Jump to content

Talk:Nuckelavee/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Talk

Should Nuckalavee and Nuckelavee be combined? I think they're referring to the same or similar item, and it is just a transliteration issue. RevRagnarok 15:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


I removed the "these reports have mostly been disregarded." - the page is about myths. Of course they're disregarded reports. ;) -- RevRagnarok 04:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


"...the burning of seaweed to create kelp." Kelp is a different sort of seaweed. You don't "create" kelp, much less burn anything to do so. --74.99.240.114 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Is it really necessary to link to the colors "yellow" or "black?" Atypicaloracle (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No such thing as too many wicks. That said, how does black blood flow through yellow veins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.130.241 (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is this page so terrible? 38.116.202.11 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nuckelavee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Right, I have to review this...comments ta come....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The alternative spelling "nuckalavee" (I thought) was pretty uncommon - I think I'd leave it in the etymology section rather than the lead.
I think alternative spellings fit better in the lead than in the etymology section. Eric Corbett 17:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, wasn't unequivocal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In the etymology, would it be better to link "Orcadian" to a language? e.g. Orcadian dialect or Norn language?
Other reports state that the creature resembles a centaur; - hmm, I recall seeing that elsewhere...it is not necessarily contrastive as it is like a centaur-like monstrosity...I'd be inclined to put that at the top of the section. Truth be told it is more centaurlike than horselike really.
I'd be very reluctant to categorise a creature with two heads, one a horse's and the other a man's, as anything more than centaur-like, which why the term is introduced where it is. Eric Corbett 17:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Err, what's mortasheen? can we link or something?
All that seems to be known about mortasheen is that it was a fatal disease of horses and cattle, but maybe the sentence as it was written didn't make it clear enough soon enough that it was a disease. I've reworked the sentence to hopefully clarify. Eric Corbett 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
ok - got it...yeah there is precious little otherwise to explain....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Anywhere to link or otherwise explain Mither o' the Sea?

Overall, nice and tight - the nuckelavee is a standout critter so I doubt we'll see the mythological demarcation disputes......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: .be nice to get some sort of artistic depiction......google images has some amusing artwork I must say. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


Overall:

Pass or Fail: any queries I had that were not addressed were really stylistic only and not deal-breakers. Succinct and comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent sighting

Julian May, who is fond of these mythological asides, has this on p. 247 of The Golden Torc in reference to a Firvulag warrior: "the hideous Nuckalavee, who fought under the guise of a flayed centuar with all the raw muscles and sinews and blood vessels exposed to strike horror into his opponents". Ben MacDui 09:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool....I was musing on pop culture references...it's in scribblenauts too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"Despite its being predominantly a sea-dweller"

Doesn't sound right to me. What is the its in this case? Obviously, it's not the contraction but neither is it the possessive form or predicate adjective. So how is its usage correct? Valenciano (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

being predominantly a sea-dweller is a property possessed by it, so think of this as despite its property vs despite it property. --Mark viking (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
To add to what Mark viking said, being is a gerund (a verbal noun), and therefore requres the possessive. Eric Corbett 21:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks guys. Valenciano (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating article. I notice that information that appeared very early on in this page's history about the nuckelavee in popular culture (especially fiction) has disappeared. I think it should be restored as a subsection (as is common in other pages about similarly mythical creatures) but thought I would ask first if there is a specific reason for excluding such items here. Here is an example list, pulled mainly from the page history:

I haven't checked any of these myself apart from the first.Alafarge (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the second doesn't seem to mention the nuckelavee at all, although it does mention the stoor worm. Eric Corbett 17:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Alafarge, IPC entries require secondary sourcing to indicate their significance - do you have any for these? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
No I don't, and I'll happily leave it up to others to work on that if they're interested—I'm working on some other entries at the moment.Alafarge (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Divine

A divine is a member of the clergy, and is the wrong term to apply to the nuckelavee which is a spirit, a divinity, a god, but definitely not a divine. Please fix. Awien (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you need a better dictionary? Mine says relating to, or characterising God or a diety. Eric Corbett 21:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
You're right (other than the misspelt deity), that's how the term is used as an *adjective*. As a noun, as I keep saying, *a* divine is a clergyperson or a theologian (while *the* Divine is something else again). Awien (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
You can keep saying whatever you like, but that doesn't make you right. Eric Corbett 01:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and there's the proper noun too: Divine. Awien (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
the divine Divine
clearly wasn't a divine
earthy was his thing
Awien (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
No, repeating it doesn't make Awien right. Being right does. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/divine Snarkibartfast (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, on reflection, I agree with Awien in this case. Eric Corbett 22:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM

Seriously, does Eric Corbett just revert everything on sight? "Claim" is one of those "words to watch" (WP:CLAIM), yet here's Corbett reverting with a stock "not an improvement" comment. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I did use "claim" advisedly. Whether Tammas was drunk, hallucinating, having the dt's, or lying, he didn't see a nuckelavee. That being said, though, I wouldn't go to (edit) war over "said". Cheers, Awien (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Too personal
You wouldn't, but Eric would. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any chance that you could stop personalising everything? Eric Corbett 22:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Show me how it's done. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
You just can't stop yourself, can you. Anything else you post here of a personal nature will be deleted on sight. Eric Corbett 22:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any advantage in "claim" here over "said" or some other more neutral term? "Saying" something doesn't make it any more true than "claining" something, and "claim" is a word that should be used with utmost caution. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
As I said, no quarrel.
But may I suggest that as a higher priority someone fix the second sentence of the lead (Originating . . . ) with its dangling participle? That's pure bad grammar. An elegant solution is eluding me right now. Awien (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
That's an awfully ugly sentence. I'd break it in two if I didn't fear further retribution. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't know about elegance, but I've subdivided and tried to clarify. Awien (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Uh... This does not have anything to do with Nuckelavee. --Sophia R. Snipes (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Simple

I recently deleted the adjective "simple" where it is used to describe the islanders who may have originated the myth. Sagaciousphil reverted it. I am of the opinion that a scholar of mythology, such as might be interested in an encyclopedia entry on a mythological topic, would not view the islanders as "simple" and besides, the word assumes a position of superiority that tends to subvert the authority of the content. In other words, why would an objective piece insult the islanders like that? Hypnopompus (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

