Talk:Scotland/Archive 7

Etymology: "Scotland"?
Somebody told me, it derives from Greek for "dark". Is there any truth in it? -- Anon


 * The word comes from the Latin for an Irish tribal name, the "Scotti" but what the origins of that are is anybody's guess. Seems more likely to be from the Gaelic (or perhaps Brythonic) than from the Greek though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There should be some entry in some etymlogical lexicon. The word I refer to is: Σκοτεινό /skotino/ (dark).


 * There's no doubt that the words are similar. What is in doubt is whether there is any cause-and-effect relation. The resemblance may just be coincidental. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that Scotland is Σκωτία in Greek wich spells with omega rather than omikron is not really supporting this idea (which was brought to me by a Greek teacher, by the way). However it would be nice if any native English speakter could get a hand on their printed etymological handbook and source of "Scotland". (RalfG)


 * The OED simply has "OE Scottas f. LL Scottus" - Old English from (late) Latin. No etymology for Scottus. Shimgray | talk | 10:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to add that Ancient Greeks used to go to Scotland to get copper. Since the land was so far in the North and so dark, compared to sunny Greece, they are supposed to have named it after the Greek word 'skotos', which means 'darkness'. (Eleni)


 * Maybe the Ancient Greeks did visit for copper but the Ancient Scots all lived in Ireland at that time. So it sounds as if you are saying that a group of Irishmen were named the Scotti because it was dark in Scotland. That doesn't sound very logical. Anyway the Greeks would more likely have visited during the summer than the winter. And during the summer it's not dark. In fact it's light for twenty or more hours a day because it is so far North. Try another theory. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In all seriousness, though, why does the page translate "Scotland" as "land of the Gaels" rather than "land of the Scots"? Is it just out of a desire to avoid sounding tautologous? &mdash; or are Scot and Gael really synonomous and coterminous? Doops | talk 01:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Scotland means land of the Scots, but in the early middle ages, when the word was used for Scotland, Scottas/Scotus meant Gael (not simply Irishman or Scottishman). BTW, the word Scot is just as likely to come from Greek as a vast number of European languages. The ultimate origin of the word has baffled scholars for centuries, although I like the idea that it might have something to do with the word Scythia, perhaps the Romans were comparing them. But there are also a number of Old Irish words from which it may have been derived. - Calgacus 01:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Caption text
..by 1400 Scots had diverged from Middle English: it would really be of great benefit if we could apply a map that did not use confusing, archaic terms
 * No it hadn't. It was still called Inglis, and there is no contemporary evidence that the dialects spoken in parts of lowland Scotland were regarded as in any way different, or united, with any reference to the Anglo-Scottish border. At any rate, the point is irrelevant since the map includes coverage of northern English. Is this being called Scots too? The text should be restored for further discussion - Calgacus 16:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the need for a less confusing map. Late 14th century literary Scots was significantly different from the language used by Chaucer as a brief perusal of Barbour's The Brus and the Canterbury Tales makes clear. The use of archaic terms is needlessly confusing. Worth remembering that Norman French was still the language of England's ruling elite at this point in history. Benarty 16:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The terminology is clear from both the map and context. The map uses contemporary language, as many maps do. The map is not confusing then, and far from being needlessly confusing, is educational. Barbour's Brus incidentally has more in common with modern English than Chaucer does, precisely because English hadn't yet developed distinctive dialects in Scotland. The idea that Barbour wrote in a distinctive language which he could have thought of as "Scots" is the fictitious fancy of modern nationalistically inclined skewers of history, be they professional historians or wikipedians. - Calgacus 16:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not desperately related to anything specific above, but the caption text is pretty long due to the use of "Inglis" and "Scottis". They're just words, on a white square, overlaid on the image. What would people think of replacing them with "Germanic" and "Celtic", and a much shorter caption like shown here? This, it seems, would deal with a lot of the arguments thrown up by those words, and still actually represent what the map is showing... Shimgray | talk | 19:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Swell. Could you fiddle with alternate fonts? Doops | talk 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll try something tonight - about to head out. Shimgray | talk | 19:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll put your version in now; if you make a prettier version tonight you can swap the newer image in. Doops | talk 19:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Does the text on this version look a little better? It was trying to make the letters two-toned, which caused a problem, but now it's fine. (I've also changed Gaelic to Celtic, for consistency). If anyone else wants a hack, I can pass on a copy of the "blank" version. Shimgray | talk | 22:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you're gonna do that, then you should replace Celtic with Gaelic, because Gaelic (i.e. Scottish and Irish) is the only Celtic language on the map. - Calgacus 22:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems more logical to have either two specific languages - the original was Gaelic and Anglic, differently named, as I understand it - or two language families - Celtic and Germanic, as the original caption had. Same level, if that makes sense. Shimgray | talk | 22:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * English and Gaelic is fine to me, although there should probably be some indication that the Caithness yellow doesn't refer to English. I worry that some people will take the map to mean that Pictish and Welsh were still spoken. People come out with some rubbish on the topic of Scottish medieval languages, (it is commonly believed for instance that Galwegian was a version of Welsh). Also, there is a long history in Scotland of demeaning the status of Gaelic, so calling it Celtic might be interpreted as part of this, or as insulting. The problem is easy enough to avoid, if you're creative enough. - Calgacus 23:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (dropping down indents) How about Celtic languages and Germanic languages? It saves us having to note the Scandinavian bits seperately... Shimgray | talk | 23:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Only one Celtic language is being referred to. Implying there are more is precisely what needs to be avoided. - Calgacus 23:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Celtic dialects and Germanic dialects would be better. Doops | talk 23:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. Or Celtic dialects / Germanic languages? I'm not sure how close the various Germanic languages were, then - are they close enough for "dialects"? Shimgray | talk | 00:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter, really: even if there are identifiable languages, the map will include various dialects of those languages. Doops | talk 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay - how's this look? Shimgray | talk | 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it was better the way it was before. The Scottis-Inglis map was at least informative, but this is misleading. If you're gonna change Scottis-Inglis, the best thing would be Gaelic-English or Gaelic-Germanic. - Calgacus 00:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As with most problems, the solution might lie in starting from scratch with a different angle. How about labelling the map "Germanic names" and "Celtic names" and using a caption along these lines "a map showing the language family best represented by local place-names suggests something of the..." ? Doops | talk 02:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The bloody harp
;)



