Talk:Scottish national identity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Scottish national identity is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) - needs references, per WP:CITE
WikiProject Scotland To-do: edit  Template:Scotland opentask

This article was nominated for deletion on September 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Discussion 2 Original research 3 Depressing 4 Request for Comment 4.1 Comments

[edit] Discussion

First thing to my mind when clicking the link was the Scotland football team and brave defeat. CalG 02:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is just clutter. No attempt at NPOV has been made. There are numerous other articles on en: wiki that cover this topic ad infinitum. Rambling. No focus or purpose to the article. Cliche. User:Mais oui!

Dear User:JW1805, much of your criticism is correct. This stub needs a dramatic overhaul, which I'll endeavour to give it. I've not come across these "numerous other articles", so links to them would be helpful. I note that Mais oui! has added a notice proposing to merge this with Scottish independence but has not had the courtesy to give any reasons on either talk page. As should become clear from revisions to this article, such a redirect would be wholly inappropriate....dave souza 21:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't leave the above comment (Actually, Mais oui! did, but didn't sign it). All I did was add the stub tag to the article. --JW1805 01:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for mistakenly thinking that was your edit. Wee May having written it makes more sense...dave souza 16:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Dave, I do think a valid article can be written here, but it will need a different approach. It has to record the debate not have it. You'll need quote and cite sources on all sides. (I also wonder about the title 'national' does it begger the question of what type of identity Scots have - is it regional, national, or supressed.) Scots can feel both Scottish and British - but do they? how strong are both feelings? Anyway, good luck with it - I'd not know where to start. --Doc (?) 21:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

N.B. the encyclopediac definition is that Scotland is a nation but not a state; this is why Scotland possesses a National Assembly. However I feel the term 'Scottish Identity' would be more than sufficient. ~Cel 21/10/05

Doc, that's my best shot for now, hope it explains things better and gives a suitable framework for future work. Sources at present are minimal: there was a good article about Asian/Scots in last Sunday's Herald, but online their search doesn't seem to work (with Safari?). It's a national identity because all Scots will tend to feel a vague unity (sometimes including Geordies as honorary Scots) at the same time as identifying with regional and local areas. Hey, I identify a bit with Inverclyde and Glasgow, and I'm a Leither who emigrated here....dave souza 16:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

This looks like it has been written to give the viewpoint of some rabid nationalist idiot. No sensible person in Scotland really believe anyone oppresses their culture or what have you. And to suggest that British identity is somehow false or manufactured is nonsense. User:Breadandcheese

This article needs some whinging about the oppression and marginalisation of Gaelic culture by the English lowlanders.

84.135.242.170 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone here come across a very fine publication by Dr. William Ferguson? The Identity of the Scottish Nation: an historic quest. Edin. Uni. Press 1998. Deals with rather a lot of the issues raised and rather badly dealt with in this article, specifically the Scots/Inglis, Scots/Erse tribulations.Brendandh 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Right now this article consists of nothing but. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a publisher of original thought. Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "I'm from Scotland and I know this to be true" counts for nothing. If you can't back up your facts by citing reliable sources then they don't belong here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Depressing

This article is very, very depressing. Celebration of "Scotsness" is a good thing and national pride should be admired as much here as elsewhere in the world. Yet some people haven't got their head round the fact that one can have multi-identities. I'm a Catholic Lowland Scots Ulsterman living in Lothian in the Island of Great Britain and part of the European sphere in a small planet that rotates around a fairly insignificant ball of fire somewhere in the Milky-way. The Northern Islesmen can shout all they like about supposed cultural independence, but a FACT, the Nordreys were ceded to Scotland by Christian I of Norway in 1468 for non payment of Dowry, and have been Scots ever since. Regional identities are certainly important but in this article should be assigned to paragraphs rather than dodgy deleting wars. A'body wi' me? Brendandh 03:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

This article has seen a long edit war over the inclusion of a statement that "[most/many] Orcadians and Shetlanders have a distinct national identity which is at odds with the idea of a Scottish national identity". --18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• This statement seems inconsistent with WP:NPOV and no verifiable, neutral references have been provided to support it. The websites of regional activist groups (1) do not meet the requirements of WP:V. Stating that a cited work is "wrong" (2) is not a reason include personal commentary or original research. --YFB ¿ 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The statement on [1]:"After considerable research we now believe that there need be no barrier to the achievement of a status similar to that of the Isle of Man or the Faroes. This would mean maintaining our relationship with the UK, but with considerable autonomy over our own affairs." would appear to be a clear enough statement that "[most/many] Orcadians and Shetlanders have a distinct national identity which is at odds with the idea of a Scottish national identity"! What else do you need in the way of evidence? (Does it take, for example, this source to be cited in PhD thesis before it is acceptable?) 81.156.63.64 23:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

This website [2] does not meet WP:RS which says.

