Talk:Orkney/Archive 1

old comments
Is there any reason to not promote the two subpages for Hoy and Rousay? -- Tarquin 14:32 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

The Shetland Islands article shows the Shetland flag. The Orkney Islands have a flag also, a Scandinavian cross of red on yellow. Mightn't it be shown on this article?
 * its not an official flag but it flies on a lot of buildings, and is on a lot of bumber stickers.


 * I think you are referring to the Cross of St. Magnus. I don't know mauch about the topic, but considering it's not recognized by the Scottish Heraldic Authority, and is only ten years old, do you really think it is that appropriate. If you know that it is in widespread use it could be put in. --Dmcdevit 23:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Media
The information on The Superstation Orkney was out of date, so I updated it based on the station's Web site. Not being in the Orkney Islands, however, I cannot confirm whether the station is in fact broadcasting now. Could someone in the Orkney Islands please check the "Media" section of the article to make sure that it is correct? Tomgally 07:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Superstation isn't broadcasting, and hasn't done so since the RSL expired (shame, too, it was a very nice service). -- orudge 21:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for updating that! Tomgally 23:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

UK COTF
For your interest and information, the UK Collaboration of the Fortnight is History of the Orkney Islands! I have added the link to the relevant section on the Islands' history, which itself has plenty of info already in place. Cheers, Mark Lewis 15:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Page Layout
I noticed the info box on the right side of the page. I am not that familiar with page markup- Can anyone bring the main text of the article closer to the introduction?--Adam (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ward Hill
Can someone check the references to Ward Hill. Is there one on both Mainland and Hoy as the text suggests. I should know as I have visted Orkney every year for the last 18 years but won't be there again until August. Johnmarkh 23:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are shown here, on Multimap. For good measure, there's a Ward Hill on South Ronaldsay, too. Warofdreams talk 00:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

ThanksJohnmarkh 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mapping
Is there any chance of a more simple, yet comprehensive, map of the islands being added or produced, the current map is not very detailed and is not the easiest to view


 * Yes, there really should be a map of these islands showing their names. Apart from the fact that it is very odd to have an entry for a well-known place which does not detail its component parts, the channels between the islands had great significance during World War 2 when there were attempts to stop the Nazis from sailing and sheltering there. Myles325a (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

CFD
The related Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Orkney and Shetland has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page. --Mais oui! 09:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

