Talk:Ó Comáin#May 2025

It is stated that there is no connection between the Irish and Scottish families with the same name. The references for this assertion are both books that are about Irish surnames, not Scottish ones. Do they actually state that there is no connection between the two families, or is this synthesis - "one family is Scots, one is Irish, these books prove one is Irish, therefore there is no connection..."? There are a further eight listed at the end of this section, to back up the sentence {{tpq|The similarities are coincidental and reflect shared Gaelic linguistic heritage.}} - do any of the eight references actually back this up? Could a quote be supplied? (On that note, the quote parameter is for... well, quotes. Not an editor's explanation of what the text says.) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:Hey @Bastun thanks thanks for raising these points, and I’d like to clarify the sources and reasoning behind the statement.

:# On the lack of connection between Irish and Scottish families: The references used (e.g., MacLysaght’s The Surnames of Ireland and Woulfe’s Sloinnte Gaedheal is Gall) establish the Irish origin of "Ó Comáin" and do not trace it to any Scottish lineage. Similarly, references like Barrow’s Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland describe the Comyn family as having Norman origins. Together, these sources do not directly state, "there is no connection," but they strongly imply it by tracing the two names to distinct origins: one Gaelic and one Norman. If you feel this phrasing could be clearer, I’m open to reframing it to reflect the absence of evidence for a connection, rather than an outright negation, e.g., "No genealogical connection has been documented between the Irish Comyn (Ó Comáin) family and the Scottish Comyn family."

:# On the coincidental similarities: I acknowledge that the eight references listed do not explicitly state, "The similarities are coincidental and reflect shared Gaelic linguistic heritage." Instead, this synthesis comes from the etymological discussions in sources like MacLysaght, Woulfe, and Byrne’s Irish Kings and High-Kings, which trace the Irish name "Ó Comáin" to Gaelic roots (Commán meaning "companion" or "communion"). Meanwhile, the Scottish Comyn family is traced to Norman origins in Barrow and Douglas’s works. If a direct quote is necessary, I’m happy to revisit these sources to identify one that best supports the linguistic divergence.

:# Improving the references: I take your point about the "quote" parameter, and I’ll adjust it to ensure it contains actual quotes from the sources rather than summaries, however I note that you previously removes quotes from my citations, so just let me know. Additionally, I’ll review the references to ensure they are clearly tied to the points being made, avoiding any impression of overreach or unsupported synthesis.

:It’s important to clarify this misconception, as without doing so, readers might incorrectly assume a Scottish origin for the Irish Comyn (Ó Comáin) family. This confusion often arises due to the phonetic similarity of the names, but there is no evidence of Scottish presence or influence in the areas of Ireland associated with the Ó Comáin during the early medieval period. By addressing this directly, the article helps prevent such misinterpretations and maintains historical accuracy.

:Let me know if you have specific recommendations for how to better integrate these clarifications into the article. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::One more thought, the surname "Coman" is also found in Romania, sharing the same spelling, but this does not indicate any familial connection. Highlighting these distinctions ensures the article accurately represents the separate origins and histories of these names. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Fram}}, thanks for highlighting the copyright violation. I've added a request for WP:REVDEL of the infringing versions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:I’d like to address the removal of the "Early Bearers and Historical Records" section, and your marking it as a copyright violation. This content does not constitute a copyright violation under Wikipedia's policies or general copyright law. The list of names and dates comes from historical records and genealogical data, which are factual information and not subject to copyright. Wikipedia’s own guidelines clarify that factual information (such as names, dates, and public records) is not protected by copyright, as facts cannot be copyrighted.

:The purpose of this section is to provide root of the name evidence of the historical use and evolution of the name across various spellings and contexts. This directly supports the article’s exploration of the name "Commane" and its variants. Proper attribution has been provided in the citations to ensure transparency.

:If there are concerns about how the information is formatted or presented, I’m happy to discuss potential changes to improve clarity. However, removing the section altogether for alleged copyright infringement seems unwarranted. I’d like to work collaboratively to address any valid issues while preserving the value this section adds to the article.

:Thank you for considering this, and I’m happy to discuss further. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names of Ireland is copyrighted by the authors. The copyright page of the book [https://books.google.ie/books?id=HiNGEAAAQBAJ&printsec=copyright#v=onepage&q&f=false states] that all rights are reserved and "No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system... without the prior written permission of OUP..." I am not a lawyer, and I am not familiar with the UK's or US's variations on copyright law, but I do know that when I come across copyrighted material, I am supposed to request deletion; you should be aware of the [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use Terms of Use] all editors operate under. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::ok, I understand why it was deleted, all good - it's a shame we can't incorporate it as it really helped show for me the evolution of the name with real lives of people over the ages Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bastun Page number are cited. If you wish to review the 500 page source material (available in PDF) this is the order link :[https://www.proquest.com/openview/ecf84b952d6254937f0729227f8d364d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y [6]] I'm removing tags that cite this source. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Fram you've reverted all my changes again, we previously compromised in consensus for the name change to Ó Comáin, but I find your revert and comment troubling "this page is about Ó Comáin, the other names are just minor subtopics".

They are the same name - I appreciate this is a strange Irish concept from an English perspective.

For example other pages:

Ó Meachair Page name: Ó Meachair Lead: Ó Meachair or O'Meachair (anglicised as Mahar, Maher, Mahir, Marr, Meagar, Meagher, Meaher, O'Maher and O'Meagher) is a Gaelic Irish surname.

Ó Lóthcháin Page name: Ó Lóthcháin Lead: Ó Lóthcháin is a surname of Gaelic-Irish origin. It has various forms such as Ó'Lothcháin, úa Lothcháin, Ó'Leocáin, Ó'Leocháin and Ó'Lothcháin and has been Anglicised into many surnames. Examples include: O'Loughlan, Logan, Lohan, Lagan, Loghan, Loughan, Duck and Duke (among others).

Ó Laighin Page name: Ó Laighin Lead: Ó Laighin, Gaelic-Irish surname, anglicised as Lyons, Lane or Lyne.

Note the gaelic title and english lead first word: Ó Ceallaigh Page name: Ó Ceallaigh Lead: O'Kelly (Irish: Ó Ceallaigh [ˌoː ˈcal̪ˠəj]) is an Irish surname

I know you don't want me to "edit for SEO" but this page is orphaned and unfindable without the variations in the lead, therefore I'm asking considering the countless other examples, will you kindly agree to me putting the anglicised variations in the lead? Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Fram if you're concerned with the amount of variations we can just select a few like the Ó Lóthcháin example "Examples include: O'Loughlan, Logan, Lohan, Lagan, Loghan, Loughan, Duck and Duke (among others)." Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::The variations are still there, in the second paragraph of the lead, I even left the bolding in place even though this isn't normally done. Your change does nothing to being orphaned or not, no idea where you get that idea from. Fram (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Variations go in the lead if you look at other irish-gaelic surname pages, this is partly for obvious navigation reasons. This way, if you google search for a surname the Gaelic name wikipedia page comes up. Otherwise you need to google O Comain which people won't know to do.

