Talk:Scottish Gaelic/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Inclusion of information from Gaelic Affairs office for Nova Scotia

An editor named Catriona keeps re-verting material that has long been in this article, and further clarifications I've added, because of her personal views on "vagueness". This is irrelevant to inclusion of an accepted, official government source on data of Scottish Gaelic speakers in Nova Scotia. The source also contains linguistic information about the Scottish Gaelic spoken in Nova Scotia. The genealogical information discusses how common Scottish Gaelic once was in Nova Scotia, with over 50,000 native speakers in the early 20th century in Nova Scotia alone, with one-third of the modern population descending from the originally Gaelic-speaking settlers who came from the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. She apparently didn't bother to read the source before making re-verts in a belligerent manner. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

As a cultural website intended to promote tourism, I would be hesitant to consider the website as RS for genealogical information of descent. Its statement is also extremely vague, which does not lend me confidence in that regard. 1/3 have some Highland ancestry? 1/3 have entirely Highland ancestry? We should be specific in an encyclopedia. Facts about genealogy are unlikely to be relevant to an article about language, especially since we already have statistics about the past and present speaking of the Gaelic language in Nova Scotia. Last, I would be wary of the "belligerent" language, which seems to fall foul of the assume good faith and no personal attacks policies. Catrìona (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I already explained to you that it is not simply a "cultural website", whatever you mean by that term, but it is an official government department from the Government of Nova Scotia which deals with the affairs of the Gaelic-speaking community in Nova Scotia, especially in Cape Breton, with regards to education, history, language revival, cultural heritage and concerns in general facing the community, including legal ones. There was no need to remove the paragraph in the article introduction, which this source provides further clarification on with regards to how the Gaelic-speaking community in Nova Scotia ("New Scotland") are speakers of specifically Scottish Gaelic. As for genealogical information, it is relevant as it is based on official and accepted government statistics about those descended from originally Gaelic-speaking settlers from the Highland and Islands of Scotland. It provides information on how prevalent Scottish Gaelic once was on Nova Scotia, just as there is historical information in the article about widespread prevalence of the language in Scotland in the past. In any case, your personal views on this are irrelevant to an official government source based on solid genealogical and statistical data. If you knew about the History of Nova Scotia, or bothered to read the information on the website with the link I provided, you'd see how most of original settlers in the 18th and 19th centuries were not only from Scotland, but a large portion of which were specifically from the Highlands and Islands, and were Gaelic-speaking. The source specifically mentions how in the early 20th century over 50,000 Nova Scotians were native Gaelic-speakers, while in the mid 19th century it was as high as 80,000. Combined with those speakers in Prince Edward Island and in Ontario, the total number in Canada in the mid-late 19th century was over 100,000. At one time, there was a (defeated) bill tabled in the Canadian parliament in the 1890's to make Gaelic the third official language of Canada (after English and French). I also described your edits as belligerent, not you as a person, so it was not a personal attack. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, why did you remove the office of Gaelic affairs in Nova Scotia from the list of external links? This was completely uncalled for. Do you have some bias against Scottish Gaels in Nova Scotia or something? That link will be restored to this article. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Since you do not bother to read the actual source, I will quote the specific information for you:

"In the early 1900s, as many as 50,000 Nova Scotians spoke Gaelic as their mother tongue...Gaelic language and culture remain distinct parts of Nova Scotia’s identity today. Many Nova Scotians are descendants of Gaelic settlers. The connection to Nova Scotia’s Gaelic heritage continues on. It is shared in traditions, heard in music, and experienced in communities."

"Estimates from the community indicate that there are approximately 2000 speakers of Gaelic in Nova Scotia today. Gaelic continues to be a strong part of the cultural fabric of the province. There are approximately 230,000 people who are descendants of Gaelic settlers."

