Talk:Alexander Selkirk

Hello... This page is about Alexander Selkirk, my worst Uncle of whom the story Robinson Caruso was wriiten...My Grandmother on my Dads side was a Selkirk...You can read about him from here...My cousin did a family tree and found out this information...

No disrespect intended, but a documentary I saw on Selkirk contained the tidbit that he had marked some goats by 'notching' their ears as ones he'd had sex with, so that those were ones he didn't kill and eat. I've yet to see that 'fact' anywhere else, so I wonder if anyone has any cites for this. —Kickstart70 20:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

On goats: the bestiality and ear-notching issue was also addressed in Selkirk's Island: The True and Strange Adventures of the Real Robinson Crusoe by Diana Souhami. The author wrote about it very matter-of-factly without passing any kind of judgement on Mr. Selkirk or even suggesting that there was any doubt as to whether or not the bestiality occurred. This was the only book on Selkirk I had ever read, so I was surprised to see no mention of it in this article as I had assumed it was beyond dispute. Bbleakley (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

In a footnote Souhami cites a present-day resident of the island to lend credence to her supposition ("It's the same story round the world when a man is alone"). Of the contemporaneous sources, only Rogers describes Selkirk's using goats for any kind of recreation:

• Singing and dancing amongst the domesticated animals ("He ... tamed some kids, and to divert himself would now and then sing and dance with them"); and
• Chasing the wild ones for sport ("He kept an account of 500 that he killed while there, and caught as many more, which he marked on the ear and let go").

It is as part of the latter diversion that the ear-notching was done. Whether he was prepared to later recapture and eat these goats, or give them a "bye", is not indicated. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

How is there not a movie about this guy?

Walter Tournier directed an animated feature about Selkirk for Spanish-language audiences. Being a Disney film aimed at children, however, it is understandably light on sex. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you knoe this. LOL Eljon dì Mèraj (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

So there was no Friday character on this island as there is in Robinson Crusoe. —Abdull 16:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, no Friday character. Apart from two brief and unwelcome visits by sailors from Spanish ships, Selkirk lived alone on the island for four years and four months. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

What did he drink? Where did he get fresh water from? 144.137.118.110 (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

He probably drank goat's milk, as well as water. Being of volcanic origin, the island has high enough peaks that it catches significant amounts of rain from warmer moisture-laden air, primarily on its windward slopes. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

This resulted in a major injury wherein he tumbled off a cliff and was rendered unconscious for two days.

Just a question but, if he was the only inhabitant of the island and was unconscious, how could Selkirk possibly know how much time had elapsed between the incident and the time he recovered consciousness? 194.125.98.48 03:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing this up. I checked the first hand sources and found the passing period was an estimated 24 hours. Didn't find any explanation though. Lotsofissues 13:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Many things grow in a linear way with time. The position of the moon, the growth of grass under tropical climate, may help to distinguish between a period of one or two days? —DLL 12:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)DLLReply

"It happened once to him, that running on the Summit of a Hill, he made a Stretch to seize a Goat, with which under him, he fell down a Precipice, and lay senseless for the Space of three Days, the Length of which Time he Measured by the Moon's Growth since his last Observation." Source 88.189.248.66 (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Cooke merely says he "lay for a considerable time as dead". Rogers writes that Selkirk was "stunned" and "lay there about 24 hours", suggesting he may have come to fairly soon after the fall; although he was immobilised for a time and remained convalescing in his hut for another ten days. Rogers, as the most detailed primary source, probably deserves precedence. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wonder what happened to this article; its bluelinked where I have come across it; but each time I try to link to it, I get a prompt saying "start the Alexander Selkirk page", etc. Curious. Can anyone shed light on this? —FeanorStar7 11:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the article it mentions a William Dampier described earlier but there doesn't seem to be anything about William Dampier before it.

