible, particularly for a non essential photo. Is the 'bus stop' still there, do all bases train drivers? We could probably just say the crossing was on a road leading to the base. JRPG (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was only on St Kilda for 2 weeks as part of a NTS workparty. This 2002 BBC news item mentions the crossing and says it was a joke (sorry the link probably only works for readers in the UK). There was discussion of repainting in 2002/3. The crossing appears to have still been there for the 2015? workparty. I don't know about the bus stop - I have a group photo taken there, but online searches turn up bus stops in Melbourne. AlasdairW (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on St Kilda, Scotland. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St Kilda, Scotland. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on St Kilda, Scotland. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 September 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 14:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– The Scottish island is the primary topic for "St Kilda" both in terms of usage and long-term significance. Over the past 20 days, the island has been viewed 9,875 times (470 per day), compared with 3,648 (174) for the Australia/NZ suburbs combined. Dozens of books have been written about the island (its people, its geography, its wildlife, etc.); the same cannot be said for any other topic with the same name. Source: <https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=St_Kilda,_Scotland%7CSt_Kilda,_Victoria%7CSt_Kilda,_New_Zealand%7CSt_Kilda,_South_Australia%7CSt_Kilda,_Queensland> Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. St Kilda has only been viewed 20 times per day. So most readers know where the pages are, or are following links which would have to be changed. I have been to three of the St Kildas. I think that the one in Scotland and the one in Melbourne are notable in the local area, but it is hard to decide which is "most notable" when they are so far apart. A search on Amazon's UK and Australian sites gave very different results for "St Kilda". AlasdairW (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I didn't even know there was a St Kilda in Scotland and having read the article, I see it is an unpopulated island in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. I was in Scotland last month in the Orkneys and Shetlands so it is not as if I am ignorant of Scotland's islands overall. The one in Victoria has a population of 17,000 and is a tourist destination and has a very popular football club. Kerry (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. St Kilda's very isolation and depopulation by evacuation within living memory after millennia are crucial aspects in their significance rather than points to devalue its case. I'm not speaking in favour or against the motion but felt I should point out this flaw in the case lest it should play a part in swaying opinion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think these are arguments for notability (which is not in question), but not arguments for primary. I said what I did because I was genuinely surprised by the proposal. I think this is the first time I've ever found myself in a primary discussion when I had never heard of the proposed primary topic. From the comments here, it seems that it is well-known within the UK but I'm doubtful about whether that fame extends further afield. I assure you if you read Australian newpapers, you will see the St Kilda Football Club all the time (and I'm not a football fan) and few people would visit Melbourne without going to St Kilda. I'm not claiming the Australian St Kilda is primary, but I don't think St Kilda, Scotland is as well-known worldwide as the proposer believes. I think the current situation (a disambiguation page) is the correct thing to do. Kerry (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Kerry, but as it was you that noted its lack of population in a discussion about its merits as a primary topic, it was reasonable to presume you thought it pertinent in that regard; the only reason I addressed it. If you don't, that's fine. I'm aware of (and have been to) the one in Melbourne but my awareness is probably atypically high with my Aussie roots. Mutt Lunker (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I note the page view comparison above did not include the St Kilda Football Club. Here's another page view comparison with the football club. Kerry (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People looking for the football club wouldn't type in just "St Kilda" though. Liverpool F.C. is around three times as popular as the city of Liverpool, but that doesn't mean the city isn't the primary topic. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have visited St Kilda in Scotland and it is a place of great interest for many reasons. If we were starting from scratch I would make it the main page, but I don't think its significance is so far ahead that it warrants a change. There will be external links that would be broken. The current page usage may swing the other way in the future. Stability seems more important here. Weburbia (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As above, St Kilda evokes a feeling of great remoteness and irrational attraction perhaps not appropriate for such an impoverished, lonely and dangerous place as it was in the 1930s. It is extremely well known in the UK. I mostly visit on page changes so I've not had any problems finding it.
