Talk:South Uist

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

Old Tom Course?[edit]

There is no evidence that Old Tom Morris designed the course, and local crofters deny this claim. Velkyal 09:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are doubts about the authenticity of the claim, all you have to do is provide a citation. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crofters deny Old Tom claim Velkyal 13:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of 'Uist'[edit]

There is a discussion about the derivation of the word at Talk:List of islands of Scotland#Derivation of 'Uist'/'Uibhist' with a related link to Talk:Old Norse. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently resolved by ignoring Haswell-Smiths apprently erroneous assertion that 'yoo-ist' is 'west' in Old Norse (see Talk:Old Norse) and instead using The Chronicle of Man. Manx Society. Vol XXII, which states "Northuist, Harris, and Southuist, were called Ivist, which means simply dwelling, habitation, intimating, perhaps, that this was the chief abode of the Norwegians in that quarter of the group."and Germanic Lexicon Project which indicates 'inni-vist' as the likely root. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Uibhist-a-Deas[edit]

Perhaps someone with more knowledge can put me right, but AFAIK Scots Gaelic never uses hyphens (such as the French language does) in place names. It should be rendered as "Uibhist a Deas" at the top of the article page (or more traditionally "Uibhist a' Deas") --Scotthatton (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation may be needed in the (near) future[edit]

Shell are currently (Feb 2008) starting drilling work on an oil prospect called "South Uist", which (in typical oil field style) is nowhere near South Uist. It's actually about 130km NW of the Shetlands in 1200m of water. A big drilling operation, but if the prospect proves up it's potential, it's going to be all over the press.
I'm rather limited in what more I can say (I'm a contractor on the project) but there's a fair amount 'out there' for anyone who cares to investigate, and I can reactively correct things without fear of leaking confidential data.
A Karley (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks for this, but as and when an article is created it should be 'South Uist (oil field)' or similar with a For other uses... tag at the top, as this is clearly the most prominent use for now. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 22:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on South Uist. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on South Uist. 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) 09:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on South Uist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why 1841 census?[edit]

From the following paragraph: Already accustomed to treating people as slaves, and seeing the financial advantages to livestock farming, Gordon was ruthless, evicting the population with short notice. On 11 August 1851, he demanded that everyone in South Uist attend a public meeting at Lochboisdale; according to an eyewitness, he dragged the attendees from the meeting, sometimes in handcuffs, and threw then onto waiting ships, like cattle. Having cleared much of the land, he replaced the population with flocks of Blackface sheep, bringing in lowland farmers to care for them. The former population largely moved to Canada; the remaining populace of South Uist represented less than half of the 1841 total.

Why is the 1851 census (done March 30th 1851) not used for comparison? Seems odd to make a comparison to 1841 when the 1851 would be more accurate.Dig deeper talk 02:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1841 and 1881 totals are quoted by the standard source - Haswell-Smith, Hamish (2004). The Scottish Islands. Edinburgh: Canongate. ISBN 978-1-84195-454-7. - but not the 1851 total. The latter is available at Vision of Britain. The numbers are 5093 (1841); 6173 (1851); and 3831 (1881). I don't have Pearson, Shaples, Symonds (2004) that this data seems be be from. It is possible that the author (or interpreter) felt that 1841 was a better comparison point for some reason. The generality is corroborated here [1]. Ben MacDui 13:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised sources don't compare the 1851 census to the 1861 census. I would think this would provide a more accurate account of the effects of Aug 1851.Dig deeper talk 19:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uists and Barra[edit]

The hospital may be 'Uist and Barra' but 'Uists and Barra' is in fairly common usage. Examples:

'The Uists' is also referred to in e.g.

'Uists and Barra' is used on numerous articles If you'd like to propose a change, please raise the issue at Talk:List of islands of Scotland or WP:ISLET. Ben MacDui 12:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe tourist websites over the local authorities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.176.54 (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of "belief". The way we work here is that we aim to create content that is verified by reliable sources. This is explained at WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE. This particular issue is not one where we can say "this is correct, this is wrong" but rather we will have to draw conclusions based on the weight of eveidence. An NHS hospital has a particular name. It may be that the Comhairle has a policy about this - I don't know. What I do know is that the use of "Uists" is fairly commonplace. Here are two more examples:
  • The Post-Glacial Rise in Sea-Level and Coastal Changes in the Uists by W. Ritchie in the Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.
  • A Short History of Archaeology in the Uists, Outer Hebrides by Niall Sharples in the Journal of the North Atlantic.
If you have good, reliable sources for your preferred option, please present them. If you are simply going to offer abuse and edit warring, you are heading for a block. Take care. Ben MacDui 16:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

only prehistoric mummies in the British Isles?[edit]

the article repeatedly claims that Cladh Hallan is the only site in the British Isles where prehistoric mummies have been found, but there's no way that's true. the British Isles are well-known for bog bodies. the same claim is made on the Cladh Hallan article. I assume the articles are referring *purposefully* mummified bodies? because that's the only thing that makes sense. either way, clarification is needed. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Uist&oldid=1205376622"