Talk:Kilt/Archive 1

Nationalist statement

I'm a bit unhappy about the "nationalist statement" bit. Scottish Unionists are quite as likely to wear a kilt as Scottish Nationalists are. It's more of a national statement than a nationalist one (if that makes sense). In fact it's not even that much of a national statement really. I have English, Irish, American and Canadian colleagues who hire one for the company Christmas dance. Most people just wear one because it's formal dress, they're in Scotland, and it's normal to wear one at certain events. They could wear a dinner jacket and bowtie but they don't. -- Derek Ross 24 Oct 2002

had a look for any "nationalist statement" bit and not sure what you mean, so have tried tweaking the bit I found that mentioned nationalist. There's also a link to Scottish national identity that was quickly cobbled together because someone linked that phrase in the visit of King George IV to Scotland to Scottish nationalism which redirected to Scottish independence, both of which are not at all what I meant. In line with your thoughts, have added a bit to the kilt today section. Have also deleted a US link about kilts that had some interesting comments as well as inaccuracies, but seems to demand a password. -- dave souza 06:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My comments about nationalism referred to a much earlier version of the article. I should have dated the comment at the time. -- Derek Ross | Talk 10:49, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

White Socks

I see that someone has edited out a comment deploring the wearing of white or near white kilt hose. This is a very modern practice - and many see it as a very regrettable development. You will not find an old painting or photo with anyone wearing white socks. They are fine for playing tennis. White hose is unsuitable for wear in highland dress both day and evening. The reason is that it is untraditional because hose or stockings should compliment the tartan being worn, whereas white contrasts rather than complimemts and kills the tartan stone dead. There are wonderful natural colours for hose: the lovat colours of green and blue, biscuit or oatmeal or the stronger colours of dark blue red and black. Any colour that compliments the tartan is good whereas white looks too much like a uniform and kills any individuality in the wearer. For evening wear diced hose is ideal but also the stronger colours of dark blue red or black. NEVER EVER WEAR WHITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.62.112 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That bit was deleted because it was not relevant. This article is about the historic and current use of the kilt; it is not a how-to on wearing one properly. TechBear (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is relevant in that this article should show a picture of a kilt (of the correct length) being worn with the correct accoutrements. That is to say, sporran, coloured hose and sgean dubh. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Highlander/Bagpipers at St. Patrick's Day Parades

Forgive me for asking a question rather than contributing to the discussion, but I've always wondered why in America we always see Highland Bagpipers leading the parade procession at St. Patrick's Day parades. If I am not mistaken, Highlanders are historically not Catholic? Even though St. Patty's Day has become synomynous with celebrating Irish-American culture, I've always wondered about this.

After the reformation some clans (particulary the Campbells of Argyll) became Presbyterian Covenanters while others remained Catholic, then after the Restoration many Catholic clans became Episcopalian, but the reason for the pipe bands is probably just that they're military bands with some historic links between the Scots and the Irish at various times ..dave souza 01:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Saint Patrick is (often claimed to be) Scottish. Scots and Irish are both Celtic. Bovlb 04:48, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

No doubt he was Celtic but he lived at a time before the Scots or the English invaded Britain, so it makes more sense to say that he was British. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:39, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Even though historically inaccurate (to some extent for not only Irish, but also Scots), Irish pipe bands have been wearing kilts for at least the last 150 years. Normally they wear "Saffron" kilts as opposed to tartans, but some also wear modern "Irish Tartans". These are the pipe bands that one normally sees at St. Patrick's Day parades.

Additionally, Highlanders made up the bulk of Jacobite armies during the Jacobite Rising, which many catholics became associated with as a means to restore their status in England. Aurostion

In Nova Scotia, and particularly on Cape Breton Island, many people are descended from Catholic Highlanders who emigrated to 'the land of trees' between 1790 and 1830 or so. (Others are descended from Protestant Highlanders, of course.) One such Catholic, Father, A. D. MacDonald, compiled a standard genealogical reference for Cape Breton's Inverness County, The Mabou Pioneers. — OtherDave 20:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just in America that pipe bands parade on St Patrick's Day, it happens here in Ireland as well. There is a very strong pipe band scene here in Ireland and it is only natural that the bands parade. In the small town that I live in there are at minimum two bands parading every year. Of course other types of band also parade including our local Brass Band and usually an American style flute band complete with majorettes. EddieLu 19:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What is worn under the kilt

I'm surprised to see that such vehement comments have been added to this part of the discussion. "It is a total misconception that Scots don't wear any" indeed. From my personal experience I know that some Scots habitually wear underwear with the kilt and that some don't, so it can't be a total misconception. It really is a matter of personal choice. What does User:217.227.21.116 base their certainty on ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:16, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

And in fact the following Internet poll tends to support the theory that, for whatever reason, the majority of kilted men and about a third of kilted women, do not generally wear anything under their kilts ...

Kilt wearers, Scots and Non Scots

... so the statement "The myth that underwear is not normally worn, is just that..." also appears to be wrong. While I agree that it is a good idea to wear dark or black underwear when dancing (unless you are a complete exhibitionist), I would suggest that it would be a big mistake to wear a kilt and underwear to a Scotland rugby or football match, if you want to avoid ridicule (or in extreme cases, loss of said underwear)! -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:39, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

I'd like to put my hand up and say that it was me who edited the article to remove the "It is a total misconception that Scots don't wear any" line (23:51, 17 Jan 2005). I didn't realise I'd done it anonymously. Nevertheless I reckon that the current state of this contentious part of the article is still way off. How can it be a myth when the vast majority of kilt-wearers I know (occasional or otherwise) don't wear underwear? Are we all, as the article currently states, 'exhibitionists'? Is there anything to be said for the idea that this is a generational thing? I'm in my early twenties myself and have always, along with my friends, taken it as gospel that underwear-wearing is to be frowned upon. Could this not be a case of a myth, repeated often enough, becoming the true state of things? Unicorns are mythical, the widespread non-wearing of underwear under the kilt is a fact. -- gantlord

My experience matches yours although I'm twenty years older than you. So the current edits look more like a "wishful thinking thing" than a "generational thing" to me. The editor concerned seems determined to report what "should be the case" rather than what "is" the case. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:22, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

I’m in my mid fifties and my experience matches both those of gantlord and Derek Ross. As has been noted by Derek whether or not underwear is worn is a matter of personal choice where some Scots choose to normally wear underwear with the kilt and some don’t. The vast majority of kilt-wearers I know don’t wear underwear unless on potential revealing occasions such as dancing when dark (black, navy or green) self coloured underwear, usually briefs, are worn. Accordingly it also looks to me that the practice of not wearing underwear under the kilt is not a “generational thing”. In my opinion those who choose to wear nothing under their kilts do so partly due to tradition but primarily as they find that the most comfortable way to wear a kilt is without underwear – highlander 22.

Well, in my opinion, this part of the article reads more like a discussion comment than part of a NPOV article. Obviously this issue needs resolved, but who is there to discuss it with? Can anyone put their name to these edits? I'm fairly new to this stuff, so does anyone have any ideas of what approach should be taken to get this article into an acceptable state? -- User:Gantlord

Tourist: Say, Scottie, is there anything worn under your kilt?

Scotsman: Nae, laddie, it's as good as it ever was!68.231.184.131 (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorting it out

The current text says

Underwear is and should normally be worn under the kilt. It is a myth that Scots don't and it is usually part time kilt wearers that suggest otherwise i.e. for weddings etc. It stems from the fact that one Highland regiment don't wear underwear. It is extremely difficult to wear a kilt and remain decent. It is exibitionists that suggest nothing should be worn. If you look up one of the oldest kilt makers and the oldest mail order company for highland attire in Scotland you will indeed find underwear designed for the kilt. Traditionally a long tailed shirt was tied underneath keeping the wearer respectable.

