Jump to content

Talk:Blue men of the Minch/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

So, Charles Mackay wrote a poem "The Kelpie of Corryvreckan" (also spelled Corrievreckan") which Ruth Gipps set to music. Here's a quick summary: "It tells of a fair and a fickle maid who leaves her lover for the Kelpie and finds out too late that his abode is at the bottom of the sea where, of course, she is drowned as an awful warning to all fickle maidens." See JSTOR 921816. Also The Kelpie of Corrievreckan, for Clarinet and Piano by Ruth GippsReview by: E. L.Music & Letters, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Jan., 1943), p. 63Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/728626. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for that. I had a JSTOR search done, but only for blue men, so I didn't catch these kelpie references. I'll add something later. Eric Corbett 12:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing. One thing led to another. The Corryvreckan article gave me a few more terms to search, including "fir gorma". I just emailed you a book review, of limited use in its own right, but it confirms "blue-men" = "fir gorma" = "Africans". There has to be more on that topic, though. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed there must. I for one was rather surprised to learn that the Vikings traded in slaves from North Africa, and brought them over here to the UK. Eric Corbett 18:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
A Google book search delivers a few interesting hits--this is perhaps the most useful (hope you can read it). This is interesting also (it notes the burial of a young African girl in 10th century Norfolk). Here is a note on otherness--remember the Cohen text I added to our Green Children? This is interesting too, an edition of the Caithréim Chellacháin Chaisil, citing the Irish Annals. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Corryvreckan/"localised to the Minch"

If they are found at Corryvreckan they can't also be "localised to the Minch, unknown in other parts of Scotland ". Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