Our Community - Gaelic Affairs

174. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you assume good faith and stop making baseless accusations that I'm biased against Canadian Gaelic or that I haven't examined your sources. You also seem to have a creative perspective on the no personal attacks policy. That said, the number of Gaelic speakers over time in Nova Scotia is certainly a relevant piece of information to include, although we should be careful to check the actual census questions to make sure that Irish Gaelic responses are not included, and avoid giving Canadian Gaelic undue weight in the article, such as by including an entire paragraph of statistics in the lede, which is supposed to evenly reflect the entire contents of the article. You still haven't made the case that the genealogical statistics are relevant. Also, although the government website could be considered a reliable source in some cases, it's best to cite scholarly sources that were written by an expert. I find it difficult to believe that there has been nothing published on the speakers of Gaelic in Nova Scotia. Catrìona (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Catriona, an official government source which is based on statistical and other official data IS a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy. There is no "some cases" argument. It's a valid source, as are scholarly articles. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says only peer-reviewed academic articles are to be the only sources used. This is the official government office for the Scottish Gaelic (it is Scottish Gaelic, not "Canadian" Gaelic) community in Nova Scotia, and its information IS based on actual scholarly research, including that done by the government. The website is an important source stating that most of speakers are Scottish Gaelic speakers, and very few Irish Gaelic speakers were in Nova Scotia (most were in Newfoundland). That is the point of this reference, as it cites the enormous migration to Nova Scotia from the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, with 1/3 having descent from these Scottish Gaelic-speaking migrants. As for the genealogical information, I will change it to contain the information about the former number of Gaelic-speakers in Nova Scotia. 2607:FEA8:1C5F:ECA3:1945:A173:E289:CDE0 (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I viewed the recent additions by 174.119.80.219 with some wariness, and Catrìona echoes my concerns. Being published by any form of government body does not necessarily make a source reliable. In this case the remarks are riddled with generalisations that are open to very wide interpretation. '50,000 people can speak Gaelic" is meaningless unless it is qualified. Does it mean they are L1 speakers; fluent; learned in high school for a year; can say 'hello' and 'goodbye'? What has being of Gaelic decent got to do with language speaking ability? In many cases, statistical census data is not a secondary source-it is primary-and as such is often used incorrectly to make unjustified statements of fact. The source material used is interesting and of use, but I think it would be better used elsewhere, and in a different way, within this article. More generally, this dispute neatly highlights the problem faced by many language articles in WP where editors try, in good faith, to highlight a particular language. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Your "wariness" is irrelevant to this discussion, or the factual information from valid sources. An official government body IS an acceptable source according to Wikipedia policy. Your questions are irrelevant to a valid, reliable source stating there were 50,000 native speakers (mother tongue) at a specific time. Like Catriona, you obviously did not read the actual source. I'm getting fed up with this. Your unwillingness to actually investigate included, official, valid sources based on statistical and other data, is not my concern or a relevant reason to override my edits. I already explained further above, if you actually bothered to read, the number of Gaelic-speakers in Nova Scotia in the recent past IS RELEVANT to this article, and thus the number of people who immigrated and who are descended from in the community today is a valid piece of information. 2607:FEA8:1C5F:ECA3:1945:A173:E289:CDE0 (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Since Roger failed to actually read the source, or my content:

"In the early 1900s, as many as 50,000 Nova Scotians spoke Gaelic as their mother tongue."

2607:FEA8:1C5F:ECA3:1945:A173:E289:CDE0 (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

As per the WP:BRD guideline, you need to find consensus before implementing a controversial change. That consensus has not been achieved, since both Roger and I have raised concerns about your edits. I'm requesting that you self-revert until we can come to a consensus as to the proposed changes. The change that you are applying is also very large, and it would probably be easier to come to a consensus if we focused on a piece of it at a time. For instance, I think all of us would like to see historical statistics on the number of Gaelic speakers in Canada over time, so long as such statistics are cited to a scholarly source and put in perspective (i.e. L1 vs L2, doubts about survey methods (if applicable), and the distinction between Irish and Scottish Gaelic, which wasn't consistently applied on Canadian censuses). Catrìona (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

In an attempt to add something to the discussion, if the statement on this talkpage (above):
"This is the official government office for the Scottish Gaelic ... community in Nova Scotia, and its information IS based on actual scholarly research, including that done by the government."
is correct, then it should be possible to cite the scholarly research used to put together the website.

