Talk:The Gaelic College

message: There are hefty reliable sources for the new name (and for mentioning the controversy over it). Does anyone have an argument for reverting the move, such as a more recent reliable source for the new name not, after all, being adopted?
Some of the history has also recently been removed. What's the reasoning here, the lack of sources? Can sources be found? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The summary of MacMaster's objection is being removed and replaced with a quote from the first of the two cited sources: "said the name change added 'a term that connects it to an identity that has a strong role in the history of our people, of eliminating Gaelic.'". But this is not very clear on its own. The first source precedes it with a clear statement that he objected: "says the name change is reminding some Gaelic speakers of past grievances". The second is even more categorical: "says the name change was inappropriate and insulting", followed by the following quote from him: "The people who sought the royal designation didn't stop to think about all of the Gaels out there who would find the term offensive and hurtful given the history of the Crown trying to eradicate the Gaelic language and Gaelic culture" - and a reference by him to ethnic cleansing. To just have the first quote therefore obscures the strength of his objection - in fact makes it less than clear that he objected. If we must have a quotation rather than a summary of his position, "offensive and hurtful" would be a better choice, but I think a summary avoids giving this issue undue weight in the article and also avoids singling him out (which is also why I prefer "some, including" rather than just mentioning him - note that the second source speaks of a "growing chorus"). Yngvadottir (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the way the paragraph was previously written, MacMaster was said to have said the name change (quoting the WP article) "was offensive to Highlanders who had had to leave Scotland because of the English." Nowhere in either of the two sources does it indicate that was MacMaster's expressed opinion. In fact, those words are a reiteration of The Canadian Press' summation of the common feeling held by those in the wider community who were complaining; (quoting the CBC article) "a growing chorus of complaints has emerged from those who say the addition is offensive because it ignores the fact that most of the Gaelic-speaking migrants who sailed to Nova Scotia in the late 1700s were forced out of the Highlands in the years following a decisive battle with the English." MacMaster, at least as quoted in the press, doesn't focus specifically on the Battle of Culloden and the Highland Clearances. I believe his stance is adequately reflected in the way the article is now composed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: He's highlighted in both articles as one of the group that's objecting; and it's pretty clear that people being forced to leave the Highlands is what he's referring to as "ethnic cleansing". So on both criteria, I believe you're requiring overly close paraphrasing. I remain concerned that the lengthy quote is undue weight and makes him look shrill. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I finally realised that it was possible to read the sentence about the objections as "Some objected, and MacMaster said" rather than "Some objected, including MacMaster, and they said", so I've reordered the sentence elements to make it clearer that he was one of those objecting. I think the added material on the board response and the royalist's letter to the editor intensifies the problem that the article devotes too much attention and space to the name change dispute; is there anything else can be found to add to the history section to balance this out? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he's not included in any group. The CTV article makes no mention of a group; in the CBC article, he's mentioned separate from mention of the group of those "who say the addition is offensive because it ignores the fact that most of the Gaelic-speaking migrants who sailed to Nova Scotia in the late 1700s were forced out of the Highlands in the years following a decisive battle with the English." "Ethnic cleansing" includes the suppression of the Gaelic language and culture as spoken and practiced by those in Scotland; not just the expulsion of people from Scotland. Your wording selectively narrows the scope of MacMaster's expression, which is rather contrary to WP:NPOV. He speaks generally about "eliminating Gaelic", "eradicat[ion of] the Gaelic language and Gaelic culture", and "break[ing] the Gaelic peoples of Scotland." That doesn't encompass simply the Battle of Culloden and the Highland Clearances. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor does the statement in the article, unless you want the explanatory link to Highland Clearances, which you added, taken out again. I still think you're requiring an overly close reading of what he's reported as having said, not reading the two news reports as presenting him as a specific exponent of the objections. It's definitely better, in my view, not to quote his statements at length - they are inflammatory. In teh bigger picture, I'm concerned that this is overshadowing everything else about the college, and if possible we should fix that because it's not fair to the topic. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name and history 

message: Per italicization of the word royal: From WP:ITAL: "Use italics when mentioning a word or letter... Mentioning (to discuss such features as grammar, wording, and punctuation) is different from quoting (in which something is usually expressed on behalf of a quoted source)." In the sentence "...after Elizabeth II, the reigning Canadian monarch, granted permission for use of the prefix royal", royal is being mentioned, not quoted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You miss my point (and I think that of the MOS section you cite). We are quoting "royal" from the name - it is the prefix being referred to. The new name is merely being stated - no discussion of "features such as grammar, wording, and punctuation" takes place: we are simply stating that the college's name has been changed to that. Italicising it makes it seem weird - as if the former name was more valid, or as if the Gaelic translation is more normal. The Gaelic (which I believe is technically part of its new name?) and the new English are simply and solely the new name. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: An IP appended "(sic)" after the spelling Rioghail, on the argument that correct Gaelic has Rìoghail. The spelling has now been corrected in the article; accordingly, I removed the remaining occurrences of "(sic)", because per WP:Manual of Style#Original wording we should avoid using that. However, the IP is correct, the college spells it without the accent on its website. I have added a note to that effect within the footnote. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: According to the college website, for example this declaration, they just call themselves "The Gaelic College". And while the article's lone reliable third-party source (there's literally just one), CTV News, also calls it "Cape Breton Gaelic College", it's clear from the video that "Cape Breton" is just a geographic description, not part of the name. Thus I'll move the article to The Gaelic College. Huon (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  College name