A good rule of thumb is that kilts should be worn with underwear for dancing (when a light kilt may fly up). In practice, underwear may not be needed for a fully lined kilt, but may be preferable for an unlined woollen kilt. In the end whether or not underwear is worn on any particular occasion, is up to the weather, the company, and the individual wearer.

Whatever decision is made, what a Scotsman wears under his kilt is, traditionally, his own business and generally, Scotsmen will be at pains to keep it so. Thus the reply to a question on the topic may hint at the answer but should never state it outright. A good standard reply when asked, is that, "Nothing is worn under the kilt. It's all in perfect working order".

We should probably start off by stating that there are differences of opinion on whether underwear should be worn or not and that people can feel quite strongly on both sides of the argument -- I doubt that anyone would argue with that -- then recast the rest of the text in that context. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:45, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

What would you add to this?:

The question of what is worn under the kilt of a Scotsman is a source of great mystery to non-Scots and of heated debate among Scots. The legend, well-known worldwide, has it that it is tradition for Scotsmen to go naked beneath their kilts.

However, many argue that the wearing of underwear goes against tradition rather than with it. Certainly, for highland dancers, the wearing of underwear is strongly advised for reasons of modesty, as much as the wearing of a sgian dubh is advised against for reasons of safety.

It has been said that the tradition of not wearing underwear under a kilt has its origins in the practice of a Scottish regiment (need to know which regiment here, I reckon it's the Black Watch, but I've nothing conclusive to go on so far).

In spite of these ongoing arguments about the traditionality of not wearing underwear, it has now become commmonplace for a great many kilt-wearers to go without underwear.

Meant to write more than this but life's logistics have reared their ugly head. I suppose it's a start though... -- Gantlord

I like Gantlord's version. It's better that some of the stuff that keeps getting inserted anonymously. Some suggestions for improvement:

1. Menion term regimental;
2. Mention long shirt tied up;
3. Cite internet poll; and
4. Don't say "advised" wihout a citation.

Bovlb 13:57, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Photographic evidence! - http://www.scottishwebcamslive.com/humour.htm

A couple of points: I've heard (from a totally unverifiable source, as I can't remember where exactly) that the non-wearing of underwear is fine in the company of men, but considered rude when women are present. This would probably bear out the military origin. Also, one can acquire plastic or similar sgian-dubh for situations where carrying a dagger (even a blunt one) would be a Bad Idea. They're still likely to be confiscated while boarding a plane, though... -CamTarn

From my period of service in a Canadain highland regiment, it was considered regimental not to have underwear, in recognition of the use of underwear against gas (urine on underwear and breath trough it). I was always told that in the presence of royal, underwear would be worn; however, there is a picture of a highland Col that did not follow this with the Queen.

A safety sgain-dubh is a bladeless one for airports, etc. Glenlarson 04:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who it is suggesting that most men in kilts wear underwear and are worried about preserving their modesty and so on, but I suspect it is a "weekend wallace" who only wears the kilt to Scottish games, or perhaps is a wedding outfitter. As one who wears the kilt daily and associates with many men who do the same, I can assure you that the norm among those of us who wear it daily is to omit the underwear. Any lass that's done "kilt checks" at the pubs can verify this. yonderway 18:18, 10 Apr 2005 (GMT-5)

Having noticed Thompson's booklet while having coffee in my friendly neighbourhood bookshop, I took some notes from the relevant chapter, and have added references. I've left out the suggested answer to the old query "I'm a man o' few words, madam, gi'e me your hand!" and his instruction to never admit to wearing pants, with his claim that if you do say you're not the questioner is usually incredulous, and his friends idea of then saying "you're welcome to check" with "if you're man enough" when appropriate. T. claims to have successfully used the first part of this response with a (male) TV interviewer in New York....dave souza 09:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, regimental regulations state underwear should only be worn in potentially revealing situations, such as dancing, marching in a band and playing Highland Games. I believe this is also stated in the Hugh Trevor Roper chapter in the book "Invented Traditions" (80.52.179.154 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

My understanding regarding regimental regulations is that these changed during the course of the 20th century. I have a friend who served in a highland regiment during the 1950s and the 1960s. During that time the regulations were very strict and required that no underwear be worn at all times other than when taking part in organised sports or highland dancing. Frequent inspections took place with solders having to walk over a mirror in the guard room or by a sergeant walking down the ranks with a small mirror attached on a cane to ensure that the regulations were being complied with and that they were correctly dressed (undressed). Any one found incorrectly dressed had to immediately remove the offending garment and was also put on a charge. I understand that officers also had to comply with the same regulations but it is not clear as to whether they were subject to inspections or not.

I understand that the current policy in the highland regiments regarding underwear with the kilt appears to be as follows:-

“Underwear will be worn when:

1. Taking part in organised sports

2. Highland dancing

3. At any time ladies are in the Mess (which would include mixed dancing)

At all other times it is discretionary.”

It is not clear whose discretion – the wearer or by order. As a result of the change in regulations it appears that inspections have either been eliminated or only take place very occasionally.

I am not sure of the exact timing of the change but it appeared to be probably sometime during the 1970s. Despite the change in official regulations I understand that currently virtually all soldiers in the highland regiments continue the long standing practice of not wearing underwear with the kilt unless they are taking part in the activities noted above. This does not surprise me in the slightest as traditions in the highland regiments are maintained wherever possible and also, speaking as a Scot who lives in Scotland, there is a fairly general consensus that a very significant majority of Scots choose to wear nothing under their kilts for normal day to day wear and only wear underwear when taking part in potential revealing occasions such as dancing and taking part in sports such as Highland Games.

Taking account of the foregoing it would appear that the references to underwear in this article are probably reasonably fair although I suggest that it would not be unreasonable to include a comment in the “The Scottish Kilt” section that “there is a fairly general consensus in Scotland that a very significant majority of Scots choose to wear nothing under their kilts unless taking part in potentially revealing occasions such as dancing and taking part in sports.” I have not amended the article at this time and wonder what other peoples’ views are.

With regard to the section on “Underwear” in the “Kilt Accessories” article I am not sure whether it is appropriate to include the history of the regulations in the highland regiments regarding underwear with the kilt over the course of the 20th century to the current day. I am confident that my notes above are a very fair reflection of the practice. Do others agree? If so I will amend the article. 81.132.12.44 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Cornish and Welsh Tartans and Kilts

Just added a few brief words and links about the modern Cornish and Welsh Tartan Kilt phenomena. Bretagne 44 1/3/05

Modern use of the kilt

I'm sort of ruminating over how to best include this bit. While there is no doubt that the kilt is a proud symbol of Scotland, it is no longer really a garment worn daily by most highland scots. It's been sent to the closet to be brought out for special occasions, church, etc. I would go out on a limb and say the vast majority of people who wear the kilt on a daily basis are outside of Scotland now. Go to cities like Seattle or Vancouver and you'll see what I mean. Additionally, the evolution of the kilt must be considered as it applies to modern solid colored kilts or camoflage kilts. I made some small edits today to at least make mention of these but I'd like to go into greater depth. Bringing it up here in the hopes of getting some of the anticipated debates out of the way now before making big changes. yonderway 21:48, 10 Apr 2005 (GMT-5:00)