POV
Annexation is a totally inappropriate, highly POV word to use. I will not idly stand by while User:Mallimak (and his, to date, ten sockpuppets) totally distorts Wikipedia's presentation of topics related to Orkney. Can some calm heads please step in here and contribute? David Souza provides a link that refers to an "Act of Annexation". That bloomer in itself calls into question the integrity of that source. It is up to Mallimak to prove that there ever was an Act of Annexation (sic), using bona fide academic sources. It is however just a figment of his fertile imagination. And if he wants some WP:AGF then he had better cut the sockpuppet idiocy immediately. --Mais oui! 12:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA please, Mais. The 1911 Britannica says "In 1471 James bestowed the castle and lands of Ravenscraig in Fife on William, earl of Orkney, in exchange for all his rights to the earldom of Orkney, which, by act of parliament passed on the 20th of February of the same year, was annexed to the Scottish crown." Please provide a citation to back up your claim that this is incorrect. That the annexation claim is still made is shown by Orkneyjar, which is a pretty good site. You have also added the peculiar claim that "The oldest recorded languages in Orkney were Old Irish and Pictish." Since "Pictish" has not been recorded, this seems odd. The Old Irish claim could relate to the speculation about a brief period of rule by Dalriada "as seems likely", which is hardly the same as stating it's a recorded language, and orkneyjar seems to make no reference to any Dalriadan incursions. Please provide citations for your revisions. ..dave souza, talk 13:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mais oui! asked me to post references here about pre-Norse languages. Well, scholarly consensus is, or at least used to be, that the pre-Norse language was Pictish. There is no real evidence for a distinct Pictish language anywhere, excepting a passage in Bede which calls Pictish one of the 5 languages in Britain. Nevertheless, it is the easiest thing in the world to find references for Pictish being the indigenous language, although it's based on little evidence, any book you find will claim it. Old Irish does survive from both Orkney and Shetland (for Orkney, see Buckquoy spindle-whorl), though its significance is not understood, and could be explained by a Dalriadic conquest, a Verturian conquest, or the introduction of Scottish christianity anytime between Columba and the 11th century. It's really beyond doubt that Orcadians were Celts before the Norse because of place-names, yet the only two surviving Celtic placenames from the northern Isles are Orkney and Shetland, which in Old Irish are Innse Orc and Innse Chait (hence, Hjalt land, Zetland, Shetland), island of Pigs and Cats respectively. But Orcadians were Celts before the Norse. The only way to get around that is to prove that Germanic peoples got to Orkney before they got to Norway, which is John Pinkerton world and blatantly absurd. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this information: it basically confirms my point that the Pictish language is a big unknown, possibly a Brythonic language, and that there's little evidence of any Dalriadic incursion, other than a missionary visit. Mais seems to be trying to construct a Scottish past for the islands, but Orkneyar and other sources indicate a transition from the Picts to the Norse, with the later Scottish annexation being still remembered for Stuart tyranny. Further evidence about the act in question would be welcome, as would reliable sources for the claim that this should be described as a "return" in place of the term "annexation" used in all the sources I've seen. Oh, and as I'm sure you're aware the Celt term is a 17th century extrapolation of references to central European Keltoi to cover the locals of these islands: when Walter Scott called early Scotland "Old Gaul" he seems to have been quite correct..dave souza, talk 14:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you wanna argue; I just typed what I typed in response to Mais Oui!'s request, but I don't know what you are all arguing about. Is this argument is about Orkney's historical "Scottishness"? Well, if it is, I'll give my own take. My own point of view is that Norse heritage is important to Orkney, and very important for establishing and maintaining its regional identity. But Orkney is as Scottish historically as Lothian or Strathclyde. Orkney has a strong Pictish past. Indeed, Pictish stones, unlike the hypothetical Pictish language, are one of the few historical markers of "Pictishness" to survive on record, and Orkney has loads of them. And indeed some historians think the Picts (as in a political identity) may have come from Orkney. The distinction between Scotland and Pictland is something of a linguistic phantom. The Gaelic for both was Alba, and Gaelic was the language of most "Scots" for the entire middle ages. It's only in later Latin formulations and modern English that a distinction is made. Ignoring the Picts, the notion that Orkney was foreign to Scottish power until a lucky annexation in the later 15th century is another unfortunate myth. As early as the reign of King David I of Scotland Orkney got a Gaelic earl, known to history as Harald Maddadsson, the son of Matad, Mormaer of Atholl. Two other Gaelic families take over the earldom, the family of the Mormaers of Angus in the 13th century and the family of the Mormaers of Strathearn in the 14th century. And in the late 14th century a Scots speaking family, the Sinclairs of Lothian, took over the Earldom. Technically, all these lords were subject to Norway for Orkney itself, but subject to Scotland for Caithness. As lordship was personal, Orkney has in many ways been politically "Scottish" since the reign of David I. Well, what about the period of direct Norwegian rule? Norse has undoutedly been spoken the northern Isles since at least the 9th century, but as a Norwegian royal earldom, rather than an independent Norse kingdom, this may have started only in the 11th century, during the Danish overlordship. All in all, Orkney's "Norwegianess" should not be exaggerated. Orkney has never been, excepting a few centuries, separateable from the rest of Scotland. As almost any other part of Scotland can claim this honor, I'm doubtful about making Orkney particularly unique. Where it is unique, along with Shetland and coastal Caithness, is preserving a language that wasn't Gaelic or English longer than any other part of Scotland.  However, I think a brief overview of Scottish history is enough to reveal that historical use of language is the one thing that cannot define modern "Scottishness". Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the useful reminder of the development of Scottish control of the islands, an account which is wholly consistent with the references which Mais has been disputing. As you may note from the start of this section, the argument is about the word "annexation". Mais has taken exception to the line in the Orcadians section "Although the annexation of the islands by Scotland in 1472.." and has been insistent that it should be changed to "Although the return of the islands to Scotland in 1472..", a rephrasing that requires the islands to have belonged to "Scotland" at a time when they belonged to the Picts, rather before the formation of the kingdom of Alba. Your point about the gradual shift is well taken, and accordingly I've changed "annexation of the islands" to read "annexation of the earldom" which relates to that date. Hope that all are satisfied: the pov tag is now removed. The Orkneyjar FAQ does refer to "problems after Orkney was annexed to Scotland", but there's no mention of a date there. As for modern Scottishness, while the myth may be unfortunate it's myths that shape perceptions, and in my experience folks from the Lothians are content to be Scottish, but Orcadians have a strongly defined identity and will mention the tyranny of the Stuart earls in the way that someone from the Lothians might draw attention to Flodden, (to cite the Big Yin, O Floor o' Scotland). .. dave souza, talk 18:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I don't know what argument is going on here. Incidentally, the Orkneyjar website is a bit loopy. Orkneyjay doesn't come totally from Old Norse, the Ork part is a Celtic, and means boar (or perhaps Whale, c/f Latin Porcus and Orca). Any argument that it comes from Norse is destroyed by the 4th century bc Greek reference to Orkney as Orcas, repeated in Roman and Graeco-Roman writers such as Ptolemy as Orcades "Boar Islands". Gaelic annals refer continue to refer to it in Latin as Orcades (Orcades deletae sunt la Bruide, Orkneys were deleted/devastated by Bridei). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to say fair point, I'd not noticed that "seal islands" claim: oddly enough it appears at the top of this talk page, along with a suggestion that the name should just be Orkney! As it happens, an invaluable pocket guide The Other Orkney Book by Gordon Thomson (1980) says the derivation is "open to debate, but it could well have derived" as you suggest, "Thus; Islands of the People of the Wild Boar". That book also uses annexed regarding the earldom, and if anything is more pointed: "Early Scottish government was punctuated with tyranny in Orkney, but without doubt the most notorious malefactors were the Stewart earls." ...dave souza, talk 22:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Return" is a value-laden word in this sort of context. There are certain words, such as "liberate", "return", "lawful", "official" that are/ may be so in one camp's opinion and not in another's. Wikipedia's task is to be neutral between them. I oppose the use of word "return" when speaking about how Scotland got these islands from Norway and/or from earls. It implies something that is not necessarily true, namely that Scotland as state had earlier held those islands. Marrtel 21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking about annexation of 1572 (or whatever year), I am not convinced that the term was used by the then parliament, but I have seen that term used as the act itself obviously matches with the use of that technical term. To me, "annex" is a technical term widely used in research publications, therefore I cannot find too heavy connotations in it. However, if many others feel it to be repulsive as itself, perhaps a nicer word meaning the same could be found. Marrtel 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All now seem to be content with the more accurate "annexation of the earldom" rather than "of the islands" re 1472. Any POV is shown by citations to be one held by several Orcadians, and we should present their POV fairly as well as any other viewpoint presented by a reliable source. However there's probably no problem now. ..dave souza, talk 00:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have nothing to object against "annexation of the earldom". Whereas I really hope that the text does not become changed to "return of islands to Scotland's rule" or something like that. Marrtel 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of Orkney
Whats the derivation of Orkney?, above someone suggests seal islands, but from the name Orcades it appears more likely to the "islands of the mound of cait" taking the latin name and relating it to celtic languages - Or (mound, promontary, hill as in Tor) Ca (from Cait the pictish region and ades (the latin island form. This would tie in with the place names in the region. Caithness, Sutherland (in the gaelic name), the irish/gaelic for Shetland and several place names and family names in Ross. This may also reflect the shared pre-pictish broch building culture was centered on these areas.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.248.114.222 (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is a big need; I came to this article looking for the etymology of Orkney and found nothing. On other place articles (such as Scotland) Etymology is the first section heading, before History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iph (talk • contribs) 20:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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 the Category talk:Orcadian Wikipedians page. (The Orcadian Wikipedians’ Noticeboard was demolished!)

