Jump to content

Talk:Rùm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:A' Bhrideanach)
Good articleRùm has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed

[Untitled]

[edit]

It is the wildest and most repulsive of all the islands. John MacCulloch 1824.

Requested move

[edit]

The article was moved from Rum to Rùm following a request at WP:RM and the vote below.

The Ordnance Survey uses the spelling Rùm (with the grave accent) at all scales.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]
To respond to Niteowlneils, "be precise when necessary". Rùm is unambiguous; Rum has several meanings. Stemonitis 16:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually keep geographic locations at "Location, country" if it doesn't cause confusion. E.g. Funen not Funen, Denmark, Isle of Wight not Isle of Wight, England. The reason why it is currently at Rum, Scotland is that Rum is the drink and it is considered more prominent. Stefán Ingi (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
so its different between countries (cf. Australia - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)). -- Zondor 17:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I slightly resent the "mischievous" appellation. I chose not to simply move the article without asking because I was aware that it might be controversial (!). It seemed fairer to allow a discussion first, even if it meant the article ending up at a location that I wouldn't have preferred (as seems likely). --Stemonitis 16:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see there live around 30 people on this island. It therefore completely escapes me why the MSP for these 30 people is a final authority on what the name of the island is. I know I wouldn't ask my MSP what is the name of the street I live in eventhough he has around 100 voters there, I'd much rather consult a map which is what Stemonitis did. (If I wanted a larger bus stop in my street then perhaps my MSP might be the man to consult. :) Stefán Ingi (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mischievous" is very unfair. The suggestion by Stemonitis is surely an honest attempt to identify the best title for the article, which at least deserves serious consideration. In fact, I find the argument for Rùm quite compelling! Snalwibma 00:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record. See Wikipedia:Naming policy poll There are cases when the official name of a location (generally cities) is different than what most English speakers call it. Current wikipedia policy is that the more common name should be used. ... The purpose of this poll is to reaffirm or change this policy. ... Agree 45 Change 18, Abstain 7, spoilt 5. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as less of a naming issue, and more an orthographic one. Everyone calls it the same thing, except that many/most people omit the accent in writing. I have a feeling that this vote would have been less divided (and perhaps less divisive) if it hadn't had the issue of accented letters in it. In Wales, the native spelling is used almost everywhere now (even in non-Welsh words, like Caernarfonshire). People have accepted that the names of Welsh places are often in the Welsh language, and should be spelt accordingly, even in English, except where an English alternative (and not just an alternative spelling) exists (Swansea ≠ Abertawe, but Carnarvon ≈ Caernarfon). I see no reason why the same should not be true of Scotland (Rùm ≈ Rum) and nor, seemingly, does the OS. But never mind, it seems we won't reach 60% anyway. --Stemonitis 10:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, because Scots Gaelic is spoken by approximately 1% of Scotland's population, and all of these speakers are bilingual in English and their mother tongue. In Wales, Welsh is spoken by approximately between 25% of the Wales' population, and they are also bilingual in both English and Welsh. So I think the comparison between Scots Gaelic and Welsh is absurd. 17:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I think this was a very thoughtprovoking comment. Stefán Ingi (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rum is a drink. Therefore the place name needs to be disambiguated from it. We could do this by adding extra information: Rum, Scotland, Rum Island or Rum (island). However, in this case we do have a compelling alternative, we can follow the lead of Gaellic and the OS and use Rùm: simple and elegant. --Gareth Hughes 16:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't let disambiguation dictate the spelling of words. If it's to be moved to Rùm, it should be on its own merits, not just for disambiguation purposes. (Note: I have no opinion on the matter either way :) sjorford #£@%&$?! 10:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Stemonitis 08:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on here, the name of this island/electorate is called Rum (NO GRAVE) in English not Rùm. We don't use the German spelling for Munich in English so why use Scots Gaelic spelling when nearly every publication in English uses the graveless name. I think this vote was halted prematurely. Marco79 16:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this vote several days after is should have been closed, so no, it was not closed prematurely. Also, as you know very well because you have been active in these discussions before, you cannot take Munich as an example to support your cause because that particular city has an English name, Munich, which is distinct from its German name, München. Same goes for Nuremberg for the same reasons. All, and let me stress this, all (with a single exception), other cities in Germany go by their German name, using the funky German squiggles as appropriate. The exception is of course the oft discussed White city. BTW, I'm glad you have decided to get an account, I can see you have already found use for the move button that comes with it. Stefán Ingi 16:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of coarse I can, how dare you tell me how to spell the name (Rum) that is adoped by major institutions in Scotland and the British government. I think the German name of Munich is a very suitable equivalent. Marco79 17:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please STOP the madness.

