Talk:Alexander Cameron (priest)

Neutrality concerns and off-topic material
Among other concerns with this and other related articles, discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland, this article appears to discuss the subject in an adulatory fashion and to use some questionable characterisations. For example, the term "the Whig-single party state" is employed a couple of times. What is the basis for this shrill-sounding term? As I understand it, the parliament of the day had Whigs, Tories, independents and Whigs that were in opposition to the government. How does that square? That Cameron's uncle "commanded one of the Independent Highland Companies in the service of the Whig-single party state in the 1745 rising" is followed by "only to become important to Scottish Gaelic literature after it ended" seems to be framed as if that is somehow contradictory. What is being advanced there? Government-supporting Gaels were, by defintion, traitors to their language and culture? I'm not sure how it sits with policy but the repeated terming of the subject as Fr. Cameron, likewise other priests as Fr., Monsignor or Bishop Foo has an effect on the neutrality of the tone. These are just some examples. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It does say, though, in the article about the Whig political party that following the ascension of George I, the Whigs purged all non-Whigs from government, the Established Church, the legal profession, etc. Tory, btw, derived from an Irish language word for one, like Rob Roy MacGregor, who made a living through cattle raiding. By calling anyone who disagreed with them Tories, the Whig elite were effectively saying, to paraphrase Cersei Lannister, "Anyone who isn't one of us is an outlaw." The Wikipedia article on the Whigs also adds they governed Britain as a single party state and that only after he took the throne in 1763 did George III allow Tories back into the government, but that the British Empire between 1714 and 1783 is now often referred to by historians as "The Age of the Whig Oligarchy".
 * Regarding whether Gaels who sided with the Georges against the Stuarts were traitors to their culture is not for me to judge, but Alasdair Mac Mhaighstir Alasdair certainly thought they were. In fact, Alasdair definitely thought that way about anyone in the British Empire, Celt or Saxon, Protestant, Dissenter, or Catholic, who took that stance. But he did not see them as traitors to their culture, but to what he saw as their lawful King.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead of Whigs (British political party) gives the more nuanced "Great Britain approximated a one-party state under the Whigs until..." (my emphasis), the body of the article showing that the situtation was more nuanced still than this characterisation, moot even. A one party state and an oligarchy are different things; each can be one, without the other. Also, Wikipedia as not a RS.
 * It is not for you to judge but, per your wording, you do. It is not for us to state, unattributed, AMMA's judgement either. That he may have thought those in the service of the government were traitors to their king (no capital, incidentally), is neither here nor there in regard to the issue of their culture. You directly contradict yourself on the latter matter: "certainly thought they were"/"did not see them as traitors to their culture" Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll also note with a tag the concerns with the bloating of the article with much material that is not directly pertinent. I removed some of the most obviously off-topic sections but there is still much, more dispersed throughout the article that detracts from its focus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just clocked that the article is overwhelmingly sourced to a single work (Thomas Wynne (2011), The Forgotten Cameron of the '45: The Life and Times of Alexander Cameron S.J, Print Smith, Fort William, Scotland) and this is self-published. That surely throws the reliability of the article in grave doubt. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the wider discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland about matters affecting a number of articles and particularly sections most most particular to this article, significant editing is still being made, some of it of peripheral significance at best and not in any significant way directed towards the major issue, flagged above, that the majority of the article is unreliably sourced, to a self-published work. It would seem reasonable to assume, particularly after a wait of a week, that the editor responsible for this has no intention whatsoever of adequately addressing the issue. No other editor could, or could reasonably be expected to put in the mass of work to sift any wheat from the considerable chaff, so reversion to the last good edit is thus the only plausible way. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't engage on the matter, you do nothing to remove the swathes of inappropriately sourced material and when someone else does, after having the patience to give you a week, you dump it all back, wholesale? If you want to do the wheat-from-the-chaff thing, leaving the chaff where it is and scattering a bit more wheat is not an adequate way of going about it. Get cutting, profusely and pronto or taking it back to the version prior to your undermining intervention is by far the most direct and beneficial course. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, continued wheat sprinkling, no chaff removal, no engagement and, thus having made no effort to address the tags, the absolute front to blank them, again, without even noting the deed in an edit summary. This is actively disruptive and not indicative of good faith. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality/independent source concerns
When there is a freely accessible special academic issue about The Lyon in Mourning and its influence, it is superior to cite that rather than just quote Jacobite atrocity propaganda from a primary source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd wondered about this source, used almost as heavily as the self-pub Wynne one and increasingly relied upon in K1ngstowngalway1's campaign. The article is thus almost wholly reliant on dubious, one-sided or primary sources. Indeed, we should be looking to modern, neutral, academic thought's perspective.
 * The dumping of every peripheral detail, tangentially related to the subject lays it on jarringly thick and actively diminishes from the camapaigning case that seems to be being advanced. Lengthy, rambling, often barely-related quotes, a swollen "see also" section and inclusion in an excess of categories adds to the bloat and diminishes the credibility. The article is unfit in its current state. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Other sources:
 * https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/inr.2011.0006?journalCode=inr
 * https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/inr.1994.45.1.29?journalCode=inr
 * https://brill.com/view/journals/jjs/7/1/article-p103_103.xml (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a hagiography. Noting the campaign for canonisation may be appropriate but if framed and sourced neutrally, not in these (understandably, given the source) highly partial terms, from a primary source, Facebook, for goodness sake. The long quote is particularly inappropriate. Please reinstate its removal, unless and until you gain consensus otherwise. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)