  • Oppose I don't believe the Scottish island meets the two general criteria of being an unambiguous primary topic, as set out at WP:PTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." and "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." As pointed out above, on several days the football club has more pageviews than the Island. The nom is wrong to imply that no books have been written about St Kilda, Australia: searching the National Library of Australia reveals as such. AusLondonder (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St Kilda, Scotland. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St Kilda, Scotland. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 October 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– This is the original place and gets nearly double the views of the others combined [[3]]. The place in Victoria (which is indirectly named after it) also gets lots of views so like Perth and Worcester should have a direct hatnote. St Kilda is a UNESCO World Heritage site and is a level 5 vital article so should easily pass PT#2. We previously had Isle of Lewis at Lewis which got less views than the TV series and is usually called "Isle of Lewis". Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Over the past 90 days the island had a daily average of 484 views compared with 223 for the others combined. It has more links to it, more page-watchers, and is edited more frequently. It has also been the subject of multiple books and journal articles, unlike any of the others. This makes it the primary topic for both usage and long-term significance. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivar the Boneful: Why do you repeat the falsehood from the last failed move request that this St Kilda is the only one to have been the subject of published works? That was debunked last time. AusLondonder (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: What about the argument that this is a UNESCO World Heritage site and is a level 5 vital article. In this case PT#1 is probably not met but I'm pretty sure PT#2 is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:AusLondonder where on earth have I claimed that? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Directly above in your own rationale in favour of the move when discussing St Kilda in Scotland "It has also been the subject of multiple books and journal articles, unlike any of the others" AusLondonder (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Being the "original place" is not grounds to support a move. The first criteria - primary usage - is not met. The daily page views are not so overwhelming to indicate the Scottish place is "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." On one day in August 2018, the Scottish archipelago only had a lead of 405-348. That is not the huge lopsided lead to meet the criteria of being a primary topic. AusLondonder (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:AusLondonder in what sense does St Kilda, Scotland, recording double the number of views of the others combined over the past 90 days not make it "more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"? You seem to have ignored the actual criteria and made up some of your own. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose see my comments in the green box above (Sept 2017). Yes this is slightly more notable than the Melbourne suburb, but not massively so. AlasdairW (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on long-term significance and on page views, which are equally conclusive whatever period you look at (allowing for spikes due to an event affecting one place or the other). I do note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC gives criteria other than page views, but none of these are conclusive. The number of incoming wikilinks is comparable for the Scottish and the Victoria St Kildas. I can't figure out an effective way to distinguish between mentions of one place or the other whilst eliminating mentions of Scotland in relation to the other St Kildas, or mentions of, say, Queen Victoria in relation to the Scottish island on Google ngram/books/news/scholar, but to a first approximation the numbers are comparable for Scotland and Victoria. The numbers of edits, page watchers and active editors, while not mentioned on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, are also strongly in favour of the Scottish St Kilda and ought to count for something. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed". The current arrangement makes it easy to find bad incoming links to the DAB page; I see one every one or two months. The current arrangement means that every reader can get to the page they want in two clicks; the proposed change would mean that one-third of readers would need three. Narky Blert (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    With the proposed direct link then readers looking for this would have got it and readers looking for the Victoria suburb would be 1 click away. Only those looking for one of the others, which is less than 5% would have 2 clicks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult enough keeping on top of the 400-800+ new bad links to DAB pages which are created every single day. Bad links to poorly-chosen PTOPICs rarely get found and fixed, and degrade the encyclopaedia. Narky Blert (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd also point out that on many days the St Kilda Football Club is actually the most popular St Kilda article, sometimes with sizeable leads (1,827 - 273). AusLondonder (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Opposers are making up their own ridiculously strict criteria for Primary Topic and some are not even relying on policy to appose. Moves in accordance with Primary Topic are quite common and certainly meet the WP:TITLECHANGES hurdle, so that's not a strong reason to oppose. I urge the closer to not count the !votes but weigh their strength. The bottom line is that with twice as many page views as all the others combined, this topic clearly meets the "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." criteria. --В²C ☎ 21:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the long-term significance of this one (etymology, WHS/level 5 VA). Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not a good primary topic. Other St Kildas are significant topics, and readers interested in the others will have no connection to the Scottish town. 1/3 page views for something else is way too high. Also, there is no advantage mentioned for removing Scotland from the title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose "double all the others combined" is misleading; it has (not quite) double what St Kilda, Victoria has, and everything else is trivial. St Kilda VIC is more populated and (largely due to the football club) gets much more news coverage. St Kilda Scotland is more historic. I don't see a primary topic, but a WP:TWODAB approach isn't bad here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Power~enwiki: Do you weak oppose or weak support, you have used weak oppose in you're !vote, but in you're edit summary you have weak support. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose is correct; I flip-flopped three times researching the vote and must have messed up the edit summary. Overall the status quo is the default option that I (weakly) support. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Featured article review[edit]

