Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Scotland and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 91 days

Shortcut

WT:SCO

Archives

Old discussions from merged noticeboard

Archive 1, approximately September 2005 to December 2005
Archive 2, approximately January 2006 to February 2006
Archive 3, February 2006 to March 2006
Archive 4, March 2006
Archive 5, March 2006 to April 2006
Archive 6, March 2006 to August 2006
Archive 7, August 2006 to November 2006
Archive 8, November 2006 to June 2007
Archive 9, June 2007 to February 2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Bloating in Gaels articles

I’ve become aware of similarities in some problematic aspects in various articles regarding notable Scottish Gaels. The major concern is the inclusion of large passages of material which, though arguably broadly related, does not really apply directly to the subject of the articles in question, making the articles bloated and unfocused. As a recent example, I’ve just removed these sections from the Alexander Cameron (priest) article, which included original research about the subject’s not being covered in popular culture but that a beach connected with him had been, as well as much material about the historical period but not directly about the subject’s part in or relation to it. I haven’t tackled this long section of the article yet but it appears to directly feature the subject only occasionally. Other examples are Dòmhnall Ruadh Chorùna, which included various off-topic passages and this material at Iain Lom.

Outwith the category of notable Gaels, inclusion of material such as this at Catholic Church in Scotland may be related. That the source material relates to an organisation that is most notable for their hostility to the subject of the article but does not in fact regard the latter is an impressive find.

Accompanying common characteristics are editorialising language, reverential, adulatory or POV phrasing, questionable capitalisations of terms, questionable ENGVAR spellings and terms (e.g., variously, “Meanwhile,” “However,” “the Bard”, “’’posse’’ of Redcoats”).

It may be circumstantial but each of these articles has been edited extensively by User:K1ngstowngalway1, so pinging them as a courtesy.

The articles I have listed may benefit from further attention and pruning but I am concerned that there may be others similarly affected. Has anyone else noted such? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair - various sections. Ben Mac Dui 15:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that rings a bell. Looks like I may have clocked this in 2020 but didn't address much and the issues have amplified significantly in the interim. Also to note, the earlier campaign was by User:Kingstowngalway, without the inclusion of the two number "1"s, per the current editor's similar handle. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some highly partial and choice phrasing throughout. "the Whig single party state's apologists"! I've also seen this unfounded claim in other articles: "It is widely believed that Whig poet Robert Burns was the first Poet Laureate of Scotland." To my knowledge, this is never claimed, the post being non-existent, and Burns notably expressing as much in the way of Jacobite sympathies in his works. The bulk of the article comes across as pretty questionable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this edit, summarised "As my use of period spellings and capitalisations has been cited as a problem, I have corrected them in this section." is in reponse to the above, it shows an erroneous understanding. Quotes should be represented as they were. Secondary to the the issue of the lack of discrimination in the large quantitty of material being added as it is, this issue is with your own text, where you routinely use non-British and culturally inappropriate terms and spellings and you capitalise terms which do not require to be.

As I become more familiar with the edits, I am increasingly concerned about issues of neutrality with these articles. The articles are essay-like, a "case" appears to being built, those on one "side" are referred to reverentially, those perceived as on the other with contempt, contemptible though many of them may be. I suspect the sourcing may be partial and original research, not warranted by the sources, appears to be being inserted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone suggest a way forward with the problems in these articles as the task of sorting through all the material would be considerable?

I've taken a look at the lead section of Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair alone and it's a vast a miscellany of material about the subject, in no particular order and in no way fulfilling the function of "an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". Much of the material therein would be of questionable pertinence to the main body, let alone the lead.

Much of the material that has been added, largely by one individual, may of worth and pertinence and well sourced but it's difficult to assess this, the articles having been swamped, the tone reverential, the structure incoherent. (On sourcing, as a tabloid, is The National regarded as a RS?)

The best good start would be if User:K1ngstowngalway1 could cease the addition of any new material until they have gone over what they have already added, excising off-topic material, addressing the tone. and removing material not supported by their sources, or synthesised from them. Failing that, it seems drastic but would reverting to versions before the swamping of the articles be acceptable to the community? Is putting them up for assessment a suitable way of formally noting deficiencies and indicating appropriate action? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is, after all, a collaborative project and I am certainly okay with that fact. I do believe that history is nuanced and complex and I do try to bring that across when editing

whenever possiblIf, as often seems to be the case about important figures in the Scottish Gaelic literary canon, the limited sources I have are only reverential in tone, it can be difficult to convey nuance unless I find it in other sources over time. Sometimes canonical poets live lives that are inspirational and other times contemptible, but we are all trying in our edits to be as objective as humanly possible and to correct bias whenever we see it. With regard to Alasdair Mac Mhaighstir Alasdair, I have included that he was unfaithful to his wife and was also obscenely dirty, and I mean filthy and borderline pornographic, in a number of his poems. I have chosen not to attack him morally for those facts and to simply reported them impassively as possible. I have also also added, however, that repeated expurgation of those same poems over the past 200 years has attracted very harsh criticism from a number of literary scholars, including the late John Lorne Campbell, despite the latter having been a very staunch adherent of Traditionalist Catholicism. Regarding Dòmhnall Ruadh Chorùna, I personally find his expressed desire in "The Song of the Poison", for the complete annihilation of the German people by fire from heaven to be horrifying, which is why I found it so ironic to learn many years into researching him and expanding his article that his first experience of poison gas was actually in a friendly fire incident. It certainly brings home how badly that war was fought by both sides and how wasteful and unnecessary it was, but even so I added that information to put the poem into context while trying not to judge Dòmhnall. I am trying to take your concerns into account and am looking forward to working with you to improve these articles. Best Wishes.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)e.[reply]

Regarding the bloating of the articles, I see you have made a few edits in that regard at Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair but much more is required. The issues of tone and bias can be dealt with more easily when the material has been trimmed and made more focused. This is only a quick and rough start at the lead, but these edits at Alexander Cameron (priest) might give you an indication of some of the issues that are required to bring more focus to the various articles and to reduce bias. Please can you take on more trimming? (And any others who'd care to; I see there has been some intervention.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted concerns about neutrality and tone specific to Alexander Cameron here, though there are similar issues at other articles mentioned above. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just clocked that the article is overwhelmingly sourced to a single work and this is self-published. That surely throws the reliability of the article in grave doubt. This returns me to my inclination that the only way to address the multiple issues is to revert to a version prior to the intervention. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to be suitable revision, without the swathes of self-pub material, tone and neutrality issues and considerably more focused. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I held off from restoring this last credible revision when I saw that a small number of passages, reliant on the self-published source, had had additional sources, potentially more credible, noted at these passages. I'd hoped that this may indicate a start to the very sizeable task of properly sourcing the material, or purging that only supported by the questionable source. To remove the self-pub tag after these minimal tweaks shows some front and a complete lack of appreciation of the task in hand. The reference section indicates the majority of the numerous citations are to this one work which should, ideally, not be being used at all. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable editing continues to the article, none in any signicant way to remove the mass of material reliant on the self-pub source. A week's wait seems long enough, so last good version it is. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across something similar now at Eigg. However, in my absence for a year or three the whole article, (not just Gaelic era history) once close to GA status, is now so full of unsourced statements and absurd footnotes that I fear it is not really salvageable. Ben Mac Dui 10:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, so I see. I remember the article being very good at the time of a visit to Eigg a few years ago but much of it has nose-dived since. I've encountered numerous other articles so-affected. Eigg would be considerably improved with a straight revert to its GA-proximal version. Such action at the Cameron article was met with reversion, removal of maintenance templates, no effort to address sourcing concerns and a doubling down of the addition of bloat. One characterstic of the editing is the packing of the text with very lengthy quotes. This may have a copyvio side issue.

Not all the edits may be so-motivated but a good indication of a fooist agenda is that criticism of edits must be inspired by anti-fooism, so make what you will of this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eigg was and remains in quite a state - it's a broad issue here as quite substantial numbers of edits were made by accounts later blocked as sockpuppets. In fact as a more general topic I note that my watchlist is largely cluttered up with bots amending talk pages, wikignomes messing about with 'short descriptions', POV-pushing/conflict of interest edits, etc. Maybe I spend too much time in rural Scotland but I am beginning to wonder if, outside of scence articles, we have many genuine editors anymore. Apologies - back on topic, take a look at Morar. Ben Mac Dui 08:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never lose hope; there are plenty of genuine editors still around and improvements are still being made. I just looked at Eigg and those footnotes are excessive! Coldupnorth (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problems at Morar fit with those also at Loch Morar. There's particular activity at Catholic Church in Scotland currently, with much editorialising and off-topic diversions, so some extra eyes would be appreciated. Would assessment/re-assessments of affected articles be a useful way of formally recording the issues and perhaps convincing those responsible of the detrimental effect? This is not an area in which I am experienced. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could try Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard - I have no direct experience of it that I can recall however. Ben Mac Dui 11:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...where it has been suggested it be taken to ANI, so this report. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shapinsay at FAR

Shapinsay was nominated for a featured article review in November of last year. I had dealt with the bulk of the queries by March this year. After some additional input there has been no further comment for over a month. However, so far only one editor has been kind enough to support FA status being retained. The discussion page is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shapinsay/archive1 and any input is welcome. Ben Mac Dui 08:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Scottish birth registry

Hello, when citing the Scottish birth registry (https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/) for biography articles, the website link returns an error after a while, as searches expire. Also, searches do not return the specific day the person is born.

Would you have any advice on how to source & cite a living person's date of birth using this website? This question is for the following draft I am working on: Draft:Ryan_Kopel. Artemis-red97 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may be able to archive the search as a specific moment. See Help:Archiving a source though I am not familiar with this process. Wikipedia used to have a partnership with the site Wikipedia:ScotlandsPeople but I think its discontinued. You could try contacting some of those individuals if no one else responds. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for British people

British people has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Runrig singles proposed merge discussions

There are several proposed merge discussions regarding Runrig singles that may be of interest to this WikiProject:

Women in Green's October 2024 edit-a-thon

Hello WikiProject Scotland:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portmahomack

Could we have a few eyes on the Portmahomack article please? A discussion about a supposed Roman fort has re-emerged with an editor continuing to add information that is rejected as speculation by (afaik) the majority of archaeologists interested in the topic. There is info about the background on the talk page but the article is currently just turning into a series of reversions. Ben Mac Dui 14:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Coll and Talk:Coll. I suspect, as a general issue, there are too many articles with too few eyes on them. I don't mean to imply that my approach is always correct but these little ding-dongs involving only two editors who disagree seem to becoming more common. Ben Mac Dui 11:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing these out. I have assessed and commented on both. With Coll, I did a large copyedit and have attempted to improve the article a little. There are lot of Scotland articles with unreferenced text and that needs improved by all. Helping other editors better understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is always half the battle! Coldupnorth (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

& Thanks for your assistance. Ben Mac Dui 10:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review of Infant School

The article infant school is currently going through a featured article review. Parts of the article are relevant to Scotland. Any comments would be appreciated. Llewee (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Ben Nevis

Ben Nevis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]