This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Edinburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Edinburgh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EdinburghWikipedia:WikiProject EdinburghTemplate:WikiProject EdinburghEdinburgh articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Wikify : remove non historic info from "History" section to more suitable heading, perhaps to "Development" or "Redevelopment"; poss rearrange historic events into date order; "geography" section contains development info
I noticed that someone had mentioned Rockstar North on the article and added the following sentence - "Prior to this, the company was based within Leith itself - in an office building situated next to Leith Links park." I feel that this is necessary because the article is about Leith and Leith Street is not actually within Leith 'proper'. In fact, it lies in an area more accurately described as 'Greenside' or the 'East-End' of Edinburgh. --Arawn c 00:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a rewrite of the section on the planned new development, which had some considerable POV issues regarding the "gentrification" of the docks. It's a valid viewpoint, and I've framed it with some weasel words ("with concerns being expressed" - argh!), but we really need to source it properly.
For the record here's the bit that I mostly removed:
The masterplan for what will be virtually a new town entails a luxury new residential area named Platinum Point (designed by Robert Adam), a fitness centre, and later, a central park surrounded by narrow streets and grand crescents and avenues. The whole project is expected to be completed by about 2020. Ocean Terminal is considered the first stage of this new development and - poignantly - is constructed upon the exact site of the last shipyard in Leith, Henry Robb's, which closed in 1984.
The significance of this should not be overlooked, for it encapsulates the "gentrification of Leith" which many "natives" have complained of. Unfortunately, most of the new developments are branded "luxury" or "exclusive" and indeed are exclusive - well beyond the price range of indigenous working-class Leithers. The danger exists of a two-tier Leith, split between original residents and middle-class incomers, and the contrast is startling - less than 200 metres from the new development lies the Fort housing scheme, one of the most deprived areas in Edinburgh. Time will tell whether such large scale development will enhance or destroy the traditional spirit and charm of Leith.
I was in Leith recently, still looks pretty rough to me - not all of it to be fair but a lot of it. Who's to bet that these "New Leith" edits are coming from offices at the Scottish Executive?172.159.125.105 14:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a significantly sized photo on the page titled "The famous Leith 'Banana Flats'" but there's no text in the body of the article describing these flats, or why they are famous. Given that somebody thinks that the flats are famous enough to be one of the key images on the page, could we have some text explaining their significance? Or delete and replace with something that is mentioned in the body text? cheers. --mgaved 09:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I posted the photo and I'll get onto providing the text. --Guinnog 20:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started a new article, under the "proper" name of Cables Wynd House. Sorry it took so long. --Guinnog 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how widespread its fame is, but entertaining. As a Leither from when the flats were new, I'd just point out that in those days it was known as the banana block. Alliterates better. ..dave souza, talk 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're worth a mention. Boabbriggs 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Leith Links is, rather disappointingly, a redlink. Is it notable enough for an article (I would have thought it was, due to its place in golfing history, if nothing else, eg: 'Leith Links - The Home of Golf'), or should we just redirect it to this page? --Mais oui! (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This section is severely underpopulated and insinuates that Leith did not have much going on until the 16th c. Further, "Saxon" wharves, in 12c. Scotland?? Tagged this as in need of an expert on Medieval Leith. Brendandh (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added sections on the Leith Dockers Strike of 1913 and Rsar Nicholas' visit of Leith. I'll see if I can find more social and political history (Caledonian 365) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caledonian365 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This newly added section is currently entirely unsourced, placed oddly in the article and some of the material appears rather speculative. For a start, does this notional area of "Madeira" even exist? I can only get Ghits for the streets with Madeira actually in their name, no mention of an area with this handle. I lived in one of the streets that is listed as being in this area, some time ago and for less than a year, but do not recall ever hearing the term used. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments suggest that the additional material should be deleted. Kim Traynor | Talk 17:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did take a crack at the material, at least partially, on 12th January, including removal of the name Madeira as an area but it may well benefit from further straightening out. After a few months there's been nothing further to support either the original version or what remains, so go on yersel. I'll try and cast my eye over it at some point too when I get a chance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inexplicably there seemed to be no sport played in Leith. I've started a sport sub-heading which people more learned than me will hopefully expand. Richard Avery (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Intial comment before seeking some middle ground. Bart's Map of Edinburgh shows a timeline that is in fact erroneous. It shows the red area as the oldest area in Leith. North Leith has restrictions put upon it by the Port of Leith's monopoly on trade. It shows a red area in North Leith that only evolves in the 15th and 16th century when that side of Leith begins ship building. The map doesn't show ANY area, in ANY colour, highlighting the ship-building era then, when North Leith was IN FACT, built up. The map is simply, wrong. FelisRead(talk) 07:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please compare the mapPlan of Leith showing the French fortifications of 1560 that shows the docks in the 16th century, beyond the red area that the Bart map shows, agreeing with what I am saying. FelisRead(talk) 07:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A brief comparison of where the red area of South Leith is also shows the Bart map erroneous, but it is more obvious in comparison with North Leith. FelisRead(talk) 07:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both North Leith and South Leith have the same colour code and, therefore, it follows that your contention that the map shows North Leith to be older than South Leith, like your contention that it shows North Leith to be much larger than South Leith, is wrong. It appears that the docks you refer to as being 16th century and beyond the red area is the first wet dock of c.1806.77.99.106.6 (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a contention. You can see the 1560 walls in red in the Bart map, yet within the key of the map red suggests a stage of building before the end of the 16th century, it does not fill Leith in red, though all of Leith was built at that point.
Not only that, but the docks of a later date are giving a colour in yellow, whilst the dock, very visible in the 1560 map I brought your attention, is not given a red colouring.
Why is this important?
Because that dock was the basis of North Leith being built up in the first place (and, again, it was built up beyond the red area the bart map shows, within the walls, and you can see this, visibly on the 1560 map I brought your attention.)
(N.B. It seems you are troll, you are now deleting that Leith is a delta entering the Firth of Forth? What don't you agree with, that the "Water of Leith" silts? ... like a delta. Or that the Firth of Forth is really the River Thames?)FelisRead(talk) 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want proof of silting and land reclamation upon former siltland, I can give you it. The very fact that Leith has a links, is enough of a hint.FelisRead(talk) 13:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I would simply refer you to Wikipedia guidelines "Be polite, and welcoming to new users, Assume good faith, Avoid personal attacks"77.99.106.6 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Your first addition was nearly 6 months ago though.
I would prefer it if you were more open in using the talk page if, hopefully, you are planning on more additions. I would be grateful for any positive improvements you might give, and not just regarding Leith.
And by more open, that also suggests not discussing topics by accusing another Wikipedian of "wrong" "contentions", but by directing comments solely upon the "wrongness" and "contentions" of references. Wikipedians very rarely "contend", or are "wrong" on anything. It's the sources that they use that are wrong, or are at odds with each other. FelisRead(talk) 18:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather a half-hearted apology. It has nothing to do with when my first addition may have been made; what about being polite, assuming good faith and avoiding personal attack? I have no problem with someone saying I'm wrong or that I claim or assert or contend something. Calling someone a troll is an entirely different matter.
You say "I would prefer it if you were more open in using the talk page". I find it strange that I am expected by you to use the talk page for any additions I may make and yet you have made numerous changes and additions to the Leith article without any resort to the talk page.
You said, "removing factually erroneous Bartholemews map links that suggests North Leith was of much bigger and earlier construction than South Leith with the Port of Leith and Leither's lodgings themselves were built earlier.". I said "Replaced map link - the map does not show North Leith as bigger or older than South Leith".
We obviously disagree, except you now seem to accept that North Leith isn't shown to be much bigger than South Leith. The map you point to as being a map of 1560 appears to me to be no such thing but, instead, is a map of some later period with the walls of 1560 superimposed. In my view, the purpose of marking the walls of Leith on the Bartholemew's map in red is to delineate them rather than to indicate any particular age. I am not aware of Leith having docks in 1560. You talk about seeking a middle ground. I find it difficult to know what that can mean. Either the link is included or it's not. We are talking about an external link here, not the Leith article itself, and I intend to reinstate the link to what is, after all, a map by a highly reputed Edinburgh mapmaker, so that other readers can refer to it if they so wish and make up their own minds.
