User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive IV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The Harp Page

Seems to me we have another anon POV pusher on the harp page and the Pictish one too "12:35, 28 July 2006 86.42.146.167" I wonder if one of the many faces of Bluegold has surfaced. Also watch for any anon comments on a wikipedians talk page if someone reverts any of your work. I feel we have an immature poster at hand. Check out the comments made on the Garik talk page about myself. It seems to me someone’s gone a bit cloak and dagger. --Celtic Harper 01:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish monarchs

Hi again Elonka. Now, Jan III Sobieski is currently the only ruler of Poland/Poland-Lithuania to have the name John, instead of Jan. It used to be John, John III Sobieski, King of Poland, but Piotrus moved it. Should we try to get it moved back to John, this time John III Sobieski, or just leave it. Further point, what is going to be done about the inconsistencies in Polish monarch names, such as one X n of Poland but another Y n Nickname of Poland, do you think there is a need to standardize these names? Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that one to my attention, I agree it should be moved back to an English name, and have submitted the RM. As for standardization with the nicknames, my own feeling is that article names on Wikipedia should reflect "most common usage" in outside English-language reference works. Meaning that if most major reference works use the nickname, we should too, and if most don't the nickname, then we should follow suit. However, this is a controversial issue, and there are many valid arguments in opposition, from people who believe that we should find a consistent method of naming on Wikipedia, even if it does not always agree with outside works. The best place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), where they've tried to come up with some suggested guidelines for consistency. For now though, my own energy is mainly focused on just getting the articles switched back from Polish names to English names, since I feel that many of the page moves to Polish names that were accomplished over the last several months, were done without consensus, so I'm trying to address that issue specifically, without worrying for now about whether or not a particular monarch should have "<of country>" appended to their article title. If you know of any other articles which still need to be switched back to English, please feel free to suggest the moves yourself, or let me know and I'll start the paperwork.  :) --Elonka 04:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1300 BISHOP MAN

hey keep going bishop man your doing a great job!!!! James Janderson 15:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFD

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

[edit] {{BioWikiProject}}

That sounds like an excellent idea. (Good to advertise that endeavour at the Talk page, or News section, of WP:SCOWNB too.)

Some of you guys should seriously consider joining the Biography WikiProject too, cos you have a level of expertise that is valuable far beyond Scottish articles. Cheers. --Mais oui! 12:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nominations

Please make sure to provide a helpful edit summary (per the instructions and big red box) when editing the nominations list in future. This will help us keep the Good Articles wikiproject running more efficiently. Thanks.  -- Run!  16:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf of Badenoch

Yes, I have it, but I'm not at home right now. I was meaning to redo the article sometime soon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John I Albert of Poland

Yes, I would, but perhaps 'one step at a time' will be less controversial.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pinkerton special

Thanks for drawing my attention to the eccentric Mr John Pinkerton, I think – perhaps it's a subtle scholarly dig at my tendencies which may have inspired a gifted Irish contributor to go on about "rascism"? As it happens I'd just borrowed a book from the library which covers the subject, and the article here needs a bit of sorting out: some of the points are mentioned in a comment at Talk:Origins of the Kingdom of Alba which you'll probably notice. Will try to have a go at sorting it out once my present backlog clears a bit. Another article crying out for attention may be Viking Age which has a great deal to say about England and Ireland, but little mention of Scotland and none I can find of Caithness, Sutherland, the Western Isles and Galloway: perhaps my memories are wrong and these places didn't have significant Viking settlement? Anyway, on the bright side at least Orkney may have settled down a bit. Oddly enough, it and Shetland appear in the Viking Age article under Iceland. Fascinating stuff history. ...dave souza, talk 00:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ta for your reply, and I'd greatly appreciate seeing the article by Hammond in the Scottish Historical Review re. the legacy of the Goth versus Gael debate: the Email this user link should work ok. For what it's worth, my big influence has been Lloyd and Jennifer Laing's art of the Celts which points to the 17th century redefinition of the term, and some archaeologists suggesting that there's been cultural shifts in largely the same people, with invasions and immigrations promoting such change rather than wiping out or expelling the locals. Sorry about the slightly joking racism reference: there had been rather an edit war over demands that the British Isles article should primarily focus on Irish dislike for the term, during which I rashly undertook a tidy up of the History section. It took rather longer than expected and I was rather expecting edit warring to break out again when it was added, but to my pleasant surprise it seems to have been pretty well received with only the odd demand in the talk that there should be no shared history of the isles. It would be welcome if you could read through it and see if I've made any ghastly errors. That's where the interest in Scottish Vikings came from: I've got a couple of library books out and will see about trying to do something to improve these two articles as above, at least a bit. Thanks again, ..dave souza, talk 23:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kings of Scots links

I can run through all the links (in succession and info boxes) with the AutoWikiBrowser on Saturday and update them in 10 minutes or so, so you don't need to bother changing any. Was leaving Idulb of Scotland at Indulf of Scotland part of a plan, or just an oversight ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Idulb/Indulf, I'll have a check. For David I, I already saw you were working on that. As for what Grant had to say, he doesn't think the Wolf of Badenoch was very capable, although he thinks his son was. I need to get on with Malcolm IV and finish off Malcolm III, and I also meant to do some work on Edwin of Deira (which is why I only rated it a B). Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Duncan recounts Orderic's version where David's eldest is killed by a iron-fingered Scandinavian (?) monk. I can't remember what he concludes, although I think he's sceptical. Still, he does give weight to Orderic's version of events elsewhere (the reported betrothal to Margaret in 1059), so I'll check and let you know when I get home. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he doesn't give the tale, perhaps I remembered it from Wyntoun. (Duncan, p. 59, following a discussion of Alexander nepos regis Alexandri which he later decides is a copyists error for William [fitz Duncan] nepos ...) "David had married late in 1113, which really rules him out as a father of this Alexander. It is true that two daughters are ascribed to him by Orderic, along with a son murdered by a cleric, and that the latter story was repeated and embroidered by later writers. [e.g. Wyntoun] But while David in his charters was solicitous for the souls of his parents, brothers, sisters and son Henry, he apparently cared naught for daughters or deceased son, for they do not rate a mention. In short, wherever Orderic found them, it was not in David's family." Hope this helps ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 4 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard de Inverkeithing, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] William Wallace

I know that you are not a big fan, but come on!!! We need to get as many Scots and Scotland-related articles into this 0.5 release as possible, and we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot by quibbling among ourselves. In international name-recognition terms Wallace is one of, if not the, biggest hitters Scotland has got. Yes, Hume, Scott and Smith would be great, but a struggle to keep on the list; whereas Wallace is a shoo-in. Please, please bite your lip and work together on this one. Please! --Mais oui! 12:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I just thought that if one was going back in then one had better go back out, but I hadn't done the sums, so not sure if it still adds up to 150. Yes, you absolutely have the correct, ie. international, approach, as we all must have, but I feel that several Scots are undoubtably way up there in terms of the criteria for this project. --Mais oui! 12:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Too late. This is exactly what I thought would happen: it is going to be turned into a pathetic nationalist cock-size competition. Well, I cannot be arsed. I suppose that we'll just have to wave bye, bye to the prospect of having any politics/leaders from Scotland in the 0.5. Our best bets were Wallace, Mary, Queen of Scots or Bonnie Prince Charlie. Sad, sad, sad I know, but I'm afraid that popular history is what this list is all about, not real importance. I was delighted that a neutral American had added Wallace a couple of daysago, but now that he has caught the eye of detractors, we can forget it. The funny thing is: Cromwell is "only of national inportance" himself, even more so than Wallace! Ha, ha. --Mais oui! 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, indeed: 6 out of 6 so far. I guess that British Isles = England after all. How daft we Cornish, Irish, Manx, Scots and Welsh were to ever think otherwise. When it comes to the international stage, which is what this page is all about, the facade of diversity is promptly dropped, and only upright Anglo-Saxons must be allowed to bat for Britain.
Surely we can at least try to get a flippin Irishman in there? What about Brian Boru? --Mais oui! 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a more recent candidate would be better? Who has real global name-recognition? --Mais oui! 12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Columba is an excellent proposal. Certainly worth a try. Although would he really be thought of as political/leader? Doesn't matter really. --Mais oui! 14:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

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

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

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

For comparison, have a look at:

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

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 19:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moves

Sorry for my mistake. Copy-and-paste error. I have fixed it now. I will fix the redirects to point to the correct article soon. Joelito (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Lithuania

Hi Calgacus, just want to let you know that if you have a question regarding Lithuania, feel free to ask me. Now I have a collection of reliable books both in English and Lithuanian about history, archeology, anthropology, linguistics, etc., also I am a native speaker of Lithuanian. Cannot promise to answer quickly though. Thank you for your deep insight and scholarship regarding Jogaila article. Juraune 12:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Agree with most of what you say, and I would be really grateful if you could significantly reduce the length of the history section while you are at it: that is why we have subsidiary articles - to flesh out the topic. Disagree with you though about the inventions section: innovation and invention is absolutely a matter of economics. It is no coincidence that the most innovative countries are the richest. --Mais oui! 18:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictish stones really do it for me! (That is just so sad.) --Mais oui! 21:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David I

Looks really excellent. I'll be stealing some of those illustrations ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't try any proofreading as I was saving that for tomorrow. After Malcolm IV I need to finish Wimund, which shouldn't take long, then revise Edwin of Deira. Following that I think I'll have to get back to Óengus I and to Scotland in the Early Middle Ages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading Barbara Yorke's The Conversion of Britain, and it's worth remarking that she doesn't refer to Caedwalla as "King of Gwynedd", but as "King of the Britains". Woolf's "Caedualla" article from Northern History, as well as "Dun Nechtain ..." (still just "forthcoming") and a chapter on the history of Scotland to 761 in a new shorter Edinburgh History of Scotland (ed. Oram, forthcoming) appear in the refs. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, but not stunning, a good summary. On the conversion of Pictland she's inclined to accept Uinnniau and the British church as having converted the "southern Picts" and Columba, Donnan, Máel Ruba, Finnan and all the rest of the Irish saints as having converted north of the Mounth. For the Britons and Dál Riata, she reckons on them having been converted before her 600 AD start date, and for the Outer Hebrides she appears to have doubts as to whether they can have been converted much if at all. Have you read Nick Higham's Convert Kings ? It's quite interesting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monarchs

Why the (rather too ambiguous) qualifier "traditional". --Mais oui! 21:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If "some of" "the first" monarchs are "traditional" monarchs, then why are you labelling the whole lot as "traditional"? Is Mary a "traditional" monarch of the Scots,... or an "actual" one? If you are going to label some as "traditional" then you'd better supply a reference, because otherwise it looks like WP:OR. --Mais oui! 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rehashing

If you're going to put the old debate back (after Kaldari reverted), then you should at least include all of it. You missed the portion I added, which can be found here which steps through our reasoning as to why Liz got added plange 00:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "new creation" of Earldom of Orkney

I assume yours of about five minutes ago refers to my wording at Magnus II, Earl of Orkney. I accept all the points you make; however shouldn't there be some indication in the succession box that five years elapsed between the death of Earl Jon Haraldsson and the granting of the Earldom to Earl Magnus? Opera hat 15:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be standard. I wonder who actually ruled Orkney and Caithness in that intervening period? My modern-peerage mentality would like to say that the territory lapsed to the direct control of the Crown (of Norway), but I suppose that's rather anachronistic, and anyway the Norwegian King had more pressing matters to concern him than the governance of an outlying territory. Opera hat 16:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

Hi, just thought I'd let you know I have a user page now if you have any questions or comments. Also, my apologies for the edit war and if I've come across as arrogant or insulting to you. We simply disagree on some matters revolving around ethnicity that I havent found much disagreeance on with other academics. I also would like to stress my view is not atyical of Americans only as its common everywhere and I've been to Scotland several times in my life to visit family we have in Peterhead. I hope I can discuss matters with you more constructively. Cheers, Eoganan 05:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Accounts/IPs

Thank you for the report. I has indefinitely blocked the sock account, blocked the new IP for 1 week, and reset the block on the old IP to 1 week. I've reverted all article space contributions from blocked users. Thanks for the report. Let me know if there are any difficulties. Regards, alphaChimp laudare 15:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core biographies

I appreciate your helpful contributions and discussion on the Core Biographies project, however, if you are going to act as the only blocker on a proposal it is courteous to at least provide an explaination or an alternative so that we can work towards a consensus. We are all working hard to get this list stabalized as soon as possible, since it will no doubt be a vital component of the Wikipedia 1.0 project, which is rapidly gaining steam. Stabalizing the list is only the first small step in getting our biographies up to par. Please be conscious of this. We want to take everyone's input into consideration, but we also want to move on to actually working on the biographies, rather than debating the list ad nauseum. Kaldari 19:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems to be a moot point now. Kaldari 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time for your edit

Hello, Calgacus. On the page Scottish people, I have again changed the link which originally pointed to the disambiguation page "Celtic" to the actual article "Celt." Time for you to change it back again. But, if you would be so kind, could you explain why it is better for this link to point to the disambiguation page rather than the actual article? Personally, the reason I am cleaning up disambiguation links is because I don't see any reason for links to point to those pages if there is an actual article which obviously explains the intended meaning. If the link continues to point to "Celtic" disambiguation page, then the reader needs to figure out if the most helpful article would be the one on ancient Celts, or maybe the Celtic League, or perhaps on the Celtic Football Club. It seems you disagree. You can leave a note, if you would, here or on my talk page. --Sean Lotz 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. I rest easier now. I am trying to get the list of pages which link to [[Celtic]] as short as possible, and it makes me twitchy every time a new link gets added. I'm happy to have this cleared up. Thanks. --Sean Lotz 00:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gowrie

No sign of it being mentioned. Archie Duncan doesn't think Gowrie was Alexander I's appanage. Duncan's Kingship of the Scots, p. 59, says: "The only evidence that Edgar endowed Alexander comes from John of Worcester, who calls the latter comes, earl, when describing his presence and gifts at the translation of St Cuthbert in 1104. His earldom, if any, was north of the Forth, for he is not doun dealing with Durham's Scottish possessions in Lothian until he became king.[25]" Note 25, says "There is no evidence that Alexander (I) was earl of Gowrie; cf Making of the Kingdom, p. 126." I presume that this means there is a reason to refute the point, but what it is I can't say. Perhaps one of those Victorian peerage things ? Not from Fordun that I can see, or Wyntoun. Boece ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I got Stringer's Earl David of Huntingdon the other day. Looking at that, he mentions Alexander as lord of Gowrie, and cites Archie Duncan's Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom, pp. 126 & 164–165, which suggests that Duncan changed his mind between the 70s and the 90s. I suppose the best thing to do would be to check Making of the Kingdom when you come across a copy. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean you're rewriting Domnall III of Scotland, or was there some other reason for asking ? If you aren't, maybe I'll do that tomorrow. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Scotland infobox

Template:Scotland infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Durin 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hey

Calgacus, long time no Wiki. I just noticed you reverted back my last edit. I posted my reasons for it on the talk page but I'll provide you some more information on how widespread Norse settlemt was a times during the Viking Age. Anyways I'm off for now since I have like countless things to do before the new semester starts up and Wikipedia has this tendency to keep me on for very extended periods. Ciao, Epf 20:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt your extensive knowledge in this subject area. The issue itself though is disupted and it really is not known exactly what the level of Norse settlement was. Anyways, there are some useful and properly supported links on the net that I will provide along with some readings which may or may not be available to you. Ciao, Epf 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I do know a great deal about history, including Scottish history (even if not as extensively as you), but I just wished to use Edinburgh as more of a geographic comparison, rather than a historical one. Of course it would not be considered a political capital in the modern sense but that is not what I meant before when mentioning it. I do admit that I didnt realize Scone had more relevance in the Middle Ages, but Edinburgh was still a very important settlement. I stand by my point Scotland is a small country, but yes I do see how intense Norwegian Viking settlment did not pentrate as far inland for it to have affected the centre of the country. I feel I need to pooint out here that I find that "Old Norse Language map" both inaccurate and unreliable, with no clear reference to how the creator chose the selected regions. For example, I have read alot into the history of Northwest England and there is no way Old West Norse was spoken that intensively or widespread (with possible exception to parts of Cumbria) and rather Old East Norse was recorded to be used in Cheshire and Lancashire at that time. Getting back to my point, I do not feel I used an anachronism since I was referring to the geographical closeness of regions of Scotland to each other and in this case Edinburgh (from the maps and distances I've looked at, Edinbrugh is very close to central Scotland, Perth and Scone only about 40 or so miles away). I think the biggest problem lies with information on the level of settlement of the Anglo-Saxons in Scotland, which is even more scanty than on that dealing with levels of Norwegian settlment. Besides the Southeast (Borders and Lothian) did they not also settle in south-west Scotland after the Angles of Bernicia conquered Galloway in the 7th century ? That northern part of the Kingdom of Northumbria would have bordered or been very near what was considered central Scotland at the time. Considering the Vikings would have controlled the Islands, Galloway, Caithness and Sutherland and most western coastal areas, central Scotland would have been quite hemmed in (especially with the neighbouring Brythonic Kingdom of Strathclyde, which also experienced both Anglian and Norse settlement). These considerations are why I was thinking fringes was not the most accurate term, since it may have implied only but the most extreme of locations in Scotland, when in reality, although they did not colonize Scotia proper (the Scottish interior north of the Forth), they colonized other widespread areas and regions. I really only responded with this because I wished to emphasize that I did know alot of what I was talkin about with regards to this part of Scottish history, even if I'm not as well versed in this particular period as you. Ciao, Epf 01:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lowlander

Since you ask, I was brought up identifying with the Lowlands, with Highlanders (and islanders) clearly also being Scottish, but a bit different in culture and accent in a similar (if lesser) way to, say, Yorkshire folk. My mother made kilts for my brother and me for Scouts and some formal occasions, but kilties were unusual and associated with military uniforms at the castle. Scottish Country dancing was something we learnt in gym classes and not part of normal life outwith watching the White Heather Club on the telly, so it was a bit of a pleasant surprise when camping in Aviemore for hillwalking to visit a local dance and find the rock group playing Gay Gordons etc,: these dances go well with climbing boots on! The Highland Games were actually in Letham Park, in front of the magnificent stone frontage of the Co-op's Chancelot flour mills at Bonnington (went out of use in the late 60s, and sadly burn down later). Inverleith is a puzzler: the district and park are well upriver of Bonnington, far from the shore and harbour. Given that it's the Water of Leith I'd suspect if was named after the port rather than the other way round, and of course the early Medieval name would have been Brythonic. Not that that's so far from Goidelic: it was interesting to find an Irish historian pointing out that in early times both were spoken in Ireland. Hope that helps, your frivolous Votatdini pal, ..dave souza, talk 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monarch of Scotland

Hi Calgacus, I noticed you reverted my move of List of monarchs of Scotland to Monarch of Scotland. My view was that the article is more than just a list (and should be expanded even further. The list can just be a section of the article about the institution of the King of Scots). I'm trying to get some comments on this and the related King of England lists/articles at Talk: List of monarchs in the British Isles. Your comments there are welcome as well. Cheers, --JW1805 (Talk) 22:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ODNB

Authors of articles on Scottish monarchs in the ODNB:

  • Marjorie O. Anderson wrote the article on Kenneth I, which included within it a sub-article on Donald I. She also wrote group biographies of the early Kings of the Picts and early Kings of Dalriada.
  • Dauvit Broun wrote the articles on Constantine I, Constantine II (including a sub-article on Donald II), Malcolm I, Indulf, Dubh, Culen (including a sub-article on Constantine III), Kenneth II, Kenneth III, Malcolm II, Duncan I, and Macbeth (including a sub-article on Lulach)
  • G. W. S. Barrow wrote the article on Malcolm III, and also those on David I and Robert I
  • In a rather confusing situation, the credits would seem to indicate the A.A.M. Duncan is both the author of the new articles about Duncan II Edgar, and Alexander I, and of the article in the old DNB about Donald III, which has been revised for the new one. It seems fairly likely that this is a mistake, and that Duncan has revised the old article about Donald III, which presumably would have been one of the original 19th century articles. But I'm not sure
  • Moving out of time period, W. W. Scott wrote the articles on Malcolm IV and William I
  • The article on Alexander II is by Keith Stringer
  • That on Alexander III by Norman H. Reid
  • That on John by G. P. Stell.

It is quite possible, of course, that it was the editors (Colin Matthew, Brian Harrison, et al), who decided that the anglicized forms should be used. john k 23:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fair enough to say the choice was made by the editors. I don't think it's fair to say it was "forced upon them." One might just as easily say that they recognized that a work of general reference like the ODNB (or Wikipedia) is to be treated differently from a work for specialists, and that certain compromises in favor of the expectations of their vast, ignorant audience of people with access to university libraries was required. At any rate, all these authors acquiesced in writing for a reference work that decided that anglicized names were the way it was going to be. In wikipedia, like it or not, instead of having a civilized scholar like Matthew or Harrison as your editor, your editor becomes "any jerk with internet access." If even well known scholars of other parts of British history are not enlightened enough to prefer the Gaelic forms, what hope is there for us barbarians on wikipedia? john k 23:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but point is, it wasn't a deal-breaker for them. john k 00:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cináed etc

I think you're right. You might inform Angr who might be interested. Evertype 17:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alba, Scotland, Pictland, the ODNB, and so forth

I think I did get the gist of your initial comment, although perhaps that didn't come through in my comment. So the part you find disappointing is the apparent claim that Donald II is the first ruler known as King of Scotland AKA "Alba", I take it? If you're interested, here's what Dauvit Broun says, specifically:

Constantine succeeded as king to his cousin Donald II [Domnall mac Causantín] (d. 900), who was the son of Constantine I (d. 876) and the first ruler to be described as ‘king of Scotland’ (ri Alban) in contemporary record. Alba referred to the region over which Donald and his successors established their rule, and was probably only the area bounded approximately by the River Spey to the north, the Forth to the south, and the central highlands to the west. The title ‘king of Scotland’ replaced the earlier ‘king of Picts’, and the people of the kingdom ceased to be known as Picts, and became simply ‘inhabitants of Scotland’ (fir Alban or Albanaig). Since Alba had hitherto denoted ‘Britain’ in Gaelic, this represents an extraordinary change in terminology, suggesting that the adoption of Alba as the kingdom's name represented the coining of a radically new identity, and perhaps signifying an attempt, following a period of disruption and uncertainty between 875 and 889, to establish a new political order based on dynastic kingship.

This appears to conflict entirely with your argument...you are saying, as I understand it, that documents from before Donald II refer to the kingdom as the "Kingdom of Pictland" in Latin, and that documents from after him refer to it as the "Kingdom of Alba" in Gaelic, right? This would seem to entirely refute Broun's argument... john k 19:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The ODNB was published, I believe, in 2004. However, the articles which compose it were gathered between 1990 and 2004, or thereabouts. The most recent article cited in the bibliography is an article from 1988. The article is officially copyrighted to Oxford University Press in 2004, but could very well have been primarily written well before that. john k 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think this would be the thing to do. If the moves occur, at the very least, the first name given should be the anglicized one, with the native form given as an alternative. But I'd say the text should probably be changed as well. I'm sure you disagree... john k 21:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I will say, though, that I find this to be less important than the issue of titles. The preference Dave Souza apparently expresses in the vote - that the English name be given first and in the title, and that there then be a discussion of the naming issue, and the Gaelic name used for the rest of the article - would be an acceptable option, if not necessarily a preferred one. john k 21:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If there'd be more of a consensus for leaving the names mostly as is, I'd be willing to accept that. There's a ton of articles on monarchs in a similar state at the moment, although usually more due to lack of attention than conscious effort. I do think that the various list articles should abide by the anglicized names. john k 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Calgacus, thanks for the note on my talk page. I left that obnoxious comment on the Kenneth I talk page before I saw your note, and now I feel bad - I was about to remove it when I saw that you'd already done so. (I will say that, after the repeated insults you have thrown my way, it's a little unfair to now say that you "misjudged me" in saying something nice about me because I threw an unfortunate, but really rather mild, barb in your direction.) At any rate, my apologies. I understand that the conventions can be frustrating, and that in some cases they are probably inappropriate. I don't ever think the guidelines should be the only consideration in doing something, but I do think that when we depart from them, it should be for a reason that is fairly unique. If there's a special case, there's a special case. I think that there's a good case to be made that for the earliest kings (pre-Constantine II, at least), there's a pretty good case to be made that there is a special case, and that "of Scotland" should not be used. I'd be open to using patronymics. But I don't think that there's a very good case to be made that the quasi-Gaelic forms should be used, or that "of Scotland" is inappropriate for later rulers. If you want to email me, go ahead, I'd be happy to discuss further. john k 17:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, nobody has behaved terribly well. As far as moving them now, the procedure people (which, believe it or not, I'm not one of) have moved all over it, so it probably doesn't get moved until whenever the procedures say that a move should take place. In the meanwhile, I'd be happy to try to help in working out an alternate naming convention for the earliest kings. I'd say the competing principles that must be reconciled are 1) recognizability; 2) accuracy; and 3) avoiding ridiculous artificial wikipedia neologisms (Constantine MacKenneth, for instance, would probably be an instance of the last), with the latter being most important. john k 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moves

I have no problem you moving these pages now, but it'd have been better to have waited until voting ends. Anyways, you should move the talk pages also. There's a box you need to tick to do that below the move rectangle, you always need to make sure that is ticked. PS, the vote is not a consensus, it's two camps of relatively unreconcilable viewpoints; just because one camp got more voters to the page does not mean it's consensus. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Consensus. --Elonka 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, Elonka, did you actually read that? If you did, then you'll need to explain to me why you posted it for me. I am assuming, for once, good faith. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in regards to the Scottish monarchs, I think that you have lost perspective. Ironically, I see you doing the exact same things that Piotrus was doing with Polish monarchs: You assumed that you were in the right, and everyone else in the wrong; you moved articles without consensus; when others challenged you, you reverted their actions; you cited your action as a "fait accompli" (it was done a month ago) as though that gave it more legitimacy; and you have been treating others with (what I regard as) enormous disrespect. Every time you referred to other editors as "busybodies" or "silly" or "obsessive", I lost respect for your opinion.  :/ From my point of view, I saw most of the other editors treating you with enormous tact, and yet you responded to them with rudeness and defensiveness. If nothing else, look at your editing history. You've obviously been checking the page every few minutes, and arguing with nearly every person who posts. You even referred to major respected encyclopedia articles as "childish" and "out of date" since they disagreed with your position. I think you need to take a step back, and work on something else for awhile. --Elonka 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, would you like to help with fixing some of the redirects? If you pick one handful, and I pick another, we'll get done faster.  :) --Elonka 04:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good.  :) --Elonka 04:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you move

Please move articles properly so that the record of prior edits is included. User:UmptanumRedux 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)