Talk:Goidelic languages

message: I'm removing the following information because it has been tagged as being unsourced for some time:
*[The term "Gaelic"] in Britain, most often refers to Scottish Gaelic and it is the word that Scottish Gaelic speakers themselves use when speaking English. In the USA however, the word is often used by members of the Irish diaspora to refer to the Irish language. Within Ireland, native speakers in Donegal are more likely to refer to the language in English as Gaelic rather than Irish.
If anyone can find sources for these statements, feel free to re-add them. —Angr 18:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced info removed 

message: I'm removing the following statement which has been tagged as needing a source for some time:
*Others may feel use of the term strengthens feelings of solidarity among speakers of the sister languages.
Again, if anyone can provide a source for this claim, feel free to add it. —Angr 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More unsourced info removed 

message: Gaulish is listed as part of the Brythonic languages...when I thought it was part of its own continental or Gaulish subfamily. If we are to list dead languages, Cornish should be listed in the place of Gaulish as a Brythonic language. I have no references offhand, but I would challenge someone to show me that I am wrong. I, at some point in the future, will get accredited references to back up my position. AnthroGael 03:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it says Gaulish and Brythonic are sometimes collectively known as P-Celtic. It doesn't say Gaulish is Brythonic. —Angr 05:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough. My bad. Still, if we are to list the P-Celtic languages, is there a reason why we would include Gaulish ahead of Cornish in this table? Maybe we could add Cornish as one of these pink background titles? Or perhaps we could add a legend explaining the pink/green colour code? AnthroGael 11:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, is there any reason for the table to be here at all? It doesn't really add much to a discussion of the Goidelic languages. —Angr 17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornish and Gaulish 

message: The original and pure Shelta has no English in it but is a back slang gaelic.
Gaelic words like mac are cam in shelta. Many modern Irish travellers of today travel both Ireland and the UK and now speak a mix cant language. True Shelta is not Cant.
You must change the phrase about shelta being cant as irish traveller cant is a modern corruption of the original tongue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  True Shelta is not cant and does not have English in it 

message: It's fun sometimes looking through an article's history to see the wide variety of interpretations that can be put on any string of words.  I found that this (which I think I wrote)...
Furthermore, due to the peculiar politics of language and national identity, some Irish speakers are offended by the use of the word Gaelic by itself to refer to Irish.
...had the word peculiar removed by some anon IP - (→Nomenclature:  insulting "peculiar" removed). Ahem, I'm not sure if I meant it in the general sense "distinguished in nature or character; particular, special", or as "unlike others, singular, unusual, strange, odd", but either way I can't see how it's insulting. However you feel about the word as applied to Irish, you have to admit that, without knowing anything of the history of its use, it does appear odd.
It's no great loss though. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 02:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't even say that Irish speakers' offense at the word "Gaelic" is peculiar; it says that the politics of language and national identity is peculiar. I really think it can only mean peculiar in the sense of "particular" not in the sense "weird". —Angr 06:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peculiar 

message: This section is in danger of becoming a "my favourite links" section.  While I can see how Highland Clearances are relevant to the position of Scottish Gaelic, I think we should stick to more directly language-related links, otherwise it'll just become unmanageable. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 06:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Prior to this edit the first two paragraphs of the Manx section were almost word-for-word identical to text at www.gov.im/tourism/culture. While I realise there exists the possibility that the Isle of Man government website lifted the text in question from this article, I feel that this is so unlikely as to be not worth considering. The question I have is, have the subsequent edits to the section taken it out of the realm of WP:COPYVIO or not? I suspect not. Recommended action, anyone?--Yumegusa (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the edit which brought in the suspect text, nearly two years ago, by an IP editor.--Yumegusa (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'm blanking the offending paragraphs for the moment, as the copyvio can't be simply let slide.--Yumegusa (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 October 7 for investigation and has today come current. Thanks for catching the problem! There is no question that the material was duplicated from Wikipedia, as internet archives confirm that the text at the external site predates its introduction here. The site bears a clear copyright reservation. I've removed the material altogether to reduce the risk of it being inadvertently reintroduced. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {copypaste} on Manx section 

