Talk:Scotland/Archive 14

message: I will attempt to keep the geography section clear of additions and vandalism per the above discussion – embellished below – and I encourage  volunteers to come forward to do likewise elsewhere and/or to assist with one or more geography sub-sections. 
Proposed Policy
Many Scottish Wikipedians believe that this article has become too long and unwieldy. Minor edits which improve punctuation, syntax, accuracy and references are welcome in this section/article. If you wish to add new material please refer the matter to the Talk page. 
Edits which increase the length of the article may be reverted unless suitable discussion of the proposed new content has taken place on the Talk page that reaches agreement as to which text is to be replaced to allow the new text.
Edits which do not provide references or edit comments are likely to be reverted without warning or explanation.
<ends>.
I am tempted to put part of this as hidden text in the Geography section. This is possibly in breach of umpteen well-meaning policies and guidelines, but may not be necessary. We shall see. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but edits which don't improve the article (like the anon user(s) who like(s) to add the perhaps-true-but-not-very-worthy-of-inclusion claim that there are more redheads in Scotland than anywhere else) can be removed. Most edits are just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Only bold editing is going to get this article to featured quality. That includes being bold in reverting unhelpful additions. Economy doesn't look like there's much fat in it, so do you fancy taking a chainsaw to Education ? It paints a rather flattering picture of early education, perhaps best dealt with by spending less time on it. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there is a difference between reverting an anon who has added something irrelevant, to reverting an established user and leaving a rather rude message on their talk page saying they can only add things to the article if they discuss it here first! Perhaps I could see his point if I made a major edit, but not the adding of one link and a small sentence! Astrotrain 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Somehow I understood the idea of Wikipedia was to produce a quality encyclopedia. This requires colloboration rather than anarchy. I am sorry if you, (Astrotrain) felt the message was rude. It was my intention to be clear.  If edits are unhelpful they should be removed. There are tens of thousands of facts about Scotland not on this page, and the key question is - what is relevant? Ben MacDui (Talk) 23:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read WP:OWN. And please read the Manual of Style to see how your section should be correctly formatted. --82.26.178.54 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OWN is irrelevant here; the issue is the article as a whole and no one editor's contributions. There is a consensus that the article should be revised to reach the feature article criteria (as all articles should, ideally). If you feel any part of the article is need of tender loving care, please feel free to change it to meet the MoS guidelines. Anyone can edit, just so long as the edits are for the better. In this case, significantly adding to the length would hardly be an improvement. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland article: Proposed Policy WDMWU1 

message: Jersey also issues its own £1 bank notes. Scotland is not unique in this regard
-Jon 07/12/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.183.58 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  £1 bank notes 

message: Saw some talk above about delisting this article, but didn't see a clear notification of listing.
SEE Good article Review] this article being reviewed for delisting from Good Article status.
--Ling.Nut 01:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article being [[WP:GA/R|reviewed for delisting]] from [[WP:GA|Good Article]] status 

message: A friend recommended some spectacles and I now see that there is of course a cunningly concealed 'Topics in Scotland' box (see above). I added 'Transport' to it and deleted the article section. 69kb and falling. Does anyone think the 'References' section in its current guise contributes anything of value? If not it is next for the chop. Ben MacDui (Talk) 12:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored Transport section as it is common for this to be in a country section. I would suggest cutting Military as it serves no purpose for a non sovereign entity. Astrotrain 15:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arguably the military section is too wordy, but with the best will in the world Astrotrain, it is hard to interpret the above as anything other than either an extraordinary lack of knowledge of modern Scotland, or a calculated insult. I am beginning to suspect you are a covert SNP activist trying to whip us all into a lather of self-righteous nationalism. Views anyone? - on transport and military I mean, not political affiliations. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Time for a nice cup of tea and a Tunnocks Tea Cake. I'm not any sort of covert activist, but I'm perfectly capable of seeing there's a case to be made for not having a military section. On balance, seeing as Scotland has most of Britian's nuclear bombs, I'd argue for keeping it, but I don't need to accuse people of things in order to make the case.Kieran T (talk | contribs) 16:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm for keeping both but only with as short an intro paragraph as possible and let the Main article: pointer do its job — Bill Reid | Talk 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Can I have a Caramel Wafer instead, please ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed on Culture needing more improvement than other sections. There's not much there.  Canæn  03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My understanding of the problem is that over a few weeks or months up until about the beginning of December the quality of the article had been dropping. It was a Good Article and it is now up for deletion as such. In its state at the time I have no dispute with that. I am not in favour of cutting out information purely for the sake of FA status but in my view there is still a good deal of information in it that is extraneous and I am very happy to support proposed quality improvements. (See for example below). I note that no-one has queried the idea of removing the rump of the 'References', so off with its head. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing Improvements?