:::I suggest we compromise and put some of the popular variations in the lead, and leave the rest in the infobox. I'll edit the page and you can let me know what you think. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::They are in the lead. This page has much more content than most such surname pages and is also a history page. The surnames already get enough emphasis as is. And when I google e.g. Commane surname, this page is the first result anyway. Fram (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm referring to the first sentence just like other Irish Gaelic name examples.

:::::The page was NOT ranking for any of the surnames in previous days but google index refreshes very fast for wikipedia, so when I put the names in the lead yesterday it almost instantly ranked as you've discovered.

:::::I see you've reverted my changes again, so google will likely tank the page again in coming days. How do we reach consenus? I'm always trying to be as considerate as possible to your needs. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's news to me... We don't edit pages to increase the Google rank of such or such search term we would like to promote for some reason. We don't put a whole list of other terms in front of the actual title of the article just to get those higher in Google ranks. The curent lead has a very, very short introduction about the actual page title before immediately listing a long string of bolded surnames. Please get your priorities straight. Fram (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I've already provided examples of other pages with this format (Irish Gaelic names), there are countless others, this shows it's a uniform format. It's not something I'm creating.

:::::::My motive is to ensure navigation to the page.

:::::::I will monitor the situation in the coming days but if the page does orphan again, and then you're still hard lining me here, then you're just being unfair and we have to get a neutral third person opinion. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::And none of these pages start of with the other names before even mentioning the page title, and many similar pages have the current format or don't mention the newer versions in the lead at all, e.g. Ó Siadhail, Ó Buadhaigh, Ó Brolaigh, Ó Deargáin. So no, it is not a uniform format at all. Fram (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes some do, providing link again, see Ó Ceallaigh Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::your example link Ó Deargáin does include in the lead first sentence which is google indexable: Ó Deargáin is a Gaelic-Irish surname, which was found in Leinster and Munster. It is now anglicised as "Dergan", "Dargan" or "Dorgan". Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Congrats, you've found one example of your "uniform format", in a case where the actual title isn't drowned out by a massive list of names but follows one name immediately. Fram (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::no, that's not what I mean by uniform, please see my original list of examples above I'm referring to variants being in the lead sentences (making the terms discoverable). There are plenty more examples. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::my last edit you reverted 8 names (with the rest in infobox) is not a massive list and is comparable to other example pages Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%93_Com%C3%A1in&diff=1275876257&oldid=1275703923 This] revert isn't an incremental edit "improving on Bastun's flow", it's a revert, plain and simple. Ó Comáin is an Irish surname; that's what the short description should say. We are not going to include footnotes, unreferenced, that contain assertions in BLOCK CAPITALS for EMPHASIS. Referring to references by number in a footnote is not done. Changing a direct quote to include CAPITALS isn't done. Munster and Connacht are both provinces, hence plural is correct. The title of the mooregroup.ie referenced page is not "According to historian Edel Bhreathnach, translated as the Fort of Commáin", it is simply "Cahercommaun Fort, Co. Clare". We do not bold names throughout an article. If "The surname is mentioned throughout the Irish annals", you will be able to tell me how many times. How often? Where, exactly? If it's just mentioned in the annals, just say that. A large portion of this article is off-topic for what is really just an article on an Irish surname, especially those elements dealing with the "chiefdom" and "capital" - a lot of this seems to be speculation. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:Fully reverting my changes is unacceptable. The reason I had to specify in the note is because you evidently have not read the citations with quoted page numbers, hence your undo is uncalled for, there are dozens of references in the Annals. When I get back to my computer I will go through your points and edit again. Fort has a clear citation. Obviously you're not reading citations. Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Bastun if you don't read the sources then obviously you're going to claim it's speculation. I will of course take your other points on board and make changes you've mentioned but please kindly read the page numbered citations.

:The article is not off topic, history and origins of the surname, which is the Chiefdom, is like other Irish gaelic surname pages, like Phelan or O'Dea

:# Short description edited: History and origins of this Irish surname > Irish surname

:# Removed hurley note as the citations if read are self-explanatory.

:# Further down the page there are half a dozen references to the name in various Annals just read the Chiefdom of Tulach Commáin section.

:# Tulach means Mound, Dwelling, Residence or Fort - depending on source - it's called [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/from-chiefdom-to-state-in-early-ireland/of-settlements-and-boundaries/62C06BF757C7D301C28C56B910E4571B a [Burial] Mound of Commán here (please read this source)] and the [http://www.mooregroup.ie/2010/02/cahercommaun-fort-co-clare/ moorgroup.ie page] says "translated as the fort of Commáin and the hill of Commáin"

:Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::I can read what the mooregroup.ie web page says. It does not have the title you keep re-inserting into the article! The title of the web page is not "According to historian Edel Bhreathnach, translated as the Fort of Commáin", it is simply "Cahercommaun Fort, Co. Clare"! Why are you inserting a footnote that reads {{tpq|also called Cahercommane and Cathair Chomáin, bear in mind that irish [sic] spellings and names are known by a multiplicity of names}}? Why are you bolding certain words throughout the body of the text? Why are you changing a caption to "View from Cahercommane, capital of the Chiefdom of Commane" - it isn't, the "capital of the Chiefdom of Commane" no longer exists. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::What title do I keep reinstating that you're saying is incorrect? Please don't rely solely on mooregroup.ie and check the other sources, the D. Gibson source refers to Cahercommaun/Cahercommane being the capital of the Chiefdom of Tulach Commáin "The Mound of Commán" which is a separate burial and chief inauguration site nearby. Clare library refers to Cahercammaun as Cahercommane here https://clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/archaeology/CL010-06403-.htm and https://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/places/the_burren/cahercommane.htm and as Cathair Chomáin: https://www.logainm.ie/en/104049

::: Kellycrak88 (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Seriously? You can review diffs as easily as I can. You've now twice changed the mooregroup reference's title attribute to read "title=According to historian Edel Bhreathnach, translated as the Fort of Commáin". The actual title of the url in question is simply "Cahercommaun Fort, Co. Clare". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::? See point 4 above: moorgroup.ie page says "translated as the fort of Commáin and the hill of Commáin" Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::What are you not getting?! The title attribute of the reference template is used to display the page title. It is not a quote attribute! WP:CIR. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We can remove the moorgroup citation if you want? It doesn't add more value than D. Gibson sources Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Bastun no further edits from me at the moment, thank you for your contributions to the article. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I plan to refresh the page and make it more comprehensive, similar to other Irish surname pages with associated clans, by adding information about Clan Ó Comáin. This clan has been recognised by Clans of Ireland, operating under the patronage of the President of Ireland and accredited by the United Nations to represent Irish clans. Its lineage, connected to the Chiefdom of Tulach Commáin, Cahercommane, and the early medieval kingdom of Déisi Munster, has been authenticated by Clans of Ireland. In 2013, Clans of Ireland and the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs signed a mutual agreement to recognise each other’s authority over clans. This update will complement the existing page on the surname’s origins and early medieval clan history. Please provide feedback or objections within the next 4 days. Sources include [https://www.ocomain.org/] and [https://www.clansofireland.ie/register-of-clans-2025/], among others, I will proceed with the update after this period unless objections are raised. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:My advice, if you do proceed, would be to go slowly, use accurate edit summaries, and absolutely excellent sourcing. ocomain.org is a primary source and its use should be avoided. Clans of Ireland is not an authority. It's a civil society organisation - basically a club - and its "UN accreditation" that it frequently mentions is as that, something it shares with thousands of other organisations. I'd actually like to see an independent reliable source for that claim, too - the only citations on Wikipedia are to various different clan pages, so there's an element of WP:CIRCULAR at play. I can't find a [https://esango.un.org/civilsociety/simpleSearch.do?method=search&searchTypeRedef=simpleSearch&searchType=simpleSearch&organizationNamee=Clans+of+Ireland UN listing] for it. I can find one for Atheist Ireland [https://esango.un.org/civilsociety/showProfileDetail.do?method=showProfileDetails&profileCode=685488], but their article doesn't bother mentioning their accreditation - which ultimately means nothing except the ability to participate in some conferences? It's not a special status, or anything. When did Clans of Ireland last participate in a UN conference? To what end?

