Talk:Sgian-dubh

Plural

Anyone got any idea what the plural of sgian dubh might be? -- Gantlord

Yeah. "Sgian dubhs". :) Adraeus 01:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In English, sure. But I think Gantlord is interested in it as a Gaelic word. The plural is sgianan, 'knives'.--Doric Loon 15:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is meant by "Gaelic"? Is that Irish Gaelic or Scots-Gaelic? They're two separate languages, for heaven's sake! Chainedwind 22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article is about Scottish Highland dress, and that the mention of Gaelic is linked to "Scottish Gaelic", I think it's pretty obvious which language is meant. Flapdragon 23:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

sgianan dubha 2601:C6:C004:141A:4490:DC73:DF3B:1BB0 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Usually when English borrows words, it streamlines their plurals (in the case of nouns), hence people don't use the Inuit plural for parkas or use bratwurst > bratwürste. It would be *nice* if English speakers had this level of knowledge of Gaelic plurals but they don't. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense to pluralise it as sgians-dubh rather than sgian-dubhs. We say fleurs-de-lis, not not fleur-de-lises. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That's French. A search for "sgians-dubh" gives me 1860 ghits, "sgian-dubhs" 92,300 so at best, sgians deserves a mention but it is NOT predominant usage. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You argued that we shouldn't use sgianan dubha as it wasn't the English form for plurals. In English nouns are pluralised, adjectives aren't e.g. court martial -> courts martial, secretary general -> secretaries general. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes but this items is not borrowed as a noun + adjective, English speakers have no clue as to the literal meaning of each item, it's just borrowed as a single item (noun). Like cairngorms, (and not cùirn ghorma or cairns gorm) or claymores (not clays more). Akerbeltz (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What is relevant is normal usage, not the rule, in part because there is both inconsistency in how loan words or compound words are pluralized. Sgian dubh doesn’t show up in most dictionaries, and those that do don’t list a plural. I think in this case, finding out the frequency in online sources wouldn’t count as OR, because it is obvious. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

"doov"

I'd like to take a straw poll on that last change by an anonymous user. How many of us pronounce the bh of dubh as a v? Obviously that is the original Gaelic pronunciation of an aspirated b, but Gaelic spelling is very antiquated, and I personally wouldn't pronounce dubh that way in modern Gaelic. But anyway, it is the pronunciation in English which counts here, and I don't think I've ever heard it that way. Comments? --Doric Loon 21:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I say "skee-in Doo" or "sken-du" depending on my mood. No "B's" or "V's" at the end. Drhaggis 01:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I say "skee-in Doo", like Drhaggis, but I usually close my lips at the end of "Doo", as if I were going to pronouce a "B" but then change my mind. This cuts off the "oo" sound and keeps it from turning into "skee-in Doooo". JHCC 18:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Englishman's blood

Someone told me he had been told in Scotland that there's an tradition about the Sgian Dubh saying if you once take it out of the stocking you're only allowed to put it back if there's blood of an Englishman on it. Is that true? I know it cannot be practic<ed, but is something like that told in Scotland?--Hun2 11:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a standard macho myth associated with many kinds of knives. I've heard variations of this story about the Sgian Dubh, but no such tradition exists that I can verify. -Dr Haggis - Talk 23:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

When I take mine out, it's usually to trench the gushing entrails of a haggis at the end of January. The story of the blood is also said about the swords of the British Burmese regiments. Commonplace motif. --Doric Loon 02:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest that is not the job for a sgian-dubh; but rather that of a DIRK. Think of it as a sgian-dubh on steroids. Bagpipehero (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thinking practically given that scotland was at war with England comparitively rarely (despite popular perception) and the Sgian Dubh was worn constantly it would be rather rare to put one back in your sock. 82.41.31.24 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to scots

I'm a catalan interested in your culture and knives, owner of a black knife bought my last visit to Scotland (second hand in a market). I'm going to use this info to enlighten a friend, half scottish, about his origins. Thanks for your info about Sgian Dubh!

Capitalisation

Why is Dubh capitalised in this article? --Doric Loon 12:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It may not be a proper name, but it is commonly capitalized. LHOON 14:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that actually the case? I'm sure it is sometimes capitalized, but I have mostly seen it uncapitalized, as are most of the occurrences of the word in this article. Lesgles (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Utility, ceremonial or weapon?

From the article: "is a ceremonial dagger" ... "was originally a utility item" ... "any concealed weapons would be revealed". These statements seem to be contradictory, or at least amiguous. The overall tone of the article seems to suggest it's a utility item, but the opening sentence confuses that. Suggest clarification, and the removal of the word "ceremonial" if appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible alternative origin

I remeber when I was younger being told that the Sgian Dubh was called the black knife because after a battle fatally wounded soldiers would have their throats cut with them as a mercy killing, rather then having them die slowly and painfully on the battlefield. Hence the name the black knife. I was told this when I was in Junior school by a group of historical re-enactors of some sort who were telling us about traditional highland battle equipment and dress at the time of the Jacobite rebelion.

Is this true and if so does anyone know a more reliable source citing it. It seems credible to me but may just be a urban myth grown up in recent times as an explanation. 82.41.31.24 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not true, a sgian dubh was knife first used as a hidden weapon when scots were banned the holding of weapons, it would be hidden in the arm pit, when in the house of a host you would put your sgian dubh in your sock to show you had no hidden intentions of harming them. When this became a tradition and the lords starting wearing them in the sock it the lords would have them in very high quality, a black wood, also known as the dress sgin dubh, after the lords began to wear them in the black wood it became fashion and so a name was thought for them "sgian dubh". Hope this has helped, they were used for mecy killings i think but this is not where the name came from, my eason has great factual basing and you can tell this when you look at a dress sgian dubh, it is black so makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.157.101 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Dagger"??

Why is the sgian dubh referred to as a "dagger" throughout the article? Sgian simply means knife. Biodag would be a better gaelic term for dagger, and is the word used to refer to the Scottish dirk. The sgian dubh doesn't fit the description of a dagger. I think the article would be better if references to daggers were replaced with references to knives.--Mathandubh (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, a knife is a single bladed article, whereas a knife has a double edged blade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.157.101 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As there seems to be no disagreement (and as the use of "knife" here is more consistent with the relevant WP articles and American Heritage 4 entries), I'll make the change. Elmo iscariot (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Painting

The author mentions that in the Raeburn painting you can see the sgian dhu on the gentlemans belt. This is a dirk and not a small knife. A dirk consists of a large knife held in a scabard with both a smaller knife and a fork. A sgian dhu is a small single blade worn in the sock and not on the belt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.20 (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at his sock then - there is clearly a set of two knives there, somewhat similar to what that in the former NMAS, though whether either can be described as a Sgian Dubh is another matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.244.20 (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Origins

Unsigned edit from page

Before you read this, i would like to correct the previous author. The sgian dubh, was the highlanders utility knife, if you were a fisherman the 'top' of the knife would have something to scale fish, likewise hunters would have omething to skin game. Finavon (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Page name

May I propose moving the page to Sgian-dubh? The un-hyphenated spelling is wrong on several levels and the hyphenated version is equally common in English, checking through various dictionaries. Sgian dubh is "wrong" because according to the rules of Gaelic orthography, that demands two main stresses, which the word doesn't have, it's a fused compound with a single stress on -dubh; without the hyphen it's just malformed Gaelic for "any black knife" but not a skean-dhu. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Australia

I doubt that in "Australia it is illegal to carry a blade of any size on or about the person without a cause of which must also be on the person". Firstly the carrying of a blade is not illegal, secondly "without a cause of which must also be on the person" is meaningless gibberish.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

True. I've deleted that. Royalcourtier, you should not be shy about removing nonsense if you find it. If there is some truth behind this statement, somebody who knows about it will have to reformulate it in comprehensible English and provide a reference. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Issues with "Construction" section.

Being a Brit, this paragraph;

Since the modern sgian-dubh is worn mainly as a ceremonial item of dress and is usually not employed for cutting food or self-defence, blades are often of a simple (but not unglamorous) construction. These are typically made from stainless steel. The hilts used on many modern sgian-dubhs are made of plastic that has been molded to resemble carved wood and fitted with cast metal mounts and synthetic decorative stones. Some are not even knives at all, but a plastic handle and sheath cast as one piece.

strikes me as incredibly incorrect. This seems like a, dare I say it, American POV. Scotsmen who make the effort tend to MAKE THE EFFORT in my experience, and properly made sgians are readily available in Scotland.

Considering these bold claims are also unsourced, I move they be removed.

Or at least, I will reword it to something more nuanced; "There are cheaper ones available, such as x, y, z, etc."

78.149.209.252 (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Legality section: "CAD 221"

In the "Legality" section, the term "CAD 221 ticket" links only to the Canadian dollar (CAD), which I think is not intended ! Please would someone knowledgeable correct this ? Darkman101 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

If you read the story, that's exactly what it means, he was fined CA$221. Which is a bizarre number but he ho ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

With the taxes and service charges, that’s exactly what it was. ;) Bagpipehero (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Hidden?

Can anybody find a source for the claim that the original meaning was "hidden knife" rather than "black knife"? While that does make some kind of sense, these knives today are indeed black and very much not hidden, so a source is necessary. My main concern is that looking in the dictionaries, I find "hidden" as a secondary meaning of dubh only when it is prefixed to another noun; in Faclair Beag, this meaning is given for dubh-, but not for dubh. Doric Loon (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There's clàr-dubh, hidden agenda and Gaelic is fairly flexible when it comes to placing certain adjectives before or after the noun. I'll have a shufty but in any case, the black handle thing is very much a modern thing, historic examples are hafted in a wide variety of colours and materials ranging from bone and ivory to wood and by no means are all of them stained black. It's conjecture but the black thing may well be an Anglophone interpretation of dubh as a colour, rather than the Gaelic semantics of the term. Akerbeltz (talk)

@Akerbeltz Aye, I was coming round to suspecting that myself, but it's still a wee bit wobbly. Some of the details (including details that I deleted from the article) sound so much like folklore that I'd like to see a reputable historian cited. Doric Loon (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent Deletions

@Hippo43 - your deletions have now been reverted by three different users. At this point, you really do need to come to talk page and explain what you want and why. Doric Loon (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I missed your comment here, apologies. I think I've been reverted by one editor. A couple of IPs who have only ever edited this article within the last few days is suspect.

What I want is already clear - to be rid of inaccurate unsourced comments and original research. None of what I have removed is supported by reliable sources. If it was accurate, it would be easy to find good sources. Policy is clear, the onus to provide sources is on the editor who wants to restore content that has been challenged and removed. See WP:V, WP:NOR etc. Re-adding unsourced content is vandalism. // Hippo43 (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're accusing me of sockpuppetry, have the IPs checked out. Nothing to do with me.

Yes, not everything on this page is referenced up to the hilt but hello, it's a minority culture, we're not as over-resourced and over-researched as English is. Especially when it comes to cultural topics, there's a lot of stuff that is known but has never been published about. There's nothing even remotely controversial on the page, and my view is that it's better to produce a rounded picture to the reader, rather than a useless stub that complies with the OR rule to the last letter. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Who is "we"? This is the English wikipedia, and almost everyone who uses or talks about a sgian-dubh is an English speaker.

Consensus (policy) doesn't agree with your view. This is an encyclopedia based on published sources, not your personal knowledge. You can publish whatever you like in your own personal space. // Hippo43 (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, stop editing the page. It stays exactly how it is until you establish a consensus for changing it. That's how things work here. You think that policy dictates the result that the page should change? Fair enough, make that argument and persuade us.

Secondly, you appear to be trying to mass-delete a significant amount of material, some of which is sourced. This is unconstructive and unhelpful. A far better and constructive approach would be for you to specifically identify the contentions that you consider unsourced (and which you consider reasonably need a source). If we agree that a source is reasonably required, We can then work together constructively to either find one or remove as the case may be.

How does that sound? 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:2092:8A23:CEDD:F6BA (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Removing unsourced and inaccurate content is positive and helpful; it improves the article and stops misleading readers. You don't get to decide what needs a source and what doesn't. Consensus already exists, across Wikipedia - material that has been challenged must be sourced before being restored. If need be, please read the relevant policy at WP:BURDEN, and please stop adding unsourced material that has been challenged and removed.

I think each of my edits had clear edit summaries, so what I object to is clear. // Hippo43 (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely there are pages with way more controversial unsourced content that you can heckle... Akerbeltz (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You assert that the material you are removing is unsourced and inacurate. But you haven't demonstrated those contentions. You have simply mass deleted a huge amount of prose - which includes sources - and then, when challenged by myself and others, you persistently edit-warred rather than bring the issue here.

So, start justifying yourself. The onus is on you here because you are the one who wants change. Are you saying that the existing sources are inadequate. If so, explain why. Are there existing contentions that require sources? If so, identify them. Are there other contentions that you say are simply inaccurate/wrong (and thus cannot be sourced, precisely because they are wrong). If so, identify those. 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:2092:8A23:CEDD:F6BA (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You've misunderstood, or mis-stated, the policy. The onus is clearly on the editor who wants to restore challenged content. In cases where I've noticed that something isn't stated in the source given, then it should be easy to show that it actually is. I haven't mass deleted anything. I made a number of smaller edits with edit summaries, and was mass reverted.

At least Akerbeltz is honest - he doesn't think these things need sources because it's not really important.

It's not a complicated situation. If I'm wrong, and I might be, just find good sources. // Hippo43 (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

So you're not going to do the work explaining and justifying what changes you want. And you've started making snide and completely baseless insinuations as to my honesty.

This is not a constructive way to proceed. 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:2092:8A23:CEDD:F6BA (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say refs/sources aren't important or that the content in question isn't important. There's usually a degree of common sense to refs. To use a silly example to make a point, on the Eiffel Tower page, nothing in the lead is refd, it just says The Eiffel Tower (/ˈaɪfəl/ ⓘ EYE-fəl; French: Tour Eiffel [tuʁ ɛfɛl] ⓘ) is a wrought-iron lattice tower on the Champ de Mars in Paris, France. It is named after the engineer Gustave Eiffel, whose company designed and built the tower from 1887 to 1889. In fact, there are fairly chunky sections elsewhere on that page which aren't (well) refd. That's because they're uncontroversial statements that are widely know or easily refd (in theory, if someone had THAT much spare time). On the other hand, say I wanted to claim that Eiffel stole the design from a Mexicon architect, that would be a fairly unorthodox position that would require a LOT of bona fide references. Yes, I could spend the afternoon getting references for blocked lenition and the semantics of dubh but I don't have an afternoon to spare, especially since these are such absurdly basic principles of the Scottish Gaelic language that it's on the same level as being asked to put a reference for the Eiffel Tower being in Paris... Akerbeltz (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Refs are not usually included in the lead because they are included in the body of the article. If someone challenged the fact that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, it would take about 10 seconds to find a reference, not an afternoon's work. It's nothing like the same level of obviousness. Everyone knows the Eiffel Tower is in Paris. Virtually no one knows anything about sgian dubhs, or Gaelic, or what lentition is.

Second, this article isn't about the Gaelic language. References need to come from sources directly related to the topic of the article, not some synthesis of sources about Gaelic grammar. If it would take you an afternoon to put together a synthesis to support your belief, there's a good chance it's not true, or too trivial to include in this article.

Again, and with apologies for repeating myself, the policy is really clear. // Hippo43 (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

From WP:NOR - "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." // Hippo43 (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, a cultural item of dress borrowed from Gaelic culture, with a Gaelic name and it has nothing to do with the Gaelic language <eyeroll> If you are so totally ignorant of anything surrounding this topic, then perhaps you should pick a topic you are at least a little more familiar with, because right now, you are wasting everybody else's time due to - by your own admission - total ignorance of the topic but a degree of policy knowledge. Not a happy combination. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the topic of the article is "sgain dubh". A little knife, not Gaelic grammar.

So far you've tried straw man (I never said "it has nothing to do with the Gaelic language") and reductio ad absurdum (the Eiffel Tower). Now you've gone for ad hominem - I don't know where you think I said I had "total ignorance of the subject". Which fallacy are you going to use next?

Maybe you should stop wasting your own time and try to find sources? Or maybe you can't find sources because you are misinformed? // Hippo43 (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an unhelpful comment. Akerbeltz did not straw man you. You said above that "this article isn't about the Gaelic language." Nor did he ad hominem you. You said above that "Virtually no one knows anything about sgian dubhs, or Gaelic, or what lentition is", the clear implication being that you are one of those people who knows nothing about these topics. Finally, there was no reductio ad absurdum. Akerbeltz made a fair argument by analogy to the Eiffel Tower page, that you don't need references for completely obvious and non-contentious statements. I also note that you have ignored his comment that "there are fairly chunky sections elsewhere on that page which aren't (well) refd", thereby demonstrating that his point was not simply confined to the lead of the article.

Rather than raising the heat by focussing on perceived fallacies, why don't you do what you have been invited to do multiple times: set out precisely and clearly the text that you want to change and why. That way, we have something tangible to debate. 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:2092:8A23:CEDD:F6BA (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You're wrong on each point, but on the content, my thoughts have been pretty clear, and are not complicated. I left edit summaries for each edit, until they were reverted en masse. All the original research needs to stay out, or references need to be provided that meet the policy requirements. Content that had a reference but wasn't actually stated in the source needs the same. All of it has been challenged; none of it is uncontroversial or obvious or common sense. If there are any edits you don't understand, please let me know, maybe with diffs.

I note that although you have both edit warred to restore unsourced text, and have argued about it here, you haven't yet been able to find a single source for this stuff. If you can supply good sources, there will be nothing to argue about. // Hippo43 (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You do realise that simply saying 'you're wrong' without saying why doesn't mean anything. Especially when you've been directed to your own words, which clearly demonstrate that you are the one who is wrong. 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:857D:E628:B80F:C7AA (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Several of the facts within the article are unsourced- those were removed. They were removed for being unsourced, as stated. More importantly, an in-depth discussion (that isn't well sourced either) isn't really needed when the previous edit was sufficient. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion here - Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Talk:Sgian-dubh. // Hippo43 (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow, I started this section and then went on holiday and had no inkling this amount of aggro was ensuing. Let's try to cool it a little.

To be clear, @Hippo43, it wasn't only @Akerbeltz and the IP who reverted you, but me too. My revert was partial. You had deleted material on the grounds it was unsourced, but the parts that interested me, the etymological information, were perfectly adequately sourced, hence my revert. You have now clarified that your objection to that material was not in fact a problem with sourcing, but rather, that you think that linguistic information is off-topic. I fundamentally disagree: any article which has a headword that is linguistically complex deserves two or three sentences explaining the word itself. The bulk of the article is about the knife, but its name itself is a matter of great interest to many of us. If you don't find this interesting, skip over the section: the section heading "etymology" makes that easy to do. Doric Loon (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood or misread my objection. I don't think I ever said that my main concern was that it was off topic, although that is a problem too. The etymology stuff I removed was not reliably sourced. I agree there should be a short section on etymology, but section headings do not negate the concept of undue weight. Just because something is of interest to someone, doesnt mean it should be included. // Hippo43 (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hippo43 Wikipedia only exists because people are interested, and there are very, very many of us who are interested in etymologies. Generally, with very few exceptions, that kind of widespread interest does mean that a thing should be included.

To be fair, I had shortened and tidied up the etymology section and added yet another source, and that contribution has been lost in your edit war. I'm not going to put any more work into it when there is a climate of blanket reverts, but once we have established that the section stays, there is certainly room to improve it.

But that's maybe something you should let others be the judge of. You have said yourself that you don't know anything about Gaelic. Outside Wikipedia, Akerbeltz is a noted, published expert on this subject, and it is frustrating that Wikipedia isn't always very kind to its experts. Of course, he's bound by the same rules as everyone else, but please try to take him seriously. Although I am not on his level here, I have taught Gaelic and do know my way around the topic. On questions of source adequacy and undue weight, you might want to defer to that, at least a little. Because frankly, much as I have valued your Wikipedia contributions over the years, you have come across as bulldozing here, and I'm sure that wasn't your intention. Doric Loon (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Doric Loon thank you for your kind words, I'll take that as a wiki eulogy and wish you all the best - but I'm done with the English Wikipedia, I've taken virtually all pages off my watchlist now and if I contribute from now on, it will be on the Gaelic Wikipedia, Wikimedia or other background stuff. Too little common sense, widespread disregard for subject experts and the vain hope that a lot of non-experts dogfighting it out will somehow produce quality in the end... Akerbeltz (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Akerbeltz The old story! I can understand that, but don't be a stranger, because we do need you. Doric Loon (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Doric Loon Sadly there comes a point where individual editors valuing experts no longer makes up for the instiutional bias. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Doric Loon, "You have said yourself that you don't know anything about Gaelic" is completely untrue. That's two comments in a row where you have misrepresented my words. No doubt accidentally, but please take care. // Hippo43 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hippo43 My apologies, you're quite right. What you said was, "Virtually no-one knows anything about ... Gaelic or what lenition is," which I read as meaning you don't know anything about it. If you do have competence here, can I gently suggest you might put that information on your userpage? While declaring your credentials is entirely optional, it is very helpful, and people do check it out, and they evaluate your comments differently when they know you know what you are talking about. Doric Loon (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. My comment was that every reader knows the Eiffel tower is in Paris, but that virtually no readers know anything about the intricacies of Gaelic grammar etc.

I don't have anything on my user page because I'm not interested in that stuff. I don't really care about someone's self-expressed credentials - I can only assess what and how they contribute here.

Even if Akerbeltz is 100% correct, "trust him, he's an expert" or "there aren't sources, so I don't need to cite sources" is pretty much the opposite of what Wikipedia is about. If someone is a subject expert, they can go ahead and publish whatever they want in their own space. But if reliable sources have not been published which support what someone thinks they know, then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. That is part of a core policy and isn't difficult to understand.

On your comment about restoring part of the text about etymology that was reliably sourced, I diagree. If you mean this edit, it is sourced to a wiki, that looks like it is run by an editor here. Publishing your own research online, then using it to reference content here is a form of original research. See WP:USERG and WP:RSSELF. // Hippo43 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition, as you noted above (Hidden?) the Faclair Beag source for the meaning "hidden" is Akerbeltz's own site. I don't find this meaning in a quick search of other sources. Where is the independent secondary source that supports this claim? // Hippo43 (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, in shocking news, the pool of experts in minority languages is tiny, so it comes as a real surprise that the same names keep cropping up. Yes, faclair.com is a site I started with a colleague and if you knew ANYthing about the Gaelic world, this poorly little dictionary was licensed by the BBC for their learngaelic.net site and again, if you knew anything of minority languages or Gaelic, you'd know dictionaries are a sparse resource and that the last significant print dictionary was published in 2002 and that there are really only two online dictionaries (if you ignore Wiktionary) of significance, the Faclair Beag and something closer to a wordlist (An Stòr-dàta Briathrachais). Welcome to the world of under-resourced languages and the fact that clearly not everything is on the net. But your approach clearly trumps any of that and by the way, congratulations for finally pushing the editor of the go-to Gaelic dictionary (and a host of other resources) over the edge and make him leave the English Wikipedia. I won't miss having to listen to folk like you, that's for sure... Akerbeltz (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't pushed you into anything. It has been your choice to publish unsourced or badly sourced content on a site that requires reliable sources. When someone points that out, your reaction is also your choice. // Hippo43 (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I rest my case. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, let's try to resolve this. First, @Hippo43 is absolutely right that the "construction" section is unsourced. The correct way to deal with that is to put a tag at the top of the section, so I have now done that - although unsourced material can be deleted, the courteous approach in the first instance is to tag it and prompt people to find sources. I myself did not contribute to that section, and I don't care if that material is eventually deleted, but let's go the route of minimizing conflict.

I've reinstated my revised version of the "etymology" section, because no pertinent reasons were given for reverting it. Because it is shorter, it has fewer statements needing sourced, and additional citations have been added, so it is now better cited than most etymology sections on Wikipedia. (The Gaelic Resources source may be WP:RSSELF, but it falls clearly into the "Self-published expert sources" category which that policy document notes as an respectable exception.)

The rest of the article has a source at every paragraph.

I find it disappointing that this discussion has been so confrontational. Moving forward, can I suggest that if anyone thinks some of the material is wrong, they should bring the question to talk, and if they think it is right but insufficiently sourced, they should simply add an inline "citation needed" tag. Doric Loon (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. Tagging sections or sentences and waiting for sources is one approach, but it is not the only correct one, and no one can insist on it. As you've said, "unsourced material can be deleted"; whether you think it is courteous is not relevant. I don't think it's courteous to readers to leave it in. Deleting unsourced material also prompts people to find sources for it, and usually more urgently. Nor is there any requirement to bring a discussion to talk before removing unsourced material. For my part, I am happy to discuss any of this, but not to leave it in the article while still unsourced. I note that no one here has yet found sources for what I removed, despite the long discussion, and after 3 weeks. Again, WP:BURDEN applies here.

Re 'Gaelic Resources', you have maybe missed a part of RSSELF. It states that self-published sources can be considered reliable "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." (my emphasis) So far I have only been able to find self-published work by Akerbeltz. Can you point me to his work published in reliable, independent publications? // Hippo43 (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hippo43 You may have missed the point that I had just added the reliable independent publication, and you have deleted it again. It's not self-published; you may be confused because Akerbelz is also the name of a known publishing house. I have the Bauer book here, and it is sound scholarly work which has been well received in the field. You also need to look at it before you take this further. Doric Loon (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Doric Loon, I'm not really clear on what you mean. Are you saying that Akerbeltz the editor, Michael Bauer the author, and Akerbeltz the micro-publisher are not connected? // Hippo43 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hippo43, for someone who likes throwing around wikipedia policies, I find it surprising that you don't seem familiar with WP:BRD. As you have been told previously, the page stays as it is with no editing unless and until consensus is reached as to the way forward. Speaking for myself, I entirely endorse the way forward proposed by Doric Loon above at 21:06. I share his regret that this discussion has become so confrontational, and I consider it particularly regrettable that one valued editor has been made to feel so unwelcome that he has chosen to leave. 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:857D:E628:B80F:C7AA (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

BRD is not a policy. As you have been told previously, BURDEN is a policy. Please stop re-adding material without providing sources. The page stays as it is, without the challenged material, unless someone can supply good sources for it. Instead of arguing here, why not do the work? You still haven't found anything to support this material.

Akerbeltz is not unwelcome at all, as far as I can tell. I certainly don't consider him unwelcome. He should just stop adding material that doesn't meet Wikipedia's policy. // Hippo43 (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Astonishing. Good luck getting anywhere with that attitude. 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:857D:E628:B80F:C7AA (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to reply like that than address the issue. It's been 3 weeks. Why not find sources that support the content you like? // Hippo43 (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

After 4 weeks of reverts and discussion, still no reliable sources have been found, so I've removed this unsourced stuff again. Per WP:BURDEN, please do not restore any of it without references to reliable sources. // Hippo43 (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand how this works. So let me remind you again. You do not dictate how this goes. You are the person who wants change, and the onus is on you to work with your fellow editors and establish consensus for change.

That said, Doric Loon (who, if I may say so, has effectively done your job for you) has proposed a very sensible way forward at 21:06 on 16 August. I agree with his suggestion, which is fair, reasonable, practical and constructive. That is the way I consider we should proceed. You have offered no real argument against his proposal. And there is certainly no consensus at the present time for the sweeping unilateral deletions which you are trying to force on this page. 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:551D:6B74:6EAB:B21C (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with that approach, and the policy is clear. Again, see WP:BURDEN. It's obvious that you can't, or don't want to, find sources. This has gone on for over a month and you haven't produced any. Stop edit warring to restore unverifiable content. // Hippo43 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I find it is interesting that this conversation has taken place without discussion of the actual material. Saying that the sgian-dubh is part of Highland Dress is like saying that the Eifel Tower is in Paris. The statement about the use of the sgian-dubh´s original use seems like an assumption based on common sense that could be wrong, and conflicts what I have heard elsewhere about it’s origin. If Akerbitz is a published knife expert as claimed, then his book would be a good source. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the issue. No one disputes that a sgian dubh is worn as part of highland dress. Akerbeltz is not an expert on knives, but has self-published work on the Gaelic language. // Hippo43 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. You have some good points, I think it is easy to misunderstand because of the lack of the discussion. It would be better if you would discuss more and revert less. It is frustrating for an editor to keep rewriting a section, not knowing what will satisfy another editor. It is better to discuss first and then edit, as opposed to revert, discuss, revert, revert. Also, specificity is important, that will help other editors to correct the problems that you see. The other editors are annoyed with you, but have shown a willingness to try and accommodate you. However, you haven’t always made clear how to do that. What is obvious to you is not obvious to others.

I suggest avoiding deletions for now, just add tags and point out the specific problems with the article. One should use a scalpel and not a hatchet anyway. Also, don’t assume something is OR, just because it is uncited. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You make a good point Tinyanorobots, and I think you're right. Each individual contention must be judged individually. Of the content currently in the page and under dispute, it is possible that some is validly sourced, some is accurate (but currently inadequately sourced) and some is innaccurate, unsourced and should be removed.

What we need is a calm, nuanced approach, which carefully determines which is which (and adds proper and better sources where they exist). This is, I think, in line with what Doric Loon suggested above (which, I say for the third time, I agree with).

What is currently unhelpful is Hippo43's apparent obsession with blanket removing all the material he doesn't like from the page in complete defiance of consensus and edit-warring rules. This behaviour must stop. 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:551D:6B74:6EAB:B21C (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)