Calgacus, fancy expanding on why it's so crucial to have in the main Scotland article? The linked harp article doesn't have much to say, so I'm a touch lost to the significance. Thanks/wangi 11:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a piece of medieval Scottish culture, a dead culture now, but one that once lived and flourished. That's what the history section ought to be about. It's far more useful that a basic map. And if you think I'm weird for thinking it significant, the BBC documentary In Search of Scotland thought it worthy to have the full Gerald of Wales quote - Calgacus 11:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, but isn't the proper place the History of Scotland or Kingdom of Scotland articles, and shouldn't the harp article be beefed up too? Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of the other photos are out of place too. Thanks/wangi 11:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Have to agree. The Harp is primarily an Irish symbol long associated with organisations like the Royal Irish/Ulster Constabulary. It is incongruous having it on the main Scottish page and as such appears to be an attempt to push a viewpoint rather than to inform. Benarty 11:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What they put in those articles is up to them. The Irish have the harp as a national symbol (its the pre-modern "flag" of Ireland, and represents Ireland on the royal arms), but it was just as much if not more a Scottish thing in the middle ages. I fail to see why a dated map of early 9th century Pictland is more useful, nor why the harp shouldn't be there. I can't think of any pic, except the Monymusk reliquary (of which wiki does not seem to have a pic), that is more illustrative of Scotland in the medieval past. - Calgacus 11:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The harp appears to have been reinserted complete with the overlong caption. The insertion of a graphic certainly helps brighten the page up aesthetically but as noted above the harp seems a slightly strange selection. I would like to propose that some graphic related to the Wars of Independence be used instead. Wallace's sword would be my personal preference. Benarty 10:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Have to agree. While I don't doubt the clàrsach was a part of Scottish society at that time, there are many more iconic possibilities to be exploited which are unique to Scotland (btw let's also not forget the harp has survived to be an integral part of Welsh culture as well). I always love breaking down preconceived notions and showing history is more complex than most people will ever realize; as many books and documentaries such as the one by the BBC do, I'm just not sure this is the page to do that. It is cliché, but Wallace's sword would do, or any of the two-handed claymores. Khiradtalk 11:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Foreign writers don't say much about Scottish culture in the middle ages, and certainly not much that's positive. The art of harping is one of the few things praised. A claymore, while fine, lays too much stress on Scottish military culture. The harp is cultural, ephasizes a lost and oft forgotten cultural millieu, and stresses the common links with Ireland which made the pre-14th century Scots and Irish, in the paraphrased words of Robert the Bruce, "one nation." As I said before, the only other picture I'd regard as equally appropriate is the Monymusk reliquary. The latter and the two harps that survive from medieval Scotland (only one Irish one survives AFAIK), are without doubt the most amazing survivals from the Scottish middle ages, and it would be sad not to make use of them. - Calgacus 13:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Worth noting that Edward Bruce's expedition to seize control of Ireland post-Bannockburn was a complete failure because many Irish Gaels fought against him on Edward II's side. It is certainly true that Robert the Bruce often attempted to make use of the fact that his mother was from a Gaelic background within the prevailing feudal contest for power but during the Wars of Independence there was no correlation between ethnocultural affiliation and support for the Bruces' cause. Many leading Highland Gaelic clans like the MacDougals of Lorne were aligned with the English crown because like many other groups within Scottish society they backed the rival Balliol or Comyn claims to the Scottish throne and saw Bruce as a usurper. Benarty 13:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Edward's invasion of Ireland failed because of widespread famine and because of his surprising death in battle. As many, if not more, Irish Gaels fought for them. Both Bruces were native Gaelic speakers, but that only got them a foot in the door, and as always neither the Irish or Scottish Gaels were ever going to unite for any purpose. Anyways, makes me sad, but I appear to be wasting my time on this page. I see someone has just went ahead and deleted the work on the harp. Who knows the real reason, certainly no good arguments for getting rid of it were offered here. Instead, we've got a good educational map edited so that it now serves only to confuse, and a new dated map of Northumbria introduced without discussion. I'd go ahead and get rid of it, but I'd probably be wasting my time there also. - Calgacus 14:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The harp has no obvious importance for the main Scotland article. Perhaps it could be included in an historical culture article for Scotland, but not for the main article. And there is no apparent agreement for it to be reinstated so I removed it again. Astrotrain 13:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "No obvious importance"?! Read this page. I do admit there is no agreement though, as only myself and Mais Oui! have offered any support. Perhaps when the history of Scotland page has decent coverage of the period I'll insert it there, but I fear it'd just encounter the same hostility. - Calgacus 14:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Conversation break-off moved to bottom for clarity

