Talk:Scottish Gaelic/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Scottish Gaelic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
How is it not official?
there seems to have been back and forth about this, but the Scottish Government website literally says "The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 gained royal assent in June of that year, confirming Gaelic as an official language of Scotland". that's on an official Scottish Government website, it literally describes it as official. the act being referred to itself says "The functions conferred on the Bòrd by this Act are to be exercised with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language..." which is admitedly ambiguous, but i don't think the strange wording means it isn't an official language.
also, "The Scottish Government declares that it protects Scottish Gaelic "as an official language of Scotland", however, this is disputed by others, who argue that Scottish Gaelic is not an official language of the United Kingdom or Scotland." what? if the Scottish Government doesn't decide what language is official, who does? it may not be an official language of the UK, but the page for Welsh says its place as an official language of Wales, even though it isn't either. hell, even the page for Scots mentions its official status. if Gaelic isn't official in Scotland for the reason that our government doesn't decide that, then neither is Scots, and Welsh isn't for Wales. Clydiee (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Relevant references appear to include
- [1]
- [2] (warning, this is a primary source: WP:PRIMARY)
- You can probably find others – newspaper reports would probably be decent sources if from a quality newspaper. Once you have some sources, go ahead and edit the article. There might be some disagreement from others, but the end result will probably be a suitable change. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 07:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem arises from the shoddy language used by the people writing the website vs the wording of the actual legislation. I wish it were different but if you read ANY legistlation relating to Gaelic, there is NOTHING in there that says it's an official language. And since there is no precendent of a website (even if produced by some government department) trumping primary legislation, I'm afraid the status quo remains that Gaelic, legally speaking, is NOT an official language. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- In that case can we get a better source than a 27 year old essay talking about Gaelic's "present" situtation, 8 years prior to the 2005 Act? Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Very funny. How often do you think an under-resourced language like Gaelic spends time and effort on restating something everyone knows in an academic essay? I'll have a look but chances are, there's nothing more recent. Akerbeltz (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- We're in luck, BBC Alba did a piece on the proposed new language bill, see ref 13 Akerbeltz (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be funny. The use of a source that's nearly three decades old, specifically quoted "At present", is not a convincing way of verifying the present status of Gaelic, particularly when it is prior to legislation that is likely to have changed things. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Very funny. How often do you think an under-resourced language like Gaelic spends time and effort on restating something everyone knows in an academic essay? I'll have a look but chances are, there's nothing more recent. Akerbeltz (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- In that case can we get a better source than a 27 year old essay talking about Gaelic's "present" situtation, 8 years prior to the 2005 Act? Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- PS Welsh, funnily enough IS an official language, not only of Wales but the UK, because the Welsh language act predates the Welsh Parliament and was passed at Westminster. The Welsh Language Act is worded much more strongly than the Gaelic 'equivalent' and is the reason why - for example - the HMRC website is available in Welsh, but not Gaelic. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- This[3] is the outcome of the 2005 act. It mirrors the language of the act with "...seeks to secure the status of Gaelic as an official language of Scotland..". That means that status has not been achieved. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 07:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- You’ve cut off the main part of that sentence. It says “seeks to secure the status of Gaelic as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language.” They’re referring to securing Gaelic’s status as a language that commands equal respect to the English language. It goes on to say “The main aim of the Plan is to see an increase in the use and learning of Gaelic.” It’s already official. Here’s another official source clearly describing it as such: https://www.gov.scot/policies/languages/