:{{tpq|In 2013, Clans of Ireland and the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs signed a mutual agreement to recognise each other’s authority over clans.}} - what does that actually mean, in real terms? Is it in any way relevant to the Ó Comáin clan? A lot of this smacks - no offence intended - of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Council_of_Irish_Chiefs_and_Chieftains#Cessation_of_recognitions bolloxology] surrounding the 'chiefs of the name', and none of it has any official standing whatsoever - despite what any website might say. Ultimately, I think you may be better served with a Wordpress site. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Seriously, consider setting up your own website to discuss your family/"clan". Wikipedia isn't the place for it. You appear to have completely ignored all of my advice above, and proceeded to just lump all changes into one huge edit. While there is possibly some useful material in there that could be retained, you should not expect other editors to go through such a huge addition, line by line. Please read the advice given, and if you are going to proceed to edit this article, heed it. Drop all the appeals to authority: who the patron of Clans of Ireland is, is irrelevant. It is not a "UN-accredited" body as most people would understand it; it got recognition to attend a couple of conferences (how many? when?) and none of the citations provided actually back that up. Again - if you wish to persist - go slowly, use accurate edit summaries, and absolutely excellent sourcing. But a wordpress site is probably a better option. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Bastun, I took on board your guidance to "go slowly, use accurate edit summaries, and absolutely excellent sourcing" in my recent update, ensuring the content was carefully sourced and appropriately framed within Wikipedia’s guidelines. However, I was quite surprised to see a full revert without further discussion, but then again reviewing your comments above you have a clear bias against Irish clans and the Clans of Ireland organisation, rather than an objective review of the proposed content.

::You are violating:

::# Assume Good Faith (WP:AGF) – Your tone and dismissive language, including terms like "bolloxology" and your suggestion to use a Wordpress site instead of Wikipedia.

::# Verifiability and Reliable Sources (WP:V, WP:RS)

::# Ownership of Content (WP:OWN) – No single editor has the right to unilaterally dismiss the inclusion of well-sourced, relevant cultural history. Your suggestion that Irish clans should not be represented on Wikipedia reflects a personal bias that is not supported by Wikipedia’s editorial standards.

::# Relevance and Notability (WP:NOTWEBHOST) – The inclusion of a recognised clan with a historically documented lineage is entirely appropriate for a surname page.

::# Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) – Your reply clearly reflects a negative bias towards Gaelic cultural organisations, which should not influence your editorial judgement. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal opinions or dismissive commentary, and this approach undermines the neutrality required in Wikipedia articles.

::I do hope I don't have to refer this matter to administrators board but I will await your final response before doing so. Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Scottish clans are well-represented on Wikipedia, even having their own dedicated WikiProject. Given this, the mutual recognition agreement between the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs and Clans of Ireland is clearly relevant and appropriate for inclusion. It’s not acceptable to shut down the recognition of Irish clans on Wikipedia due to personal bias. Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::#You did not take on board my advice to "go slowly, use accurate edit summaries, and absolutely excellent sourcing." Rather, you introduced massive changes in one edit of over 6k, without addressing any of the points I made in my post of 18 May. You completely ignored it, in fact (and then accused me of not using the talk page!)

:::#My "bolloxology" comment clearly refers to the shenanigans surrounding the Standing_Council_of_Irish_Chiefs_and_Chieftains#Cessation_of_recognitions issues.

:::#You appear to be breaching WP:AGF as you're just accusing me of "violating" WP:V and WP:RS without actually stating how I am doing so. I pointed out to you that ocomain.org is a primary source; and that independent sources were needed for some of the claims you wanted to insert. I also have valid questions about the appropriateness of some of the content you introduced, and its 'appeal to authority' phrasing.

:::#Your inclusion was not well-sourced. For the reasons why, read my earlier contribution. I would add that throwing in a reference to an obscure and specialist 200-page book without including a page number or context is not really acceptable; and that much of what you did include is either completely unreferenced, and/or just speculation. Can "Suibne mac Commáin" who begets "Congal mac Suibne" really be said to be a member of "clan Commáin", if surnames are changing with each generation?

:::#I have never suggested that Irish clans should not be represented on Wikipedia?

:::#This article is about the Irish surname. You now appear to be trying to make it into an article about a clan (and you must be aware that "recognition" of clans is extremely dubious!) There may well be interesting, relevant information on the clan that could be included - so introduce it. Slowly, with proper edit summaries, and excellent sourcing.

:::#{{tpq|Your reply clearly reflects a negative bias towards Gaelic cultural organisations}} is a personal attack, entirely without foundation.

:::#An agreement between two clubs to recognise each other's decisions about what is and isn't a clan, and who is the head of that clan, is entirely irrelevant to the Ó Comáin article.

:::#I am happy for you to open a case at WP:AN/I (but beware WP:BOOMERANG!) Alternatively - continue to use the talk page, as you have belatedly begun to do. Perhaps seek advice from your mentor, {{u|Asilvering}}. You have already been advised to use draft pages for new articles; I would suggest a similar approach here, and use the talk page before editing, listing the change you want to make, and the sources. (Also, it would be helpful if you could use the proper {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} templates. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::#:@Bastun: Let's be clear. I created the page originally as a surname origin page with a focus on the medieval chiefdom that forms its root. Adding the recognised modern revived Clan is a natural evolution of the page, especially with the additional secondary sources I've included, and I clearly posted my intentions here a week ago. I took on board your comments and refreshed the entire page with today's edit, which was exceptionally well-sourced. So let's clarify a few points:

:::#:# Edit Size and Structure – You’ve now shifted your criticism to the size of the edit, but this was not your primary concern in your original response. I did, in fact, very carefully source my additions, including page numbers, and your initial full revert suggests a broader objection to the inclusion of Irish clan material, rather than a genuine issue with edit structure. If the size is the real concern, I will break it into a series of smaller, more focused updates, but I hope this is not being used as a pretext to block the inclusion of legitimate historical content.

:::#:# Primary vs. Secondary Sources (WP:RS) – You noted that I used a primary source, ocomain.org, but it was only referenced a couple of times – for example, for the crest and coat of arms (which is standard for Scottish Clan pages). The page relies on secondary sources, including published historical works and recognised academic material. Simply dismissing these as "speculation" without addressing the specific sources is not a fair assessment. If you have specific concerns about individual sources, I’m happy to address them, but a blanket rejection is not constructive.