I've no objection to the addition of information on non-Scottish kilts. The article as it stands was mostly written by Scots and that explains its current emphasis. However there's no reason why the article shouldn't be extended to cover the foustanela or other forms of kilt. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:21, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ah but the fustanella is not a kilt. It is an unbifurcated male garment, and a national dress, but that's about all it has in common. I was thinking more along the lines of the use of sewn-down pleats, modern synthetic materials, solid colors, odd patterns, etc. as well as the more common use of the kilt as it fits in a casual ensemble. Most of the content about kilts is more strictly related to its use as formalwear so it would be nice to round that out as there are quite a few of us who wear it daily and with many differences in construction and appearance from what you would see in a formal ensemble. It's a lot to bite off and I'm sure it will be controversial with the traditionalists but the kilt has always been an evolving garment and, like it or not, continues to evolve today for those who still wear it every day. yonderway 14:13, 11 Apr 2005 (GMT-5:00)

Well you've got my support for what it's worth. I've had to edit previous attempts to add stuff about modern kilts because they seemed to be more advertising than information but then I've had to do that for the traditional item too, so edit away! -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:09, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'll put myself behind any reasonable edits along the lines outlined above, as these are trends I'm noticing quite clearly - and I'm a Norwegian, these days in the process of aquiring my first kilt. Camo-pattern canvas, hot-pink latex, kilts come as these (for the record, mine is neither. I'm a hopeless traditionalist.) - so they ought to have solid mention, possibly photographs (from a neutral source so as to prevent advertising) as well to illustrate... Just airing my POV ;) --TVPR 22:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I've always been under the impression that a "modern kilt" as described in this section is called a "manskirt", but I see no reference to this on Wikipedia. Google definitely suggests that this is an appropriate term. --Clyde 02:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Never heard the phrase myself but if you say so... -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

He may be thinking of He-skirts, although I know I heard the term "Man-skirt" a few times on the two days I wore my Utilikilt in to work before the Colonel decided it was inappropriate garb. I don't know the origin of the term myself, and I doubt my co-workers would really know. They probably just heard it somewhere. -Fuzzy 19:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The term "mankilt" likely derives from one unlikely cultural source - the motion picture Deuce Bigelow, wherein all references to things traditionally associated with women in terms of a man were "man-this". A similar reference was made in the movie Fight Club" (the character Bob had a medical condition causing him to grow distinct breasts which were referred to as "man-boobs"). -- (someone who forgot to sign)

I think you mean "manskirt". Kilts are not traditionally associated with women, although many women wear kilts nowadays (and trousers too, come to that). -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As a Social and Practical Statement

Suggest this would be good section(s), though not necessarily w/these titles. Lots of people wear the kilt on a day-to-day basis, for many practical reasons. Who are they? Where do they live? Why do they wear the kilt? These things bring the kilt back from their origin into modern times. Personally, I wear one to deal with very hot and cold seasons in both urban and rural working situations. But many, presumably urban, men wear the kilt as a social statement. Anyone with data on these issues would really add something to this article. Marquess 01:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This link within wikipedia itself would suggest that the wearing of Kilts albeit they may not have had the Scottish Gaelic name, were being worn as early as 1510 and probably before. The reference to modern Kilt wearing therefore in Cornwall would out of step? The link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_tartans Kernow63 (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

Could we perhaps put up a better example of black tie wear than the David MacLeod photograph? One of his kilt hose has apparently quit on him and it's a shame as he's looking pretty dapper otherwise. But an undermotivated kilt hose is killing the usefulness of this photograph. - yonderway 22:00 (GMT-5:00) 14-APR-2005.

Oh I don't know. It gives him a sort of whimsical appearance. If you are going to replace the photo, I would suggest that it be replaced with a photo of someone less formally dressed (for hiking or sheep dog trials or something), since there are already two photographs of formally dressed people (Argyle and Piper). -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:19, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I added the chart ofthe Irish Tartans, I'm afraid I didn't realise that it would appear so large, if anyone wants to shrink or do away with it altogether I won't take offence.EddieLu 22:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Trews

I have started an article on trews - please jump in and add more stuff! PKM 18:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Good man! -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Woman, actually, but glad you approve.  :-) PKM 03:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops! My sexism is showing. How embarrassing. My apologies, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Amused, not offended. Most of the folks posting about kilts seem to be men; it's a reasonable assumption. I'm coming at it from the PoV of a costume junkie and textile geek, not a wearer (and descended from border reivers, not highlanders, to boot.) PKM 03:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Kilt Making

I made a kilt for myself about a year ago. I followed instructions from various websites. There was a good deal of variation between the sites and there is a fair bit of controversy on the "correct" method. It would be good to see something more definitive in these pages.

Source?

Cut until sourced:

• "The popularity of the modern kilt inspired a variety of men's unbifurcated garments - sometimes referred to as M.U.G.s. Companies like Midas (UK), Amok (Germany) , Cityskirt (US), and JDEZ (US) were offering men's skirted garments as alternatives to traditional kilts at the begining of the 21st century."

--Mais oui! 07:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

http://cityskirt.com/

http://www.kiltmen.com/suppliers.htm

http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/fashion/fashion_motion/skirts/

From the Victoria & Albert Museum site, 2002 exhibit: "Spring / Summer 2002

"Menswear is dramatically re-invented for the 21st century in this catwalk show featuring men in designer skirts, dresses, kilts, sarongs, kaftans and frock coats. Internationally renowned designers reappropriate the skirt for men, a garment which until relatively recently was worn by both sexes. The skirts showcased in this event represent an alternative to conventional menswear which can be as comfortable and elegant as it is radical.

"This event complements the Men in Skirts display in Room 40, which looks at variations on the male skirt throughout history and its current re-conceptualisation by leading designers. The display features some 60 skirts and outfits and considers the male skirt within different socio-historic and cross-cultural contexts"

I think the V&A link is sufficient to support the assertions in the deleted text; the others are commercial links. I'd suggest putting it back - thoughts? (And FYI, I think Braveheart has a lot to do with this fad, but I haven't found a citable source for that yet.) - PKM 17:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Further cleanup

I added the cleanup tag after trying to do a little cleanup myself. First, I wrote an opening that actually describes the subject instead of assuming the reader already knows what a kilt is. Then I tried wikifying and reorganizing the article into history vs modern use, but it needs a little more help. The origin needs explanation (was it invented by Vikings?) and the historical use outside Scotland needs exapansion. The "walking kilt" section tells the same story twice, and the "rivival" section needs to be incorporated into the history. Last, it would be great to have a picture of a kilt that doesn't include the sporran, jacket, and all, so its structure is clear. --Tysto 22:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have removed the cleanup tag I added. Thanks to everyone involved in the effort. I have no vested interest in the kilt, per se, so I don't intend to continue watching this article. However, if there is really a need for disambiguation list (I don't think so), then this should be a disambiguation page. Otherwise, this article should better follow the usual broad-description/history/types structure. Compare Clock and Suit (clothing). --Tysto 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

going "regimental"

The image of the Black Watch "going regimental" was also linked in skirt and dress; I have removed it there as well per removal here. PKM 19:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed again Trapper 05:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering, where does the photo come from such that it's a copyviolation? Given you've got at least one person rereverting the removal, it might be a good thing to have something in the talk page to point to when the subject comes up in the future. -Fuzzy 21:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got the question reversed. It is not for others to prove copyright violation, but for those who assert "fair use" to prove their case!

It is all too easy for someone who wants to use a photo to set himself up as judge, jury, and executioner, claim some nebulous "educational" value, and then just take the photo. There is, in fact, nothing educational about the Black Watch photo. If you (or anyone else) disagrees, tell me, please, how I am educated by it? What do I learn from it that I didn't already know or isn't in the text?

In fact, the photo appeals only to the pruient interests of an immature 12 year old.

I'm sure those who wish could think of any number of other rationalizations as to why it is okay to use photos without permission. I don't care. If it was okay, then why should anyone bother with all this free license nonesense? If those free licenses mean anything (and I mean free as in human freedom), then the flip side is that we have to respect the copyrights of others!