I have taken a look at the Gaelic affairs website. It includes a section titled research and reports[1]. If you drill down into some of these (I have read only a sample) there are citations of academic work. I suggest that the IP editor trawls through all these citations that appear relevant to the main parts of the website, read the cited works, and see which of them include facts that support their intended edits to this article. The next step is to judge the quality of those academic papers (the most obvious test is to see how often they are cited elsewhere). Then a decision can be taken on the accuracy of the information. That would leave ensuring appropriate balance in the article (WP:DUE).

One note of caution about the Gaelic Affairs site - it says[2]: "Gaelic Affairs is deeply connected to the community it serves...". I think that acknowledges that those who work for this government initiative are strong advocates of the Gaelic language, which, whilst being commendable, also removes this organisation from being independent commentators on the subject. Hence the need to look at peer-reviewed academic work.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

None of what was sad here overrides Wikipedia policy, which clearly says government and official sources are valid, and allowed to be used in articles. There is nothing in Wikipedia citation policy which says that the sources used on the government site have to be used directly, and not the government department's website itself. This is especially the case when this government department is doing it's own research based on other sources in addition to its own. Therefore, NONE of you have provided a single reason to exclude the information from the Gaelic Affairs website, nor it's use as clearly stating that the Gaelic-speaking community in Nova Scotia is largely Scottish Gaelic speakers, as anyone with even basic knowledge on this subject knows full well. This is based on extensive census data which shows 1/3 of Nova Scotians have ancestors from the Scottish Highlands and Islands, wth an even alrger number from Scotland in general. There has never been a an Irish community in Nova Scotia even close to as large as the Scottish community. This is reflected in census data on ancestry today, as well as those in the past. THe largest ethnic group in "New Scotland" has been the Scots since the early 19th century, with specifically Gaelic-speaking Scots from the Highlands and Islands settling in the Gaelic-speaking communities that exist today. This dialect of "Canadian Gaelic" is a SCOTTISH Gaelic dialect, virtually indistinguishable from certain dialects in Scotland, like in the Western Isles. IT has nothing to do with Irish (Irish Gaelic). The Irish were never a large population component in Nova Scotia, but were a larger presence in Newfoundland. The Irish Gaelic that was once spoken in Canada was Newfoundland Irish. Irish immigration to Canada was historically always very small compared to the enormous Scottish immigration to Canada (most of Canada's Prime Ministers and Fathers of Confederation, for example, have either been from Scotland or of Scottish descent - John A. MacDonald, Alexander Mackenzie (politician), even NDP founder Tommy Douglas). Finally, the fact this OFFICIAL government office is "deeply connected" to those in the community it represents is irrelevant. Every specific government department is strongly connected to the industries and communities they represent, whether economic sectors, ethnic communities, constituencies, etc. Government officials are democratically elected by the people here in the west, while public servants are hired from our communities, so of course they are connected. Also, the "quality" of academic papers is irrelevant to their simple inclusion, if they are considered a valid, official or peer-reviewed source. Your personal issues, are again, not sufficient for their outright exclusion from being used in this article. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm NOT taking sides here, I feel both the IP editor and those being cautious about unverified claims should all have made more efforts to see if there ARE bona fide sources to back up the 50,000 figure rather than pouring effort into lengthy Talk posts. It took me about 5 minutes on the internet to discover that the 50,000 figure is an estimate calculated by Jonathan Dembling (2006) [3] based on old census data [4]. The full text (I haven't got time to go through it just now) is here [5] but the my mind, if it's data cited in Edinburgh Companion to the Gaelic Language which I know as a bona fide publication, then the figure ought to be trustworthy. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I also am not taking sides here. As the IP editor is editing from a variety of IP addresses and it is unclear if they would receive any messages on any of the user talk pages I will note here: do not game WP:3RR. A reversion to re-insert a contested edit, without having reached consensus, precisely 24 hours and 4 minutes after its removal does not indicate a willingness to resolve this issue in a co-operative manner. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

