![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Is that the ancient Celtic form, or just a transcription of Greek Κελτοι? AnonMoos ( talk) 15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The sources I am putting here are not intended to specifically address the "notability" issue raised by Davemon above. Rather they are intended to help broaden the range of inline citations. I'll work on integrating them at a later time. The issue of Bonewits' use as a WP:RS reference was discussed on the Reliable sources noticeboard and feedback there indicates he can be used in this context.
Pigman ☿/talk 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Pigman ☿/talk 02:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Problems with inadequate sourcing (including the use of Bonewitz has been raised both at the GA reassessment and community-confirmed at the Reliable sources noticeboard) along with essay-like and (in my opinion) unduly self-serving article content. "Notability" and "incorrect use of primary source" tags are persistently being removed by anon editors. Despite repeated requests for better sources, the active editors on the page have not supplied more than cursory mentions in secondary sources and the article continues to rely primarily on primary sources. Am I right in thinking there are serious problems with this article? some more eyes would be helpful! Davémon ( talk) 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment as a disinterested, outside editor with no knowledge of this topic: regardless of what personal disputes may be simmering in the background, this article raises several concerns:
On the bright side, I believe these problems can be addressed if editors collaborate. In terms of language use and grammar the article is very well written. My recommendation: cut it down in size to only core facts that can be reliably verified by 3rd party sources. Keep to absolute minimum the use of self-published sources and sites and flag them in the text when used. Keep the intro as it is. One paragraph on Origins, a couple on Practices and single sentences on the rest. Compact, verifiable and hopefully therefore notable. -- Whoosit ( talk) 17:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent) First, it is not "my" article. I've done significant work on it and have an interest in maintaining it, that's all. As to the sources in the article, I recommend actually reading them. When critical editors show they haven't actually read the sources they are critiquing, you have to forgive me if I greet such opinions with doubts of validity. This article, like most articles on Wikipedia, has room for improvement. That said, I would hardly put notability or sourcing high on a list of improvements. Again, current sources show notability; to say otherwise indicates an incomplete/cursory reading of the article and the sources.
I'm not saying anyone who criticises this article is mistaken on policy. I'm saying on this particular issue (i.e. differentiating and categorizing primary and secondary sources) the judgments seem flawed vis-a-vis the definitions of these kinds of sources in WP policy and guidelines. I'm a little bemused that you seem to think it too troublesome to read and apply these standards but I'm not surprised; I've noticed that citation/sourcing isn't your strongest skill on Wikipedia. And yet you seem earnestly set on using citation as the ground for picayune and poorly framed arguments here. Here be a pair o' ducks. Pigman ☿/talk 03:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The use of the term "living Celtic cultures" is problematic. Firstly, it's jargon, (it appears to be a term defined within CR and only used by its proponents) and that should be avoided just as a point of wp:tone. Secondly the idea that there exists such a thing as a living Celtic culture i.e. some form of modern culture which is objectively identifiable as "Celtic" is non-obvious, problematic and not uncontroversial (as modern celts kind of shows) so it's use is not wholly appropriate. Can I suggest "self identifying Celts" or "celtic language speakers", or "the descendants of Irish immigrants to the US" or something that makes it clearer what is actually meant in each case? Cheers! Davémon ( talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there any sort of objective academic consensus that this is what it claims to be, namely an authentic reconstruction of ancient polytheism? Many of the figures involved in this seem, in common with "neopagan" movements in general, hardly any different from the wicca, new agers and other syncretic counterculture pastimers. Also many self-proclaimed reconstructionists are heavily associated with various far-left political movements; anarchism (especially), global warming & other "eco" activists, feminists and in the United States the "civil rights", pro-abortion, homosexual "rights" type activists.