I am a professional photographer. I have been generous with my own photographic work, but I have also seen photos of mine on Wikipedia which were stolen under this phony "fair use" claim. In fact, within 24 hours of visiting Wikipedia for the first time a little over a year ago, I came across one of my photos, "borrowed" under the "fair use" doctrine, and used not only without my permission, but without proper credit being given (see the page Laura Ross). Should I have sued Jimbo Wales? I'm a generous person, and I released the same photo, in a higher resolution scan, under a free license. Somebody else might not be so generous.

One more point (though it doesn't apply to the current photo). Recently, from two separate pages (John Steinbeck and Clara Hughes), so-called "fair use" images were deleted. Since I had appropriate photos for both those pages, I replaced them with CCPL images. Had the original "fair use" images been left in place, I would never have known of the need for free use licensed images. Thus it is that the deletion of "fair use" images serves a somewhat similar purpose to the creation of red links. It lets people know of the need for properly licensed images (or articles, in the case of red links).

The presence of "fair use" images impedes the creation of freely licensed collections by obscuring the need for free licensed photos.

The Black Watch photo is copyright violation.

JFPerry 03:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

While not a direct answer to the question, you made me realize I'd forgotten to try clicking on the picture to see information on it. I see that indeed it is taken from a newspaper without permission. As for the right for an artist to their work, I'm entirely with you. *wrinkles nose* And I know that people abuse "fair use" horribly at times. It's hard for the average person to pass up a free lunch; I suspect it's an aspect of human nature. I was mainly asking about the source because I was curious. I knew it had been removed once before, and then restored, so I thought it might be best to get the facts out here in the open. That way, we can easily point out to the next person trying to bring it back that really, we don't have rights to the picture. While ideally, people would seek out owners first, there is so much orphanned work out there that I can kind of see why people get in the mood of posting first and then seeing if owners pop out of the woodwork. Not necessarily justified, but I can understand it. Incidentally, kudoes on being so evenminded on your photo that had been inappropriately used. -Fuzzy 07:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I might add, the objectionable nature of that image is not just based on its copyright status. Since the person (and do not suppose that the anonymous IP addresses which you have seen are actually separate people) who wants this photo presented here (and elsewhere) has taken it upon himself to so aggressively push it, it has the character of spam.

My inbox is filled with Viagra ads and all sorts of other garbage. It is not prudishness that makes me feel disgusted. I just don't happen to like spam, of any kind, however it is pushed at me. The "in your face" presentation of this photo, repeatedly re-inserting it, is just another form of spam. JFPerry 20:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Great kilt

The following statement appears in the article:

The heavy pleats of the Great Kilt also made for good protection from spear thrusts and sword cuts.

What is the source of this staement? Has anybody put this to the test? Personally, although I haven't tested it (and won't), I very seriously doubt that it is true. The great kilt was a piece of cloth. Cloth versus steel? I don't think so. JFPerry 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory since it was taken off for battle, so I've removed the sentence. ...dave souza, talk 08:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well as an irish historical re-enactor and part time stunt man I would agree with the statement that it makes good protection. For example a Brat is piece of woolen material wrapped around the upper body to protect against sword slashes and blunt force trauma. Its the same logic as a medieval knight wearing a silk shirt to help with arrow wounds as the fabric cushions the impact and can help prevent the point of the weapon penetrating. granted it best it will turn what should have been a gapping wound into a large gash but its better than nothing. And yes I have tested it!

Where angels fear to tread

In the spirit of being bold, I have just created and posted an article with the somewhat convoluted title of Kilt, kilt-skirt, and skirt: what's the difference. Meant originally as an article on kiltmaking, with illustrations showing in detail the construction of the kilt and the process of making such a garment, I decided to address the more general question of just what is, and what is not, a kilt. This comparison method allows certain common misconceptions to be discussed, but also runs the risk of POV problems.

I am not entirely satisfied with the photos. One major project of mine this year when the Highland Games season gets under way is to build the Highland dress and Highland games photo libraries on Wikimedia Commons with quality high resolution images.

Please take a look at the article. Leave any comments thereon on the talk page of that article. JFPerry 14:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Major revision proposal

Before undertaking any major revisions on the Kilt article, as I would like to do, I thought I should discuss them here first.

To begin with, I think this article ought to be strictly about the kilt (meaning the traditional Scottish Highland kilt), and not kilt accessories, or even the history of the kilt. In their present state, those sections are not terribly satisfactory (especially the accessories section) and although they could be expanded, the resulting article would then be too long. So, I propose:

1) remove altogether the sections on kilt accessories (and underwear) and place them in a new article Kilt accessories. After this move, the new kilt accessories article could be edited/expanded from that starting point;

2) remove the kilt history section and use it as the starting point for an article on the History of the kilt;

3) remove the non-traditional kilt section and use it ias the starting point for an article on Contemporary kilts.

What's left? And how does it relate to the economically named Kilt, kilt-skirt, and skirt: what's the difference article? The latter article started out as an article on kilt construction and wound up being a type of disambiguation article with a good bit of information on kilt construction. The main kilt article should be more focused on what the kilt is (kilt construction). And it should start by making it clear that the kilt under discussion is the traditiional Scottish Highland kilt.

JFPerry 03:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal sounds good. I'd be happy for you to go ahead. Just make sure that you don't give up half-way through ... and be careful not to become too proprietorial about the resulting articles. Otherwise, ca awa! -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Support, as per Derek Ross. I have also left a comment at the new section you started at Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. --Mais oui! 19:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll begin with the accessories article, first using the relevant sections of the current article to start the new article. I will then add to it section by section over a few days so that the edits can be more easily followed. JFPerry 17:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The new article on kilt accessories is largely completed. For the most part, it consisted of additional material added to the material moved from this article to seed the new article. Exception: I did severely edit the underwear section.

After an interval of a few days or so, I will use the material on kilt history to seed the new History of the kilt article. I don't plan on editing that material at all, except that it appears to need the addition of a section on the Vestiarium Scoticum, for which there is, surprisingly, not even a Wikipedia entry. If somebody wants to add that (or start the Wikipedia article), please do so. JFPerry 20:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

External Links

The External links page is conflicting on commerical links - it says don't link to sites that sell things but it also says "Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one. " - so it sounds like the UtiliKilt and sport kilt links should stay. Any strong comments before I put them back? Trapper 02:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This artice is about the kilt - or so it should be (it still does not say what a kilt is). It is not an aritcle about Utilikilts, etc. If their sites are to be linked, the links should go in the body of the article where the business is actually mentiioned and not in the external links section. Also, I believe some of those names are trademarks and a TM symbol should be added. And if you are going to link Utilikilts and SportKilt, then the others should be linked also (in the article). If all businesses which make kilts are to be linked, it would overwhelm the extyernal links section which should be restricted to links to important articles about kilts (that way, folks can actually find out what a kilt is, which they cannot do from the present article). JFPerry 15:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the commercial links and marks (TM or Reg, as appropriate) to the non-traditional kilt section. Twenty-First Century Kilts was dropped. I searched for them in Google and most of the top refs appeared to be scrapings from Wikipedia. When I finally located their web site, it was "under construction". Neo Kilt has a site listed as neokilt.com, but it redirects to 216.69.171.60 which is a splash page of their official web site. Clicking to enter takes one to nkabout.html which is where the link now goes. JFPerry 15:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - PKM 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I have replaced the cleanup tag which was removed earlier this month without any justification. If it is removed again (without proper cleanup), I will take this to RfC and (listen closely), if that fails, I will take this entire Kilt article issue outside Wikipedia. It made me sick to my stomach to hear all the WikiApologists respond to the Siegenthaler matter by repeating, sheep-like, the party line mantra about how "anyone is free to edit", so he really had no complaint since he could have just edited out the offending material. Bullshit! I presume the "right to edit" means the right to edit without getting into endless revert wars (the BW photo) and other edit war nonesense.

