User talk:An Siarach/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:An Siarach. 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

Archive 5

I am no sockpuppet! I just haven't registered as yet! Haven't broken any rules! You are a pretty nasty bunch, I am keeping an eye on you lot! 86.40.9.251 15:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. An Siarach

Kingdom of the Isles

Well spotted ! I never even thought to check where the link pointed, I assumed that if it wasn't red it must be something relevant. For the moment I've changed it to point to Lord of the Isles, but perhaps some day we'll have enough on the later Lordship to justify splitting off the earlier part into Kingdom of the Isles. I have a decent book on the Kingdom, but the ones I have on the Lordship tend to be, shall we say, POV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, il admit i was quite amused to click on it ( in the hope that id found an interesting article which was new to me ) only to find a pretty short, rather poor, article on the principle kingdom in Feist's Midkemia - when i was younger i was actually a fan of his stuff so i might even try and improve that article. As soon as im free of pressing academic commitments i intend to have a shot at expanding/adding to the existing stuff we have on the Lordship.I like the idea of eventually splitting the article to deal with the different eras. An Siarach

Ismail

I'm sorry... :( —Khoikhoi 09:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Safavid dynasty

Hi. Please see what I found in Iranica with regard to Safavids:

Shah Abbas II (r. 1052 – 77/ 1642 – 66 q.v.) was himself a poet, writing Turkic verse with the pen name of Tani. [1]

This is a proof that late Safavids were also Turkic-speakers. I think that the Columbia encyclopedia was absolutely correct when refereed to Safavids as a Turkic-speaking dynasty. Grandmaster 11:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Safavids were beyond doubt Turkic. This is stated explicitly by the likes of Bernard Lewis, Ira Lapidus and David Morgan in the leading books on Persia and the Islamic world. I have not seen a single bit of evidence from those who wish to pretend that the Safavids were ethnically Persian/Kurdish - their argument rests on a misleading perception regarding the ethnicity of Safi al-Din who was Persian himself but who was the founder of the religious sect which initially influenced the Safavids and claiming that the entire dynasty is Persian because of this is like claiming that every Christian King is/was Jewish because the founder of their faith ( Jesus ) was himself a Jew. Im ashamed to say that i simply dont have the stamina to counter the nonsense spouted on the talk pages regarding this issue as ive already put forward ( months ago ) explicit, irrefutable, evidence that the Safavids were Turkic from the worlds leading authorities which has been unashamedly ignored. An Siarach

Do you think there’s a way to resolve this issue within the Wiki rules? I know that RfC is not that effective, but it is the first step of dispute resolution. Maybe it’s worth to start one to attract attention of the community to the dispute? Grandmaster 13:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It should surely be possible. If we were to call in a third party and put forward all the evidence , which tbh is as explicit as one could hope for in stating the Safavids were Turkic, then we might get this ridiculous edit war ended and stop those pushing the pro-persian POV/propaganda stopped from removing historical fact from the pages. An Siarach

I think that’s what we should do. It’s time to draw the attention of the Wiki community to this topic, we definitely need to take it outside of this narrow circle. This kind of biased approach plagues many of the articles related to Iran and its history and people, the most glaring example being voting on Iranian peoples talk page on inclusion of Azeri people in the list of Iranian people, while Azeris don’t even speak an Iranian language! These people think that they can decide on such matters by simple voting and ignoring major academic sources. They don’t even care about the opinion of neutral users, who try to explain to them that it is simply wrong. Grandmaster 19:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Award

What the heck is wrong with you? Why did you remove that award from my page? Are you just jealous or once again pissed off, because major sources were presented to disprove your POV oppinion that "Safavids were ethnic Oghuz Turks"?!

That award was given to me on January 29th: [2]

As for the Safavids, here is a short extract from the authoritive Encyclopaedia of Islam: [3]

Just let me know if you want to read the entire article (88 pages, PDF) ...