See my reply to you at Talk:Sea Mither. Eric Corbett 13:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
There are better alternatives. "...some islanders...": "...poorly educated islanders...": "...unsophisticated islanders...": "...some poorly educated islanders...", etc., etc.. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"Better" in whose opinion? Eric Corbett 11:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps "more widely acceptable" then. The word "simple" has various meanings, and can therefore be misunderstood. Those meanings include: "..unlearned; ignorant; lacking mental acuteness or sense;... naive; credulous; simpleminded." Perhaps, those are not the meanings intended in this article, but the word is capable of misinterpretation, and alternative wordings exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"Alternative wordings" are not the same as "better" wordings. Simple is exactly the correct word; any alternative would be inferior. Eric Corbett 11:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that "simple islanders" is inappropriate and needs to be reworded at the very least. There's nothing "simple" about folk belief—there's a lot going on there, historically and psychologically— and it's particularly problematic given that it's written in Wiki-voice. It does indeed sound like a throwback to 19th century anthropology, not something one would see in modern scholarship. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree. Eric Corbett 11:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that 'simple' has unfortunate connotations in this context, and there's less-charged language that can and should be used in its place. Mechordeus (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"Better" in whose opinion? At a minimum, in the opinions of Ghmyrtle, Hypnopompus, Bloodofox, Mechordeus, Curly Turkey, and me. What shade of meaning does Eric Corbett see in the word "simple" that is absent in the alternatives at sense 5 or 6 (as opposed to sense 7) of "simple" in this thesaurus? Is the word "simple" used in some 19th-century source? There is no need to quote a source verbatim, and good reason to modernise language that may have acquired unwanted connotations in the intervening decades. Incidentally, the only citation currently for the sentence using the word "simple" is this page, which does not use any synonym; the closest is "Faced with these elements, the ancient Orcadian imagination soon populated the unknown realm with a plethora of supernatural inhabitants" [emphasis added]. jnestorius(talk) 14:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
+1 from me as well. I came here to say just the same thing. Honestly, I think the whole section should go: explanations for why folk beliefs about monsters arise can only be speculation, the cited source doesn't seem to be authoritative on theories of cultural anthropology, and this is not something that relates specifically to the nuckelavee, but might be better suited to an article on superstition. Snarkibartfast (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous idea, easily the worst one I've seen posted here today. Eric Corbett 17:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, your reaction certainly explains why the article is as poor as it is. The surprising thing is that an article in this state should be featured on the front page. For example, the bit in the lead about "a graphic first-hand description" is very poorly stated – and wrong, since the recorded description is second-hand. It's entirely useless as it stands, as it doesn't actually describe the monster. it would be much better to say something like "according to one recorded description, the nuckelavee looked like bla blah blah, but other accounts of its appearance differ"). But I have no interest in getting involved in a wikifight with someone like you, so I'll leave this article to rot. Congratulations. Snarkibartfast (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
You're a trolling joker on whom I will waste no more time. Eric Corbett 18:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I also think it would better serve NPOV to leave out "simple". Unless a stellar source makes the point that this was an unsophisticated, uneducated explanation, by including such a judgement Wikipedia is drawing a conclusion and implying it to be known that there were no educated or sophisticated people in the Orkneys at whatever period. That's undesirable and unnecessary to the article's presentation of why they might have thought that way. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
See pages 68 and 70 here. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
A source from 1890. "There is no need to quote a source verbatim, and good reason to modernise language that may have acquired unwanted connotations in the intervening decades." jnestorius(talk) 15:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I see "unlettered" and "untutored", so unless I missed something, it's "uneducated" that's meant, rather than "simple-minded". I still don't see it as necessary. The point the article is making is that this is the explanation people came up with - or rather that these are the phenomena that are thought to have given rise to the belief. I don't see the necessity of emphasising in any particular article that this differs from what someone with a good education might have thought - it gets into POV editorialising. "Folk belief" and the exposition of what actually caused phenomena such as stock die-offs are sufficient, in my view. Unless there is a source that specifically uses this tale to make a point about the islanders reasoning poorly, I see it as an excessive value judgement. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"Half savage" is also used. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Your point doesn't really stand up to inspection Yngvadottir. For instance, the differing viewpoints of the elite vs. the common people over the existence of witches is not infrequently drawn attention to in the case of witch trials. Eric Corbett 17:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the point about "Half savage" is. Is it that Wikipedia must agree with a cited source to the extent that if a cited source uses Victorian language then so must Wikipedia? As WP:RS says, "some scholarly material may be outdated". Reliability is not all-or-nothing; a source can be reliable within the author's area of expertise and unreliable outside that; Wikipedia is not obliged to take it as a package deal. jnestorius(talk) 18:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I came across the terms in this page from the main page and removed them before seeing this discussion. From what I can tell seven editors have chimed in here to call for their removal, and another one on the main page talk page, and I can see at least three more who've attempted to remove them in the article history. That seems to me a fairly strong WP:CONSENSUS that the terms are inappropriate, but I'm happy to open a formal WP:RfC to support that if necessary. —Nizolan (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Since Sagaciousphil has reverted the edit, I have opened an RfC below. —Nizolan (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Not only is this POV, it's not reliably sourced, and in fact, the word "simple" does not appear in the source. This seems a clear case of edit warring against consensus, I'd suggest you self-close the RfC, change it back, and if gets put back, open an AN/I. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I thought an RfC would be worthwhile to make sure the consensus wasn't being misread, but it's certainly looking like WP:SNOW below. I don't want to withdraw it myself since I feel that might come off as WP:POINTy—I didn't open the RfC with the ulterior intention of immediately closing it—but if another editor wishes to close it I won't object, and action can then be followed up over any subsequent edit-warring against consensus as you suggest. —Nizolan (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
It certainly looks as though it can be closed, but I don't know how. Awien (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The procedure's outlined at WP:RfC#Ending RfCs. —Nizolan (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Given that I'm apparently involved, having voted, may I suggest that you do as Open Future suggested above? Of the options, that seems the best fit. Cheers, Awien (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, 1. seems to fit best. Or 3. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've done as suggested. —Nizolan (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Withdrawing RfC per WP:SNOW and WP:RfC#Ending RfCs #1, as the consensus to remove the terms is obvious. —Nizolan (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the term "simple islanders" be used to characterise the people responsible for the development of a particular myth or legend? —Nizolan (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • No. First and foremost, the term "simple", in reference to a person, is easily understood as a pejorative. For that reason alone, given that it adds little of distinct value to the article it would seem sensible to remove it.
Regardless of this, it is neither encyclopedic nor academically justifiable to use this such a characterisation in reference to an entire group of people, particularly without any sort of qualification. sagaciousphil has supported the use of the term with one semi-academic article from 1890—by Walter Traill Dennison, whom indeed Wikipedia notes (via Andrew Jennings) to have "romanticised" his research—but modern standards of anthropology have in any case changed radically from 1890: a source from 1890 is not adequate support for the use of this language in this context.
More generally, the broader claim—that myths can be held to originate in attempts to explain particular phenomena by the uneducated, a thesis called "nature mythology"—may well fall afoul of WP:NPOV, given that this is seen as being at best a contentious assertion in contemporary sociology of religion. See for example John Lindow here, referring to the "discrediting" of the thesis in the early twentieth century. —Nizolan (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Self-evidently not - This could easily be closed right away as an invalid RfC or a snow-close. Insulting several thousand dead people is not something that Wikipedia should do. As to resolve the conflict, I suggest removing the whole sentence, it's highly doubtful, not reliably sourced and pointless. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course not, and shame on the GAN and FAC reviewers for letting this through. Also check out the mindfuckery happening at Talk:Sea Mither‎‎ on the same subject—especially the incriminating comment " 'simple' carries with it the implication that all islanders were of the same opinion, not just the simple ones"—so we're clear Eric definitely means "simple" in the derogatory sense. Also check out his laughable attempt at "getting back" at me with a botched copyedit of a GA I had promoted today. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No. The word "simple" has several distinct meanings, some of which are clearly pejorative, and alternative wordings that are both more specific and more acceptable are available. Using antique sources does not require us to use antique wording, certainly not without clarification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No. I think the article would be improved by removing that one word. The point would still be made, but in a neutral way. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No, because of the pejorative connotations. The source I can read, Orkneyjar, uses "ancient" in one instance, and "old" in another. Either of these adds the relevant information without bias. Awien (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Use "prescientific people" or similar. These myths were not created by sophisticated islanders to explain phenomena to simpler islanders, nor are islanders inherently simpler than mainlanders (albeit slower to adopt new customs, perhaps). The only way such language could survive is with attribution, e.g. "Walter Dennison viewed such legends as the explanations of a simple people" (if indeed that's what he wrote). Ibadibam (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Not in WP's own voice; it could be retained in a direct quotation, but there would likely be no reason to quote something that said this directly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not for reasons provided above. In addition, there's often nothing "simple" about folk belief, neither historically nor psychologically, and to push such an idea has not been acceptable in academic works for a long time. Note also that the same two users are involved in another disputed use of "simple" over the Sea Mither talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No - I agree in that the word "simple" is sometimes perceived as a pejorative. If a person or group of people is characterized as simple, it is sometimes viewed in a negative light with negative connotations. I also agree with the above user that there is nothing "simple" about historical myths or legends, and it is not accepted by academic works. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No - obviously not. And as I've stated in earlier comments, I think that even apart from this offending word, the more general claim is dubious and not particularly relevant to the article. As Nizolan says, it's really just a statement of the "nature mythology" thesis. It should be removed entirely. Snarkibartfast (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry, RfC was closed while I was entering my vote. Snarkibartfast (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Post-RfC: Solving POV issues