While Dampier led Selkirk's ill-fated outbound expedition (1703–1707), Woodes Rogers was in command of Selkirk's far more successful home-bound voyage (1708–1711), with Dampier serving not as captain but as ship's pilot (most likely in recognition of his earlier lack of leadership). Hopefully, the role of Dampier in both privateering expeditions has been made clearer in the article as presently written. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Back in the early 80's I had a novel which detailed Selkirk's adventures. There's no mention of this book on the wiki page, and I can't find it using Google. I want to buy & read it again but I can't until I ID the title and author. Does anyone know? —Spacejock 19 July 2006

Though a work of non-fiction, Marooned: The Strange But True Adventures of Alexander Selkirk, the Real Robinson Crusoe written for young adults by Robert Kraske (2005) may suit your needs. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

When I was child i remember my mother showing me a plaque in Queens Gardens, Hull. This plaque declared that this was the loction that the mariner on who Robinson Crusoe had been based, Selkirk, had sailed from that location. Queens Gardens had formerly been a dock. Can anyone shed light on this claim? Also I have just read Selkirks Island by Diana Souhami. It is a very interesting read with numerous referances to period journals and publications that give further detail of Selikirks life. Christopher Lawson 15:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Howell, an early biographer, writes: "On 30 April 1703 the St George sailed from the Downs, and on 18 May anchored at Kinsale, on the coast of Ireland, where, after some delay, she was joined by the Cinque Ports." The plaque located at Queen's Gardens, Hull, refers to the fictional character Robinson Crusoe, likely inspired by Selkirk's experiences but definitely not sharing in all of them. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I note with interest that Selkirk was stranded a Scotsman, but rescued as a citizen of the United Kingdom... the Acts of Union having been passed in 1707. —Johan the Ghost _seance 01:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone translate in English the quotation at the very end of the article? "A slackit way f'r a mon,' Alex mourned to himself. 'Ah dinnae ken Ah'd ever be Alex Selkirk.'" —Gspinoza (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Read it phonetically. Although I'm puzzled by ‘slackit’, it looks like the past participle of ‘slack’ (to loosen), as in the song, but I can't make it fit here. Shinobu (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Its not English it is Scotish and translats to "A relaxed way for a man" Alex mourned to himself " i do not know if i would have been Alex Selkirk" in other words if he not been on the island he would not have become the man he ended up being 82.71.53.199 (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The quotation can be standardised as follows: "'A hapless way for a man,' Alex mourned to himself. 'I didn't know I'd ever be Alex Selkirk.'" In other words, the Alex in the novel never imagined he'd be a castaway. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The quote should presumably say "didnae" rather than "dinnae". Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Continued discussion of correct Scots usage

In Dampier's original publication of these events he refers to Selkirk as a "Moskito Indian". Does anyone know anything more about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdb236 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You may be mixing up Selkirk with an earlier castaway, who was a Moskito Indian described in A New Voyage Round the World by Dampier in 1697. The Indian spent three years alone on the island between 1681 and 1684. Selkirk would no doubt have been aware of this accidental abandonment when his ship, the Cinque Ports, called at the island in September 1704. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The UK Telegraph's Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent, reported 30 Oct 2008 on a dig at Robinson Crusoe Island by Dr David Caldwell, National Museums Scotland, who contends that he has discovered the campsite through the discovery of a fragment of copper alloy reputed to be from a pair of dividers. He goes on to say that the camp was on the side of a river, consisted of two cabins, and had a view of the harbor. There is slightly more here. Pendare (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The coordinates of the campsite, given by Takahashi/Caldwell in their report to the Explorer's Club, are 33°38′19.1″S 78°50′47.1″W / 33.638639°S 78.846417°W / -33.638639; -78.846417. It is located at an elevation of 274 m (899 ft) above sea level on the eastern slope below Mirador de Selkirk (Selkirk's Lookout) at 565 m (1,854 ft), shown on this relief map. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

