Talk:Shetland/Archive 2

Why is Shetland not noted as a county on Shetland, as it is listed as a county in "The Registers of Scotland, Land Register Counties, leaflet", which has a list of 73 towns in the County of "Orkney & Zetland" see Registers of Scotland. Publications, leaflets, Land Register Counties. http://www.ros.gov.uk/public/publications/leaflets.html ? The towns in Zetland (separate list for Orkney) were: 1. Aith 2.Baltasound 3. Bigton 4. Bixter 5.Brae 6.Bressay 7.Brettabister 8.Bridge End 9.Bridge of Walls 10.Brough 11.Burravoe 12.Camb 13.Cullivoe 14.Cunningsburgh 15.Dunrossan 16.East Isle 17.East Yell 18.Eshaness 19.Fair Isle 20.Fetlar 21.Foula 22.Garderhause 23.Girlata 24.Gott 25.Gremista 26.Gulberwick 27.Gutcher 28.Hamer 29.Hamnavoe 30.Heylor 31.Hillswick 32.Lerwick 33.Levenwick 34.Lochend 35.Lower Hillhead 36.Mid Yell 37.Mossbank 38.Muckle Roe 39.North Roe 40.Ollaberry 41.Out Skerries 42.Papa Stour 43.Quarff 44.Quendale 45.Reawick 46.Sandness 47.Sandwick 48.Scalloway 49.Scousburgh 50.Sellafirth 51.Skellister 52.Skerries 53.Sullom 54.Sumburgh Airport 55.Symbister 56.Tresta 57.Ulsta 58.Unst 59.Upper Sound 60.Uyeasound 61.Vidlin 62.Virkie 63.Voe 64.Walls 65.Weisdale 66.West Isle 67.West Sandwick 68.Wester 69.Quarff 70.Westerskeld 71.Whalsay 72.Whiteness 73.Yell. Scotire (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article minimizes and dismisses Scottish influences and culture on Shetland. It highlights 'When Shetland became part of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707,', this is not true as Shetland has never joined the UK, Scotland did and in 1603. The Scottish Parliament was never dissolved, it just did not reconvene until 1999.

The language used across the article is anti-Scottish and is used to highlight differences and no inclusion of what it shares with fellow Scots.

Headlines like 'Pawned to Scotland' and 'Increasing Scottish interest' again minimize and degrade Scottish history of the islands and is alsmost propaganda against how Scottish the islands are.

Caithness, The Western Isles, Yorkshire and parts of Ireland where also heavily Norse and part of the Norse crown at some point, as was Normandy and other huge parts of Europe. Highlighting 'norse' heritage of Shetland is highlighting one small part of a bigger picuture.

'Early British Rule' is just odd. I do not see any other British article highlighting that Ipswich, London or Scilly Islands had a change of rule in 1707...so why does Shetland?

"Scottish and local traders" again the language used is used to make it sound like Shetlanders are not Scottish...propaganda.

The Shetland independence article and talk is based on one article published in the NewStatesman and nothing else.

All in all the article is not suitable and the language needs serious editing as it is currently reading like westminster anti-Scottish propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blairtummock (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if had the time I would attend to the individual points you make. However I don't right now and in general your comments seem to me to be over-sensitive. To take one example, can you explain to me why you think phrases such as 'Pawned to Scotland' and 'Increasing Scottish interest', which seem to me to be reasonably neutral "minimize and degrade Scottish history". A second might be that no-one in Yorkshire was speaking a Norse dialect until relatively recently - but then neither your opinion nor mine really matter. Can you point to credible sources that approach the topic in a wholly different way? No-one is pretending that Shetland is not part of Scotland - it does however have a unique history and the sources I have tend to mention that. Ben MacDui 18:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps if had the time I would attend to the individual points you make. However I don't right now and in general your comments seem to me to be over-sensitive."

If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem, it is not healthy to sit and 'own' wikipedia pages. Making sure there is no vandalism, yes, sitting like a propaganda analyst, no. I think it is clearly time that you back off and take less ownership as you clearly have issues of neutrality.

"Yorkshire was speaking a Norse dialect until relatively recently". People in Cumbria spoke Old Welsh dialects until the 19th cent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yan_tan_tethera), people in Cornwall spoke Cornish until the 17th Century, Calais was maainly Flemish speaking until the early 20th century. There is nothing unique in having different languages and dialects as they existed all over the place. Shetlanders would also have spoken Scots and would have been a multi-lingual society for many centuries, with Norse being less wide spoken and marginal over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blairtummock (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone strikes me as mildly threatening and lacking in assumptions of good faith, but let's not dwell on that. Do you have something useful to say that's backed up by credible sources? If you do than sensible discussion can follow. I don't recall stating that Shetland was unique in having multiple languages and dialects and I notice that the Cornwall article has a section both on the Cornish language and on 'national identity'. Perhaps you consider this to be "westminster anti-English propaganda"? - but then I confess to some confusion about your motivations. Ben MacDui 19:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ben. Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've no axe to grind, and I can see nothing to justify the "POV" box. Horis (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As hard as it might be for people to imagine, the existence of the Shetland islands as fundamentally part of Scotland is about to become incredibly politicised due to the Scottish independence debate. I strongly advocate locking the article until well after the terms of separation are settled to avoid Wikipedia being used as a political football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.57.163 (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right but we don't usually protect articles until they are actually subject to such abuse. So far so good at any rate. 18:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In the section