Tajik 15:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, you are amongst the most blatant POV users ive come across on Wikipedia. "are you just jealous or once again pissed off, because major sources were presented to disprove your POV opinion that Safavids were ethnic turks" No major sources have been provided to prove that the Safavids were anything other than ethnic Turks. The likes of Bernard Lewis, Ira Lapidus etc have been quoted from the leading books on the Middle East/Islam stating explicitly that the Safavids were Turkic. Users such as yourself, who doggedly push their own agenda regardless of the weight of prominent evidence which contradicts them, are the ones who bring the encyclopedia into disrepute. Ive read that article and it is ( if by "Persian origin" it is referring to ethnicity ) simply wrong or ( as is more likely as i cannot imagine it contradicting so completely the accepted orthodoxy by the leading scholars of the field that the Safavids were Turkic - something which is backed up by explicit, irrefutable evidence) by "of Persian origin" it means originating within Persia and nothing more. You have a vested interest in this issue which obviously leads you to being POV. I have none whatsoever and am simply supporting the legitimate views put forward by the leading scholars and academic works dealing with the history of the Middle East/Islam/Persia. If you can give me sound reasoning for the assumption that Bernard Lewis, The History of Islamic Society by Ira Lapidus, Medieval Persia 1040-1797 by David Morgan and the School of Oriental and African Studies are wrong in stating/teaching that the Safavids were a Turkic dynasty then do so.An Siarach

Weight?! Gosh, it is you people who ignore the information given to you by major and authoritive sources, such as the Encyclopaedia Iranica or the one I posted here in your own discussion board: Encyclopaedia of Islam, article written by no less than Clifford Edmund Bosworth, a Fellow of the British Academy, winner of the UNESCO Avicenna Silver Medal (1998), winner of the Dr Mahmud Afshar Foundation Prize "for contributions to Iranian Studies" (2001), winner of the Prize by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance "for contributions to Iranian historical studies" (2003), winner of Triennial Award (2003), author of more than 200 articles for the Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, and Encyclopaedia Britannica, Professor at the Princeton University, with referrences to V. Minorsky and R.M. Savory (Professor at the University of Toronto and THE leading expert on Safavids! He has published some duzen works about Safavids and Kizilbash, and some of them are considered "standard literature" in Safavid studies!) ... and you call this "POV"?! Gosh ... you Turcophiles and Turkish nationalists are some funny folks ... Maybe you should publish serious journals on how YOU disproved "E.C. Bosworth's POV, along with all the POVs told by his incompetent companions, such as Minorsky or Savory" ... This is really getting TOO stupid ... And you haven't even explained why you removed that award from my page ... Next time, I'll report you to an admin because of vandalism Tajik 19:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Youve obviously forgotten to answer my challenge so il put it forward again "If you can give me sound reasoning for the assumption that Bernard Lewis, The History of Islamic Society by Ira Lapidus, Medieval Persia 1040-1797 by David Morgan and the School of Oriental and African Studies are wrong in stating/teaching that the Safavids were a Turkic dynasty then do so.". I would love for you to provide one single rational reason for why i would be a "turcophile" or "turkish nationalist" considering i am white and british with absolutely no links to either Persia or Turkey beyond the fact that i happen to study the history of both. Listing the qualifications of the people who write whatever articles you reference to support your POV is meaningless as the fault is not(i think its safe to assume) with them, but with the ridiculously agenda driven way in which you choose to interpret their writings. You cannot provide any article which states explicitly that the Safavids were ethnically and linguistically Persian while it is awesomely easy for anyone wishing to prove that they were Turkic to find emphatic statements and work from world leaders stating so."This is really getting TOO stupid " Its been ridiculous from the start. Everything points quite explicitly to a dynasty of Turkic origins, nothing has yet been provided stating otherwise . "And you haven't even explained why you removed that award from my page" Edit history showed that it was stuck up by you and the user named as having given it to you has 1 edit in their history, which is not that one."Next time, I'll report you to an admin because of vandalism" Boo and indeed hoo - it never ceases to amuse me how quickly those who undermine the integrity of Wikipedia - be it through outright vandalism or POV pushing - resort to threats based on Wiki etiquette etc. The Safavids were not of Persian origin. No ruling dynasty of Iran was of ethnic Persian origin between the 11th and 18th centuries - from the coming of the Seljuks every dynasty was of non-Persian stock until the Zands who emerged following the murder of Nadir Shah. An Siarach

