Talk:Scotland/Archive 7

message: ..by 1400 Scots had diverged from Middle English: it would really be of great benefit if we could apply a map that did not use confusing, archaic terms
: No it hadn't. It was still called Inglis, and there is no contemporary evidence that the dialects spoken in parts of lowland Scotland were regarded as in any way different, or united, with any reference to the Anglo-Scottish border. At any rate, the point is irrelevant since the map includes coverage of northern English. Is this being called Scots too? The text should be restored for further discussion - Calgacus 16:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on the need for a less confusing map. Late 14th century literary Scots was significantly different from the language used by Chaucer as a brief perusal of Barbour's The Brus and the Canterbury Tales makes clear. The use of archaic terms is needlessly confusing. Worth remembering that Norman French was still the language of England's ruling elite at this point in history. Benarty 16:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The terminology is clear from both the map and context. The map uses contemporary language, as many maps do. The map is not confusing then, and far from being needlessly confusing, is educational. Barbour's Brus incidentally has more in common with modern English than Chaucer does, precisely because English hadn't yet developed distinctive dialects in Scotland. The idea that Barbour wrote in a distinctive language which he could have thought of as "Scots" is the fictitious fancy of modern nationalistically inclined skewers of history, be they professional historians or wikipedians. - Calgacus 16:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Swell. Could you fiddle with alternate fonts? Doops |  talk 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try something tonight - about to head out. Shimgray | talk | 19:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I'll put your version in now; if you make a prettier version tonight you can swap the newer image in. Doops |  talk 19:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the text on this version look a little better? It was trying to make the letters two-toned, which caused a problem, but now it's fine. (I've also changed Gaelic to Celtic, for consistency). If anyone else wants a hack, I can pass on a copy of the "blank" version. Shimgray | talk | 22:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're gonna do that, then you should replace Celtic with Gaelic, because Gaelic (i.e. Scottish and Irish) is the only Celtic language on the map. - Calgacus 22:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems more logical to have either two specific languages - the original was Gaelic and Anglic, differently named, as I understand it - or two language families - Celtic and Germanic, as the original caption had. Same level, if that makes sense. Shimgray | talk | 22:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: English and Gaelic is fine to me, although there should probably be some indication that the Caithness yellow doesn't refer to English. I worry that some people will take the map to mean that Pictish and Welsh were still spoken. People come out with some rubbish on the topic of Scottish medieval languages, (it is commonly believed for instance that Galwegian was a version of Welsh). Also, there is a long history in Scotland of demeaning the status of Gaelic, so calling it Celtic might be interpreted as part of this, or as insulting. The problem is easy enough to avoid, if you're creative enough. - Calgacus 23:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: (dropping down indents) How about Celtic languages and Germanic languages? It saves us having to note the Scandinavian bits seperately... Shimgray | talk | 23:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only one Celtic language is being referred to. Implying there are more is precisely what needs to be avoided. - Calgacus 23:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Celtic dialects and Germanic dialects would be better. Doops |  talk 23:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good. Or Celtic dialects / Germanic languages? I'm not sure how close the various Germanic languages were, then - are they close enough for "dialects"? Shimgray | talk | 00:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter, really: even if there are identifiable languages, the map will include various dialects of those languages. Doops |  talk 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay - how's this look? Shimgray | talk | 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, it was better the way it was before. The Scottis-Inglis map was at least informative,  but this is misleading. If you're gonna change Scottis-Inglis, the best thing would be Gaelic-English or Gaelic-Germanic. - Calgacus 00:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption text 