message: I've made an attempt at trying to reduce the unwieldy culture section into one, along the lines of similar sections on other articles, here: User:Globaltraveller/Sandbox/Culture
I did however chop the Cuisine section in my attempts to amalgamate all the other sections. Could people take a look and see what they think? Also in doing that I laid to the side the Religion and Language section. Perhaps they could be fitted in elsewhere in the article? I'd be grateful if people could take a look and see what they think and/or edit bits if they want. Thanks Globaltraveller 22:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with Option 3. It just seems the more sensible way to handle the subject. That way, the improved culture section can be added. Globaltraveller 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing Improvements II - The Culture Section

message: According to this, Scotland isn't actually a country, but it's only "common usage" that causes it to be described as such. So which site do we believe - that of No.10, or that of the Scottish Parliament? Marks87 17:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How right you are: Talk:Scotland/Archive6. Me, I'd believe the Census forms rather than the spin from Jack and Tony. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's an interesting theory. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't deal with original research. It's readily verifiable that Scotland is referred to as a nation, and that Scottish national identity is discussed in print. Can you suggest a source that agrees with your interpretation? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country? 

message: A device (at the top of the page) which may or may not lead to further improvements and worthwhile collaborations. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do Box 

message: Have added in the new Culture section and Demographics as per the suggestions above from Ben MacDui. Is anyone unhappy with this? Globaltraveller 13:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the changes are excellent too. I've updated some of the images- agree that the Buchanan St image was not very good- replaced with a better quality one representing religion. Astrotrain 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving National Symbols sounds good. I remember that at the last Peer Review it was criticised for being listy and that it needed to be coverted into prose, and I'm not sure how one would go about that with any degree of success, let alone reference the thing. Another worry is the references section. At the FA review (if this is the general direction we are heading), they are increasingly particular about the way references are laid out, handled, cited and consistent as I have cause to know. The history and politics sections need references too. Globaltraveller 11:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: Happy New Year to all - I think a general congratulation is in order. Firstly, I am aware that there are numerous folk who are quietly doing a fine job in keeping this article free of vandals, uncited edits and heavily POV contributions. Secondly, it has been fairly stable since about 19th December, during which time GA status was maintained. 
The idea that Featured Article status should be pursued has been raised several times (see Archives 5, 11, 12). In principle, we are no doubt all in favour, but perhaps it is not so easy. It seems to me that unless an individual is willing to take lead responsibility,  the key to a successful effort is likely to be having an agreed strategy. Otherwise we all end up nibbling away at different bits and potentially acting at cross purposes, plus confusing those who are trying to hold the bounds. I think it would be helpful to have comments at this stage on general idea and the 'To Do' list plus the idea of moving national symbols. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Status 