The cleanup tag is there because this article does not say what a kilt is. There are several (at least 4) different basic usages of the word kilt. Without first saying which one you are talking about, you really can't say anything about the kilt. Alternatively, you can say whatever you want without fear of being "wrong".

A couple of specific points. First, the kilt is not a "men's" garment. While men's is the gramattically correct form (not man's), that is not the issue. If it is a men's garment, then the pseudo-vandal edit a while back which stated that women and girls who wear the kilt are crossdressing is correct. If it is a men's garment, those Highland dancers are crossdressing. Otherwise, it is not a men's garment.

The statement about how some (not all) kilts are knife pleated is weasel wordy. Last Highland games event I attended, some twenty pipe bands (over 400 piper) and all the hundreds of Highland danceers, not to mention the clan people, and everyone else wearing a kilt, was wearing a knife-pleated kilt. No box pleats! Historical kilts (before about 1850) sure. But that's the problem. This article doesn't say what you mean by the word kilt. Are you talking about the historical garment? The common form of the kilt as seen today? Girls school uniform kilts? Contemporary kilts? What? JFPerry 15:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup underway

New articles - Contemporary kilts and History of the kilt - have been created in accordance with the previously posted and discussed proposal. The will be categorized and expanded later. Later today, the main kilt article will receive a re-working so as to properly discuss what a kilt is as the term is used in the main article. JFPerry 13:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Defining your terms

There are a number of Wikipedia articles on topics whose title can refer to dissparate subjects. In such cases, it is first of all necessary to disambiguate, or define, which of the several possible meanings are the subject of the given article.

The kilt article is such a case. The term, as it is used today (or, some would say, misused) can refer to a number of different possible subjects. The differences lie in the nature, function, history and social meaning of the term.

This article is about the modern form of the traditional Scottish garment. This is what the vast majority of people expect to find when they call up the kilt article on Wikipedia. This is the most widespread image associated with the term.

The "disambiguation" intro to the article also refers to the garment as is typically seen at Scottish Highland games events. This is nothing more than general Wikipedia policy which does not require that all possible variants be discussed, only the more significant. To do otherwise is to violate the Neutral Point of View policy.

In particular, it might happen that one example of a kilt differs in some respect from all others (for example, in having glued down, rather than stitched down, pleats through the fell). This does not means that one cannot therefore make a statement about the vast majority of kilts. Similarly, if I find a dog with three legs (perhaps having lost one in an accident) this would not prevent me from stating that a dog is a four-legged mammal. Even less so would it permit me to say that "some" dogs have four legs, a statement which would imply that four legged dogs are a minority of the breed.

Socrates may not have known the difference between a shoe and a horse, but I know what a kilt is!

There still remains to complete the section on pleating and stitching (the fell) as well as add a section on altering a kilt and on kilt care. When the Highland games season begins in earnest around these parts, I will obtain some different photos as well.

JFPerry 21:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian

I'd like to know what exactly you call the kilt or skirt like garments that you see any of the Ancient Egyptian people wear. Does this tie into any other "local" culture that has the same dress? (barring the Scots, of course) - Daniel W. Blackwell

The galabiyah is a long, full, shirt-like garment worn by men in Egypt, and is similar in design to the caftans worn by those in the Middle East and the thobes worn by those from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other countries. These garments are commonly worn by them today. I'm not sure what the ancient Egyption kilts/skirts were called. Mugaliens 10:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Plural of Kilts

I think there's some confusion regarding the plural of kilt: "Traditionalists emphasize that the plural of "kilt" is "the kilt" rather than "kilts", though the latter term has been used alongside the former and continues to gain acceptance in modern English." The Oxford English Dictionary says the plural of kilt is "kilts," as do the other three dictionaries I posses. I'll leave this for a few days, then remove the statement. It does have slight merit, however, as I can just see a 1930's drill seargent telling his new troops, "Ok, men - don the kilt." Beyond that, however, it has little merit, and I've never seen "the kilt" used in place of "kilts" anywhere in print, including works written before WWII. It's always "kilts." Mugaliens 10:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The tale was passed on to me by the associate curator of the 48th Highlanders of Canada museum. Can you cite some British/CW military references that use the term "kilts"? Perhaps its use as such is restricted to the military.Michael Dorosh 17:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JF Perry's Outstanding Work

Nice work! I piggybacked a bit, adding a couple more manufacturers and a link to many manufacturers, so as to move closer towards a more neutral point of view. Mugaliens 10:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions on Recent Edits

An entire disclaimer was removed that seemed to be rather well written. Also removed was the category Scottish cultural icons. There's little that says "Scotland" more than the kilt, except perhaps the bagpipes.

I originally included that note due to the request on this discussion page (under the heading Kilt Making). I felt it best to emphasize that this article cannot serve as an instruction document on kilt making. For that one must check the references (esp. the Art of Kiltmaking book). I think the disclaimer should be restored, but perhaps only as a footnote. JFPerry 21:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongly concur. Done! Mugaliens 13:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Material

I removed the following sentence: "But this is only true if there is something more than just boots and socks..." While this is partially true, I agree with the curator as the kilt is worn over the shirt. Furthermore, wool is not a wicking fabric. It will absorb oils from your skin, but little else. Drycleaning wool is important to help it keep its nap. As a minimum, I think the curator of a highland museum would know a thing or two about kilts. Mugaliens 13:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Particularly as the curator in question, Matt Newsome, is a kilt maker himself, and is leading the renaisance of the box-pleated kilt. (No accout, no signature; sorry). 09:18, 24 April 2007

Suggested merge of Irish kilt

It has been suggested that the material in the Irish kilt article be merged with the present kilt article. I oppose this suggestion.

First, the article on the Irish kilt is in need of a great deal of work. For example, that article states: "Though the origins of the kilt are disputed, it can be said with some good deal of assurance that it originated in the Scottish Highlands and Isles. It could have been developed by Scots, Irish, Norse Gaels, or possibly all together." Basically, this is not only uninformative, but at least mildly contradictory. How can it be said (by whom?) with a "good deal of assurance" that it originated in the Scottish Highlands and Isles, and then go on immediately to say that it "could have been developed by Scots, Irish, Norse Gaels, or possibly all together". And are these statements referring to the Irish kilt, or to the kilt? And which kilt?

Secondly, and perhaps more important, a certain amount of effort went into separating the material related to the traditional Scottish kilt from all the other garments which are referred to as kilts so as to be able to discuss coherently those special characteristics of the Scottish kit. The word kilt is coming to be used to refer to a wide variety of unbifurcated (and what is wrong with saying skirt-like? Is that politically incorrect?) garments designed for men. The present article on the kilt starts off with an effort to define the term so as to be able to discuss the subject. To start merging other kilt material into this article would all too easily introduce confusion. JFPerry 16:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge - a kilts a kilt --sony-youth 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No they should be kept seperate, it's amazing the amount of people in the world who like to think Scotland ? Ireland ? what's the difference. Kilt wearing and development is very different in Ireland. EddieLu 14:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposals - a counter proposal

Again, I rise in opposition to this merge proposal (this time related to the article on the Welsh kilt, but now with a counter proposal based roughly on the organization of the articles on the various types of bagpipes, that other symbol of Scotland.

The subset of WP articles related to bagpipes consists of an article on bagpipes, an article on types of bagpipes, and separate articles on the various individual bagpipe types, including one on the Great Highland Bagpipe and several others.