Images
How about trying other images, rather than maps, for the history section. I've added the Wallace Monument to symbalise the Scottish Wars of Independence, and King James VI as the first Scottish monarch to become King of England. I don't really like the map images as they are not very clear, and don't really add much to the article. Astrotrain 14:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and a modern monument to William Wallace does then? Sorry, I don't mean to be rude. My prejudices derive from my interest in High Medieval Scotland. At least there's decent textual coverage now. And, yeah, the map at least showed that there was no clear cut division between Highlands and Lowlands in 1400, now the article loses that subtlety. None of the new images say anything about the history of Scotland. But I'm ceasing to be bothered any more. - Calgacus 14:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking good and suitably neutral in terms of point of view. Maybe shift the Wallace mounument pic down a bit so the text flows a bit better? Benarty 14:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral? How bizarre. What on earth was unneutral about the previous images? - Calgacus 14:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why don't you add the map images to History of Scotland? It would seem to be more appropiate in this article. Astrotrain 14:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still no clearer as to why a modern monument (why not just stick in a pic of Mel Gibson?), is more appropriate than a medieval harp. It seems to me that high medieval Scotland is being ignored. - Calgacus 15:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Is Wallace not from medieval Scotland? Astrotrain 15:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * High Medieval, not medieval. Because of the obscurity of the subject matter, there is a popular tendency to ignore Scottish history before 1286. Am I so wrong to be concerned about this? I mean, we're talking about more five or six centuries, the majority of the period of Scottish independence. - Calgacus 15:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure he should be encouraged to tamper with that particular article. Benarty 15:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Stop_hand.svg|left|30px]] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. - Calgacus  15:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Could the person who posted the above identify themself? Benarty 15:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You might want to check edit histories in future. - Calgacus 15:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have to. Additions to this page are supposed to be signed. Benarty 15:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you grasped the point, Benarty. - Calgacus 15:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Everybody please take a deep breath, go read WP:CIVIL and then try and reach some kind of consensus. You've all made major contributions to this article and you shouldn't let a little thing like an image get in the way of continuing to improve it. --GraemeL (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no objection to the harp. It's certainly better than the Wallace monument, which doesn't really illustrate the middle ages at all (low or high); it's all about the Victorians. Doops | talk 17:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * PS for the honor of first & most prominent illustration, though, it's hard not to vote for Eilean Donan, cliche though it is. Doops | talk 17:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Clichéd is good for the main Scotland page I would have thought. The pictures jpegs aren't the greatest on the Eilean Donan wikipedia page unfortunately. Something like this one would probably be better . Getting back to my Wallace's sword suggestion one of the problems with Braveheart is that Mel Gibson really wasn't a suitable actor for the role of William Wallace. Whoever wielded this sword was definitely not someone you'd want to encounter on the field of battle. Benarty 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The reason I chose the Wallace Monument image was: firstly it is a free use image (important for Scotland to have free use images for featured article status); secondly. although it is a modern monument, it is the best example of a monument for an historical Scottish figure; and it looks good. For history sections, there is limited choice for images, so monuments are a good subsititute. Astrotrain 22:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would think that the image of the Wallace Monument, being that it is a monument to a Scottish hero, would be a good image here. More so than an obscure box or harp. the fact that it doesn't itself date to the 13th C or before is IMO irrelevant. If there is some sort of reaction to such an image, an image of Stirling Castle or the Moot Hill, though I don't see why people should object to a monument to a real person who fought for Scotland. --Bob 18:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Geology
Does the Geology section really add enough to merit this level of inclusion on the main page. Maybe better to simply insert a link to Geology of Scotland in the "See also" section? Benarty 15:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree Astrotrain 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Scottish Inventions
Can someone just open a new article Scottish inventions. Boasting could be done there to the heart's content. :; - Calgacus 20:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to mention some of those are just plain lies. No point in changing since it'll just start an edit war, but that some of those "inventions" are lies, yes they are. I failt to understand how scots think that boasting so brasonly will make them into good light into other countries, if anything, it just makes them look like they have an inferiority complex... perhaps because they're not a real country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.0.92 (talk • contribs)