My IP sometimes automatically changes, without my control. I did not do this to avoid 3RR. Furthermore, Catriona's re-verts are belligerent and uncompromising. She removed material that I didn't even enter without consensus herself, as well as a valid, official, government source based on extensive research, including the mere inclusion of Gaelic Affairs under the "External Links" section. I'm not sure where her hostility to Scottish Gaels and Scottish-Canadians comes from. It was myself who started this discussion here to point out her objections as irrelevant, while she never made a single attempt to start discussion. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I was not suggesting your use of multiple IPs was to game 3RR as it is evident to anyone that you are the same user (though signing up for an account would erase any doubt on the matter). That you evidently waited for exactly 24 hours before reverting is what raises the eyebrow. What's more, you did so without attaining consensus on the matter; something which abundantly remains to be reached. Yes, you started the discussion here but only after being informed that WP:BRD indicates that it is you that ought to instigate discussion if your bold edit is reverted, continuing to war again anyway, then being warned for doing so. An assessment of your own behaviour may be worthwhile before handing out accusations of hostility and belligerence. Reverting your latest re-insertion of the contested text, pending a genuine establishment of consensus, would be a good start in establishing your own good faith. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I am finding it increasingly difficult to assume good faith of the IP editor, in light of their history of disruptive behaviour and demonstrated disregard and distortion of Wikipedia policies on consensus, compromise and reliabile sources. (As per WP:NOT, even reliably sourced material can be removed if it is given undue weight or is irrelevant.) I cordially request that the IP editor review the associated Wikipedia policies, especially regarding respecting consensus rather than continuing an edit war. Catrìona (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Unseemly edit comments

The words "this has not been mentioned in your ridiculous contentions, so do not remove this in any future re-verts" appear under user 174.119.80.219's edit commentary [6]. This edit commentary is unacceptable. Editors are free to remove this material if it is not suitable for the article. Elsewhere the words "WP policy is on my side"[7] appear in the edit commentary. It says you should obtain consensus, and not make disruptive reverts. References should be on topic. Travelmite (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Reorganization

Personally, I think this article still suffers from too many top-level sections. Unless there are objections, I propose to:

• Fold "Official Recognition", "Education", "Literature" and "Church" into one top-level heading: "Usage". Linguists will be familiar with the term "domains", but that's technical in my opinion.
• Promote "Media" to an independent subsection of "Usage". The usage in the media is as least as significant as usage in churches.
• Put some of the material deleted in this edit into Official Recognition and/or Media

Catrìona (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Infobox - Native to

See today's edits: The template guide [8] says: In what countries/regions the language is spoken, and how many people speak it there. No mention of sovereign state. What to do? Scotland or UK? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

In the template itself, it has "States" (prints as "Native to") and "Regions" (prints as "Regions"). States is set to UK and Canada, Regions to Scotland and Nova Scotia. This organization makes sense to me, although I suppose we could change it so "States" is Scotland and Nova Scotia, "Regions" are the Hebrides and Cape Breton Island. Catrìona (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Personally, I am happy to sit on the fence on this one. What I do see is another example of ambiguity caused by the use of terms that are open to different interpretations depending on the situation, eg: state, nation, country. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"Scots Gaelic"

User:EosaphOScollain removed inclusion in the lead sentence of the alternative term "Scots Gaelic" based on the rationale that it is 'never referred to as "Scots Gaelic"'. On the contrary: A Google Books search turns up plenty of instances of this phrase, even in titles. Examples:

• Argyll, 2001, Scots Gaelic: An Introduction to the Basics
• 2007, Webster's Scots Gaelic to English Crossword Puzzles: Level 2
• 6000+ Vocabulary: English – Scots Gaelic, Scots Gaelic – English
• Agee and Cheape, 2013, The Other Tongues: An Introduction to Writing in Irish, Scots Gaelic and Scots in Ulster and Scotland
• McKay, 2007, Gaelic for Today, part 3, "A Scots Gaelic Thesaurus"

I've restored the term to the article. Largoplazo (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Literate means reading, fluent means speaking

As far as I know, literate means reading, fluent means speaking. Any comment? Abductive (reasoning) 10:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

My reversion of your edit was entirely accidental, presumably by a clumsy mouse click, so no comment on the edit. I don't know what the source says. You may not have noticed but I immediately self-reverted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. -- Womtelo (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, your point being? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Is the change correct? Somebody can speak a language without being literate in it. A problem on wp is that the term 'can speak' is too ambiguous and can apply to a fluent native speaker and to someone who has learned a few sentences from their grandparents (the sort of speakers who might not be literate in that language) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I failed to find the fact in question in the link to the source. Establishing that would be a good start. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over unsourced material

I have no knowledge on the matters of fact and take no side in that regard but this edit summary has me puzzled. If someone removes material because they dispute it and it is unsourced, the onus is fundamentally not on them to somehow provide sources to disprove the unsupported assertion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The editor who keeps re-inserting this nonsense statement clearly has no knowledge of the subject. Alba (more properly, Albu) was the Old Irish word for Britain (and it comes directly from the earliest attested Celtic name for Britain, Albiiū, which was rendered as Albion in ancient Greco-Latin sources); only later did it become restricted to northern Britain - i.e., what was to become Scotland, in Late Old Irish. It was never the "name for the Picts" (but it had a derivative, Albanach, meaning "inhabitants of Alba" that became the word for the Scottish people after the semantic shift of Albu = Britain > Northern Britain > Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagwinn (talk • contribs)

The etymology of the word "Alba" is not under dispute. What the passage is saying is that it's historical usage is unclear from that point in time. You claim that this is inarticulate, so you need to show evidence to prove this, relative to that period in time. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the merits or otherwise of this particular text, the onus is on those advocating it to source it, not on those disputing it to disprove it. Rectify that and it'll be half the battle. This is fundamental stuff; check WP:V if required. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

References

The section you are trying to change is already well sourced. The fact that you disagree with it is irrelevant to this fact. Source your edit please. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is surreal. I'm not trying to change anything, as repeatedly mentioned I don't - factually - disagree with anything and I have not made an edit; solely talk page comments about your warring edits and bizarre demands, which fly in the face of policy on verifiability. What on earth do you want me to source? How can you source the removal of something because it isn't sourced, or at best the sourcing is unclear. Stop warring and either indicate the source for the contested text or revert yourself and remove it, unless and until it is supported. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If you are not making any change then there is no reason to continue this dispute. The content you dispute is clearly sourced. There is nothing bizarre about supported content with sources. Your assertion has been that this sourced content is incorrect. So you you need to show sources to prove this. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You are completely missing my point and are instead attributing opinions and actions to me that I have not expressed or taken. Are you confusing me with the other editor in this thread (and I am making no comment on their actions or opinions)? Have you read what I, alone, am actually saying?

If the material is sourced, why, despite several requests, have you not indicated what the source is? The next reference given in the text is to Broun. Can you clarify if you are claiming that the disputed text is supported by this reference and, if so, can you provide the passage which does? I have not warned you for warring, yet but my patience is wearing thin. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You have only to look at the provided source. Have a nice say. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mediatech, this makes no sense. That reversion re-introduced an unsourced assertion and doesn't at all jibe with the edit summary you left. I agree with Matt, this is perplexing and approaching surreal.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with WilliamThweatt. Mediatech, you don't need a source to justify removing unsourced material. If you want to restore what has turned out to be a controversial inclusion, you provide a source, rather than just asserting that one exists. Largoplazo (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, unsourced material needs to be removed. But the material he is attempting to remove is well sourced. So he needs to provide a basis for its removal, a source. He has consistently refused to offer any such thing. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying it's "well sourced". What do you mean by that? What source are you referring to? The content being removed itself contains no source nor is it immediately or closely followed by one. Largoplazo (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This probably comes from a passage in the Chronicle of the Kings of Alba:

Mael Coluim son of Domnall reigned xi. years. With his army he crossed into Moreb and slew Cellach. In the vii year of his reign he plundered the English as far as the river Thesis and carried off many people and many droves of cattle, which raid the Scotti call the raid of [the] Albidosi that is nainndisi.