message: Apparently "if you find you have reverted a page even once in a day it may be a sign there is a problem and you should try dispute resolution, starting always with the article's talk page." (WP:3RR) I confess to having done so and seek the advice of experienced editors. I refer to the addition: "Rockall, a small rocky islet in the North Atlantic which was annexed by the UK in the 1950s and later declared part of Scotland by the Island of Rockall Act 1972." As noted in my first revert this is an apparently unsourced statement. It is also contentious as can be seen from the lengthy entry on the Rockall page itself and indeed on the Talk page. How can this best be resolved without recourse to unseemly squabbling? --Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good grief. I never said that it was untrue. However, the facts as presented may now be verifiable but they are only a small part of the truth as a quick glance at the Rockall table of contents and lead para suggest e.g. "In 1997, the UK abandoned any claim to an extended EEZ around and beyond it. The remaining issue is that the status of the continental shelf rights of surrounding ocean floor is disputed with the United Kingdom by the Republic of Ireland, Denmark (for the Faroe Islands), and Iceland." Thus, in order to justify any reference to Rockall at all, I would suggest that said reference needs to be at least as long as the entire rest of the discussion of the 'territorial extent of Scotland' as it currently stands. Indeed to do it justice it probably needs to be rather longer. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. That is the beauty of internal wikilinks: you do not need to dot every i and cross every t - the reader can follow any link that interests them and more fully enlighten themselves. --Mais oui! 11:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: However, I believe the the wording is misleading, and in fact what is notable about the issue is not that the UK claims a rock, but that the claim is disputed. I will amend accordingly. I am not an authority on these matters, but from what I can gather the claim has no de jure validity whatever. I note Fraser MacDonald's (see citation) concluding remarks: "At this point in the argument, lawyers have blamed geographers and geologists for the wealth of ambiguity that resides in the hitherto uncomplicated term ‘rocks’." In this case the geographer's blame the transport fans. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I notice that Rockall does not feature on the ma.... oh never mind. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They only dispute the continental shelf rights around Rockall, and do not claim Rockall itself. The fact that the UK has annexed Rockall and declared it part of Scotland is indisputable. Astrotrain 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A rare event indeed: I agree with Astrotrain! There is no longer any dispute about the actual rock called Rockall, the dispute is about the waters and seabed around it. --Mais oui! 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's ensure this exciting outbreak of agreement is recorded in the archive summary, when the time comes! I am not in a position to strongly disagree, indeed you may well be right. However my understanding of WP:V is that 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth'. All I can say is that a source or two available suggests the claims are not accepted. If you can come up with credible sources that confirm this I will gladly concede the point. However, comments on  the Rockall Talk page imply that the reason there is so little concern about the UK's claim is that it is so absurd, not because the claim is accepted.  Waveland, on the other hand, may have a genuine claim. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rockall 

message: Why does this article have a section talking about a military of Scotland? Scotland doesn't have a military of its own as it's not a sovereign state. No other UK article has a military section. Scotland uses the United Kingdom's military for its defence. It's like the article on Florida saying 'The Military of Florida'.
:While The U.S. does constitute a Federation of states, very few of the states have ever been sovereign (California, Texas, and Vermont being the exceptions I know of). Scotland, on the other hand is a Nation-State, as well as a constituent country of the UK. The UK is currently responsible for the Defense of all of the home nations/constituent countries, but Scotland has in the past had it's own military, and their are distinctively Scottish units in the British Army.  Canæn  06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Military of Scotland

message: Somebody tried replacing the map again, this time with the reasoning that it is "outdated because of Serbia and Montenegro".  I reverted until that claim can be investigated.  If there is a problem with the way the Balkan countries are depicted, it would be better, IMHO, to just crop eastern Europe out of the current map than to replace it altogether.--WilliamThweatt 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current one can just be cropped if that is a problem.  No consensus was reached on using the other map - mainly due to the fact that it was, I personally believe, uploaded for reasons of POV rather than making the article better. SFC9394 19:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map redux

message: I have made an edit to tidy up the first paragraph of the politics section: . This clarifies that Scottish devolution was based on the referendum in Scotland, not a purely a parcel of changes UK wide (i.e. it's the Scotland Act which is important here); links to the related devolution article; and removes general posturing/weaselling/unsourced that "However, it is thought unlikely that any British parliament would unilaterally abolish a home rule parliament and government without consultation via a referendum with the voters of the constituent country.". Thanks/wangi 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devolution 