- “The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 gained royal assent in June of that year, confirming Gaelic as an official language of Scotland.” This article needs to be updated to reflect that instead of making false statements. 2600:100A:B1CA:11C8:3CE7:A9AB:2501:45A (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- For the nth-time, what web monkey write on websites does NOT EVER trump legislation. So go and read the act or go away. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- You are simply misinformed here. Please read what Wikipedia has to say about the use of Primary Sources. Reliable secondary sources do indeed "trump legislation". It is safe to assume that the Scottish Government website content is written by civil servants whose job it is to understand the legislation. It is not written by "web monkeys". And please try to remain civil.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- See, this is where Wikipedia falls over, by continually ignoring subject experts and burning incense at the altar of blind policy. If you lived in Scotland (like me) and if you had been working with Gaelic for over 20 years professionally (like me) and if you knew the 'Gaelic people' at the Parliament (like me), you'd know that this is a known inaccuracy on the website written by non-subject specialist web people who just can't be bothered to fix this error because Gaelic is WAY down their list of priorities. But by all means continue burning incense... Akerbeltz (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Your personal expertise counts for nothing on Wikipedia, as you say. It can be frustrating, but this is as it should be. Anyone can claim to be anyone, expert in anything, with no end of in-the-know contacts, when they are an anonymous editor. I am Kate Forbes, Minister for Gaelic, so I should know. But even I fully understand the need to rely on sources, not editors, for facts. If you can't live with this you can either get Wikipedia policy changed or choose not to contribute. You may be right, you may be wrong, but bottom line is you're just a guy on the internet. How is anyone to know whether to trust your take on things? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Your personal expertise counts for nothing on Wikipedia - and that is why large parts of Wikipedia are an unmitigated desaster, by not having a system that allows editors to verify their subject expertise. Have you any idea how much of an insult that is to someone who has decicated much of their life to any topic and how many top specialists have been driven off Wikipedia by this absurdity? In any case, the agreement was to park this issue. Can we stick to that? Akerbeltz (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Experts are either published, or know where published authoritative sources are to found. They then cite them. If there are no published sources, then it should not be in an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias do not publish original content by anyone, expert or not. It's as easy as that. No-one ever gets to back up content on their say so alone. Anyone driven off by this requirement don't understand what an encyclopaedia is and what Wikipedia editors do. Verifiability not truth. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- You are kidding, right? Yes, in highly academic subject such as medicine and law, subject experts often publish. But a very high proportion of subject experts never publish, especially those who are not working in academia. And that's the majority of people who are experts on something. Yes, I could publish on a whole range or Gaelic topics from phonology to lexicography. I just don't have the time or indeed the need, publishing is by and large useful to those engaged in research or wanting to get ahead in academia. I am doing neither of those things, my work has always been primarily aimed at learners and speakers OUTside academia. One of the teachers I had at uni is a walking encyclopedia of piping, a tradition bearer who can tell you the history, background, variations and intricacies of more Gaelic songs and pipe tunes than you can shake a stick at. But he has no interest in publishing, so of course none of that knowledge is worth diddly squat on Wikipedia in your eyes... Of course RS are great but if one actually applied your Wikipedia's stated goal of a comprehensive collection of all of the knowledge in the world, then you might as well shut down Wikipedia because most of the knowledge of in the world rests in people's heads, not academic papers. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Akerbeltz, I think you know that this talk page shouldn't be used as a forum for extended grievances over Wikipedia being what it is and having the policies it has and not being something else entirely different. Please, let's move on with anything that's left to be said about the topic of this thread (which, in my opinion, has been completely exhausted) within the context of what Wikipedia is and what its policies are. Largoplazo (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Akerbeltz Thank you for pointing out that quote that is fundamentally incorrect. I will challenge it on the page containing it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not an indiscriminate collection of all knowledge. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- You are kidding, right? Yes, in highly academic subject such as medicine and law, subject experts often publish. But a very high proportion of subject experts never publish, especially those who are not working in academia. And that's the majority of people who are experts on something. Yes, I could publish on a whole range or Gaelic topics from phonology to lexicography. I just don't have the time or indeed the need, publishing is by and large useful to those engaged in research or wanting to get ahead in academia. I am doing neither of those things, my work has always been primarily aimed at learners and speakers OUTside academia. One of the teachers I had at uni is a walking encyclopedia of piping, a tradition bearer who can tell you the history, background, variations and intricacies of more Gaelic songs and pipe tunes than you can shake a stick at. But he has no interest in publishing, so of course none of that knowledge is worth diddly squat on Wikipedia in your eyes... Of course RS are great but if one actually applied your Wikipedia's stated goal of a comprehensive collection of all of the knowledge in the world, then you might as well shut down Wikipedia because most of the knowledge of in the world rests in people's heads, not academic papers. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think User:Escape_Orbit is missing the point here. Every now and again, editors encounter otherwise reliable RSs that have mistakes in them. It is very helpful if those editing in that subject area have enough subject knowledge to spot that and deal with it. If, for example, you look at HMS Glorious and German battleship Scharnhorst you will find different ranges at which Glorious was spotted – due to an error by the highly respected RS Garzke and Dulin. (Yes, I will fix that later.) In that case you need a table from a nautical almanac which gives visible distances from height of eye to know that the higher number is wrong. Here all we need to be able to do is to read the 2005 Act. It is written in reasonably accessible English – well within the reading age that we expect of a Wikipedia editor. The act is even helpfully linked from the incorrect government website. The battleship example was resolved (after the initial alert that something was wrong) with a different RS with a believable figure. Here we appear to be short of a source that supports our read of the legislation. Perhaps one will be found. However we are left with a clear problem that what might otherwise be an RS appears to be wrong. Should an editor use that RS despite the apparent error? I suggest emphatically not. There is no way that is verification if it is questionable. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 16:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- In your example, it was a matter of geometry that is either accurate or not, and I presume everyone was agreed it was wrong. This case is somewhat different in that it is a matter of interpretation of legislation. If that was that easy and something anyone could do, then we would have no need for lawyers. I'm not reading the Act because I know that it would be an exercise in original research and precisely what Wikipeida policy says we shouldn't do. (And I'd think the same if I was a lawyer, civil servant or politician, because my expertise is irrelevant.) It never cease to amaze how many times people think they've found a hole in Wikipedia policy that no-one has ever encountered or handled before. There is nothing special about this situation, it's happened thousands of times before where editors have decided it's ok to interpret what a primary source means, because reasons... No. It's not ok to decide that your interpretation of the primary source is better than the interpretation given on the Scottish Government website. If you have serious concerns about what the website says, perhaps your course of action would be to get it corrected, if indeed it is wrong. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- (1) Ah – the source of the problem:
I'm not reading the Act because.....
. Look at WP:PRIMARY, where we will find (among other things):Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care....
andA primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge
. So
(a) there is no ban on using primary sources, just use with care
(b) User:Escape_Orbit has not read the 2005 Act and therefore does not know that it is quite straightforward in its language – thereby meeting the requirements of the second quoted part of WP:PRIMARY.
(c) Note that WP:PRIMARY also includes:While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere...
[followed by one caveat]. So if we want to know what an act says, the act is the best source. Yes, much legislation is complex, especially those that repeal sections of prior legislation. This act is pretty stand-alone and does not have that complexity.
(2) If Gaelic had been given the status of an official language, in 2005 or at any other time, surely there would be a news report to that effect. We would expect some extensive coverage in quality national newspapers. That just isn't there. The Times has a Scottish section. If you search for "gaelic language" it gives many articles that mention declining use of Gaelic, of English speaking Scots moving to areas where the language was strong, mention of the activities of the Bòrd, with descriptions of their role that meet the interpretation of the 2005 that I have given. Among the whole range of them, you would expect one (at least) to say something like "now Gaelic is an official language of Scotland". There is no such mention.
We do have the Scottish Languages bill which talks about making Gaelic an official language (but apparently only in parts of Scotland - more to know on this). As far as I can see, this act has not passed into law. Why was it needed if Gaelic was already an official language?
Incidentally, I have already raised a complaint with the Scottish government about the mis-statement of the position on the problem webpage. We might all be dreaming if we think they are going to change it. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 21:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)- @ThoughtIdRetired Does the Act say, in plain language understood by any educated person, that it does not make Gaelic an official language? I bet it doesn't. Therefore any statement to that effect is involving analysis and interpretation of the primary source. Besides that, Wikipedia cannot use any source to verify anything based on what it doesn't say. The Act does not say a great deal of things. It does not say Gaelic is compulsory, it does not say Gaelic is best whispered, it does not say Gaelic can only be sung on Tuesdays by authorised persons wearing a big hat. Should these facts be permitted on the article, using the Act as a verification? Of course not. It shouldn't be included unless a reliable secondary source thinks it significant and actually says it. Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- (1)
Does the Act say...that it does not make Gaelic an official language?
