Talk:Kilt/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive request

{{tl|archiveme}} --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry for not including it in my previous edit summary, though. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Kilt actually arrived in Scotland with a tribe called the 'Scoties' from Ireland, a tribe that gave Scotland its name.EC6 (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Kilt

I tried to tidy up the non-standard use of the definite article when referring to kilts in the plural that is evident throughout this article. There's no explanation as to why they should be referred to thus, and it's confusing to readers who are not familiar with the usage.

I can fully understand why it may be used when discussing the kilt as a national symbol and the like (and left references to the kilt in these sections), but using it when describing the construction of an item of clothing just sounds like a pretentious affectation bestowing unexplained importance. We wouldn't describe other clothing in such a way, what makes kilts different? I did not get up this morning and put on "the shirt". We do not talk about wearing "the hat". Using the definite article is giving an item of clothing (which to most readers is all it is) a particular significance that is not relevant for most of the article and has a hint of POV about it. For instance, Kimonos are Japan's national dress, but the Kimono article doesn't bestow it with such an honour on every single mention. It may be 'The Kimono' in Japan's POV, but everywhere else they're just kimonos.

It's also interesting to note that in the Contemporary kilt section these kilts are apparently undeserving of this, and as mere clothing are just "kilts". To me that just confirms that all the preceding mentions are POVs being used to emphasise just how special "the kilt" is unlike all others.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling kilts "kilts" and this article needs to differentiate between instances when it is referring to clothing and where it is discussing the significance of a national dress. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Escape Orbit: this article is about kilts in general and not specifically about the kilt. TechBear (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I also largely agree, although I think we can retain "the" in certain instances (e.g. "history of the kilt") for more varied prose. We could even go nuts and put in a mention or two of "a kilt". bridies (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You articular dare-devil! TechBear (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with calling kilts, "kilts". Neither is there anything wrong with talking about "the kilt". Both are normal usage within Scotland, not an affectation. And since the article was mostly written by Scots, both usages appeared. To come along and change all instance of the kilt to "kilts" in a blanket fashion, accompanying it with a comment that it was done because use of the definite article is an "affectation", was extremely insensitive, however well intentioned it may have been. There are places within the article that could be improved by changing the words "the kilt" into "kilts" but this was a textbook case of how not to do it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, "the kilt" is not normal usage in Scotland imo. I also think your getting worked up about nothing, there's nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD. bridies (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing. However that is not the issue here. A simple bold edit without that particular comment would not have been a big deal at all. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Well my point as is that I think that referring to an item of clothing as "the" is an affectation, simply because you'd never do it with any other item, and are using it to imply something particularly special for no obvious reason. However, accept my apologies if anyone found it 'insensitive'. What I was trying to say, in the limited space, is that the uniform use of "the kilt" across the entire article is unusual use of the language that is likely to puzzle readers and is introducing a cultural significance to inappropriate parts of the article. As I said, I did not change it "blanket fashion", I intensionally avoided mentions of "the kilt" as a cultural icon.
The usual plural of "kilt" is "kilts" and using this is without any POV, what is what the article should strive for. Can we agree on this? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course. However let's take a step back from that because your contributions to this discussion demonstrate that you don't actually know why the word "the" is often used for the kilt. It's got nothing to do with "using it to imply something particularly special". It's just a Gaelicism which has become fairly widespread. Not too surprisingly since kilts were much more popular in Gaelic speaking areas during their 19th century heyday than in English-speaking areas. However even among English-speakers without Gaelic the usage isn't that strange. I would certainly not think it affected for anyone to talk about "The history of the top hat" rather than "The history of top hats". Neither usage implies anything special about top hats: each usage is just an alternative phrasing. One might be more commonly used than the other but neither is wrong nor particularly affected. As a matter of style you might prefer one over the other and the same is true for use of "the kilt" versus use of "kilts". Sometimes one is better; sometimes the other. Affectation doesn't come into it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually I did know that. And generally using another language's phrasing for no obvious reason is an affectation. However, this is not the point. Your example isn't what I'm talking about, as clearly what is being talked about is the top hat (or kilt) as a definitive item. I'm referring more to things like; "In between wearings, the kilt should first be aired out and then hung in a closet." Which "the kilt" are we talking about? Should it be hung next to "the coat"? Or would it not be far clearer to say "In between wearings, kilts should first be aired out and then hung in a closet." --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
In that case it would be a little clearer; far clearer would be stretching it a bit. I'm not sure why you keep coming back to this though. I've already stated in every reply to you so far that there are sentences where it's better to write "kilts" than "the kilt" and I've no doubt that both of us can think up such sentences. The contentious issue lies with your use of "affectation" to describe the usage not with the general point that "the kilt" can often better be replaced with "kilts". There we both agree. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is this myth constantly peddled that kilts only became widespread in Scotland from the 19th century? It's a load of nonsense. The royal seals of Kings Alexander I, David I and Calum IV show the Kings in kilts, and the accounts of the chief treasurer to James V for the year 1538 show £22.16.6 spent on Highland dress. If anything, the kilt has become LESS popular than it previously was.--Steafan31 (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I refer you to an article linked in this one, History of the kilt. In short: The Dress Act of 1746 made it a criminal offense to wear any kind of "Highland dress," including the kilt. After the act was repealed 1782, an effort was made to revive Highland dress and keep it alive, but it would not be until 1822 when King George IV visited Scotland that kilts became a part of popular Scotish culture. TechBear (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Any connection with the "kilt´s" of southern Europe?

