Talk:Scotland/Archive 5

message: *"Scotland's legal and educational systems remained separate" (or words to that effect): true, certainly, with regard to the legal system. But was there an educational system in 1707?
*"England assembled a huge army at the border in case the Scottish voted against it" — firstly, England (in the abstract) couldn't. Quen Anne could, I suppose — but was she proposing to invade herself? This sounds suspiciously like tonypandy. Doops |  talk 00:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, let me clarify. Of course there were schools and universities before 1707; but they didn't really have anything to do with the government. That's what I meant by "education system": the relatively modern notion that education is a public function. Doops |  talk 02:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, there was universal education in Scotland by 1707? I didn't know that. OK, yeah, that does qualify as a "system," whether set up by the state or the (established) church. Doops |  talk 00:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was universal provision ("a school in every parish"). That's one of the reasons that Scots were so successful internationally  during the 18th and 19th centuries. Nobody else had a proper education system until the Prussians set one up in the 1870s. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 00:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious statements about act of union 

message: Is there any artcle on a scottish science centre called Our Dynamic Earth[]? It's in Edinburgh and it contained several interactive sections that relate to different terrains/time periods of earth(i.e. A dinosaur section and a rainforest section). It also contained a kid's play area. I've been there once or twice, and it's pretty good.
:There's no mention of it in the Edinburgh article. You might want to ask on that article's talk page. Doops |  talk 23:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if memory serves me correct, I believe it to be near the Palace of Holyroodhouse and the new Scottish Parliament, along the road that extends from Cowgate in the direction opposite from the Grassmarket --Grcampbell 16:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: Just for the record, Mais oui! — nobody was saying anything about Bell's nationality. The previous wording of that sentence wasn't about the people doing the inventing it was about the place where the inventing was taking place. Doops |  talk 04:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the above comment was not to criticize the edit but the edit summary, which mischaracterized the previous edit. And once again, I have to put on the record my disapprobation of Mais oui!'s latest edit summary. Again, I make no comment about the content of the edit; but he's called a legitimate attepmpt to edit the article a "test"; which it clearly isn't. Doops |  talk 18:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit summaries 

message: :The complaint about telephones is that some people do not consider Bell to be the true inventor and many other people from other countries apparently got there first but didn't patent or commercialise the invention. But whither Bell really invented the telephone is for the telephone page and Bells own biographers to discuss. 
:There will often be disputes over the nationality of inventors. I had a history teacher who claimed that all "Scottish inventions" were not Scottish because almost all the ones you can name where invented after the inventor had emigrated to or from Scotland. So either they were not from Scotland originally, or else they were from Scotland but then living elsewhere. 
:To take an example - the Mine detector was invented in Fife in Scotland (Source BBC Program "Coast") by a Polish officer who was stationed there during WWII.
:Ultimately, such inventions could be legitimately claimed by both countries. A link to the relevant pages e.g. telephone or Alexander Graham Bell provides the additional information to make the complication clear.
:It may be better to reword the paragraph to talk about "inventors form Scotland" rather than the actual inventions. The full list of Scottish inventions is very long and many inventors had more than just the one invention (e.g. reading Bell's biography he invented more than just the telephone).Rincewind42 |  talk 21:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Telephone, I

message: To say that Bell invented the telephone is inconsistant, because the page about the telephone itself does not recognise him as the sole inventor: It is important to note that there is probably no one "inventor of the telephone." The modern telephone is the result of work done by many hands, all worthy of recognition of their addition to the field.
sigh.. I'm going to remove the telephone entry again.......
:But this page Alexander Graham Bell does clame Bell as the inventor. Before editing the Scotland page to remove the telephone - edit the Alexander Graham Bell page and see what responce you get!
Several of the links showed no Scottish connection, so I've read between the lines and found the relevant Scots. Would this be better as a subsection rather than part of the intro?..dave souza 00:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telephone, II 

message: The wikilink Aberdeenshire directs to a disambiguation page. On the disambiguation page there are two options: 
* Aberdeenshire (unitary)
* Aberdeenshire (traditional).
About 130 pages link to Aberdeenshire when they should go directly to one of the options above. Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links would appreciate your help in fixing up this problem, and some Scottish expertise would be useful.  --Commander Keane 10:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aberdeenshire 

message: Just a question - do we have a source to support the claim that Killie are the world's oldest football club?  This seems to be claimed by Sheffield FC, formed in 1857. , .  Can anyone clarify, or is Killie just the oldest in Scotland? --OorWullie 18:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killie 

