Talk:Gaels of Scotland

Highlanders

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)

There is a contradiction. Either the Gaels aren't a minority in the Highlands or they are. The user has two edits that say precisely the opposite of one another.

Firstly that a WP:RS that says Gaels are a minority in the Highlands is dubious, second that Gaels are a minority in the Highlands. WyndingHeadland (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You have made the bold contention in your newly created article that the term "highlander" is synonymous with "Scottish Gael". You have no reliable source for this and I would contend it is manifestly incorrect: they mean different things which arguably overlap to a significant extent but are very far from being the same thing; I thus reverted you. Please provide a reliable source that these two terms are synonymous and discuss the matter here before putting the contended wording back in the article: i.e please self-revert your re-insertion of this wording until there is consensus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

As has been said, please read Gàidhealtachd. Would ask that the user stop bold edits in haste when he hasn't read the article or the sources. WyndingHeadland (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Would suggest the user read Scottish Highlands too and compare the translations. WyndingHeadland (talk) 13:11, 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)

Can you highlight to me the passages in these articles that explicitly indicate that the term "Scots Gael" equates to "Highlander" and in turn the reliable sources for these passages which explicitly state this, since Wikipedia can not be circularly sourced to itself?

Do not blank maintenance templates as this is regarded as disruptive. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Any geographical book that translates the Gaelic language. The Ordnance Survey is a good idea.WyndingHeadland (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even quite sure what that last post means but you are certainly not indicating any passage in a source which in any way supports your contention. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the translation of the Highlands of Scotland in English? WyndingHeadland (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Albannaich

"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)

Scots are Gaels, Highlanders. Scots are Anglic, Lowlanders. The user is forbidding me call myself a Scots Gael in my own language. These reverts need removing, the editor has time for reading. He should read the sources, the pages, then move on. WyndingHeadland (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That response is rambling incomprehensible nonsense and does not address the matter at issue. "Albannaich" does not mean "Scottish Gael", it means "Scot" and you are stating the reverse, in opposition to reliable sources. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Opposition? WyndingHeadland (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Matt Lunker is absolutely right. Actually it is not uncommon to see them referred to as Gàidheil or Gaidheals in English. "Scottish Gaels" would be the accepted English term, not "Scots Gaels." This article is even worse than Gaels and both need serious attention from an expert. Catrìona (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Common or not, the fact is that a Gael can't be Scottish or Scots. They are the same thing. They describe the same thing. A Scot is a Gael. A Gael is a Scot. It's an English language tautology. It's purpose is merely descriptive. Albannaich is the demonym in Gaelic. It very simply is. WyndingHeadland (talk) 22:56, 1 November 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

Providing sources

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)

Reliable sources aren't the only consensus creating source. The user has repeatedly refused reading the article, or it's sources, when questioned on them, for a disruptive breaking of WP:BRD and an attitude of raising past disputes elsewhere. WyndingHeadland (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

For crying out loud, how can I read a source that you have not provided? Despite repeated requests, you have simply not provided us with a quotation from a source which supports that the term "Highlander" is synonymous with "Scots Gael" or that "Albannaich" means "Scottish Gael". If such a quote exists in the article's sources, the onus is on you to highlight it, otherwise we can only assume that there is none. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:37, 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)

Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:57, 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)

Saying it's dubious, tagging the dubious bits and the discussions above are manifestly a challenge in any terms. Stop stalling. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:46, 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)

What do you think a request for a reliable source is but a request to verify with a citation? Is this a competence issue then or are you still stalling?

If you are harking back to BRD, you have made it BRRD as you have reverted my reverts to your bold creation of this whole article. You can always put my edits back in place to accept BRD. Maintenance templates are another matter and the blanking of them without resolution is regarded as WP:VD. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read the dictionary on "dubious" and "edit".WyndingHeadland (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop stalling with surreally irrelevant rambling and provide support to your material as asked, or remove it. You are patently not prepared to engage with this discussion in a genuine manner. I will tag the material again, this time with "citation needed" rather than "dubious" tags to make it abundantly clear (though this can not possibly have escaped you by now) that supporting citations are required. Should you blank these once more without providing the requested citations, it will again be considered intentionally disruptive editing and matters will be pursued as laid out in that guideline. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Bring it to wikipedia resolution. Countless reverts, changes in templates, refusing to answer questions. WyndingHeadland (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Title

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)

It's accepted practice that Gaelic, the language, can be Scots Gaelic (please click the link) or Scottish Gaelic. Other references could be Scots Pine being a broad term for the tree native to the Highland Caledonian Forest.