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

Orkadian 00:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's interesting, but it should definitely not have been added to the article. --Guinnog 00:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * it is both interesting and sad. I have only just discovered the orkney and shetland articles and as a lover of both places (and of wikipedia) I hope this can be resolved quickly. I have not been aware of any problems and if any of these comments are directed at me, bear in mind that I am trying to make these articles reflect the orcadian view (note my efforts on "the Mainland" not "The Mainland" and indeed above on "Orkney" in preference to the Orkney Islands.I am on your side but I would prefer that there not be sides just an attempt to get at the truth. Abtract


 * Hello, this is your friendly neighbourhood rouge admin. From the CheckUser evidence, it sounds as if Orkadian does not actually need to go very far to "meet" Mallimak.  Mallimak says he is disillusioned and leaving; the evidence suggests that he may be having some difficulty staying away, and I am pleased to be able to offer him what assistance I can in that regard.  To that end I have blocked the two identified sockpuppets per Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak.  Participants in the edit war are encouraged to review WP:LAME for the community perspective on such disputes, and settle down calmly to talk matters over.  Remember, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we are here to report what the secondary sources say about the place, not to rehash didputes between the primary sources.  If everyone would like to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down before resuming editing, that would be good too :o) Guy 10:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move. --Dijxtra 14:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Orkney Islands → Orkney – Official and commonest name. Mais oui! 02:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * Support --Mais oui! 02:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll support that too, partly on looking at the 'what links here' evidence. It seems Orkney is much more linked to than the current name. Orkneys, another redirect to here at present, should be deprecated and eventually eliminated from use on the encyclopedia, sorry if that sounds extreme. --Guinnog 02:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- The 'Orkney Islands Council' consistently refers to the area as 'Orkney' and in my experience is common useage on the islands. I understood redirects were 'cheap' on resources and therefore would keep 'Orkneys' as a common mispelling that links to the correct page Johnmarkh 08:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * support absolutely ... we should also change The Mainland article to Mainland which is the official name; yes it is normally preceeded by "the" but so is the Isle of Wight. Abtract 08:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- dave souza, talk 08:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Peter O. (Talk) 20:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- Fraslet 21:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Duja 09:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments.

Guinnog reports on the "partly on looking at the 'what links here' evidence", which is what I also commonly do when faced with these Move discussions. One word of caution though: over the past year I have always, always written "Orkney" in articles, using unpiped links, so I must stick my hand up and say that a fair few of those 'what links here' are mine! Still, I believe most Scots just say and write "Orkney" naturally, whereas "Orkney Islands" just sounds so awkward in the mouth. When I first came to Wikipedia I immediately thought that both the Shetland Islands and Orkney Islands (and Outer Hebrides) articles were misnamed, but I never did anything about it, cos I didn't know how, and then it slipped my mind. Funny how you just get used to Wikipedia's oddities. --Mais oui! 03:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me: I started a corresponding Move request at Talk:Shetland Islands. (And I really do think that we ought to be moving that "Outer Hebrides" article to "Western Isles".) --Mais oui! 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about this move (and same for Shetland Islands). Are they not always noted as the Orkney Islands on maps and charts? Note the Council is offically- Orkney Islands Council (from ) Astrotrain 09:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * see http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/councils/region30.html and http://www.visitbritain.com/VB3-en-US/destinationguides/Scotland/Destinations/orkney.aspx?source=ppc and http://www.stonepages.com/ancient_scotland/orknemap.htm and http://www.cali.co.uk/HIGHEXP/Orknisle.htm and http://www.orknet.co.uk/tourism/ork_map.htm and http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/scotland.html and http://www.tesco.com/books/product.aspx?R=031923407X as examples Abtract 21:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

As a result of the renamimg
I have changed most (about 90) of the 'what links here' so that they go straight to Orkney except a few I wasn't sure about - if anyone else can do them that would be good, I ran out of steam. Are there any other consequences of the move that need addressing?Abtract 22:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

First line
I know this may get silly/pedantic but there is a problem with the first line reading 'Orkney is one of the 32 council areas of Scotland'.

The official title of the Council Area is 'Orkney Islands' and whilst the article should (IMO) be Orkney and not 'Orkney Islands' we have to deal with the 'official' designations properly.

I see the first line has been changed once already so didn't want to jump in with another but could n't the article start with 'Orkney is a group of islands off the North coast of Scotland...' or something similar and then state it is designated as the Orkney Islands Scottish Council Area. ?

