Talk:Canadian Gaelic

message: :::I came across that JSTOR article in 2007 because I was keen for any catalogue of Canadian Gaelic neologisms, regardless of whether or not they were loanwords. I acquired the article, and while I’m not sure if sharing the pdf violates the terms of purchase, send me an e-mail (my username at gmail.com) and we’ll chat about it. The article lists calques and loans exclusively, and makes an interesting case for the notability (if not legitimacy) of loanwords in Canadian Gaelic — basically, Gaelic (unlike Spanish, English or Cumhachd’s example French) is completely dependent on a substrate of English for neologisms. Widespread bilingualism, English-only education and employment, and the complete lack of gaelic-language economy, technology, and manufacturing, all combined to create an environment where the only coinages were borrowed from English. This “crucible” of language change isn’t similar to what was going on in English- Spanish- Portuguese- or French-speaking majority colonies -- and even somewhat different from other minority colonies like “New Jersey Dutch” or “Pennsylvania Dietsch & Texas German”.
:::On the other hand, I agree that a lexicon of pure loanwords isn’t very remarkable (that doesn’t mean, in my mind, that it wouldn’t be article-worthy, just that it wouldn’t be “maximum excitement”) so I chose the terms I thought were interesting, preferring calques to loans, and open to anything requiring a leap of imagination more strenuous than “commission = còmmission” (ie: the sgillin/penny thing). There are more than 100 entries in the PDF but as they are almost entirely loanwords, I overlooked most of them. 
:::There was a paragraph in this document that mentioned one or two more coinages, but aside from these two PDFs (and possibly one in here?) that’s all I’ve been able to scrape together. The citations are not sloppy, they are just indicative of the complete dearth of information available. I think what’s important to remember is that the debate over whether or not the “source articles are expansive or spartan” and the lexical items “interesting or dull,” — that’s a debate that is very different from one over whether or not the article’s very existence is justified. 
:::Do you have a citation record for any of the indigenous colloquialisms you say are advocated by the CnaG? Are you talking pronunciation, lexicon, traditions? If anything you’ve got would help out the article, by all means throw it in there. Your mogan research, as I’ve maintained from the beginning, is compelling — personally I’m cool with it as is, but is there any possibility of getting a citation? The “death-grip” as you call it is a conditioned response to years of over-zealous editing and poorly-researched contributions. If we could bring this article up to featured-status quality by EOY I’ll take-back everything I’ve said and personally help you take-down the CnaG, Steven Seagal style. — Muckapedia 06:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lexicon Citation

message: The Gaelic name was given as Gàidhlig na Canada, which is ungrammatical in Gaelic because Canada is a masculine noun (na is the feminine genitive singular form of the definite article), and it doesn't take the definite article anyway. I changed it to Gàidhlig Chanada, which is grammatically correct, but that is still a neologism and has no Google hits. Probably Gaelic speakers would just call it Gàidhlig ann an Canada ("Gaelic in Canada") or Gàidhlig na h-Alba ann an Canada ("Scottish Gaelic in Canada"). --Angr/ 19:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaelic name 

message: "It is estimated more than 50 000 Gaelic settlers immigrated to Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island during this period, the last ship arriving in 1840."[9]
The source referenced there doesn't actually say the last ship arrived in 1840. What it actually says is that Scottish emigration to North America was fairly constant from 1815-1870. Perhaps the person who contributed the above meant 1870 instead of 1840, but my sketchy knowledge of history won't permit me to say for sure whether the last ship really did arrive in 1870.
The source referenced above refers to North America as a whole, but I think the date of 1840 is also wrong if applied only to Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. Some of my Gaelic-speaking MacLeod ancestors arrived in Nova Scotia on a ship called the John and Robert in 1843 (they'd left Tobermory on the Catherine but had to change ships in Belfast). I've changed the date from 1840 to between 1815 and 1870. Iordan MacBheatha 02:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Gaelic immigrants in NS 

message: This article is well written and comprehensive. I would even go as far to say that, with a bit of expansion, it would be FA-material. A lot of very good work clearly went into this article! ErleGrey 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA pass

message: This must surely be somewhat limiting. My family on both sides were Gaelic speakers in the District of Assiniboia, later the Province of Saskatchewan; their roots were respectively in Ontario and eastern Quebec, yes, but clearly they briefly brought the language with them. I well recall great aunts and uncles in the 1970s giggling about the fact that all they could now remember were swear words; but the policy of corporal punishment in school for speaking it certainly also pertained there and it seems unlikely there would have been any such policy if instances of its being spoken were rare. Masalai (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "...in [[Winnipeg, Manitoba|Winnipeg]], [[Manitoba]]; and [[Eastern Townships|Eastern Québec]]"