. In the words of John McEnroe, you cannot be serious. The point is that the act does not say, that by virtue of the act, "the Gaelic language is/becomes an official language of Scotland" (or words to that effect, but equally as direct and unambiguous). The 2005 Act sets up an organisation tasked with increasing usage of Gaelic so that it may become an official language – with that clearly happening at some time in the future. It is not WP:OR to use basic Reading comprehension skills to get this from the Act. (See [4] for an educator's practice test in reading comprehension, in case you are not taking my meaning from this term.)
(2)FromI bet it doesn't
, I think we can infer that Escape Orbit has still not read the act. Refusal to read a source being discussed on a talk page, but continuing in that discussion, is probably disruptive editing.
(3) The "The dog that didn't bark" argument applies to the complete absence of quality national newspapers/news organisations having articles headlined "Gaelic to become an official language in Scotland" (or words to that effect). It is relevant that both the Times and the BBC have dedicated activity to covering Scottish issues and that neither have run such a story. Those stories that they have run about Gaelic make no mention of achieving official status which, in the context of those stories, you would expect to see if it had happened.
(4) Completely ignoring the guidance on how a primary source may be used WP:PRIMARY also has connotations of disruptive editing. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 10:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)- @ThoughtIdRetired So now you are backing up article content on the basis of a lack of coverage in secondary sources? Because you expect they would have? Can you not see how ridiculous and unsupportable that position is? If anyone is ignoring policy, it is those who insist on including this statement, despite a complete lack of sources supporting it. It is entirely based on their interpretation of what a primary source doesn't say. Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- (1)
- @ThoughtIdRetired Does the Act say, in plain language understood by any educated person, that it does not make Gaelic an official language? I bet it doesn't. Therefore any statement to that effect is involving analysis and interpretation of the primary source. Besides that, Wikipedia cannot use any source to verify anything based on what it doesn't say. The Act does not say a great deal of things. It does not say Gaelic is compulsory, it does not say Gaelic is best whispered, it does not say Gaelic can only be sung on Tuesdays by authorised persons wearing a big hat. Should these facts be permitted on the article, using the Act as a verification? Of course not. It shouldn't be included unless a reliable secondary source thinks it significant and actually says it. Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- (1) Ah – the source of the problem:
- In your example, it was a matter of geometry that is either accurate or not, and I presume everyone was agreed it was wrong. This case is somewhat different in that it is a matter of interpretation of legislation. If that was that easy and something anyone could do, then we would have no need for lawyers. I'm not reading the Act because I know that it would be an exercise in original research and precisely what Wikipeida policy says we shouldn't do. (And I'd think the same if I was a lawyer, civil servant or politician, because my expertise is irrelevant.) It never cease to amaze how many times people think they've found a hole in Wikipedia policy that no-one has ever encountered or handled before. There is nothing special about this situation, it's happened thousands of times before where editors have decided it's ok to interpret what a primary source means, because reasons... No. It's not ok to decide that your interpretation of the primary source is better than the interpretation given on the Scottish Government website. If you have serious concerns about what the website says, perhaps your course of action would be to get it corrected, if indeed it is wrong. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Does this link[5] help? It restates the objectives of the act. I think a reasonable person would agree that if Gaelic had become an official language of Scotland, this website would be crowing about that as their success. OK, something of a "the dog that didn't bark" argument, but it is something to bear in mind. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 16:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- That source has the same wishy-washy language as the act itself: "... seeks to secure the status of Gaelic as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language." As you can see above, I read this as comparable to a history text explaining that some emperor of ages past took up arms to secure his domination over his lands. "Secure" in this sense doesn't mean to achieve but to keep and make good what already is. Akerbeltz did finally show me something that was actually convincing, but I'd thought that would nail things down for everyone yet it evidently hasn't. Largoplazo (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Experts are either published, or know where published authoritative sources are to found. They then cite them. If there are no published sources, then it should not be in an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias do not publish original content by anyone, expert or not. It's as easy as that. No-one ever gets to back up content on their say so alone. Anyone driven off by this requirement don't understand what an encyclopaedia is and what Wikipedia editors do. Verifiability not truth. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Your personal expertise counts for nothing on Wikipedia - and that is why large parts of Wikipedia are an unmitigated desaster, by not having a system that allows editors to verify their subject expertise. Have you any idea how much of an insult that is to someone who has decicated much of their life to any topic and how many top specialists have been driven off Wikipedia by this absurdity? In any case, the agreement was to park this issue. Can we stick to that? Akerbeltz (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Your personal expertise counts for nothing on Wikipedia, as you say. It can be frustrating, but this is as it should be. Anyone can claim to be anyone, expert in anything, with no end of in-the-know contacts, when they are an anonymous editor. I am Kate Forbes, Minister for Gaelic, so I should know. But even I fully understand the need to rely on sources, not editors, for facts. If you can't live with this you can either get Wikipedia policy changed or choose not to contribute. You may be right, you may be wrong, but bottom line is you're just a guy on the internet. How is anyone to know whether to trust your take on things? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- See, this is where Wikipedia falls over, by continually ignoring subject experts and burning incense at the altar of blind policy. If you lived in Scotland (like me) and if you had been working with Gaelic for over 20 years professionally (like me) and if you knew the 'Gaelic people' at the Parliament (like me), you'd know that this is a known inaccuracy on the website written by non-subject specialist web people who just can't be bothered to fix this error because Gaelic is WAY down their list of priorities. But by all means continue burning incense... Akerbeltz (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- You are simply misinformed here. Please read what Wikipedia has to say about the use of Primary Sources. Reliable secondary sources do indeed "trump legislation". It is safe to assume that the Scottish Government website content is written by civil servants whose job it is to understand the legislation. It is not written by "web monkeys". And please try to remain civil.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- For the nth-time, what web monkey write on websites does NOT EVER trump legislation. So go and read the act or go away. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- This[3] is the outcome of the 2005 act. It mirrors the language of the act with "...seeks to secure the status of Gaelic as an official language of Scotland..". That means that status has not been achieved. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 07:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem arises from the shoddy language used by the people writing the website vs the wording of the actual legislation. I wish it were different but if you read ANY legistlation relating to Gaelic, there is NOTHING in there that says it's an official language. And since there is no precendent of a website (even if produced by some government department) trumping primary legislation, I'm afraid the status quo remains that Gaelic, legally speaking, is NOT an official language. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm quite certain that you're correct and that User:Akerbeltz and User:ThoughtIdRetired are misunderstanding the 2005 act, particularly the portions I've italicized below.
- Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005:
The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 21st April 2005 and received Royal Assent on 1st June 2005: An Act of the Scottish Parliament to establish a body having functions exercisable with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language, including the functions of preparing a national Gaelic language plan, of requiring certain public authorities to prepare and publish Gaelic language plans in connection with the exercise of their functions and to maintain and implement such plans, and of issuing guidance in relation to Gaelic education.
...
(3)The functions conferred on the Bòrd by this Act are to be exercised with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language through ...
- This is a typical constitutional act, declaring that some general condition or principle prevails and then ordering measures to be taken, legislation and regulations to be enacted, to implement it, to give it flesh, to "secure" it so that it isn't just empty words in a document. This isn't "Board, if you arrange things to our satisfaction, if you jump through these hoops, if you can convince us that Gaelic deserves to be official, then maybe we'll finally be nice and make it official." It's "Gaelic is official now, so, Board, go out now and make that principle a reality, giving life to the language's official status, giving it the full dignity to which it is entitled just as English is." Largoplazo (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
...and then ordering measures to be taken, legislation and regulations to be enacted, to implement it...
So, until those measures have been taken and legislation has been enacted, it is not an official language. I am guessing that you would have less difficulty understanding this if the change being discussed was, say, a decrease in speed limits. If the first legislation had set up a board to reduce speed limits, those limits would not reduce until the board had put forward a bill which was then enacted. All that exists at the moment is something that might be variously described by politicians as either an "intent" or an "ambition". ThoughtIdRetired TIR 13:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)So, until those measures have been taken and legislation has been enacted, it is not an official language.