:::#:# Recognition of Clans and Historical Lineage – You’ve now attempted to dismiss the mutual recognition between Clans of Ireland and the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs as merely "an agreement between two clubs." However, this is an extremely notable development in the context of clan history, and dismissing it as irrelevant seems inconsistent with Wikipedia’s approach to cultural topics. This agreement is featured on other Wikipedia pages, and it is very relevant here.

:::#:# Personal Bias and Assumptions (WP:NPOV) – You have repeatedly suggested that the entire concept of clan recognition is "extremely dubious," which appears to reflect a personal bias against the inclusion of Irish clan history. I would urge you to reconsider this position, as it risks undermining the neutrality required for effective Wikipedia editing.

:::#:# Personal Attack Allegation (WP:NPA) – You’ve interpreted my reference to your bias as a personal attack, which was not the case. I am simply highlighting that your comments appear to reflect a broader scepticism towards Irish clans, which is relevant when evaluating the neutrality of your approach.

:::#:Comments

:::#:- Patronage of the President of Ireland is a verifiable fact and is mentioned alongside Clans of Ireland in all literature, including associated pages on Wikipedia. This is not being removed.

:::#:- UN accreditation, while this is also featured on every other Clans of Ireland Wikipedia page mention, I will agree to remove it for now until further secondary sources are available.

:::#:- Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs mutual recognition agreement. This is highly relevant and factual, not being removed.

:::#:- Here is the screen capture from the Dessi Genealogies showing the succession of Kings, with spellings compared side-by-side from three manuscript sources.

:::#:- You also removed the Gaelic type, which is standard on several Irish surname pages, for example. I will be adding this back with the appropriate caption.

:::#:- I plan to build out further Irish clan pages in the same vein of the Scottish Clan project (so in other words Scottish Clan pages are the template - so with coat of arms, crest, chief, motto, etc). I understand you may be against this, but this is a perfectly valid and proven approach, and I will defend this position against any personal bias. Recognition and credibility of clans is extremely relevant, hence Clans of Ireland exist and they're doing good work, all volunteers.

:::#:Next Steps

:::#:To move this discussion forward, I am prepared to:

:::#:* Break the edit into a series of smaller, targeted updates.

:::#:* Include more precise page references and page screenshots where appropriate.

:::#:However, I would appreciate a reciprocal commitment to engage with my edits in good faith, without dismissing legitimate sources or attempting to categorically exclude Irish clan material. If we cannot reach an understanding, I may have to escalate this to the appropriate noticeboards for broader community input. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::#::Regarding your question about the use of "mac" names like Suibne mac Commáin and Congal mac Suibne, it’s important to remember that Gaelic surnames evolved over centuries. Early Irish naming conventions were typically patronymic, meaning they identified individuals by their father’s name rather than a fixed surname. This was common across early medieval Gaelic society and doesn’t invalidate a clan.

:::#::The modern Clan Ó Comáin is a revived clan based on this ancient lineage, tracing its roots to a pre-surname period when names reflected direct descent from prominent ancestors. This practice is well-documented in early Irish annals, and the transition from these early patronymic names to more fixed hereditary surnames began around the 10th to 12th centuries.

:::#::So, while individual names may have varied over generations, the kin-group (or clan) connection remained constant, eventually forming the basis of the Ó Comáin surname.

:::#::Hope this helps clarify. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::#:::@Bastun I am not required to do this by Wikipedia policy, but here are some secondary sources from Gibson and Cotter with highlighted for your perusal: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gibson_-_Tulach_Commain_A_View_of_an_Irish_Chiefdom_-_page_355.png#%7B%7Bint%3Afiledesc%7D%7D][https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Claire_Cotter_-_Discovery_Program_Reports,_page_90.png#%7B%7Bint%3Alicense-header%7D%7D][https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Claire_Cotter_-_Discovery_Program_Reports,_page_83.png#%7B%7Bint%3Alicense-header%7D%7D][https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gibson_-_Tulach_Commain_A_View_of_an_Irish_Chiefdom_-_page_370.png#%7B%7Bint%3Alicense-header%7D%7D][https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Claire_Cotter_-_Discovery_Program_Reports,_page_87.png#%7B%7Bint%3Alicense-header%7D%7D][https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gibson_-_Tulach_Commain_A_View_of_an_Irish_Chiefdom_-_page_370.png#%7B%7Bint%3Alicense-header%7D%7D][https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Claire_Cotter_-_Discovery_Program_Reports,_page_83.png#%7B%7Bint%3Alicense-header%7D%7D] Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Was not my very first sentence to you to go slowly, use edit summaries (plural!) and use excellent sourcing? You didn't reply to that, and instead made a 6kb addition to the page! Michael D Higgins is the patron of Clans of Ireland, yes. This is not in dispute. It is a relevant fact for the Clans of Ireland article. It is not relevant for this page, though. The wording you used - {{tpq|This recognition was granted under the patronage of the President of Ireland}} - seems to imply, or be trying to imply, that Higgins somehow authorised or certified the recognition, which of course is not the case. {{u|Guliolopez}} discussed the similar use of language on Talk:Clans of Ireland with you just the other week. And as {{u|SeoR}} mentioned on that page: {{tpq|I can tell you with some authority from my own education and legal knowledge that this body is not an "authority" in either major relevant meaning of that word, and appears to have no formal authority over any of the topics noted, nor any statutory relationship with the governing authorities of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland or the UK, and no, there is no formal promise of a role for the Office of President... This voluntary organisation wishes to "revive" the concept of the old clans - but we must understand that this is a private initiative, with no mandate from State or general population.}} SeoR is absolutely correct! On that page, you yourself recognise the "scandal" (your word, I used "bolloxolgy"!) around the recognition of clans. The Scottish organisation and Clans of Ireland mutual recognition of their respective "authority" is absolutely irrelevant for this article - you yourself were at pains to point out on this very talk page that the Scottish Comyn family and the Irish one are not related, so what possible reason is there for inclusion?

::::I have no idea what the screen capture is supposed to be showing; it's a list of names from three sources, yes, but they're not the same names. (The copyright attribution, claiming that the image is copyright-free is also incorrect. You've stated it's copyright-free as it was published before 1930. It is a 1937 Irish publication, though, and Pender only died in 1990, so unless you can prove otherwise, it's very much still in copyright.)

::::I removed the Gaelic type because it's irrelevant to an article on a surname. Why use a script that was in use from the 16th to the mid-20th century, when the clan has existed for centuries prior to its use, and decades after it has fallen out of use? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is absolutely relevant to the page, as it clearly establishes the credibility of the recognition and context for the modern revival of the clan. I am willing to refine the phrasing if needed, but I will not omit significant facts that provide proper historical context, such as affirming the clan's status within the broader Gaelic tradition i.e. also in Scotland.