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Therefore the statement and source should not be placed on the page until such a reliable source is found.--Zleitzen 23:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no verifiable sources anywhere to back up the comment that "Orcadians and Shetlanders have an identity at odds with a Scottish one. There are plenty of sources which suggest they have their own identity, which the article reflects, and is common knowledge. There has been similar abuse of Orkney and Shetland related articles before. In that instance, the user was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Globaltraveller 07:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The User who was permanently banned - User:Orkadian - is a sockpupper of User:Mallimak, as is User:81.156.63.64, commenting above. In fact every single disruptive edit to this article, and hundreds of other Orkney-related articles, is by Mallimak and his sockpuppets. Time for a permanent ban of the puppetmaster and all his blatant socks. --Mais oui! 09:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of verifiable sources to show a resentment in Orkney of the "annexation" to rather unpleasant Stuart rule, in the same way as there are Scots who still resent proud Edward and object to a British identity. I've not seen evidence of to what extent, if any, Orcadians reject Scottish identity. To meet this point, "generally" could be added, so that the sentence reads "a strong sense of regional identity, generally alongside the idea of a Scottish national identity".. dave souza, talk 09:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with YFB and Zleitzen. Unless you can cite reliable sources to back up your facts, don't add them. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The radical campaign website linked-to is most definitely not a reliable source, as Zleitzen has explained above. Dave souza, if you have plenty of verifiable sources please produce them. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comments so far. However, I'd go further than Dave. Google books will find quotes, like: "Muir was an Orkney man who never quite felt that he was Scottish" (Paul Henderson Scott, Towards Independence.). Cohen, Signifying Identities, has some interesting stuff. Waller & Cryon, Almanac of British Politics, p.621, is good. I could go on, and if I had the time I would. Even though Mallimak is an editor with a strong opinion, who fails to substantiate his additions, there's little doubt that even quick and dirty research could make the case that he wants to include here. Simply to revert his changes because he fails to provide sources, when any good faith effort to fact-check the additions would find that there are indeed sources supporting them, is not constructive editing. Your mileage may vary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:V: "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor". Failing to cite reliable sources is a perfectly acceptable reason to revert a user's edits. We are not in the business of "making cases" using evidence. From WP:OR: "Articles may not contain ... any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position". Most people can back up their opinions with evidence, that does not make them any less opinions. See also WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#OR. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In another world we might commune with the Spirit of NPOV to determine the Right Thing. In this one, Mallimak wants to give more weight to the idea that Orkney/Shetland are semi-detached parts of Scotland; Mais oui! and others don't. Both are arguments for which good cases can be made, fully compliant with WP:V. If you can suggest a way of resolving content disputes which doesn't involve comparing the arguments, or cases, made on each side, I'd be interested to hear it. If we end up with undue weight being given to the case of Orkney and Shetland, the answer is to expand the rest of the article, rather than trying to cut the coverage of the northern isles. One thing's sure, edit warring is not the answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me clarify. There would be nothing wrong with: "Source-X states 'Orkney is a semi-detached part of Scotland', while Source-Y states 'most Orcadians consider themselves fully Scottish'". What would be wrong would be stating either opinion as truth and producing evidence to try to back up that opinion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's roughly what I meant. I apologise for being as clear as mud. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me! This entire article cites but a single reference, barely any of it has been verified, so why pick on the Orkney and Shetland contributions? Without a doubt there is a lot of Scottish "spinning" going on in Wikipedia (perpetuated by User:Mais_oui! among others - who were determined to stifle any "dissent" from the Northern Isles - e.g. witness their wholesale destruction of the Portal:Orkney and Wikipedia:Orcadian Wikipedians' notice board). If we can't rely on these articles (which we clearly cannot), what message does this send out about the rest of the project? 81.158.167.130 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Quit the personal abuse Mallimak. Your campaign of vandalism has been stopped dead in its tracks by the Wikipedia community acting through consensus. You are a thoroughly unpleasant individual, who has subjected me to a ceaseless campaign of vitriolic personal abuse bordering on obsession, and your opinions carry zero weight with me. Grow up and stop using countless IP addresses. --Mais oui! 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we can quite happily discount the above rantings. (I am not the first to bring his/her name into this discussion.) 81.158.167.130 18:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)