Talk:Hebrides

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hebrides is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Ireland forms part of the British Isles; there is a discussion in that article on other possible terms for the island group (Islands of the North Atlantic, etc), but "British Isles and Ireland" is non-sensical. "British Isles" is by far the most widely used term for the archipelago and is particularly useful in this article which does not describe a location in Ireland. Warofdreams 17:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Edgar and Magnus

Edgar did not 'sign over' the Isles to Magnus, because he clearly could not give what he did not possess. The exact political status of the Hebrides had been uncertain for many years. The treaty of 1098 merely attempted to create a clear demarcation, with the Isles going to Magnus and the mainland to Edgar.

[edit] Geography and Agriculture

The Hebrides sections are weak on the physical geography and the agricultural methods of the region. I will think about what to do about it and encourage others to do also. MartinY 17:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Rcpaterson 02:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Island Template

I have created a Template:Infobox Scottish island for use with Scottish islands which is based on the existing Template:Infobox Scotland place but which contains parameters which may be more useful for smaller islands which don't have their own police force or Lord Lieutenant. Comments are welcome on the associated talk page.

I have created it as a template for all Scottish islands and used an image of a longboat next to the Saltire to emphasise the difference with the Scotland place Template. The said image is called Image:McdonaldBoat.jpg. Before ancient foes of Clan Donald complain, I am assured by User:Calgacus that the proper name for this image is a 'Lymphad' and that its was actually purloined from the Russian wikipedia. He also points out that the same image appears for example at the bottom of Image:Norse-Gael_Warrior.PNG[1] and the Sinclair Orkney arms [2] [3] which suggests to me that the lymphad may be appropriate for all our isles whether they have a primarily Celtic or primarily Norse history. This note has been copied in various places including Talk:Orkney Talk:Shetland Talk:Hebrides Talk:Islands of the Clyde etc.

An example of the template may be found at:Flannan Isles

There is space for references. Groupings and population information are available at List of islands of Scotland the latter being based on the 2001 census. Area measurements for the 162 islands of 100 acres or more in size are available in Haswell-Smith, Hamish. (2004) The Scottish Islands. Edinburgh. Canongate. I'd be happy to pass the relevant numbers on if needed, although I doubt I am going to get around to listing all 162. There is more on this subject at Template talk:Infobox Scottish island. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm likely to get round to listing all 162 either, but it would be very interesting to see the list. Warofdreams talk 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Isles

Isn't a historical title of Scottish kings "King of Scotland and The Western Isles", denoting that a) they were considered a separate legal entity from the mainland, and b) they came under Scottish soveriegnity at some period? I'm uncertain, however, if the title is legit or a romantic contrivance. LessHeard vanU 12:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation?

How is this supposed to be pronounced? Zigzig20s 18:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Heb-ri-deez 69.110.26.30 06:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It should maybe best be written with IPA in consideration, like some of the more major Wikipedia articles. Nagelfar (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, although I for one, and I suspect the majority have no idea as to how IPA works. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 13:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archipelago...?

I can't say I'm keen on the use of the term "archipelago" in this article.

It's a bit of a "fuzzy" word with no technically unambiguous definition, and I personally see the inner and outer isles as being quite distinct, thus two archipelagos.

Due to the potential for confusion and disagreement, I'm inclined to take it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Wrong (talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand my above point -- the British Isles is "an archipelago". Not only is it a pretty meaningless term, but I don't recall ever having heard the word outside of very technical contexts -- it's not common in the UK at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Wrong (talk • contribs) 12:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not my experience. See for example:

  • Murray, W.H. (1973) The Islands of Western Scotland. London. Eyre Methuen. Page 23.
  • Murray (1966) The Hebrides. London. Heinemann. Page 1: "An archipelago of more than five hundred..." are the opening words.
  • "The archipelago of St Kilda" - the opening words of the SNH St Kilda World Heritage site (http://www.kilda.org.uk/). Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 14:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
But aren't those books covered by my earlier term "technical contexts"? It's not exactly man-in-the-street language, is it?
Regardless, your last quote demonstrated my point quite nicely: St Kilda is an archipelago. It is part of the archipelago of the Western Isles, which is part of the archipelago of the Hebrides, which itself forms a part of the archipelago of the British Isles.
I don't feel that the word adds anything to the article, and actually serves to make it harder for the average person to read. I reckon it qualifies as jargon. Prof Wrong (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right - there are smaller archipelagos within larger ones. Nothing unusual about that. Murray was arguably the foremost author of his generation on the subject and his books were specifically for a lay audience. I wonder if it is possible you think this word is unusual, when I would describe it as fairly ubiquitous in the context, because you are simply unfamiliar with the subject matter? I don't have any evidence to hand but I rather imagine knowledge of the word 'archipelago' is part of the Standard Grade geography curriculum rather than 'technical' or ' jargon'. Besides, should a passing 14 year old be confused, those helpful blue links would put them right. See also, the leads of: Philippines, Balearic Islands, Shetland, Japanese Archipelago etc. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be for people who are not familiar with the subject matter!
I personally know the word, but I'm pretty sure there's plenty of people who don't. (And it didn't come up in my Standard Grade 12 years ago.)
I've just run a corpus check on the word "archipelago" in the British National Corpus. It comes up twice in the spoken corpus, and both matches were from a single (academic) lecture on the history of China. It isn't in general use.
The "blue link" thing is a red herring; compare the following two variations on the article's opening sentence:
The Hebrides comprise a widespread and diverse archipelago off the west coast of Scotland.
The Hebrides are a widespread and diverse group of islands off the west coast of Scotland.
One of these doesn't need a blue link, which in my mind makes it superior.
Prof Wrong (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[Removing indent] Bardcom's last edit to the page says "The word is used in lots of articles. Encyclopedias shouldn't be dumbed down"