:::::As for the screen capture, it’s exactly what you asked for "obscure and specialist 200-page book" the succession of Kings from the medieval Dessi genealogies. They are the same name, they're just spelt differently across comparative manuscripts the Book of Lecan, Rawlinson B 502, and the Book of Leinster reflects the normal evolution of Gaelic orthography over centuries, not a discrepancy. This is standard in medieval Irish genealogy, where names often have multiple historical spellings depending on the manuscript and regional usage.

:::::On the Gaelic type, this is a cultural and historical detail that aligns with the presentation of other Irish surname pages. Removing it simply because it fell out of modern use ignores its importance in the historical record and the broader cultural context, which is precisely what this page aims to capture.

:::::Let’s focus on improving the page, rather than cherry-picking details to dismiss the legitimacy of the modern clan. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's not what I'm trying to do. But inserting material along the lines of "This particular organisation which has the President of Ireland as its patron declared the Ó Comáin clan to be a clan, and this organisation's authority is recognised by a similar Scottish body" entirely undermines your argument. It's very much a case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, exactly as pointed out to you on the Clans of Ireland page. The surname exists, the family exists. That's not in dispute. In the meantime, I would suggest you delete the copyrighted material that you have uploaded to Commons. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Regarding your concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, the inclusion of the Presidential Patronage line is a factual statement, not a synthesis. It is directly relevant to the credibility and standing of Clans of Ireland as a national organisation. This is not an attempt to imply state endorsement, but simply to provide the appropriate context for the modern recognition of the clan. The fact that the President of Ireland is the patron is not original research – it is a widely recognised fact, and the same language is used in all official literature related to Clans of Ireland without issue.

:::::::On the mutual recognition with the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, this is a significant cultural context that directly relates to the broader Gaelic tradition, which spans both Ireland and Scotland. This is not a synthesis but a straightforward historical connection, and excluding it would be a material omission. Mutual recognition between these organisations is a documented reality and has clear relevance to the historical context of the clan.

:::::::Regarding the screenshot shares, I assume you have reviewed the secondary source links above? I can’t make it any clearer – the highlighted passages directly match the pages cited, and these are respected academic sources. I will continue to refine the page, but I won’t be removing critical historical context that is directly relevant to the topic. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Since I was tagged into this convo I've had a look at the article and did tag two of the three images. @Kellycrak88, I'm not sure why you uploaded these with a public domain release, but that's definitely the wrong license for the map and probably for the photo - that's only for if you are the person who created the work and you wish for it to enter the public domain. Re: messy diffs, that big 6kb change is really hard to read. If you're going to be rearranging paragraphs or headings it's best to do that as its own edit so the diff doesn't come out as total chaos. -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::hi @Asilvering on reflection, I agree that I should have created a new draft edit to make the updates more manageable for other editors, especially given the structural changes needed to streamline the page. The article now includes additional historical context from Clair Cotter [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Claire_Cotter_-_Discovery_Program_Reports,_page_87.png#%7B%7Bint%3Alicense-header%7D%7D][https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Claire_Cotter_-_Discovery_Program_Reports,_page_90.png#%7B%7Bint%3Alicense-header%7D%7D][https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Claire_Cotter_-_Discovery_Program_Reports,_page_83.png#%7B%7Bint%3Alicense-header%7D%7D] and other secondary sources, which can now be reviewed before moving on to modern clan edits. I’m intentionally breaking this into smaller, issue-by-issue updates to avoid overwhelm I recognise that attempting everything in a single large edit made the changes harder to follow, and I’ll adjust my approach going forward. Regarding the images, I see there may have been a misunderstanding. I’ll review these and follow up separately for guidance, as I want to ensure everything is correctly attributed and in line with policy. Thanks for your guidance. Kellycrak88 (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od|8}}And yet, your very next edit to the page was a 1.5k one, which again moved paragraphs around and edited many different sections of the article. Please don't do this! To repeat myself, the wording you want to introduce about the President of Ireland and a Scottish equivalent to Clans of Ireland is entirely irrelevant to an article about an Irish surname and family. There is literally no need to introduce an appeal to authority to the text. "The clan was formally recognised in 2025 by Clans of Ireland.[ref]" is entirely sufficient. Clans of Ireland is linked - anyone bothered can click on the link! There is no need to embellish the sentence by mentioning the UN or Higgins. (And references go after punctuation, not in middle of sentences.) Lastly, for now - the images you uploaded to Commons are copyright infringements. You should be deleting them, not posting links to them here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:No @Bastun, as I've stated above, WP:NPOV requires a balanced presentation of facts. However, I agree that it’s best to handle this issue-by-issue, so we can get to the modern clan edits later. First, I'm focusing on the historical context with a refreshed, streamlined page and new secondary sources, which you have fully reverted without review. As kindly suggested by @Asilvering I’ve moved this content to a separate draft Draft:OComainDraft so @Bastun (and other editors), please kindly focus your efforts here. Feel free to review this draft before it is implemented on the live page. If you need access to the original sources, I can provide PDFs or help with wider context. Regarding the images, licensing caption states: "Permission is being sought from the Royal Irish Academy. This file will be updated with the appropriate license once authorisation is received." I’ll follow up separately with @Asilvering for guidance, as I have some additional questions regarding images. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ok, if you are insisting that you must mention the President and/or a Scottish clan society in the context of this article, then we are now clearly into WP:IDHT territory. You've already been advised by me as to why this isn't appropriate, and likewise, {{u|Guliolopez}} advised you of exactly that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kellycrak88#Higgins_as_patron_to_charities/etc recently], on your own talk page. I don't see what you're not getting about not uploading copyrighted material. You can't do it while "awaiting permission". You can't do it, full stop. WP:CIR. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Bastun, I’m happy to focus on the draft as suggested, and once that’s signed off, I’m prepared to address the remaining points, including the modern clan edits. I’ve noted your concerns on the images, and I’ll handle this separately with Asilvering to ensure everything is correctly attributed and in line with policy. Also, regarding my personal talk page, I’ve replied to Guliolopez (who you pinged) so let’s keep this thread focused on the draft for now. Thanks for your input. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Kellycrak, are you using an LLM to write comments here? Maybe I'm wrong, but these two [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:%C3%93_Com%C3%A1in&diff=prev&oldid=1291041404] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:%C3%93_Com%C3%A1in&diff=prev&oldid=1291067541] in particular have all the hallmarks. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::nope, I am human Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@REAL MOUSE IRL, I think you're mistaking "uses bullet points" for an LLM tell when it's really more of an LLM warning. The actual text of Kellycrak's comments is quite unlike LLM output, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I also mean stuff like the extraneous "Comments", "Next Steps" headers, and the Random Bolded Summary (WP:XYZ) — at the start of each bullet point, but whatever. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi @Bastun it's been about a week, are we good for signing off Draft:OComainDraft for this series of edits? Images are fixed on the page. Any other points I can help with? Thanks in advance. Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't know what you're expecting of me. I don't have the authority to replace an article with a draft article. Nor do you. That's not how Wikipedia works. Creation of WP:POVFORKs is, in fact, against policy. For better or worse, we have a reasonable article here already. You've written a completely separate article that repeats some of the information already here, adds lots of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, redlinks and speculation, ignores the WP:MOS, and adds more that would not be acceptable in an article on a name or family, for reasons already explained by {{u|Guliolopez}} and I. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The draft includes new sources and reflects the need to update and streamline the original. You’re very welcome to make edits to the draft—I’d appreciate it. Please do highlight the specific parts you believe are against policy, so we can work through them together and move towards consensus. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Once again - no. That is not how Wikipedia works. WP:IDHT? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Bastun hmm. I’m not trying to override process—just aiming to improve the article through collaboration. The draft was created in good faith, based on a suggestion from @Asilvering, to separate the rewrite (with new sources) for clearer review. If there are specific policy concerns within the draft, I’m more than willing to address them one by one. My goal here is consensus, not conflict. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Maybe this will be easier if it's done a step at a time. I see the draft has an "Etymology and Variants" section, which the current article doesn't have at all. Are there objections to moving that part into the main article, @Bastun, @Guliolopez? -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::If only someone had suggested "going slowly, using accurate edit summaries, and absolutely excellent sourcing"? I'm sorry, {{u|Asilvering}}, enough is enough. {{u|Kellycrak88}} is attempting a WP:POVFORK (with an admittedly unusual method, "replace this article with my draft one.") Despite everything in this talk page section and elsewhere on the whole "appeal to authority" nature of their Scottish clan club and Irish president, their draft text still has the WP:UNDUE text present. That, the unencyclopedic content, the way the MOS has been ignored (Camel Case section titles, for instance), the introduction of multiple redlinks; sorry, no. If I came across that page while doing new page patrolling, I'd have no hesitation in moving it to Draft space. I'm not about to start hopping back and forth between draft and live versions see if each individual section/proposal passes muster, especially when there's no evidence of good faith on Kellycrak88's part, as they're still including the text that they've been told by at least two people is problematic; and they're still linking to uploaded images that breach copyright, when they've already been informed of that (not that they were unaware anyway!) Kellycrak can edit like the rest of us, respecting policy and copright, or not at all; and we should stop pandering to him. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Bastun I’m going to be direct here. Your ongoing opposition to the inclusion of Irish clans—despite reliable sources, clear precedent, and neutral wording—makes it clear you are no longer engaging from a neutral point of view.

