![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Gaels Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Gaels |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 June 2019. The result of the discussion was merge. |
![]() | The contents of the Gaels of Scotland page were merged into Gaels on October 14, 2019 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Even in the most generous definition of Gaels many, arguably most, highlanders are not Gaels, some parts of the highlands never having had significant concentration of Gaels. Likewise, many Gaels are or were not highlanders, particularly historically in the much larger part of Scotland where Gaelic was spoken, e.g. Galloway comparatively recently and Fife less so. Those contemporary Gaels in the diaspora are not highlanders. These terms are not even approaching being synonymous.
Not sure where the edit summary "yet he himself (me presumably) says it's dubious Scots Gaels aren't found less in the Highlands". Mutt Lunker ( talk) 11:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Michael Newton has written about the term "Highlander", I believe in "Warriors of the Word" although it may have been one of his other books. Catrìona ( talk) 22:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
"Albannaich" does not mean "Scottish Gael", it means "Scot", in general and including non-Gaels. Various reliable online dictionaries are available if you wish to check. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 14:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Albannaich is a demonym. The Scots Gaels do not use the word Scot as a demonym because it translates as Gael. They do not call themselves Gaels because they constituted Scotland. It is not a translation because it is the original and current demonym for the Kingdom that is coterminus with the Highlands. Read the article, read the sources. WP:3RR has been breached and if you do so again shall be brought before resolution procedures. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 09:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The Germans and Dutch demonyms are a good example of where English demonyms don't match the ethnolinguistic group in their own language. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 09:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
References
You assert in a your latest disruptive removal of unaddressed maintenance tags that "The user is refusing to read sources". I have queried several assertions of yours, tagging the article itself and elaborating above in the talk section. I have asked for reliable sources for your assertions and the closest you have come is to refer me broadly to entire wiki articles without specifying any supporting passage (of which there appear to be none and Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source) and bizarrely to "Any geographical book that translates the Gaelic language" and "The Ordnance Survey". This is not exactly specific, is it? If you can not or will not provide a reliable source which specifically states what you assert, quoting the pertinent passage, without synthesis, there is no justification in removing maintenance tags (so this is disruptive behaviour and open to sanction, per the warnings on your talk page) or indeed justification for the presence of the material in the article. Can you provide such a thing?
I note that you formerly edited as User:Baglessingazump. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 10:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Attributable doesn't necessitate it is attributed. The user has been given enough information so that they can verify it is attributable. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 13:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
For anything that is "challenged or likely to be challenged." The user hasn't challenged it. The user has said it is dubious. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 15:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Didn't ask for a citation, and within the BRD cycle, this is the discussion. Asking for a citation is a challenge, saying something is dubious is asking for discussion. The user has been given enough information so that his doubt can be attributable with a source that assuages that doubt, it doesn't need attributed in the article.
Unless the user is admitting he was wrong in plainly putting up a dubious template instead of a citation template. In that instance would direct him to the practice of dealing with translations of demonyms on other wikipedia pages. Those pages don't have sources attributed. Because they don't have sources attributed it isn't circular sourcing. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 16:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
While it is probably fair enough to have such an article on this ethnic group and also a corresponding article about the Lowlanders/non-Gaelic descended "Scots", this title doesn't quite sit right. Wouldn't Scottish Gaels be a far more common name? Claíomh Solais ( talk) 12:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Consequent to the closing statement at this ANI discussion regarding the blanking of maintenance templates, as detailed above, I intend to revisit this article in regard to highlighting and addressing any factually questionable material. There has been plenty of opportunity to provide citations for the material already held to question but this has not been forthcoming, so I believe it would be justifiable to remove the unsupported material forthwith. I will however re-insert the tags for a time as a first step in the process and if there is in fact material which directly supports the contested passages, it can be produced. I am not, however prepared to re-engage with the sort of spurious, diversionary and disingenuous debating tactics employed earlier. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 20:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
And again hasn't read it. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 21:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Essentially the admin is saying there isn't such a thing as a Scots Gael in their own language. Beyond that the admin is saying something so common that it Google translates as what it is isn't what it is. That two sources aren't sources. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 21:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I have spot-checked one of the references to this article and discovered the following. "Scotland's DNA: Tartan export" [url= http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/scotland-s-dna-tartan-export-1-1503608] appears twice as a reference. It is simply a newspaper article re-hashing the output of Alistair Moffat in The Scots: A Genetic Journey by Alistair Moffat and Dr Jim Wilson. The newspaper article makes mention that the Scotsman is selling this book - so the article could be deemed an advertorial. Then we look at reviews of the book in question - the following seems to be relevant:
"...it is pretty awful. I studied molecular genetics at university so have some knowledge of the field. Moffat makes wild assertions, which may sound convincing and impressive if you know nothing of the field, but those assertions are not backed up with relevant information (e.g. references). There really is too few samples as yet to make the broad claims that he does. I gave up about 1/3 of way through. The geneticist's name rang a bell and then it dawned on me - he had made the programme "Blood of the Vikings" with archaeologist Julian Richards where they purported to assess the percentage of Norse influence on the genetic inheritance in Scotland. They took a small number of samples from 5 places, 4 of these being sites of Norse settlement. They then extrapolated the results onto the whole of Scotland. This is BAD BAD science!! Apart from the small sample size, of course if you take samples from sites of Norse settlement you are more likely to get a higher Norse genetic register - but you CAN NOT extrapolate that to the whole population. Similar is being done here wild assertions from limited sampling. And guess what? Moffat and Wilson have set up a DNA testing unit where you too can send in your DNA sample and a nice cheque!!!! Wilson should be ashamed of himself in being part of such bad "science"!!!