 * If you are so opposed to it being here, why don't you do it? --Bob 20:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is supposed to be an encycopedia entry. Many of the alterations made are clearly unsuitable. Some of the stuff added simply does not fit under the description of inventions and scientific discoveries and the amended list now contains obvious repetitions. Benarty 20:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not passionately opposed to it or anything. But experience on this article tells me that many Scots really do desire to catalogue Scottish innovation for all the world to see. I'd be happy to paste the list into that article, but I wouldn't want anyone thinking it was my work. At the moment though, there is no article in to satisfy this desire. It'd be perfect if that anonymous user would do it, or perhaps Benarty?, or you, Grcampbell? The main Scotland article is not the place, esp. since the new list has taken the size of the article up to 41 kilobytes. This article should not be increasing in size. - Calgacus 20:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Have reverted it. A few of the most significant additional inventions with suitable links would be a great addition to the page in my opinion but the list being added in at the moment is way too long and contains obvious repetitions. 20:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Benarty


 * OK. I created an article (Scottish inventions). It's just a stub. I'll leave it to others to make it a decent article, as I am not particularly interested in the topic. It might also be renamed, depending on how fully one wishes to catalogue Scotland's creative godliness and innovatory magnificence. If anyone's wondering why I'm a little less than enthusiatic, the main reason is that I think harking on about it can potentially make Scottish people look boastful, and perhaps insecure. - Calgacus 21:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Do we really need a "List of things associated with Scotland" section in this page. Many things such as the Beano or the Cutty Sark are not realy associated with Scotland in any case? Astrotrain 22:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly, a separate section. Thanks.wangi 02:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Source information again
After major reworking, the article still only has 6 external source links. Please take a look further up this talk page Talk:Scotland. --GraemeL (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Banknotes
Astrotrain reverted my change with remove the RBOS £100 not image stating "Scottish banknotes are not copyrighted". However please read: http://www.rbs.com/about03.asp?id=ABOUT_US/OUR_HERITAGE/OUR_HISTORY/OUR_BANKNOTES/REPRODUCING_OUR_BANKNOTES Thanks/wangi 15:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Bad wording on my part. The image copytag states they can be used under the fair use provision "when they are used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself". As the fact that Scotland is one of the few non sovereign nations to produce their own banknotes, and we talk about this here, then it is fine under the fair use provision for us to put a banknote image here. Astrotrain 16:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also the link only states that you need prior permission from the RBS for making a reproduction, not that banknote images are copyrighted. I presume that this image was already approved by the RBS and uploaded to Wikipedia with prior permission. Astrotrain 16:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't assume anything re permission, indeed I'd expect someone simply downloaded the image and then uploaded it given the lack of any info on the image page. BTW I sought and got permission for the Bank of England £10 and £20 images - I would assume an ok from the RBS would be very much the same - a reference and an expiry date. Arguing fair use on British banknotes is a no-brainer, but I think not on this page. Thanks/wangi 17:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

.sco TLD
User:20.133.0.14 readded the info about .sco in the infobox claiming: "The rationalising of the notes in the country 'infobox' resulted in the erroneous deletion of the link to the proposed '.sco' TLD", however I actually reverted that on purpose. The infobox is not the place to discuss the .sco proposal, and anyway it isn't designed to be a country TLD. Thanks/wangi 12:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I would agree with that rationalle. Astrotrain 13:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree that a reference to ".sco" has no place in the 'infobox' at this point in time. Benarty 18:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Monymusk Reliquary