Rather this movement seems to come directly from concepts perpetuated in the philosophy of Liberal Romanticism, especially Rousseau, as interperated by Jacobinism. The proselytisation of humanitarian/egalitarian ideas and a dilettantish anti-Christianity as an expresson of "sticking it to The_Man" in a Woodstock sort of way. At the centre seems to be a claim that before Christianity everything was fatalistic, earth-bound naturalism, everybody was a primtive but egalitarian "noble savage" worshipping trees and streams, etc. This criticism of "neopaganism" falsely dressed up as polytheistic reconstructionism, is expressed quite well by Evola, as well as asserting the connection to Rousseau. [6]
What I would like to see presented is an extensive collection of academic peer-reviewed scholars, claiming that this earth bound neo-animism mixed in with far-left political currents, has absolutely anything authentically to do with ancient antiquity and the polytheism practised before Christianity. For some reasons amongst Americans in particular, seem to crave a counter-European antiquity as a replacement worldview for reality (similar sort of concept to things like the Ancient Order of Hibernians, founded in New York, which ironically isn't ancient at all). - Yorkshirian ( talk) 03:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I find myself in the unenviable position of having to wholesale revert Davemon's recent series of edits to the article. This is because every single one of these edits was against consensus and/or introduced errors or other issues into the article. Davemon continues to show a lack of interest in actually reading the sources/citations and this shows in his removal of pertinent and appropriate citations. Specific problems follow.
[7] Deleted Adler. Source is necessary to establish the basic context of Polytheistic Reconstructionism (which, btw, he introduced to article).
[8] [9] Removed CR FAQ as "self-published". Source is peer-reviewed and collectively authored. Relevant and WP:V for statement of group's history and beliefs from perspective of group. "Proto-CR" referred to by collective authors of the FAQ and others, not just Kathryn Price NicDhàna.
[10] Examples of further usage document further usage.
[11] Degrades usability of citations, not an improvement. I think "overtaken" is less neutral than "subsumed".
[12] Sloppy and pointless and left a poorly constructed sentence. Davemon is still riding the hobbyhorse that "living Celtic cultures" is some kind of CR cant despite multiple independent examples of usage provided further up this talk page.
[13] Removed source that provides context and differentiation between groups sometimes associated/confused.
[14] Shows Davemon is not even looking at the footnotes on this article, let alone the source material. This edit credits a quote to the wrong person, which he would know if he just looked at the footnote which reads "An Interview with Kym Lambert".
[15] A sentence that mentions Celtic history can be sourced to works on Celtic history.
All in all, I couldn't find a single thing to salvage out of these changes. So, despite the bad taste left in my mouth, I decided reverting all the edits was the best course of action. Pigman ☿/talk 01:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Which of those books are reliable academic sources? They all look decidedly new-age to me. I agree cutting down to 3rd party sources could be a way forward. I know there will be opposition, so can we discuss starting by removing Bonewits (who has been clarified as problematic by several editors) first? Davémon ( talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No, these are not improvements. You have removed sources that explain non-controversial statements of belief, and that help clarify some of the confusion about naming that has existed online; some of these are statements that need clarification, especially for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. You even removed non-controversial content like the graphic that illustrates the article. What is it that you have against Bonewits, exactly? His work is WP:V, and for Neopagan subjects, he is WP:RS. He is widely cited as an expert in the field of Neopaganism. Doesn't mean I always agree with him, but he's a useable source. As a point of comparison, re - sourcing, I find your cutting of anything having to do with Bonewits also bizarre when over on Triple Goddess (Neopaganism) you are using sources such as D.J. Conway and Barbara Walker. Why the massive gap in standards? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me start by saying there is no problem with using Bonewits in the right context. However, Bonewits is not WP:RS as he is being used here. See the discussion at : [ [19]] for clarification. Whatever one may feel about Bonewitz, the fact remains he is not an outsider to Neopaganism, and attributing him with an objective scholarly or journalistic viewpoint is highly doubtful. An expert on "Magic & Thaumaturgy" he may be, and in reporting what Neo-druids believe or practice I have no doubt he is both wp:v and wp:rs. However, the article is using Bonewits on the classification and validity of practices and as a commentator on the acceptance within the CR community of identifying terminology and as a commentator on the history of CR - these are the domains of sociology and journalism, neither of which Bonewits is an expert in the field of. I am really surprised to see so much support is being given to a source who is being cited outside their area of expertise. Davémon ( talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The article lacks any independant reliable sources that directly cover the subject. Significantly I was reading Marion Bowmans "Contemporary Celtic Spirituality" in New directions in Celtic studies (2000, University of Exeter Press) and it makes no mention of this movement. It appears no serious authors or academics have approached this subject - is it really notable? Can anyone help add proper sources to establish notability? -- Davémon ( talk) 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Pigman, has canvassed this talk page to encourage editors to use an article about the article topic which featured him has a source see |this edit. A "(redacted) Pigman" (who may or may not be the same person) is also credited as being one of the collective editor / contributors, to the key primary source document this article has been based on - the CR FAQ see [20] - which has 6 direct citations and numerous overcitations to documents written by his fellow contributors. Pigman is currently wholesale reverting edits which help move the article towards a NPOV rather than a wp:soapbox stance and removing the current over-reliance on the FAQ document "Pigman" was involved in creating, and the community of writers he is part of. I'm not sure if this talk-page is the correct venue to discuss this or whether there is a more formal Conflict of Interest resolution process. Davémon ( talk) 16:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Davemon, at this point your actions and arguments bear a remarkable resemblance to trolling. You have misinterpreted and misapplied WP policy on this talk page, [21] attempted to inserted POV into the article [22] [23] while calling your actions NPOV [24], accused me of canvassing [25], and declared a consensus [26] unsupported by actual evidence of the opinions voiced here. [27] [28] [29] [30] Among other things. Your "improvements" to the article have consistently included degrading the citations, inserting factually false or inaccurate statements, and creating unnecessary ambiguity where there was none.