message: The following has been removed from the article...
:Ice Hockey is a direct descendant of shinty, having been invented by shinty playing Scottish Gaels on the frozen lakes of Canada.
...but there may well be something in it. Certainly an ice hockey stick looks nothing like a field hockey stick or a hurling stick (the other two oft-quoted possible ancestors of ice hockey) but it does look identical to a shinty stick. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 04:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shinty and Ice Hockey

message: sad that people think scotland is in any way independent. it is ENGLISH and forever will be. scotland is to england what palestine is to israel.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.118.141.133 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 October 2005
:With people dying in the violence in Palestine every day, I think it is sad that anyone can make such an inept comparison.  Scotland is doing well.  If it stays in the Union it will continue to do well.  If it becomes independent it will also continue to do well.  There are serious questions about what is best for Scotland, but don't let's cheapen the debate by pretending to be some kind of persecuted minority.  --Doric Loon 21:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sad 

message: The Scotland Portal is now up and running. It is a project in the early stages of development, but I think it could be a very useful resource indeed, perhaps more for general readers (the vast majority I presume), rather than committed editors, who may be more attracted by the great possibilities of the notice board format: Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board.
Give it a Watch, and lend a hand if you can. It is (hopefully) fairly low-maintenance, but if we run with the "News" section, that will take dedication: time which I cannot commit to presently myself. Most other boxes need replacment/update only weekly, fortnightly, or monthly, plus the occasional refreshment of the Scotland-related categories. Anyway, I assume this is how the other Portals are run, so we can follow their lead.
Please add the following code -  - to your own User page, and you will have the link to the portal right there for easy access. I will investigate how other portals use shortcuts too.
Assistance from Wikipedians in the rest of the UK, and indeed everywhere, would be greatly appreciated!--Mais oui! 08:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Scotland|Scotland Portal]] 

message: Why are 18th-19th century Clearances of the Highlands of Scotland not mentioned in this article? Thanks, Ginger Helgeson 06:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Highland Clearances are referenced in the History of Scotland, Scottish Highlands and Scottish Gaelic language articles (among many others). wangi 11:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Clearances 

message: Could some of you Scots please go over to Talk:Turnip and just clarify Scottish usage there?  (No need to discuss it here, though!) --Doric Loon 15:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Turnip

message: A recent edit has placed the inventions section in the introductory section. User 82.41.24.130 (talk) did this, explaining that Especially for non-scots, Scotland's contribution to the world is very important, and considering that most readers will not go past the intro, the 'inventions' section should go here. In my view, and I do not care that much, this isn't a good reason, and looks like a nationalistic boast. I do not see the same phenomenon in other country articles. Should this be in the Scotland one? And why then confine it to inventions? - Calgacus 17:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be in the lead section, but was moved to a separate "Scottish Inventions" section fairly recently. I think it is much better placed in a separate section rather than the lead. It should be retained though, because we have a long and proud history of major contributions to modern society through the inventions of Scots. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that; my only real objection was its presence in the lead section. Calgacus 18:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventors 

message: If we are to aspire to get this article to Featured standard, then it may be wise for us to consider the guidelines provided at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries.
In particular, to the Article structure and the Article template sections at that Wikiproject. 
For example, here are some relevant passages:
*Lead section
The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). If the etymology of a country's name is too long to explain in the lead section, split it out into a separate section (titled "Name" or similar). Naming disputes can also be handled in separate sections.
*Sections
The rest of the article should consist of a few short paragraphs. These paragraphs should give an outline of the history/politics/etc. of the country and link to a full article on them.
*The sections are:
**History
**Politics
**Subdivisions
**Geography
**Economy
**Demographics
**Culture
**Miscellaneous topics
**External links
I note that we are missing demographics and subdivisions. --Mais oui! 11:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As of [this edit] , text is down to 41 kilobytes, is much reorderded, and the history section is moreover of proper size and balance. I will leave the two missing sections to others. - Calgacus 15:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 40 kilobytes now with brief Subdivisions and Demographics sections added. Benarty 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries]] 

message: Over 130 edits have been made on one single day (today, 27 dec 2005, and it is still only 8pm), in addition to a very large number of edits yesterday. I would like to request that all editors of this article give the entire article a very thorough proof-read.--Mais oui! 20:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. There needs to be some mechanism for keeping the text down at or below 39 kilobytes. Unless it is monitered, the text will eventually spiral back to the 50s region, through people adding clarifications, promotions of their own interests and nationalistic boasts. - Calgacus 00:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do on the proof read. I've added a map of the pre-Norman kingdoms to replace the harp. See what you think. I think it makes the text easier to follow for people who are not 100% clear on where these early kingdoms were. Benarty 06:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof read urgently required: 130 edits in less than 24 hours