Cicconorsk (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. An editor made an attempt to make the map more understandable by adding information to the caption, but I think a geographic map, with land masses labeled, and possibly also the north-south-east-west compass points indicated, would be better. If the topographic map (showing elevations) is also desirable, perhaps it can be included in the section on geology.

talk) 21:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

There may well be something more useful on Commons but I don't think the current set up is too bad. You have a map at the top showing the archipelago in relation to Scotland, the geology map and then the topo map in the History section - where arguably this information is most relevant. If it were to remain there and have landmasses identified it would, in that context, ideally show the historical information rather than the present day. I would love to be able to create good quality maps but sadly I have not yet learned how to do that. Ben MacDui 14:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Etymology" section links to Northern Isles, where this

is used. It is also used at List of Shetland islands which links from "Geography and geology". I have added it: acceptable? --Qexigator (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 18:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

2_readers who do not instantly recognize the shape of Scotland: but they can read the adjacent first sentence- "...the Shetland Islands, is a subarctic archipelago of Scotland that lies north-east of mainland Britain". Is that not clear enough for anyone? But it is strange that none of the available images (in English) include a label for Scotland or Britain. Perhaps it's not a real problem. This one in German would not be suitable. The open sea between German Bight and Scapa Flow!

Qexigator (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 21:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Could be, but it's a question of what is available, is it not, as well as what looks best on the page. Adapting the German image for use here goes beyond the user-skill limits of ... Qexigator (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re "I think the map you added is too similar to the map at the top of the page." - I agree. I have moved it down to the Econs section where there is room and so that it is just above Transport, where various places indicated on it are mentioned. We are not (yet) blessed with a cornucopia of maps - but bear in mind that if someone wants to know where Scotland is they just have to click a link. Ben MacDui 08:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this thread is slightly missing the point. The map in question is in the history section of the article, and its purpose is to enhance understanding of the Shetland's history - not to locate them. The map is that should locate the subject is the infobox map. With that in mind a few thoughts:

1. The infobox map - should be a locator - so this not this. In general, infobox maps are plain without labels (cf Sicily, Germany, Isle of Wight). More detailed maps throughout the article are good, and current setup is fine on that eg one in economy showing the towns, one in geography/geology showing geology etc.
2. The map in the history section is inadequate - it tells you nothing about Vikings. IMO most suitable map style would be a labelled, political map, of a given date. For example, File:Europe, 1700 - 1714.png and File:Europe 1812 map en.png show Europe at the start of 18th and 19th C. A sequence of maps (dated to eg c 700, 1000, 1300 and 1600) would be most valuable, as that can show the changes more effectively than a single image. If a single image is used, one showing Shetland as part of Norway (so c. 1000) would be most valuable.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I've added a link to this thread on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps#Shetland_islands, if you can specify what you need, someone there should be able to assist you. EdwardLane (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The people at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop may be able to help if you can agree exactly what is needed: at least a list of dates, each with a list of which region should be which colour. Certes (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yogh generally shows or sounds as as "gy-," "g-" or "y-" e.g. Menzies-Mingus yett-gate. It's close, but hardly "almost identical" to "hj."

Also, if memory serves (Yeah, I know, it often doesn't.) the misapprehension of the Yogh as Zed happened early enough among English speakers to have influenced the current "Sh" pronunciation. Anmccaff (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to ask how the SH pronunciation came about. SH is a unique pronuciation of yogh, it seems. I'd be surprised if Z became SH, but I could be wrong. Also, SH is so late that maybe it's misleading to speak of it as a pronunciation of yogh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Calegon (talk • contribs) 13:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A devoiced

voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant for the approximant to be replaced by the sibilant – compare hue vs. shoe. Presumably, Scots lacked a word-initial sound like [ç] at the time (as opposed to word-internally, as in nicht or richt), so it had to replace the Norse or Norn hj (still pronounced as [ç] in Icelandic, but as [j] in Faroese and on the Continent) by the closest available sound, sh. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

(Text copied from page User talk:Ogress as user suggested continuing the discussion on this page.)

Gaelic in Shetland

Hello Ogress,

I see you reverted my edit of the Shetland article. Although I don't disagree with your statement that the 2005 law made Gaelic an official language in Scotland, I believe that the Gaelic name for Shetland has no place in the Wikipedia article, definitely not as prominant as it currently is. This leads people to believe that Gaelic is or has been widely spoken in the Isles. I am a Shetlander and all of my ancestors back to well before the 1700s were from there. The only Gaelic I heard in my time in Shetland was in a Tennants Lager advert based on Whisky Galore. The first time I heard of Sealtainn was reading this article.