Your current round of edits (6 June 2010) include, among other problems, the following:
It is abundantly clear that you first came to this article in retaliation for criticism of your actions on the talk page of the Triple Goddess article by User:Kathryn NicDhàna and myself. Although you deny wikihounding a woman from one article to another article in order to bully her, it certainly looked that way at the time and this issue was discussed on Kathryn's talk page. [34]
And, please, spare me the " assume good faith". This has been a consistent pattern of behaviour for you over the years of your tenure on WP in other instances and articles besides this one (diffs available upon request.) Such a consistent pattern of trollish behaviour eventually negates any assumption of "good faith" by other editors toward you. In my opinion, you have used up your good faith here. You generally manage to avoid violating the letter of WP policies such as 3RR and other guidelines but that doesn't mean that your behaviour is acceptable or tolerable.
At this point, I have no compunction about reverting your future edits here as, for all effects, intents and purposes, efforts to troll, bully and degrade WP content rather than a positive effort to build the encyclopedia. After over nine months, your contributions to the article consist almost entirely of poorly informed edits and tags. You show exceptionally poor editorial judgment and refusal to recognize consensus by continuing to beat the non-existent yet-still-dead horse of the "notability" of CR. You shoehorn inaccurate points and clumsy phrasing into existing sentences without, apparently, understanding what the sentence actually says and how it relates to information around it. This only confuses the casual reader (WP's target constituency) of the article. I don't know if this is casual or willful ignorance on your part, but your edits consistently show that you have not bothered to familiarize yourself with the subject matter despite your intermittently intense pushes to dominate and shape the article.
Your inability to interact in a collegial and cooperative manner with other editors is your longstanding behavioural mode on WP and has been almost from the beginning. I would characterize your ongoing attitude as hostile and antagonistic as you move from one article you focus on to the next. Tendentious editing is the kindest description I can muster for your style.
It is rather painfully obvious that you have learned how to bandy WP policy buzzwords without actually understanding or, apparently (in some cases), reading the policies you cite. Such frivolous and unnecessary usage of policy in discussion wastes the time and energy of everyone involved. This is one of the most basic definitions of gaming the system: "Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately. Gaming the system is an abuse of process and disruptive."
If you are unable to play well with others, then you don't get to play. Pigman ☿/talk 02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.173.25 ( talk)
This whole section is being given undue weight, and is bordering on WP:OR. Nobody outside the "CR community" even acknowledges these schisms and attempts at identity formation. Unless there's some pressing weight of properly cited, secondary or tertiary sources brought to bare on the "terminology" debates as a whole, it does not belong in wikipedia.. Davémon ( talk) 14:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to offer a correction to the contended definiton for Sinnsreachd ("However, Sinnsreachd and Sinsearacht actually mean "ancestry",[46][47][48] "seniority",[49] or "genealogy".[47][49]"). The definition used comes from The School Gaelic Dictionary by Malcom McFarlane (1912). This definition is: "[sinnsreachd] nf. ancestry, custom of ancestors, right of succession, genealogy" McFarlane, p. 106 (see http://www2.smo.uhi.ac.uk/gaidhlig/faclair/bb/duilleag.php?td=106). It is "custom of ancestors" that informs our use of the term to define the movement.