This edit by Dr.Gulliver removed several convenience links to books from citations (e.g., [1]), without explanation. There were also some trivial changes, like changing the publisher on the 1712 work from "A. Bell and B. Lintot" back to "A. Bell", which I had previously added; in that example, most citations shown in Google include both names, and the title page shows both. What gives? ––Agyle (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Agyle. Updated references with ISBNs of books and DOIs of journal articles that have them. Templates are provided for finding works using them. For those that don't, most public domain books will be available through Google Books. Links to books without a full preview could actually be cause for frustration. Want to keep the references uncluttered by limiting links to articles that are (a) web-only or (b) uniquely hard to find, like a newspaper article. More than that just seems like repeatedly directing users to the card catalog in a traditional library. For consistency, have looked at similar articles, such as the featured article on Woodes Rogers.

As for publishers, popular 18th-century titles were sometimes jobbed out to more than one printer. Have listed only the first one named to try and avoid confusion with partnerships, etc. (also using ampersands) representing a single publishing house—although the distinction may not be so obvious to everyone and bibliographies, including Google's, do vary. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't favor link suppression, and featured articles with this citation format exist both with and without convenience links to books and articles. However, the guidelines allow removal of all such links, except for page-specific links to Google Books (WP:PAGELINK [discussion]), so I'll add only those. Agyle (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Severin link doesn't work for me (maybe it works for you). One reason limited previews shouldn't be included. Other page-specific links are of some use to those of us looking to verify sources; although it's no great effort to use Google's search facility (as you probably did). Still, applying them here seems like an unwarranted distraction for most users. Something to hang your hat on perhaps? — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I find links convenient and useful, and not a distraction. That seemed the prevailing view in the guideline proposal. Agyle (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see you removed two links, with the edit comment "Removed Severin links per guideline proposal for lack of availability based on locational or other algorithms)". I interpreted the proposal to mean the opposite. Its first response, from its submitter, said "the argument that they may not be visible in all countries ignores that they are visible to millions of our readers." Just to be clear, the pages I linked are available in preview mode to me, and I understand they are not available to you. That's unfortunate, but I think one of the reasons for the proposal was to let the links remain even though Google's previews are not universally accessible. Agyle (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dr.Gulliver, your recent edit removed around 30 page links, with the edit summary "Standardised reference style, with corrections, and made minor copy edits". I am reverting the removals (I'll try to restore copy edits/corrections subsequently); the content guidelines at WP:PAGELINK say "No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed without cause; see the October 2010 RfC for further information." If you think your opinions provide adequate cause, I'd suggest we seek the opinion of outside editors via an RFC or by other means to resolve the dispute. I'd also suggest leaving them in place meanwhile, because it is easier to remove them than add them. Agyle (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dr.Gulliver, your recent edit again removed these page links, with the edit summary "Removed some redundancies". This is the third time you've removed the links without explanation, twice in the past week, while ignoring attempts to discuss the matter and reach consensus. This is disruptive editing. I'll provide notice on your user page, requesting your participation in this discussion, in case you have not noticed that it is here. Agyle (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Support Inclusion of links I support the use of links as it is easier to verify a source. Some oppose that as they may fear someone having a different interpretation and edit accordingly. Some may feel they can better own WP:OWN an article by limiting access to the source. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

If I were trying to keep sources to myself, wouldn't I have stuck with obscure journal articles and copyrighted books (which out of necessity I cited elsewhere in the article) instead of primarily utilising materials in the public domain, easily available online to anyone capable of Googling? Would I have bothered to supply the ISBNs and DOIs for the modern reference works, for which Wikipedia provides handy tools to users who would like to try and locate them? Heck, why provide any sources at all? My position on the use of standardised referencing is as I explained it.—Dr.Gulliver (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion and the reverts by Gulliver today demonstrate ownership issues, See WP:OWN. It seems to be his way only without reaching any consensus. Message left on Gullivers talk page with these concerns. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The change from having the comments above clearly visible, to a link, whereby the comments are obscured, may cause an eyebrow to raise when the stated motivation is "easier navigation", particularly as the latest comments are but two days old and critical of the editor making the link. Dr.Gulliver, you have employed this method before on this talk page and sometimes simply blanked comments. If you are trying to refute the charge of "ownership issues" here, I'd suggest this is not a convincing way to go about it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