The article on types of bagpipes discusses, unsurprisingly, the various different types of bagpipes. It has very much the character of a detailed disambiguation page and corresponds somewhat to the article on kilt variants which, under this proposal, could probably stand some revision. The bagpipes article discusses those general characteristics of the bagpipe as a musical instrument which are common to all types of bagpipes. There is probably no need for an exact counterpart of this article with respect to kilts since the common features are rather simple in nature and could easily be dealt with in the kilt variants article.

Under this counter proposal, an article on the Scottish kilt would be created essentially out of the present kilt article with the re-worked kilt variants article discussing the various types of kilt. That article could also be moved to the present space (in other words, it would become the new kilt article). The Irish kilt and Welsh kilt articles would stay (and hopefully be improved).

The separate articles on the various types of kilts do not Balkanize the subject any more than the separate articles on the various types of bagpipes Balkanize that topic.

I believe there is a need for change in the overall organizational plan for the various kilt articles, but that this should not be done piecemeal. If the Welsh kilt and Irish kilt articles are ever developed to any great extent, merged with the present article, then this article would wind up overly long.

JFPerry 02:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Having specific articles for the different kilt types sounds like a good idea, especially for information specific for the types. -- Aldis90

i guess i don't see a need to merge these articles as long as it remains clear that there are other countries who use kilts and there are links right away to those articles. It looks like that has been done already. As long as it stays that way it looks fine to remove the merges to me. flipjargendy 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the suggestion to merge, as the term "kilt" refers not just to the Scottish kilt, but also the Welsh kilt and the Irish kilt as well, even though the Scottish kilt is better known. Yet all three are quite similar. For this reason, I also propose merging the Modern kilt in here, as well. If it's a pleated unbifurcated garment worn by males, it's meets the general definition of a "kilt," as although it may be called by another name. If it's not pleated, it could be any one of many unbifurcated garments worn by males around the world. Mugaliens 19:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Maintaining separate articles is not needed unless there is a great deal more information on the various pages. The differences between Irish, Welsh, and Scottish kilts are primarily in the color of the material used to make them.[1] and the nationality of the wearer. There are honest debates among historians as to whether or not kilts were worn in Wales or Ireland[2]. The modern kilts worn in all three places are largely the same design whatever their history. Small stylistic differences between the kilts do not require separate articles. Doing such only makes the information harder to find.--Counsel 23:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

as there was no further protest, I merged the articles.--Counsel 05:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Philabeg?

What's a philabeg and why does it redirect to kilt? --Awiseman 15:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's an English phonetic spelling of the Gaelic words meaning "small kilt". It refers to the ordinary kilt which is nowadays worn as formal dress in Scotland. It contrasts with the philamore meaning "big kilt" which refers to the historic "enormous cloak" kilt. That's why it redirects to the kilt article. At one time there was a historical section in the article which described the philabeg and the philamore. However this has now been moved to History of the kilt, so perhaps that would be a more appropriate redirect. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Awiseman 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tangential, Awiseman, but there's a tune from the early 1800s with the opening lines "Came ye by Athol / Lad in the philabeg..." ("Did you come by way of Athol, young man in the kilt?") — OtherDave 20:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

---

OtherDave: the bands marching is st. paddies day parades are irish pipe bands. the style of kilt most common today and the uniforms worn by all pipe bands are based on british military dress. as is the use of highland pipes in most pipe bands. so the bands your looking at are catholic in nature. they dress essentially the same as scottish and english bands so the distinction is hard to pick up based solely on looks.

on other topics since this article is labeled simply "kilt" and not "scottish kilt" it seems a bit offensive to have it only mention the scottish end of things. being irish i'm a bit sick of hearing that kilts are scottish only and being asked by irish people are pretending to be scottish. since the kilt is just as wide spread in irish culture as it is in scottish, and just as important historically this article should be merged with the irish kilt article. since both articles are in need to significant work (this one is rather thin and as i stated scott focused) merging the two could be the first step to a more comprehensive and general kilt article. as to the history section being removed, perhaps the article should have a brief summation of the history with a link to the more in depth article. most of the better written and longer articles takes this road and it seems to work very nicely.

Unbifurcated garment

I changed the opening sentence which originally referred to the kilt as being an unbifurcated traditional garment so that it now reads skirt-like garment. Of course, the kilt is an unbifurcated garment. So is a sock. So is a hat. The term "skirt-like" is very descriptive and can occasion little or no confusion, whereas the explanation of it being an "unbifurcated" garment itself needs further explaining. JFPerry 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Kilt wearing in Ireland

In the section entitled styles of kilt wear there is a line "It's not uncommon at all to see kilts making an appearance at Irish pubs".

Does this mean Irish pubs around the world or pubs in Ireland ?. If it's the latter then it is very wrong. I live in Ireland I drink in it's pubs (lot's of them) in sixteen years of drinking in Irish pubs I have never seen a kilt being worn, unless it was by a Scotsman over for a Rugby match.

I think the line is misleading giving the impression that kilt wearing is becoming more commonplace in Ireland, when it definitely is not. EddieLu 14:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The "Irish" style kilts are a recent development (or resurrection). There is substantial scholarship which supports the contention that nothing like the modern kilt was ever worn in Ireland (or in Scotland for that matter). The modern short kilt is likely not very similar to the more crude great kilt in Scotland or the Lein-croich in Ireland. The kilt has been adopted by many groups of celtic diaspora as a nostalgic symbol and wearing an Irish color in a modern kilt cut is no less valid without an invented history. The statement about Irish kilts in Irish pubs is likely taken from a kilt salesman's pitch. If something like a kilt was worn in Ireland, it was not suppressed in the same manner by the English as in Scotland. As such, it did not become a symbol of resistance as it did in Scotland and died a natural death. I am deleting the refernce to pubs. I say wear the saffron kilts as a modern symbol of irish pride. The invented history is not necessary.--Counsel 17:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A perfect response Counsel, you are quite right in your comments on invented history and also that the modern kilt (which I would support) is no less valid. EddieLu 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Altering the length of a kilt

The material which I just added to the altering section (no pun intended!) is based on observations which I believe are common to anyone who has attended any number of Highland Games gatherings.

One (of many) real examples. A gentleman was quite distressed upon hearing the quoted price (around $250 US) to shorten his kilt, which he thought to be too long. The method proposed by the kiltmaker was the first of the two (taking material off the top and re-stitching). It is expensive! Upon meeting with the kiltmaker prior to the alteration, he tried the kilt on and the kiltmaker simply moved the kilt up and re-buckled it so that it was now fastened at the waist and not being worn on the hips. Perfect fit, no length alteration needed. One would hope that all kiltmakers (and others) were so honest.

In any case, I think it would be wise if the WP article were to mention this fit test as it could save some folks a good bit of trouble, not to mention dollars. The whole question of altering a kilt is one of the best illustrations of the "measure twice, cut once" maxim. JFPerry 18:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when is it the function of an encyclopedia to save stupid Americans money on stuff they should educate themselves on in a more conventional manner? This isn't "how to buy a kilt" but an article on the history of the garment. 139.48.25.61 (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

England

As Kilts are worn in England without particular attention being drawn to things Scottish, and the most notable example is the traditional Northumbrian kilt, I have added 'British' to the first line of the article. This is because England is not regarded as a Celtic nation, so England is omitted by the statement as it was and, as such, a large part of the modern scope of kilts was not included. I will also look to add a section on the Northumbrian kilt. Enzedbrit 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It would have been best to include at least this mention, since England is pretty vague. Certainly everyone would think of you as dressed like a Scotsman if you were to wear a kilt in London! But surely the Northumbrian kilt is derived from the Scottish due to its nearness to the border and historical relationship with southern Scotland. I hope you have some images, or at least some references. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't say that the Northumbrian Kilt is derived from the Scottish. If anything, it's vice versa! Well, I won't say that either. Tartan as a dress is an ancient British style of clothing but as for Northumbrian kilts, whether based on the Scottish form or derived from how they were always worn, is something I admit that I don't know. Either way, it's important to note still that they are real kilts and are not worn in some emulation of things Scottish, but rather Northumbrian/English.