:::::::::::You’ve previously stated that this content would be better on Wordpress site than Wikipedia. That’s not policy—it’s personal bias. Your blanket opposition to the recognition of recognised Irish clans, while pages on Scottish clans are treated as standard, shows a clear editorial double standard. That’s not aligned with WP:NPOV, and it’s actively blocking good-faith contributions.

:::::::::::To clarify:

:::::::::::* The image currently in the draft was not uploaded by me. It was uploaded by another user, and there are no image licensing issues on the page as it stands.

:::::::::::* The wording regarding the President of Ireland is not problematic—it's factual and neutral. Similar phrasing exists on other pages, including Clans of Ireland that those two individuals you mention agreed to in consensus. The original wording on Clans of Ireland yes there were Talk page discussions there but consensus was agreed.

:::::::::::* The redlinked historical figures are well-attested, and I can create articles for them if that's an issue.

:::::::::::Crucially, this draft introduces two NEW secondary sources that required the article to be rethought:

:::::::::::# A restructured history section based on findings by archaeologist Clare Cotter (screenshot images you have seen), which required a clearer refresh of the history section.

:::::::::::# The inclusion of modern clan recognition—in the same format and tone accepted for Scottish clans plages.

:::::::::::I understand you hold strong views about how Irish clans should be presented. At this point, I believe your continued involvement in blocking this material is no longer constructive. I suggest it's best we agree to disagree, and that you step back and allow neutral editors—those without prior animosity or assumptions of bad faith—to assess and contribute to the draft. You've openly states there is "no evidence of good faith" on my part, which makes impartial collaboration impossible.

:::::::::::If specific lines are a concern, I'm happy to address them one by one. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Ok, that one does really sound like AI. I'll give you this one, @REAL MOUSE IRL. -- asilvering (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::hmm, just reread it—I see quite a few typos. It's me writing, not AI. Bastun’s blockade is frustrating, but I’m here to work constructively and get the article to a version that works for everyone. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I really don't see what you're not getting here. The wording about the president is indeed factual and relatively neutral - I never said it wasn't! What I am saying, and what you totally fail to grasp, is it's entirely irrelevant to this page. So what if Higgins is patron of the Clans of Ireland! It doesn't matter! Higgins had no hand, act nor part in CofI "recognising" the Ó Comáin clan, and so shouldn't be mentioned. Likewise, the fact that an equivalent Scottish club recognised CofI and vice versa is also entirely irrelevant to this article, which is about an Irish clan, with no relationship with the Scottish clan of the same name! Your argument that mention of the President and the mutual recognition must be included because they're factual is irrelevant. Likewise, that they somehow add weight or authority or... something to the clan's existence. They don't. There is nothing to stop you adding other additional, relevant referenced content to the article, once it follows guideline, such as WP:DUE, and is referenced. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Thanks, @Bastun. We're focusing issue-by-issue, and at the moment that means finalising the History section.

:::::::::::::::Just to note for others following—those redlinks are now bluelinks. Draft pages started.

:::::::::::::::Further thoughts on the article overall (content, structure, sourcing, tone) are welcome. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Just drop it. The first thing I looked at, because of your revent copyvio images, was the images in the draft. "the beautifully rugged landscape of the Burren"? I thought WP:NPOV had been thoroughly explained to you by now?

::::::::::::::::Then, the very first words: "Clan Commane"? I see that your claims that you had dropped the promotion of Commane were false. Fram (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Thank you for the feedback, Fram. Focusing on issues one-by-one is exactly what I’ve been asking for.

:::::::::::::::::Can delete the phrase “the beautifully rugged landscape" no problem removing it—I'll delete it from the draft.

:::::::::::::::::Regarding the name—all Irish clans have a name in English and Irish, and this being a recognised Irish clan, it's one of the core updates to the page. The material is based on secondary sources, not the clan’s own site (https://www.ocomain.org is not cited or used in the article). The recognition comes via Clans of Ireland, with support from new scholarly sources I read (including from Cotter and others).

:::::::::::::::::This isn’t about promotion, I'm just trying to improve and streamline an underdeveloped page. Once I completed, I plan to build out an Irish clans project in similar vain to Scottish clans project. If you believe the draft breaches policy, I ask that you specify where and let's work on it—because broad calls to abandon the work without addressing the substance don’t meet the standards of collaborative editing.

:::::::::::::::::I’m happy to continue addressing specific concerns as they’re raised. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Okay, my specific concern is drop it. Move away from this article and all related ones. You are not to be trusted to edit these in any reliable, neutral, way. Fram (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Attacking my credibility is completely unacceptable. I am a neutral editor, and I’ve contributed in good faith. But you do have a documented history of attacking me and others. I ask that you keep future comments focused on content, not personal attacks. If this continues, I will raise it at ANI or open an RFC for full review, as this is not the first time I—or others—have experienced hostile behaviour from you, and I believe it’s time for a full and transparent examination of that pattern. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::Feel free to raise this at ANI. Just beware of the WP:BOOMERANG that may await you, after Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166#User:Kellycrak88. Fram (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::Yes, I recall you reported me to administrator board and after thorough investigation no formal action was taken against me. I was a new editor, and since then, I have committed to raising my standards as an editor and learning due process.