So where do you think the Corryvreckan is? Eric Corbett 20:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Between Jura and Scarba and nowhere near the Minch. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
So is it your argument that the Little Minch isn't part of the Minch? Eric Corbett 22:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
No? My point is simple, that Corryvreckan is not in, or even near, the Minch (or in the Little Minch since you raise that). Your combative and insulting tone is not endearing you to me, particularly when it is your geographical knowledge which is at fault. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It's you that's simple. Eric Corbett 23:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
"fuck off moron" - is that your level of debate? Are you contending that the map at this article places the location of the Minch, the Little Minch, Jura and/or Scarba incorrectly? Corryvreckan and the Minch are a considerable distance apart, this article effectively states that the former is in the latter and swearing doesn't make the matter go away. Please address factual matters rather than simply resorting to insult. However, as I am losing hope that you will do so, I've also taken the matter here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I learned years ago that arguing with a fool makes you the greater fool. Eric Corbett 23:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The addition to make the phrase "localised to the Minch and surrounding areas" is somewhat of an improvement but if "surrounding" now includes locations almost 100 miles away from the Minch, past various other stretches of water and islands, this is no longer, as described elsewhere in the article, "a very restricted area". It would now encompass the bulk of the Hebrides and a very large stretch of the west coast and possibly, by implication of its extent of "surrounding", extend a similar distance along the north coast.
Were they found throughout the Hebrides or just in the Minch and Corryvreckan, not in between? Are the "storm kelpies" at Corryvreckan a different phenomenon from the blue men? Martin Martin's description of the whirlpool mentions no blue men, only that "where the white Waves meet and spout up: they call it the Kaillach, i.e. and old hag". His mention that the natives of Jura are "black of Complexion" is in a later paragraph than that about Corryvreckan and he does not link the two, neither attributing the whirlpool to them or stating that they inhabit it. The Macgregor source does not mention blue men either. If there is a passage linking Corryvreckan and blue men it should be noted, if not this assertion is WP:SYNTH.
It looks to me like mention of Corryvreckan as part of the blue men phenomenon is not supported and, unless and until it is, should be removed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
You really are a tedious twat. Why don't you try writing a decent article of your own for once. Eric Corbett 23:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The article lacks clarity in the description of storm kelpies as .. "mythological creatures inhabiting the stretch of water between the northern Outer Hebrides and mainland Scotland ... (which) appear to be localised to the Minch and surrounding areas, unknown in other parts of Scotland and without counterparts in the rest of the world" given that the Kelpie article states that .."Almost every sizeable body of water in Scotland has an associated kelpie story" whilst Selkies appear to be similar. Shipsview (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This is getting to be fucking ridiculous. How many simpletons are there here on WP? Eric Corbett 23:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Eric, please calm down. Throwing insults at other editors is not going to help resolve this, and is not considered acceptable behaviour on WP, as I'm sure you well know. A valid issue has been raised, namely that this article, though nominally about the "blue men of the Minch", also talks about the "storm kelpies of Corryvreckan", without making clear what relationship, if any, exists between the two. If the two are considered aspects of the same mythology, then the statement about being localised to the Minch and surrounding areas is clearly wrong and must be removed. If they are different phenomena, then all the content about the storm kelpies should probably be removed and maybe a new article started. Either way it has to be backed up by reliable sources. We need to resolve this by discussion here in a civilised manner, which means respecting other editors, taking note of what they say, and explaining carefully if you disagree. But you don't need me to tell you that. You've been on WP longer than I have, and you know how it works. --Deskford (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I know how it doesn't work, and I therefore have no further interest in this article or any others of the ones Sagaciousphil and I have written on Scottish mythology, which I'll be removing from my watchlist. So you may do as you please with them. Eric Corbett 02:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You have made not the slightest attempt to address any matters of fact brought into question here. One can only assume this is because you recognise the points are valid and would rather throw a tantrum than address or accept them. It's no shame to have made an error, if you can accept it. How much egg would you want on your face should the article be featured in its current questionable state?
I'll try one more time though. Do you, as you appear to, believe Corryvreckan to be in the Minch? Do you have any reliable sources which discuss Blue Men of the Minch at Corryvreckan? If you accept that Corryvreckan is not in the Minch and that no sources discuss Blue Men of the Minch there, why do you believe mention of Corryvreckan is pertinent here? If you just insult me again the conclusion will be obvious to draw. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
More than that! You have removed the bulk of this interesting article. One can only hope that this is pending revision? Shipsview (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes the article is interesting but if a large section is unsupported and apparently incorrect, why on earth would one want it retain that part? I've asked some very simple questions and all there has been in response has been tantrum and abuse. Is nobody prepared to just answer the questions? That would have been the simple way. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I created the article and am simply trying to take it to the sort of level that some here are evidently more accustomed to, especially since they are now questioning the quality of both Eric and my work overall while they are in the process of canvassing elsewhere. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anyone questioning the quality of all the work that has gone into this article. What is at question is whether the three paragraphs that refer to the storm kelpies of Corrievreckan - well researched and well written paragraphs - are appropriate to this article, which is titled Blue Men of the Minch. They refer to a different area (it's surely accepted that Corrievreckan is not part of the Minch), and sources like this discuss them under a different heading to the Blue Men of the Minch. Both groups are storm kelpies, but they seem to be different to each other. So, it would seem to make sense to include them in a different article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

check this then please "If this is typical of elements of the content they produce, and the manner they deal with queries on it, that they are prolific is more of a concern than any sort of mitigating factor.". I am now removing this from my watch list again so others can do as they please with it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict: This regarded Eric's abusive comments and was in response to "He has a particular style of interaction that can be a bit direct, but is a prolific content editor. If you can, try to not take it personally." "They" = the editor, singular, there being only one editor mentioned in that part of the discussion and as gender-neutral term (I know the user name implies male but I know of instances where this does not match). And "if" and "elements". I have no idea whether it is typical or not but if he is known for a particular style... Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
And now you're calling me a liar. Nice. Eric Corbett 21:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair point, but then he had received comments from an editor who "has a particular style of interaction that can be a bit direct". My suggestion would be to remove the three paragraphs dealing with Corrievreckan, place them in a new stub article, and see if anyone wants to take it further. The alternative might be to rename this article as Sea kelpies, and reorganise it a little to make clear that there are different varieties in different areas. I'd prefer keeping the current article though (minus the Corrievreckan parts), because the possible links to Viking slaves from Africa, etc., etc., make a fascinating story. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
That might be a promising way forward, perhaps someone ought to do that. I've never been entirely convinced that the blue men are sea kelpies anyway. Eric Corbett 21:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ghmyrtle, it's not a problem when editors offer constructive criticism/suggestions and as Eric indicates, sensible suggestions are gratefully received. These mythology articles are particularly difficult as the names of creatures are frequently mixed/matched by various authors - for instance 'kelpie' can refer to all sorts of spirits as a generic term, yet other sources try to be very specific as to what a kelpie covers. Eric and I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to decipher this but it is very difficult when reliable sources all use a different definition of the same demons/spirits. I'm sure I can speak for both Eric and I that we are willing to discuss this but do not see why we (as editors) should be lambasted for inconsistency, lack of clarification and then accused of dubious quality in sources. We have simply tried to present the best possible article from the (often conflicting) sources available. Things are never as cut and dried as we would like and it is made more difficult when uninvolved editors immediately drop by and start flinging accusations about an overall poor quality standard of work implying our work is sub standard over all articles! So hopefully others can appreciate why we react in a defensive manner. We are quite happy to try to move forward with this and will always respectfully respond to reasonable suggestions/improvements - after all, it is seldom an article is ever complete/perfect! I may have over re-acted earlier today but frustration and antagonistic criticism can only be endured for so long long before something snaps. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ghmyrtle, I like that suggestion--the first one. If you could move the disputed paragraphs, that would be great: and we thus accept possible confusion between blue men and sea kelpies, dealing with it by narrowing the content to what we know with reasonable certainty. Such a removal shouldn't really affect the FA status either, as far as I can tell, but let's see.