Calgacus, ask and you shall receive... Not the best quality, but ok for the wee camera through the glass in crap lighting: I note there isn't a Monymusk Reliquary article - you know enough to make a stub? Thanks/wangi 23:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To make a stub, yes. But there is an actual article on it somewhere, which I'd probably be better reading before writing any proper article. Funny you did that, I just uploaded a picture of that today. . Wonders never cease, eh? Thank you BTW. :) Should we put one of them up? - Calgacus 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You wait ages and then... ;) I see you were cursing the light too - strange how it's just the upper portion that's blured! And yeah, I'd put one of them on this page. Thanks/wangi 23:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite certainly. It is probably the most amazing thing to survive the Scottish middle ages. I shall go and produce a short stub, after I've had my coffee. - Calgacus 23:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Did it: Monymusk Reliquary. What about this to replace the Victorian monument:[[Image:Brecbennoch.PNG|thumb|right|200px|The [[Monymusk Reliquary]], or Brecbennoch as it was called, dates from c. 750, and purportedly enclosed bones of Columba, the most popular saint in medieval Scotland. It was carried by the Scots into the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314.]] - Calgacus 00:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice stuff! Well done, gentlemen!. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Like the harp, this box has no significance for Scottish history. Astrotrain 14:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, Astrolain. You never backed up the last statement either, just as you never justified the inclusion of the Victorian monument to William Wallace. So your comment has no significance to this discussion. Are discussions for other people or something? - Calgacus 14:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh please Astrotrain, a box that has survived since 750, has carried the bones of St Columba and was carried into the Battle of Bannockburn... Yeah, nothing at all! Calgacus might well be marginalise (here) with this views WRT the harp, but I think this is a different case. Thanks/wangi 14:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I did give rationalle for using the Wallace Monument image (see Talk:Scotland). The monument image is much better than this, rather ugly, box, that may or may not have carried the bones of Colomba, and may or may not have been to the Battle of Bannockburn. Astrotrain 15:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Compared with paragraphs on the Harp and this, all you said was " to symbalise the Scottish Wars of Independence". Great! Do you seriously feel you've been arguing your case? You offer only subjectivity to support your case, which is fine if you're having a conversation with yourself, but irrelevant here. The idea that the monument is more important for Scottish history is actually rather laughable, but if you're after low-brow illustrations, as you seem to be, why not just stick in a pic of Mel Gibson as Braveheart?! BTW, even if it never had the bones of Columba, the medieval Scots thought it did, and it was carried into Bannockburn according to the sources. If you doubt this, please replace your innuendo with reasoning. - Calgacus 15:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the main Scotland article, therefore only a brief summary of history is given. The box isn't mentioned in the history section, indeed it did not have its own article until today. The box does not represent anything in Scottish history, it is hardly the Ark of the Covenant. Astrotrain 17:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't bother with you any more Astrolain, simply repeating silly statements like "The box does not represent anything in Scottish history" doesn't make them true. Actually, the statement is obviously factually incorrect, but nevermind that; who needs facts after all?! I'll mind my manners, but maybe this convo would be more productive if one of us read a little more on the subject he discusses. - Calgacus 18:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this is mind while editing. Thanks Astrotrain 19:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Astrotrain, Calgacus is clearly ruffled by your style of "discussion", quoting of policy only helps to further exasperate matters. The fact that Wikipedia disn't have an article on the reliquary until yesterday and that history section does not mention it only serve to show that Wikipedia is not complete (and that should be plainly clear).
 * The fact that the Museum of Scotland places such importance on this relic, placing it as the first exhibit you will see, should help illustrate its importance. Thanks/wangi 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Gallery of Images
I've been working on the Wales page today. They have a gallery of images at the bottom of the page for various items. I've put one at the bottom of this page also, for items such as the box talked about above, as well as some others that may be good for the page. I think this could be a good idea for images that users wish to see on the page, but do not fit in well with the existing sections of the page layout Astrotrain 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

