![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Scottish diaspora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This article uses "Scotch" in reference to **Scots** (persons of Scottish heritage). I've heard that this is not considered to be correct usage by at least some folks. For example: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/27860 ("One cynical joke is that Scotch can be used only for things which can be bought, such as whisky, eggs and politicians"). For another is the witticism about how a person is a Scot, while Scotch refers to the contents of his belly.
Additionally the usage sounds off to me, perhaps over-sensitive, ear.
The dictionary definitions suggest that it's not, technically, an error in the usage. But I wonder if this article might be improved by changing such references to respect these sensibilities. While I understand and respect Wikipedia:Be_bold, I feel like it would be better to discuss here in Talk: before doing so.
JimD ( talk) 19:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The article itself contained some discussion, jammed into the infobox, that I've moved to the talk page. Actually, after digging up attribution from diffs, they're both from the same person. These were from the "Scotland: 4,446,000 (2011) (Scottish descent only.)" line in the infobox:
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Some stuff to look for:
See also:
Talk:Ulster Scots people#Additional sources,
Talk:Scotch-Irish Americans#Additional sources,
Talk:Scotch-Irish Canadians#Additional sources,
Talk:Plantation of Ulster#Additional sources,
Talk:Highland dress#Additional sources,
Talk:Highland games/Archives/2023 1#Additional sources,
Talk:Highland dance#Additional sources,
Talk:Tartan#Additional sources,
Talk:Tartan Day#Additional sources
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
08:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 12:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I have inserted a number of requests for fixes in the article, especially in the part about the United States. The statistics presented in that section are in general ill-defined and seriously flawed. Ehrenkater ( talk) 18:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The huge change between 1980 and 1990 demonstrates that the figures (whatever they are supposed to represent) have not been prepared on a consistent basis, and hence are meaningless.
{{
Fix}}
template. Talk pages exist for a reason. "implies that the user can identify trends from this data" – no, that's your personal inference. The table is simply a summary of the material presented in textual form below it, because some people find such a presentation easier than long blocks of prose. "That means deleting most of the stuff" – no, it doesn't, since it's properly sourced and seems to be the best data we have available; if you think it's not, then go find and cite the better data. "very carefully explaining the limitations of whatever is left" – Yes, feel free to do that, if you can do it without engaging in OR. "the presentation of the table with the ampersands is very unclear, and I don't know what to make of it until it is clarified". It's not unclear at all. It really, really, really clearly refers to the column just before it, with "Scottish & Scots Irish". How is this confusing to you? And why do you knep insisting on injecting you questions and commentary into the article prose instead of using the talk page like everyone else, after your question/comment injections have already been reverted and you've been asked to stop doing that? You're doing violence to the article for no explicable reason. "There are also inconsistencies between the numbers and the percentages columns, and between the table and the numbers given in the prose" – Then feel free to fix them to better agree with the sources cited. Can you specifically identify the inconsistencies? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Self-reported numbers are regarded by demographers as massive under-counts, because Scottish ancestry is known to be disproportionately under-reported among the majority of mixed ancestry, and because areas where people reported "American" ancestry were the places where, historically, Scottish and Scots-Irish Protestants settled in North America (that is: along the North American coast, Appalachia, and the Southeastern United States). The number of actual Americans of Scottish descent today is estimated to be 20 to 25 million (up to 8.3% of the total US population), and Scots-Irish, 27 to 30 million (up to 10% of the total US population), the subgroups overlapping and not always distinguishable because of their shared ancestral surnames.
A lot of the figures for various countries in the infobox table appear to be numbers of direct Scottish immigrants, not the general Scottish-descent diaspora. E.g. for both New Zealand and South Africa, the numbers come out to a small fraction of 1% of the national population, but other estimates are that some 20% of New Zealanders claim Scottish descent. I haven't seen specific figures for South Africa yet, but it has to be higher than ~0.02%! Our article is coming across as rather confused. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Scottish diaspora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This article uses "Scotch" in reference to **Scots** (persons of Scottish heritage). I've heard that this is not considered to be correct usage by at least some folks. For example: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/27860 ("One cynical joke is that Scotch can be used only for things which can be bought, such as whisky, eggs and politicians"). For another is the witticism about how a person is a Scot, while Scotch refers to the contents of his belly.