Anyone reading this, take what it says with a very big pinch of salt. The numbers of samples we have are far too small as yet to make much of a broad picture maybe in the future - but not now!! And don't be bamboozled by the seemingly fancy science it is not - it is throwing a few mutations in and making wild claims.
It is badly written, badly referenced and bad science..."
The review's opinions seem to fit with the rambling nonsense in the newspaper article. Further investigation may be needed, but I doubt that this reference meets any of the standards looked for in a Wikipedia article. It calls into question the quality of the other references.
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk)
10:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• The Scots: A Genetic Journey by Alistair Moffat and Dr Jim Wilson is available now. Readers of The Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday can buy copies of the book at the special price of 12.75 (p&p free in the UK) by calling 0845 370 0067 and quoting reference SMAN211.
The book is now cited. Not the article. The direct quote is given in the chapter. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 13:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
That's the question for both users pursuing me with POV problems on Scots Gaels and Highland Clearances. Shall be referring both editors to the guide on templates, sources, and deletion on a topic by topic platform. Would ask that the users cease their malicious intent, whilst correctly seeking outside opinion on cases where they are deleting directly quoted reliable sources that contradict their non-neutral POV problems. They won't harass this account. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 16:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Two users have questioned a reference. Via the talk page and via a failed verification template. [2] Please note that with the latter wikipedia has this to say "When to use Use this tag only if: 1. an inline citation to a source is given; 2.you have checked the source, 3. the source does not support what is contained in the article, 4. despite the source not supporting the article, the source still contains useful information on the topic.
The reference is given in relation to this clause in a paragraph sentence, the Scots Gaels: "are an ethnolinguistic group found mostly in the diaspora region of the former British Empire - predominantly United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand..."
The given reference is: Moffat, Alistair; Wilson, James (2017). "Northwards". The Scots: A Genetic Journey. Birrlin... or in citation form [1]
The quoted reference is a direct quote. It is visible at this Google books link: [3].
Personally cannot guarantee each reference shall have a google books link that undeniably verifies a quote. In that instance users must either read the source or accept it has been added in good faith. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 18:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Good point for outdenting being the previous users unthreaded reply so that threading can be reintroduced again. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 21:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Unless there are any further threaded additions on the talk page, shall delete the verification failed template and move onto the next topic. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 09:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
References
Editors may want to read this article which scientifically examines the question of who is and is not a Scottish Gael. I can email a copy to anyone who does not have access, ask on my talk page Catrìona ( talk) 20:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The latest series of attempts to reason with User:WyndingHeadland has rapidly degenerated into the same sort of irrational, unfocused and incomprehensible rambles, transparent misapplication of guidelines and policies, game playing, attempts at diversion and complete unwillingness or inability to demonstrate the correct application of sources that has marred the Highland Clearances article for years now, in their current and previous guises (two user ids and an IP). I'm not sure if this tit-for-tat turning of accusations back at other users is a new tactic or not, such as classifying perfectly lucid and coherent posts as supposedly incomprehensible before posting more gobbledygook of their own. Asking every aspect put to them to be separated into an entirely separate talk page thread is as impossibly impractical as it is undesirable and clearly a stalling tactic. One thing is clear though, that they are never going to genuinely engage with the points put to them and are prepared to obfuscate and filibuster indefinitely. It's a complete waste of time trying to engage with them and I feel it is highly self-indulgent of them to expect others to do so.