message: I'm doing some cleaning up of the Nomenclature section as it's once again suffering from edit-itis.  Many clarifications and prevarications have been added which destroy the flow of the text and make it much harder to read.  All of these are unnecessary.
*usually: this plus the (wordy) qualification "when referring to language" is just too much.
*(despite historically referring specifically to things Gaelic): the word "can" covers the possibility that there are other uses - this is not the place to list them.  It's the ambiguity that's the point, not what the word can or could have meant.
*somewhat: a weasel word if ever I saw one.  There's either ambiguity or there isn't.
*although in this context it is usually pronounced  (that is, the same as Gallic), rather than : "Pronounced by who?" I might ask.  It's true that people in Scotland might do that, but then they wouldn't pronounce the Gaelic in Irish Gaelic any differently, so what exactly is the point of this random information about Scottish English pronunciation?
Text below in bold restored after deletion by 192.122.222.206 with no reason given.  If it deserves deletion then so does the following para.
* Gwiddel: never seen this form before & I'm about 99% sure that Guoidel is the earliest Welsh form.  Rephrased what had become a very awkward sentence.  The reader can draw their own conclusions about whether the name is derogatory; we have no idea what people at time thought about it.
* Goidels: This is not an article about the Gaels so information not relating to the names of the languages isn't appropriate here. (Added by Roidhrigh 21:57, 28 March 2009)
☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 09:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature edits 

message: *also sometimes called...: if further discussion of what they might be called is needed, put it in the Nomenclature section rather than constipating the opening para.
* However, until approximately 1700...: since this is discussed in para 3 and in the History and range section, I've reverted to the previous simpler and shorter text.  Also assertions that the languages diverged because of "English inroads" seems a little hard to sustain.  Surely politics had something to do with it; in any case we should keep the opening paras as simple as possible.
* Manx (through default of evidence)...:  saying that something's so even though there's no evidence...hmmm.
* Later orthographic divergence is the result of more recent orthographic reforms...:  Later divergence = recent reforms, so what are we saying here? This may have made sense once upon a time, but I haven't time for the archaelogy required to find it.
* All Irish and Scottish persons...: I was tempted to try to reword this in the hope of a good reference appearing, but it's probably better to remove it for now.  Basically all we can say is that we think Man was included in the same literary continuum, but we have no evidence, which is not particularly encyclopedic.  It's probably best to keep highly speculative material out of the opening paras at least.
☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 10:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decrufting opening para 

message: "but sometime between the 3rd century and the 6th century a group of the Irish Celts known to the Romans as Scoti began migrating from Ireland to what is now Scotland"
Reading this sentence it would be very easy to mistakenly assume that "Scoti" refers specifically to the group which migrated to Caledonia and not the Irish Celts in general. Murchadh (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Sentence 

message: Why does the text of the article neglect to mention that these are Indo-European languages?  The info-box does have such an attribution but it ought to be in the text, perhaps with discussion of their relationship to other Indo-European languages.~Mack2~ (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Indo-European?

message: I really thought this had been discussed so much that we could just leave it alone now.  The reasons why (despite many Americans love of adding the word Gaelic to everything) it is unnecessary:
* Speakers of Irish and Manx normally call them just that.
* There is a history of "Gaelic" being used by people who don't approve of state funding of Irish.  It is a politicised word in some contexts so is best avoided in an encyclopaedic work.
* No useful information is added: there are no other languages called Irish or Manx.
* The WP articles about the languages themselves use their regular names and do not include the word "Gaelic".
I have removed the excess Gaelics in the article.  Please don't just add them back in without some proper discussion as this has been a contentious issue in this article since at least 2004.
☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 13:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The obsession with Gaelic 