With regard to "delta", perhaps the problem is your sentence construction. The mention of delta is in a strange juxtaposition with the main bulk of the sentence but at least that provides the context that it is a concept of Leith other than merely the mouth of the Water of Leith that is being considered. In that context at least, Leith is not a delta. I have no idea about your reference to the Thames. It is not self evident that links (of the Leith Links variety) imply silting. I understand that Leith Links is the result of blown sand. 77.99.106.6 (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leith had a docks in 1560, as per the map available on this talk page. Please read Royal Scots Navy for Wikipedia references on the written record. A written record that is not given much reference in this article. I hope that will change.
Reinstating the link goes against, not just that fact, but also missing portions of North Leith built around the economic benefits from that dock, that are, again, visible in the map available on this page. The red colouring is not for another purpose on the rest of the map, I can not see how in delineating the walls that would change. A visible gap without colouring amidst the walls that other maps also show as being built up at this stage. I can provide more...
I own Bart maps. I trust Bart maps... in general. In this instance, the map is wrong. It happens.
Writing "removing factually erroneous Bartholemews map links that suggests North Leith was of much bigger and earlier construction than South Leith with the Port of Leith and Leither's lodgings themselves were built earlier." is ambiguous. I will admit that. Talk page use is for clarification. That was the aim. I hope we now reach some form of agreement.
Leith, is a Delta. The water of Leith silts. Over time, land reclamation from the sea has been visible. Please look at the now visible art piece on the page regarding Leith races. The sand, from the process of silting, like most links, now has a hotel of vast proportions on it. It is also visible on the page.
Middle ground is this. Talking. If it appears, that demonstrating the facts and references is not a middle ground, how else would erroneous facts be put right? FelisRead(talk) 20:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see link on page 3 of the pdf, page 361 of the text proper, talking about the Petworth map, that the Bart map builds upon, and how the Petworth map foreshortens Leith north and south.FelisRead(talk) 20:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that link is broke, please search Stuart Harris, The fortifications and siege of Leith: a further study of the map of the siege in 1560, and the pdf will be available. FelisRead(talk) 21:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that again, I did delete some words from the intial summary, where it looks like I am stating something other than what I meant. The limit on characters caught me whilst I was writing it. I can not read sense from it either.FelisRead(talk) 21:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You persist in talking of docks of 1560. There were no such docks. The contemporary Petworth map shows no docks. The map you refer to is dated 1860 and is called "Ye Fortifications of Leith anno 1560". It is not a contemporary map. It does not purport to be a map of Leith in 1560. It is clearly a map of the 19th century on which D H Robertson's notions of the walls of 1560 have been added. Of this map, Stuart Harris in his detailed analysis of maps showing the wall or parts of the wall, noted that it "is so erroneous as to be quite worthless and grossly misleading.". Leith had no wet docks before 1806 and yet it is on the map you claim is of 1560. The first dry dock was of 1720 and yet it is on the map you claim is of 1560. The first detailed map of Leith is John Naish's map of 1709. The Bartholemew map gives a reasonable indication of the development of Leith. It cannot show development in an area previously developed. The fact that the Petworth map foreshortens Leith is irrelevant because the Bartholemew map does not foreshorten Leith. The walls of Edinburgh are delineated in red and it is a reasonable assumption that the walls of Leith are similarly indicated. You referred me to the Royal Scots Navy article. There is no mention of docks at Leith in that article, the only mention of docks in the locality being at Newhaven. 77.99.106.6 (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from wikipedia entry on Royal Scots Navy 'James I took a greater interest in naval power establishing a shipbuilding yard at Leith and probably created the office of Lord High Admiral.'