The point is not proving them "Persian", but proving that they were NOT Turks. I have provided you with authoritive sources which consider the Safavids as "native Iranians", and clearly distinguish between the Safavids and Buayids on one side, and "Arabs, Mongols, and Turks" on the other side. Here, once again for you: "... In the first place, the Safavids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest ... During the whole of that time, only once ... did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran..." [4]. The Safavids are CLEARLY distinguished from Turks, Arabs, or Mongols. It's not my fault that you consider people like E.C. Bosworth or R.M. Savory "POV-writers" and "incompetent" ... I have quoted from one of the most authoritive (if not THE most authoritive) source of Oriental studies. It has deffinitly more weight than what you have quoted, because the Encyclopaesia of Islam is a balanced work ... a summary of many credible and scholarly sources. And for your information: in the article "Turks", the Safavids are not mentioned either (unlike Ottomans, Karakhanids, or Seljuqs). The problem with you turcophiles is that you purposely reject and ignore credible sources which do not support your turcophile propaganda or POVs. The Encyclopaedia of Islam AND the Encyclopaedia Iranica say that Safavids were NOT Turks ... that's totally enough to call them Non-Turks here in Wikipedia, no matter if you turcophiles like it or not. Xudâ nigahdâr ... Tajik 19:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"The point is not proving them "Persian", but proving that they were NOT Turks."

An interesting way of putting it and an insight into your motivation and mindset.

" I have provided you with authoritive sources which consider the Safavids as "native Iranians","

Nothing could some up the flimsy nature of your arguments better than this term at the end 'native Iranians' - a term which bears no explicity Ethnic connections and could quite easily, indeed probably does, refer to geography rather than ethnicity. "

"... In the first place, the Safavids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest"

Another phrase which carries ambiguity is this "restoration of Persian sovereignty" - The Persians did indeed enjoy sovereignty during this reign and the Safavids were eventually Persianized but this changes nothing about their Turkic backround, early Turkic nature and the only reason they decided to 'go native' ( i. e. Persian ) rather than pursue their Turkic heritage - support due to which they had come to power - was because of the decisive defeat at Chaldiran which robbed them of their Turkic recruiting grounds.

" ... During the whole of that time, only once ... did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran..."

Again ambiguous. "Persian origin" has no explicit ethnic reference and must ( if it is to be valid) mean of origin within the geographical confines of Persia.

"[5]. The Safavids are CLEARLY distinguished from Turks, Arabs, or Mongols. "

An explanation here is again quite easy as Turks usually means Ottomans, Mongols are distinct and Arabs need no explanation. The Safavid regime was indeed dinstinct from the "Turks, Mongols and Arabs" but this doesnt change the fact that it was Turkic and not Persian in ethnicity.

" It's not my fault that you consider people like E.C. Bosworth or R.M. Savory "POV-writers" and "incompetent" ... "

As you well know i have not faulted your sources, only your agenda driven interpretation of them. Its not my fault the greatest living Orientalist Bernard Lewis and the world leading centre for Oriental studies, SOAS, disagree with you.

"I have quoted from one of the most authoritive (if not THE most authoritive) source of Oriental studies."

Oh it is THE most authoritive simply because it suits your bias.

" It has deffinitly more weight than what you have quoted, because the Encyclopaesia of Islam is a balanced work "

LOL. A balanced work - yes of course, anyone who disagrees with you and agrees with the ORTHODOXY that the Safavids were Turkic is obviously an anti-Persian bigot, regardless of how prominent and respected they or their institution may be.

"The problem with you turcophiles"

Il invite you again to provide a rational reason for why i would be in any way biased- you obviously have a vested interest here, i do not.

" is that you purposely reject and ignore credible sources which do not support your turcophile propaganda or POVs."

This statement would be perfectly correct if were an admisison of guilt on your part.

" The Encyclopaedia of Islam AND the Encyclopaedia Iranica say that Safavids were NOT Turks ... that's totally enough to call them Non-Turks here in Wikipedia, no matter if you turcophiles like it or not."

Ive yet to see an explicit statement along the lines of "The Safavids were an ethnic-Persian dynasty, the first ethnic Persian dynasty to gain power in centuries following eras of Arab,Mongol and Turkic rule" which would emphatically support your claims. I have provided statements just as explicit which contradict your claims.