It's been proposed that this is an indication of the Picts' name for themselves. It's discussed by Alex Woolf:

Woolf, Alex (2007), "From Pictland to Alba 789 - 1070", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, vol. 2, Edinburgh University Press, p. 179, retrieved 5 December 2018

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Gaelic language

"Gaelic language" redirects to Scottish Gaelic. Akerbeltz and I have been discussing this. Akerbeltz mentions that "Only Scottish Gaelic is commonly referred to as 'Gaelic'[...] so redirecting Gaelic language to Scottish Gaelic is appropriate as it's the primary usage". I believe Akerbeltz is Scottish, however, in my experience as a North American, speaking Gaelic is often used (and maybe it's just among us North Americans) to mean speaking the Irish language. Therefore, I feel that maybe "Gaelic language" might do better redirecting to Goidelic languages, which covers both Irish and Scottish Gaelic. Akerbeltz disagrees; you can see our discussion at their talk page. Anyone else have thoughts? Wolfdog (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking as an Irishman, Gaelic hasn't been used here to refer to Irish for about a century - the period immediately after independence marked the point when "Irish" became the general English language term for Gaeilge, largely as a political symbol of nationalism. Manx, as mentioned, is solely referred to as such, and while Gaelic is sometimes used for the Celtic language of Scotland, it's generally described in both languages of Ireland as Scottish Gaelic (Gaeilge na hAlban in Irish). Culloty82 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Copied from Akerbeltz' talk page

Hi. Please let me know what you didn't like about my edit. Wolfdog (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Only Scottish Gaelic is commonly referred to as "Gaelic", Irish Gaelic mostly is just called Irish and Manx Gaelic is usually just Manx, so redirecting Gaelic language to Scottish Gaelic is appropriate as it's the primary usage. For the same reason, the hatnote is also appropriate on the Scottish Gaelic page. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This may be true in Scotland, but in the U.S., Canada, and perhaps elsewhere, the Irish language is very commonly called "Gaelic", so I think you need to take a more global view on people's misconceptions and common confusions. Even just listening to the first 15 or so YouTube clips here, you'll find Gaelic mostly referring to Irish culture and somewhat often the Irish language itself (including by one obvious Ulster speaker in clip #16). Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You will get different answers depending on whether you use "Gaelic" on its own or "the Gaelic language" as a string. If I search for "the Gaelic language" on Google, page 1 has just one result referring to Irish, page 2 and 3 none at all, page 4 has 3, page 5 none (one to Manx). You need to be careful about how you configure your search strings. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