Additionally the usage sounds off to me, perhaps over-sensitive, ear.
The dictionary definitions suggest that it's not, technically, an error in the usage. But I wonder if this article might be improved by changing such references to respect these sensibilities. While I understand and respect Wikipedia:Be_bold, I feel like it would be better to discuss here in Talk: before doing so.
JimD ( talk) 19:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The article itself contained some discussion, jammed into the infobox, that I've moved to the talk page. Actually, after digging up attribution from diffs, they're both from the same person. These were from the "Scotland: 4,446,000 (2011) (Scottish descent only.)" line in the infobox:
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Some stuff to look for:
See also:
Talk:Ulster Scots people#Additional sources,
Talk:Scotch-Irish Americans#Additional sources,
Talk:Scotch-Irish Canadians#Additional sources,
Talk:Plantation of Ulster#Additional sources,
Talk:Highland dress#Additional sources,
Talk:Highland games/Archives/2023 1#Additional sources,
Talk:Highland dance#Additional sources,
Talk:Tartan#Additional sources,
Talk:Tartan Day#Additional sources
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
08:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 12:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I have inserted a number of requests for fixes in the article, especially in the part about the United States. The statistics presented in that section are in general ill-defined and seriously flawed. Ehrenkater ( talk) 18:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The huge change between 1980 and 1990 demonstrates that the figures (whatever they are supposed to represent) have not been prepared on a consistent basis, and hence are meaningless.
{{
Fix}}
template. Talk pages exist for a reason. "implies that the user can identify trends from this data" – no, that's your personal inference. The table is simply a summary of the material presented in textual form below it, because some people find such a presentation easier than long blocks of prose. "That means deleting most of the stuff" – no, it doesn't, since it's properly sourced and seems to be the best data we have available; if you think it's not, then go find and cite the better data. "very carefully explaining the limitations of whatever is left" – Yes, feel free to do that, if you can do it without engaging in OR. "the presentation of the table with the ampersands is very unclear, and I don't know what to make of it until it is clarified". It's not unclear at all. It really, really, really clearly refers to the column just before it, with "Scottish & Scots Irish". How is this confusing to you? And why do you knep insisting on injecting you questions and commentary into the article prose instead of using the talk page like everyone else, after your question/comment injections have already been reverted and you've been asked to stop doing that? You're doing violence to the article for no explicable reason. "There are also inconsistencies between the numbers and the percentages columns, and between the table and the numbers given in the prose" – Then feel free to fix them to better agree with the sources cited. Can you specifically identify the inconsistencies? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Self-reported numbers are regarded by demographers as massive under-counts, because Scottish ancestry is known to be disproportionately under-reported among the majority of mixed ancestry, and because areas where people reported "American" ancestry were the places where, historically, Scottish and Scots-Irish Protestants settled in North America (that is: along the North American coast, Appalachia, and the Southeastern United States). The number of actual Americans of Scottish descent today is estimated to be 20 to 25 million (up to 8.3% of the total US population), and Scots-Irish, 27 to 30 million (up to 10% of the total US population), the subgroups overlapping and not always distinguishable because of their shared ancestral surnames.
A lot of the figures for various countries in the infobox table appear to be numbers of direct Scottish immigrants, not the general Scottish-descent diaspora. E.g. for both New Zealand and South Africa, the numbers come out to a small fraction of 1% of the national population, but other estimates are that some 20% of New Zealanders claim Scottish descent. I haven't seen specific figures for South Africa yet, but it has to be higher than ~0.02%! Our article is coming across as rather confused. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)