Also, I am not sure why Sinnsreachd is being grouped together with Senistrognata. Dkh3184 ( talk) 01:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Is that the ancient Celtic form, or just a transcription of Greek Κελτοι? AnonMoos ( talk) 15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The sources I am putting here are not intended to specifically address the "notability" issue raised by Davemon above. Rather they are intended to help broaden the range of inline citations. I'll work on integrating them at a later time. The issue of Bonewits' use as a WP:RS reference was discussed on the Reliable sources noticeboard and feedback there indicates he can be used in this context.
Pigman ☿/talk 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Pigman ☿/talk 02:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Problems with inadequate sourcing (including the use of Bonewitz has been raised both at the GA reassessment and community-confirmed at the Reliable sources noticeboard) along with essay-like and (in my opinion) unduly self-serving article content. "Notability" and "incorrect use of primary source" tags are persistently being removed by anon editors. Despite repeated requests for better sources, the active editors on the page have not supplied more than cursory mentions in secondary sources and the article continues to rely primarily on primary sources. Am I right in thinking there are serious problems with this article? some more eyes would be helpful! Davémon ( talk) 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment as a disinterested, outside editor with no knowledge of this topic: regardless of what personal disputes may be simmering in the background, this article raises several concerns:
On the bright side, I believe these problems can be addressed if editors collaborate. In terms of language use and grammar the article is very well written. My recommendation: cut it down in size to only core facts that can be reliably verified by 3rd party sources. Keep to absolute minimum the use of self-published sources and sites and flag them in the text when used. Keep the intro as it is. One paragraph on Origins, a couple on Practices and single sentences on the rest. Compact, verifiable and hopefully therefore notable. -- Whoosit ( talk) 17:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent) First, it is not "my" article. I've done significant work on it and have an interest in maintaining it, that's all. As to the sources in the article, I recommend actually reading them. When critical editors show they haven't actually read the sources they are critiquing, you have to forgive me if I greet such opinions with doubts of validity. This article, like most articles on Wikipedia, has room for improvement. That said, I would hardly put notability or sourcing high on a list of improvements. Again, current sources show notability; to say otherwise indicates an incomplete/cursory reading of the article and the sources.
I'm not saying anyone who criticises this article is mistaken on policy. I'm saying on this particular issue (i.e. differentiating and categorizing primary and secondary sources) the judgments seem flawed vis-a-vis the definitions of these kinds of sources in WP policy and guidelines. I'm a little bemused that you seem to think it too troublesome to read and apply these standards but I'm not surprised; I've noticed that citation/sourcing isn't your strongest skill on Wikipedia. And yet you seem earnestly set on using citation as the ground for picayune and poorly framed arguments here. Here be a pair o' ducks. Pigman ☿/talk 03:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The use of the term "living Celtic cultures" is problematic. Firstly, it's jargon, (it appears to be a term defined within CR and only used by its proponents) and that should be avoided just as a point of wp:tone. Secondly the idea that there exists such a thing as a living Celtic culture i.e. some form of modern culture which is objectively identifiable as "Celtic" is non-obvious, problematic and not uncontroversial (as modern celts kind of shows) so it's use is not wholly appropriate. Can I suggest "self identifying Celts" or "celtic language speakers", or "the descendants of Irish immigrants to the US" or something that makes it clearer what is actually meant in each case? Cheers! Davémon ( talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there any sort of objective academic consensus that this is what it claims to be, namely an authentic reconstruction of ancient polytheism? Many of the figures involved in this seem, in common with "neopagan" movements in general, hardly any different from the wicca, new agers and other syncretic counterculture pastimers. Also many self-proclaimed reconstructionists are heavily associated with various far-left political movements; anarchism (especially), global warming & other "eco" activists, feminists and in the United States the "civil rights", pro-abortion, homosexual "rights" type activists.