I don't care what other articles say, and I was of the understanding that other articles on wikipedia can't be cited as justification in this way.

While I agree that Wikipedia should not be "dumbed down", I do not think it should be artificially intellectualised either. Archipelago is not a word in common currency. I asked three people today, all university graduates. The first thought it was "some kind of specific region on land" (and thought I'd spelt it wrong), the second had never heard of it, and the third didn't recognise it at first, but then said "isn't that a small group of islands" and said the Hebrides didn't fit his notion of an archipelago.

As I've already said, in the British National Corpus (spoken) it only comes up in an academic lecture.

What does "archipelago" do for the article that "group of islands" doesn't do in simpler, easier to understand English?

Until someone can give a valid reason for use of the word over the simpler alternative, I will continue to revert it out.Prof Wrong (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Prof, I know you're trying to do the right thing and that your edits are in Good Faith. But you can't simple change terminology just because you think it's wrong. There are policies for this - notably WP:NOR. The onus is on you to provide the references [citation needed] to back up your claim that "archipelago" is not understood by most people reading the article. Until then, the original article remains. Please do not revert until you can back up your POV. Bardcom (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • scratches head*
I could understand that if I was changing the content -- references are of course needed then.
As I'm not adding any factual content to the article, there's no place for me to cite anything. I am changing the presentation, not the content.
But I did provide a reference of sorts here on the talk page: The British National Corpus.
Have a look: [4]
Enter the word "archipelago" in there and select "spoken". You get two matches, both from an academic lecture.
This is published data, representative of UK English usage. If running a search on it constitutes original research, and if the NOR rule extends to presentation as well as content, then the "no jargon" rule is essentially unenforceable: there aren't any published academic papers telling us conclusively which words are and aren't jargon, so what else can I do?
Anyway, I didn't say that most people people wouldn't understand it, but my point is that "group of islands" will be understood by absolutely everybody. Why not make things understood by everyone?
  • scratches head again*
Did the person who originally added "archipelago" have to provide proof that it was a "good word"? Why does a later editor have to prove that an alternative is better?
Prof Wrong (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Prof, I am sure you mean no harm, but this is not The Western Isles. Your view is one that I have seen before in reference to social sciences articles, but a quick glimpse at (for example) Hilbert's tenth problem or Peridotite suggest there is whole world of vocabulary on offer on Wikipedia articles. This is an article in need of an enormous amount of improvement. Your efforts might be better spent in adding content than quibbling about the existing wording. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 22:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But we would expect an article like Peridotite to be accessed by a more informed reader than one on a place like the Hebrides. It is to be expected (and is indeed necessary) for such an article to use a more technical lexicon.
Prof Wrong (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Prof, also because an archipelago defines the type of grouping. It's an appropriate word, and if someone doesn't understand the word, they only have to click on the word and another page explains. The reason I asked for a reference is because you claimed "Archipelago is not a word in common currency.", but backed it up with Original Research. Read the Policyto see what constitutes a verifiable source. Otherwise, let's just call it what it is, an archipelago. Bardcom (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
"archipelago defines the type of grouping".
Archipelago defines it as "a chain or cluster of islands" and says "It is now used to generally refer to any island group". It also says "Archipelagoes are often volcanic" -- often, not always.
I still don't see how the term is any more complete or descriptive than "group of islands", and you have both yet to explain this.
As to NOR, here's what [[WP:NOR|the policy] says:
Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.
I have put no "analysis or synthesis" in the article. My conclusions are A) on the talk page, B) refer to presentation (not content) and C) are "clearly advanced by the sources". My conclusion was self-evident in the source material.
Prof Wrong (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Prof, the definition of Archipelago fits, it's the correct word. Your point about volcanic is probably an own-goal, since the Hebrides are volcanic in nature. You might also go back and reread the policy on original research and look out in particular for the word "published". The full test from your selective quote reads This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Up till this point, it's easy to assume good faith on your part, but sometimes you have to honestly realise that your good idea isn't supported (yet) and that you have to put our idea on hold. Bardcom (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The only wikipedia rule that is relevant here is "concensus" -- and as it's two against one, you win. Prof Wrong (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, consensus isn't a vote... It's not because it's 2 against 1, it's because there doesn't appear to be any support or argument that says that your suggestion is better, and there's no references to indicate that what you are saying is anything more than your opinion (Original Research). As said before, if you can find a source or reference, it gives your argument more weight. But thanks for dropping back and closing the loop. --Bardcom (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)