    Now, I will ask StringTheory11 to unprotect the article, so Ghmyrtle can get on with it. I assume that neither Eric nor Sagaciousphil are going to revert--they've said that they no longer have any interest in the article. But perhaps some tweakage can save the article, and we will still have Eric and Sagaciousphil to thank for it.

    As for what got all of this started: Mutt Lunker, if you were not aware of what FA really means for the editors involved, then maybe you are now. Placing a tag and saying "see talk" (where we find a sentence and a half) really does not suffice: writing such an article and going through the FA process is a serious investment of time and energy, and tagging it in this manner just seems callous. It is best to raise the point on the talk page, keeping in mind that you may well be right, in part or in whole, but that you are commenting on a minor point in what is a much larger thing: placing such a tag defaces the article and thereby diminishes the editors' efforts. There are better ways to make your point--after all, no one is going to suffer from the statement or paragraph remaining in place for another day or two (this isn't a BLP). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Can do, but I have one query - the reference to the natives of Corryvreckan being "black of complexion" seems to be unrelated, in the source here to any talk of kelpies, so I wonder whether it should be included at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
PS: Looking in a little more detail, I now doubt whether there is enough information for a new article on Kelpies of the Corryvreckan - best to ensure that the Corryvreckan refs are included at Gulf of Corryvreckan#Mythology (which I've now done). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ghmyrtle, if indeed the Blue men are a kind of sub-species of the kelpie, that could be a warrant for keeping the Corryvreckan material in, perhaps with a slightly different transition to that paragraph. (BTW, the two or three references for those kelpies are, IMO, enough for a short article...) But I do not have access to the relevant pages of Westwood and Kingshill, or to Varner. Sagaciousphil, do you? Can you help clear up that relationship? Drmies (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There was some material on mythology already at Gulf of Corryvreckan, to which I've now added the information which was in this article but not in that one. There is no connection that I can see between the blue men and the kelpies of Corryvreckan - which seem to be mentioned in only one source plus the Mackay poem. Part of the "connection" made in this article seems to be the mention of the dark-complexioned people of Corryvreckan, which I can only assume was included here to suggest a link with the blue men which the sources themselves don't seem to support. Both the blue men and the Corryvreckan kelpies can of course be mentioned at the Kelpie article, but I don't see any justification for keeping any mention of Corryvreckan in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Kelpie (or Kelpy) is very much an interchangeable term; yes, I do have access to all of those refs. After emailing Eric, I have searched through all the Scottish folklore books covering my desk at present, as well as searching on JSTOR, Questia etc and the only detail about Storm Kelpies appears to be that short chapter in the Alasdair Alpin MacGregor's The Peat Fire Flame where as you can see (it is linked) it clearly states that" “live those storm-kelpies of the Hebrides called the Blue men”. The chapter only has three stories - the Blue men, the Corryvreckan and then the Gizzen Brig, this last one being recapped by everyone else as a 'standard' kelpie/Vougha tale rather than storm kelpies - it is in fact detailed in the Kelpie article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason I would suggest the Corryvreckan storm kelpies should be kept here is that the Blue men and Corryvreckan share the fact they are more sea creatures, rather than lochs and pools. There can be no dispute whatsoever that the blue men are also referred to as storm kelpies? SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case, should the article be renamed Sea kelpies or Storm kelpies? The Corryvreckan kelpies are not blue men, so I'm not convinced they should be mentioned in this article, as it is currently titled, at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
It should quite clearly be renamed Storm kelpies. Eric Corbett 17:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
If that is the consensus, parts of the article need to be quite substantially rewritten, as at least 90% of it deals with that subgroup of storm kelpies called "blue men". It's at variance with what I suggested (which was supported by User:Drmies). Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If it's being re-named, I would also say it has to be Storm kelpies. The other alternative is to simply remove the paragraph on Corrivreckan and the short Cultural depictions section and just leave the mention of storm kelpies in the Corryvreckan article until someone is perhaps willing to work it into an article of it's own? SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the easiest solution is to ferry content to Gulf of Corryvreckan, to wit: the paragraph "The legendary storm kelpies that live...", and the sentence "According to Martin Martin..."--besides the "cultural depictions", which is already in that article now. I challenge Sagaciousphil and Eric to find that one sentence in their references that indicates that blue men are a kind of kelpie (whatever kind that may be), and write a half-sentence transition, with a footnote, to the paragraph starting "Kelpies, the most common water spirits in Scottish folklore..." There is no harm in keeping a general definition in there--or it might be trimmed some. The easiest solution would be just to cut that entire paragraph. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I've just sent Eric a very rough suggestion - together with the three refs already in the article which state the blue men are know as storm kelpies. I've got to get some tea, so hopefully you will hear back from one of us very shortly. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC) (the challenge will actually be what I'm going to have for my tea this late on...)