" Xudâ nigahdâr ... "

An Diabhal leat a dh'amadan. An Siarach

Sorry for intervention, but I just wanted to note that I kind of don’t see Iranica supporting Tajik’s claim that Safavids were not Turkic. This is from encyclopedia Iranica, [6] see page 246:

The oldest poet of Azeri literature known so far (and indubitably of Azeri, not East Anatolian or Khorasani, origin) is Emad-al-din Nasimi (about 1369 – 1404, q.v.). Other important Azeri poets were Shah Esma’il Safawi “Khata’i" (1487 – 1524) and Fozuli (about 1494 – 1556,q.v.), an outstanding Azeri poet. During 17th – 20th centuries a rich Azeri literature continued to flourish, but classical Persian exercised great influence on the language and literary expression. On the other hand, many Azeri words (about 1.200) entered Persian (still more in Kurdish), since Iran was governed mostly by Azeri-speaking rulers and soldiers since 16th century (Doerfer, 1963-75); these loanwords refer mainly to administration, titles and conduct of war.

The Azeri-speaking rulers of the 16th century were Safavids, as we know. Grandmaster 20:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. As ive said numerous times - there is nothing wrong with his sources, just the way he twists them to suit his personal interpretation/wishes. An Siarach

Exactly. Could you please move your response to Safavid dynasty talk page, as he posted this same stuff there as well? Thanks. Grandmaster 05:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure which response/part of my response youre referring to. Feel free to cut and paste any bits from my talk page you feel are relevant to the Safavid dynasty talk page. An Siarach

OK, thanks, I already responded to him. He posted almost the same message here and there. Grandmaster 10:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Proiseact nan Ealan; Kenneth III of Scotland; Badenoch; Brython; Briton; Battle of Harlaw; Indulf of Scotland; Culen of Scotland; Eilean Donan; St Columba's Church, Glasgow; Malcolm I of Scotland; Motherwell; Bòrd na Gàidhlig; Gillie; BBC Alba; BBC Scotland; Bungee language; Aviemore; Clan Donald

Cleanup: Battle of Glen Shiel; Earl of Orkney; Brigid of Ireland
Merge: Kra Isthmus; Ayr; Highlands and Islands
Add Sources: Kingdom of Scotland; Iain Noble; Primitive Irish language
Wikify: Clan Graham; Louis le Brocquy; Quaich
Expand: Tulip Era in the Ottoman Empire; Corpus Juris Civilis; St Johnstone F.C.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ta !

Thanks very much. But the award really belongs to you know who. I just do what he tells me :-) Well, apart from work on Scotland in the Early Middle Ages. I was thinking, so as to avoid that for another week or two, that I might bodge up some articles on the individual Kings and Lords of the Isles. I don't have any books that would pass muster as reliable sources, but I suppose it is better to have something than nothing. I suppose the exam season is in full flow in the real world. My sympathies. Best of luck ! Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you An Siarach! Appreciated! Hope you enjoyed the football. Anyways, I'm afraid we've got a long way to go if we wanna match those Poles. Their output is extraordinary. @ Angus, if there was a barnstar for modesty, I'd award you it. If it weren't for you, the Pictish articles would still be the crudities they were before you started contributing. Glad to hear you're thinking of giving those Lord of the Isles articles a whammy; if you're talking about the pre-SWoI rulers, it'll be tough. You might want MacDonald's Kingdom of the Isles and The Argyll Book just for starters. Oram's Lordship of Galloway won't harm either, and Viking Empires will do you some good too. The great thing about those lists - thanks for Orkney BTW :) - is that, if they're done well (as yours always are) they make it easier for the wikipedian community in general to contribute. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Torbett and Stein

Credible sources have been given there is a discussion about this issue in the talk page of the Jock Stein page. Your comments here "valid sources (i.e. not FollowFollow or Orange.net )" are very rude, I know what a credible source is. I consider your blanking my content, POV pushing and vandalism.Karatekid7 22:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If i am challenged over the validity of an edit i can either source it,prove its legitimacy via debate or i retract it. Im actually surprised that you bother to enter into any discourse given the obvious nature of your POV pushing. siarach 22:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hint read the talk page where the source is quite clearly given. It is not POV pushing I consider that you are POV pushing. Karatekid7 00:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Another hint, don't accuse me of using socks. Karatekid7 00:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

1)I read the talk page and the discussion clearly shows up the flimsy nature of your 'source' 2) "dont accuse me of using socks" - why? As is shown below its already proven than you do. siarach 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No it is shown that I have alternative accounts, show me which ones I have used to vandalise the article in question? Simple fact is, you could have 200 people from followfollow giving you BJK through out the article or you could have a balanced reference to it like I have given which says that Stein threw Torbett out, and little is known about how much stein actually knew about it. I think it would make more sense to sense to have a more balanced article. Simple fact was I consider that I was unfairly banned by a biased admin and it follows you about, the anon person leaving all this information about me is also perma banned under the alias user:TheMadTim. Karatekid7 16:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

One more little hint for siarach. Check out the history of .Karatekid7.