This article has recently been massacred and no longer meets the featured article criteria. There are unsourced statements, poor quality sources, repetition of sources when cite bundling should be used, missing urls, bare urls, missing titles, dead links, stubby paragraphs that should be merged, disconnected lists of trivia in the final sub-section, and the lead is in breach of the Manual of Style. I will not be engaged on article improvements because the editor doing most of the damage is an old enemy of mine and trying to engage will just cause disruption. If the article is not improved, it should be taken to featured article review for demotion. DrKay (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DNA research?[edit]

One question has stuck in my head: have there been any DNA research of the people that were evacuated 1930, or their remaining relatives? I have search net and some scientific library I had access to, but in vain. There have been done DNA research of sheep and birds, but humans, no. Maybe it's not possible to do such research on humans due to privacy concerns? Anybody who knows that put my headache to rest? --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of names[edit]

Zacwill has deleted several of the possible origins, with the edit summary Only two of the theories discussed here are treated as remotely credible by Richard Coates. Steel's theory that "Kilda" originated as a variant pronunciation of "Hirta" is "better discounted" according to Coates, and he describes the Culdees theory as "rubbishy". These deleted theories are sourced; why should Coates' opinion of them matter that much? I'm no expert, but the others don't seem to be so outlandish as to be considered WP:FRINGE... Rosbif73 (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coates' opinion matters because, unlike the authors previously cited in the section, he is an expert on onomastics. Per Coates, the theories I deleted aren't possible. There is no possibility that Hirta could have morphed into Kilda or that the name could have anything to do with the Culdees. Including theories as baseless as these is simply muddying the waters. Zacwill (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a copy of Coates so I can't comment on that specifically. On the one hand I agree that some of Maclean's speculations are just that, but on the other I can see no reason at all to completely remove theories and information about the development of the name, even if they are de-emphasised. Some of it could certainly end up in a footnote, along with Coates' remarks for example. Part of my reasoning is that otherwise editors will likely come along, wonder why the information is not there, and more than likely try to add the material back in due course. Ben MacDui 12:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that not everything that has been written about a subject deserves to be included in Wikipedia. But if this material is to be restored, then a footnote would probably be the best place for it. Zacwill (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Richard Coates is a notable linguist. Would it not be better to keep all the theories, noting which are "fringe", and adding his opinion. Readers may come to the article unsure about a given theory and would better served by explicitly seeing his arguments. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but "There is no possibility that Hirta could have morphed into Kilda" is a POV that completely discounts the native languages of St Kilda and the Hebrides back in the day when these names were first written down. /k/ <> /h ~ x ~ ç/ variation is so common in Gaelic not even primary school kids would blink an eye over it and r ~ l variation is equally common. So when we're discussing what is likely, let's remember the linguistic context before we make sweeping statements, shall we? Akerbeltz (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, let's say the name was Ciolda /kʲiLdə/ (just re-spelling Kilda the way Gaelic would spell it)... all we need to do in Gaelic to get really close to Hirta is to say "going to Kilda" which in Gaelic would change it to a Chiolda /əˈçiLdə/ with the /ə/ dropped more often then not and boom, you have /çiLdə/ which, since English lacks /ç/ most likely would get spelled as *Hilda and as I said, r~l in Gaelic is an equally short bunny-hop. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would Richard Coates agree with you? Maybe you should publish a paper? :) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have better fish to fry but I have zero confidence in some expert who comes out with statements that suggests k ~ h variation is hard to achieve in Goidelic. Judging by his CV, his expertise in Celtic, such as it may be, extends to Brythonic elements in English place names. Which makes it twice as strange, as Brythonic has a plethora of initial mutations too. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one it assumes it had? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) (note: other Glasgow football teams are available.)[reply]
Isn't this the wrong way round? The Gaelic name is Hiort, anglicized Hirta, and so in order to make this theory plausible, you would need to show that Hiort could morph into Kilda (not vice versa). You would also need to account for the fact that Kilda on its own is not attested as a name for the archipelago. Zacwill (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to us to determine whether the theories are plausible, we should only be relating what reliable sources say. And per WP:DUE we should set out all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Admittedly I haven't reviewed the sources myself, nor would I have the expertise to do so, but from the arguments made here I don't see a good enough reason to claim that the other theories are not "significant viewpoints". Rosbif73 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe we should just stick to WP:RS here? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings me back to my point about the need for a knowledge of Goidelic phonetics and phonology when discussing Scottish place names. What can be lenited can be de-lenited in Celtic, especially in Goidelic, that's 101 all the way. In fact Goidelic has such a strong dislike of initial fricatices that it routinely backforms v > b, h/ç/x > c/t and so on. I don't have time to retype it but if you're curious, check out this page. And once again we have arrived at that point that makes me tear my hair out over Wikipedia. Some clown publishes a paper and that immediately trumps any domain specialist who is active on Wikipedia but just can't be bothered to publish. No, I don't have a source saying that people who argue k ~ x is impossible in Goidelic are clowns but that doesn't mean that it's not true... Akerbeltz (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too right. These linguists, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I think we know.

  • Coates has some dismissive things to say about various suggestions.
  • He is an academic linguist.
  • Afaik he does not have published works in or about Gaelic other than the one about St Kilda.

My conclusion is that for these purposes we should treat him as an authority rather than as the sole authority. What then to do – I can only go back to my original proposal, which I will have a go at asap. Ben MacDui 12:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Kilda,_Scotland&oldid=1218886557"