Minor wording issues

[edit]

The following may or may not be spelling issues, but seem inconsistent in my read of the content. Fix or ignore the suggestions as deemed appropriate.

  • The Gaelic "isle of the ridge" is spelled i-dhruim in the Infobox and i-dhruinn in the "Etymology and placenames" section.
  • There is both a Dibdil and Dibidil that appear to reference the same place, although perhaps Dibidil is an obsolete (1801) spelling.
  • Lewissian and Lewisian gneiss in "Geology" section (also, gneiss is wikilinked both times, though that may be OK). -- Michael Devore (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All now fixed. i-dhruim, Lewisian, Dibidil. Snalwibma (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks folks! Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Etymology

[edit]

I'd chosen the wording "would be pronounced" as that's a totally hypothetic form (and from a phonological pov nonsene) but I won't argue - but perhaps we should add an asterisk to show it's a hypothetical form? Slightly different point though, the article disagrees with itself - the info box gives rum-oy, the etymology section rõm-øy and given the discussion we've had recently about Skye, I have a feeling neither is spelled correctly. I'm glad to see OS is doing their usual botch job, adding the accent on Rùm was totally unnecessary... all Gaelic vowels before a final -m (an -ll, -rr, and -nn). Akerbeltz (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"rõm-øy" it now is in both cases per H-Smith. Pleasant though it is to imagine a time-travelling device to sort these things out, I suspect the derivation is likely to be an enduring mystery. I agree about the accent but lack the motivation to start another discussion. Re "would be pronounced", why do we not know how ì-dhruim is pronounced? Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL having read the above discussion, I don't blame you.
The problem with the pronunciation lies with the question of stress. Without getting too techy, Gaelic treates stressed syllables very differently from unstressed ones. So, since it is a hypothetic form, we cannot tell with 100% certainty where the stress went. Since it's hyphenated, that clearly indicates that only one of those two words bears stress. Normally (I'd say some 95% of cases) the stress goes onto the distinguishing element. Now, he glosses ì-dhruim as "isle of the ridge". That would *have* to be ì an droma. Which it isn't. So the gloss is vague and must be "ridge-isle". Since the distinguishing bit (as in, there are many islands but we mean one with a ridge) is the dhruim bit there's a very high chance that that's where the stress is and so we get [iˈɣɾɯim]. If for the sake of argument it wasn't for some strange reason, you'd get [iːɣɾɯm]. I wish more etymologists would study Gaelic phonology before writing these things ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, what is the argument against the obvious connection rùm, "spacious island". If it was Muckle Isle, you wouldn't get suggestions that it was really named after 'Clan MacLyall' or similar, you'd just accept it at face value. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 07:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that rum is not a Goidelic root word and is a 10-12th century loan from Old English into Middle Irish. If the name is not attested as Rum before this date or with a different name, then it *could* work. But the problems don't stop there: rum was initially borrowed with the meaning of "floor" (the old Gaelic blackhouse didn't have a floor). It still retains the secondary meaning of "floorspace" in modern Irish. It does mean "room" in Irish and Gaelic today but that's most likely secondary re-inforcement via the influence of English. So initially and island with that name would have meant "a floor". At the very least, you'd expect a definite article, ie *An Rum. Then there's the wider geography to be considered. Almost all islands in the area do not have obvious Gaelic names, they're either Norse (Soay, Raasay, Scalpay, Wiay, Oigh-sgeir, Oronsay, Pabay, Longay...) or something else (Skye, Canna, Muck...) but nothing really Gaelic. I think the closes island with a Gaelic name is off Applecross, Eilean Mòr and Eilean Meadhonach. Given what we know of the settlement history of Scotland and the way in which place names in general behave, the most likely explanation for this name is either pre-Goidelic or Norse.
Now, a (pre-Goidelic) > Norse > Gaelic derivation is feasible on the other hand. It depends on whether rõm-øy is attested and/or would be a natural formation for "spacious isle". Deriving Gaelic Rum from that form is not hard in turn.
I'm personally not in favour of ignoring the obvious in this case (having considered the other options) - given it's the largest island in that batch of islands and that there's many Norse place-names on it, I'd say Norse is a prime contender. It's probably just that some people have a hidden agenda of trying to make themselves a name by coming up with "stunning discoveries". Akerbeltz (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mausoleum