message: This was once a small expansion on the "dialect continuum" reference in the opening para.  Now it has become a hugely bloated digression fest.  Information about different orthographies doesn't belong in the lead paragraphs of an article.
Since this is really a discussion of the range and spread of the language I've moved it to the appropriate section and merged it with the text there.
☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 13:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Classic Gaelic"/"Early Modern Irish" para 

message: Though I can see Akerbeltz's point about not becoming a study in dialectology, showing dialect forms here does actually illustrate the old continuum of language that used to exist so I've corrected and added a little. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 13:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: This paragraph isn't even a complete sentenceAs well as the general assumption by the English and Anglicised ruling classes following the Flight of the Earls and disappearance of much of the Gaelic aristocracy that Irish was a language spoken by ignorant peasants. 
Frankly, it is a clumsily-worded, insipid attempt to derogate a people.
I have combined the ideas in it with the preceding paragraph--which was also composed of a single sentence. 
--Patronanejo (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Goidelic_languages#Irish|Irish]] 

message: Can't help notice "Wysg" although used in modern Welsh, looks suspiciously like a goidelic word for water? (Which finds it's way into modern English as Whisky). Often in England, river names have a brythonic origin. Is this analagous evidence of a goidelic origin for a river in Wales- a Welsh "River Avon" if you like?
Does this mean that the Welsh really are the Irish who couldn't swim, and that a Brythonic elite displaced a goidelic one?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.100.25.179 (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  River Usk/ Afon Wysg, is it evidence of a previous goidelic culture? 

message: It’s frankly depressing to come back this article again and again over the years to find some barrow-pusher or hobby-horse rider has waded in an just done a big dump in the middle of a paragraph. If you can be bothered to take the time to add to an article, PLEASE try to make your addition fit it and not totally break the sense of surrounding sentences.
You may or may not be an island, but your contribution definitely isn’t! Try to make it fit in.
E.g. in an attempted refutation (?) of Ewen Campbell’s theory, user 95.44.233.78 added these sentences:
However,considering that the Gaels originated in Ireland and that Scotland was the land of the Picts, it does seem likely that there was some Irish Gaelic settlement in Scotland, presumably bringing the Gaelic language with them.
Shaneg4015 added to it and KDS4444 chopped a sentence, removing the vital However and suggesting the opposite of the the original contribution. KDS4444 was right that this was WP:OR, but just didn’t remove enough.
☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 05:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you’re pushing a barrow at least do it with some finesse! 

message: Per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:PRIMARY and WP:SMALLDETAILS, Gaelic language goes to Scottish Gaelic (mostly only linguists call it it the latter; it's referred to by the Scottish as simply Gaelic), while Gaelic languages and Gaelic language family naturally redirect to Goidelic languages. Disambiguation is carried out at both articles with the  hatnote.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: Gealic was the language of the courts and the people up until the reign of the Malcolm III, surnames Caenmor Malcolm III of Scotland.   P16, Vol 1. [Sketches] by David Stewart. scope_creep (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Gealic

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Goidelophone. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  buidhe 05:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Goidelophone" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Goidelic (Gaelic). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  buidhe 05:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Goidelic (Gaelic)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Goidelic (Gaelic) language. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  buidhe 05:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Goidelic (Gaelic) language" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gaelic group. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Utopes (talk / cont) 22:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gaelic group" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gaelic groups. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Utopes (talk / cont) 22:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gaelic groups" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Goidelic (Gaelic) languages. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Goidelic (Gaelic) languages until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Goidelic (Gaelic) languages" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I suggest moving the page name to "Gaelic languages" rather than the unheard of (by people without etymological knowledge) "Goidelic". The lead could read: "the Gaelic langauges, also known as Goidelic languages" etc.
Gaelicbow Gaelicbow (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, can we not re-open a lengthy hair-splitting debate on what to call this page and work on content instead? With redirects, this name is very workable AND accurate. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goidelic to Gaelic