Jayron32 has edited the article to remove the terms without, I think, being aware of this discussion (like many other editors who've attempted to do so); that's fine as far as I'm concerned. Now that the "simple" issue has been resolved fairly unequivocally, we need to move on to redrafting the assertion in a way that's up to scratch on Wikipedia policy. I agree with Jayron32 and a couple of the people above that the sentence doesn't belong in the lede, and if the claim is being made at all it should be restricted to the Origins section. Taking account of the POV issues that have also been mentioned above, I have rewritten the sentence in the Origins section to be more neutral, and have specifically ascribed the thesis to Dennison while removing the self-published webpage that was being used to back up the contentious assertion as a fairly obvious failure of WP:SPS:

The nineteenth-century folklorist Walter Traill Dennison argued that malevolent creatures such as the nuckelavee may have served to provide explanations for incidents that ancient islanders were otherwise unable to account for; many ancient myths, he suggested, were based upon the natural elements of the turbulent and ever changing sea around Orkney.

I'm still not sure whether this is appropriate since I think WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE might come into play with this statement; any comments would be appreciated. (This does look like quite a significant oversight in the GA/FA process for this article.) —Nizolan (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not to me it doesn't. The significant failure in this case is the farce of an RFC above. Eric Corbett 17:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that you explain your position with reference to relevant policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so simply saying that something is a farce doesn't strike me as a helpful contribution. —Nizolan (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
My suggestion is that you simply delete the entire article as being a piece of shit. I hope that's helpful enough for you. Eric Corbett 17:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Noted. —Nizolan (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually having just read the Dennison source it doesn't look like he states the natural mythology thesis at all; he even explicitly says he's not "attempting to trace the origin of this myth". My mistake. The sentence should probably just go in that case; I'm striking the comments I made on it above. I have rewritten it again to summarise what Dennison actually says:
The nineteenth-century folklorist Walter Traill Dennison argued that myths such as that of the nuckelavee serve to cast a light on the "long departed and unlettered ages" in which the traditions originated.
Given that there are no reliable sources cited now for the nature mythology interpretation, I've just removed it. Can anyone find any? —Nizolan (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Please read page 70 in the Traill Dennison article. Sigurd Towrie/orkneyjar.com has been discussed previously and accepted; WP:SPS states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." His site has been used as a ref in a number of books/publications particularly concerning Orcadian history. Additionally, Marwick also includes the nature theory in his book, The Folklore of Orkney and Shetland (1975); it is also given in The Lore of Scotland (2012) by Westwood & Kingshill. These are all established folklorists writing books specific to Scottish folklore so can hardly be described as "fringe". SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
You say "these are all established folklorists". Does Sigurd Towrie have an academic background in folkloristics? What about the other authors? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I am referring to Walter Traill Dennison, Marwick, Westwood and Kingshill. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Dennison is a 19th century folklorist, a situation which needs to be made clear at all times given how much the field has changed since that time. As for the others, context is important. Towrie's site is a personal website written by an enthusiast, which also needs to be made quite clear at every turn—I'm actually not even sure why Towrie's site is being mentioned here. Towrie is not a folklorist. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Making it clear "at all times" would surely make for a rather dull read. Eric Corbett 17:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe I have allowed ample time (around 10 days since my comment on 25 April) for the OP to respond as I feel I've more than adequately demonstrated that this is backed by other more recent reliable sources writing specifically about Scottish folklore. As he has offered no response, I have re-instated the text adding the additional refs. I have resorted to using "some islanders", which is not ideal in an FA, but I do feel a qualifier is required; in an attempt to address this, I have added a brief note giving an indication of just some of the words used by Traill Dennison to describe the islanders. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I will repeat my earlier standpoint, that referring to Traill Dennison on these matters is akin to referring to Newtons views of atoms. An 1891 book on folk myths is an excellent source on what those myths were, but NOT a good source on explaining WHY. Social anthropology has come a looooooong way the last 100 years. I again move to remove any reference to Traill Dennison in this matter.
The Nuckelavee is simply just an anthropomorphization (is that a word) of nature, just like all kinds of spirits are. That's it. Will we be able to find a source to say that specifically for the Nuckelavee? I don't know. But Traill Dennison's interpretation is completely outdated, as shown by his insulting descriptions of the islanders. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
That's simply unadulterated rubbish. Eric Corbett 14:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
What a convincing argument. Such a fantastic display of constructive debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
What about if we leave Eric's change of "some" to "unsophisticated" as I feel the note could then be removed? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
It can be removed anyway. I do, however, not have access to the other sources, so I don't know if they actually support the text. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
What do you know then, if you haven't read the sources? Eric Corbett 14:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
It's clear from the earlier discussions that the belittling descriptions of the islanders come from Traill Dennison. Nobody quoted anything belittling from the other sources. If the two reliable sources (the web link is not a very reliable source) support the general statement, then Traill Dennison (and the web link) is unnecessary, we don't need four references. So the first thing we can do is drop the Traill Dennison reference for that sentence. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@OpenFuture: please do not cast aspersions. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be replying to the wrong person. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
No, you are trying to infer that I may be including refs that don't cover the information. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do not cast aspersions. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, the irony. Stop assuming bad faith, and I'm sure getting an amicable solution will be easy to find. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
There's no need to assume bad faith when it's so blatantly on display. Eric Corbett 18:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: ...incidents that islanders in pre-scientific times were unable to account for... Cheers, Awien (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