message: Scotland has been add to the new :Category:Germanic culture by an editor (not by me by the way, I'm querying this). Please discuss this to ascertain whether this is appropriate or not - and act accordingly.-- Zleitzen(talk) 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Germanic culture]]

message: As a translation of Fir Alban, men of Scotland seems very retrospective. For the time of the Picts, men of Britain or men of Alba might be more accurate and less misleading. Laurel Bush 18:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda agree with you, though I'm personally sceptical about how relevant "men of britain" (as opposed to a part of Britain) was in the 9th or 10th century. The idea that Alba is simply Pictland is kinda new, and may end up being controversial (though I've seen enough literary and placename evidence to be certain). Best to translate as "men of Alba". The problem lies in the Braflung Scoine tale, Cináed mac Ailpín's (entirely "Pictish" name note) legendary annihilation of the Picts, which means "Scotland" and "Pictland" are wrongly seen as different concepts (which they are I supppose in a retrospective sense); hence our language is burdened with mutually exclusive terminology that renders it almost impossible to do justice to the true nature of historic Scottish identity. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fir Alban" and the "men of Scotland". 

message: There are several references to the "Scots" language in the article, most notable the claim that the Latin motto:
Nemo me impune lacessit
translates into Scots as:
Wha daur meddle wi me?.
Is this meant to be a joke? Besides the fact that these so-called "translations" only loosely follow the original text, there is the fact that Scots is not a proper language. Scots, or Inglis, is a term used to describe the mixture of English and Gaelic spoken by people in medieval Scotland (pure Gaelic was also widely spoken, and a variant of French was common amongst the nobility). In modern times, the term "Scots" is used to refer to the various dialects of Scottish English speakers. There are many different dialects in Scotland, and these vary vastly from one another. The phrase:
Wha daur meddle wi me?
appears to be written in a way that was common in Medieval Scotland, and is no longer spoken in any part of Scotland. And although Scots is spoken, it is extremely rarely written. Even Scots who speak with very strong accents write in Standard English. Most "Scots" words are simply different pronounciations of English words. There are some words, for example "aye" (meaning "yes") which are uniquely Scottish, but these words cannot be considered as belonging to another language because they only exist as a part of a dialect of English. The promotion of "Scots" as a language is part of a desire to strengthen Scotland's identity which has taken off post-devolution (especially amongst those who wish to see a fully independant Scotland). But the "Scots" language is NOT a proper language, and most of the "Scots translations" appear jesting, if not mildly derogatory to Scotland and its population. I feel that these Scots translations should be removed from the page. Please reply with your comments. - R160K 23:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All very interesting, however it does leave the question of what the compilers of the Dictionary of the Scots Language and the like are up to, and what it was the Christopher Murray Grieve, William Laughton Lorimer, and Alexander Gray, among others, were writing in. Any language is an essentially arbitrary construct, represented in reality by a whole continuum of dialects, and deciding whether Scots is a language or a dialect is largely a matter of taste. As for the claim that the Scots language movement is in some way related to modern political developments, it would a stretch to see the 1930s, when the dictionaries were begun, and the three gentlemen in question were alive and well, as being an era when devolution or independence were significant political questions. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tend to agree with R160K. Scots is not considered a language in the same way as Gaelic and it is never used officially. Astrotrain 09:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scots" language 

message: Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox flag straw poll 

message: Angus removed the etymology section. We have had it for quite a long time now, although it was rewritten very recently. I just wondered why, and if other countries' articles have such a section? Can we benchmark and see what other articles are doing? I have long thought that the etmology of the words Scot and Scotland deserve their own article, together with the numerous other names that Scotland has, or has had. --Mais oui! 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But also quite long, and adding references will make it longer. Or have we given up on the idea of slimming the article down? Is 2-3k of etymology a good use of limited space? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would support a small section also. Thunderwing 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think too that there should be a small etymology section, although the original one seemed fair enough as it was. If we want to cut down on size, getting rid of, or slimming down National Symbols would be good. Certainly it should be converted to prose, rather than just being a list - but I wouldn't know where to start with that. Globaltraveller 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 'Etymology' section 