[edit]

It's a nice photo of the Mausoleum but surely it's misleading (or someone's joke?) to put it under prehistory when it was built in the early 20th century - although this fact is not mentioned in the article. --JBellis (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. It is identified as having been built by the Bulloughs earlier in the article, although it's true the caption doesn't repeat this. Ben MacDui 10:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I see it gets a mention in the geography section. However I still think that it looks like someone's idea of a joke to imply that the prehistoric residents of the island build Greek-style temples!--JBellis (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't possibly comment. Ben MacDui 17:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic debate

[edit]

ETHNIC CLEANSING I think that the rather casual comment regarding "ethnic cleansing" needs some citation. Also, by whom- was it the English, as implied? Or was it just economic reality being exercised by the Scottish landowners, as occured in the rest of the Highlands? DanBrodman (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a casual comment at all. The definition would seem to be "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, of persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." That is exactly what occurred, although it was called something different in those days. This process was not carried out by "the English" but for the most part by English-speaking Scots on the Gaelic-speaking natives. (You will note I am of the former variety). If you think this had anything to do with broader economic realities, rather than the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many, I can only suggest you offer an explanation of the population trends on say the Faeroes. Ben MacDui 12:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- So you think that Rum's farmers were evicted because they were Gaels and not because the ("English speaking"- but also Gaelic?) landowner could get a better economic return (sadly, economic reality often means the enrichment of just a few) by selling Rum or using it for other purposes? I also think that drawing parallels with considerably larger and strategically located islands in the middle of northern Atlantic fishing grounds is not particularly relevant. Incidentally, I bet the descendants of these Rum farmers live a far better life in (probably) Canada and (maybe) America or Australia than they would if they still lived on Rum. Let's not romanticise serfdom. DB.