But they did account for them, although perhaps in a pre-scientific way. Eric Corbett 18:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I tried to incorporate the suggestions/comments made regarding the use of the word "simple" to paraphrase Traill Dennison's descriptions hence I used "some" and added from "bygone times". Eric then changed it to "unsophisticated", which I state above seemed acceptable and I believe was an earlier suggestion from Ghmyrtle. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
...otherwise unable... Awien (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
"unable" is nowhere near the same meaning. Eric Corbett@
That's the whole point. See above RfC. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that "unsophisticated" is unacceptable, that's just a rewording of "simple". Eric Corbetts edit is a blatant violation of the RfC outcome. As for the rest of the wording we should try to get something close to the reliable sources, so if somebody could quote them, that would be good. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Who are you agreeing with? Yourself? Eric Corbett 19:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The solution at Sea Mither was to drop reference to the islanders: "perhaps invented by simple islanders to explain". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps that was a suboptimal "solution"? Eric Corbett 18:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Nope, that's not it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but with you edit warring, what other option do we have? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
So you're not edit warring? Get real! Eric Corbett 21:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess that is your way of saying that you have no intention of following the RfC? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course not. He'll just keep up with the non-sequiturs, hoping it'll wear you out. Another approach is needed, as Corbett has no intention of engaging with you in good faith. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Any suggestions? --OpenFuture (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Nothing legal, no. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Although he refuses to discuss it in a constructive manner on the talk page, he interestingly enough do post comments as edit summaries, so I'm trying to discuss it via edit summaries, since he refuses to be civil on the talk page. This is of course slow because of 3RR, but I guess it will have to do for now. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

the website that Nizolan points out as WP:SPS (this edit) shouldnt be relied on, since a mistake has already been pointed out in Talk:Stoor worm.

The use of content from this site that contradicts other print sources has never been successfully defended. The criterion that Sagaciousphil enumerates obviously requires the author to have written a number of books or articles that credibly establish him as an authority on Orkney language or folklore, and not, as she has very conveniently interpreted, as having scored a few hits on books.google.

The website's rather apocryphal guess that Jo Ben's manuscript may refer specifically to the "nuckelavee" shouldnt really be in this article, at least not in the manner of totally coopting it from trow. Because it is nowadays well-established that the manuscript actually calls the monster trowis and that it is referring to the "trow", a generic sprite.[1] Whether "nucklevee" or "tangie" is meant, or some other "species", is really up for grabs.

The article also draws from the website that "The term nuckelavee derives from Orcadian knoggelvi", but this is another overreaching claim not verifiable in SND, which merely gives knoggelvi as a variant form collected by Jakobsen. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Corbett's addition of "Unsophisticated Islanders"

Yes, it surprised me, it was a sort of argument. Now however his response was just a personal attack, so trying to communicate via edit summaries has also failed. And since I'm the only one that bothers to undo his vandalism, I'm out of ideas. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest ANI, but the Corbett has special immunity re: editwarring and PAs. If you don't mind sacrificing yourself, you could just keep reverting until you both get blocked. Or perhaps you could ask at WP:VILLAGEPUMP for ideas. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The addition is obviously inappropriate and should be removed. We don't go around making non-scientific judgments about the "sophistication" of various peoples in Wikivoice. It's unacceptable in any introductory anthropology, history, or folkloristics course and it's unacceptable here. As for Corbett, unfortunately you can expect exactly what Curly Turkey says—users with special immunity, particularly Corbett, are a major problem with Wikipedia that has been bringing the quality of articles down for years, this article being yet another example. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I've attempted to add a neutrality tag but it was repeatedly removed by Corbett. As the guy is on Wikipedia at all hours of the day and can essentially do whatever he wants on Wikipedia without any sort of meaningful reprimand, I recommend you guys escalate it to an ANI or try to get another wall of highly visible consensus going. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Since he even ignores RfC's where 100% of the !votes contradict him, another wall of consensus is unlikely to make a difference. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The bare-bones version "...perhaps invented to explain...", as in the Sea Mither article, would be acceptable to me. Awien (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