Whether WP:NOTHERE or not competent, what is to be done? Mutt Lunker ( talk)
The Sunburst flag is not a "gaelic symbol from Gael Fianna mythology" but a modern political symbol specifically associated with Irish nationalism and republicanism, inspired as it might be by said mythology. This is not an article about these political doctrines and slapping it on here makes it appear to be. It's about as pertinent as putting the Stars and Stripes on the astronomy article. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 16:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Gaels Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Gaels |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 June 2019. The result of the discussion was merge. |
![]() | The contents of the Gaels of Scotland page were merged into Gaels on October 14, 2019 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Even in the most generous definition of Gaels many, arguably most, highlanders are not Gaels, some parts of the highlands never having had significant concentration of Gaels. Likewise, many Gaels are or were not highlanders, particularly historically in the much larger part of Scotland where Gaelic was spoken, e.g. Galloway comparatively recently and Fife less so. Those contemporary Gaels in the diaspora are not highlanders. These terms are not even approaching being synonymous.
Not sure where the edit summary "yet he himself (me presumably) says it's dubious Scots Gaels aren't found less in the Highlands". Mutt Lunker ( talk) 11:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Michael Newton has written about the term "Highlander", I believe in "Warriors of the Word" although it may have been one of his other books. Catrìona ( talk) 22:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
"Albannaich" does not mean "Scottish Gael", it means "Scot", in general and including non-Gaels. Various reliable online dictionaries are available if you wish to check. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 14:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Albannaich is a demonym. The Scots Gaels do not use the word Scot as a demonym because it translates as Gael. They do not call themselves Gaels because they constituted Scotland. It is not a translation because it is the original and current demonym for the Kingdom that is coterminus with the Highlands. Read the article, read the sources. WP:3RR has been breached and if you do so again shall be brought before resolution procedures. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 09:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The Germans and Dutch demonyms are a good example of where English demonyms don't match the ethnolinguistic group in their own language. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 09:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
References
You assert in a your latest disruptive removal of unaddressed maintenance tags that "The user is refusing to read sources". I have queried several assertions of yours, tagging the article itself and elaborating above in the talk section. I have asked for reliable sources for your assertions and the closest you have come is to refer me broadly to entire wiki articles without specifying any supporting passage (of which there appear to be none and Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source) and bizarrely to "Any geographical book that translates the Gaelic language" and "The Ordnance Survey". This is not exactly specific, is it? If you can not or will not provide a reliable source which specifically states what you assert, quoting the pertinent passage, without synthesis, there is no justification in removing maintenance tags (so this is disruptive behaviour and open to sanction, per the warnings on your talk page) or indeed justification for the presence of the material in the article. Can you provide such a thing?
I note that you formerly edited as User:Baglessingazump. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 10:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Attributable doesn't necessitate it is attributed. The user has been given enough information so that they can verify it is attributable. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 13:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
For anything that is "challenged or likely to be challenged." The user hasn't challenged it. The user has said it is dubious. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 15:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Didn't ask for a citation, and within the BRD cycle, this is the discussion. Asking for a citation is a challenge, saying something is dubious is asking for discussion. The user has been given enough information so that his doubt can be attributable with a source that assuages that doubt, it doesn't need attributed in the article.
Unless the user is admitting he was wrong in plainly putting up a dubious template instead of a citation template. In that instance would direct him to the practice of dealing with translations of demonyms on other wikipedia pages. Those pages don't have sources attributed. Because they don't have sources attributed it isn't circular sourcing. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 16:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
While it is probably fair enough to have such an article on this ethnic group and also a corresponding article about the Lowlanders/non-Gaelic descended "Scots", this title doesn't quite sit right. Wouldn't Scottish Gaels be a far more common name? Claíomh Solais ( talk) 12:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Consequent to the closing statement at this ANI discussion regarding the blanking of maintenance templates, as detailed above, I intend to revisit this article in regard to highlighting and addressing any factually questionable material. There has been plenty of opportunity to provide citations for the material already held to question but this has not been forthcoming, so I believe it would be justifiable to remove the unsupported material forthwith. I will however re-insert the tags for a time as a first step in the process and if there is in fact material which directly supports the contested passages, it can be produced. I am not, however prepared to re-engage with the sort of spurious, diversionary and disingenuous debating tactics employed earlier. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 20:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
And again hasn't read it. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 21:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Essentially the admin is saying there isn't such a thing as a Scots Gael in their own language. Beyond that the admin is saying something so common that it Google translates as what it is isn't what it is. That two sources aren't sources. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 21:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I have spot-checked one of the references to this article and discovered the following. "Scotland's DNA: Tartan export" [url= http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/scotland-s-dna-tartan-export-1-1503608] appears twice as a reference. It is simply a newspaper article re-hashing the output of Alistair Moffat in The Scots: A Genetic Journey by Alistair Moffat and Dr Jim Wilson. The newspaper article makes mention that the Scotsman is selling this book - so the article could be deemed an advertorial. Then we look at reviews of the book in question - the following seems to be relevant:
"...it is pretty awful. I studied molecular genetics at university so have some knowledge of the field. Moffat makes wild assertions, which may sound convincing and impressive if you know nothing of the field, but those assertions are not backed up with relevant information (e.g. references). There really is too few samples as yet to make the broad claims that he does. I gave up about 1/3 of way through. The geneticist's name rang a bell and then it dawned on me - he had made the programme "Blood of the Vikings" with archaeologist Julian Richards where they purported to assess the percentage of Norse influence on the genetic inheritance in Scotland. They took a small number of samples from 5 places, 4 of these being sites of Norse settlement. They then extrapolated the results onto the whole of Scotland. This is BAD BAD science!! Apart from the small sample size, of course if you take samples from sites of Norse settlement you are more likely to get a higher Norse genetic register - but you CAN NOT extrapolate that to the whole population. Similar is being done here wild assertions from limited sampling. And guess what? Moffat and Wilson have set up a DNA testing unit where you too can send in your DNA sample and a nice cheque!!!! Wilson should be ashamed of himself in being part of such bad "science"!!!