Ships built at Leith before Newhaven include: Scottish warship Margaret, but see also, Lion (warship): where mention of the Lion of Leith and the Unicorn of Leith. These were all built pre 1560, in the docks at Leith. Docks are a necessary feature of ship building. Ship building could not take place along 'the shore' where Edinburgh merchants took wares before selling them at Edinburgh mercat cross.FelisRead(talk) 14:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At best you could say D H Robertson's map says wet dock instead of dry dock. Bart's map, on the other hand, is factually erroneous. It takes the red area, within the 1560 walls, directly from the Petworth map. The Petworth map, as has been shown, foreshortens Leith north and south. Not only that, but it does not give any colouring, at all, over what was clearly the docks area in the North of Leith.
South Leith shore was forbidden Leithers, and Edinburgh burgesses, not owning the land that they were paying the King for in Leith, bought land around Timber Bush and the immediate vicinity of the shore. In 1484, the burgesses put out a decree banning anyone from Edinburgh from working with anyone from Leith.
The only areas within Leith available were in North Leith. The Margaret was of a big size, a warship, it was second only in size with the Michael... and that is only taking account of the biggest ship built in Leith before 1560, and before 1515 when Newhaven was built. FelisRead(talk) 14:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leith is not a delta. At best you could argue that the Water of Leith forms a delta. But it doesn't. With regard to your point re silt, all rivers carry silt but that does not mean that all rivers form a delta. With regard to your point about land reclamation, reclamation from the sea does not imply the existence of a delta. 77.99.106.6 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leith is a delta. Wikipedia entry on delta: 'A river delta is a landform that forms at the mouth of a river, where the river flows into an ocean, sea... Deltas form from deposition of sediment.' Land reclamation visible.FelisRead(talk) 14:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course "A river delta is a landform that forms at the mouth of a river, where the river flows into an ocean, sea, estuary, lake, or reservoir. Deltas form from deposition of sediment carried by a river as the flow leaves its mouth. Over long periods, this deposition builds the characteristic geographic pattern of a river delta." None of that means that every river forms a delta. None of that proves in the slightest that Leith is a delta. The coast at Leith shows none of the characteristics of a delta. Your claim that the article mentions "Land reclamation visible" seems to be an invention. Leith is not a delta. You should provide a citation stating that Leith is a delta.77.99.106.6 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a trip upon the shore at Leith, walk along, past the memorial, where [[1]] this area is: this is the former harbour. Please take a look at picture A. Picture A shows the the signal tower.
A. Leith Races by William Thomas Reed
Picture B shows the signal tower. On the site of Picture B, across the road, is the Malmaison Hotel, in Picture C.
B. Signal Tower, Shore LeithC. Former Seamen's Mission, now the Malmaison Hotel
.
Please compare the scene in front of you, with the scene in Picture A. Not only is this hotel now at this point, but a whole street of houses, before a whole other street of houses, and then where the casino is, before reaching an area of what is now the port. Land reclamation is visible within Leith. As it is in St. Andrews, around the historic links, where the River Eden finds the sea. FelisRead(talk) 15:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have known all these places for many years and am conversant with the land reclamation. You do not need to ask me to look at pictures. You can show as many buildings on reclaimed land as you wish. As I have said before, land reclamation proves nothing about Leith being a delta. If it is so self evident that Leith is a delta you should be able to provide a citation from an appropriate authority. 77.99.106.6 (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Earth is the citation, earth is the appropriate authority. I am showing you pictures of sandy beaches, that you agree where land reclamation is. Did they build those buildings on sand? The whole point about the links courses in Scotland is that they are from the same kind of land structure, sandy, sedimentary land, that is against the backdrop of the sea. Leith links is completely within a built up area now. Yet, somehow, Leith is not a delta. All the proof suggests otherwise. FelisRead(talk) 15:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I add this only in hope that it will be of some benefit for you, but please compare the poor wikipedia article on links] courses with the article on Machair, where much more detail is given on the geological features of links and machairs. FelisRead(talk) 18:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there sources which call Leith a delta? We must steer clear of original research here. --John (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leith is a links. Links are made up of sandy, sedimentary land. Sediment is from the river, it is not from the sea. Leith is a delta. That is not original research. It's basic geology. FelisRead(talk) 09:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it should be easy to find sources which talk about Leith as a delta. Is it? --John (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leith, 1832: a river onto a sandy foreshore, with no delta but with sheltering piers on each side at that date. Leith links is off to the east, and like other links is grassed (sandy) coastal land, not a river delta. . dave souza, talk 14:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your own link disproves your point: click View accompanying report for Leith, then click on the page on the right, it will give you this report. Read paragraph four, 'the Water of Leith, which runs through it, has scarcely sufficient power to clear the mud away.' So. Sedimentary. Like a delta.