[[7]] - Known sock puppets

User_talk:Karatekid7/archive1 - Previous ban for vandalising Stein article.

[[8]] - other confirmed sock puppet used to vandalise Stein article. alternative account. Karatekid7 16:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Karatekid7 is a long term persistent vandal who removes previous references to their misconduct from the talk pages of their sock puppets before engaging in further vandalism sprees. I wish you luck. left unsigned by User:211.48.37.30

I cant say im surprised. siarach 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you surprised that the person User:211.48.37.30 leaving you these messages is banned and was obviously using proxies to beat a block? --Karatekid7 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Harlaw

Yeah, it's one of those things. Letting the cultural tensions of a later age interfere with historical understanding. You might consider that most evil "Highlander" of all, Alasdair Mòr mac-an-Righ, the "Wolf of Badenoch", who got into a dispute with the bishop of Moray and burned down Elgin Cathedral. Wouldn't you know it, he was actually Alexander Stewart, Earl of Buchan & Lord of Badenoch, the son of King Robert II of Scotland. And who was this guy's son? Well, it was the Alasdair/Alexander Stewart, Earl of Mar, who led the "Lowland" army at Harlaw. Funny thing isn't it?! Perhaps these modern amateur historians should sort this out, and work out who's Lowland and who's Highland, so their cliche can at least be consistent. Maybe they could look at the Earldom of Mar too, then they'd see most of its territory consists of land still Gaelic speaking in the 19th century! As for books ... I'm in the same position, all my books are in Ross now, and I'm not, so I too am unable to write anything. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Safavids

Hi, would you mind to have a look at Safavids? I incorporated the quotes from various sources into the article, including the ones provided by you. What do you think about the current version of the article? Regards, Grandmaster 11:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Somerled

Thanks for your note. I have, I must confess, a very direct way of expressing myself, and dismissing what I consider to be intellectual nonsense. Were you yourself inclined to take the DNA argument seriously? If so I apologise if my curt dismissal of this caused any offence.

I have now read the article you highlighted; thanks. For me it confirms a truism: believe absolutely nothing you read in the press! I have to say again it's simple nonsense in a garb of scientific authority. Any reputable historian could have told Professor Sykes that Somerled was of mixed Gaelic and Norse ancestry: his very name, as I am sure you know yourself, means Viking. The world he inhabited-the world of the Gall-Gaedhil-was both Celtic and Norse.

As for the contention that 500,000 people are descendend from Somerled, what more can I say? The statement is on the same intellectual plain as that which says the whole human race is descended from Adam. Somerled died in 1164. No matter how fertile and productive his descendents were, it defies logic, good sense and simple mathematics to argue that within the space of 900 years-some thirty generations later-he has half a million people walking around today who could claim to be his grand xtimes children. I doubt even rabbits are that fecund!

There is, of course, a deeper intellectual confusion at work here, tied up in the origin myths that surround clanship. There may very well be 500,000 people (or more) alive today with the name MacDonald; but they most assuredly do not have a common ancestor. As I have said elsewhere surnames were virtually unknown in the Scottish Highlands until the eighteenth century, when many people adopted the name of their local chief or landlord, implying a kinship in blood that never existed. Before this the practice was simply to be known as 'the son of.' The greatest of the war chiefs of Clan Donald was only ever known to his fellow Gaels as Alasdair MacColla, after his father, Coll. You could conceivably have a Campbell MacDonald who was the son of Donald Campbell! Do all the Smiths and Browns come from one original Smith or Brown? I think not! DNA evidence is not nonsense; but some of the arguments extrapolated from it clearly are. Sorry to go on at such length. Rcpaterson 23:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

John MacDonald of the Isles.