No, that isn't how it works. It should occur to you that if that were how it works, it's really, really weird that the Scottish government is completely ignorant on that matter. Basically, I'm watching two Wikipedians debate the Scottish government over how to interpret law that is squarely within the Scottish government's domain of expertise and with which they are intimately involved.- You have "official" and "in effect" conflated with each other. When a government declares something official, it doesn't do it by first setting up infrastructure to support it while insisting it's still unofficial and then, maybe one day, saying "OK, it's official now". It declares it official, then does whatever it sees as appropriate to put it into effect. Until the latter has happened, one can say it hasn't been put into effect yet, but it is neverthless official. If an act declares that men and women have equal rights, then they officially have equal rights, whether or not laws have been put into effect yet to remove actual inequities and penalize unequal treatment.
- The speed limit equivalent is if a law reduces the national speed limit and directs signs to be posted with the new limit. The limit is in effect immediately. The country doesn't wait till some number of signs have been posted and then some reliable source pipes up announcing "Well, we're calling it now: was far as we're concerned, enough signs have been put that we feel comfortable calling the new limit official". If a constable stops you for exceeding the new limit, you don't get to argue that enough signs aren't up for the limit to be official. Largoplazo (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry but the reality of the 2005 act is such that other than setting up Bòrd na Gàidhlig, it confers NONE of the legal rights that being an official language entails. Someone takes you to court, you cannot insist on proceedings being in Gaelic. You do not have a right to have your children educated in Gaelic, not even at the primary level, never mind any other level. Heck, you can't even get your council tax form in Gaelic. Don't you think we would have taken every opportunity to litigate for these things if there was a law that says 'hey, it's official now. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- The main problem with your argument, Akerbelt, is that it seems to rely on interpretation of a primary source. Similarly counter arguments from others, by alternatively interpreting the same source are equally flawed. We should all know that this simply isn't good enough. Whether you are qualified to interpret government legislation or not, it simply isn't allowed from Wikipedia editors. (I'm not saying either side is wrong, I'm certainly not qualified to determine. I'm saying non-primary sources are needed, and the one we have so far says "official". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- And one - from a lawyer no less (Wilson McLeod is a lawyer by training) - who says 'not official'. And before someone mentios it being n years old or something, that's the reality of under-resourced langues. Welcome to our world. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with Wilson McLeod's cite is not its age, but that it pre-dates significant legislation which may have, or may not have, completely changed the situation. Not just the 2005 Act, but even the formation of the body that created the Act. Using it as a present day assessment of the present status is highly questionable, and likely to mislead or confuse the reader. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- And one - from a lawyer no less (Wilson McLeod is a lawyer by training) - who says 'not official'. And before someone mentios it being n years old or something, that's the reality of under-resourced langues. Welcome to our world. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- The main problem with your argument, Akerbelt, is that it seems to rely on interpretation of a primary source. Similarly counter arguments from others, by alternatively interpreting the same source are equally flawed. We should all know that this simply isn't good enough. Whether you are qualified to interpret government legislation or not, it simply isn't allowed from Wikipedia editors. (I'm not saying either side is wrong, I'm certainly not qualified to determine. I'm saying non-primary sources are needed, and the one we have so far says "official". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- PS giving it the full dignity to which it is entitled just as English is – that wishy-washy statement about 'equal respect' meant literally nothing. The SNP did put forward an amendment to grant it 'equal validity' [6] (still short of being co-official) but that was voted down. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Scottish government says it's official. Your counterargument is that it isn't official because the act doesn't confer a variety of conditions that in your opinion ought to be what official status confers. Your own WP:OR/opinion/grievances and your WP:POV characterization of the status as "wishy-washy" don't override what is clearly and unequivocally declared. It's like saying North Korea isn't officially a republic. It certainly doesn't behave in any way that merits it being described in effect as a republic, but, nonetheless, it's officially a republic, and Wikipedia accordingly says so.