&lt;b&gt;Johnmark&lt;br&gt;H 23:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * good point, I have altered it in a suitable way.Abtract 08:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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 and the Sinclair Orkney arms  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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben MacDui (talk • contribs) 10:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Other interesting Orcadians
I'd like to suggest a link to. There is additional information on some of the Orcadians already listed and other interesting characters. New articles are added regularly and contributions are invited. The site sends a daily e-mail of Orcadian facts or quotations and an archive of these will be on-line in a few weeks.Merrydancer 08:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added it Abtract 09:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

New Flag
According to the BBC News item, ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6541099.stm ), in drawing up the short list of 5 designs, the Lord Lyon was consulted. Indeed, to quote the BBC News item, "Following initial consultation with the Lord Lyon King of Arms, five designs were short listed". It is absurd to suggest that this consultation exercise will result in any outcome other than the new design being approved. It would have been a pointless excercise to draw up a short list of 5 designs if these were not guaranteed to gain the approval of the Lyon Court. (Imagine the egg on faces if the winning design were to be denied official status by the Lyon Court after the publicity and expense of the consultation exercise/vote!). To revert the flag on the Orkney site to that of the unofficial St Magnus version is frankly pointless and at worst misleading. If you are going to display an 'Unofficial' flag, you might as well choose the one most likely to become official in a very short period of time.

Rab-k 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, folks, the new flag is up to now as unoffical as was the old one! History in short: The old design was withdrawn after years of quarrels with the Lord Lyon King. The old flag once had the approval of the LLK, but the LLK had to scrap that according to his own rules. Since then the flag was used "unoficcially", what forced the LLK to announce that he would make use of his own rights including laying claims on properties under the flag, for what he is entitled to do so. In 2005 the debate on a new flag started again. In 2006 there was a public design competition. The results were 5 designs unofficially shortlisted for further consultation with the LLK. For those designs OIC asked the LLK whether or not there might be obvious reasons speaking against the designs. After the LLK confirmed that there is nothing standing against the designs, the said 5 were officially shortlisted and a public poll was carried out earlier in 2007. The winner was the design shown on this page which got immedeately the approval by OIC as the one and only design they wanted. OIC then officially asked for the approval by the LLK. In the moment this checking process is still on the way, but the flag has so far no official approval by the one and only legal body to decide on that matter. And the process will take some more time because the LLK, for sure, does not want to make a similar mistake as he had made some 25 years ago regarding the old flag. ;-) 91.64.2.53 23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks very... Norwegian. :) -- Nidator 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a link to The Orcadian newspaper's July 2007 archives on the Flag of Orkney page, which confirms that the Lyon Court has issued a warrant for the new design and OIC is inviting tenders from manufacturers to produce the new flag for Council use. Apart from the patent being approved and the ceremony to run up the new flag on the Council HQ building, that about wraps it up. Rab-k 08:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The new flag has been discussed in a couple of articles in the Norwegian newspaper Dag og Tid recently. It was pointed out that the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs felt that the new flag was sufficient different from the Norwegian flag, and that there had been attempts to establish pretty much the same flag for the former Norwegian county of Båhuslen. They also gave an overview over the relevant history and interviewed an expert on heraldry, who didn't like it, and a historian, who though it was very fitting. -- Nidator 13:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The coat of arms
It would be nice with an article about the Orcadian coat of arms and also a image of better quality. -- Nidator 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have located a drawing of the coat of arms that is of much better quality than the one used now. It is in this document from the Orkney Islands Council . Increase the magnification to 800% and you have a high quality illustration. -- Nidator T / C 02:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

South Walls - island? (also un/inhabited misclassifications)
I've tidied up some apparent errors on the main Orkney page where Lamb Holm was listed as inhabited (if it *is* inhabited, then the Lamb Holm page needs updating) and Stronsay, Westray, Wyre were listed as uninhabited, and corrected the A-Z order in the template (Stronsay was after South Ronaldsay). There was also a discrepancy about South Walls: For consistency I've treated it as an island, amending the latter two items. As a non-Orcadian, though recent holiday visitor, I hope I haven't trodden on any toes! If South Walls is not an island, there are four places to correct this information. PamD 09:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * its own page says it's an island and it has the island infobox
 * it's listed in List of Orkney islands
 * it was not listed on the Orkney page as an island
 * it wasn't included in the list of islands in the Orkney template.
 * South Walls article explains its status - connected by causeway over sandbank (The Ayre) to Hoy. We are treating it as an island. Obtaining population data has been difficult as census etc include it with Hoy. Thanks for your input. WikiProject Scottish Islands is in its infancy and all help is gratefully received. Finavon 09:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Orkney devolution
''A political party, the Orkney Movement, exists which supports devolution for Orkney from the rest of Scotland. The Orkney and Shetland Movement (a coalition of the Orkney movement and its equivalent for Shetland) stood for election in the 1987 UK general election, coming in 4th place.''