History section is far too long
I realise that Scotland has had an awful lot of it, and that many contributors have put a lot of work into the section, but I would like to request that we drastically reduce the size of the history section, to the recommended 6 short paragraphs. The main History of Scotland article is actually one of the very few Scotland-related articles of Featured quality, and is more than enough back-up to the brief section required for this article.

By having such a strong emphasis on the history of Scotland, especially in the first major section, we are actually distorting the entire presentation of the topic. This article is (or should be) primarily about the modern country. The history section is only there to provide a little context.

If editors are itching to add their knowledge to Wikipedia, please write specialist sub-articles to the main History of Scotland article (and link to them at the main article), or improve the Kingdom of Scotland article (which is still a stub).

Surely it is not beyond us to write a concise, informative section covering the broad sweep of the story from the first human habitation after the last ice-age, up to the present day? I would like to suggest that we structure it roughly:
 * prehistory; first historic records (presumably Greek and Roman sources) to late iron-age (Picts, Scots, Angles and Brythons)
 * unification of the state (MacAlpin to Carlaw)
 * medieval period
 * Union with England
 * Industrial revolution/Empire
 * modern history

Obviously there are some massive gaps there (eg. no Bonnie Prince Charlie), but this is a challenge that every single article about all countries must face up to: eg. how do you fancy summarising the History of Egypt in 6 shorts paras? (I note, in awe, that they manage it in only 5 paragraphs, although para 4 is very long.) The interested reader has plenty of links with which to satiate their thirst for further information.--Mais oui! 22:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Further thought I note that the majority of the History section at that Egypt article is post 1869! Maybe that is the way to go: just furnish the readers with the very bare, basic facts about the history before 1900, and then spend the remaining 4 paras trying to explain how modern Scotland came to be as it is, given developments in the last 100 years or so. What do you think?--Mais oui! 22:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Totally in agreement with you on this point --Bob 22:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to look at United States, England, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, all of which devote as much or more space to history. Alternatively, going with Wales and Ireland would mean a cut of a third to a half, much of which could come from better editing. But why Egypt ? Angus McLellan 00:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the history section is fine, although the early modern stuff could definitely be cut down. History is obviously important, and, shamed as I am to say it given I was partly responsible for reorganizing and cutting the article down, most of the recently featured articles I've seen are way above the recommended limit, e.g. Yoweri Museveni, so I'm not sure we need to be that bothered. BTW, have there been any country articles that have attained featured status of late? - Calgacus 00:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just restored the history section which was destroyed by a vandal edit . A history section which may be too long is better than none at all.--GrafZahl 08:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)