MacLean of Coll would have been an English-speaking Scot with Gaelic ancestors. It is evidently easier for humans to treat other humans like cattle if they don't share their culture and/or language as the more recent histories of Bosnia, Nazi Germany etc. attest. The Gaels of Rum, were not serfs as such, although the land that had once been theirs collectively had been purloined by the clan chief. Whilst you may be right about their descendants, if you were forcibly removed from your home and country and sent to a far-off land about which you knew next-to-nothing it might be some comfort to know that your grand-children would be better off than those who were left behind, but who knows? I am not sure why you think the Faeroes are strategically located, but consider the difference between grid reference NG164440 and grid reference NG182487. One is empty, one has a thriving community (it's most obvious at 1:50,000). The difference is essentially that one was forcibly cleared, and one wasn't. However that's by-the-by. The actions of the landowner fits the above definition, which is the main point. Ben MacDui 18:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, so the Clearances were a re-assertion of economic reality and a path to greater prosperity for their descendents? Isn't that like saying slavery provided education opportunities for African Americans because your average Mandinka would have never made it to Harvard without his great great great great grandparents being sold as cattle? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben you write 'The definition would seem to be "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, of persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." That is exactly what occurred.' Oh no it isn't! The motivation for the Highland Clearances is generally accepted to have been economic, not ethnic, and the population of the areas which were cleared, though much smaller, was no more or less 'ethnically homogeneous' after the Clearances than it was before it. Dhmellor (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a spurious argument. You can argue that, say, a stretch of land that had 500 Gaels in it (100%) would still have a majority of Gaels in it once you cleared 450 of them and added 2 non-Gaelic keepers the Gaelic would still represent 96% of the population... but that's a rather absurd argument when you consider that you dropped the overall population by 90%. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing that as a general rule the Clearances were "ethnic cleansing" (although I might try to if pressed). Rather that in this specific location where the entire and substantial population of an island was removed leaving not a single living link with the people who had occupied it for five centuries or more that this is a reasonable description. Indeed, I am not sure what else you could call it, given that the terminology of the time might now be regarded as a euphemism. Ben MacDui 17:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree that the term 'clearance' is euphemistic in this context - it was an extraordinarily ruthless process, just as ethnic cleansing is. But the Clearances were not ethnic cleansing, because they were not carried out 'in order to render that area ethnically homogenous.' Indeed, if anything 'Cleared' areas ended up less ethnically homogeneous, because of the influx of lowland Scots landlords, tacksmen and grazing tenants. Magnusson (1997) writes that on Rum, a few years after the Clearances, the population consisted of the grazing tenant Dr Lachlan Maclean of Coll, and a mixture of native islanders and people who had been moved to Rum from Skye and Mull. Who knows (or cares) whether they were more or less 'ethnically homogeneous' than those who had lived there before? Dhmellor (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The euphemism I was hinting at was 'improvement'. I take your point but as Akerbeltz was suggesting above, wholesale removals of populations of one culture and language and their replacement with a new system that is by and for the benefit of of those form a different culture seems to me to fit the bill. The fact that the replacement was only say 95% and not 100% does not strike me as disqualifying factor. To put it another way, if the original inhabitants all spoke English, would they have been treated in the same way? Ben MacDui 18:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about 'a new system that is by and for the benefit of of those from a different culture' - that goes some way to convincing me that you may be right. On the other hand, the replacement population on Rum was not 95% English speaking - it was overwhelmingly Gaelic. But the nub of the UN definition is not the outcome but the motivation: '.....in order to render that area ethnically homogeneous.' I still see no evidence that racism (for want of a better word) was a signifiant motivating factor. The landowners' principal motivation was to make more money from their land. As for your interesting final question, judging from the way employers and landowners generally treated the 'working classes' in the 19th century, I suspect the answer could well be 'yes'! Dhmellor (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The economic and social circumstances are different of course but clearances did not generally happen in predominantly English-speaking areas. In places such as in parts of upland Aberdeenshire, where the outcomes were similar, they occurred over a long time and were not enforced on unwilling residents. If the question boils down to the motivations (conscious or unconscious) of long-dead land-owners then it is going to be hard to prove either way! Anyway - as you know you are free to edit the page as you see fit. Ben MacDui 08:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, nothing can be proven, but the Clearances have been well researched and the overwhelming weight of historical opinion seems to be that landlords wanted to make more money out of sheep, rather than to get rid of people because of their ethnicity. I won't edit it out, though, because I think you make an interesting and stimulating point - it stimulated me into thinking about it anyway! And I'm certainly not going to disagree about upland Aberdeenshire with someone who stands on its border.... Dhmellor (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an interesting wider debate whether ethnic cleansing is ever about the actual people rather than some type of resource. If I remember rightly, the term gained wider circulation during the Bosnian War which, while conducted mostly against Bosnian Muslims, was in the end about territory. I actually cannot think of any such conflict that was solely based on ethnicity, not on resources or access to them. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I remember it, it was popularised in the planning stage of NATO's 50th birthday party extravaganza in Serbia (what better way to get over a mid-life crisis than to fake and engineer events to let you bomb a country to reinvent yourself). Given its tainted, wag-the-dog history, I'm surprised anyone has a desire to use that jargon phrase "ethnic cleansing". Meowy 17:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Reply to Meowy (talk · contribs): I have re-formatted some of your recent edits, although I have left the above phrase out for now, given its apparent unpopularity for reasons I can only surmise. We can come back to this later. Please note that quotations must, according to WP:MOS, be followed by the source. If it can't be provided they will have to go. The information about the gravestone is interesting - again a source would be useful. Ben MacDui 19:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the gravestone spelling is Love's "Rum, A landscape without Figures", same for the quotation of the shepherd's words - but I can't give the exact page numbers at the moment. Maybe someone else who has the book can add them if I don't get round to doing it. You moved down "Most of the population of Rum were tenant farmers, paying rent to the island's owner, Hugh Maclean of Coll. In law, they neither owned the land they worked or the houses in which they lived". But I think this should be above the announcement of the evictions. The evictions were possible because of their tenant status. (Actually, maybe this info about their status would be better placed in the previous section, for the 18th century, since that is when it became fixed in law.) I've removed the emotive "people whose ancestors had lived there for millennia were forced to emigrate". Who seriously has proof that the ancestors of anyone evicted had lived in a specific location for "millennia"? No writer could make such a claim and back it up with evidence. It is also over-egging things - the bare facts, and the later quote of the shepherd's words, say the same thing and the reader can come to his/her own conclusions without resorting to tabloid-style "lived there for millenia" stuff. You used the phrase "overcrowded ships" - this looks like OR or POV, the source I used (Love) makes no mention of them being overcrowded and the original source for the ships' names, the 1897 letter, doesn't mention it. Hmmm ... "the Rùm Cullin" - sounds like a bit of Sunday Post "the Gaelic" - "Rùm Cullin" seems sufficient. Meowy 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have ""Rum, A landscape without Figures". Please bear in mind that this is a GA and incorrectly sourced material will need to be removed in due course. I have added back a Love (87) ref that was removed.
The tenancy issue is complex as this status was itself the result of changes to the clan structures post 1746, although arguably starting earlier. Prior to this a clan chief attempting to evict all their "children" would most likely have led to their removal, rather than a legal process in which the "tenants" had no rights to speak of. Ideally Highland Clearances would explain this more clearly, but doing so here is, I think, unnecessary. (I have not amended this.)
You are correct that there is no specific evidence of direct inheritance over long historic periods. There is however plenty of evidence that the culture had. I have reworked the statement to this effect.
"Overcrowded" is in Love (87). I am not sure why you think this is OR - as far as I know this was fairly standard practice.
I keep a copy of the Sunday Post in case of emergency [13], but this is simply standard usage so far as I am aware. See for example; McKirdy, Alan Gordon et al (2007) Land of Mountain and Flood: The Geology and Landforms of Scotland. Birlinn p. 286. Ben MacDui 13:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population density