Is the first sentence really true? A quick Google brings up a few references for the Orkney movement, none verifiable or concrete and some of the more relevant being about 6 or 7 years out of date at the current time. Even the local newspaper only turns up two tenuous links, which are six years old neither of which state the aims of such a movement, if it still exists in any relevant capacity. They aren't listed as a registered political party in the UK either and there is no verifiable source stating the aims of such a movement. Certainly such a movement appears to have existed, in some form, in the past, alongside the defunct Orkney and Shetland Movement - which only contested the 1987 election. Globaltraveller 23:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's true. The SNP has some kind of gentleman's agreement with them, I think. --MacRusgail 02:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For the 1987 General Election, they had an agreement with the "Orkney and Shetland movement", which is now a defunct political party, and not listed as a political party. I'm just trying to find out about this idea of the Orkney Movement, for which there doesn't seem to by much (any) evidence for. Thanks Globaltraveller (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've lived in Orkney for 8 years and I've never heard of the 'Orkney Movement'!Selkie25 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It was completely uncited so I have added what information was easily verifiable and phrased it as if in the past tense. If it still exists there is no obvious sign of it. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  09:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism of the Buckquoy spindle-whorl reference
For background to the persistant ongoing attacks by ip sockpuppets, please see: Hi. The academic reference to the likely importance of the Buckquoy spindle-whorl keeps getting removed from the Orkney article. Was it you who put it there in the first place? Have you got any more to add? --Mais oui! 06:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I prolly did, but I don't remember. Long time since I covered Orkney stuff. There are one or two internet Orcadians, perhaps including the author of that orkneyjar website, who campaign on wiki for ideologically Norse inclined Orkney matters. In the main article itself I wrote "showed" and that was changed to "claimed" by one of those users (logged in here as Paul S), whereas no historian would say anything otherwise as Forsyth, an expert in Ogham inscriptions, did prove it conclusively. Many academics who work in the area will prolly tell you that the language of pre-Norse Orkney was prolly Goidelic Celtic, Irish or Gaelic, both because of that inscription (whose provenance is both Orcadian and low down the social scale) and because the northern isles and western isles on the whole share the same pre-Norse archaeological culture. Pictish in Orkney, whatever that is, is not attested and the only evidence for Pictish being the language there are Pictish stones, which is not lingustic evidence at all and in any case the only language Pictish stones ever have on them other than Latin is, again, Irish. Nevertheless, Pictish is what most published books still say and that would have to be left in the article. Because of the sensitivity of certain users to the idea of Orcadian Irish (having no Gaelic is the one thing that distinguishes Orkney historically from the rest of Scotland), it is best to keep it to no more than a qualified sentence. As for more to add ... maybe in a year when more published work is available for citation. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ta for that. I really appreciate the time you took to provide a comprehensive reply. I am just going to slightly Wikify the actual BSW article.
 * Worth keeping a 'Watch' on the Orkney and History of Orkney articles for this well-known pattern of vandalism. It seems that some people will just never be happy until Wikipedia states categorically that Orkney is, and always has been, Norse, way back to the Creation. Quite why certain Orcadians take such pride in what they fondly imagine to be the total ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Pictish population is quite beyond me. --Mais oui! 07:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, they'd all be dead by now anyways. Seriously, I think it's just because it makes their history purer, simpler, and hence easier to get emotional about. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

--Mais oui! 11:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim
 * User_talk:Mais_oui%21

Claiming the discovery of an artifact with a few words of Old Irish on it is evidence that the language was spoken in Orkney (despite the complete absence of all other evidence) is like using evidence of English and Gaelic terms in Mi'kmaq language to argue for 7th century BC English and Gaelic settlement in eastern Canada. Discretion has to be used, and I have used it! 81.158.224.65 21:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Discretion smacks of OR. When an established editor inserts a well cited piece of information, it should not be arbitrarily removed. Abtract 00:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Who did insert this information? It has been subsequently removed for good reasons (not arbitrarily). 81.156.56.232 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * and the reason is?Abtract 00:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To quote from WP:OR - The claim amounts to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". Who was the "established editor" who inserted the infomation in the article in the first place? 81.156.56.232 00:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You really must grow up (I am assuming you are about 12). You keep removing a perfectly valid and well cited piece of information without any reason other than you think it is not true. What you should be doing is finding an alternative source that supports your view and citing it. And get a named account. Abtract 00:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note this message on your talk page: "Welcome to wikipedia. PLease enjoy editing but note there is a rule against reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours ... you are in grave danger of being blocked having reverted the Orkney article at least 5 times in the last 24 hours. Please desist and channel your energies into more productive editing. You might also like to note that using unnamed accounts to fool the system is not allowed." Abtract 00:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The BSW constitutes mainstream academic discussion that has been around for a while. There's no getting rid of it just because you don't like it. The spindle whorl evidence is pretty strong evidence for "Irish" in pre-Viking Norway, because it means that Irish is the only pre-Norse vernacular language actually attested in Orkney; that being said, some people think that Q and P Celtic, i.e. Irish and Pictish-Welsh, did not differentiate themselves until as late as the 6th century, and if that's the case Orkney Pictish may have been little more different from Irish than, say, Scots is from English, meaning that Orcadians could have become bi-dialectic very easily; there is vague evidence that Innse Orc was controlled by Dal Riata in the 6th or 7th centuries, and stronger (perhaps quite firm evidence) that it was controlled by Fortriu (the Pictish sub-Kingdom based in Moray-Ross that developed into Scotland) in the late 7th and early 8th century. All conjecture of course. The BSW however shouldn't be left on its own as it is because most published historical works do not make the claim that Irish was the pre-Norse language of the Northern Isles (neither does the author of the article in question, she's just saying it's evidence for Irish in pre-Norse Orkney and leaves it at that). It could be balanced out by a mention of the Irish monk who landed in Orkney, made his way to the court of a bishop, a bishop who it was said knew the Irish language because he studied there (the implication being that Irish was not the language of Orkney at this point in time, I believe, the late 9th cent.). I can't remember who the Irish monk was or what source this was from (I'd need to check), but he was based in continental Europe. I'll get back on this. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the BQSW suggests ecclesiatical influence. There's some ambiguous evidence of it in the names of Kili Holm and Egilsay. While I don't think that old Gaelic was the vernacular of pre-Norse Orkney, it's worth pointing out that there are suspected Gaelic placenames in the Faroes, e.g. Mykines. There would have been Norse Gaels there as well--MacRusgail 02:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reported the anon user for 3 rv Abtract 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Result a 48 hour block. Abtract 14:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I must say I agree with Deacon of Pndapetzim. The confrontational approach applied in this case is not fruitfull. It only serves to provoke actions such as breaking 3RR. The point here is clearly that the article can not simply state that the find of this artefact is proof of Irish being spoken in Orkney and leave it at that. It has to be moderated by including the rest of the story as well. Which might be what this is all about. But that doesn't get through as long as confrontation is the preferred tactic. Inge 14:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody provoked the anon user who had every opportunity to add alternative cited views but preferred instead to rv rv rv. Abtract 15:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone said that Irish was a community language in Orkney. We know however that there were Irish missionary churches in Orkney, Shetland, Iceland and the Faroes, and it's not unlikely that it would have been used in them. I think maybe it's unfair to have "Arcaibh" in the main info box - this is the correct Gaelic but anyway. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Relative size of Mainland
"Mainland is the ninth largest island surronding Great Britain". Does that include the island of Ireland or not? To be clear we should state the relative size of Mainland in relation to the British Isles, which does include Ireland, and would therefore remove the ambiguity. 82.20.28.142 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon -> Germanic
I think we should change the reference to Anglo-Saxon to Germanic. To quote Graeme Davis:


 * "He added: “I don’t see any way of explaining the words in Orkney and Shetland Norn other than to conclude that a Germanic people were in Orkney and Shetland from fourth century AD, and the language developed independently in the islands.


 * “From a language point of view, these people could be English or Norse, or indeed any other Germanic group - though when we go back as far as fourth century it is a moot point how different the different Germanic groups really were, linguistically, ethnically or culturally. The written sources do say Saxon, that is Early English, so I’ve gone with this."

Then we can rather, like him, add that written sources call them Saxons. Opinions? -- Nidator T / C 12:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is way beyond my sphere of knowledge. I'll see if I can find someone more knowledgeable. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is hack nonsense. No place for it in the article. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That comes across as very strong. Espeshially with no arguments or references. It seems to me that Graeme Davis (mediaevalist) is reliable enough to be considered at least. Inge (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is no reason to remove it from the article. What do you think of my suggestion, Inge? -- Nidator T / C 10:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to think of the specific topic. I havent looked thoroughly enough into it. Should the early Anglo-Saxons be called just Germanic? Is that the question? I agree that the source is worth noting and that at that early time in history there weren't a lot of differences between the Germanic tribes we now call peoples. I guess this could be compared to my frustration with some editors insisting on using the vague term Norse on people who are clearly Norwegian. Allthough that is at a later stage in history. If you know you are referring to something Saxon use that term and if you know you are talking about something Norwegian use that term.Inge (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not saying that early Anglo-Saxons should just be referred to as Germanic. Far from it. But, as Graeme Davis points out the linguistic aspect is key in the book, and these linguistic findings can not be identified beyond "Germanic". To repeat the quote I used earlier:


 * “From a language point of view, these people could be English or Norse, or indeed any other Germanic group - though when we go back as far as fourth century it is a moot point how different the different Germanic groups really were, linguistically, ethnically or culturally. The written sources do say Saxon, that is Early English, so I’ve gone with this."


 * As the article is now it says that "there is linguistic and documentary evidence that Anglo-Saxons settled in Orkney at least a century before they colonised what is now England". I think it would make sense to replace this with something like "there is linguistic evidence for an early Germanic presence in Orkney and also historical references to Saxons in this area at least a century before the Anglo-Saxons colonised what is now England", and maybe also change the headline. This might seem nitpicky, but I think we should aim at the highest possible degree of accuracy. I agree with you about the term "Norse", although sometimes it is not so clear cut, and at least it is better than throwing "Viking" around. ;) -- Nidator T / C 17:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please forgive the Donation of Pepin - he really is quite the most dreadful WikiDragon and his robust views are occasionally misconstrued as lacking in politeness. Nonetheless, if you are intending to ignore his interpolation I urge you to proceed with caution. All I have to hand are Omand's (2003) The Orkney Book and Caroline  Wickham-Jones' (2007) Orkney: A Historical Guide, neither of which mention the idea so far as I can see. Nor is it mentioned in the less authoratative Orkneyjar. I note that Davis' publication is recent - I have no idea if it is simply a new idea not yet picked up or generally perceived as speculative. Ben MacDuiTalk  /  Walk  08:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nidator, your suggestion seems reasonable and well thought through in addition to being referenced to a reputable source. I think the sentance proposal is good so it has my support at least.Inge (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Graeme Davis is not reliable enough to be considered per WP:UNDUE. Sorry I don't spend 5 hours writing point by point refutations for every crackpot theory on wikipedia ... but I only have one life. He isn't notable, and only has a wiki article because he himself came online to create one. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh well, the deletion of the section has made the question of improving on it moot. -- Nidator T / C 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments to the intro
"Orkney was invaded and finally annexed by Norway in 875 and settled by the Norse. It was subsequently re-annexed to the Scottish Crown in 1472, following the failed payment of a dowry agreement." My impression is that most sources state that Norwegian settlement began before the annexation. The sentance gives the impression that the islands were first invaded/annexed and then settled. Also I am not aware of any sources claiming that Orkney was part of the Scottish Crown before 875. The term re-annexation is therefore inappropriate.Inge (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was at one stage subordinate to the Kingdom of Fortriu, which in reality is the same "state" as what modern historians call the Kingdom of Alba/Scotland. Anyways, the chronology of such things isn't so clear as all that. The evidence for Norwegian annexation before the 11th century is actually very weak (based on confused 13th-century sources), though Norse settlement was taking place centuries before. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