That's why I gave you audio-in-context to listen to; some of those speakers are talking about the Irish language. Ans to your point above, North Americans rarely refer to the Irish language as "the Gaelic language" but they do commonly refer to it as "Gaelic". I understand this may be a misnomer, but the whole point of hatnotes is to redirect confused laypersons, right? There are plenty of sources to confirm this lay use of "Gaelic": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Wolfdog (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Eh, take it to talk on the page in question, not a personal talk page for starters. My view is, for "Gaelic" to redirect to a general page is accurate, for "Gaelic language" to do so you have to bring a really good case why you want to change something that has been stable a long time. Something that is specific to "Gaelic language". Akerbeltz (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The hatnote on Scottish Gaelic, imho, does a great job at redirecting the confused reader to other articles which they might be looking for. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 16:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment This should be viewed globally, not locally, so what is said in one place in the world is not relevant. Look at what reliable sources say. If there is a clear preference follow that. If not, use weighting. If there is still no clear preference or if ambiguity will arise then spell it out: Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, with each article able to use a regional common use version, eg Irish or Gaelic, but that will be explained in the lead and be in context. The same reasoning should apply to redirects. Without a clear world-wide use preference Gaelic should not redirect to Scottish Gaelic but to a disambig site. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The use of "Gaelic language" for Irish is not correct, or particularly common, anywhere in the world. That's why it should redirect here. buidhe 09:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Where is your evidence to back those claims? A unreliable , but useful to an extent, check is to google Scotish gaelic (13.9m) and Irish Gaelic (6.3m.) That hardly makes 'Irish gaelic' rarely used. Never believe wikipedia, but the Goidelic languages site puts a lot of what's in this discussion in useful context. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A more useful comparison would be search results for "Gaelic language", the term under discussion. I did a Google books search. Of the first ten results, only one refers to Irish and it's from 1808. buidhe 11:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Akerbeltz and Buidhe. Let's keep in mind that "Gaelic" already redirects to disambig page, just as it should. Here, we are exclusive discussing Gaelic language. I agree that this refers only to Scottish Gaelic. The language in Ireland is called "Irish" or "Irish Gaelic", but as Buidhe shows, Gaelic language is virtually never used to refer to Irish (nor to Manx) but frequently to Scottish Gaelic. Jeppiz (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree "Gaelic" is not a language, it is a language group. Extant Gaelic languages include Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic. The argument of "common usage" is invalid. Encyclopedic material needs to be accurate, not a slave to popular misconception. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Based on my own personal experience, the idea that Irish people don't call Irish 'Gaelic' might be a bit of wishful thinking of educated, politicized middle classes. Along the same lines as the claim that Irish people don't call soccer 'football'. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

As a native, I've never heard any Irish person refer to the language as 'Gaelic'- regardless of class, it's universally referred to simply as 'Irish'. Culloty82 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what value you put on it, but an official Republic of Ireland education website [9] says : "Irish is regarded as a Celtic language, belonging to the larger family of languages known as Indo-European. Irish belongs to the branch of Insular Celtic known as Goidelic, which comprises Irish-Gaelic, Scottish-Gaelic and Manx." I presume this is what is taught in Irish schools: a clear equivalence between "Irish-Gaelic" and "Scottish-Gaelic".
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomenclature in English

On the basis that it is supported by the source given, I support this reversion, however the source is referring to all forms of Gaelic, not just Scottish Gaelic. I have a vague and possibly unreliable memory of hearing someone from the Gàidhealtachd (can't remember if they were a speaker or which area they were from), to my surprise, maintaining that their locale employed the "ˈɡeɪlɪk" pronunciation in English but otherwise have only ever heard "ˈɡalɪk" in Scotland. Is this correct and should not the text in this passage reflect only the Scottish pronunciation, referenced appropriately of course?

A quick web search has turned up support for this distinction for the Scottish pronunciation but I'm not sure that they are sufficiently authoritative and one is commercial: https://www.nztcinternational.com/blog/irish-gaelic-and-scottish-gaelic-what-are-differences, https://cuhwc.org.uk/page/unofficial-guide-pronouncing-gaelic

The passage at the head of this entry at the DSL, starting "The orig. Gael. pronunciation..." maybe indicates that both pronunciations be listed here but with an appropriate note. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

History: Modern era section

The Modern era section under History seems to have a number of problems. There is no mention of the Statutes of Iona and the provision that compelled the eldest child of Highland landowners to be educated in English. The references for all except the last sentence of the first paragraph are: (1) a paper written in 1954 which therefore substantially predates the surge in the study of Scottish, and particularly Highland history that has occurred since then; and (2) a book written by someone who is neither a historian nor a linguist - so one wonders if there is a better, more authoritative source to use.