Hello again. I noticed from visiting your page that you have done some (or all?) work on the above. There are two points you might wish to note. The commonly accepted date-and place-of John's death is wrong:he died in 1503, not 1498. The more serious point is, as I think you probably noticed from reading the work I did on the Lord of the Isles page, that the forfieture of 1493 had nothing at all to do with the Treaty of Westminster, the details of which were known to the Scottish government as early as 1476. I have not made any changes now that I have identified you as a named author. I prefer to tread on toes anonymously! Rcpaterson 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now expanded the article on John MacDonald II, Lord of the Isles, taking what you had written as a point of departure, to give a fuller account of his career. Let me know what you think Rcpaterson 04:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Move request

With little hope of success, I requested a move on Talk:Scots language (to Lowland Scots). I invite you to contribute. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

English/British

'Please bear in mind that it is no more correct to refer to Britain/the UK as 'England' than it would be to refer ot the USA as 'California' or 'Texas'. Quite why references to Britain so frequently use the wrong nomenclature while we never see France referred to as Languedoc, Italy as Lombardia or Spain as Castille il never understand.'

Wouldn't it be more realistic to compare this confusion with people confusing the Soviet Union and Russia?

Musungu jim 14:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That is an analogous situation i have considered as well. siarach 23:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Holland and The Netherlands?--Fergie 11:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As an Englishman, would you mind me giving you my opinion on it, or would it be patronising?

Musungu jim 21:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well patronising depends on the opinion really ;) although by all means give me your view although i should state that despite what i say on my user page i know very well why the mistake is so often made - "il never understand" being more a expression of exasperation rather than anything else.siarach 11:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

'despite what i say on my user page i know very well why the mistake is so often made - "il never understand" being more a expression of exasperation rather than anything else.[[User:An Siarach'

Then yeah it probably would of patronised you! Musungu jim 22:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic Traditionalism

A Shiarach, a chara, Well, I don't have any reference that's up to Wikipedia's standard as to whether or not the Gaelic-speaking communities in Ireland or Scotland do or don't follow these practices. To be honest, I wouldn't be wholly surprised if they did follow them, the Gaeltachts in Ireland are very traditional places and old folk-stories have real meaning there still, especially amongst the older people. Belief in fairies, gods/goddesses and various things that date back to pre-Christian Ireland are still held by a large amount of people, though this would be true of areas outside the Gaeltacht also. This is based purely on experience of these areas, not any objective outside source. Le gach dea-ghuí. - Dalta 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure that a large number of Gaeltacht people would believe in fairies, gods etc. nowadays. An Muimhneach Machnamhach

Clan Morrison article

In response to your request on the noticeboard, I have attempted a rewrite of the article. I spent a couple hours researching, reorganizing and rewriting the article with more details, more formatting, wikilinking and wikifying. It could still use some work, and probably in-line citations, but let me know if you have any comments.--WilliamThweatt 18:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Translating Gavin Douglas

Hello.I have a request for your Gaelic skills. I have been editing the article slughorn. This word is an archaic form of slogan and is derived from the Scots Gaelic sluagh-ghairm. As you may know slughorn was used by Thomas Chatterton and Robert Browning in quite a different sense to mean trumpet (or possibly some kind of oboe). According to this article from the 1911 edition of Encylopedia Brittanica it has been shown that Chatterton got the word out of Gavin Douglas' translation of the Aeneid and simply misunderstood. The article quotes the relevant passage (without book or line reference): "The deaucht trumpet blawis the brag of were; the slughorne, enseule or the wache cry went for the battall all suld be reddy". Please tell me, what does this passage mean? I left this question with User:K851jg2 but he or she hasn't edited in a while. --Stroika 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Pages listed on Categories for deletion

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It would also be relevant in this context to consider the discussions in the parent category for the UK parliament: Category talk:British MPs. I find it regrettable that Mais oui! has engaged in a restructuring of that category without entering into the discussions there. --BrownHairedGirl 17:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_Scottish_constituencies is just about to close. I would really appreciate your contribution, because this debate needs some serious input. --Mais oui! 09:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ta anyway. It just pisses me off that the whole thing was just done in order to force me to accept dual categorisation, then when I accept it, the nomination continues, with the effect that all the Scottish cats will be wiped out while the Irish and English equivalents remain untouched. Totally unacceptable in my opinion. --Mais oui! 10:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fair use image removal

This has already been discussed at length. There was a reference to an RfC in the page that the edit summary refers to. Perhaps you missed it. The RfC is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals and deals directly with this issue. Thank you, --Durin 17:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Pre-script: we are currently undergoing peer review, see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland.

