Category talk:Orcadian Wikipedians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Scandinavian too? 2 I GIVE UP! 3 Independent Orkney and Shetland wiki site 4 In Scotland?

[edit] Scandinavian too?

Should this category be both a member of Category:Scottish Wikipedians and Category:Scandinavian Wikipedians? Lets discuss rather than revert... I'm posting a link to this discussion to all members of the cat, and related projects. Thanks/wangi 13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of this controversy and where it began. I've been lurking there, following it closely, but haven't weighed in yet. This all depends on how we define the terms. Are we defining the terms "Scottish" and "Scandinavian" on the basis of historical ethnicity or of modern nationality? If the issue is to be settled academically, that question must first be answered. It is an historical fact that Scandinavians (Vikings/Norsemen) have contributed significantly to the gene pool of the Orcadians. In that sense, most Orcadians can claim at least some Scandinavian ancestry. On the other hand, the islands most probably first belonged to the Gaels and/or Picts and have belonged to Scotland for centuries. In that sense, most Orcadians can also claim Scottish (Gaelic/Celtic) ancestry and present-day Scottish nationality. If it were up to me, I would leave it as a member of Category:Scottish Wikipedians but, not include it in Category:Scandinavian Wikipedians, simply because I believe in allowing people to self-identify. If some Orcadians (or indeed, even a majority of them) prefer to think of themselves as Scandinavian, they can manually include that category on their user page. So my answer, pending an absolute definition of terms (ethnicity or nationality as the basis), is "no".--WilliamThweatt 15:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an encyclopedic category, it's purely userspace... So if Orcandians identify themself as both Scottish (and part of the UK) and Scandinavian then it makes sense to have this category be in both of those. However they could just as easily manually add both Orcandian and Scandy to their user page. /wangi 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to the likes of Mais oui! (who, it is clear from comments I find all over Wikipedia, has his own "Scotticising" agenda) to decide what categories this category belongs to. It is just as reasonable for Orcadian Wikipedians to belong to the UK, Scottish and Scandinavian categories as it would be for Monmouthshire Wikipedians to belong to the UK, English and Welsh categories. Mallimak 16:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Scandinavians still see Orkney and Shetland as forming a part of Scandinavia (an historic and cultural designation rather than a political one), which is why they will allow the coats of arms of Orcadians and Shetlanders to be placed in the Skandinavisk Vapenrulla, a right they do not extend to any other area of the UK. The flag of Orkney (which you see flying all over the islands) is a Scandinavian cross based on that of the Kalmar Union of which Orkney was a part. Every year the Norwegian Tog is celebrated in Kirkwall. Members of the Norwegian Royal family visit the islands annually. Need I go on? Mallimak 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavian is a geographical term, and it is crystal clear that Orkney is not part of Scandinavia. User cats must conform to logic too. Nigeria is a former UK colony, much, much more recently than Orkney was a Norwegian colony, but we do not categorise Nigerian Wikipedians as being UK Wikipedians.

Mallimak's attempts to invent a new ethnicity called "Orcadian" stray deep into the territory of Wikipedia:Original research, and, as I see it, have profoundly unpleasant undertones. Scotland is a civil society, not one based on narrow, and frankly laughable, pseudo-ethnicity mumbo jumbo. --Mais oui! 23:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

“Orcadian” is a perfectly legitimate term widely used to describe all those people I have contributed articles about – as Mais oui! would discover if he took the trouble to read some books on Orkney. For example:

The Orkney Book edited by Donald Omand

The New Orkney Book by Shearer, Groundwater and John D. Mackay (this is school textbook from the 1960s)

An Orkney Anthology, edited by J.D. Robertson

As an instance, the introduction to the last of these books begins with words: “Ernest Walker Marwick was a distinguished Orcadian ..” My article on Ernest Marwick is one of those where Mais oui! has been determined to constantly change “Orcadian” to “Scottish”.

Furthermore, the term “Orcadian” gives extra information that is lost if it is replaced by “Scottish”, analogously to the information that would be lost by replacing “Scottish” by “British”, or “British” by “European”. Therefore, Mais oui!’s changes are diminishing the quality of the information in Wikipedia.

As noted on the “Orkney people stubs” discussion:

“Comment- Mais_oui! has a history of going through articles changing "British" to "Scottish"- so it isn't very surprising he is opposing the changes you made. Astrotrain 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)“.