- Here's another example: Amsterdam is officially the capital of the Netherlands. It isn't the actual capital according to any normal definition of "capital city", as the country isn't governed out of Amsterdam. No branch of the Dutch government is seated there. Nevertheless, Amsterdam is (for whatever historical reasons) officially the capital, we declare it as such, and then we explain the reality behind that in the appropriate section of the article. We don't refuse to declare it the official capital on the grounds of what we think that should mean.
- The fundamental meaning of "official" is that the pertinent body has declared it thus. It's an ipso facto thing. While I can contemplate arguing that something not so declared is official anyway in essence by virtue of its use for official purposes where alternatives are not provided for, I don't see any avenue for arguing that something that is officially declared is actually not official. Largoplazo (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry but the reality of the 2005 act is such that other than setting up Bòrd na Gàidhlig, it confers NONE of the legal rights that being an official language entails. Someone takes you to court, you cannot insist on proceedings being in Gaelic. You do not have a right to have your children educated in Gaelic, not even at the primary level, never mind any other level. Heck, you can't even get your council tax form in Gaelic. Don't you think we would have taken every opportunity to litigate for these things if there was a law that says 'hey, it's official now. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
You fundamentally misunderstand what the concept of an official language is. As the Wikipedia page says, An official language is a language having certain rights to be used in defined situations. These rights can be created in written form or by historic usage. If it doesn't, it's not an official language of whatever political entity. To date there is no law that bestows such rights on the citizens of Scotland or the UK. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm having an extraordinary amount of trouble believing that you brought forth a Wikipedia article as the authority on what a phrase means.
- The official state bird of Virginia is the cardinal. Its state flower is the dogwood flower. No special rights inure in Virginia to cardinals or dogwood flowers, nor to people who raise them or bear them. The whole thing is pretty damn meaningless, yet they're official because people who, by virtue of their office, possess the official capacity to declare things "official" because they say so, have said so.
- Please do not ever again cite a Wikipedia article as a reliable source to support any argument.
- Your argument falls apart anyway even if we do take that article's definition into account. The board has been accorded powers to spend money to engage in a bunch of activity to promote the teaching and use of Gaelic. Neither that board nor any other agency has been giving similar power for Cornish, Pictish, Manx, Old Saxon, or any other language. It has officially given Gaelic a special status not provided to 99.999% of the world's languages. They aren't the rights that you'd like to see accorded but, again, your approval isn't required. Largoplazo (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- According official status to a language is hardly comparable to deciding what badge you’re going to have. Giving something a budget has no implication of the according of status. Can you clarify the assumptions you are making in “They aren't the rights that you'd like to see accorded but, again, your approval isn't required”? Not sure I understand it but my best guess makes it seem highly presumptuous. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is not the role of Wikipedia to make policy decisions for Scotland or anywhere else. Our responsibility is only to state the facts. The fact is that the Edinburgh government has not (yet) made any policy statement on the subject. Until the official Scottish government makes an official statement, officially declaring Gaelic to be an official language, we cannot presume to declare it to be official. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's as though you're all willfully not seeing the word "official" in the act. Largoplazo (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is not the role of Wikipedia to make policy decisions for Scotland or anywhere else. Our responsibility is only to state the facts. The fact is that the Edinburgh government has not (yet) made any policy statement on the subject. Until the official Scottish government makes an official statement, officially declaring Gaelic to be an official language, we cannot presume to declare it to be official. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- According official status to a language is hardly comparable to deciding what badge you’re going to have. Giving something a budget has no implication of the according of status. Can you clarify the assumptions you are making in “They aren't the rights that you'd like to see accorded but, again, your approval isn't required”? Not sure I understand it but my best guess makes it seem highly presumptuous. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- it does have certain rights though? only a few weeks ago Kate Forbes, the Deputy First Minister, took her oath of office in the language. [7] if it's not official then why do they let the second highest figure in the Scottish government use it? it's not like it's the first time either [8] (i can't link the older speech itself as you can't link youtube but i'm sure you can find it yourself) Clydiee (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course he has seen the word 'official' but what he is apparently capable of seeing is the difference between a statement about what is vs what may be in the future. Declaring an official state flower and suchlike is an absurd comparison, that has no legal or financial implications, mottos and symbols often involve extinct or mythical beings and being a state flower doesn't entitle you to legal rights you can claim in a court. Being an official language does. If your wilful reading of 'with a view to' was correct, then why would the authors of the currently proposed Scottish Languages Bill [9] feel the need to state that the proposed legislation will do the following:The Bill gives the Gaelic and Scots languages official status in Scotland? If Gaelic already was, surely only Scots would be elevated to this new status. Akerbeltz (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Declaring an official state flower and suchlike is an absurd comparison, that has no legal or financial implications, mottos and symbols often involve extinct or mythical beings and being a state flower doesn't entitle you to legal rights you can claim in a court. Being an official language does.