message: Pugwash has a population of gaelic speaking residents.  All the road sings are in both english and gaelic, but Pugwash isn't mentioned in the article nor placed on the map.  Perhaps it's too small, but Pugwash has quite the history.  What do you guys thing?  Notible enough for inclusion or even a mention? QBasicer (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pugwash, Nova Scotia 

message: The title Gàidhlig Chanaideanach and the IPA [ˈkɑːlʲəˈ kanatanax] don't seem to match at all... I can see how /ligʲ/ might be a syllable that gets simplified but /lʲə/ look decidedly odd and the lack of lenition and the vowels in /kanatanax/ look fishy too and I'm tempted to redo them according to normal Gaelic pronunciation.
Also, the Phonology section uses the Celticist (well, I assume it's the Celticist symbols) N and L - which would need changing to normal IPA. Also, the /r/ isn't clear - is this strong initial /R/ or single slender /r/ - given the comment about the environment I suspect this is orthographic single broad r which can be strengthened to /R/ followed by / ʃ / - though that's techically more of a retroflex /ʂ/. I'm curious, where does this data come from?
Why all the weird spacing of quoted letters: “ l ”? 139.68.134.1 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Phonology

message: A lot of the expansion since this became GA has been uncited. This article needs more citations for non-obvious claims to remain as a GA.YobMod 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Agreed. A Chumhachd, don’t delete my signature from my posts on this discussion page — it inhibits clarity. Also, I have told you that there is no CnaG connection nor prejudice, but you continue going back to your original supposition. Why? Additionally, you’ve heard evidence supporting the reasoning behind the article title, but you continue to revisit this without supplying references. Why? Use sources, be respectful, or get banned.
The thing that kills me is that, if you are fluent in Canadian gaelic you could be contributing to this page in a number of constructive ways: at the bottom of the article I have linked to scores of documents and videos in authentic Canadian Gaelic, and I can’t understand any of them. You could be watching interviews with Joe Neil MacNeil or reading issues of Mac Talla and add any lexical innovations you find. That’s certainly what I’d be doing, instead of indulging in this destruction. 
MacTalla went out of publication in 1904. Even during the years in which it was publishing, it was not publishing in Canadian Gaelic. You still haven't even begun to demonstrate what that is yet. It was a Scots Gaelic publication in Cape Breton. I'm aware of the numerous interviews collected as part of the Cainnt Mo Mhàthair program. None are proof that there is anything called Canadian Gaelic. They largely reflect dialects of Scots Gaelic common, again, mostly to one favored area in Cape Breton. There is work there to do in identifying regional idioms and colloquialisms, but such efforts are being hindered by the manipulative clique that patrols this and other pages on an hourly basis.
The fact that your edits are destructive is self-evident: Review comparison between edit histories here. Breakdown of select edits follows:
:1–3,5 ~Title The article is titled according to Gaelic linguistic precedent. In edit 3 you deliberately destroy a file link, without any attempt to repair the file. Blatant ignorance of how MediaWiki works. Edit 5 is a deletion of the Article title, which contradicts Wikipedia style.
The direct link to CnG in Iona is not a file link for research purposes; it is an effort to advertise and propogate the idea that somehow CnG in Iona is the local linguistic mafia. Move over, boys, there's a new dispensation a-comin'.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 7 +sporadically The timeline of the language’s history has not been sporadic, it has been continuous. This means unbroken. Gaelic has never been extinct in Cape Breton, so your edit is demonstrably false.
There are periods of peaks and troughs in which Scots Gaelic gains and loses popularity in Canada as in Scotland. The idea that there is a standard, identifiable thing called Canadian Gaelic which is separate and distinct from the language that we refer to as Scots Gaelic is what is patently false. Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

text: 8 +enclaves “isolated enclaves” is more descriptive than “various enclaves”, which employs a weasel word contrary to wikipedia style. Also Cape Breton is an island, so it takes the preposition “on”, not “in”.
The only thing that deserves the moniker weasel are those who are trying to prevent serious critical examination of the content in the original page.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