I take it that Mais oui! considers it an improvement to the information content to change appropriate occurrences of "British" to "Scottish", so likewise he should respect and appreciate the value of the use of the term “Orcadian” where I have used it.

To scotch the potential “nationality” argument here and now: there is no “Scottish” nationality, the Scots have British nationality, just as have the Orcadians.

If the Nigerian Wikipedians were to decide to join the category UK Wikipedians that is up to them, it is not up to me or Mais oui! or anybody else to tell them they are wrong and keep visiting their page and changing it. I request Mais oui! to show more respect to the Orcadian Wikipedians. Mallimak 10:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mallimak, you're doing yourself a dis-service by posting that rant here (and everywhere else). It is not directly related to the question above - you seem to be wanting to escalate the problem, rather than resolve anything. Nobody is saying there shouldn't be an Orcadian category (comparable to Category:Glasgow Wikipedians if it existed), and Mais Oui - this is userspace, so original research and like don't matter, this isn't part of the encyclopedia.

This "rant" as you call it, was in response to Mais oui!'s objection (above) to the use of the term "Orcadian". Please take the trouble to consider seriously what I am saying. I have backed it up with references, this is not just my POV. Mallimak 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As per WilliamThweatt above, if any Orcadian also feels they are Scandinavian too then there is nothing stopping them adding that category to their userpage (which is just like people adidng both Scottish and UK). However that shouldn't be something forced on them, unless all members agree - I posted a pointer to this discussion on each members talk page... No responses, so I'm thinking most don't care... The category should just be a member of the Scottish Wikipedian's category to reflect the heirarchy (UK-Scotland-Orkney).

On the wider issue, Scandinavian can be both a geographical and cultural term. However for culture Nordic is more often used, in particular see Nordic countries#Shetland and Orkney. Thanks/wangi 11:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is what I think is the best compromise: Let's remove both the Scandinavian Wikipedians category AND the Scottish Wikipedian's category, and leave it to the members to add these categories to their userpage if they wish to. I think this is the fairest way to do it. Mallimak 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem with that is it ignores the hierarchical nature of categories. If the category is in the Scottish Wikipedian's category then the category itself will be listed within the super-cat - not all the individual users. This accurately reflects that Orkney is part of Scotland, is part of the UK, is part of the EU - if you follow the hierarchy back up. /wangi 15:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How dare you (Mallimak) come here asking for us to "respect" you when you have spent your entire Wikipedia career to date removing articles from the Scottish cats, removing nationalty and all references to Scotland and making personal attacks on me. Read WP:NPA and grow up. And stop patronising people, we are not the total idiots you think we are.

Are you saying that "Scandinavian" is an ethnicity? Are you saying that "Orcadian" is an ethnicity or a nationality? I have spent years living in Scandinavia, and I can tell you that Scandinavians hold a very dim view of ethno-idiocy. Scandinavia is a cultural melting-pot, like Scotland, and totally rejects fringe attempts by loonies to impose ethnic definitions. Orkney is as "Scandinavian" as Rhodes is "Turkish". --Mais oui! 12:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a point somewhere between the stands of Mais oui! and Mallimak is where the truth lies. Orkney is a part of Scotland. Control over the islands defaulted to the King of Scotland, not the King of England or UK. However to say that Orkney (and Shetland) is just another part of Scotland and that there is no separate Orcadian identity is not corect. The Orkneys have a different history from mainland Scotland. They were Norwegian for hundreds of years and had a different language (Norn) from mainland Scotland for hundreds of years after that. The agreement between Norway and Scotland provided that Norwegian law should continue on the islands and some remnants are atill active 1 under Constituency link(Udal law). As to ethnicity I agree that it is not a major point in Scandinavia today, but it is worth pointing out that a study featured on the BBC documentary Blood of the Vikings found that 60% of Orcadian males have DNA of Norwegian origin 2. And finally to the point of how the Orcadians feel about themselves I believe it is best to just listen to what the locals say. If an editor from Orkney says he and the people he knows feel they have a distinct Orcadian identity and do not belong to the Scottish identity I am inclined to believe him. It is certainly not up to me, a Scottish editor or anyone else to determine which identity the Orcadians should adopt. My personal experience (for what it may count) with Shetlanders is that they consistently describe themselves as not Scottish. Many feel more related to Scandinavians, but seem to me to also share many cultural traits with the people of mainland Scotland. (I have no personal experience with Orcadians).Inge 12:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to the particular issue of this Category should be a subcategory of Scandinavian Wikipedians I think it should definately be part of the Scottish wikipedians category as Orkney is politically without doubt subordinate to Scotland. The issue over whether it should also be in the Scandinavian category could be resolved once and for all by a vote taken from the members of the category. Inge 12:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I GIVE UP!