That first sentence was exactly my point: something can be official without any legal or financial implications following from its declaration as such. (See my reference to Amsterdam.) The second sentence is you making up your own rule, WP:OR, distinguishing languages from everything else that might be declared official.- If your willful reading is correct, why does the Scottish government disagree with you on its website? At least my reading (a) is consistent with the way many such provisions read, providing that something is true and then providing for actions to be taken to give it effect and (b) is consistent with the Scottish government's own interpretation on its website. Yours is also possible. A lot of it depends on the bizarre use of the word "secure": one can speak but of securing what one already has, but "secure" can also mean "to get, firmly" something that one doesn't already have.
- Now, finally, you bring up the proposed Scottish languages bill, which is indeed predicated on your interpretation being the correct one, as in paragraph 13 it says
Section 1 of the Bill inserts a new section before section 1 of the 2005 Act, providing for the status of the Gaelic language. The statement in subsection (1) that the Gaelic language has official status within Scotland is given legal effect by the provisions of the 2005 Act conferring functions on Bòrd na Gàidhlig, the Scottish Ministers and other persons (relevant public authorities, as defined in section 10 of the 2005 Act) and enactments relating to Gaelic education.
- While this leaves open the question of why the Scottish government is contradicting the clear implication of this on its own website, at least now it's a matter of contradictory statements from authoritative sources rather than a statement from one authoritative source and your insistence that it wasn't correct because what it says doesn't meet your personal understanding of what being an official language should mean or because its implications fall short of your expectations. This is what you should have started with. Largoplazo (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or arguably it's one source that is open to interpretation, contradicted by one that is clear. Either way it would not be appropriate to declare that the language is official, so I'd say we're done for this question, unless and until there are any further developments. Happy to draw a line everyone? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm done. Largoplazo (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm good with drawing a line for now. Since there was a question above, I'll answer it: you can take your oath in a variety of languages by virtue of the Parliament's standing orders, not their official status. The oath to date has been taken in English, Scots, Gaelic, Urdu, German and Shona and I think we can all safely agree that that does not make Shona an official language of Scotland. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- i cant understand why the people are creating so divisions, for somewhat that is so obvious, however, as incredible as it may seem, their argues make sense.
- In my opinion, if the Scottish Government Act 2005 itself says it's an official language, why trying demystify the undemystifiable?
- Other argue that seem very shallow, is argue that the person is not being civil, people have opnions, so if you disagree with me, am I automatically non-civil? Completely senseless, doesn't it?
- I th 177.105.90.85 (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Besides, no one knows 100% of everything, so please, people, have patience and understand once and for all, that if a article make a slip-up, although you must help to get better, this doesn't mean that just because you think that way, that the article should change to suit what you think, because people think differently, and ironically the same accuse others of POV, are also POV, but, ok. 177.105.90.85 (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm good with drawing a line for now. Since there was a question above, I'll answer it: you can take your oath in a variety of languages by virtue of the Parliament's standing orders, not their official status. The oath to date has been taken in English, Scots, Gaelic, Urdu, German and Shona and I think we can all safely agree that that does not make Shona an official language of Scotland. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm done. Largoplazo (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or arguably it's one source that is open to interpretation, contradicted by one that is clear. Either way it would not be appropriate to declare that the language is official, so I'd say we're done for this question, unless and until there are any further developments. Happy to draw a line everyone? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)