:::::::::::::::::::::What I’ve noticed is that you haven’t let that go. Nearly every interaction since then has been marked by hostility rather than collaboration. That’s not how Wikipedia is meant to function. I’m here to improve content based on sources and policy, not to be targeted repeatedly. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::Since then, you have uploaded copyvio images, created drafts with completely incorrect sources, continued POV editing, make claims of non-existent consensus, and so on. What you too rarely do is "improve content based on sources and policy" though. Fram (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::Between this discussion and {{seclink|Talk:Clans of Ireland#Lead claims / Failed verification / SYNTH}} I see 4 editors bringing up the same issues of bad sourcing, SYNTH, promotional editing, POV pushing etc. for the last 3 weeks continuously. This isn't harassment, it's patience wearing thin.

::::::::::::::::::::::Your responses here have been walls of stubborn waffle, admitting no fault, casting aspersions of "bias" and "hostility", all while pleaing to "collaborate" in making the exact article you want. There is no consensus in favour of these bollocks clans to be found, there are no "neutral" uninvolved editors who will see this as anything other than WP:IDHT. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::“Bollocks clans” isn’t compatible with WP:NPOV or WP:CIVIL. I admitted mistakes with the images and they're deleted (or in process) happy to email sources to editors form now on. I'm genuinely trying to get this right and I welcome your input if you're open to that. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::Good grief! Why are you {{tpq|happy to email sources to editors from now on.}} That's still a breach of copyright and you should not be doing it! And mailing sources to individual editors is not how Wikipedia works - you either know this and are wilfully ignoring it; or... well, WP:CIR, and you're not demonstrating it! Someone recently suggested a ban on editing article space might be in order. If you continue to wilfully ignore policy and the law and continue on in an WP:IDHT manner, then that may be our only option! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::@Bastun it was actually an admin suggestion that I email or share PDFs privately if editors wanted to verify page numbers or context that couldn’t be directly uploaded for copyright reasons. That’s not promoting copyright breach!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::Wikipedia does not require source links. Per WP:V an ISBN and page number is sufficient. But as we all know, that's difficult for other editrs to cross reference—so I’ve tried to accommodate you in good faith.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::I’ve gone out of my way to de-escalate and collaborate, despite ongoing personal remarks like these. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::"Those redlinks are now bluelinks"? They are draft pages, shouldn't be linked to if this draft goes to mainspace, and the most recent one is sourced to Wikipedia (Draft:Echthighern Ua hEaghráin), the second one is unsourced (Draft:Commán mac ua Theimhne). Next one? Draft:Ferchess mac Commán is supposedly sourced to AI841.1 of the "Annals of Inisfallen", despite that entry reading in full "Bissextile. Kl. Death of Domnall son of Cathal, king of Uí Echach." That no sources seem to call him Ferchess mac Commán comes as no surprise. The Inisfallen sources seem to pose problems quite regularly, in Draft:Célechair mac Commáin as well the claim is made that "The Annals of Inisfallen (AI705.1) state: "Bellum Corco Mruad, in quo cecidit Célechair mac Commáin." (“The battle of Corco Mruad, in which Célechair son of Commán fell.”)" The actual Annals say "AI705.1 Kl. Flann Fína son of Oswy, king of the Saxons, rested."

::::::::::::::::Basically, every single thing you post needs to be doublechecked as much of it is just wrong. Fram (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I said I STARTED those draft subpages—they’re not finished yet, and of course they won’t be linked by any mainsppace main article until they’re ready. They’re only linked from the main draft as of last night, to avoid redlinks and to signal what’s being developed. I’ll be finishing those pages before we publish to mainspace and that includes community input. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::You created rubbish drafts to make the draft you want to promote look better (bluelinks instead of redlinks). And we have to consider this a positive action somehow? Fram (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::This. I'm sorry, Kellycrak, but this article, your ownership of it and the promise of future related articles in a similar vein, while completely ignoring Wikipedia conventions and norms, is too much. This article exists. It's poor, yes. If it is to be improved, it will be done following Wiki norms. Propose changes here, and/or make them. If they get reverted, then WP:BRD. If they're good edits, they'll stick. If they're bad edits, they won't. Do not expect other editors to act as your minions, checking bits of a separate WP:POVFORK article. Again - that is not how Wikipedia works, and frankly, I'm amazed you've been indulged this far. I have nominated the POVFORK [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:OComainDraft for deletion.] Edit the proper way, or not at all. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::@Bastun, I’ve made good-faith efforts to improve this article—sourcing properly, responding to policy-based feedback, and engaging collaboratively. The draft was created at the suggestion of an admin to separate review, not to fork content. Labeling it a POV fork misrepresents the process.

:::::::::::::::::::If there are specific issues with content or sources, I’ll address them. But dismissive language like “minions” and telling me to “drop it” crosses the line and doesn’t help build consensus. I’m here to follow policy, not be gatekept. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::Then follow policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Copying this from my own Talk page (where Kellycrak has ignored the message at the top of the page, advising that discussions about articles should take place on the article talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

''"@bastun I’m posting here directly, as the main thread is already long—and on your talk page keeps the discussion fully transparent for anyone who wishes to follow it.

It seems to be that—putting aside broader disagreements—the focused objection you’ve raised is the inclusion of the President of Ireland in the modern clan recognition section.

While I had hoped we could build consensus by handling the article section-by-section, starting with the historical background, I appreciate your input has stalled.

So, in the spirit of compromise and as an olive branch: I'm open to potentially removing the president. In return, I’d ask whether you’d be willing to review the updated historical section—based on Cotter and other secondary sources—for merger into the main article.

Then we can focus on the modern clan info separately.

I believe this would be a constructive way forward and a good-faith step on both sides.

Thanks for considering this. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)"''