Rather this movement seems to come directly from concepts perpetuated in the philosophy of Liberal Romanticism, especially Rousseau, as interperated by Jacobinism. The proselytisation of humanitarian/egalitarian ideas and a dilettantish anti-Christianity as an expresson of "sticking it to The_Man" in a Woodstock sort of way. At the centre seems to be a claim that before Christianity everything was fatalistic, earth-bound naturalism, everybody was a primtive but egalitarian "noble savage" worshipping trees and streams, etc. This criticism of "neopaganism" falsely dressed up as polytheistic reconstructionism, is expressed quite well by Evola, as well as asserting the connection to Rousseau. [6]
What I would like to see presented is an extensive collection of academic peer-reviewed scholars, claiming that this earth bound neo-animism mixed in with far-left political currents, has absolutely anything authentically to do with ancient antiquity and the polytheism practised before Christianity. For some reasons amongst Americans in particular, seem to crave a counter-European antiquity as a replacement worldview for reality (similar sort of concept to things like the Ancient Order of Hibernians, founded in New York, which ironically isn't ancient at all). - Yorkshirian ( talk) 03:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I find myself in the unenviable position of having to wholesale revert Davemon's recent series of edits to the article. This is because every single one of these edits was against consensus and/or introduced errors or other issues into the article. Davemon continues to show a lack of interest in actually reading the sources/citations and this shows in his removal of pertinent and appropriate citations. Specific problems follow.
[7] Deleted Adler. Source is necessary to establish the basic context of Polytheistic Reconstructionism (which, btw, he introduced to article).
[8] [9] Removed CR FAQ as "self-published". Source is peer-reviewed and collectively authored. Relevant and WP:V for statement of group's history and beliefs from perspective of group. "Proto-CR" referred to by collective authors of the FAQ and others, not just Kathryn Price NicDhàna.
[10] Examples of further usage document further usage.
[11] Degrades usability of citations, not an improvement. I think "overtaken" is less neutral than "subsumed".
[12] Sloppy and pointless and left a poorly constructed sentence. Davemon is still riding the hobbyhorse that "living Celtic cultures" is some kind of CR cant despite multiple independent examples of usage provided further up this talk page.
[13] Removed source that provides context and differentiation between groups sometimes associated/confused.
[14] Shows Davemon is not even looking at the footnotes on this article, let alone the source material. This edit credits a quote to the wrong person, which he would know if he just looked at the footnote which reads "An Interview with Kym Lambert".
[15] A sentence that mentions Celtic history can be sourced to works on Celtic history.
All in all, I couldn't find a single thing to salvage out of these changes. So, despite the bad taste left in my mouth, I decided reverting all the edits was the best course of action. Pigman ☿/talk 01:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Which of those books are reliable academic sources? They all look decidedly new-age to me. I agree cutting down to 3rd party sources could be a way forward. I know there will be opposition, so can we discuss starting by removing Bonewits (who has been clarified as problematic by several editors) first? Davémon ( talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No, these are not improvements. You have removed sources that explain non-controversial statements of belief, and that help clarify some of the confusion about naming that has existed online; some of these are statements that need clarification, especially for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. You even removed non-controversial content like the graphic that illustrates the article. What is it that you have against Bonewits, exactly? His work is WP:V, and for Neopagan subjects, he is WP:RS. He is widely cited as an expert in the field of Neopaganism. Doesn't mean I always agree with him, but he's a useable source. As a point of comparison, re - sourcing, I find your cutting of anything having to do with Bonewits also bizarre when over on Triple Goddess (Neopaganism) you are using sources such as D.J. Conway and Barbara Walker. Why the massive gap in standards? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me start by saying there is no problem with using Bonewits in the right context. However, Bonewits is not WP:RS as he is being used here. See the discussion at : [ [19]] for clarification. Whatever one may feel about Bonewitz, the fact remains he is not an outsider to Neopaganism, and attributing him with an objective scholarly or journalistic viewpoint is highly doubtful. An expert on "Magic & Thaumaturgy" he may be, and in reporting what Neo-druids believe or practice I have no doubt he is both wp:v and wp:rs. However, the article is using Bonewits on the classification and validity of practices and as a commentator on the acceptance within the CR community of identifying terminology and as a commentator on the history of CR - these are the domains of sociology and journalism, neither of which Bonewits is an expert in the field of. I am really surprised to see so much support is being given to a source who is being cited outside their area of expertise. Davémon ( talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The article lacks any independant reliable sources that directly cover the subject. Significantly I was reading Marion Bowmans "Contemporary Celtic Spirituality" in New directions in Celtic studies (2000, University of Exeter Press) and it makes no mention of this movement. It appears no serious authors or academics have approached this subject - is it really notable? Can anyone help add proper sources to establish notability? -- Davémon ( talk) 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Pigman, has canvassed this talk page to encourage editors to use an article about the article topic which featured him has a source see |this edit. A "(redacted) Pigman" (who may or may not be the same person) is also credited as being one of the collective editor / contributors, to the key primary source document this article has been based on - the CR FAQ see [20] - which has 6 direct citations and numerous overcitations to documents written by his fellow contributors. Pigman is currently wholesale reverting edits which help move the article towards a NPOV rather than a wp:soapbox stance and removing the current over-reliance on the FAQ document "Pigman" was involved in creating, and the community of writers he is part of. I'm not sure if this talk-page is the correct venue to discuss this or whether there is a more formal Conflict of Interest resolution process. Davémon ( talk) 16:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Davemon, at this point your actions and arguments bear a remarkable resemblance to trolling. You have misinterpreted and misapplied WP policy on this talk page, [21] attempted to inserted POV into the article [22] [23] while calling your actions NPOV [24], accused me of canvassing [25], and declared a consensus [26] unsupported by actual evidence of the opinions voiced here. [27] [28] [29] [30] Among other things. Your "improvements" to the article have consistently included degrading the citations, inserting factually false or inaccurate statements, and creating unnecessary ambiguity where there was none.