Happy to add a WP:REDIR to the page from Scottish Gaels, because there isn't one at the moment. WyndingHeadland (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, someone else added it already. WyndingHeadland (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Closure of ANI

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)

Please see my talk page and the discussion in the ANI. The admin didn't read it. WyndingHeadland (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The admin did read it, and he also read the talkpages both here and the ludicrous discussion at Highland Clearances. The admin is also making it abundantly clearer here that further removal of maintenance tags without policy-based explanation at the relevant talk page, or any other type of disruptive editing on these articles, will result in blocking. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 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)

Quality of references

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)

lt isn't being sold by the Scotsman, it could have possibly been retailing it, the articles are written by the same people who wrote the book. Birlinn the publishers sell it. [1]WyndingHeadland (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The reviews aren't from a reputable source. WyndingHeadland (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The article in the Scotsman says:

• 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.

If you think this is not advertising, then that demonstrates a level of understanding of the written word that would explain a lot. If you do not understand the criticism in the review, then you clearly have difficulty with genetics and scientific method.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The book is now cited. Not the article. The direct quote is given in the chapter. WyndingHeadland (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A question: have you actually read the book?
If so, which facts in the Wikipedia article text in front of reference 1 are supported by which parts of the book?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a direct quote in the chapter cited. WyndingHeadland (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the point at which you either spell out exactly what material you have put in the article from this reference, or own up to providing references that do not support your editing. There are very few words in your text that appear anywhere in the book in question, let alone in the chapter that you cite - look at the significantly identifying words: "ethnolinguistic" - 0 occurrences, "diaspora" - 2 instances, one relative to Polish people and one regarding English immigrants to Scotland - etc., etc.

I note the appropriate tagging in the article by another editor.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The topic is too general. The user should stop using the talk page as a soap box for long rants. A topic shall be introduced now for the specific question. WyndingHeadland (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That's the end of facts?

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)

The problem with your disruption in this article isn't POV it's being plain wrong and incomprehensible and refusing to cite sources for your alternative facts. Catrìona (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate that commentary. Funny how it doesn't relate to anything specific. More evidence of a POV problem, rejecting NPOV. WyndingHeadland (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

But you do not answer specific criticisms - for instance, you have been asked to state exactly what text in your edits is supported by reference 1. All you have said is "There is a direct quote in the chapter cited." Two other editors have searched for anything that might fit this description and have not been able to find it. If what you say is true, then you know what this direct quote says. It would be very easy for you to point it out, so that other editors could find it in the reference. This is nothing to do with POV, it is down to your ability to explain where you get the facts that you have put in the article. If you make that clear, we can then move on to things like the quality of the sources used. At present, we have not even got beyond the first step of you justifying what the article says, based on reputable sources.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Topic discussion only please. Start a topic heading on a reliable source or paragraph or section. Character assassinations can be put aside. This is an encyclopedia. Not political POV.WyndingHeadland (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Due to the numerous appearances on admin boards, this article is now being watched by admins. Please be careful. Phrases like 'character assassination' might draw unwelcome attention. Use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if you are planning to make a major change. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a topic discussion - I am making a genuine attempt to discover where the content of the article has originated. You have made a statement about this that it has not been possible to verify. This is in the context of the article content being extensively questioned by more than one editor.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The Scots: A Genetic Journey: Verification failure.