text: 9 -the language is You have replaced three words with nine (“Scots Gaelic with a few identifiable regional  variations was”) without contributing a new insight, or adding specificity to improve clarity. There is nothing wrong with the conjunctive phrase “the language is” in this instance, because the language referred to is clearly Scottish Gaelic as it is spoken in Canada.
You're hedging here. However, this comment is, finally, a slightly original way of trying to address the question of the difference between dialects, vernaculars, and languages, but once again it's suspect because it seeks a priori to assert the existence of a standardized language (which I know you want to call a dialect but you still treat as a language) that is distinguishable from Scots Gaelic. Scots Gaelic is the language. Dialects of that language were brought to Canada. Those dialects are still spoken, with regional variations that themselves are not sufficient to constitute a Cape Breton dialect, not to mention the fabricated idea of a Canadian dialect. I mean, come on. You're asserting that Cape Breton dialect is Canadian dialect, which in itself is daft, without even sufficiently demonstrating that there is even a Cape Breton dialect! Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

text: 11 +some Your addition of “some” here (“some immigrants newly arrived from  Scotland would soon be joined by Loyalist emigrants”) is incorrect. All the immigrants newly arrived from Scotland were joined by Loyalist emigrants, because shortly after the arrival of the former, was the arrival of the latter. ie: First came the one group, then came the other group.
I will review this. My sense in the original was that the author was implying that all Scottish emigrants to the American Colonies were Loyalist. Maybe not, but there was a strong implication in the original that Loyalists were persecuted (see the next gem below) and, for that reason, had to flee to Canada. In fact, many chose that course of action because it suited them financially, not morally or ethically. To imply persecution is to overstate a very complex issue. From an American perspective, the Loyalists might be regarded as traitors, as some Americans are still inclined to think of Vietnam-era draft dodgers who came to Cape Breton and learned Gaelic as a second language. The point is still the same, though. Bias, bias, bias and direct manipulation of the content. Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

text: 12 -escaping persecution If you’ve studied Canadian history, you know that the Loyalists were escaping persecution. The term Lynch mob originated in this period. So we do not need to replace the descriptor “escaping persecution” with the politically-corrected and uninformative “[those] who refused to sign the Oath of Allegiance to  the Continental Congress”. Again, you’ve replaced my three words with your 13 and stripped the sentence of important information in the process. It isn’t important that the Loyalists opted not to sign a certain document, it is important that they were persecuted. In this case three words are better than 13.
You information is embarrasingly flawed on this point and, again, still biased.Ancumhachdgasta (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Rather dramatic. I haven't seen Cumhachd edit warring since my last comment. This is a bit much on all sides. Can we wait and see if things have cooled down? kwami (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

text: "Poorly researched"? I didn't do any research. I have no idea who is right. I am merely trying to end a childish edit war. Continue and I will block you. kwami (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: March 2010 edit war

message: Here’s my position: 1) This page has existed for 5 years, predicated on the belief that Scottish Gaelic as it exists in Canada, due to a unique history, culture, lexicon and phonology, is worthy of an article. 2) That article, because of previously cited linguistic precedent and conforming to the standard set by similar articles, has been styled “Canadian Gaelic”. 3) The distinction between a language and a dialect is notoriously liquid, however no-one here asserts that Canadian Gaelic constitutes a language in its own right. Use of the word language within the article refers to “Scottish Gaelic as it is spoken in Canada”. The term Canadian Gaelic refers — transparently — to whatever Gaelic is Canadian; that is, the Gaelic that is spoken by Canadians, in Canada, and transmitting a unique Canadian culture, whatever that may be, and irrespective of how many further dialects it may contain.
The spelling of placenames is not “frigged”, it is the exact same as it is on the referring website. If that site has a problem, fine, change it, that’s okay because that’s what Wikipedia is here for. Just be sure to cite your sources. Edits must be a synthesis of sourced research and scholarship, and supplied with citations. It’s for the editors to ban users, not me, and as you have already been accused of edit warring twice by an editor, yes, you run the serious risk of being banned.
The assumption of good faith is a pillar of Wikipedia. Your very first discussion post was an accusation claiming contributors were politically motivated by including some committee — you’ve been told this isn’t the case, but you keep going back to it. You’ve mentioned  it more than ten times, and I don’t understand why. I have no agenda, I just don’t understand why your only contribution to Wikipedia has been defaming the good faith of important contributors to this page. I know its not the “MuckyAker” show, it’s the “cited research and hard work” show. I have no credentials, I’m just the guy who created the page and tried to improve it for the past five years — but Akerbeltz is a highly respected authority on Gaelic and if he doesn’t resent your lumping his name in with mine then I do. Everything written on this page that isn’t about citing sources and following precedent is complete bunkum.
Lastly, I’m sick of you marking-up my commentary, it’s disrespectful. Please add your responses below the comments of others, not within. If you edit my comments I will have to revert the discussion, and no one wants to get into that. I apologise if you took offence to my characterisation of the current dispute as “Cumachd’s Edit War” — I have renamed the section accordingly. Also, because you are nesting your responses within archival threads on this page going back 5 years, and not signing all of your posts, I have highlighted those posts green in the interest of clarity —Muckapedia 20:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that highlighting one person's comments who you happen to disagree with is unfair. He's vocal, but it's because you guys are always running on at the mouth about your expertise and not giving anyone the opportunity to contribute anything other than what gets your stamp of approval.Dwindlespin (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the green text, then that's simply because Cumhach will insist on putting his responses into other people's posts. And I don't mind him being vocal; what makes him difficult to deal with is a) that he prefers to edit war rather than to debate changes deemed controversial and b) that for the most part, he makes little sense. If you have some deep insight into Cumhach's logic, then I'd really appreciate a translation because his objections (to pick one) to "Canadian Gaelic" (along with the sweeping statement denying the need for the British English and American English pages) just don't make any sense. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