message: Please comment/contribute at:
*Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#It.27s_election_time_folks.21.21
While you are there, please feel free to sign up as a member of the WikiProject, or just give it a "Watch". Ta. --Mais oui! 09:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election time - WikiProject Scotland discussion 

message: Tried to remove some content from education as requested above, however finding it hard as the section had no mention of nursery or primary at all.
Removed this statement.  ItIt has no source, and has been tagged since February - As a result, for over two hundred years Scotland had a higher percentage of its population educated at primary, secondary and tertiary levels than any other country in Europe.
:You'd have been better employed in looking for a citation yourself than in deleting the statement. It is actually true. Scotland's lead in education was only diminished when other European nations (starting with Prussia in the 1870s) began to introduce national education schemes of their own. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to Bill Bryson, for what he's worth, Scotland still puts a higher percentage of its population through higher education than any country in Europe. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: education

message: Due to the recent election, the Politics section of the article is not correct. Would it be best to alter it now, or to wait until decisions such as who the new First Minister will be have been made? pcfreakshow 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics

message: Scotland doesn't have a Prime Minister (TB's PM of the UK), I think this part should either be removed or corrected to reflect this.
Malcovitch
200.83.12.200 22:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. On US states, Canadian provinces, etc, they have the people responsible for the individual states/provinces - i.e. governors, l-govs, senators, first minister equivalents, not the PMs or PM equivalents of the larger political unit. The PM of the UK is the PM of the UK, he has no particularly defined responsibility to Scotland. Totally misleading to have him there. Scotland is not (atm at least) a sovereign state with Tony Blair as head in addition to his responsibilities for the UK. That's how it makes it look. Scotland has a First Minister, a deputy First Minister, and a Secretary of State, the last of whom the PM is the governmental overlord. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. He is not included on the England page either (although he does appear on Wales and N Ireland). Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scotland is not like a canadian province or US state it has two Governments one for the UK of which the PM is leader and a devolved one of which the FM is leader the Scottish sec is a part time job, also the Queen is not the Queen of Scotland yet she is included in the infobox --Barryob   Vigeur de dessus  14:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I would agree- we only need the First Minister and Deputy First Minister Thunderwing 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to point out that the root of all this trouble is a procrustian attempt to fit things into the infobox. Why should we let the infobox run our lives? It serves us, not the reverse. Doops |  talk 07:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Blair as "Prime Minister" 

message: Can we just get rid of the damned thing? It's superfluous, something no one takes seriously anymore, if they even hear about it, and it just takes up space that we don't really have because of the infobox. Especially considering all the other space lower in the article we could use images in! Honestly, why is it there?  Canæn  06:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Scota & Godiel Glas 

message: You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New European vector maps 

message: Scotland is NOT an independent nation, and so therefore why does the map in the info box imply this? (86.141.53.179 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't independent, but it is a nation and a constituent country, and so the map is, in my humble opinion, fine. Also, what would you suggest as a replacement — it is tasked with showing the position of Scotland in Europe. Highlighting the rest of the United Kingdom would be incorrect as this would show the position of the UK in Europe. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "it is inconsistent that this page has not."  I very, very much disagree with statements like this - groupthink should not be happening.  The process of Consensus is completely short circuited when content decisions on each article are made on the basis that "this this and this have it so this must to" - that is wholly against what the point of a consensus making process on an an individual article should be about.  To be honest the way this new map has been edited into a lot of pages is very disconcerting to me. SFC9394 22:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box map ([[User:86.141.53.179|86.141.53.179]] 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)) 