Also, Leith has a links. You must be the first group in the world that are proposing that links are built by actions from the sea alone. Please see the link on the wikipedia page Machair, referencing a report by the naturalist John A. Love comparing machairs with links. I will quote it directly: 'On the east coast of Scotland we would refer to such dune systems as ‘links’ but the sands there have a higher mineral content, rich in silica.'
The mineral content is from sediment from the river.
St Andrews Links & Town from the air
Please see the picture on the wikipedia about links. I will put the page's headline picture on this page. On it, in the foreground, is the River Eden, that goes through St. Andrews. You can clearly see the sedimentary process.
This is what happens at all links. It is a commonly understood geological process. It is not original research. That is how links are given form. It is so commonly understood that it does not require a source. Please see WP:FACTS.FelisRead(talk) 18:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? The links i'm familiar with are coastal sand dunes, not river deltas. The report for Leith refers to harbours silting up with mud, not a delta. Your whole argument is original research which is not acceptable on Wikipedia: please find and present a reliable secondary source specifically stating that the outlet of the Water of Leith to the foreshore is a delta: so far you've failed to do that. . dave souza, talk 20:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coastal sand dunes? Golfers play on sand dunes? A whole course is a bunker? Golfers play on land that has sedimentisation process taking place on sandy shores.
Please look again at the map of St. Andrews links. In the foreground the sedimentary process is visible. On that bank, the grass is greener. On the bank on the outer side, where the sea, and not the river, reaches the links, sand can be seen.
The grass cannot grow on links but through a geological process. Otherwise? Why do some sandy beaches erode over time, and others do not.
WP:FACTS does not necessitate a source for natural processes, because natural processes are widespread. Sources are necessary for historical and social phemonema, and precise scientific data, not about commonly understood scientific facts.
So far you are failing, in any way, of outlining how links are built!FelisRead(talk) 06:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, theTail of the Bank is on the West Coast. East Coast links are the true links. A golf course isn't a links. Links are the original golf courses. Many, if not most, golf courses are imitation of links.FelisRead(talk) 06:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of which makes a links a delta: the name ∆ gives a clue. Sand forms and is moved along foreshores without needing a river delta. In the Firths of Clyde and Forth, River delta#Estuaries applies: "Other rivers, particularly those on coasts with significant tidal range, do not form a delta but enter into the sea in the form of an estuary." The Shore, Leith, being a small estuary on the coast of the Firth. . dave souza, talk 07:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely! The name ∆ DOES give a clue. That is how Leith juts out. It juts out, in triangular form, in the Firth of the Forth.
The Firth's are the opposite of deltas! Quoting the wikipedia article Firth: 'where erosion caused by the tidal effects of incoming sea water passing upriver has widened the riverbed into an estuary.'
This is more like a Machair on the West coast, where the sea is responsible for the collection of a very specific mineral, and not a wide variety of minerals, because of the process of sedimentisation.
You are accepting that the Water of Leith deposits sediment, using the word 'silt', I quote the wikipedia article Sediment (that DOESN'T include secondary sources, by the by) The major fluvial (river and stream) environments for deposition of sediments include: Deltas (arguably an intermediate environment between fluvial and marine); Point bars; Alluvial fans; Braided rivers; Oxbow lakes; Levees; Waterfalls' If the Water of Leith, that includes a vast area of INLAND links (a process over a long period of time) isn't a delta. What one is it?
