Talk:Irish kilt

Yep, merge it. A kilt is a kilt. There's no need to balkanise it into modern, Scottish, Irish, etc. Better that people can read all about kilts in a single article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But no

http://www.reconstructinghistory.com/irish/Irishkilts.htm

Read this and I think you will agree it should be seperate...Lars

Merge - same reasons as Derek. Don't understand your argument, Lars. From the first line of the source you cite: "And thus begins the mistaken justification for the existence of an Irish kilt." --sony-youth 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge would be the best bet. this thing is minuscule and i believe wrong. as i remember it the saffron colored garments were actually scottish and not kilts at all. they were a predecessor and actually long shirts rather than just a bottom. also a kilt is a kilt. especially given that the modern kilt is a british invention based on scottish great kilts.

I think it should be seperate because it is now considered as such...Lars...(ps logic is subjective)

And under that subjective logic we should have separate article on women's trousers, Scottish trousers, Irish trousers, American pants, etc. but in truth the biggest difference lies in the people wearing them, rather than in the garments themselves. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]