message: Am in general agreement with sentiments expressed by SFC9394 (in today's edit summary). Maintaining the integrity of this article is a chore beyond any common sense. I am watching about 300 articles and I'd say 80-90% of the controversial edits I observe are anon IPs attempting to 'improve' things here (with or without good intent). I cannot think of any good, practical reason not to have this article permanently semi-protected. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben MacDui: I choose not to use the name of a lump of rock, or a Greek God or whatever, (together with a Yahoo or Excite e-mail address, which would take me all of 5 minutes, if I could be bothered), on the basis that I feel my contributions should be judged on content, rather than whether I 'join the club', so to speak, and use a pseudonym rather than an I-P address - we all remain anonymous! What is more, if a person wishes to behave like a *****er, they can do so with or without a name and Wiki log-in, or several different log ins, for that matter. Don't think all named contributors are saints and I-Ps sinners - each can be equally 'good', 'or bad'. Best regards, your equally anon but always well intentioned friend 80.41.226.135 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Semi-)protection is not a step to be taken lightly for this reason. However, there is the argument that you can choose to create an account if necessary, and that semi-protection provides a way of providing greater control over the editing to an article. If accounts have obviously been created specifically to vandalise or edit war on an article, then they can be indef-blocked — yes, users can create new accounts, but this is much more hassle than it is with an IP address, as lengthy blocks are usually (but by no means always) avoided for anonymous users, for fear of penalising innocnt users. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  "I feel my contributions should be judged on content," - that is all anyone's contributions are judged upon - what we have with this article is well down a road of vandalism.  The language issue is being discussed here and that is fine, that seems to be the area you are working on.  The problem with people who don't want to call themselves after lumps of rock is that they get lumped in with those causing problems - that is your call.  All I can say is that we have had lengthy and repeated uncivil editing from anons changing maps, removing content, changing the whole lead paragraph and generally doing nothing but blatant POV pushing with zero discussion.  It has to stop - either by SP, range blocks or contacting ISP's - we have policies, and if people can't follow them then they should be shown the door. SFC9394 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not only anon editors who can be accused of POV pushing and edit warring, there are some who call themselves after "But yes!" in French who are among the worst culprits. 81.129.175.35 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing vandalism, Anon editing etc.

message: The article mentions in the demographics section, a Polish Population, the English Population has been there far longer and there are many English who live in Scots. Additionally there is a considerable Anglophobic resentment of English in Scotland particularly in rural areas with many English having suffered attacks and there being substantial dislike of "White Settlers". Whether or not one thinks Anglophobia is a good or a bad thing, should this not be mentioned in the article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.137.180 (talk • contribs) 
:Don't the English make up like 10% of the Scottish population or something? They certainly should be mentioned if that kind of thing is going to be talked about. 25,000 Americans live in Scotland btw, (and it's growing), which is more than the number of Chinese living in Scotland. Don't know about Anglophobia though ... not really serious enough of an issue to get a mention in a concise article like this ... maybe a Racism is Scotland article or something along those lines. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anglophobia certainly exists although as you say i dont think its a major enough issue to deserve any mention. siarach 10:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The English Population and Anglophobia 

