Talk:History of Cambuslang

Comment

The turn-of-the century villas in Cambuslang are built with sandstone, not limestone.

Article in serious need of revision

This article has been mostly written from the perspective of someone with no clear or fundamental grasp of historiography. It includes much apocryphal and long outdated material no longer tenable by those who properly understand Scottish history. Thus, the article seems to proceed on the basis that material is worth of inclusion simply because somebody wrote it down long ago. While Wikipedia is not a ground for new research per say, there is a responsibility here to ensure factual or up-to-date historical analysis from credible sources. Sadly so much archaic content is included that it only has a semblance of reputable history to untrained readers. The etymology section is particularly badly affected. For example, it is ludicrous that a reference to the 'Scoto Saxon' should be appearing on any Wiki article at all. The editor of the article has also used later folklore (Cadoc pilgramages) to justify an early historical event recorded in contemporary records - the founding of a chapel. Not only is there no historical proof of a 'genuine' St. Cadoc connection (it is thought to be inspired from antiquarian flawed interpretation of a later Saint's vita), but there is also no reason to suspect that was why the religious edifice was created. On the whole, most of the content is quite misleading. 82.43.88.129 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

If you know it should be changed, please change it... Crowsus (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Noting the above, the first part of the section involved has been revised with some fairly extensive sources in order to much better contextualise the associations with Saint Cadoc in terms of the traditional and later associations, while clearly framing the limitations of the evidence and the sources of some quite recent online material that contributes to the popular consensus that a firm Cadoc association exists. Although the edit has went through, the old Wiki warning about a lack of citations from the year 2017 is still showing. Presumably this will disappear in time. The section may be revisited to improve it further, but it will require digging out much harder to access source materials. Thanks. 82.43.88.129 (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't disappear automatically based on the addition of sources, it has to be done manually, so I have now done so, as the remaining unsourced paragraphs are uncontroversial in my opinion - however an expert such as yourself may disagree, and more corrections and supporting references are always welcome of course. Crowsus (talk) Crowsus (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)