text: "Gaelophone" gets a handful of hits at Google Books (which reflects usage in edited writing as opposed to writing anywhere on the WWW), while "Goidelophone" gets none. I see no reason not to use the easily understandable "Gaelic speaker" for the noun and "Gaelic-speaking" for the adjective. +Angr 14:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend not to use goidelophone or gaelophone either. "Goidelic speakers" or "speakers of a goidelic language" is the one most commonly encountered in scientific texts I'd say. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: got it. Yeah I guess my need for such a word is some Canadian thing — anglophone, francophone and allophone are regular terms in the Canadian discourse and I reached for the analogue. There’s little precedent so I’m holding off. —Muckapedia 14:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to reversion  351789157

message: This is not the only single malt whisky made outside Scotland. Bushmills 10-year-old Single Malt, from Northern Ireland, and Suntory's Yamazaki, which is made in Japan, are two others. There are others made in Australia and elsewhere. Perhaps "one of a number of single malt whiskies" might be more accurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.20.82 (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Glen Breton Rare

message: As a learner and enthusiast of Gaelic I have always been interested in the now extinct dialects of formerly Gaelic speaking areas in Scotland. Very recently I visited Cape Breton island and discussed Gaelic with Gaelic speakers on the island. It became clear from listening to the speakers and and their accounts of Gaelic on the island that Canadian Gaelic is now a beautiful hodge podge of old extinct and surviving dialects. This can be separated further however into idiolects which contain traits from the dialects spoken by their ancestors, as well as newly evolved dialectal regions such as the north shore where dialects that have developed from Lewis Gaelic are now spoken. The point is that it's not like you can go to cape Breton and hear dead dialects like it's a highland time capsule, the dialects have actually mixed and changed to create a broad collection of dialects that are unique to Nova Scotia/Cape Breton - i.e. Canadian Gaelic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.42.162 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. It seems you're suggesting the Gaelic spoken in Canada is a koiné, as is the case with Canadian French. Appeals to original research aren't really allowed, so I’d wonder if there is a print or web document that could substantiate your anecdotal description? It'd make for a great expansion of the article if there were. — Muckapedia (talk) 16e  août 2012 21h45 (−4h)
I would recommend contacting the Gaelic College of Arts and Crafts on Cape Breton Island via email or letter. They have several Gaelic instructors who have conducted research into Canadian Gaelic on Cape Breton, they may have some texts you could use.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.250.129 (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Gaelic is not just a collection of old highland dialects