message: There is no mention of the Vikings in Scotland although it had a large impact on the lands no doubt. How about we add it under a special section under history? Something like "Scotland and the Vikings" or something like that? Below text is a cut-and past from the Viking Age page:
===Scotland===
The Vikings are supposed to have led their first raids on what is now modern Scotland by the early eighth century. While there are few records, their first known attack was on the Holy island of Iona in 794, the year following the raid on the other Holy island of Lindisfarne, Northumbria.
In 839, a large Norse fleet invaded via the River Tay and River Earn, both of which were highly navigable, and reached into the heart of the Pictish kingdom of Fortriu. They defeated Eogán mac Óengusa, king of the Picts, his brother Bran and the king of the Scots of Dál Riata, Áed mac Boanta, along with many members of the Pictish aristocracy in battle. The sophisticated kingdom that had been built fell apart, as did the Pictish leadership, which had been stable for over a hundred years since the time of Óengus mac Fergusa (The accession of Cináed mac Ailpín as king of both Picts and Scots can be attributed to the aftermath of this event).
By the mid-ninth century the Norsemen had settled in Shetland, the Orkneys (the Nordreys- Norðreyjar), the Hebrides and Man, (the Sudreys- Súðreyjar - this survives in the Diocese of Sodor and Man) and parts of mainland Scotland. The Norse settlers were to some extent integrating with the local Gaelic population (see-Gall Gaidheal) in the Hebrides and Man. These areas were ruled over by local Jarls, originally captains of ships or Hersirs. The Jarl of Orkney and Shetland however, claimed supremacy.
In 875, King Harald Finehair led a fleet from Norway to Scotland. In his attempt to unite Norway, he found that many of those opposed to his rise to power had taken refuge in the Isles. From here, they were raiding not only foreign lands but were also attacking Norway itself. He organised a fleet and was able to subdue the rebels, and in doing so brought the independent Jarls under his control, many of the rebels having fled to Iceland. He found himself ruling not only Norway, but the Isles, Man and parts of Scotland.
In 876 the Gall-Gaidheal of Man and the Hebrides rebelled against Harald. A fleet was sent against them led by Ketil Flatnose to regain control. On his success, Ketil was to rule the Sudreys as a vassal of King Harald. His grandson Thorstein the Red and Sigurd the Mighty, Jarl of Orkney invaded Scotland were able to exact tribute from nearly half the kingdom until their deaths in battle. Ketil declared himself King of the Isles. Ketil was eventually outlawed and fearing the bounty on his head fled to Iceland.
The Gall-Gaidheal Kings of the Isles continued to act semi independently, in 973 forming a defensive pact with the Kings of Scotland and Strathclyde. Until, in 1095, the King of Man and the Isles, Godred Crovan, was killed by Magnus Barelegs, King of Norway. Magnus and King Edgar of Scotland agreed a treaty. The islands would be controlled by Norway, but mainland territories would go to Scotland. The King of Norway continued to be nominally king of the Isles and Man. However, in 1156, The Kingdom was split into two. The Western Isles and Man continued as to be called the "Kingdom of Man and the Isles", but the Inner Hebrides came under the influence of Somerled, a Gaelic speaker, who was styled 'King of the Hebrides'. His kingdom was to develop latterly into the Lordship of the Isles.
The Jarls of Orkney continued to rule much of Northern Scotland until 1196, when Harald Maddadsson agreed to pay tribute to William the Lion, King of Scots for his territories on the Mainland.
The end of the Viking age proper in Scotland is generally considered to be in 1266. In 1263, King Haakon IV of Norway, in retaliation for a Scots expedition to Skye, arrived on the west coast with a fleet from Norway and Orkney. His fleet linked up with those of King Magnus of Man and King Dougal of the Hebrides. After peace talks failed, his forces met with the Scots at Largs, in Ayrshire. The battle proved indecisive, but it did ensure that the Norse were not able to mount a further attack that year. Haakon died overwintering in Orkney, and by 1266, his son Magnus the Law-mender ceded the Kingdom of Man and the Isles, with all territories on mainland Scotland to Alexander III, through the Treaty of Perth.
Orkney and Shetland continued to be ruled as autonomous Jarldoms under Norway until 1468, when King Christian I pledged them as security on the dowry of his daughter, who was betrothed to James III of Scotland. The dowry was never paid, and the islands passed to Scotland.
Dubcat se 14:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland during the Viking age 