- The construction is in the passive voice, so there is no requirement for the agent to be specified. Awien (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
And as with all folk myths like these, we don't know who, and will never know. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Supper per nom and comment: There are numerous issues with this article, one of them being an apparent ignorance of basic concepts from folkloristics like monogenesis, polygenesis, innovation, and the general mechanics of diffusion. This discussion is a result of this issue. If someone from the 19th century decided that islanders may have 'invented' something, then we can put that, but it needs to be in quotes and outside of Wikivoice. We're not supposed to be peddling pseudoscience here. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Also support per nom. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That is inaccurate as it isn't only Traill Dennison who would need to be quoted, unless The Lore of Scotland (21st century) and The Folklore of Orkney and Shetland (20th century) are now to be labelled pseudo-science. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
As you're aware, the article currently draws directly from 19th century scholarship in wikivoice for the phrase "unsophisticated islanders", which we're discussing. This was inserted as a workaround by Corbett for the overwhelming rejection of earlier phrased via an RfC. Beyond that, the article is a mess for some of the reasons I point out and I'll probably need to look at whatever it is you've drawn from (that isn't an amateur website like http://www.orkneyjar.com — currently cited several times in the article!). A shame we don't have more folklorists and philologists around to catch these articles before they get through FA. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@SagaciousPhil: can you provide quotes from the other references where they call the islanders my some sort of belittling adjective? I've asked for this before, but the only response was Eric Corbett belittling me, which isn't a constructive answer. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Please use the "preview" function. You are, of course, at perfect liberty to purchase the books I referenced to as I did. Please also re-read things slowly as I was stating that the nature theory was included by these established folklorists. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion here is not about "the nature theory" but about the usage of belittling wording about the islanders. You know that. And to be accurate, I have re-read what you wrote. Multiple times, and slowly. And you did NOT say anything about "the nature theory". You referenced these authors in an argument about removing the wording "unsophisticated islanders", and I asked for quotes where these authors said that or otherwise belittled the islanders, and in response you belittled me. That's not a useful response, as you reasonably are neither of these authors, and I'm not one of the islanders in question.
I have found the relevant sections of the books online, and can't find any belittling of the islanders, so I asked you for a quote, since you seem to claim that these books support the usage of the wording "unsophisticated islanders". Your refusal is clear evidence to me that no such quote exists. It would be more constructive if you just admitted that instead of being rude. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Please point me to exactly where I have stated that. My comment here was clearly marked as replying to the OP and was in reference to his claim that that no reliable sources existed for the nature mythology. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you haven't, it was a glide from one topic to another which I missed. My bad, sorry. However, this at least clarifies that indeed, these two authors do NOT support the usage of belittling language. That relies entirely on Dennison. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I take it you are still ignoring where in Lore of Scotland it qualifies that it is not all islanders who believed it then? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
You're not on that tack again, are you? We cleared this up at Talk:Sea Mither, and the English language has not evolved appreciably since. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. OK, then we are full circle. Sagaciousphil, please quote me the place where Lore of Scotland uses the wording "simple islanders" or "unsophisticated islanders" or similar. I can't find it. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Try page ix as I have given in the reference; you will notice that "simple" or "unsophisticated" did not appear in quotes which indicates the details have been paraphrased. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I still can not see any support for the usage of "simple" or "unsophisticated" not can I see any other belittling characterization of anyone. Which is why I'm asking for a quote. That seems highly difficult to find. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Please point me to where I have ever stated a "belittling characterisation" was used to differentiate between which islanders believed it? That is the connotation you have chosen to give it as far as I can tell. The original usage of the word "simple" was not done with the same nuance being attributed by those who commented. Your continual inference that I am unable to correctly read and paraphrase sources is becoming tedious and disruptive so I do not intend to respond any further today. For the record, this apparent "travesty from every angle" of an article was viewed over 66,500 times while it was on the main page (easily in the top 10 TFA views so far this year); Sea Mither also received 13,496 views that day - more views than several TFAs so far this year. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I do not in any way claim that you can not read or paraphrase sources. Nobody is making any sort of personal attack on you in any way, shape or form, inferred or otherwise. I agree that me once again asking you to find quotes supporting the wording of "simple" or "unsophisticated" islanders is a waste of time, as we both know they don't exist. That also means we can't write that in the article, as you well know. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Sagaciousphil: this apparent "travesty from every angle" of an article—you're not quoting me out of context are you? That would be quite dishonest, as would suggestingthe number of click-thorughs to the article had any bearing on the appropriateness of the snippet of text under discussion.
Do you understand what "travesty" means? Eric Corbett 23:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it means the text is a grossly inferior imitation of intelligent writing. You whip that one out a lot, and it keeps coming back in your face. I guess you prefer that to engaging in good-faith discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
So you don't then, fair enough. Eric Corbett 23:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
When you make as absurd assertions about "simple" as you have, you drain credibility in your authority on what words mean (we can add basic grammar to that, too, with your assertion that "islanders" means "all islanders" over at Talk:Sea Mither).
Hey, everyone—my How a Mosquito Operates article will be on the mainpage in a couple of hours. Watch how Corbett vents his frustrations on that one, the way he did with my John Wilson Bengough. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
OpenFuture: you're on the wrong track. Even if it's the word the sources use, it's still inappropriate in this article—otehrwise we could have fun with "half-savage islanders". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A qualifier of some kind is required. The consensus at the RfC was against the use of the word "simple" and, once consensus was established, Eric and I have respected it both here and on Sea Mither. To refer to any of Eric's edits as "vandalism" is disgraceful. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It's obvious from the RfC opinions that it's about belittling language of any form. Everyone that votes was against that. Replacing the wording "simple islanders" with any other belittling adjective such as "unsophisticated islandes", "untutored islanders", "half-savage islanders", etc, is a violation of the RfC. Both you and Eric Corbett are of course well aware of this. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Swapping it out for synonyms was obviously a workaround for the RfC. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Bloodofox has shown that's it's about more than the choice of language. It's a travesty from every angle. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Off topic levity. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Edit hungry and pay the price! :bloodofox: (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Where and when? Awien (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The bare-bones (passive) description "perhaps invented to explain" does not "lack" anything that describing the islanders as "primitive" or "simple" gives us. Everyone knows that pre-modern peoples had less knowledge of how the natural world works than we do, and devised supernatural explanations for natural phenomena accordingly. Adding language that implies early modern inhabitants of the Orkneys were somehow "more" unknowledgeable than mainland Britons of the same period (who it could be pointed out were just as ignorant of, for example, plate tectonics and evolution by means of natural selection as the Orcanians) is not NPOV, and worse still, adds nothing of use to our readers. The clear consensus of the RFC was against using derogatory language to describe the islanders, not against the use of the word "simple" in and of itself. Ignoring the unanimous RFC against derogatory language and replacing it with more derogatory is highly disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Off topic
To be fair, it's statistically probable (something like 80% if I recall) that any random Wikipedian is male, and the chances are, I would guess, higher if a particular user has a male user name like "Phil". My name sounds like a real-life Japanese girl's name and I am a man, but that is precisely why I explain it on my userpage. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • So even my user name is unacceptable and subject to criticism now? Have none of you ever heard of Philomena, Philippa, Phyllis, Felicity, Ophelia etc all of which get shortened to Phil? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
What criticism? Who said it was unacceptable? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
See Hijiri88's comment above. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I can't see any criticism nor any implication that the username is unacceptable in that comment, quite the opposite. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Then you clearly have shit in your eyes. It was a lame attempt to belittle someone and was too personal for comfort. "Comment on content not contributor" is, I think, the advice offered somewhere; fortunately, Sagasiousphil is above that kind of childish behaviour. CassiantoTalk 23:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't embarrass yourself, Cassianto. Not only was there nothing approaching "criticism" in that comment, but SagaciousPhil is not in the least above childish behaviour. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say "criticism", which you so boldly wrap in quote marks; moreover, I don't even believe I was talking to you, so go and crawl back under your stone. CassiantoTalk 23:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, give it the fuck up, Cassianto. There was nothing in the comment that any competent speaker of English could possibly interpret as a "lame attempt to belittle someone and was too personal for comfort". Neither did you—you're just stirring the pot. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Belittle means this, while "criticism" means that. You obviously have an axe to grind so I don't expect you to understand how this could be seen as a PA. That's the lesson over for this week; next week, I'm talking about "how to identify an internet troll", so please do join me then. Goodbye! CassiantoTalk 06:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Cassianto: "criticism" is the word SagaciousPhil used. Finished embarassing yourself now? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no belittling, nor any criticism in what Hijiri88 wrote. Please remain constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Literature and linguistics are my speciality, and I’m a parent. Here’s my analysis of how this fight got started:

 OpenFuture: used the masculine pronoun “his” when referring to SagaciousPhil.  Curly Turkey: interjected with the single-word correction “her”, which was brusque enough to imply that OpenFuture should have known this.  Hijiri88: came to the defence of OpenFuture, basically saying that the mistake was understandable, but adding a comment that implied that a woman using a male username like Phil should specify that she is a woman the way he specifies that he is a man.  Sagaciousphil: correctly perceived that she was being criticised, but mis-stated what the criticism actually was. It wasn’t her username as such, it was that she omitted to explain that she is a woman.

And from there, misunderstanding building on misunderstanding, the conflict escalated. Some assumption of good faith, willingness to listen to each other, civility, and moderation in language, could have defused the whole thing early on. Awien (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)  Cassianto: was also involved. Awien (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - I've made an adjustment to the phrase-in-question & have also requested full protection for this article. Ya'll can decide for yourselves if my edit adjustment is sound, via your reverting it or not reverting it. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
FWIW - the page protection request was denied. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment There are many inane discussions on Wikipedia, but this has got to be one of the most inane I have ever seen. Months of discussion have been spent on how to characterize hypothetical islanders ("simple" or whatever as though it matters), so as not to offend such long ago hypothetical islanders who may or may not have been the origin of this myth. May I suggest Ho ho ho as another article that clearly will require months of careful discussion?--I am One of Many (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with I am One of Many, it's an inane discussion, as proven by the above RfC, where people unanimously agreed that we shouldn't insult these islanders at all. It does also seem that the edit warrior has abandoned us, so the discussion can now be laid to rest, and we can move on to more constructive things, such as removing the near-200 year old and clearly incorrect speculations on etymology. Featuered article or not, I think that with a little bit of polish we can actually make it also not be blatantly incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Kelp