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

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)

People of Highland ancestry are being discussed, not Scots Gaels, for a start. There are many non-Highland Scots of Highland ancestry, myself included. It would be stretching it a considerable amount to describe many or most as Gaels. I for one would feel a fraud. Mutt Lunker (talk)

The reliable source given is on Scots Gaels that the reliable source terms Highlanders. The context of the sentence in a paragraph relating to emigrations of Gaels between 1811 and 1820.WyndingHeadland (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

"The source given is on A that the reliable source terms B". With that kind of trick you could support any false statement you like. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

lf the user would like to talk about the category problem he has he should open a talk page discussion topic on it, as the user has been asked previously. It isn't WP:SYNTH (please see WP:SYNTHNOT too) and this topic discussion is on verifiability not original research. WyndingHeadland (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

What does this gibberish mean (e.g. "the category problem (I have)"(?)) and how on earth does it relate to anything I've said? I'm discussing my point here, where it belongs. I notice you're repeating this directive elsewhere to splinter everything into a myriad of different discussions. Let's not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Manifold. Firstly, the user is claiming it's original research whilst the template is on a separate core policy of verifiability.

Secondly, the user is claiming the source doesn't refer to Scots Gaels as Highlanders, when it does. As was said above and ignored by the user: "The context of the sentence in a paragraph relating to emigrations of Gaels between 1811 and 1820."

Thirdly, the user is suggesting that other sources don't refer to them as such. As the next comment in the branch beneath this thread branch says: "Please start a topic on the talk page on this seperate topic. Or it shall be put up anyway." Being disruptive won't help. WyndingHeadland (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please start a topic on the talk page on this separate topic. Or it shall be put up anyway. WyndingHeadland (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I would add that, given sufficient generations, the larger part of countries like the USA and Australia will have Scottish Highland ancestry - it's simple maths and population dynamics. Having this ancestry does not put you in this group.

We have also established that the reference does not support any of the rest of the first part of this sentence - where there are two tags and, looking at the definition of Ethnolinguistic group, it might be reasonable to ask for a citation to support its use in this context. I would like to be convinced that the language is concurrent with an ethnic group - I think history is against you on this one.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The user hasn't "established that the reference does not support any of the rest of the first part of this sentence." Please start a topic on the other topics then jumped to immediately after this false statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WyndingHeadland (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

"I would add that, given sufficient generations, the larger part of countries like the USA and Australia will have Scottish Highland ancestry - it's simple maths and population dynamics. Having this ancestry does not put you in this group." This statement is incomprehensible.

The quote with the reference is that 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 direct quote in the reference is on Scots Gaels. WyndingHeadland (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The user objected to the previous reference to this source that is an article about the publication for the book on an unproven ground of not being a reliable source. That allegation doesn't reference any wikipedia guides on reliable sources or prove it was what the user says it was. The article, from the same author, says: "Despite the complex genetic mixture in all of these former British colonies, there can be no doubt that Scottish lineages now extinct at home, carry on in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Surname evidence alone shows that to be the case."[4] WyndingHeadland (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's break this down into simple pieces. I'll deal with the easy one first: You appear to be saying that "are an ethnolinguistic group found mostly in the diaspora region of the former British Empire - predominantly United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand" is a direct quote from the book The Scots: A Genetic Journey. If you search for the word "ethnolinguistic" in the book, you find that the word does not appear there [5]. I have also verified this in another electronic copy of the book. So the bit in inverted commas is not a direct quote from the book.

Next, the bit that you say you don't understand: that if you insert an ancestry into a larger population, then wait a few generations, you will have a much larger proportion of people with this ancestry than when you started. Consider that: you have 2 parents, 4 grand-parents, 8 great-grandparents and 16 great-great grandparents. If just one of the oldest generation has a different ethnicity, you have that ancestry. But so do all your siblings, cousins, second-cousins, etc. which will be a much larger proportion of the overall population than at the time of the great-great grandparents.

Identifying a reliable source: I think that this guideline is a start. I take that view because the subject of the source is a blend of history (including social history) and population genetics (particularly with reference to tracking racial genetic markers). All of this falls well within the realm of academia - so one would expect an academically robust source. I question whether the book by Moffat and Wilson actually meets these guidelines.