Your current round of edits (6 June 2010) include, among other problems, the following:
It is abundantly clear that you first came to this article in retaliation for criticism of your actions on the talk page of the Triple Goddess article by User:Kathryn NicDhàna and myself. Although you deny wikihounding a woman from one article to another article in order to bully her, it certainly looked that way at the time and this issue was discussed on Kathryn's talk page. [34]
And, please, spare me the " assume good faith". This has been a consistent pattern of behaviour for you over the years of your tenure on WP in other instances and articles besides this one (diffs available upon request.) Such a consistent pattern of trollish behaviour eventually negates any assumption of "good faith" by other editors toward you. In my opinion, you have used up your good faith here. You generally manage to avoid violating the letter of WP policies such as 3RR and other guidelines but that doesn't mean that your behaviour is acceptable or tolerable.
At this point, I have no compunction about reverting your future edits here as, for all effects, intents and purposes, efforts to troll, bully and degrade WP content rather than a positive effort to build the encyclopedia. After over nine months, your contributions to the article consist almost entirely of poorly informed edits and tags. You show exceptionally poor editorial judgment and refusal to recognize consensus by continuing to beat the non-existent yet-still-dead horse of the "notability" of CR. You shoehorn inaccurate points and clumsy phrasing into existing sentences without, apparently, understanding what the sentence actually says and how it relates to information around it. This only confuses the casual reader (WP's target constituency) of the article. I don't know if this is casual or willful ignorance on your part, but your edits consistently show that you have not bothered to familiarize yourself with the subject matter despite your intermittently intense pushes to dominate and shape the article.
Your inability to interact in a collegial and cooperative manner with other editors is your longstanding behavioural mode on WP and has been almost from the beginning. I would characterize your ongoing attitude as hostile and antagonistic as you move from one article you focus on to the next. Tendentious editing is the kindest description I can muster for your style.
It is rather painfully obvious that you have learned how to bandy WP policy buzzwords without actually understanding or, apparently (in some cases), reading the policies you cite. Such frivolous and unnecessary usage of policy in discussion wastes the time and energy of everyone involved. This is one of the most basic definitions of gaming the system: "Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately. Gaming the system is an abuse of process and disruptive."
If you are unable to play well with others, then you don't get to play. Pigman ☿/talk 02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.173.25 ( talk)
This whole section is being given undue weight, and is bordering on WP:OR. Nobody outside the "CR community" even acknowledges these schisms and attempts at identity formation. Unless there's some pressing weight of properly cited, secondary or tertiary sources brought to bare on the "terminology" debates as a whole, it does not belong in wikipedia.. Davémon ( talk) 14:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to offer a correction to the contended definiton for Sinnsreachd ("However, Sinnsreachd and Sinsearacht actually mean "ancestry",[46][47][48] "seniority",[49] or "genealogy".[47][49]"). The definition used comes from The School Gaelic Dictionary by Malcom McFarlane (1912). This definition is: "[sinnsreachd] nf. ancestry, custom of ancestors, right of succession, genealogy" McFarlane, p. 106 (see http://www2.smo.uhi.ac.uk/gaidhlig/faclair/bb/duilleag.php?td=106). It is "custom of ancestors" that informs our use of the term to define the movement.
Also, I am not sure why Sinnsreachd is being grouped together with Senistrognata. Dkh3184 ( talk) 01:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)