Is there anyone that has claimed or dismissed the theory of the roman acestorage of the scottish kilt?

Roman kilt.

https://www.alexanderscostumes.com/store/images/Roman%20Warrior%20Costume%2015086.jpg

http://www.anniescostumes.com/fa49362.jpg


Albanian kilt.

http://www.albmuzika.com/costumes/valledevolli.jpg

http://www.forumilir.com/download.php?id=639&t=1&f=34


--Durim Durimi (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Campbell Kilt

This image isn't very useful to this article. To outline its deficiencies;

  • It's not a very good painting. Its artistic merits are subjective and irrelevant, the point of images on the article are to inform, but this one is rather crude with indistinct detail.
  • The tartan isn't clear at all. It could be just about any.
  • We have no information of who Duncan Campbell of Inverneill is, when this was, or why his kilt is of interest.

If we had a bit of background info it might be more informative. As it is, it's just a bad painting of someone in a kilt.

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but the kilt is remarkably useful to the article. It clearly demonstrates the age of kilts as it is an obviously old portrait. For your information it is by David Wilkie so you calling it a "bad painting" is a very uninformed lowbrow statement. The unusual dress accompanying the kilt also demonstrates another way to wear a kilt!

The picture of yourself is obviously intended for your own benefit to plaster yourself over peoples computers. Perhaps if the tartan were more visible it would make for an informative image but as it is it is very unclear. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.195.242 (talk • contribs) 26 May 2009

Is the above comment by Craigenputtock? If so, please log in and sign your comments. Also be aware that edit warring through anonymous IP accounts is liable to get your account blocked.
As I explained above, my point is that it is a bad illustration for this article as the details are indistinct. Its artistic merits are of no consequence. The purpose it is suppose to serve is to inform the reader on kilts. What you claim it illustrates is by the by, because none of this is mentioned or explained on the article or image. Naturally readers are liable to remain "very uniformed". Perhaps you would like to inform them?
The picture I am restoring was neither taken by myself, of myself, or submitted by myself. I have no personal axe to grind in this matter, unlike yourself.
Please do not continue to edit war and address my concerns. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment we've got four recently taken photos of men in formal attire. I think maybe one is really enough. Why not try spice up the photos or illustrations that show the various uses of kilts and different styles? It should be pretty easy to find a good example of a kilt worn by a military unit. Maybe someone can come up with a photo of a lacrosse kilt mentioned in the article. The photo of the Irish band is pretty good since it shows how thin and narrow the pleats can be. Maybe we can find something that illustrates the wide box pleats.--Celtus (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New Citation

You will want to add information about this new book Scottish Arms and Armour by Fergus Cannan http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/5675615/Scots-fought-in-bright-yellow-war-shirts-not-Braveheart-kilts.html --rumjal 05:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

"Kilt" or "Feileadh-Mhor" ?

While I appriciate the extensive thought that has gone into the current article, alot of stock has been put into the modern name for the garment and its scandanavian name as being the clue to the origin of the garment. While there can be no doubt that scandanavian countries and others were at war with the celts, and britons for an extensive period of time the entymology of the word in scandanavian describes more than it provides a proper noun. The garments proper name in scots gealic is the "Feileadh-Mhor". While very little is known about the garment before proscription when everything remotely highland or indeed scottish was being systematically erradicated from the scottish national identitiy, such as pipes, national dress, dancing, clan names etc etc. Any reasearch on the subject should be taken with a grain of salt as most proper records of the day were either destroyed or lost by the time proscriptionAct of Proscription 1746 was repealed.

When again we see a return to scottish national identity under the adherents of the Jacobite cause and Prince Charles Edward to the interest that was taken by Her Majesty Queen Victoria and the fad she developed for all things scottish. In addition the ability to record family and clan records under offical registry.