SVG map
Several years ago I drew a fairly complete map of Shetland (Image:Wfm shetland map.svg) and an incomplete map of Orkney Image:Wfm orkney map.svg. Someone asked me for the SVG originals today, so I've uploaded both to Commons. I've no intention personally of doing anything further with either, but if anyone is looking for sources to draw maps of bits of the islands, perhaps these will help. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation page needed
as there's also a town with this name in south africa (and an wiki article about it)--Severino (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - now created. Ben  Mac  Dui  19:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

thx.--Severino (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Name
To the website owner: Never refer to 'the Orkneys' - the correct terms are Orkney, Orkney Islands, Northern Isles. Furthermore, Orkney does not have a 'bleak aspect' - it is amazingly green and fertile. Have you even been there?
 * We would love to have someone who's actually been there edit this article - feel free! Stan 15:06 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm new to Wikipedia, but was born and brought up on Orkney, this seems like a good entry to cut my teeth on. Skatehorn 20:15 5 Feb 2004 (CET)
 * I have been there many times and love it ... surely everyone calls it simply "Orkney" so I suggest we rename the article Orkney instead of Orkney Islands.Abtract 20:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If the name means "seal islands", surely it is unnecessary to refer to them as "the Orkney Islands". Will "Orkney" not suffice?
 * I'm not at all claiming that I understand the subject better than the people who actually live there, but from a Scandinavian perspective it seems a little odd to just use Orkney. The word ey (øy in Modern Norwegian) is, if I'm not terribly mistaken, singular, but it is supposed to be the name of an island group (the name in Modern Norwegian is the plural Orknøyane). If you use the Orkneys then you at least have a plural name, even if it is a little strange mix of a West Norse/Norn and English. The name Orkney Islands looks very odd as it translates into Orkn Island Islands. The most logical would perhaps be to back to the older plural form Orkneyjar (I took this spelling from the Origin of the name section of the main article), whish mirrors to the Faroese (a close relative of Norn) name for their island group, Føroyar. I understand that it is unrealistic to introduce what will be perceived as a new name, but I have put my two cents in. -- Nidator 17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Orkney is singular, so the British usage is rather odd; certainly in American English, it's fine to call them "the Orkneys" when refering to the island group, if not the political organization. But it's not Norn or Norse or owned by Norway anymore, so adding -iar, -jar, or -ar wouldn't be the way to go. That longboat has sailed. =)


 * Incidentially, kudos to Parfittaa for finally removing that inappropriate & anonymous "inappropriately called" edit (oldid=116528309) re: the names. -114.91.67.13 (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1472
"Annexation" is the correct term, indeed an Act of Annexation was passed by the Scottish Parliament. I have never seen this event described as a "return to Scotland" in any book on Orkney I have ever read. I urge Mais oui! to do some reading about Orkney (I have suggested some books in comments I have made elsewhere in Wikipedia, see e.g. Orcadian Wikipedians' notice board), until he has done so, he not qualified to make changes to my contributions on Orkney. Mallimak 12:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Annexation is also the phrase used by the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica see here. A quick Google search seems to show that annexation was the phrase attached to many acts of the time, especially to the appropriation of land previously owned by the church - such the 1587 "act of general annexation" or "general act of annexation".  Aquilina 19:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see discussion here: Talk:List of Acts of the Scottish Parliament to 1707. --Mais oui! 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've copied my comment to there, and left some further information - it's probably best to carry on discussion there. As to the actual implementation in the article itself, I will say nothing; other than to point out that, from my reading, the other verb to crop up repeatedly in this context is ceded. Aquilina 22:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The act certainly won't be called the "Act of Return to Scotland", so I am reverting it back again. Please leave it as "annexed" (note what Aquilina says above) until proven otherwise. Thank you. Mallimak 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Does this item I read have any bearing, regarding annexation, in name or otherwise? - Read Here Richard Harvey 19:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm arriving a bit late to this discussion, which seems to have settle down to the correct view ie "annexation". "|The New History of Orkney" by W. P. L. Thomson has a whole chapter on this. According to this source the scottish parliament of 1472 enacted that
 * ...our souverain lorde, with deliverance of his thre estatis annext an united the erledome of Orkney and the lordship of Scheteland to the croune...

Which is pretty clear. Thomson goes on to say that
 * The act did not alter the fact that Scotland held Orkney and Shetland in pledge rather than by sovereign right - it dealt with the earldom rather than with sovereignty.