message: ;)
[[Image:Celtic harp dsc05425.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The harp (or clarsach) was an instrument associated with medieval Scottish culture. Gerald of Wales tells us that the Scots excelled even the Irish in the art, the "[Irish] people now look to that country [i.e. Scotland] as the fountain of the art" ( Top. Hib., 94). King Alexander III's court is known to have included a royal harpist.]]
Calgacus, fancy expanding on why it's so crucial to have in the main Scotland article? The linked harp article doesn't have much to say, so I'm a touch lost to the significance. Thanks/wangi 11:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a piece of medieval Scottish culture, a dead culture now, but one that once lived and flourished. That's what the history section ought to be about. It's far more useful that a basic map. And if you think I'm weird for thinking it significant, the BBC documentary In Search of Scotland thought it worthy to have the full Gerald of Wales quote  - Calgacus 11:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but isn't the proper place the History of Scotland or Kingdom of Scotland articles, and shouldn't the harp article be beefed up too?  Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of the other photos are out of place too. Thanks/wangi 11:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to agree. The Harp is primarily an Irish symbol long associated with organisations like the Royal Irish/Ulster Constabulary. It is incongruous having it on the main Scottish page and as such appears to be an attempt to push a viewpoint rather than to inform. Benarty 11:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What they put in those articles is up to them. The Irish have the harp as a national symbol (its the pre-modern "flag" of Ireland, and represents Ireland on the royal arms), but it was just as much if not more a Scottish thing in the middle ages. I fail to see why a dated map of early 9th century Pictland is more useful, nor why the harp shouldn't be there. I can't think of any pic, except the Monymusk reliquary (of which wiki does not seem to have a pic), that is more illustrative of Scotland in the medieval past. - Calgacus 11:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The harp appears to have been reinserted complete with the overlong caption. The insertion of a graphic certainly helps brighten the page up aesthetically but as noted above the harp seems a slightly strange selection. I would like to propose that some graphic related to the Wars of Independence be used instead. Wallace's sword would be my personal preference. Benarty 10:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to agree. While I don't doubt the clàrsach was a part of Scottish society at that time, there are many more iconic possibilities to be exploited which are unique to Scotland (btw let's also not forget the harp has survived to be an integral part of Welsh culture as well). I always love breaking down preconceived notions and showing history is more complex than most people will ever realize; as many books and documentaries such as the one by the BBC do, I'm just not sure this is the page to do that. It is cliché, but Wallace's sword would do, or any of the two-handed claymores. Khiradtalk 11:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Foreign writers don't say much about Scottish culture in the middle ages, and certainly not much that's positive. The art of harping is one of the few things praised. A claymore, while fine, lays too much stress on Scottish military culture. The harp is cultural, ephasizes a lost and oft forgotten cultural millieu, and stresses the common links with Ireland which made the pre-14th century Scots and Irish, in the paraphrased words of Robert the Bruce, "one nation." As I said before, the only other picture I'd regard as equally appropriate is the Monymusk reliquary. The latter and the two harps that survive from medieval Scotland (only one Irish one survives AFAIK), are without doubt the most amazing survivals from the Scottish middle ages, and it would be sad not to make use of them. - Calgacus 13:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Worth noting that Edward Bruce's expedition to seize control of Ireland post-Bannockburn was a complete failure because many Irish Gaels fought against him on Edward II's side. It is certainly true that Robert the Bruce often attempted to make use of the fact that his mother was from a Gaelic background within the prevailing feudal contest for power but during the Wars of Independence there was no correlation between ethnocultural affiliation and support for the Bruces' cause. Many leading Highland Gaelic clans like the MacDougals of Lorne were aligned with the English crown because like many other groups within Scottish society they backed the rival Balliol or Comyn claims to the Scottish throne and saw Bruce as a usurper. Benarty 13:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edward's invasion of Ireland failed because of widespread famine and because of his surprising death in battle. As many, if not more, Irish Gaels fought for them. Both Bruces were native Gaelic speakers, but that only got them a foot in the door, and as always neither the Irish or Scottish Gaels were ever going to unite for any purpose.  Anyways, makes me sad, but I appear to be wasting my time on this page. I see someone has just went ahead and deleted the work on the harp. Who knows the real reason, certainly no good arguments for getting rid of it were offered here. Instead, we've got a good educational map edited so that it now serves only to confuse, and a new dated map of Northumbria introduced without discussion. I'd go ahead and get rid of it, but I'd probably be wasting my time there also. - Calgacus 14:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "No obvious importance"?! Read this page. I do admit there is no agreement though, as only myself and Mais Oui! have offered any support. Perhaps when the history of Scotland page has decent coverage of the period I'll insert it there, but I fear it'd just encounter the same hostility. - Calgacus 14:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bloody harp 

message: How about trying other images, rather than maps, for the history section. I've added the Wallace Monument to symbalise the Scottish Wars of Independence, and King James VI as the first Scottish monarch to become King of England. I don't really like the map images as they are not very clear, and don't really add much to the article. Astrotrain 14:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and a modern monument to William Wallace does then? Sorry, I don't mean to be rude. My prejudices derive from my interest in High Medieval Scotland. At least there's decent textual coverage now. And, yeah, the map at least showed that there was no clear cut division between Highlands and Lowlands in 1400, now the article loses that subtlety. None of the new images say anything about the history of Scotland. But I'm ceasing to be bothered any more. - Calgacus 14:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Looking good and suitably neutral in terms of point of view. Maybe shift the Wallace mounument pic down a bit so the text flows a bit better? Benarty 14:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neutral? How bizarre. What on earth was unneutral about the previous images? - Calgacus 14:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why don't you add the map images to History of Scotland? It would seem to be more appropiate in this article. Astrotrain 14:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still no clearer as to why a modern monument (why not just stick in a pic of Mel Gibson?), is more appropriate than a medieval harp. It seems to me that high medieval Scotland is being ignored. - Calgacus 15:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is Wallace not from medieval Scotland? Astrotrain 15:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  High Medieval, not medieval. Because of the obscurity of the subject matter, there is a popular tendency to ignore Scottish history before 1286. Am I so wrong to be concerned about this? I mean, we're talking about more five or six centuries, the majority of the period of Scottish independence. - Calgacus 15:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Not sure he should be encouraged to tamper with that particular article. Benarty 15:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy:  There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks.  - Calgacus  15:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could the person who posted the above identify themself? Benarty 15:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might want to check edit histories in future. - Calgacus 15:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I shouldn't have to. Additions to this page are supposed to be signed. Benarty 15:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure you grasped the point, Benarty. - Calgacus 15:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: PS for the honor of first & most prominent illustration, though, it's hard not to vote for Eilean Donan, cliche though it is. Doops |  talk 17:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clichéd is good for the main Scotland page I would have thought. The pictures jpegs aren't the greatest on the Eilean Donan wikipedia page unfortunately. Something like this one would probably be better . Getting back to my Wallace's sword suggestion one of the problems with Braveheart is that Mel Gibson really wasn't a suitable actor for the role of William Wallace. Whoever wielded this sword  was definitely not someone you'd want to encounter on the field of battle. Benarty 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The reason I chose the Wallace Monument image was: firstly it is a free use image (important for Scotland to have free use images for featured article status); secondly. although it is a modern monument, it is the best example of a monument for an historical Scottish figure; and it looks good. For history sections, there is limited choice for images, so monuments are a good subsititute. Astrotrain 22:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I would think that the image of the Wallace Monument, being that it is a monument to a Scottish hero, would be a good image here. More so than an obscure box or harp. the fact that it doesn't itself date to the 13th C or before is IMO irrelevant. If there is some sort of reaction to such an image, an image of Stirling Castle or the Moot Hill, though I don't see why people should object to a monument to a real person who fought for Scotland. --Bob 18:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Does the Geology section really add enough to merit this level of inclusion on the main page. Maybe better to simply insert a link to Geology of Scotland in the "See also" section? Benarty 15:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Geology