Simply said don't belive everything you read, much of the professing done by many so called experts on the subject cannot say for certain the legitimacy the "Feileadh-Mhor" has on scottish identity and the current importance it plays for everyone Gaelic as most of these offical records have never existed or were lost forever in the numerous wars with england. Remember "History is sometimes written by those who have hanged heroes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.166.126 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"the entymology of the word"? How did bugs get involved in this discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.87.76 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 66.216.166.126. The entire article should be written in Scottish Gaelic--or classical Irish, as the original wearers of the kilt (er, I mean "kilts"...) would have written this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.69.207 (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia so we use the English names for topics hence the English WP article on Germany calls that country "Germany", not "Deutschland" despite the fact that that is its name in German. Likewise the English WP article on the kilt calls it "the kilt", not "an feileadh beag" or "an feileadh mhor". If you want to read an article on the kilt that calls it the "feileadh beag", you should check out the Gaelic Wikipedia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas_Rawlinson and the modern kilt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rawlinson - why no mention of this chap in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.183.122 (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good point. I know his role in the invention of the modern kilt is disputed but the dispute merits a mention. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
He is mentioned in the History of the kilt article. LK (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

It would be nice if we could have a lead image for the article. One that is not objectionable to any major groups. Any suggestions? LK (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Kilt Tartans

I feel this article should have either a section or perhaps an add on somewhere explaining the tradition of wearing your clans tartan. A Kilt should be of either the tartan of your Clan, that of your mothers maiden name or your grandmother. Some Tartans also have several variations as well for example the Baird and new Baird Tartan. More recently many people chose to wear an official region's tartan. I feel this should be added to the Kilt article as it explains a bit more about the tradition. I would appreciate others thoughts on whether this should be a section or an add on somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Km04 1 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe. Generally Wikipedia describes how things are; not how they should be. That is because "should be" is very much a matter of opinion in many cases. And while it is true that many people wear tartan clothing specific to their surname, this is true of scarves, trousers, hats, etc.; not just kilts. And as you say many people wear club tartans, city tartans and fashion tartans. Burberry tartan is probably the commonest tartan in the world even though you never see it on a kilt. Just remember that the vast majority of tartans exist as a result of the ceaseless marketing efforts of the Scottish woollens manfacturers and that kilts exist with no tartan at all. So it would probably be better mentioned in the tartan article than in the kilt article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"Hunting" and "Dress" tartans

Over the last 40 years or so, some of them spent living in Scotland, I have often read (including in books specifically about tartans) and heard in conversation references to variants of 'everyday' tartans called "dress" - incorporating white and typically worn as "Evening dress", and "hunting" - with muted colours originally due to fading with age, but now created deliberately, and typically worn when stalking as semi-camouflage. Both terms can be found in the text of various other Wikipedia articles.

I realise that these concepts are referred to in this article by other names, which doubtless are more correct, but should not such widely used terms be at least mentioned, if only in order to correct them? {The poster (and sassenach) formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.115 (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Origin of Kilts

Some people have been removing or changing sections that describe kilts being Scottish in origin and changing to Irish. I took a quick look and tried to revert to the original content but I would appreciate someone else checking to make sure I didn't miss anything. --Bob0the0mighty (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Tartans Authority

There is too much bias towards the Scottish Tartans Authority (STA). As much as they call themselves the Authority and speak authoritatively, they have no authority. That rests with the Scottish Register of Tartans (SRT) which is the official government body. The STA can register as many tartans as it wishes, but until such time as the tartan is registered with the SRT it has no protection.
When the SRT was set up the STA thought that it would be the official body or at least have more input. It had neither and has pursued a course of snipping and criticism ever since. It is true that the SRT got off to a very rocky start, but that was due in no little part to the constant criticism, in the press and any other venue.
The article is unbalanced and is not NPOV. Kiltpin (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any actual examples of that from the article? I don't see any examples of bias, far less "snipping and criticism". Yes, it mentions the STA and quotes from them, but I don't see anything that suggests it is being done at the expense of the SRT. Nor does the article suggest they are in competition, or at odds with each other in any way. There is nothing critical about either organisation in the kilt article, and it is probably not the place to discuss any of this anyway.
But if you have any suggestions of what might be change to improve the article, please feel free to suggest them, or be bold and put it in yourself. If the SRT have done/said anything that is directly relevant to kilts that isn't in the article, and you think it should be, then please do add. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I find the comment about not wearing underwear being "childish and unhygienic" neglects the historical aspect (as seen in Hugh Trevor-Roper's article) about it being laid down in military regulations. (83.16.188.58 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

Remove - Shendyt

I think the following should be removed:

"Ancient Egypt The shendyt, worn by Pharaohs and warriors in Ancient Egypt, is often called a kilt (and can be considered as such) as it is a piece of pleated linen wrapped around the body at the waist."