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 18:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fionn mac Cumhaill

Hi. Thought you might be able to help me out. In the Fionn mac Cumhaill, I've included the pronunciation of the name by native Irish speakers in Ulster, Connacht, West Munster and East Munster, respectively using IPA symbols. I notice that you speak Scottish Gaelic and was wondering how Fionn is pronounced in Scotland. Might be a good idea to include the Scottish and Manx pronunciations as well if they differ from the Irish. Go raibh maith agat. Tapadh leat. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. In my own dialect of West Muskerry, we pronounce Fionn as "Fyoon" with a long "oo" like in "moon" although as you point out, the Scottish pronunciation is probably similar to that of Donegal: something like "Fin" with a velarised "n". I see you're from the Western Isles. I cycled from Barra to the Butt of Lewis back in 2004. Loved the place and the people and may go back some time next year. I need to brush up on my Scottish Gaelic before I go, though! I presume An Siarach means "The Westerner"? An Muimhneach Machnamhach 09:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. What you say is very interesting; that you pronounce Fionn as fyoon. I'm always surprised at the way Munster Irish shares certain traits with Scottish Gaelic which Connacht and Ulster Irish lack. Like you pronounce ceann, peann, mall etc. the exact same way as someone from West Munster would and you say tha as people in West Kerry say thá instead of tá. I remember staying in a B&B in Barvas, just up from the road from the turn off for Stornoway. I think the name of the place is Borve or Borgh? Can't think of the name of the family. Lovely people. I used to know a guy here in Dublin from the west side of Lewis. Peter MacKay or Pàdruig Mac Aoidh I think was his name. He's doing a degree in English in Trinity College. He used to give Scottish Gaelic classes in Conradh na Gaeilge. You probably know him or know of him. Yeah, you should do the "Barra to the Butt" cycle some time. I also cycled down through Skye and along the coast through Fort William back to Glasgow. Beautiful country. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 11:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

John II Macdonald Lord of the Isles

I saw your tag on this. What can I say? When I first read your edits concerning Somerled and his descendants on the Lord of the Isles page I knew you to be intellectually challenged, nïave or both; I now know you are also a hypocrite. Do not bother replying; my involvement with Wikipedia, and with you and your kind is at an end. Rcpaterson Oh, yes; I've now reverted the above page to your original. Rcpaterson 00:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Intellectually challenged and/or naive because i put forward references from major newspapers for the assertion that Somerled is the second most common ancestor after Genghis Khan - a development you, as an apparent expert in the relevant field, seemed utterly unaware of? Intellectually challenged and/or naive because i actually agreed with you with regard to doing away with potential nonsense? As for being a hypocrite i have no idea how you can possibly begin to justify that. As for asking me not to reply - the most amusing and probably the most rational part of your comment and entirely in keeping with the barely adolescent temperment you have displayed on various discussions. siarach 21:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote

There is a vote going on at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland to move loads of early Scottish kings to anachronistic English names which are going out of favour in English language publications. People supporting the move have no knowledge or contribution history in the area, yet the wiki pop voting will nevertheless result in a victory unless they are opposed. Regards. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Following a successful period of consultation WikiProject Scotland has now been launched. As a participant in the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board I wonder if you may be interested in this new endeavour too? If so, please sign-up here. The WikiProject will be replacing some of the functions of the notice board, especially those in the lower half.

While I am here, please also have a look at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland and give it a "Watch". It was started up by User:Visviva a few days ago, after long being mooted at the notice board, and effectively replaces all the AfD listings at the notice board. Being a transclusion of all the on-going discussions it is a much more useful tool.

Even if you do not want to spend too much time on the WikiProject, please give it a "Watch" and feel free to contribute to Talk page discussions: the more contributors the merrier.

All the best. --Mais oui! 11:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Enzedbrit's talk page Scotland/Alba

I agree with your analysis. I think I expressed myself badly. I was more concerned with the apparent racism of the original poser than anything else. I kept refering to Scotland, when what I probably meant was Caledonia (if this this the correct term?) Anyway thanks for setting me straight. I am mainly concerned with trying to keep finger pointing, petty nationalism and racism out of the articles relating to Wales and England (I rarely venture into anything to do with Scotland on Wikipedia). I can come accross as agressive at times, but I don't mean to. If I have in the past then I appologise. All the best. Alun 17:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)