Robert Scarth 13:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding going on (here and "POV" below) about what is meant by "annexation" in the context of Orkney in 1472. It is NOT the unilateral wresting of sovereignty over the islands from Norway and attaching it to Scotland. Rather, in this context "annexation" is a Scottish historico-legal term of art for the concept that land forming part of the Crown Estate could not be alienated by the Crown without the consent of parliament if it was "annexed" to the Crown. This was an attempt to avoid the problem whereby monarchs (and regents on behalf of minor monarchs) tended to grant out chunks of the Crown Estate on easy terms to noble factions which gained them short term political support but at the cost of long term detriment to the Crown's finances. Admittedly the 1472 Act annexing Orkney does not specifically mention the need for parliament's consent to a grant but that can be taken as read. There were numerous Acts of Annexation down the years in Scotland. After various twists and turns, Orkney and Shetland were re-annexed to the Crown by an Act of Parliament in 1669. I suspect that this part of the entry ("Scottish rule") had been edited by Stuart Hill who has strange ideas about O&S's constitutional position in the UK. See www.forvik.com. He believes that the 1669 Act somehow withdrew the islands from the kingdom of Scotland (and post 1707, the UK) and the jurisdiction of its parliament and placed them under the immediate protection of the king in a status similar to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands which Stuart calls "Crown Dependency". With respect, that is a total misunderstanding of the annexation effected by the 1669 Act (which explicitly mentions the need for the consent of parliament to a grant of the islands so, far from removing them from the jurisdiction of parliament and placing them under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Crown, seems to me to have exactly the opposite effect: the king's freedom of action is tied by parliament). Hence, I have edited this section to remove all references to "crown dependencies" linking to the IoM and CI. Ditto the sub-article linked to from the reference to the 1669 Act. Happy to debate this subject here or in any other forum Neilking2706 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Name
To the website owner: Never refer to 'the Orkneys' - the correct terms are Orkney, Orkney Islands, Northern Isles. Furthermore, Orkney does not have a 'bleak aspect' - it is amazingly green and fertile. Have you even been there?
 * We would love to have someone who's actually been there edit this article - feel free! Stan 15:06 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm new to Wikipedia, but was born and brought up on Orkney, this seems like a good entry to cut my teeth on. Skatehorn 20:15 5 Feb 2004 (CET)
 * I have been there many times and love it ... surely everyone calls it simply "Orkney" so I suggest we rename the article Orkney instead of Orkney Islands.Abtract 20:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If the name means "seal islands", surely it is unnecessary to refer to them as "the Orkney Islands". Will "Orkney" not suffice?
 * I'm not at all claiming that I understand the subject better than the people who actually live there, but from a Scandinavian perspective it seems a little odd to just use Orkney. The word ey (øy in Modern Norwegian) is, if I'm not terribly mistaken, singular, but it is supposed to be the name of an island group (the name in Modern Norwegian is the plural Orknøyane). If you use the Orkneys then you at least have a plural name, even if it is a little strange mix of a West Norse/Norn and English. The name Orkney Islands looks very odd as it translates into Orkn Island Islands. The most logical would perhaps be to back to the older plural form Orkneyjar (I took this spelling from the Origin of the name section of the main article), whish mirrors to the Faroese (a close relative of Norn) name for their island group, Føroyar. I understand that it is unrealistic to introduce what will be perceived as a new name, but I have put my two cents in. -- Nidator 17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Orkney is singular, so the British usage is rather odd; certainly in American English, it's fine to call them "the Orkneys" when refering to the island group, if not the political organization. But it's not Norn or Norse or owned by Norway anymore, so adding -iar, -jar, or -ar wouldn't be the way to go. That longboat has sailed. =)


 * Incidentially, kudos to Parfittaa for finally removing that inappropriate & anonymous "inappropriately called" edit (oldid=116528309) re: the names. -114.91.67.13 (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1472
"Annexation" is the correct term, indeed an Act of Annexation was passed by the Scottish Parliament. I have never seen this event described as a "return to Scotland" in any book on Orkney I have ever read. I urge Mais oui! to do some reading about Orkney (I have suggested some books in comments I have made elsewhere in Wikipedia, see e.g. Orcadian Wikipedians' notice board), until he has done so, he not qualified to make changes to my contributions on Orkney. Mallimak 12:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Annexation is also the phrase used by the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica see here. A quick Google search seems to show that annexation was the phrase attached to many acts of the time, especially to the appropriation of land previously owned by the church - such the 1587 "act of general annexation" or "general act of annexation".  Aquilina 19:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see discussion here: Talk:List of Acts of the Scottish Parliament to 1707. --Mais oui! 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've copied my comment to there, and left some further information - it's probably best to carry on discussion there. As to the actual implementation in the article itself, I will say nothing; other than to point out that, from my reading, the other verb to crop up repeatedly in this context is ceded. Aquilina 22:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The act certainly won't be called the "Act of Return to Scotland", so I am reverting it back again. Please leave it as "annexed" (note what Aquilina says above) until proven otherwise. Thank you. Mallimak 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Does this item I read have any bearing, regarding annexation, in name or otherwise? - Read Here Richard Harvey 19:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm arriving a bit late to this discussion, which seems to have settle down to the correct view ie "annexation". "|The New History of Orkney" by W. P. L. Thomson has a whole chapter on this. According to this source the scottish parliament of 1472 enacted that
 * ...our souverain lorde, with deliverance of his thre estatis annext an united the erledome of Orkney and the lordship of Scheteland to the croune...

Which is pretty clear. Thomson goes on to say that
 * The act did not alter the fact that Scotland held Orkney and Shetland in pledge rather than by sovereign right - it dealt with the earldom rather than with sovereignty.

Robert Scarth 13:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding going on (here and "POV" below) about what is meant by "annexation" in the context of Orkney in 1472. It is NOT the unilateral wresting of sovereignty over the islands from Norway and attaching it to Scotland. Rather, in this context "annexation" is a Scottish historico-legal term of art for the concept that land forming part of the Crown Estate could not be alienated by the Crown without the consent of parliament if it was "annexed" to the Crown. This was an attempt to avoid the problem whereby monarchs (and regents on behalf of minor monarchs) tended to grant out chunks of the Crown Estate on easy terms to noble factions which gained them short term political support but at the cost of long term detriment to the Crown's finances. Admittedly the 1472 Act annexing Orkney does not specifically mention the need for parliament's consent to a grant but that can be taken as read. There were numerous Acts of Annexation down the years in Scotland. After various twists and turns, Orkney and Shetland were re-annexed to the Crown by an Act of Parliament in 1669. I suspect that this part of the entry ("Scottish rule") had been edited by Stuart Hill who has strange ideas about O&S's constitutional position in the UK. See www.forvik.com. He believes that the 1669 Act somehow withdrew the islands from the kingdom of Scotland (and post 1707, the UK) and the jurisdiction of its parliament and placed them under the immediate protection of the king in a status similar to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands which Stuart calls "Crown Dependency". With respect, that is a total misunderstanding of the annexation effected by the 1669 Act (which explicitly mentions the need for the consent of parliament to a grant of the islands so, far from removing them from the jurisdiction of parliament and placing them under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Crown, seems to me to have exactly the opposite effect: the king's freedom of action is tied by parliament). Hence, I have edited this section to remove all references to "crown dependencies" linking to the IoM and CI. Ditto the sub-article linked to from the reference to the 1669 Act. Happy to debate this subject here or in any other forum Neilking2706 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)