The shendyt is possibly a male skirt, but that does not make it a kilt. It was worn in ancient Egypt, not in Scotland. It was made of linen not wool. A modern kilt (last 150 years) has the pleats stitched in, the shendyt did not. Who called it a kilt? and Who considers it as such?

A pebble can be the same size and shape as an egg, but the best will in the world won't hatch it. Likewise the shendyt does not belong here. Kiltpin (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added [according to whom?] tags to this section. If there is nothing added by 3 January 2013, then the whole section is going. Kiltpin (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
15 months later, nothing added to unsubstantiated claims, so it is gone. Kiltpin (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"Scotti"

"The Irish tribe known as the Scotti, that migrated to Scotland and ...."

There has never been an Irish tribe called the Scotti. Scot(t)i was simply the name the Romans used to refer to the Irish/Gaels.Murchadh (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Revision

The latest revision "Latest revision as of 05:57, 3 January 2013 " is wrong. The previous categorisation of a Male Garment was correct. "Male" encompasses all ages, whereas "Men's" means an adult male only. Kiltpin (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Other Celtic nations

I have reverted the last edit by an anonymous editor. He removed content (without comment) and left a sentence with bad grammar. Kiltpin (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

added a mention of "Kilted to Kick Cancer" in the intro

My addition was removed. The content did not violate copyright. Not only was the content verifiable, the source of the content was included. As for relevance, it was placed in a paragraph describing how the kilt is used in modern times. I fail to understand the basis for the removal. Could somebody clue me in? 76.2.187.119 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC) yonatan

I think there would be a few reasons. A month-long charity event is not significant to the overall subject of kilts. It doesn't illustrate how kilts are used in modern times; it illustrates what a small number of kilt wearers are doing for one month. There is also the guideline that a Wikipedia article is not a place to publicise charitable causes (no matter how worthy they may be). It also didn't explain who, what, where or even when (September which year?) So ultimately it was rather uninformative. Lastly, if it merited a mention at all, which I'm unconvinced about, it shouldn't be in the lead, which should be a general overview. Hope this helps explain. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Escape Orbit has basically summed up why I removed the addition. If you had added it later in the article, I would have given it a bit of slack until the event was over but there is no way that it belongs in the introduction so it had to go. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

STA position on what's worn under the kilt.

This is a reply to Robocon1 who wished to change what is said by the STA on the subject of wearing underwear.

The fact remains that the STA did say this in 2010. If anyone is in a position to speak for the STA it is the director of the STA. And the website does not say it is "a matter of personal choice". That is Robocon1's interpretation of what it says. What it says is ;

"We mere civilians have a choice to wear or not to wear boxer shorts or briefs. Common sense and a regard for others should rule the day. It's one thing to go 'bare' when hill walking but to do the same when attending an evening function that involved vigorous dancing, could lead to the charge of exhibitionism and scant consideration for the social comfort of others."

My reading of this leaves me with a very clear view of the STA's thoughts. Wearing the kilt with no underwear in company is not "common sense or showing regard for others". Of course, "civilians have a choice", the STA are, after all, not the kilt police. But to interpret that as meaning the STA have changed their position on the matter is quite wrong. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


Reply from Robocon1

Unfortunately, Escape Orbit's reading is wrong.

This is a direct quote from the STA website's "What's Down Under" section today, commenting in a sidebar to the right of the text on the Telegraph's interview of Brian Wilton (and these are their capitals, not mine): "What BW DID NOT SAY was that "going commando" was childish and unhygenic and flew in the face of decency. What he DID say was that under certain circumstances it could be childish and unhygenic and flew in the face of decency. A world of difference and a statement of incontrovertible fact! Doing a wild dance in front of women and children at a church fete is one such example." So very definitely neither the STA nor Brian Wilton has "described the practice as childish and unhygienic", as the wikipedia entry on the kilt currently states.

