Talk:North Ronaldsay sheep

Evolving
The description of the North Ronaldsay sheep as evolving due to environmental constraint is misleading, since evolving means speciating. However that is not what we have here, because the North Ronaldsay sheep is still the same species with other sheeps.

And adding a link to Natural Selection is just assumption-driven and misleading, being that the North Ronaldsay sheep has never evolved or speciated into a new species. This is not good scientific approach.

The correct terminology would be "adapt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archestrategos (talk • contribs) 08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid that's wrong. Evolution does not only occur at the species level, but at every level, from changes in the frequency of just one gene to evolution of new taxa from subspecies to phylum.  That's really the definition of "evolution" – it means gradual change.  Evolution into new species could not happen if evolution did not also happen at a lower level – natural selection could not explain a new species popping into existence without intermediate stages.
 * In fact in this context "adapt" and "evolve" are synonymous. What I think you are getting confused is "speciation" and "evolution", which do not mean the same thing.  Saying that this sheep has evolved does not imply that it has evolved far enough to be regarded as a separate species.
 * You are right that it is an assumption that the North Ronaldsay's adaptations are caused by natural selection – as always we cannot be absolutely certain of the causal mechanism of an adaptation by looking at a single historical example. However, we do know three things for certain: the North Ronaldsay has indeed lived on seaweed for a long time, it does have unusual physiology allowing it to do so, and natural selection is the usual mechanism for evolution everywhere else.  It is therefore perfectly reasonable to deduce that the adaptation in this case must have been driven by natural selection.  Richard New Forest (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree that the North Ronaldsay's adaptations are caused by environmental constraints.


 * Well, let me put it this way then. Can you in all certainty affirm that the North Ronaldsay Sheep has different genetic material compared to other sheeps?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archestrategos (talk • contribs) 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the physiological differences are genetic. When keeping Ronaldsays on ordinary grass pasture or feeding them ordinary sheep feed, farmers have to be careful to keep trace copper levels low, or they can be poisoned.  Not sure how this relates to the original question though.  (By the way: singular "sheep", plural also "sheep").  Richard New Forest (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information, and for correcting my mistake.
 * Sheep they are then.
 * Just a thought (unrelated to the article now), presumably the ancestor of the North Ronaldsay which had not yet developed digestive ability to cope with seaweed diet (which later did), would you say that this ancestor (or group of ancestral sheep) was (were) the survivor(s) a Natural Selection process involving seaweed diet constraint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archestrategos (talk • contribs) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. ¬¬¬¬  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archestrategos (talk • contribs) 15:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Economic viability
As I understand it, farming sheep for wool is becoming economically difficult and the cost of shearing has been quoted by many as similar to the cost of sale.

This is even mentioned on the Sheep page.

Has this affected the North Ronaldsay at all, as it is cited as being bred primarily for its wool? Korlus (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's affected virtually all sheep breeds, and the rarer ones more than most. Like many rare breeds the North Ronaldsay has survived more by luck than by being economically viable to keep.  In fact I'd say that now its primary reasons for being kept are neither meat nor wool, but as an exotic pet, for genetic diversity, or for conservation grazing (or all of these).  The DAD-IS data sheet is derived from information submitted by the UK government and I suspect may just be a guess by some civil servant.  Also, I note that for other breeds it gives either meat or wool, or has no entry at all, but other uses do not appear to be options.  For the Shetland, which is very similar to the Ronaldsay (but with rather better wool), it gives, um, meat...


 * The market rate for wool is ridiculously low: around 50 to 80 pence per kg. A Ronaldsay will only produce perhaps one kg at a time, and if you had a couple of hundred of them it would probably cost 50 pence to a pound to shear each one – but a lot more if (like most rare-breed keepers) you only have a handful: I sheared eight similar sheep for a neighbour this year and they paid me £50, which is probably a lot less than a market rate.   The price for single fleeces for hand-spinning is a good bit more, but there's a limited market.

Proposed changes to referencing
I'd like to see if I can get some support for a change in the style of referencing used in this article. Specifically I would like to be rid of this awkward system whereby the page number is included in the main body of the text while the rest of the citation is kept in the 'References' section. There's a reason that this style of referencing is incredibly rare here at Wikipedia - it is not in any way user friendly! Not only does it just look plain messy but it also means that anyone seeking to look up a particular reference has to scroll up and down the page, which is hardly convenient. I can see from the article's history that the present referencing system was a fairly recent addition to the article, probably in response to the discussion above. I'm happy to do the leg work and change the referencing myself but just want to make sure that there are no strong objections first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ?? I'm not seeing that at all. And there seem to be hardly any references where different page numbers are used at different points. But as a non-editor of the page I don't have strong views. Johnbod (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think I've probably already said just about all I have to say on this higher up this page. I've made only the most minimal contributions to this page, so should not (and do not) have a particularly strong opinion here. In general I would oppose such a change unless there's a good reason for it (i.e., a reason beyond WP:IDLI), as you will recall that I did at Red House, London. You don't have to scroll anywhere to look up a reference – the tool-tip shows you the ref and the page number shows you the page, all without ever leaving the body text. What alternative system would you propose? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing drastic. Just the inclusion of page numbers within the citations themselves, rather than situating them within the main body of the text. It would be an easy change to make and would result in a drastic improvement to readability. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have any really strong views, and I guess they are shaped by policy (WP:CITEVAR). Would the system proposed identify the specific page the cite is from? For example cite 3 and others cover multiple pages so I don't really want lose the precision by adding a range, say 272-4 instead a specific page to each reference. If it keeps the specifics, I'm fine with it. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 12:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I've dealt with the problem. In doing so I also made a spelling correction to one of the author names and added page numbers to a number of references that were missing them. Would be happy to offer my 'Support' for this article at FA now, although it seems that it has already passed! Congratulations, TheMagikCow! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for that work ! It looks much better now reference wise - much appreciated. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

To Do
To achieve FA status:
 * Copy edit and GOCE listing

TheMagikCow (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Kelping, not seaweed farming
There appears to be an error in the article, which cites "seaweed farming" as the industry whose failure prompted construction of the dyke. Actually, these Scottish islands were famous for "kelping", which was the harvesting of seaweed for the production of soda ash. See. I'm planning to change the article as minimally as possible to rectify this. Easchiff (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Effects of Brexit?
I read this sentence, "Today, the sheep court remains the regulatory body responsible for organising ownership of the sheep, but European Union legislation has suggested that it may have to be reorganised into a Grazing Committee.[6]" Of course this is moot, with the UK leving the EU soon.

I'm not knowledgeable on this topic. Could a more-competent editor read over this article with an eye to Brexit-related changes needed? IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I came to write something similar. Now that the UK - including Scotland is outside of the EU is should be updated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 19:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

Scientific accuracy
I find a bit woolly. Would it be possible to give a little more detail here? --John (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)