I don't have any first hand images or references, but one can find plenty on the subject by searching the web, and there are manufacturers of Northumbrian tartan easily found on the Internet as well Enzedbrit 04:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If it looks like a modern Scottish kilt it would be very surprising if it were not derivative, considering that the origins of that garment are both recent and well-documented. In any event, it's provable that the Scots and other related Celts have been using striped or checked woolen twill for a very long time indeed. Other peoples must have as well, but the Celts are particularly known for it.

• I don't know so much that it was the "Celts" who were known for it, as the idea of what we regard as Celt is quite recent, but is there any evidence that the people of the Islands didn't wear tartan weave before the arrival or entrenchment of Celtic culture? Enzedbrit 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I really wish you hadn't chosen to use bullets to reply and split up my post in the process. It makes an exchange very difficult to follow later on.

The idea of the Celt is not so recent at all, and I don't know why you say it is. The Celtic languages are clearly identifiable in the Indo-European family, and we have references to them from antiquity. ("Celt" is a loanword from the Greek Keltoi, recorded from the 6th Century BC. They were known to the Romans alternately as Celtae or Galli for the inhabitants of Gaul.)

In any event, we don't prove that a certain technology wasn't used by one ancient people or another; we can only prove that one was. I know of no pre-Celtic evidence for tartan fabric. On the other hand, the Greeks and Romans commented on Celtic clothing and reported on the bright colors and checked and striped patterns. An ancient source or two is quoted here: [3].

Fabric examples from antiquity are hard to come by in Europe because the climate is not conducive to its preservation. However, the ancient mummies from the Tarim Basin in Central Asia, who seem to have spoken a language that derived from the same branch as did the Celtic languages (according to some; this is controversial), had a great deal of cloth preserved with them. The woven cloth (aside from the felt) is a brightly-colored, striped and checkered woolen twill. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the form of the kilt, it's derived from the belted plaid. The plaid itself had been used as a general-purpose body wrap for time out of mind -- the word means "blanket" in Scots Gaelic. They began belting and pleating it in the 16th century; the pleats became stitched in and the upper half of the plaid dispensed with in the late 17th. (The belted plaid was a double width of cloth; the small kilt can be made with a single width.) At this point it acquired the Scots name "kilt", meaning "pleated".

• In that case, the Northumbrian kilt, as with other kilts, as worn today, may indeed be a fairly recent development Enzedbrit 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So both "plaid" and "kilt" are words from Scotland; only "tartan" is derived from elsewhere (France) and that probably came about through the cloth trade. If it were an English invention in any way there would be English words for it, but if there are any we've forgotten them.

• Okay, nobody's implying it was an English invention here! I want to make that clear. Particularly because the identities of English and Scottish alike are fairly historically recent in British history. The words in English are tartan and plaid as well and there needn't be another word for it. Both have been used to describe the Northumbrian tartan. Enzedbrit 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But you did imply it was in independent English invention above. "No, I wouldn't say that the Northumbrian Kilt is derived from the Scottish. If anything, it's vice versa...." Yes, the word is "plaid" in English, but it's a Scots Gaelic loanword and not a native English word. Your statement here should really be turned on its head: There would have been no need for the English to have borrowed the word if they had the kilt from ancient times because they would have had their own word for it.

And no, the Scots and the English have always been differentiated, by language if nothing else. They are in two different language families. (I mean Scottish Gaelic rather than Scots, which is an English dialect.) I'm not talking about the landed nobility here, which freely crossed borders when they had estates on both sides, but the common people. And yes, the border moved quite a bit historically. That doesn't have much to do with how the people have regarded themselves. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, if the Northumbrian garment is identical to the Scottish kilt, we're left with the problem of how it developed to be so without any influence from its close neighbor to the north, and then went so far as to adopt the nomenclature from the north as well. Occam's razor leads us to the simpler hypothesis, that they got the idea from the people next door.

• Yes, there is a lot of theorising here. It's also possible that the style was simply improved upon, drawn from influences of other designs, and developed into what we know today without concern for political boundaries, or before the modern nations of England and Scotland were formed, perhaps. Enzedbrit 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not possible at all. We know how the kilt came to be, and it was fairly late in history even if the plaid is ancient. See history of the kilt. There has been considerable outside influence in its modern form, and the idea of pleating it almost certainly came from elsewhere, but it didn't happen in England. And Scotland has always been distinct from England as long as there's been an England. The Anglo-Saxons did not penetrate north of the River Forth, and only on the east side of the island. There was a great deal of concern for boundaries in those days. Even different Celtic groups, such as the people of Strathclyde and their northern neighbors the Picts, clearly distinguished themselves at that point in history. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that there exists a Northumbrian tartan of unquestionable antiquity. It's certainly older than any "clan tartan", but considering how recently those were invented it's hardly surprising. Older tartan must have been mainly in blacks, browns, and grays. But for wearing it as a kilt, it must have been due to Scottish influence. There's a strong Celtic element in Northumbria, overlaid of course with subsequent Saxon and Norse elements, but it's very much there. Celtic pride probably had something to do with its adoption.

• There's a strong Celtic element everywhere in Britain. The kilt, if it is modern and identified as being something Celtic, then indeed is associated with Celtic culture, but the tartan I am certain from what I know of it is very well entrenched and no doubt is pre-Celtic, so it wouldn't matter the Teutonic influence of Northumbria as the changing cultural nature of that nation has adapted to what was already there and that is how the Northumbrian tartan would have endured through the ages. There is a difference in the style of the Northumbrian kilt, however subtle, but indeed due to proximity and the near very little cultural change from region to region, they're bound to be similar. Enzedbrit 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, since neither of us has a reference, all this is moot at the moment. Theorizing is fun, but it's no substitute for facts. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Facts are paramount indeed! Yet, we both know that there is the Northumbrian and, thus by association, English tartan and kilt, and it is in no way difficult to provide proof of this. Are you suggesting that we should add some references to my changes in the article or perhaps, if not, remove them? Enzedbrit 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mais Oui!, as the Kilt is not just Scottish but 'Celtic' and British too, as demonstrated by the oldest kilt, that worn in England, why would you remove evidence of this from the article?Enzedbrit 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it relevant to point out Undue weight. Should Northumberland be mentioned? Yes - should that magically equate to "Britain"? No, of course not - out with a small area of northern England the kilt is not going to gain a single mention - Northumberland represents 0.6% of the population of England. The wording as it is represents severe undue weight, and I would suggest it is changed to something more appropriate. SFC9394 22:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The articles goes on to mention kilts in Ireland, Wales, and others. Therefore, this encompasses Celtic culture and British culture. England isn't notably regarded as Celtic so when worn in England, British covers it. My opinion is that it is perfectly acceptable to list the Kilt as being a part of British culture. Enzedbrit 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this is unquestionably true. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Northumbrian kilt is not the "oldest kilt", but the oldest attested tartan. That's not the same thing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good pointEnzedbrit 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I point out that the date of the northumbrian tartan was from a time where scotland extended down to northumbria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanboffin (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Kiltti

The fact that kiltti means both "nice" and "kilt" in Finnish is a constant source of puns. JIP | Talk 12:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Female variant of kilt