I have tried to contribute articles on topics about which I have knowledge, such as Orkney, but the articles have been subjected to constant destructive editing, and I have been subjected to repeated harassment, mainly by Mais oui!, that I see no point in continuing.

I have now joined the ever-growing category of disillusioned Wikipedians. Mallimak 01:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Orkney and Shetland wiki site

User:Mallimak and I held a meeting in Stromness this weekend with a number of interested parties and a group of visiting colleagues from Shetland.

We are all shocked at the way Orkney contributors and contributions have been treated on Wikipedia. It is clear to us that Wikipedia has less to do with encyclopaedic articles and more to do with information control.

There is currently a group of “Wikipedians” dedicated to editing Orkney articles to suit their own agenda and attacking anybody who tries to resist them. None of us can compete with those with the time and inclination to make literally a hundred or more edits each day. We would be willing to contribute scholarly articles and to allow them to be edited (if necessary) and added to by responsible editors – but that is not how things are happening on Wikipedia.

We have resolved to get our own independent wiki site up and running exclusively for encyclopaedic articles on Orkney and Shetland. We shall be approaching local internet service providers and website developers to help us set this up.

If you are interested in contributing to this project please leave a message on this page. (The Orcadian Wikipedians’ Noticeboard was demolished!)

Locally, we shall advertise in the press in due course.

Orkadian 17:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

this would be very sad. I am not Orcadian but I have visited it many times (in a cottage in Stromness). I have only just discovered the Orkney articles in Wikipedia and I have started to edit them factually but "as though I was an Orcadian" ... see my edits on "the Mainland" issue and my attempt to get the Orkney Islands article renamed "Orkney". Then I saw your note which led me to me first visit here. WOW. What a shambles the above so called discussion is. What are you all thinking of? Come on guys please don't let Wikipedia down and please let's not ignore the views and valuable information and insights brought to us by actual Orcadians.Abtract 07:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in DavisWiki, a wiki dedicated to the city of Davis, which is in California (U.S. west coast). It's run by and for Davisites (folks from Davis), and it quite a wonderful resource. That said, I think that Wikipedia shall miss your contributions very much if you were to leave allthegither. Shetland, Orkney, Caithness and all the areas of Scotland with large Norse/Scandinavian populations are lucky to have a rich history full of cultural traditions all their own. This should be respected on Wikipedia. I feel that a small group of talented editors, contributing to an area of the Wikipedia that they know lots about, is the most valuable thing we have, and creates our best articles. I encourage you all to create your local wiki, but to also continue to contribue to Wikipedia. I'll volunteer myself to come to examine arguments like this in the future, if it would help. Canæn 07:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Scotland?

I have watched with a distinct lack of interest the edit war on categorisation, until today when I happened to notice that the Scottish wording says "Wikipedians in Scotland" whereas this page is "Orcadian Wikipedians" ... notice they don't have to be in Orkney or, importantly, in Scotland. Therefore I humbly suggest the Scottish category is technically inaccurate and should be removed.Abtract 23:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hairs, splitting. Wikipiedia user categories use a number of different naming standards, you're welcome to try and gain some standardisation on them! However the categorisation scheme uses sub-categories and it's clear from a geographical and political perspective that Orkney is a sub-division of Scotland (which in turn is of the UK). Thanks/wangi 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with that if it said Scottish Wikipedians but it doesn't. However life is too short to argue about it. If we are going to be somewhat loose, in our wording then perhaps we should at least define what we mean in an intro to OW as has been done in WiS. I will have a go.Abtract 23:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I guess the idea with "Wikipedians in Scotland" is to be more inclusive - not just those who are Scottish, but also those living in Scotland. Thanks/wangi 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We ought to add a UK category to this and presumabluy an EU one, if it exists, but I can't figure out how.Abtract 23:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not necessary, the Scotland cat is in the UK cat, is in the ... You get the idea - it's a hierarchy. Thanks/wangi 23:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes I see, one leads to another, thanks.Abtract 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)