:Take the section "Mythological and Literary Tradition" (and let's ignore the title for now). The first paragraph is somewhat based on the (literary) sources, although I don't see where he is named a seer. The second paragraph, which greatly embellishes his role and importance, seems to be based on sources that don't mention Ferchess and don't support the claims made at all; e.g. [https://archive.org/details/bardicpoemsoftad0001unse/page/n19/mode/2up this source] should, somewhere in the pages XX-XXII, reference the claim "was entitled to wear robes marked by multiple colours — a visual symbol of his rank within early Gaelic society." It seems to contain nothing remotely supporting this, not even in general, never mind about Ferchess. Why do we have to waste time on checking these kind of things again and again? Fram (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::I value the feedback. The poet and coloured robes info is also mentioned on the O'Higgins family article. I will review the sources carefully this afternoon. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You should "review the sources carefully" before posting stuff. You put this into the mainspace[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%93_Com%C3%A1in&oldid=1291031046], it is your responsability that it is correct. Copying things from other articles and hoping that it is correct there is not the way to go. Even less advisable is taking a source from another article which is there put after sentence 3 of a paragraph, and hoping that it also supports sentence one of that paragraph, like you did here (the source you copied is about the O'Higgins, not about the multicolored coat...). It is this kind of rubbish editing which caused the previous ANI discussion, and it is this kind of editing which causes the many negative reactions to your edits, and the lack of belief in your claims of improvement, care, ... Nothing fundamental has changed with your editing, and it is wearing thin the patience of everyone involved. Fram (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Noted, I take your comments on board and will double check the sources today. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::And how many times have you made such promises now, after first acting all high and mighty as if you are persecuted for no good reason? I thought you were going to drag me to ANI for my problematic edits? Please tag the draft for G7 (deletion request by author), and start editing completely articles on completely unrelated topics where you can edit without the POV issues and obvious bias. Perhaps that way you can better learn things like adequate sourcing, the manual of style, ... without getting into constant conflicts. Fram (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Likewise, I added a failed verification template earlier today (to this article) where a doctoral thesis was being used to back {{tpq|Each chiefdom contained a capital site, comprising the chief residence of the chieftain, the church, and a mound which was inauguration site of chieftains.}} The reference supplied makes no mention whatsoever of chiefdoms, capitals, chiefly residences, or churches, and the only mention of "mounds" is to burial mounds. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's on page 22 (xvii) of Tulach Commáin: A View of an Irish chiefdom - Gibson, David Blair, Ph.D 1990 -- I would love to do a screencapture and upload to temporary image site or email you, but I don't want to be berated again :/ here's the Gibson quote:

::Simple chiefdoms were revealed to have been internally divided into territories owned by aristocratic multi-lineage social units (ramages) which I have termed sections, and the territory controlled by the chiefly ramage. Each section possessed a capital site. The chiefdom capital consisted of the chief residence of the chieftain, the church patronized by the chiefly ramage, and a mound which was the inauguration site of chieftains. These three elements of the capital of an Irish chiefdom I have collectively termed the capital set.

::The principles underlying the spatial organization of medieval Irish chiefdoms discovered through the examination of historical texts were applied to reconstruct a chiefdom of the Late Iron Age in the Burren region of northern Co. Clare, represented by a large central settlement called Cahercommaun. The examination of historical sources was extended to discover the boundary configurations and capitals of Thomond’s earliest historical polities. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I found a copy of this source, and quickly discovered you plagarized the entire paragraph that Bastun quotes from, yet you decided not to cite it as a source for that paragraph, and instead picked something with no relevance. Why? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 15:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Kindly please explain to me how it's plagiarised. If it is then I've learnt a new lesson but I can't see copvio, it's uniquely written! Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::To get from the source to the sentence quoted above, you changed two words for synonyms and deleted about a half dozen others. That is not "uniquely written". The entire paragraph was "paraphrased" just as lazily, from parts of the source. You should be blocked from editing if your understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policy is still this poor. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 15:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I’ve revised the text to ensure it is rewritten even more substantially. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@REAL MOUSE IRL you mentioned finding a copy of the source—did you mean the Gibson quote I posted above, or do you have access to the original? If it’s the latter, that would be really helpful. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"It's on page 22 (xvii) of Tulach Commáin..." Yes. But you didn't cite that; you cited Michelle Comber's dig report. Why? You describe the report as a doctoral thesis, but the report itself does not appear to be one. Note also, you are now using Gibson's publications 14 times as references (out of a total of 20!) Despite the same references being used multiple times, there is no consistency in your use of the reference template. Even the name - Gibson is referred to variously as "Gibson, D. Blair" and "Gibson, David Blair Ph.D.", and sometimes doesn't warrant a name at all - for the same publication. Can you please be consistent? I would also suggest you're relying too much on a single source, but given the antiquity of that particular content, I'd let that slide. Additional references would be good, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I hear you, this is why Cotter is such an amazing new source, and adds a context to Gibson. Hence my wanted update to the page. Thesis was meant to be in ref to Gibson but wrong link. I'm going through each source with a fine tooth comb currently. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::... by adding fake sources which I already pointed out above when you used the same incorrect source in another draft[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:OComainDraft&diff=prev&oldid=1292371712]? That kind of fine tooth comb? Fram (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::One of the Gibson refs, page 144 of Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State, is a bibliography section, where the 1990 PhD dissertation is highlighted with search... Make that 6 in total to one paper? I'm starting to think this article should be PDEL'd as presumptive copyvio of that paywalled source, if access to just the first few pages was enough to find the first vio.

::::Also noting that two of the non-Gibson refs are to different editions of the same book, The Surnames of Ireland, just to source the trivia in the lead. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's all uniquely written, but just to be thorough, I'm currently working through each source individually for any copyvio concerns and will ensure the draft is fully refined. Also, just to clarify—@Asilvering (admin) noted in another thread today that it's fine to privately share PDFs with other editors for verification purposes. So if you’d like access to any of the sources I’m working from, I’m happy to email them over. Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::You have already demonstated that you think "uniquely written" means blatant close paraphrasing, so forgive me if I'm not put at ease here. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, it's perfectly normal to share sources privately. We have a whole system for doing that at on request at WP:WRE. Whether I'm an admin or not has very little to do with that, so please don't try to use it as some kind of appeal to authority; I assure you that every other editor will just roll their eyes at that, since no such authority exists.

::::::@REAL MOUSE IRL, dissertations aren't usually hard to get access to - do you have access to a university library? They should have access to the dissertation databases. If not, many editors do have that access and could check on request. @Kellycrak88, I'm sure it's been brought up before, but we rarely consider PhD theses an appropriate source in Wikipedia articles. Since it's a dissertation from 1990 there is likely to be a formally published form somewhere else that can be used. Since other editors have objected to the sources you've used as unreliable or not WP:DUE, it's not a great idea to base much on a PhD thesis. -- asilvering (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The main sources are archaeologist Claire Cotter [https://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000729541/TOC Discovery Programme’s Western Stone Forts Project] -- which can actually stand alone without Gibson referenced in the article.

:::::::Gibson also published a book [https://books.google.com/books?id=eVz2NDNoD3oC&dq=%22Tulach%20Comm%C3%A1in:%20A%20view%20of%20an%20Irish%20chiefdom%22&pg=PA144 Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State] on the same subject in 1995.

:::::::The article is supported by Hencken, Hugh O'Neill (1938). [https://books.google.com/books?id=Ltl-AAAAIAAJ Cahercommaun: A Stone Fort in County Clare]. and other sources.

:::::::Happy to send PDFs my email is on my page, so I can email back anyone who emails. Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry I know I'm late to this discussion, and to be perfectly honest I can see that this has been going on for a long time and I haven't read everything that has been said above, but I can't understand what this page in its current is meant to add the the encyclopaedia project? Much of what is written is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, going into extraneous or unsubstantiated detail. I think a lot of it should be removed if the page is going to be kept. Xx78900 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also to add to this - is this the appropriate page for the history of the chiefdom? I feel like that warrants its own page. Also there has been seemingly no effort made to properly format the non-English text on this page using lang templates. Xx78900 (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::hi @Xx78900 welcome to the party. I’ve been stripping back Draft:OComainDraft this evening—tightening the content, double-checking sources, and reducing reliance on Gibson. The goal is to bring it in line with Scottish clan pages. All constructive feedback is appreciated. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)