The difference with the Water of Leith is that the sea doesn't reach upriver. The tidal forces act as block, but the Water of Leith has, and I quote the report you brought the link for: 'the Water of Leith, which runs through it, has scarcely sufficient power to clear the mud away.' FelisRead(talk) 08:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may have escaped your notice that Leith is on the Firth of Forth, and the foreshore was originally sand, not mud. Failing to clear the mud from the harbours is not the same as forming a delta. Sand is formed by coastal erosion as much as by rivers, and is distributed by tides and currents: are you now arguing that North Berwick West Links is a river delta? You really need to find a source explicitly using that term for Leith. . dave souza, talk 09:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leith is on the Firth of Forth! Thank you! It feeds the River Forth, that goes all the way through Stirling. The River Leith, joins the Firth, not the River. The Firth was built by an action of the sea reaching inland via the River Forth. Leith sits at an angle where the inland water drift does not push upriver, that is, up the Water of Leith, thus te Water of Leith silts, as a delta. Where land reclamation has been visible over a number of centuries.
You are accepting that the water of Leith creates mud, sediment, through silt. You are accepting that the River Forth does not create mud, sediment, through silt.
Please read the article on sediment again. It lists the different kind of sediment varities. The only one the Water of Leith fits, is a delta, both sand and sediment, fluvial and marinal. The others do not fit.
I am also quoting an article by the naturalist John A. Love, where he compares the machairs with links. He says the machairs are built by an action from the sea, only one primary mineral, whilst links, are high in silica (sand), but also high in a variety of minerals. The only way that non-silicates, of such a variety, can create links is via sediment from the river. Leith links has been built up over such a time that the links itself is completely inland, whilst before it was mostly sandy.
The same process is visible in the picture of St. Andrews and the River Eden.
What, possibly, can you disagree with? You are disagreeing, but not positing ANY other way that such geological occurences, that are commonly understood facts, can occur. And if you did, you would be famous. FelisRead(talk) 10:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
as for the North Berwick Links. I don't know if it is a real links, or an imitation links. If it has a river that silts, then it is a delta. FelisRead(talk) 10:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Water of Tweed? You evidently don't know the area, and your original research is rubbish. Please provide a specific source as requested. . . dave souza, talk 10:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the area. Just as you don't know what you are talking about. Original research is not for WP:Facts. You are failing, in all ways, in countering the facts.
Please provide another way links are given form.
It just so happens from a quick glimpse of a map, I can see rivers near North Berwick.
So it's possible... If you look at the 'links' at Aberlady, nearby, it looks very likely it was on the site of a former river. Plus the name itself, Aberlady, is taken from the gaelic 'aber', mouth of, like Aberdeen, mouth of the river Dee.
What's also possible, is, you are a troll. Please provide a source? Geology. Basic geology.FelisRead(talk) 10:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sand dunes of Yellowcraigs are nearer, and that's no delta. See WP:BURDEN and comply with that policy. . dave souza, talk 10:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting WP:FACTS directly: 'inline citations are required for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive statements or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons"'.FelisRead(talk) 11:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You lack a basic understanding of the difference between a sand dune and a links.FelisRead(talk) 11:12, September 2014 (UTC)
They're commonly associated, obviously modern links are flatter but Marshall 1986 pp. 50 and 54 describes Leith Links as originally being sand dunes / whin covered dunes. You've still not provides a reliable source for your assertion, so I've reverted it. Please provide a source for discussion and don't WP:EW. . dave souza, talk 11:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What book by Marshall? He has many. Of course it was originally. See the picture of Leith sands above during the Leith Races. What I am saying, and what is true, is that the sands are merging with the sediment that transfers via the Water of Leith. You're still not providing any basic understanding of the process that links are built. They are not sand dunes. They are both sand dunes (marinal) and mineral sedimentary deposits (fluvial), and that is what a delta is. I will revert again. I will ask you please pay my first revert summary attention. FelisRead(talk) 12:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marshall, J. S. (1986). The Life and Times of Leith. John Donald. ISBN0859761282. . . dave souza, talk 14:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No-one cares if you're saying it, WP:BURDEN requires you to produce a source specifically referring to Leith and stating that it's a delta. Since the projection from the shoreline into the firth is reclaimed land, built up as dockland since the 18th century, the current shape is clearly not a geological river delta. Please desist from edit warring to keep this unsourced assertion in the article, you've been given plenty of requests to provide a suitable source. . dave souza, talk 14:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only because you are an administrator, will I let this go.