"established that the reference does not support any of the rest of the first part of this sentence." The purpose of asking for the direct quote that we were told comes from Moffat and Wilson was to establish exactly how much of the first sentence of the article is supported by this book. From what we now know, the book does not support the part of the early part of the sentence - which includes the two tags.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

lt isn't in simple pieces. The user has conflated all his various questions into a large rant...again. Shall read it and attempt to ignore the users inability of addressing topics in a linear fashion WP:THREAD WyndingHeadland (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:INDENT too. WyndingHeadland (talk) 21:36, 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)

It isn't necessary for the reference to include the word ethnolinguistic. Please refer to the guidelines on WP:SYNTH (that it is not in any case an example of), and create a talk page discussion or template that relates to original research (that it is not in any case an example of). A synonym isn't original research. The editor has a category problem. WyndingHeadland (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTHNOT. WyndingHeadland (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The user didnt see or ignored the thread on his latter point. The evidence on "ancestry" was from surname evidence. Therefore the thinking on it is in line with that. Not the complex genetic history of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. WyndingHeadland (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason for looking for the word "ethnolinguistic" in the source is because you put in quotes the section of the text that starts "are an ethnolinguistic group found mostly...." in a way that appeared to state, or at the very least strongly implied, that the text in quotes appeared in the source. Note that I had previously suggested that you "...spell out exactly what material you have put in the article from this reference". I also asked "...you know what this direct quote says. It would be very easy for you to point it out...". ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The complete quote gives context, the source is inline with the clause "predominantly United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand." That is what an inline citation is: please see WP:IC. WyndingHeadland (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

So you need to realise that your original explanation of what was quoted was, in the very best interpretation, misleading. You used the words "direct quote". When you are trying to get people to agree with you, I don't see how that helps your cause.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

lt isn't misleading if the user takes into account that the template is on verification not original research, that is a separate allegation and it too is unfounded. WyndingHeadland (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The user has stated they are ambiguously unhappy with something (in the next thread on this talk topic discussion), however they haven't given any reason. My only guess is that they are saying that the reply to the question they put to me of at "very least strongly impl[ying], that the text in quotes appeared in the source". My reply includes this statement 'the source is inline with the clause "predominantly United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand."' The clause itself is separated from the paragraph, and other clauses in that paragraph with hyphens, "-", on either end. The inline citation is and always has been inline with that clause only. It isn't at the end of the paragraph. If that is addressing the users problem generally please read WP:IC and question me on the direct quote in relation to any wikipedia guide if this doesn't clarify the problem unambigiously. WyndingHeadland (talk) 12:44, 11 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)

I have no idea how you believe that you have dealt with this matter satisfactorily. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Because it has been verified. That is the template question. The question isn't on original research or anything else. The user has has the talk page opportunity of putting forth questions and reviewing answers. Is there any additional point the user would like to make? Or any point of substance to the user's disagreement with me other than a general disagreement? WyndingHeadland (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You have to understand that other editors have put a huge amount of effort into trying to discover the sources you have used. The answers received lack transparency, so giving an endless round of question and answer with no real sense that we have got to the bottom of things. All that has happened is that your claims of sources supporting content have been pared back to justifying a very small number of words that have appeared in the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Scots Gael personal identity.

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)

Please stay on topic. Moved to another topic.WyndingHeadland (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This couldn't be more on topic to the point raised by me in only in the second post in the thread above. Ok, it's about your abuse of the source rather than whether the source itself is reliable but it's all part of the issue of your unsupported or dubiously supported statements. It's impertinent to hive it off in to a separate section and characterise with your own dubious section title. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That's an incomprehensible statement that doesn't make any logical link between any element of it's claim to be on topic with the topic of verifiability. WyndingHeadland (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Catrìona - I took a look at this paper and it is a well put together piece of research. On a second-read there are some important concepts touched upon and I would hope there would be a home for this and similar work in Wikipedia. Not sure if this article is the right place (or whether it should even be deleted and the appropriate content appears elsewhere.)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Same pattern of talk page degeneration

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)

There isn't even a solitary example given of anything that has been accused of me. The user has simply ran out of steam after questions have been put to them that they cannot answer. WyndingHeadland (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked User:WyndingHeadland for a week. Such persistent disruption is not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sunburst flag

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)