Anyone reading this, take what it says with a very big pinch of salt. The numbers of samples we have are far too small as yet to make much of a broad picture maybe in the future - but not now!! And don't be bamboozled by the seemingly fancy science it is not - it is throwing a few mutations in and making wild claims.
It is badly written, badly referenced and bad science..."
The review's opinions seem to fit with the rambling nonsense in the newspaper article. Further investigation may be needed, but I doubt that this reference meets any of the standards looked for in a Wikipedia article. It calls into question the quality of the other references.
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk)
10:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• The Scots: A Genetic Journey by Alistair Moffat and Dr Jim Wilson is available now. Readers of The Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday can buy copies of the book at the special price of 12.75 (p&p free in the UK) by calling 0845 370 0067 and quoting reference SMAN211.
The book is now cited. Not the article. The direct quote is given in the chapter. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 13:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
That's the question for both users pursuing me with POV problems on Scots Gaels and Highland Clearances. Shall be referring both editors to the guide on templates, sources, and deletion on a topic by topic platform. Would ask that the users cease their malicious intent, whilst correctly seeking outside opinion on cases where they are deleting directly quoted reliable sources that contradict their non-neutral POV problems. They won't harass this account. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 16:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Two users have questioned a reference. Via the talk page and via a failed verification template. [2] Please note that with the latter wikipedia has this to say "When to use Use this tag only if: 1. an inline citation to a source is given; 2.you have checked the source, 3. the source does not support what is contained in the article, 4. despite the source not supporting the article, the source still contains useful information on the topic.
The reference is given in relation to this clause in a paragraph sentence, the Scots Gaels: "are an ethnolinguistic group found mostly in the diaspora region of the former British Empire - predominantly United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand..."
The given reference is: Moffat, Alistair; Wilson, James (2017). "Northwards". The Scots: A Genetic Journey. Birrlin... or in citation form [1]
The quoted reference is a direct quote. It is visible at this Google books link: [3].
Personally cannot guarantee each reference shall have a google books link that undeniably verifies a quote. In that instance users must either read the source or accept it has been added in good faith. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 18:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Good point for outdenting being the previous users unthreaded reply so that threading can be reintroduced again. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 21:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Unless there are any further threaded additions on the talk page, shall delete the verification failed template and move onto the next topic. WyndingHeadland ( talk) 09:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
References
Editors may want to read this article which scientifically examines the question of who is and is not a Scottish Gael. I can email a copy to anyone who does not have access, ask on my talk page Catrìona ( talk) 20:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The latest series of attempts to reason with User:WyndingHeadland has rapidly degenerated into the same sort of irrational, unfocused and incomprehensible rambles, transparent misapplication of guidelines and policies, game playing, attempts at diversion and complete unwillingness or inability to demonstrate the correct application of sources that has marred the Highland Clearances article for years now, in their current and previous guises (two user ids and an IP). I'm not sure if this tit-for-tat turning of accusations back at other users is a new tactic or not, such as classifying perfectly lucid and coherent posts as supposedly incomprehensible before posting more gobbledygook of their own. Asking every aspect put to them to be separated into an entirely separate talk page thread is as impossibly impractical as it is undesirable and clearly a stalling tactic. One thing is clear though, that they are never going to genuinely engage with the points put to them and are prepared to obfuscate and filibuster indefinitely. It's a complete waste of time trying to engage with them and I feel it is highly self-indulgent of them to expect others to do so.
Whether WP:NOTHERE or not competent, what is to be done? Mutt Lunker ( talk)
The Sunburst flag is not a "gaelic symbol from Gael Fianna mythology" but a modern political symbol specifically associated with Irish nationalism and republicanism, inspired as it might be by said mythology. This is not an article about these political doctrines and slapping it on here makes it appear to be. It's about as pertinent as putting the Stars and Stripes on the astronomy article. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 16:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)