My "authorship" of this article has consisted of three whole paragraphs—representing maybe one-quarter of the text—in addition to supplying inline citations, which the article previously lacked. I've also contributed various edits to other sections, in some cases because I was unable to verify the statements using the references I had provided. Many of these edits have subsequently been modified by others. The bulk of the article, including section headings, is the work of other contributors, of which there are literally dozens.—Dr.Gulliver (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is not authorship but ownership which the IP is addressing, per WP:OWN as they state. I am addressing your repeat of talk page edits which blank or obscure comments which take a different position to you, in this most recent case only a couple of days old and directly critical of you. As mentioned, blanking comments goes against WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. Removing a long discusssion to a linked page, from a couple of months earlier and which is largely or entirely resolved may serve a valid purpose. It is more difficult to see a valid reason for obscuring fresh comments, particularly ones which are critical of your editing here. (On this general topic your blanking of comments on your own talk page is not prohibited (though archiving is the preferred method)). Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Probably died December 12, 1721. Log entry dated December 13 citing his death probably referred to events of the previous day. ^[1] Thisdaytrivia (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander Selkirk. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205083554/http://www.scotsindependent.org/dates1-f.htm to http://www.scotsindependent.org/dates1-f.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander Selkirk. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070402052327/http://www.ini.unizh.ch/~tobi/fun/alex/alex.php to http://www.ini.unizh.ch/~tobi/fun/alex/alex.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander Selkirk. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120805084032/http://www.elpais.com.uy/120804/pespec-655726/novedades/-selkirk-llega-al-dvd-con-algunas-novedades/ to http://www.elpais.com.uy/120804/pespec-655726/novedades/-selkirk-llega-al-dvd-con-algunas-novedades/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

An illustration is included in this article purporting to be from the title page of John Howell's The Life and Adventures of Alexander Selkirk. It isn't. The title page of Howell's work is an unillustrated sheet shown here. Checking the source page for the book wrongly attributed to Howell, which shares only part of the full title of Howell's book, I believe you will find it is correctly attributed to Anonymous. I don't think an illustration from this obscure non-fiction work should be included among the significant works of fiction and literature influenced by Selkirk.—69.10.174.245 (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

It seems that the original book was abridged and reprinted. I found an article about it along with a different 1941 cover page. [2]. If the publisher is different on the disputed though. Technophant (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Selkirk immediately regretted his rashness, but Stradling refused to let him back on board.

I heard that he yelled out to the departing ship, but they couldn't hear him. Valetude (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

" As a Scotsman and a privateer, he would have faced a grim fate if captured and therefore did his best to hide himself." I can understand the problem he would have faced as a privateer, but what difference would it have made with him being Scottish? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since Selkirk was a member of the Royal Navy, and since Scotland was by this time rejoined with England to form Great Britain, the long enmity between the two countries in general (and the War of the Spanish Succession in particular) meant Selkirk would have been treated as an enemy combatant. Grandpallama (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

From Howell’s book [3] “Had they been French, Alexander would have given himself up to them; but, being Spaniards, he chose rather to stay upon the island, and run the risk of dying alone, and even of being devoured by his own cats, than fall into their hands, as they would, as he supposed, either have murdered him in cold blood, or caused him to linger out a life of misery in the mines of Peru or Mexico, unless he chose to profess himself a Roman Catholic, and even then he would have been compelled to pass his weary days in one of their coasting vessels in the Pacific Ocean; for as we have already mentioned, it was one of their maxims never to allow an Englishman to return to Europe, who had gained any knowledge of the South Seas.” Technophant (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Article says he married in 1717, and again in 1720. Was he married to two at the same time, or had the earlier wife divorced or died? AMCKen (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious if there is any record of Selkirk's thoughts about his stay on the island. FatBear1 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply