Talk:Scottish Gaelic

Spelling of program/programme

I am puzzled at User:Largoplazo's reversion . The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) gives the spellings for British English. This is not a matter of using an American English spelling in an article with British/Scottish links (and which is flagged as being written in Scottish English). As per the OED, the spelling "program" is a perfectly valid spelling in British English, and I know of no authoritative source that says anything different applies for the Scottish version. Someone used "program" (in the article) in the meaning of an academic program a substantial while ago and the two instances in question here have the same meaning. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

According to some etymologists, "programme" originated in the Victorian era when people with a limited classical education presumed the word came from the French, when actually it is from Latin and Greek, which in an Anglicisation is "program". Not that this affects the points made above, other than explaining where the two spellings come from. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired I don't know what the OED says (the website is paywalled), but most other definitions online explain that "program" in British English is reserved for computing. It is not a common spelling in other contexts. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you see the notes under the etymology in the OED? The influence of French programme led to the predominance of this spelling in the 19th cent. The forms programme and program have since become established as the standard British and U.S. spellings respectively, with the exception that program is usual everywhere in senses relating to computing. Largoplazo (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Addition of images

Many images have been added in the last few days. Can I suggest familiarisation with MOS:IMAGEREL, particularly in regard to "too many (images) can be distracting: usually, less is more"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You might bring this up on the editor's talk page - they appear to be new and may not check here. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit war or something

@Largoplazo Don't kno wyou are reverting my edits, Pictish didn't extinct in 1100 and you can know that by seeing the page dedicated to it. Pictish names still appear in 1300's, which clearly states that the language didn't extinct in 1100 and likely continued to live for at least 1 century, dying by 1200.

Just to clarify the situation. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why people tell me they don't know why I did something after I've told them why I did it. In this case, you're still claiming not to know after I pointed out to you the last time you said that that I'd already explained it.

To summarize what I said in the edit summaries, we go by what the cited source, and we don't substitute our own reasoning for that. What does the existing source say, and what sources do you have that contradict what the text currently says? Largoplazo (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I have particular Pictish names from 13th century from local Pictish areas that clearly imply the existence of local Pictish culture and thus language until around 1200 AD or at worst 1100 AD - Gartnait earl of Mar and Gartnait earl of Buchan.

The people who had the Pictish names unambiguously were named after their ancestors (because the name was not borrowed into Gaelic and didn't make it beyond local community), thus it suggests an unbroken genetical Pictish nobility line, where names simply cannot live longer than ~150 years; to live longer they need to be borrowed and start living already inside Gaelic, but since the last guy with a Pictish named died in 1300's, it says that the names didn't make their way into Gaelic language and remained local.

Names either survive into the language and live with it for an eternity, like Arthur, or they die as localised variants that don't live for more than 1 century typically. Thus, Gartnait being used until 1300 says that Pictish, in worst for it case, died by 1100 (not "during 11th century"), and in a nonetheless probable case died in 1200. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You're doing your own reasoning here to dispute a source. See WP:OR. Largoplazo (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pikkupapupata @Largoplazo Okay this is getting ridiculous already...

I've brought a source to you. What exactly now is wrong? If you like, really, really conservative for some reason, then idk, change it something how you think it'll be more reasonable. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Why'd you ping me? Pikkupapupata and I aren't operating on a single mind. I was content that you provided a source; then that was reverted. I have no idea what their reason was. Largoplazo (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey there. As I explained in my edit summary, that source did not support the changes made, especially as a replacement to the sources already cited in the in-line citation.

To be more specific to the sentence that was altered: the new source mentions Gaelicisation twice on page 18 and does not specify that to have occured by the 12th century; and it did not mention anything about Cumbrians; it mentioned Cumbric [language] once in the introductory paragraph on page 16 in the specific context of being a descendant of Common Brythonic.

Additionally, the in-line citation that was there (and is now restored) supports the entire paragraph up to and including the sentence that was altered. Removing it and replacing it with a different source that does not reflect any of the information written is a clear issue.

In checking the source provided, seeing the previous edit attempts to the same sentence, and seeing this discussion, it made sense to me to restore the previous version and direct discussion back here.

If information is going to be changed, any source provided must clearly support the changes - information should be verifiable.

Hope this helps to clarify. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 15:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

"with Brythonic (Archaic/ Old Welsh), a near neighbour of Pictish which survived until the 12th century or so in the resilient Brythonic kingdom of Strathclyde"

I understand you're using search to find key words, but for such short article you could have read it fully; this particular line clearly states that Cumbric survived until 12th century. The text mentioned that 'all Inhabitants of Alba became Gaelisized", which includes Cumbrians also, as Strathclyde was absorbed into Alba in 11th century.

I think mentioning that both Cumbrians and Picts definitely went extinct by the end of 12th century is a good consensus, with the statement in the text being correct according to scientific sources. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

That clause of the sentence is attributed specifically to a 1926 publication by W J Watson, one person who is then further described by the source's author in that paragraph as making no distinction between Brythonic and Pictish as separate languages (which is a whole other topic in and of itself). Cumbrians are not mentioned, and Gaelicisation of 'Scotland' is not written about with an explicitly specified century in that section.

Another section on page 20, 'Pictish and Gaelic' says,

'The third signifcant source of evidence is features of Scottish Gaelic which differ from Old Irish (also known as Old Gaelic), its parent language. Many of these are most easily explained as due to Pictish infuence, in that as Picts adopted Gaelic (between the 8th and the 10th centuries, probably) they acquired it imperfectly, much as many Welsh features survive in the English of the eastern Welsh valleys.'

and

'We may imagine Pictland becoming fairly rapidly Gaelicised in the 10th century, even though there is evidence of signifcant Gaelic infuence much earlier.'

That source does not support the changes you want to make and have tried to make, and original research is not acceptable on Wikipedia.

I see that you have also edited the Pictish language article to specify the 12th century as well after the addition of 13th century was reverted - despite the same sources cited in this article being cited in that one for the same information, and which do not support mention of the 12th century. Please stop making such edits here and there when the pre-existing sources do not support them, and when no sources are given that explicitly support them.

Continuing to make the same additions to an article despite reversions is unambiguously edit warring. If an edit you made is reverted, the onus is on you to provide a reliable and verifiable source that clearly supports your additions, and/or to bring the topic to discussion on an article's talk page.

Additionally, consensus is achieved through discussion and collaboration by multiple editors. Between the reverts already done, this discussion here, and the source given not supporting the desired changes, it is my understanding that there is no consensus at this time to change the information in that sentence in the article.

If you feel that this discussion so far with two other editors, including myself, has not been adequate for any reason, you can certainly request additional input at a relevant WikiProject, DRN, or even via Requests for comment. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 04:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

We do not talk about Picts only here; Cumbrians are literally mentioned in the sentence "with Brythonic (Archaic/ Old Welsh), a near neighbour of Pictish which survived until the 12th century or so in the resilient Brythonic kingdom of Strathclyde". That is Cumbric.

Next, you cite sentences that just state "Picts were rapidly Gaelisized", without stating when they went extinct. If Picts adopted Gaelic in 10th century, by 11th century their language was definitely not extinct, if we are looking from this point. The dates of "Rapid Gaelisation" don't prove nor disprove anything, because they are not the dates of extinction.

Okay, maybe you misunderstood: I do not argue that the cited source mentions that Pictish was extinct only by 12th century; what source explicitly mentions is that Cumbrians went extinct during 12th century, and since the sentences mention "all inhabitants of Alba", I propose just to write the date by which both Cumbrians and Picts were definitely extinct according to scientific literature - 12th century - and don't overcomplicate things. This should be a normal consensus for both of us, but I don't understand with what exactly you are trying to fight here.

I do not see any cases against what I wrote. I provided reliable and verifiable source, there is no need to threaten me with an edit warring. Still hope we can resolve this without any 'outer forces', but if you really, really refuse to collaborate and find consensus here, then I think we should call for someone else. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I quoted directly from the source that you provided and I read.

You are still doing original research, which is not what this discussion is for and is not what Wikipedia is for. Any Wikipedia article needs to reflect what's clearly stated in any sources used. Sources should be evaluated for reliability and verifiability. The source you provided does not support your desired additions. The existing sources do not support your desired additions. That has been explained to you several times, by multiple users in this discussion and on your user talk page, and it cannot be said more clearly.

I am not misunderstanding.

I am also not 'threatening' you with edit warring; I am pointing out that you have been doing it already - which you should know from the warning another user left on your talk page about edit warring on this article. I am urging you to stop on all articles where you are adding unsupported information. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 09:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This is... not what we should discuss. I understand that you act with good faith only, as well as I, but all my claims are sourced.

I want to write approximately something like this: "All inhabitants of Alba were Gaelisized by the end of 12th century". This claim is sourced by the cited source, which states that the language of Strathclyde (aka Cumbric) was Gaelisized somewhere in 12th century (definitely by the end of it). Cumbric and Pictish are "All inhabitants of Alba". We do not write "Pictish was Gaelisized by the end of 12th century", we say that by the end of 12th century both Cumbric and Pictish were definitely, according to scientific literature, already extinct. What exactly about this is unsourced?

I understand what you are trying to say, but my claims are sourced, and what you are talking about now seems rather strange. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I have not seen the text of the source in question but at best your understanding of it appears to be a novel interpretation, if not downright wrong. This is WP:OR, or possibly WP:SYNTH, if you are reaching your conclusion from different elements. Neither are allowed here.

One evident flaw in your interpretation is that the completion of Gaelicisation and the extinction of other tongues will not have been simultaneous. The former will have been established well before the other tongues were lost completely. Gaelicisation may have been one century, the extinctions another. Compare modern Scotland, which is comprehensively anglicised in its entirety, yet Scots and Gaelic are in no way extinct. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If you're up for it, I'd love some fresh eyes on this to make sure I myself haven't missed anything.

This is the source that was given to replace the ones cited by Broun, Forsyth, Woolf, and Bannerman under reference 26.

(In case this is helpful: the pages are displayed after the 'Related papers' section if you scroll down - no signing up to download required.) Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 15:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This isn't in any way WP:SYNTH. My conclusion is straightforward -> source says Cumbric went extinct in 12th century -> Picts, according to 'some' other sources went extinct before that -> ALL inhabitants were Gaelisized with the death of Cumbric. Ah, yes, you didn't see the text of the source... Please, see it before making such statements. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

My statements are based on what you yourself have highlighted from the source: that it discusses the date of the extinction of Cumbric, with no indication that it discusses the date by which Gaelicisation was completed. Per above, they are far from being the same thing and you are misrepresenting the source if you say they are. “ALL inhabitants were Gaelisized (sic) with the death of Cumbric”? No, almost certainly well before then and the source does not say. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe Matt Lunker already addressed that analysis of yours, and you haven't addressed his counterpoint, the one ending with Compare modern Scotland, which is comprehensively anglicised in its entirety, yet Scots and Gaelic are in no way extinct. In other words, Cumbric and Pictish continuing to be spoken for another century isn't inconsistent with Scotland being considered to have been Gaelicized by the end of the 11th. Largoplazo (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thank you... The Gaelisation is just "eventual assimilation into Gaelic", but I agree it doesn't necessarily come with the death of the ethnicity or language. If we indeed consider it just a step to eventual extinction, then I have no problems with dating, at least because my source indeed doesn't address it.

I think we should probably somehow state it text, that the extinction and Gaelisation were not the same by time for both Pictish Cumbric, to avoid such misinterpretations in future. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That's superfluous to the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Sir, if you continue to revert my edits that try to establish some consensus or anything, and while I try to find sources and somehow resolve this problem you simply continue to argue and do nothing, I am afraid I might start questioning your 20-year experience on Wikipedia. (not sure if this is a joke)

Can you, maybe, please, suggest what should be written in that place? The answer "whatever was there before you", that I suppose you are trying to give here, is not really an answer. I pretty much clearly stated my goals, among which is removing the ambiguity in the text, but what are yours? From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

We don't need to insert an off-topic diversion on a matter that is not central to what is being said about Gaelic, the topic, purely to explain why a source that you thought was pertinent is in fact not and thus not included anyway. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I concur. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 11:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

As do I. This article's about the language, as is the paragraph. The lead-in to this specific focus is However, though the Pictish language did not disappear suddenly .... There's no need to veer off into details about what's meant by Pictish identity or whether other elements of Pictish culture endured. Largoplazo (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)