As is stated in the article, Shetland is culturally and linguistically distinct from mainland Scotland. Shetland's dialect is derived from a mixture of old Norse and Scots English. In the Scottish Gaelic article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Gaelic) the percentage of Gaelic speakers was less than the 2% threshold required to put the isles on the map.

Please reconsider your inclusion of the Gaelic name in the article or if you have to, qualify it by stating that Gaelic is not a language which was traditionally spoken in Shetland.

Best Regards,

Stuart Irvine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirvine42 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sirvine42 It'd be best to have this conversation on the talk page: Talk:Shetland. I understand that language is a fraught issue, but it has an official name in Scottish Gaelic, one of the official languages of the land. A section on language would seem prudent anyway as it was a Norse settlement and many words entered the Gaelic languages from Norse due to this settlement such as rosualt "walrus". Ogress 18:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress

Yes, I agree, a seperate section on language would clarify things. I'm not a linguist so am not qualified to do this. I have contacts in the Lerwick museum though and will ask them to contribute.

I still disagree about the prominence of the Gaelic name for Shetland though, expecially above the flag. You wouldn't mention a Kurdish name for Basrah in the city's Wikipedia page for example yet it is one of the official languages of the land. Something on the style of the Isle of Lewis page might be appropriate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis The Gaelic name could be mentioned as an aside, leaving the opening paragraph of the Shetland article for the development of the name over time (Hjaltland, Zetland, Shetland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirvine42 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basrah is located on the border of Kurdistan, I don't see why it wouldn't get Kurdish. Also I'm unclear why this is a big deal because it's literally just a single name. Ogress 20:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lewis and Harris page o Wikipedia has the English, Gaelic and Norse name for the island, despite, Gaelic being the predominant culture there. Of course the Norse still has a place as it was part of the Kingdom of the Isles, as does Gaelic in Shetland. If you follow your logic, there should only be the English name for Shetland, as, regrettably, no other language is spoken there anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanseahy (talk • contribs) 09:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the same since Gaelic was never spoken on the Northern Isles, was it? Gaelic should not be shown per MOS:FORLANG. It states "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence", Gaelic isn't closely associated with Shetland. Scots is, and in the 2011 census, over half the population reported that they could speak Scots. Rob984 (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic may (and I stress may) have been spoken by Gaelic monks in the 5th century on the islands but apart from that, yes, Gaelic hasn't been spoken there. Pictish was, but that wasn't Goidelic, it was Brythonic.

The thing is, Gaelic is a recognised language, so all place names should be given in it. Norn isn't even spoken anymore so flit makes sense to only include Norn/ Norse translations for areas settled by Scandinavians. I see your point but ultimately it's only a name. It doesn't represents an invasion of Shetlandic culture, that was already done 600 years ago by the Scots "language." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanseahy (talk • contribs) 10:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a recognised regional language of the UK, but we aren't going to add a Gaelic name for all places in the UK. Scottish Gaelic is today only a regional language of Scotland. Also, Scots is recognised as well. Mentioning the Gaelic name in ethology section is not a problem, but per MOS:FORLANG, it shouldn't be included in the lead. As for the infobox, I don't mind including Gaelic since its non-intrusive and a summary of the whole article. Rob984 (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki page for Orkney also seems to have been forcefully edited in this strange way by a minority of individuals. Logically it makes sense to keep modern Scots Gaelic words in the modern Scots Gaelic Wikipedia pages. I agree with the sentiments mentioned. It also gives a false impression to people looking for information on Shetland. They would be misled into thinking that Shetland had anything to do with modern Scots Gaelic. Agree to remove. Fiona Sinclair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.198.190.54 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without any proof, it seems for me that the motto and quote from Juske Law "Með lögum skal land byggja" is taken from the Frostathing Law's "At lögum skal land várt byggja en eigi at ulögum øyða". Eiliv (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Orkney which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Orkney says this story pertains to Ornkey, not to Shetland, yet it's also appearing in this article, too. If it really affected both sets of islands, we need to say so specifically in both articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit curious into why Shetland Folk Festival has been redirected back to Shetland. Any reason why?

It doesn't have an article? Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made some additions to the section on culture. I separated a subsection to focus specifically on the languages of Shetland, both historical (

[1] Diff showing my revert, complete with explanation. Further amplified at

WP:DICK and insisting on their version. WCM_email 16:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:DICK here is one who is unwilling to question their own judgement of what the edit actually consists of. I hope this will be an end to the matter. Griceylipper (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

If I'm mistaken I'll apologise and back off. WCM_email 07:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only wanted to reorganize the section to include a specific part on languages of the island's people, like historical Norn and modern Shetlandic. Also added a historical source about the transfer of the islands to Scotland and the arrival of Lowland Scots immigration. I was always open to modifications, but this user 'WCW' just blindly reverted everything. He is welcome to make modifications. Regards, Forza2020 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shetland Islands Council Crest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]