I think you must pause, and think about abuse of power though.
You are wrong. And you can't account for your wrongness, by any method other than demanding a source for commonly understood facts, against the democratic agreement amongst wikipedians, in WP:FACTS that sources are only necessary for, '"direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons"'
Your manufacturing of counter-intuitive statements, and controversy, and your challenge itself, hasn't any basis in fact. Facts, that on other wikipedia pages, are not given sources.
It's disappointing that an administrator is acting in such a fashion.
Any person who will read our talk page discussion can disagree, as you are doing, on the basis of asserting rules that are not directly relatable. Any person who looks at the facts, facts of a kind, and of a nature, that do not need citations, will agree with me.
'Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 says: No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.'
WP:FACTS says:'inline citations are required for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive statements or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons"'.FelisRead(talk) 17:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from wikipedian, dave souza, 'Since the projection from the shoreline into the firth is reclaimed land, built up as dockland since the 18th century, the current shape is clearly not a geological river delta.'
Leith is built on sand, apparently.FelisRead(talk) 17:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm giving this one final attempt. Because what I am saying is true. This link, might prove me wrong about the coastline near the tower, at the port itself, on the beaches where Leith Sands were. On page 9, under the heading Made Ground it says 'Made Ground As noted above, the application site is shown on the solid and drift geology map as being underlain by Made Ground as part of the reclamation process. The historical coastline is shown to have been approximately along the line of the southern site boundary.'
That does not prove the Water of Leith does not silt like a delta, only that the current ground reclamation, in that specific area, is primarily from rubbish, mostly from old buildings, etc...
I will accept that. You, though, are ignoring the geological process that builds links, purely because the current mouth of the Water of Leith is a built environment.
If the recent reclamation process is the flaw in what I wrote before now. The natural, and long term reclamation process (geological process), is the flaw in your assertion.FelisRead(talk) 20:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe this generated so much discussion. Dave is right, there needs to be a preponderance of decent sources describing it as such or else we cannot. Sorry. --John (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leith has a links in an almost central location near the river mouth.
Quoting, and highlighting, the wikipedia page on links, links 'refers to an area of coastal sand dunes and sometimes to open parkland. Linksland is typically characterised by dunes, an undulating surface, and a sandy soil unsuitable for arable farming but which readily supports various indigenous browntop bents and red fescue grasses, that give the firm turf associated with links courses and the 'running' game.'
Links are built in delta land. They are not sand dunes. The grass growing on some sand dunes are not links, they are a variety of grass that grows in poor soil, and thus are poorer quality grass than, and are NOT indigenous browntop bents and red rescue grasses because they grow on weak soil, not on firm turf. Such firm turf can only take hold with a high mineral content. A mineral content that rivers divulge.
This isn't controversial or counter-intuitive. It is basic geology. It does not need sourcing. Because... the sky is blue.FelisRead(talk) 07:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not basic geology, you are wrong, and if you are right you need to bring sources to the table, not your opinion. --John (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have ignored all the points about the validity of inclusion of this map. It does not show early North and South Leith. It is a 19th century map of part of Leith adapted to show Robertson's notion of the walls of Leith in 1560. It does not purport to be an early map of Leith. What it does purport to show in 1560, the walls of Leith, has been said by Stuart Harris to be "so erroneous as to be quite worthless and grossly misleading". 77.99.106.6 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Harris is citing two sources that disagree with him. First Robertson, second, Donaldson, Harris's thinking on Robertson's map is a minority view.