message: After major reworking, the article still only has 6 external source links. Please take a look further up this talk page Talk:Scotland#Unsourced. --GraemeL (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source information again 

message: Astrotrain reverted my change with remove the RBOS £100 not image stating "Scottish banknotes are not copyrighted". However please read: http://www.rbs.com/about03.asp?id=ABOUT_US/OUR_HERITAGE/OUR_HISTORY/OUR_BANKNOTES/REPRODUCING_OUR_BANKNOTES Thanks/wangi 15:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banknotes 

message: User:20.133.0.14 readded the info about .sco in the infobox claiming: "The rationalising of the notes in the country 'infobox' resulted in the erroneous deletion of the link to the proposed '.sco' TLD", however I actually reverted that on purpose . The infobox is not the place to discuss the .sco proposal, and anyway it isn't designed to be a country TLD. Thanks/wangi 12:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  .sco TLD 

message: I've been working on the Wales page today. They have a gallery of images at the bottom of the page for various items. I've put one at the bottom of this page also, for items such as the box talked about above, as well as some others that may be good for the page. I think this could be a good idea for images that users wish to see on the page, but do not fit in well with the existing sections of the page layout Astrotrain 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery of Images

message: I realise that Scotland has had an awful lot of it, and that many contributors have put a lot of work into the section, but I would like to request that we drastically reduce the size of the history section, to the recommended 6 short paragraphs. The main History of Scotland article is actually one of the very few Scotland-related articles of Featured quality, and is more than enough back-up to the brief section required for this article.
By having such a strong emphasis on the history of Scotland, especially in the first major section, we are actually distorting the entire presentation of the topic. This article is (or should be) primarily about the modern country. The history section is only there to provide a little context.
If editors are itching to add their knowledge to Wikipedia, please write specialist sub-articles to the main History of Scotland article (and link to them at the main article), or improve the Kingdom of Scotland article (which is still a stub).
Surely it is not beyond us to write a concise, informative section covering the broad sweep of the story from the first human habitation after the last ice-age, up to the present day? I would like to suggest that we structure it roughly:
*prehistory; first historic records (presumably Greek and Roman sources) to late iron-age (Picts, Scots, Angles and Brythons)
*unification of the state (MacAlpin to Carlaw)
*medieval period
*Union with England
*Industrial revolution/Empire
*modern history
Obviously there are some massive gaps there (eg. no Bonnie Prince Charlie), but this is a challenge that every single article about all countries must face up to: eg. how do you fancy summarising the History of Egypt in 6 shorts paras? (I note, in awe, that they manage it in only 5 paragraphs, although para 4 is very long.) The interested reader has plenty of links with which to satiate their thirst for further information.--Mais oui! 22:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally in agreement with you on this point --Bob 22:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to look at United States, England, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, all of which devote as much or more space to history. Alternatively, going with Wales and Ireland would mean a cut of a third to a half, much of which could come from better editing. But why Egypt ? Angus McLellan 00:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the history section is fine, although the early modern stuff could definitely be cut down. History is obviously important, and, shamed as I am to say it given I was partly responsible for reorganizing and cutting the article down, most of the recently featured  articles I've seen are way above the recommended limit, e.g. Yoweri Museveni, so I'm not sure we need to be that bothered. BTW, have there been any country articles that have attained featured status of late? - Calgacus 00:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I just restored the history section which was destroyed by a vandal edit . A history section which may be too long is better than none at all.--GrafZahl 08:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section is far too long