The Telegraph article that quoted Brian Wilton inaccurately was from 2010. For their current position on the subject, this is a direct quote from the STA website's "How to wear the kilt" section: "Should male kiltwearers go breeched or unbreeched? Here's some advice from American Bob Martin, KIlt historian and kiltmaker of many decades experience. Now, to the breeching of the kilt. The only good and sensible reasonfor the wearing of undies (and I do mean undies, NOT Bermuda shorts,basketball shorts, etc.) with the kilt is out of deference to someoneor something. Many men may feel, and with good cause, that should theirkilts fly up, exposing them to the world, it would be an embarrassmentto their wives or children." Robocon1 (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to make things clear: I wasn't suggesting that the sentence in this wikipedia entry attributing the opinion that wearing nothing under the kilt is childish and unhygienic to the STA be modified. I'm suggesting it be removed, along with the citation linking it to the Telegraph article, mainly on the grounds that a), as Escape Orbit says, the STA aren't kilt police, b) they didn't make a bald condemnatory statement of this kind anyway, and were misquoted in an outdated newspaper article, and c) the opinions expressed on their website currently more or less support the sentiment expressed in previous sentence of this wikipedia entry. Robocon1 (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to the STA page, I wasn't aware of this. I've updated the cite to better reflect the STA position. I don't think that removing it completely is the solution, as it does moderate and qualify the other extreme of the "true Scotsman" statement. And clearly the STA's thoughts on it are notable. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And thank you, Escape Orbit, for taking account of it. I don't understand your reasoning for modifying this quote (although the reason we're discussing this is because you originally deleted a modification of this type that I had made, without discussing it). Since I have become aware of the circumstances and origin of the quotation and reflected on the subject, I can see no good reason to retain it. As you have said yourself, the STA are not the kilt police: their opinions on the subject carry no more weight than anyone else's. They are not a recognised authority on the wearing of kilts. On the other hand, the Highland regiments of the British Army and the Scottish regiments of the Canadian army are. How does it matter that the STA opinions would moderate or qualify the "True Scotsman" statement? The earlier part of the sentence in the wikipedia article of which this is a clause makes clear that whether to follow the "True Scotsman" direction or not is a matter of choice. Robocon1 (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Since this an article on kilts, not underwear (or its absence): remove mention of this subject altogether, as has been done on other occasions in the past Robocon1 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that, but I doubt others would be, or that a removal would last long. It is a subject that does seem to fascinate some people. Better there's something of reasonable quality there, than repeated addition of rubbish. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

school uniform

Skilt-like skirts are worn by girls as part of school uniforms in many private schools -- especially Catholic ones -- in a number of countries. Are these properly called kilts?211.225.33.104 (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally, no. A kilt has a certain type of construction which increases the price. As a general rule school uniforms are designed to be cheaper rather than more expensive. A tartan skirt is not a kilt. Kiltpin (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre article

As a lifelong student of Scottish History, particularly of the Highlands and Islands, I find several parts of this item bizarre. The assertion in this article that the small kilt was invented by an Englishman has been pretty categorically disproven, the photo featured shows someone in the USA, which is not in Scotland, and you actually list the noted anti Scottish bigot Hugh Trevor Roper as one of the sources. If you want to learn about the real history of the kilt, and by extension the Highlands and Islands, you'd be better spending your time reading some books by Professor Tom Devine, and several other eminent scholars, who have discredited the vast majority of the Anglocentric teaching of Scottish Hisory that has been taught in the past. I also find it somewhat odd that none of the further reading actually refers to any books by scholars who are actually Scottish or at least based in Scotland. Slainte! Pictishbeasie (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that not being Scottish should automatically disqualify anyone as a source of information on anything relating to Scotland. I agree, though, that the photo of the reenactor was a mostly pointless addition, although not because the reenactor was American, but because his outfit was so historically inaccurate. I have just edited the "History" section to contextualise Rawlinson's contribution and to reflect what is written in the History of the Kilt wikipedia article. The section in The Invention of Tradition used in this article (pages 22-23) actually states that Rawlinson's philibeg had sewn-in pleats, which distinguishes it from the earlier philibegs mentioned in the source in the History of the Kilt article. Robocon1 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Breton Tartans

None of the links to citations for the existence of registered Breton tartans appear to work and a search of the tartan registry (the site to which the links link) reveals none of the mentioned tartans at all. A web search does throw up these French language sites: http://tartanbreton.com/; http://www.tartan-et-cie.com/PBCPPlayer.asp?PW=1&ID=462613. Does anyone feel like making some changes? I'm no editor, I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.0.108.119 (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Should have mentioned perhaps - I was looking at this article because I'm in France and there's a big rally in Nantes today (28/9/14) in support of that city and its département becoming once again part of Brittany. Breton kilts were mentioned on the radio and I was wondering what the tartans looked like.

Origin of the modern kilt

Further to my comment above, in "Bizarre article", please see History of the kilt Talk, "English invented the kilt". Robocon1 (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The only source given for the philibeg being worn before 1720 is Matthew Newsome on his own website and the website for the tartan museum in North Carolina cited to this and other kilt articles (History of, Belted Plaid and Thomas Rawlinson). Robocon1 (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to spell this out yet again, for the benefit of those editors who repeatedly take issue with a non-existent slight by altering the text of this article: nowhere in this article is it suggested that 'the kilt was invented by an Englishman' - as far as is known, the kilt was worn in Scotland from the 16th century. What was invented by an Englishman, according to the best reliable historic sources, was the first recorded example of something like the modern tailored kilt with sewn in pleats. Only one extant source for anything of that type existing earlier has ever been cited here - despite requests for other sources over some years on this article, the History of the kilt article and the article on Thomas Rawlinson. What that sole source claims (without citing any specific supporting evidence) is that the short kilt or philibeg was worn with unsewn pleats from the 1690s. That is: a length of cloth wrapped round the waist by the wearer, bunched up at the back and held in place with a separate belt. So, even if this were true, not a distinct tailored garment in its own right like the kilt worn today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robocon1 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Other Celtic Nations

Leaving the ambiguity of Galicia as a "Celtic" nation aside, this article says nothing of the Northumbrian tartan, which is accompanied by its own kilt. If no movement is made on this matter, I shall be adding a section on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.128.106 (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That's kind of how Wikipedia works. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a little at Border tartan which is linked to by Northumbrian tartan Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ancient "celt"

According to Joyce, the "celt" ("meaning to conceal") was very common long before the 16th Century, and medieval art experts document this fact.[1][2][3] See the figures on the Shrine of Manchan. This article needs to make reference to Medieval Art sources, as the current "history of the kilt" smells wrong. If the article is about a particular style of "celt" then that is different, but I worry the article is about modern "Highland kilt" rather than the generic fashion garment which must have ancient roots. Nmclough (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Joyce, Patrick Weston (1903). A social history of ancient Ireland : treating of the government, military system, and law ; religion, learning, and art ; trades, industries, and commerce ; manners, customs, and domestic life, of the ancient Irish people (PDF). Vol. Volume II. Dublin: M. H. Gill & Son, Ltd. London ; New York : Longmans, Green, and Co. pp. 182, 183, 203. Retrieved 21 October 2016. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Condra, Jill (2008). The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Clothing Through World History: Prehistory to 1500CE. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 34. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Hermary, Antoine; Mertens, Joan R. (2014). The Cesnola Collection of Cypriot Art: Stone Sculpture. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 59. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The more I research this (I am not expert in kilt;-), the more I think article should be renamed to "Scottish Highland Kilt" with a disambiguation page for "Kilt (garment)" but I do not hold a strong opinion on this. Nevetheless, wikipedia is encyclopedia and kilt (the modern term) is widely used as a term to describe ancient "kilts" since we do not always know what they were called in Ancient times or pre-history. thanks Nmclough (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

{{subst:Requested move|Scottish highlands kilt}}

I've noted your posts today with not a little confusion, unclear as to the nature of your dissatisfaction with the article. The haphazard formatting also makes it rather confusing. What other article or articles are you envisaging to be listed at a supposed disambiguation page other than the garment? There may be other variants than the best known, Highland Scottish form, or forms, but these are discussed in this article and if there is any deficiency in their coverage it should still be here as the article regards essentially the same garment. As you say, you are clearly "not expert in kilt;-" so please be careful about suggesting major changes regarding a subject about which you are not knowledgeable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Joyce 1903, pp. 203.
  2. ^ Hermary, Mertens 2014, pp. 59.
  3. ^ Condra 2008, pp. 34.
Hmm, sorry to confuse you. There no other word in english language, except "kilt", describe kilt-like garments; the title can be defended as common names" but various verifiable sources use the term "kilt" for "kilt-type" garments, not just the modern kilt post-1500's. Nmclough (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Requested move 24 October 2016

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: Not moved, it WP:SNOWed (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Kilt → Scottish highlands kilt – The "core" of the article Kilt (and History of the kilt) is bit biased towards Highland costume, kilt and tartan, with other variants appended. The english language insists on neutral definition for "kilt" (to tuck up, conceal, like skirt, etc), so to be inclusive of all interpretations/cultures/contexts/history. No other word in english language covers kilt-type garments. Nmclough (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose on the basis that I can not make sense of your arguments, also in the section above. An article manifestly can not be a "bit biased" for covering the very topic in question. Are you suggesting that the title "kilt" should cover some other topic, that another article should hold the name or quite what are you suggesting? There is no ambiguity so a disambiguation of the title or a dab page is not needed and would contradictorily be populated by only one article. You mention the definition of the, related, verb but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article covers all kilts. It concentrates on the Scottish variant because that is the commonest one. However it provides information about other kilts as well. If some type of kilt has been missed from the article, it should be added. But the title is already the best one for the topic because it is about the noun(s) not the verb. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose For all the reasons stated above. I too, cannot understand the argument. Kiltpin (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To most English speakers throughout the world, "kilt" means the Scottish garment. I doubt that many are even aware of its use as a verb. Maproom (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the article expands to the extent that a split is needed between Scottish Highland kilt, and all others, then a split can be done then. I do not see any merits to this based on the present contents. Fretting about the definition of the word "kilt" is irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

[response] Lets us be clear. The 1st sentence in the article states the kilt is "originating in the traditional dress of men and boys in the Scottish Highlands of the 16th century", ignoring the fact verifiable sources (I listed three at Talk:Kilt#Ancient_.22celt.22, and I drew attention to "figures on Shrine of Manchan" wearing highly ornamented kilts) describe kilts being "common" for aeons. This inconsistency prompted the suggestion of a move. The Kilt is an iconic symbol of the Scottish Nation so this will not be approved, but the purpose of the Talk page is to "improve the article". For a balanced article, there should be counter-arguments why the "kilt" is not originating from Scotland in the 16th century. It would improve the article and make "requested move" requests nonsensical. The article stops at 16th century and this is big weakness. Thanks. Nmclough (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I still struggle to understand why you ever thought renaming the article would address perceived deficiencies in it, rather than addressing the deficiencies but can you clarify that you yourself now also oppose the proposed requested move, so that no more time need be expended on the move discussion? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Our article titles should be in line with what the majority of our readers are looking for regarding a topic. In my opinion, the vast majority of people looking for information about this garment will enter "Kilt" into the search box, not "Scottish Highlands something or other". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kilt. 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) 21:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kilt. 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) 09:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Irish not Scots troops

The caption on the original woodcut, the full picture which can be seen elsewhere on Wikipedia, says these are Irish troops. No mention of Scots. Cassandra

The source of this image says Scottish, but there does seem to be confusion about it. A google search shows a mix. This comprehensive blog suggests the Irish heading is an error by the Germans. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion criteria for List of tartans

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:List of tartans#Inclusion criteria, a proposal for a three-point list of inclusion criteria. There are at least 7000 tartans and we cannot account for them all in a single article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Missing History - Kilt / Tartan tunic.

I notice this article excludes the kilts predecessor, the Tartan tunic dating back to the 5th century.

The Traditional tunic was no different than the full body kit, a one-piece with a waist belt to hold the sword.

Occasionally the Gaels would bare cloaks marching the fly plaid.

The tunic also was just above the knee, recorded within Saxon and Roman history, the Romans made a clear relationship between the Gaels and the Gaul based on dress and lifestyle, tartan dating back thousands of years also.

I would like to see the ancestry of the kilt and tartan placed on this article, I can see stubborn nationalists stating tartan and the kilt was strictly Scottish invention whist is completely inaccurate based of factual evidence and documentation.

The Scots regularly praise their Celtic ancestors, yet many refuse to accept Scottish identity descends from the Celts of Europe.

The oldy form of the kilt days back to the 5th century, to Scotia (Hibernia) and Dal Riata. 2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:2016:C7EF:E470:6DDC (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Ad

Dress skirt

@Martin of Sheffield and/or anyone else: What exactly is a "dress skirt"? A Dress covers the upper and lower body. A Skirt covers the lower body only. Is this supposed to mean "a skirt" or is it supposed to mean "a dressy skirt"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I'll remove the word "dress". I think that it was originally added since kilts are often associated with formal dress wear, but they are not necessarily so. My reversion was changing "sarong" back to "skirt". There's no reason to start using a slightly ambiguous East Asian term. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Elizabeth G.H.L: you're fairly new around here, perhaps you've not yet had a chance to read WP:BRD which outlines the normal editing process. You make a Bold edit, it may be Reverted and if so you Discuss it. Just changing someone's reversion of your edit is not acceptable, and if you continue to do that it can escalate into an WP:EDITWAR. Being involved in an edit war can lead to administrator action ultimately to suspend or block your account.
Turning now to the substantive part. A sarong is a Malay word meaning 'to cover' or 'to sheath'. The OED defines a kilt as "A part of Highland dress, resembling a skirt reaching from the waist to the knee". I can see no reason to abandon a standard English word in favour of a Malaysian word that doesn't even look similar, sarongs are normally worn to cover the upper body as well. Your observation that skirt derives from an edge is not borne out by a perusal of the OED, indeed the etymology section shows skirt as being derived from shirt: "Old Norse skyrta (Icelandic skyrta , Norwegian sjørte , sjorte , sjurte ; Middle Swedish skiurta , skiorta , Swedish skjorta , Danish skjorte ) shirt". Looking down the definitions we see that "In extended uses: a border, rim, or protective covering", so the reverse is the case.
If you have any reason to debate this further, please do so on this talk page and do not change the article until consensus is achieved. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Martin, BRD is only one common editing technique, not "normal editing process", and the nutshell of BRD: -- "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change." -- applies to both of you. Both editors are trying to improve the encyclopaedia and it is best if disagreement is resolved on talk rather than simply reverting each other.
For what it is worth, I agree that sarong is not a good choice of description. Dictionaries vary in whether they describe a kilt as a skirt or resembling a skirt. Possibly the latter definition is appeasing those Scotsmen who feel uncomfortable with their clothing being described in terms of what is perceived as a woman's clothing. Dictionaries vary in whether a skirt is described solely by its form or includes the claim that it is worn by women and girls. From this I would suggest that Wikipedia defining a kilt as a skirt or defining it as resembling a skirt are both valid, and depend on whether a writer feels skirts are solely for women/girls or are simply a particular kind of garment. The former (is a skirt) has been used by Wikipedia, AFAICS, for many years without complaint. -- Colin°Talk 21:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree with you that BRD in not the normal, but we'll let that lie. I've tried to get a discussion going with Elizabeth both here and on her talk page, but with an editor who has only four edits, and those to the same article, I wonder if she will be aware of talk pages. I seriously thought about doing a dummy edit to avoid charges of edit warring, but on thinking about it I decided that a dummy edit would achieve little, might be confusing, and ultimately wouldn't restore the status quo ante. I personally prefer "is a skirt" rather than "resembles a skirt", but would be happy to accept it in the interests of consensus building. What I can't understand is "sarong". Why not for example chiton or Fustanella? After all at least they are European terms and marginally closer to English. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Whether it's "normal" depends on whether you're talking about BRD itself or Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD. Also, most editing doesn't involve reverting or deserve discussion, so neither version of BRD is relevant to most edits.
Presumably one wouldn't pick Chiton (garment) because that's a dress (covers upper and lower body) instead of something that covers only the lower body.
I have no strong views about "is" vs "resembles" or any similar variation. I just don't want that "dress skirt" language to stick around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I think readers will have even less idea what a chiton is vs a sarong. The point of a lead (and any definition really) is to help the reader understand the unfamiliar, and if our definition contains even more obscure terms (fustanella) than the subject, we are heading in the wrong direction. I know sometimes we need to use precise language but let's see if we can keep it simpler. The form of kilt that covers the upper body is historical, as the lead paragraph explains. I think readers will understand best if left described as/resembles a skirt, which is what the modern kilt looks like.
I wasn't sure what "non-bifurcated" meant and the wiktionary link was no help whatsoever. I didn't appreciate in what way it might be "in two" or not "in two". I googled and found Bifurcated skirt which explained that such a skirt had a division between the legs. Even our Skirt article doesn't mention that kind. If it did, however, then we could link to that instead. As it is, I think the fact that it is not a kind of skirt that is a pretty rare kind of skirt is a rather more obscure detail than deserves prominence in the lead sentence.
The resemblance with some kinds of sarong is that it is one length of fabric rather than a sewn tube one steps into. You wrap it around yourself and fasten with buckles. As our Sarong article explains, not all sarongs are like that, and some are sewn to a tube. Additionally a kilt is fastened with buckles down its length rather than tied at the waist, and the material is heavy wool and pleated, so not at all lightweight for hot weather. So I think describing it as a sarong is too misleading. But I think the fact that it is wrapped around the waist rather than stepped into like most skirts is something the lead should cover.
The lead sentence also says it has pleats round the back, which is incorrect, as they are at the sides too. The best dictionary description I have found is this 18th century one here here: A traditional Scottish garment, usually worn by men, having roughly the same morphology as a wrap-around skirt, with overlapping front aprons and pleated around the sides and back, and usually made of twill-woven worsted wool with a tartan pattern. Perhaps we could say "resembling a wrap-around skirt", drop the "non-bifurcated" aspect, and note the pleats are at the side and back. Saying "men's skirt" is a bit too close to enforcing a gender rule than documenting a typical wear usage. We also don't mention it is made from wool and has a tartan until the end of the lead paragraph, which is rather late. I see the body mentions "twill woven worsted wool". I've made an edit to try to include all these things. -- Colin°Talk 07:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Excellent. The "chiton" and "fustanella" were meant as hyperbole, not a serious definition. It's just that I had to look up "sarong" to see what it was, the those two are just as obscure (unless you live in Malasia of course). Some readers might have a problem with "morphology", but then this is the English WP, not Simple English. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I settled on "resembles" because the more I thought about its differences, the more I realised that although it looks somewhat like a skirt, it isn't a typical skirt that is made of a sewn tube, and it isn't tied at the waist like many female wrap-around skirts are. There's a considerable overlap of material (the "overlapping front apron" in our dictionary def above), and a set of buckles, that ensures no gap appears. I also thought "having roughly the same morphology" was just a highfalutin way of saying "resembles". -- Colin°Talk 10:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I think that "resembling a wrap-around skirt" is an improvement over some of the previous versions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Quibble: a kilt is fastened with buckles down its length – No, it's fastened with buckles at the top (left and right). A minority of kiltmakers use two buckles on the left, but both are well above the center of the kilt vertically.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kilt/Archive_2&oldid=1170920456"