message: It is known that a substantial number of Scottish Gaelic-speaking settlers, almost entirely from the Isle of Lewis, settled in Quebec in areas such as Stornoway and Scotstown. There are several books written on the subject of the Gaelic in Quebec, the most notable (to my mind) being "Oatmeal and the Catechism" by Margaret Bennett, a respected authority on the history of Scottish Gaelic in Scotland and abroad. If I recall correctly, the book indicated that although Gaelic declined and ultimately withered away to nothing in the province, the language held on until roughly the 1960s-70s when the last Scottish Gaelic church services were held in certain key Highland-Quebecois settlements. 
Many Quebecois Gaels apparently moved to the United States (Seattle) as they faced hardship in the province, rather than to other Gaelic-speaking areas such as Nova Scotia or Cape Breton Island. The descendants of these Quebecois Gaels subsequently lost their Gaelic and are now wholly assimilated, and although at least one man in the early 20th century was a self-styled "Gaelic bard" from Seattle, he largely wrote in English.
I believe that this would be a worthy expansion of the article, although I am unsure of exactly how to go about adding this information (with reference to the sources). Does anyone have an opinion on the subject?
--Breatannach (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Scottish Gaelic speaking population within Quebec 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Canadian Gaelic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050324155032/http://www.gov.ns.ca:80/dtc/culture/culture_gaelic_memorandum.asp to http://www.gov.ns.ca/dtc/culture/culture_gaelic_memorandum.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Canadian Gaelic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/mcc/ecp/content/aboriginals_metis.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100729004811/http://ns1758.ca:80/quote/quotes.html to http://ns1758.ca/quote/quotes.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/ns/story/ns-gaelic20060508.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gaelic.ca/development/placenames.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927180647/http://wakeofcalummacleod.ca/about_film.php to http://wakeofcalummacleod.ca/about_film.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928145807/http://museum.gov.ns.ca/site-museum/media/museum/Gaelic-Report%281%29.pdf to http://museum.gov.ns.ca/site-museum/media/museum/Gaelic-Report(1).pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505023749/http://www.gaelic.ca/development/placenames.htm to http://www.gaelic.ca/development/placenames.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223000621/http://museum.gov.ns.ca:80/hv/gaelic/gaelic_program.html to http://museum.gov.ns.ca/hv/gaelic/gaelic_program.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005001554/http://www.cbrl.ca:80/search/leughseo/gaelicE.html to http://www.cbrl.ca/search/leughseo/gaelicE.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061127011732/http://www.virtualmuseum.ca:80/Exhibitions/Ceilidh/ to http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/Exhibitions/Ceilidh
*Added  tag to http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/en/leabharlann/mactalla/indexMAC.php
*Added  tag to http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/gd/leabharlann/mactalla/fiosmuchanada/Mo_dheighinn_Chanada.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/gd/leabharlann/mactalla/machraichean/machraichean%20mora.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012152553/http://www.akerbeltz.org:80/beagangaidhlig/gramar/beagangramair.htm to http://www.akerbeltz.org/beagangaidhlig/gramar/beagangramair.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Canadian Gaelic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121226073110/http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/Encyclopedia/A-Z/s2/12 to http://multiculturalcanada.ca/Encyclopedia/A-Z/s2/12
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060828100950/http://museum.gov.ns.ca/pubs/Gaelic-Report.pdf to http://museum.gov.ns.ca/pubs/Gaelic-Report.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ns1758.ca/quote/quotes.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060828100950/http://museum.gov.ns.ca/pubs/Gaelic-Report.pdf to http://museum.gov.ns.ca/pubs/Gaelic-Report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121226073110/http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/Encyclopedia/A-Z/s2/12 to http://multiculturalcanada.ca/Encyclopedia/A-Z/s2/12
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://museum.gov.ns.ca/hv/gaelic/gaelic_program.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbrl.ca/search/leughseo/gaelicE.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/Exhibitions/Ceilidh/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130915224850/http://gaelicbooks.com/novascotian.html to http://www.gaelicbooks.com/novascotian.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Canadian Gaelic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203004501/http://gaidhlig.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotsandcanada/gaels/index.asp to http://gaidhlig.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotsandcanada/gaels/index.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I do not think any of the sources in the article take into account Indigenous peoples or their languages. No information or data in the current sources even consider Indigenous peoples, let alone can definitively say there were more Gaelic language speakers in Canada than any of the main Indigenous languages such as Cree, Algonquin, Ojibwe, Inuktitut etc. 
I think any statements should be prefaced with "European" - i.e. "Gaelic was the third most spoken European language in Canada at the time". 
Certainly in this day and age I don't think I need to get into the details of why excluding Indigenous peoples from the written record of Canadian history is problematic, but happy to go there if some people still require this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adcspider (talk • contribs) 14:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The main difficulty in this is that there are few (if any) Reliable Sources on the demographics of Indigenous people in the time period in question. I think at best we can only manage an educated guess. The demographic data on the European population of this period is (somewhat) more reliable. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaelic's status as third most spoken language in Canada at the time 

message: I've removed this from the article:
:During the early 1900s, the Gaelic language was nearly wiped out in Canadian schools, due to the increasing pressure of the commonwealth English monarchy, who had previously exiled many Scots during earlier years of conflict.
I'm sure it's supposed to mean something but as is it's complete nonsense.  [C]ommonwealth English monarchy is a contradiction in terms and if it means anything at all it's presumably referring to the 1600s, not the 1900s.  Plus there wasn't any exiling going on at the time. Peter Grey (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  commonwealth English monarchy - say what?