What is the female variant of a kilt called? I have seen it be worn in Lassie's costume in Grandpa's Magical Toys. Angie Y. (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The female variant of a kilt is called a "kilt", just as the female variant of a coat is called a "coat", the female variant of pants are called "pants" and the female variant of socks are called "socks". -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't the female variant of pants actually 'panties'? (at least, in Britain) (80.52.179.154 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

You can safely ignore Derek's sarcasm. I have seen the term "skilt" used to refer to a "female kilt". It is my understanding the latter was cut looser in the hips. I've seen the term on military issue cards here in Canada (I work in clothing stores of a Highland regiment). 139.48.25.61 (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, a little light ribbing surely. Sarcasm is such a harsh word, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between a female kilt (or any kilt for that matter) and a skirt?Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Try wearing them, it'll be pretty obvious. Bridies (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Utilikilts

I have reverted the edit that linked to the article on the Utilikilts Company, as its link in this article appears to be advertising. Any dissenting views? Newguy34 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Northumbrian kilt

The lone ref for the Northumbrian kilt seems pretty weak to me. Google hits for "Northumbrian kilt" consist only of posts on wikis, blogs, yahoo boards, and other questionable pages (that seem to confuse kilt and tartan). I think this (small) section should be removed from the article, unless we can get a reference with some substance.--Celtus (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the offending section, as per above. It was very short so it can easily be added in should a reliable source turn up. Bridies (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is no historical basis, for an article establishing the ridiculous notion of a northumbrian kilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanboffin (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Kilts a 19th century fraud

Below is a book review of The Invention of Scotland: Myth and History by Hugh Trevor-Roper which book says the kilt is a 19th century invention. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/06/08/botre108.xml rumjal 09:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong: for an education, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_kilt or read M Newsome's academic study of the history of the kilt. The 'kilt' and 'tartans' are products of the Scottish Highlands and the 'Great Kilt' dates from the 16th century. At some point in the late 17th/early 18thC the short kilt developed as a straight forward evolution of the great kilt (i.e. its pretty much just the lower half of the great kilt. Trevor-Roper's work is out of date (it was written in the late 1970s and only just published!). Since then evidence of the use of the short kilt has been found that predates the Rawlinson invention story; the best we can say for the Rawlinson story, if there is any truth to it, is that he observed and then promoted the short kilt, but he is no longer viewed as having invented it.

Tartans also go way back although it is true to say that the clan tartan link is a 19th century creation, as are *many of the tartans we have today* and before this tartans were more associated with districts (See Martin Martin's accounts from c1700). This is not the same as saying that *tartan itself* was invented in the 19thC as I see some people trying to make out!

Basically, the kilt and tartans were not 'invented' in the 19th century. this is a common misconception by people who misunderstand current evidence. However, the full-scale adoption of the Scottish highland dress and tartans as national symbols of Scotland were a development of the 19th century - there is a difference. --Gandalf x (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Trevor-Roper is exactly right. The modern kilt is a 19th century invention, as is the adoption of tartans as symbols of group identity rather than social status - previously it had been that the number of colours in the weave indicated your rank; after the adoption of the 'modern' kilt, it changed so that the pattern/colours indicated clan/regiment. There was also nothing quite like the modern kilt before the 19th Century; previous garments were cumbersome and far more practical - the modern kilt is purely ceremonial. Even by 1915, Highlanders in the field in the First World War found that they had to adopt trousers in winter. The pleats were perfect breeding grounds for vermin, mud stuck to them and lacerated their legs, and poison gas and blister agents did unmentionable things to their unmentionables, the reason for the official ban on the kilt as military field dress in 1939 once and for all. 139.48.25.61 (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I think we are coming from different places here with regards to the history of the kilt. I am not refering to the exact form of 'modern' kilt, i am talking about the kilt in general. Trevor Roper was also aware of course that the kilt itself had a history prior to the 18th century but he chose on purpose to confuse the general history of the kilt with the *18th century* taloured version (Roper NEVER said '19th' century as you describe), thus claiming that 'the kilt' was invented in the 18th century. This was to make it sound more controversial and thus generate a reaction, which it did of course, back in the late 1970's when his paper was first published.

This interpretation is not really taken very sersiously in Scotland these days by the way. The earlier 'great kilts' are still viewed as forms of kilts.. Show someone a picture of someone in a great kilt and see if identify the garment as anything other than what it looks like - a kilt!

Just because they became taloured or modified over the course of the 18th and 19th century, this does not mean that 'the kilt was invented' in the 18th or 19th century - Roper's interpretation is stretching things a bit - on purpose of course, as he was trying to be controversial. To imagine that a piece of clothing would remain completey unchanged from the 16th century to the present day is ridiculous. PS I know someone who owns a 'belted plaid' or great kilt and wears it all the time. Once its on, it doesnt actually look that very different from the later small kilt, apart from the top wrap, which looks like a large sash.

Also, can you please read posts that you respond to more carefully in future? I never said that clan-specific tartans pre-dated the late 18th early 19th century. I said that *tartan itself* did - in fact I specifically said that tartans held regional or district associations (see Martin Martin) and it was only later that clan-specific tartans were developed. Of course, it was possible to identify where someone came from by their tartan, according to Martin, but it was not developed into an official clan identfier at this time, only later. --80.177.198.45 (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Article needs better lead

Given the length of the article, it would be better to have more than a 1 sentence lead section. Could someone familiar with the subject go through the article and do a 2 paragraph summary for the lead section? Thanks lk (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have attempted to improve the lead, and also to reorder some of the other material to keep details about Scottish kilts separate from information about other kinds of kilts. There is still a large overlap with the article on Tartan, and I think most of the information about setts, and about non-Scottish tartans, should be there, not here. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• PS As a dedicated kilt-wearer, I can assure you that the kilt is technically a kind of skirt. Just because some timid Scotsmen are afraid of the word "skirt" (maybe they're scared that English people will think they're sissies) doesn't stop it being one. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Though having said that, I'm pretty annoyed if anyone calls my kilt a skirt :-) Myopic Bookworm (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not a reliable source. I've never heard a kilt called a skirt, so I'd to see one. Bridies (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

By "not a reliable source" you presumably mean that I don't happen to agree with you. Perhaps you can explain the difference between a kilt and a knee-length wrap-around pleated skirt? Just because you haven't heard a kilt called a "skirt" doesn't mean that it can't technically be one. But just because technically it 'is' one, that doesn't mean that "skirt" is an appropriate word to use for a kilt, given the history of distinction of usage of the two words. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. I mean not reliable per WP:V, WP:OR etc. Bridies (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

On MUGs

I don't think it appropriate to have this in the lead section. MUG is a very broad term that also covers garments (such as sarongs) that are most certainly not kilts. I've moved it provisionally to the section on contemporary kilts. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this included here at all? I'd say put it in its own article. Has as much to do with the kilt as crocs do with golf shoes.139.48.25.61 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Here, here. What a Utiliskirt has to do with a Scottish kilt, I don't know. SmellsBurntToast (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It has very little to do with it. But then this article is not Scottish kilt, it's Kilt. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The history of the kilt should be first, as it is actually an ancient battle dress worn by Macedonian and Romans. The skirt-like pleats allowed easier leg movements. There is nothing feminine about it--it is not a "skirt".68.231.184.131 (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You may add that the Ontario seperate school board in Canada has many high schools that have kilts as part of the uniform for the females. There are different colours reflecting the team colours for the schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.11.0 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kilt/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Very comprehensive and well-illustrated but needs more references than it has. Mid-importance within fashion; I have left that blank for Scotland but I'd probably give it high importance. Daniel Case 03:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)