Replace second para of 'Etymology' section with:

[[Kelpies]], the most common water spirits in Scottish folklore,{{sfnp|Westwood|Kingshill|2012|p=364|ps=}} are usually described as powerful horses,{{sfnp|Varner|2007|p=24|ps=}} but the name is attributed to several different forms and fables throughout the country,{{sfnp|Westwood|Kingshill|2012|p=364|ps=}} as with the blue men of the Minch who are styled as storm kelpies.{{sfnp|Bane|2013|p=62|ps=}}{{sfnp|MacGregor|1937|p=119|ps=}}{{r|Scotsman}} The name ''kelpie'' may be derived from the [[Scottish Gaelic]] ''calpa'' or ''cailpeach'', meaning "heifer" or "colt".{{r|OEDKelpie}} Storm kelpies are also known to inhabit the stretch of [[Gulf of Corryvreckan|Gulf of Corrievreckan]],{{sfnp|MacGregor|1937|p=117|ps=}} turbulent waters inhabited by several spirits,{{sfnp|MacGregor|1937|p=118|ps=}} are described by poet, writer and folklorist [[Alasdair Alpin MacGregor]] as "the fiercest of the Highland storm kelpies".{{sfnp|MacGregor|1937|p=117|ps=}}

Remove paragraph starting: "The legendary storm kelpies that ..." and delete 'Cultural depictions'. This should allow the article to be retained under the article title Blue men of the Minch. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've made all those changes and a few others myself. Eric Corbett 15:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

When I entered the debate, my main area of concern was with the opening paragraph, which claims geographical uniqueness. Blue men may be found only in The Minch, but shapeshifting water spirits appear elsewhere in the world. The name difference between a kelpie and a bäckahästen would seem to be one of language, whilst the kelpie article states that Almost every sizeable body of water in Scotland has an associated kelpie story.
If storm kelpies are the main species (is that a correct term? probably not!), then perhaps the article should be about them, with sub-sections for the blue men and for the storm kelpies of Corryvreckan?
Thank you Ghmyrtle and Drmies for taking on the task. I have tickets to visit the Falkirk Kelpies sitting on my desk and found this article most useful in providing background to their origin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shipsview (talk • contribs) 11:35, 15 July 2014‎

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_men_of_the_Minch/Archive_1&oldid=1254286267"