In my edit of 09:14, 24 June 2015 (reverted by Eric Corbett), the issues:

  1. "kelp burning to create soda ash" is phytologically inaccurate or misleading since seaweed often were of "wrack" ordo. My solution was simply to stick to Dennison p. 132's phraseology and say seaweed burning for "kelp" (soda ash).
  2. Stating that kelp was used as "soil acidifier" to improve soil makes it sound as if it helps agriculture, but this is diametrically opposite of the two kelp web articles which note that traditionally "kelp [i.e. seaweed] was a useful fertiliser" causing suspicion of the industrial use.
    * Nuckelavee manifested hatred for the 19th cent. "kelp" industry that used seaweed for glass-making, but presumably did not disapprove more traditional use of seaweed as fertilizer. If you explain "kelp" to be a fertilizer (which is 20th century) you are altering this context.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Both sites say kelp [ash] was for soap and glass making.
  4. Article forgot to explain why Nuckelavee attacked Stronsay" (Answer: it was where kelp industry began).
  5. Url ought be changed from subscription-needed JSTOR to the archives.org one.
  6. Nuckelavee hating the kelp-smoke needs sourcing (added {{Cn-span}})

Eric needs a better retort than "not an improvement", else I feel entitled to revert back.--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Partly done The editors have already gone back and fixed the points, so I will cross out the ones that are out of the way already. This includes the additional point of "Nuckelavee hating smoke" that I left out from list initially. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Replies - (a) so I take it there are two meanings for the word kelp, one being the specific seaweed and the other being the byproduct of burning (nonspecific) seaweed. (b) burnt material is a good fertiliser. You're saying article is misleading if it doesn't clarify that this wasn't its primary aim...? (c) ok, I get it - let me read (d) is there a source? Am looking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

See, this page is frustrating as by reading it one gets the idea that the primary aim is making the fertiliser, yet you get the idea when read the whole thing that the main aim is producing the stuff to send off to industry with the byproduct as the fertiliser. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

this introductory page says it was initially used as a fertiliser but use in industry became more prominent. this page highlights the industrial use but this is in the 19th century mainly. The second page is badly written as it uses the word kelp to mean kelp initially before switching to make it mean the burnt stuff. Annoying. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the one issue remaining, after additional digging. Cas Liber seems@Cas Liber: it is rather easy at first blush to be confused on this, but pre-industrial use of seaweed as fertilizer was to scatter them as is as "manure". Marwick is probably talking about "potash" fertilizer of the 20th century.
Kelp was exported for its "soda" content for glass manufacture (initial shipment to Newcastle in 1722), which is more relevant than what kelp was used for after it fell into disuse by the crown glass industry.
The mindset of the folk is part of any folklore. If local traditional thinking frowned upon the kelp industry because seaweed was traditionally meant for "manure" in farming (as the web sources suggest), that should be the context represented if anything. To silence this view and voice only the opposite is blatant NPOV.--Kiyoweap (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Both are mentioned. The sources don't seem to clarify this well. It talks of the burnt stuff being used as fertiliser. If they are wrong point us to a correct one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The web sources say that BEFORE the kelp manufacture began on the islands, the seaweed was laid out as fertilizer. Implications are they weren't burnt (They weren't using "kelp" then, since kelp-making hadn't yet started). Reading the seaweed fertilizer page, there is no suggestion about having to put the seaweed through some incinerating process, just making them into mulch or meals, so I don't see why you should think it to be any different in Orkney. As an aside, the Jerrais word vraic for seaweed fertilizer, apparently derives from "wrack". --Kiyoweap (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Although Eric has already fixed this to "seaweed", here is a more detailed explanation why seaweed identification is significant. Using "kelp" is misleading because ordinarily it refers to seaweed of the kelp order Laminariales, which excludes "wracks" or Fucus spp. that belong to a different order. But there is no lack of sources saying the kelp for glass making preferably used seaweed of the Fucus genus:

  • Transactions of the Royal Scottish Society of Arts, vol. 3 (1851), p. 226
  • Neill, Patrick (1806), A Tour Through Some of the Islands of Orkney and Shetland, p.28

And this is not merely a point of accuracy re the glass industry. It has bearing on the folklore as well. The sea trow (trowis) in Jo Ben's ms. is said to be covered entirely in seaweed, which is supposed to mean it was "decked with fuci", according to Hibbert (1891) [1822], p. 233, if you bothered to closely read a source already cited in Nuckelavee. This conjecture may be related to the fact that the Orc. and Shet. sea horse spirit called Tangie is covered with seaweed, and its name comes from tang, meaning seaweed of the Fucus spp. (see tang @ Dictionary of the Scots Language) --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sticking to this article....I already said and agreed that we were using the term "kelp" to mean "burnt stuff" now and seaweed to mean just seaweed....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuckelavee/Archive_1&oldid=1137051917"