There is no discussion of the view expressed by Tom Devine that much of preferential enthusiasm for learning English came from the Highland Gaelic-speaking population (as opposed to "the Celtic societies in the cities and the professors of Celtic at the Universities") This is closely related to the need for Highlanders to work outside the Gaelic speaking areas. As Ewen Cameron puts it in his review of Devine's Clanship to Crofters' War: "Thirdly, the notion that the decline of Gaelic can be explained monocausally by reference to destructive alien forces neglects the important influence, clearly brought out here, of the integration of the Highlands and Highlanders in wider Scottish society."(Scottish Economic & Social History, Volume 15 Issue 1, Page 116-118, ISSN 0269-5030 Available Online Sep 2010 (https://doi.org/10.3366/sesh.1995.15.15.116)) (There are other very favourable reviews of this book, including by Allan Macinnes - the credentials of this as a crucial work are well established.) So it may be right also to mention Devine's subsidiary points about improved communications into the Highlands by steamships, or the existence of English speaking towns, such as Inverness (in 1704), set in a Gaelic-speaking countryside. It would be wrong to ignore Devine's work on the subject - especially as Clanship to Crofters' War is on the reading list of every university course that covers Highland social or economic history in any sort of detail.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have now rewritten this section, trying to provide a balanced view of the causes of the replacement of Gaelic with English.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Sound clip at the start

The sound clip really sounds like [ˈgaːlɪkʲ] rather than the transcribed [ˈkaːlɪkʲ] to me. Is this definitely right? Epa101 (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It's correct. Remember /k/ is not the same as in English /kʰæt/, it doesn't have the aspiration, which makes it sound like /g/ to native speakers of English. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If we're super precise, it's /ɡ̊/, which is also what Oftedal used in his transcriptions. Even to me (someone whose initial voiceless stops aren't aspirated and still distinguish between voiced and voiceless stops) it sounds pretty much halfway between /g/ and /k/, which is true to initial Gaelic stops overall. That's an allophone level, though, so probably not something we should put in the introduction. Jeppiz (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely something for the Gaelic phonology page, not the lead. Especially since there's probably never going to be total agreement on [k] vs [g̊] - it obviously makes sense from a historic perspective but to be honest, i've always been rather perplexed about the difference in production between a devoiced and a voiceless stop. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Epa101 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Old/Middle Irish

Out of interest in not starting an edit war, the line indicating that Scottish Gaelic is "descended" from Middle Irish is blatantly untrue, while the two languages of Irish and Gaelic separated from each other in the Middle Irish period, Irish, Gaelic, and Manx are ultimately descendant of OLD Irish. Irish migrants to Scotland and Man were speaking Old Irish at the time of their migration, having the article read Middle Irish is blatantly untrue and confusing. As a professional in the field of Celtic Studies, this is the accepted understanding. Ladysif (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

While your expertise is appreciated, on Wikipedia we try to have sources for information (Verifiability) . Is there a published source which supports your change? If so, it should be added to the article. buidhe 20:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Frankly the previous version of the article was also unsourced - I've attempted to be diplomatic by further correcting the article to indicate the language is descended from Old Irish but branched in the Middle Irish period. Ladysif (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the name Ireland did not exist until the 19th century was it, before that the people we're called Scotti in Latin or Scots in Saxon.

So, Gaelic was brought from Scotia to Pictland by the Scotti people, this is the accuracy wiki should retain as this is what it says in our museums and on the wiki itself.

The reason nobody believes wiki is because it contradicts itself.

Ireland was called Scotland (Scotia), the wiki states this and there is evidence, so no not old Irish.

Robert the Bruce called northern Ireland Scotia Major, so NO, Scottish Gaelic did not come from old Irish as there is no such thing as old Irish, simply Gaelic or Scottish Gaelic.

Wikipedia truly needs editors that align the wiki pages so they make sense as the majority look like personal opinions rather than factual.

Scottish Gaelic is the modern form of Primitive Scotti Gaelic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:1F17:9600:40C4:540D:270D:D572 (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)