message: The Vikings are supposed to have led their first raids on what is now modern Scotland by the early eighth century. While there are few records, their first known attack was on the Holy island of Iona in 794, the year following the raid on the other Holy island of Lindisfarne, Northumbria.
In 839, a large Norse fleet invaded via the River Tay and River Earn, both of which were highly navigable, and reached into the heart of the Pictish kingdom of Fortriu. They defeated Eogán mac Óengusa, king of the Picts, his brother Bran and the king of the Scots of Dál Riata, Áed mac Boanta, along with many members of the Pictish aristocracy in battle. The sophisticated kingdom that had been built fell apart, as did the Pictish leadership, which had been stable for over a hundred years since the time of Óengus mac Fergusa (The accession of Cináed mac Ailpín as king of both Picts and Scots can be attributed to the aftermath of this event).
By the mid-ninth century the Norsemen had settled in Shetland, the Orkneys (the Nordreys- Norðreyjar), the Hebrides and Man, (the Sudreys- Súðreyjar - this survives in the Diocese of Sodor and Man) and parts of mainland Scotland. The Norse settlers were to some extent integrating with the local Gaelic population (see-Gall Gaidheal) in the Hebrides and Man. These areas were ruled over by local Jarls, originally captains of ships or Hersirs. The Jarl of Orkney and Shetland however, claimed supremacy.
In 875, King Harald Finehair led a fleet from Norway to Scotland. In his attempt to unite Norway, he found that many of those opposed to his rise to power had taken refuge in the Isles. From here, they were raiding not only foreign lands but were also attacking Norway itself. He organised a fleet and was able to subdue the rebels, and in doing so brought the independent Jarls under his control, many of the rebels having fled to Iceland. He found himself ruling not only Norway, but the Isles, Man and parts of Scotland.
In 876 the Gall-Gaidheal of Man and the Hebrides rebelled against Harald. A fleet was sent against them led by Ketil Flatnose to regain control. On his success, Ketil was to rule the Sudreys as a vassal of King Harald. His grandson Thorstein the Red and Sigurd the Mighty, Jarl of Orkney invaded Scotland were able to exact tribute from nearly half the kingdom until their deaths in battle. Ketil declared himself King of the Isles. Ketil was eventually outlawed and fearing the bounty on his head fled to Iceland.
The Gall-Gaidheal Kings of the Isles continued to act semi independently, in 973 forming a defensive pact with the Kings of Scotland and Strathclyde. Until, in 1095, the King of Man and the Isles, Godred Crovan, was killed by Magnus Barelegs, King of Norway. Magnus and King Edgar of Scotland agreed a treaty. The islands would be controlled by Norway, but mainland territories would go to Scotland. The King of Norway continued to be nominally king of the Isles and Man. However, in 1156, The Kingdom was split into two. The Western Isles and Man continued as to be called the "Kingdom of Man and the Isles", but the Inner Hebrides came under the influence of Somerled, a Gaelic speaker, who was styled 'King of the Hebrides'. His kingdom was to develop latterly into the Lordship of the Isles.
The Jarls of Orkney continued to rule much of Northern Scotland until 1196, when Harald Maddadsson agreed to pay tribute to William the Lion, King of Scots for his territories on the Mainland.
The end of the Viking age proper in Scotland is generally considered to be in 1266. In 1263, King Haakon IV of Norway, in retaliation for a Scots expedition to Skye, arrived on the west coast with a fleet from Norway and Orkney. His fleet linked up with those of King Magnus of Man and King Dougal of the Hebrides. After peace talks failed, his forces met with the Scots at Largs, in Ayrshire. The battle proved indecisive, but it did ensure that the Norse were not able to mount a further attack that year. Haakon died overwintering in Orkney, and by 1266, his son Magnus the Law-mender ceded the Kingdom of Man and the Isles, with all territories on mainland Scotland to Alexander III, through the Treaty of Perth.
Orkney and Shetland continued to be ruled as autonomous Jarldoms under Norway until 1468, when King Christian I pledged them as security on the dowry of his daughter, who was betrothed to James III of Scotland. The dowry was never paid, and the islands passed to Scotland.
Dubcat se 14:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scotland