[edit]

I'd love to see a published list of islands and their population densities, but we can't use a Wikipedia list as a reference. It would be easy to make a new popn. density list but I fear it would breach WP:OR as a source. Ben MacDui 18:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because I'm a relatively occasional Wikiperson, Ben, but I don't understand why we can't use a Wikipedia list as a reference. But if it helps, try this: [1]. If you cross-reference that with Haswell-Smith you will find the same result. Rum has one inhabitant for every 476 hectares, which makes it by some way the most sparsely populated Scottish island. Dhmellor (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although not policy, Wikipedia does not view wikis, including itself as reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. yYour alternative ref will be acceptable for "one of the least...", but Rùm cannot be the most sparcely populated island, as there are Scottish islands with no population!. Finavon (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sparsely populated or inhabited place has few people. A place with no people at all is not sparsely populated, it is unpopulated. (Sparse: occurring, growing, or settled at widely spaced intervals; not thick or dense. Latin sparsus, past participle of spargere, to scatter) Dhmellor (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a note at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Routine calculations. It'll be interesting to see what they say. Ben MacDui 19:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the 'NOR' page and I'll be interested to see what sort of response your question gets. I would certainly not dignify my routine calculation by calling it original research! However, I do take the other point, about wikis generally not being a reliable source - simply because they might happen to be accurate one day and inaccurate the next. Dhmellor (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer was "This is the kind of case where you can use your own judgment, certainly if these matters are not disputable or disputed." and the issue has bee marked as "resolved". I'll drop a note at WP:ISLET as well. Ben MacDui 12:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.scottish-islands-federation.co.uk/population.htm

Map is broken

[edit]

For me, the infobox map captioned "Rùm shown within Scotland" usually fails to display (I see a blank white space). One time, apparently at random, it did show. I've noticed the same thing with a couple of similar articles (Barra is one), so possibly there is some systematic error? 81.129.130.254 (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen this myself. Suggest asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Ben MacDui 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using IE8 and the same thing happens to me. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine here with IE8 and Firefox 3.05. As it appears to be a general problem, I suggest continuing discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_Scottish_island#Problems_with_maps or Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_69#Scottish_island_infobox_map. Finavon (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also Template_talk:Location_map#Map_does_not_work_properly_in_IE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.128.147 (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Any further discussion

Since the root cause of this and other related problems seems to be the "Location Map" template, I propose that further discussion is carried out at Template_talk:Location_map#Map_does_not_work_properly_in_IE. 86.146.46.169 (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Forest

[edit]

The original meaning of the word "forest" and the sense in which the word is used in Gaelic is "a place for hunting deer". Rum was "Rìoghachd na Forraiste Fiadhaich" (Clan Ranalad section) because it had deer - no doubt it also had woodland, but the Gaelic for that is "coille". It ceased to be a forest when the deer were eradicated rather than the deer becoming extinct because the "forest" (woodland) was destroyed (Potato section) - red deer are perfectly capable of living on moorland and treeless mountains, as can be seen by their success once reintroduced to the treeless island.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rùm&oldid=1209552216"