You yourself are passively admitting that a docks of some sort were in North Leith before 1560. This is what Robertson's map shows. And it takes account of the fact that North and South Leith are, in Harris's view, given a foreshortening by the Petworth map. The grounds for Harris's view of the Robertson map are not given either. Only a side note.FelisRead(talk) 15:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Robertson and Donaldson lived in the 19th C. Historical research has moved on a long way since then. Stuart Harris could make these remarks re Robertson and Donaldson because of his detailed analysis of available maps as you must have seen as you have previously referred to his paper published in the Proceedings of the Antiquarian Society of Scotland. This paper is quoted without criticism by such as RCAHMS. Unlike Harris, whose paper can be checked by anyone, there is no evidence as to how Robertson arrived at his notion of the walls of Leith. You speak of the Petworth map as if it is a problem. In fact the opposite is true. It is recognised as the best map of the Siege of Leith. It is a valuable addition to the historic record which Harris could take advantage of whereas it was not available to Robertson.
How can it be said that I am passively agreeing to docks before 1560 when I have actually said there are no docks of 1560. The Robertson map is not a map of 1560. It does not show docks, apart from the wet docks after 1806 or the dry docks after 1720. The first detailed map of Leith is from 1709. On what possible source could Robertson rely to produce such a detailed map of Leith in 1560 as you claim it to be? It is detailed because it is a typical map of the 19th century.
The article referred to by you distinguishes the "docks" at Newhaven with the "shipyard" at Leith. Ships, particularly of the size being built at Leith can be built on a slipway. 77.99.106.6 (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Donaldson's article is 30 years older than Harris's article. Not in the 19th C. Not really 'a long way', is it?
Robertson has a book, from where the map was taken, you can read it at your leisure.
The Petworth map receives substantial criticism from the very person you say criticises the Robertson map. Yet in criticising the Robertson map, he doesn't mention the reasons why. The very opposite of the substance of his article in the Proceedings of the Antiquarian Society of Scotland when criticising the Petworth map.
What proof do you put forth of Robertson's lack of familiarity with the Petworth map?
You are now saying, again, that Leith, that built ships in the 15th and 16th century, built those ships minus a docks?
A warship, the size of Margaret, second only in size in relation with the Michael, famously one of the largest ships in the world, built on a slipway? FelisRead(talk) 17:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of this, and the fact that Harris isn't a professional historian. And Donaldson is one of the most famous Scottish historians of the 20th century, with academic regard that matches it. FelisRead(talk) 17:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, he could be wrong, that isn't how Wikipedia works though. My sympathies for your efforts. Don't blame me. FelisRead(talk) 17:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, against your idea that the Robertson map is merely a map of 1850 with the 1560 walls round it. The customs house is an easily identifiable landmark in the Bart map. It is absent from the Robertson map. The customs house was built in 1812. FelisRead(talk) 18:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the first historic record of golf in Scotland is the Act of 1457, it follows that there is no earlier historic record of golf in Scotland by which it can be said that Leith Links has the first historic record. The Act of 1457 is an Act applying to the whole of Scotland and is silent with regard to any particular place. In particular, there is no mention of Leith or Leith Links. Leith Links is important enough in the history of golf without making such unjustified claims. The citations provided, without going into the question of authority, are to say the least ambiguous. 77.99.106.6 (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The citations say what they say. Wikipedia isn't a scientific essay, it is an encyclopedic article taking account of sources that are in the majority.
How can you say what the Act of 1457 says? Please show me a link that gives the Act in full or a transcription of the Act, in full, in English. Otherwise, these citations are authoritative. FelisRead(talk) 16:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was the source I gave you! It says 'Extract from the Act of 6 March 1457'. You aren't 'done.'FelisRead(talk) 12:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. You want some kind of victory. You are deleting wholesale truthful elements from the article now. Take it. You're wrong. But take your "victory."FelisRead(talk) 12:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The extract is all there is re golf in the Act. Here are links to the full Act -
I have just modified one external link on Leith. 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.
I have just modified one external link on Leith. 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.
I have just modified one external link on Leith. 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.
.svg){kind=small}
