User:Calgacus/Archive I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Calgacus/Archive I, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alai 08:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Excuse me, but are you by chance the user Albanactus from the Scotland.com forum? An Siarach

Albanactus from the Scotland.com forum? Why would you think that? User:Calgacus

Just a feeling i had. Your breadth of knowledge and interest in gaelic/scotland etc are almost identical and i noticed youd done quite a bit of editing on the wiki albanactus page so i thought it psosible. - An Siarach

Yeah, there are a lot of similarities. ;) BTW, I saw your excellent work on the Scottish king list in the Gàidhlig wiki. I was wondering why Máel Coluim is Calum, and not Maol Chaluim? - User:Calgacus

Translating from english to gaelic Calum is what immediately pops into my head for Malcolm and i never got round to correcting it to Maol Chaluim. Nothing exciting really . User:An Siarach

[edit] Crinan

I have no opinion on whether you should have moved the article now named Crinan of Dunkeld or not; however, you should have done it using the "move" button on top. Cut-and-paste moves are generally frowned upon, as they destroy the history of the article (it now looks as if you are the sole author of the article). You can rectify this by going to the "Requested Moves" page. Tupsharru 04:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved the page to Abbot Crinan

[edit] Fergus of Galloway

Are you the one who wrote the Fergus of Galloway article? If so, well done and more, le do thoil! Fergananim 02:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Fergananim.

[edit] Aedh and Dubh

Why have you moved Aedh of Scotland to Aed of Scotland, and moved Dubh of Scotland to Dub of Scotland? Just wondering, cos you did not fill in the "Reason" box when you used the Move button, nor leave a Talk page explanation. "Dub" especially looks a bit odd, considering the pronunciation of the word.

Also, have you visited the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board yet? Fàilte!--Mais oui! 13:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The h there has been bothering me for ages, as it looks odd and overly modern. It's an orthographic thing. Usually in early Middle Irish orthography, lenition and the Hs in Mh and Bh are all omitted. Plus, I checked the forms being used by scholars working in the area, such as Dauvit Broun, and they all use Aed and Dub. Medial/End-B and Medial/End-M = v (or even f); and end-d = th (as in them) (hence Aoith and Duv). If Dubh and Aedh were kept, there would be some need to change names like Domnall to Domhnall. Alternatively, you could adopt anglicizations like Duff and Heth. I thought I did put my reasoning in the box ... obviously it got lost. At any rate, it was an obviously sensible thing to do; I thought it unlikely that anyone would object. And no, haven't visited that yet. On my way. :) --Calgacus 14:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC).

Ta.--Mais oui! 14:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Galwegian language

Hi, your work on Galwegian language looks good, but I wonder whether there are any published sources that explicitly claim it's a different language from Scottish Gaelic. If not, it's probably better to consider it a dialect of Scottish Gaelic, in which case it would be more appropriate to name it Galwegian Gaelic and remove the language infobox. --Angr (t·c) 08:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The language box is there because someone implied it had to be. There are published sources saying it was closer to Manx and Ulster Irish than Scottish Gaelic (see reference number one pdf), but I'm guessing this is just speculation. Since Galwegian Gaelic had absolutely nothing to do with the power or the spread of the Kingdom of the Scots, though, you have to ask why exactly (other than geography) it should or could be Scottish rather than Manx or Irish? - 10:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The language box should be there if it's recognized as a separate language. If it's considered a dialect, it shouldn't be. (Compare English language, which has the infobox, with British English and American English, which don't.) And as you say in the article itself, in the time period in question it hardly makes sense to consider Scottish Gaelic, Irish, and Manx separate languages anyway; they were all just dialects of one Gaelic language. As for the PDF, I'd hardly consider it a reputable source. It doesn't list any sources, and it seems to be politically motivated. For me, what it comes down to is this: every single reference work out there agrees that there are three modern (i.e. post-medieval) Goidelic languages: Scottish Gaelic, Manx, and Irish. I don't think Wikipedia is the appropriate venue for claiming that Galwegian is a fourth separate language, especially since next to nothing is really known about the language. I think it would much less revolutionary to call the article Galwegian Gaelic, ditch the infobox, and say clearly in the article that the language spoken in southwestern Scotland up through the 18th century was a dialect of Gaelic that may have been more similar to modern Ulster Irish and Manx than to modern Highland Gaelic (the language usually called Scottish Gaelic). --Angr (t·c) 13:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have no objections to that. Wiki is not the place for that, as you say; and that is what I appear to be doing. Galwegian Gaelic is somewhat neutral I guess. I just don't want to be the one claiming it as Scottish Gaelic, if you get where I'm coming from. The PDF, is politically motivated and is generally a whole lot of P&W, but that was precisely the reason I was cautious about claiming it as Scottish Gaelic. Anyways, I'll move it in a little bit. Calgacus 13:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

P&W? --Angr (t·c) 15:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

= Piss and Wind. Calgacus 15:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scotia

I don't think that you need to bother about putting a disputed tag on the Scotia article. You only really need to use that template if there are serious edit wars and dispute is raging. As far as I can see, no-one has touched that article since October, so feel free to make the relevant changes to the text: BE BOLD. Other Users will probably let you work in peace on articles like that unless you put something controversial. Bunging in a References section should ease things along. Have fun! (Being BOLD myself, I am going to remove the dispute tag.)

While we're on that topic, you couldn't be really Bold and just go ahead and merge Scotia, Scoti and Scots (ethnic group), could you? They are all the same topic as far as I can see.--Mais oui! 22:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I could perhaps do this tomorrow. Scoti and Scots seem easy enough to merge, but I'm not so sure about Scotia. But I'll get around to that tomorrow. Calgacus 22:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval Scotland

Thanks for the heads up Calgacus. Your work looks fantastic and ive often wished we had such articles available.

An Siarach

Cool stuff, thanks. I hope to add more stuff later. - Calgacus 18:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civfanatics

Just wondering... you wouldn't happen to use the name Calgacus on the Civfanatics forums as well, would you? Canaen 02:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

yes - long time ago. - Calgacus 09:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Nifty. You did good work, as I remember it.Canaen 09:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland article additions

Sorry to be a pain in the backside at Christmas (but when amn't I?) But please have a look at my comments at:

Talk:Scotland#Boxing_Day_additions

Thanks, --Mais oui! 09:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good work!

For your work on Scotland, I , GraemeL, herby award you The Barnstar of National Merit. Congratulations! (KC)

Thank you very much, GraemeL. - Calgacus 00:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The tag "original research" in Ukrainian language

Hi Calgacus! You restored the tag "original research" in the article Ukrainian language. Please look carefully in the issue. All facts are supported by in-text references to an academic sourse (Encyclopedia "Ukrainian language"). The user who inserted the tag did not explain what exactly he considers to be "original research". It looks like trolling, nothing more. I think, the tag can be removed. Let's discuss, if you disagree.--AndriyK 16:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I will refrain from comment here. The article is certainly of better quality than it once was. I'll will just wait for this user to elaborate. - Calgacus 16:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fortriu

An interesting article. I have two comments.

The first is that, as it stands, the article is guilty of original research as Woolf's paper is unpublished according to you and whoever updates his home page. Has it been read anywhere ? And what is, or will be the response of those who saw or see the Aberlemno Stone as a memorial of the battle ?

Secondly, the article says the only basis for it had been that a battle had taken place in Strathearn in which the Men of Fortriu had taken part. However, there are other reasons why the identification had been made, albeit no one piece of evidence is very strong. The apparent evidence of names, *Verturio and Fortriu, is mentioned, and there other pieces of evidence linking kings from Nechtan son of Erp to Constantine son of Fergus with sites - Abernethy, Forteviot, Dunkeld - in the putative southern Fortriu and its surrounds.

Best wishes for 2006. Angus McLellan 14:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Woolf's article is unpublished, but some of the arguments he uses are shown. I think it has already been read by many of the leading Picticists, and by both Pictish students at Edinburgh and St. Andrews. No, I don't see the relevance of the Aberlemno stone, so you'll have to expand on that for me to understand.

Verturio and Fortriu are the same, as the article explains. And, you should note, not all Kings of the Picts are Kings of Fortriu. Any king before Bridei filius Bili needn't be at all. The Strathearn connection was really the only serious piece of evidence for the location of Fortriu.

As for original research, I personally couldn't give a damn about that, if things are referenced. It is after all, open access. The Fortriu article is not original research though by the article writer, but by Alex Woolf. - Calgacus 15:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Asking for an opinion on Woolf's paper, or relying on it, is, so it seems, original research. Rubbish, as you said.

I am wondering which, if any, king of the Picts is also called king of Fortiu in the annals ? I cannot recall seeing one called both, at least in the same entry, in any of those few I glanced through. You should ignore my drivel about Aberlemno, based on a misreading of the title of Woolf's paper. I ought to hang my head in shame. Can you tell me which recension of the ASC Woolf used ? If not, I'll be sending a begging message to the man himself. Angus McLellan 17:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Angus, I apologize sincerely if my tone was a little condescending. I sense you have taken this perception, and I regret that. Piffle was a reference to the contents of de Situ Albanie and not to your contributions. You have my respect, as one of the few people here taking a serious interest in medieval Scotland. We can perhaps have some serious dialogue about this in a day or so. I've gone away for New Year, but will be back with some of my books (and that artticle) in a couple of days. Then I will answer whatever questions you have, but emailing around, as I suggested, would not be a bad idea if you wish to satisfy your curiosity more in the meantime. If you give me an email, we can have a more open conversation regarding various details: calgacus AT hotmail.co.uk (replacing AT with @)- Calgacus 00:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monymusk Reliquary

Monymusk Reliquary

Ask and you shall receive... Not the best quality, but ok for the wee camera through the glass in crap lighting. I note there isn't a Monymusk Reliquary article - you know enough to make a stub? Thanks/wangi 23:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Monymusk Reliquary

Hey, thanks a lot. As it happens, I just uploaded one today. Haha. We'll have to decide what one is better. - Calgacus 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland

I've added the Monymusk Reliquary, as well as some other images, to a new section, Gallery of Images, at the bottom of the Scotland page, for images that users may like to see on the main Scotland page, but which do not fit well with any particular section. Astrotrain 20:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I've corrected that by adding it to Template:Scottish topics. Generally we only have one "main" link in each section. Thanks for pointing that out. Its a good article, though I am surprised you have put Mel Gibson in as an image given your comments at Talk:Scotland!!! Astrotrain 00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The Mel Gibson at least draws attention to topic at hand, allowing people to identify something they know with something they don't (and the blue paint at least, contrary to the ramblings of some middle brow critics, is probably accurate); the Wallace monument draws attention only to the fact that Wallace is venerated in Scotland, and everyone knows that anyway. On the other hand, not many know the role of the harp in medieval Scottish culture. ;) - Calgacus 00:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish people

Yeah I know, it isnt the best right now but im trying to make it better. Ethnic groups articles are the centre of the biggest debates on here and the article on Scottish people will hopefully meet up to standards eventually. Its important for the article to be good considering people cant learn much about Scotland without learning about its indigenous people. Epf 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly questionable editing in Scottish highlands

The above user ( Epf ) recently made a change in this article from :

This Highland area differed from the Lowlands by language and tradition, having preserved Gaelic speech and customs centuries after the anglicization of the latter. The cultural distinction between Highlander and Lowlander begins to appear around the 15th century.

to :

This Highland area differed from the Central Lowlands by language and tradition, better preserving Gaelic speech and customs. Even in a historical sense the Highlanders were a distinct people from the Lowlanders.

With the explanation :

(It is highly debated when the distinction started since the Anglo-Saxon people/culture has riebeen present in Ls-Galloway and the Borders since the times of the Kingdom of Northumbria.)

Now i am quite certain with regards the first appearance of the Highland/Lowland break in Scottish culture and that every history book i can remember quotes the mentioned period or thereabouts but i felt it best to ask a second opinion to be sure and avoid any possible editing war. What are your thoughts regarding the first acknowledgement of the highland/lowland divide and the ( im not entirely sure relevant/true ) reference to anglo-saxon population in Galloway ?

An Siarach

[edit] Great work...

on the Abbots of Iona. The newpages index is looking horrid at the moment, I swear you are the only editor creating encyclopaedic articles tonight! So thanks for that! One thing though, you know the Abbot of Iona link in all your templates is a red? If you do and are getting round to it then cool/sorry, just thought Id help out/interfere if you hadn't... Jdcooper 02:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Yeah, it's red just now. I'll get around to creating it, although probably tomorrow. - Calgacus 02:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battles of Corbridge

Firstly, the article was titled such because the Constantine II of Scotland article linked to it as such. Secondly, what is the basis for Gaelicising the names of the Scottish and Briton rulers? They are never referred to as such in English and nobody who doesn't speak Gaelic knows how to pronounce them. Finally, why change the name of the Viking rulers to other hard-to-pronounce forms not common in English? Srnec 00:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because they are the correct versions of the names? - An Siarach

As a rule, I give medieval Gaelic rulers their Gaelic names. I do likewise with Norse names, and the reason is because these were actually their names. No offence or anything, but the statement "They are never referred to as such in English" is simply wrong, and reveals how narrowly you've read, and, moreover, that you don't know what you're talking about. I could cite dozens, in fact, scores of articles and books in which these forms are used (one example, an American author, is Benjamin Hudson's Celtic Kings of Scotland). - Calgacus 16:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I see an agendum here. They are not the correct English versions of their names for an English encyclopedia. Please see my larger response on Talk:Battles of Corbridge. Srnec 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval Gaels

Hi Calgacus. Hav'nt had much time to check out your new work lately, but I have begun to add several new names to the Medieval Gaels. Many are just stubs at present, the rest king lists. Hope to expand many of them over the coming weeks. Ain't ye proud of me? Fergananim 00:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool stuff. I had intended the category as a category for individual Gaels, rather than tribes and other things, but I suppose it doesn't matter. It is nice that Irishmen, who always made up the majority Gaelic population in the British Isles, are becoming more represented. It does concern me a little that early Pictish kings are being added now, since this in probably acceptable for kings like Oengus mac Fergusa, I'm not sure it is particularly safe to apply the category to a king like Bridei map Beli. Anyways, this wasn't your doing. Great work Fergananim. - Calgacus 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a mac. There should be a lot more to come as I unearth some really obscure Irish population groups (Alltraige, Fir Bolg nEghte, Corcu Oche, Sil Cernaig, anyone?). King lists are also useful as you can tie them into the population groups, kingdoms, and later expand biographicly on the people mentioned. One thing I'd like your opinion on: this is the English version of Wikipedia, but I am trying to use the proper Gaelic forms wherever I can - for example, Aodh Rua Ó Domhnaill instead of Red" Hugh O'Donnell; Uí Néill instead of Ui Neill; Tairrdelbach mac Ruaidri Ua Conchobair versus Turlough O' Connor. I want to try to be as faithful as possible to the original forms, but is this an okay thing to do on the Wikipedia? Oh and by the way, could you list all the articles you've written or worked on? I really would like to read more of your stuff, some of which I find fascinatingly exotic. Cheers! Fergananim 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a detail, Turlough is spelt Táirdhealbhach... keep them h's, we don't have dotted letters here.--Svartalf 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Uí Néill is perfectly correct, or at least that's the opinion of just about every Middle and Old Irish specialist. The dots, BTW, are not prevalent in the earlier period, but a later development ASFAIK. The hs probably shouldn't be there for the earlier names either; the dots only come in to elaborate rules which later needed elaboration, but didn't originally. Inserting the Hs for, esp., pre-Norman Irish names is generally frowned upon (see anything, for example, by Francis Byrne). Of course, this is a matter much easier for the Irish than the Scots, who today have coherent policies regarding Irish names; in Scotland that doesn't exist. - Calgacus 19:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic forms are better employed in most cases. Wikipedia has official guidelines, (see (Wikipedia:Naming conventions), specifying that when English are prevalent, they should be used; but this applies to only to most of the Scottish kings, a few Irish kings, a few saints, and a few other randoms who for whatever reason have attracted the popular attention; the rest, because they're more obscure and only treated by specialists, are rendered more commonly in English in either modern or medieval Gaelic forms (in many cases, there simply are no common Anglicized forms); so that's fine. As English wiki in practice acts as the source for other languages, I think it is far better to give them their native names, and not hideous anglicizations; and I personally refuse to increase or consolidate Anglicized forms, so I almost always, kings or not, give medieval Gaels medieval Gaelic forms; moreover, in Scottish and Irish medieval studies, a book which gives English forms (if written since 2000 at least) is generally speaking low-brow, and most scholars who are writing now will use Gaelic forms for even the exceptions mentioned above. PS, I don't know when if ever I'll draw up a list of articles for my talk page, but in the mean time you are free to browse Special:Contributions/Calgacus - Thanks. - Calgacus 18:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Neutrality' of the Gaels page

Epf has brought the neutrality of this article into question. What do you think? An Siarach

It seems he intended it to be a stub, since he raised nothing about the article's actual neutrality. It does certainly need much more work, that is true; although I don't know if that's the reason for his hostility. Do you have any thoughts as to why he actually doesn't like the article? - Calgacus 16:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure why he doesnt like the article tbh as (and i state so on the talk page) i see nothing in it which is not either historical fact, widely accepted theory or qualified in terms of being mythological. We've had drawn out (and ongoing) debates regarding the meaning of ethnicity - with regard to Scotland especially - but his (just plain wrong) statements regarding the status of Gaels as an ethnic group seem to contradict the views he has previously expressed to me so im rather puzzled. I too was left puzzled by his questioning the neutrality of the article. An Siarach

Well that my statements regarding the Gaels are just "plain wrong" is only your view, but according to the widely accepted defintion for an ethnic group, the modern Gaels would classify as no more than a linguistic group with a few cultural similarities. The Scots Gaelic speakers are Scottish and the Irish speakers are Irish. In other words, the native Gaelic speakers of each country are a part of the larger ethnic group native to each country. Epf 05:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Bridei III of the Picts, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Władysław, Jogaila & The Complaints of Irate Poles

The personal name of Władysław is perfectly acceptable in English Wikipedia, just like any other royal name (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions). Also, next time you unilaterally move an article, be sure to use the proper procedures. Halibu tt 16:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly we could argue that George VI of the United Kingdom should be moved to Georg VI of Hannover since he wasn't even a Brit nor was he English... Halibut tt 16:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm ... no. You clearly haven't read the Wikipedia:Naming conventions that I told you to read on User talk:Halibutt#Władysław (which, ironically, you're telling me to read). George moreover is the English form of Georg, and furthermore, George was not ruler of Hanover. Sorry there. Anyways, why this is comparable to the Lithuanian ruler of Poland most commonly known in English as Jagiello/Jogaila, I do not know. - Calgacus 16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please use talk pages to reach consensus for the move, instead of acting alone and introducing strange names. Please revert your (now) double redirects and use the talk pages in the future.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. "Strange names"? I consider your post most rude, and the double redirects are no longer doubled. Feel free to discuss on the talk page if you like. - Calgacus 17:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages when there is no clear consensus is vandalism, and one can get banned for this. Please reach a consensus (or at least a majority) at the relevant talk page, then carry out the move using proper procedures.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? Whatever. The move was in itself uncontroversial, as I explained (if you'd bothered reading). Goodness knows what you mean by "proper procedures", but your idea of "consensus" is shambolic, the rule of the rambling mob. And my experience with this is by far the most ridculous one I've ever experienced on wikipedia. - Calgacus 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Uncotroversial... I see. 1) Calgacus is always right. If Calgacus is wrong, see 1). Is this your logic? We cite sources, you insult us and accuse of lying or mob rule. If this is the best you can do, please don't be offended if I stop replying to your comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I do not find your little self-portrait very convincing. And you have a cheek to talk about insults. I hope this is not how you genuinely perceive the world. Feel free to stop replying to my comments, I'm not gonna miss your mud-slinging or anything. Have a nice one. - Calgacus 21:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In the period in question Władysław Jagiełło was not the ruler of Lithuania either (his brother was). Halibu tt

LOL. SO you're denying Jogaila was originally the ruler of Lithuania? Do you deny also the existence of Joseph Stalin? What about me, do you deny my existence? - Calgacus 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Read my post again before you reply to it next time. It's always better to reply to what people actually wrote and not to what you believe they did. I clearly referred to this diff, in which you claim that the king of Poland was in fact the Grand Duke of Lithuania, which was not true in 1410. Halibu tt 16:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe instead of telling me what to read, you should read this again, and you will see that I do not do what you claim. - Calgacus 16:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You referred to Władysław Jagiełło as if he was Jogaila of Lithuania, while he was not "of Lithuania" at all. Sure, he was Lithuanian, but the ruler of Lithuania was his brother, a fact you seem not to be conscious of. No need for harsh reaction, just assume my good faith just as I assume yours and we'd all live in a better world. Halibutt tt 00:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm .... Halibutt my friend, maybe you'd be better investigating things more thoroughly before making a nuisance of yourself on my talk page. Jogaila of Lithuania was the then title of the article, which has since been reverted. Placing the title of the article as it then was avoided redirects, and that was the intention of the edit; it didn't mean I thought he was ruler of Lithuania at the time. Please follow your own instructions, and assume good faith. As for my harsh reaction, this was created by you and certain other Poles I was being rudely harangued by at the time; maybe if you and others learn some manners, people won't react so harshly. - Calgacus 18:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval Scotland: Origins: Multiculturalism

Calgacus, I have some issues with the way the paragraph on Multiculturalism is shown under Origin Paradigms. It seems to come across that this is what Scottish identity is and that it includes any ethnic group in a way similar to New World or Multi-ethnic nations. It almost seems as if it is saying there is no distinct indigenous Scottish culture or ethnicity and that Scotland and Scottish people are some heterogenous multi-cultural hodgepodge. Obviously this is not true but perhaps the paragraph needs to be re-worded. Thanks, Epf 06:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are; as all peoples are. That section is simply one of three ways that throughout history peoples have looked at Scottish origins. - Calgacus 14:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, but Scottish people are not not a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, heterogenous people in the way modern New World societies are. I mean the country may take a political viewpoint in that way in respect to all Scottish citizens or nationals, but the native Scottish people and their descendants around the globe aren't (althoguh the mixed Scots-Picts-Norse-Anglo/Saxon would make them less homogenous than most other European ethnicities. Epf 16:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This may or may not be true, but like I said, the article concerns historiographical origin paradigms by which Scottish historians throughout history have attempted to understand the genesis of their nation. - Calgacus 16:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ok, sounds good. I just wanna say it must have taken alot of research to make that article. Its well done. How did you find the time to get all those references ? Epf 19:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just made the time. Doesn't quite take as much time as you'd think, if you're well practiced. - Calgacus 21:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

Regarding Talk:Gediminas, Duke of Lithuania: Please do NOT move pages by cut & paste. There is Wikipedia:Requested moves to handle all moves properly. It will need admins interference and it will take some time, but it will be done properly. Because cut & paste distorts page history. Renata 23:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. The page was moved by Szopen as a cut and paste, and no-one realised. I moved it back. I don't see you whinging on his page. - Calgacus 23:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about this talk page move [1]. I don't mean to attack you or complain, I am just letting you know. Cheers, Renata 23:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I know what move you were talking about. Did you check the history of that page and compare with Talk:Gediminas, Duke of Lithuania (avoiding redirect)? - Calgacus 23:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What a mess... :) My problem is that Talk:Gediminas, Duke of Lithuania has history when it should not have it (it should have been moved). Anyways, I think I made a bit rash comment and you made a bit rash move and Szopen made a bit rash revert. So... yeah, a mess. Renata 23:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. It's nice to be returning to the world of nice people. :) Yeah, it was a mess. It wouldn't have been a problem if it had been realized what Szopen had done; but no-one did, and we went on posting there. It seemed to be a little more trouble than it was worth to bother the admins for a few posts, than to make the late revert on Szopen's cut-and-past. After all, it was a merge that was needed rather than a move, and I do not know if these are possible. - Calgacus 23:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mergers are possible, but complicated. But I have a question now, I put a comment on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Should I delete it or do we want some admin to make a sense of this mess? BTW, "Ah. It's nice to be returning to the world of nice people." cracked me up :) Renata 00:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Well, I don't actually care. I'll leave you to make your own judgment on whether or not it is important enough. :) - Calgacus 00:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you... I feel your stress because I have been through naming wars. (and, no, I am not getting involved again) Renata 17:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not going to try and enlist you. Naming wars amongst eastern Europeans is certainly no relaxed experience, I should have realized that before stepping in; but that's me taught I suppose - lesson learned. 8/ There is however a new debate on Polish monarchs, prompted by the realization amongst neutrals that Piotrus had Polonized the names of all the monarchs contrary to wiki convention without any genuine consensus being built. You're welcome to participate. :) - Calgacus 18:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want no more move wars, please cast your vote on Talk:Gediminas, Grand Duke of Lithuania. I can't agree that Gediminas' title was inferior to that of the Polish king. --Ghirla | talk 19:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval Ireland

Wonderful! Will use it! Fergananim 20:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are Welcome

You did a great job in stating your case. If you have time, and want to both entertain yourself, and get to the heart of the matter, go to the discussion I just started in the Raphael Kalinowski article. Dr. Dan 21:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The Lindenbaum article is too sad to get a laugh out of, but I know where you are comming from and let's shake em up. Dr. Dan 22:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC) p.s. I got on to the Raphael Kalinowski article by innocently browsing through the Encyclopedia. I innocently changed Wilno to Vilnius. SylwiaS the "objective" Polish editor, not so innocently reverted it back to Wilno. This was a few weeks before you made your recent changes. Dr. Dan 22:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Encouraging vandalism and personal attacks ? --Molobo 23:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Be specific in this last accusation of yours. What vandalism? What personal attacks? Or will my query be followed by a looooong silence. Dr. Dan 02:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Lindenbaum

On Adolf Lindenbaum being of German descent. Your comment that it sounds German is insufficient. They are many Poles with German sounding names and Germans with Polish sounding names. --Molobo 23:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

His name, forename and surname, are German (not just German sounding); and I would suggest the onus (i.e. burden of proof) is on you to prove that he isn't of German descent. - Calgacus 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This page lists him as a member of a Lwów-Warsaw_School_of_logic. This is confimed by PWN Encyclopedia (here, if you can read Polish). And here is he is listed among 'Polish Great Mathematicians'. Is this enough?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For what? Where do you see me denying he was Polish? - Calgacus 01:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland sections

I think it would be Notes, but you may want to check MoS to be sure.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Achtung, Uwaga, Oh, oh

I think you are under surveillance, and your Scotland sections are about to get the Whammy! Dr. Dan 02:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC) p.s. is there a way to transfer my Thank you Molobo from my talk page to the Kalinowski discussion page, or do I have to rewrite it in its entirety?

Oh, I hope not. Is there reason to think this could happen? - Calgacus 06:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/l/User%7ECalgacus_Archive_I_4967.html"