Talk:Gaels

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ethnic group vs Ethno-Linguistic[edit]

Why is someone altering this article to present Gaels as an Ethno-Linguistic group rather than an Ethnic group? This is not at all the norm for other ethnic groups on wikipedia. Gaels are an Ethnic group and should be respected as such. Can someone explain why Gaels are singled out on wikipedia with this term and not other groups? Pazymuk (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In effect it is one Pazymuk who is changing it into an ethnic group without giving proper evidence. The Banner talk 10:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? That the Gaels are an ethnic group? Are you serious? Pazymuk (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am serious. I want proof that what you claim is correct. We work here based on sources, not personal ideas. The Banner talk 11:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes US an ethno-linguistic group as opposed to an ethnic group? You are the one using a rather muddled word, the burden is on YOU. There is zero doubt that Gaels are an Ethnic Group. Pazymuk (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, who else is listed as an ethno-linguistic group on wikipedia? Ive seen no others. Pazymuk (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An ethnic group is a grouping of humans who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes such as traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion or social treatment. How exactly are you claiming we ARENT an ethnic group? Pazymuk (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do youy have any evidence of your claims? The Banner talk 17:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, see also Igorot people, Iranian peoples, Wanda people, Konongo people, Maithils, Kamrupi people, and others, all ethno-linguistic groups. The Banner talk 17:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gaels are to Persians as Celts are to Iranian peoples. Pazymuk (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And? The Banner talk 18:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you classifying us as an ethno-linguistic group rather than an ethnic group? Pazymuk (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of the other planation's of Ireland such as the earlier Munster one or the later plantations by the Stuart's outside of Ulster?[edit]

Just curious why only the planation's of ulster are mentioned even though the planation's of Ireland in general were horrific especially the 1583 ones or what about the Cromwell planation's? Also the reason given for the ulster planation's isn't accurate, the main reason was because of the nine years war, which ended with the land being confiscated by GB, the Irish were to rebellious to be left unchecked in ulster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfellower (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1,770,000 Irish speakers isn't accurate.[edit]

unless ye count being able to speak Irish as having a vocabulary of 5 words. Less than 2% of the population can speak Irish and even they are fluent in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfellower (talk • contribs) 23:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? The Banner talk 23:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp10esil/p10esil/ilg/
Of the 1,761,420 persons who answered yes to being able to speak Irish, 418,420 indicated they never spoke it, while a further 558,608 indicated they only spoke it within the education system. Of the remaining group, 586,535 persons indicated they spoke Irish less often than weekly, 111,473 spoke weekly while just 73,803 persons spoke Irish daily No mention of how much Irish they could actually speak, but based on living in Ireland probably less than several words. those with a actual Irish speaking ability is around 73,803 persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfellower (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How often you speak something and how well you do speak it when you speak it are not the same thing. I'm sure the high figure includes some rather rusty speakers but then again, not every speaker of English in the UK speaks it a) daily and b) well. This is debated in detail on the Irish language page, no need to re-iterate everything here. Take it up with the census people. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ye are pulling my leg...If someone doesn't speak a language on a monthly or even weekly basis it can be assumed that they probably can't speak that language at all that would be pretty logical assertion to make, the census doesn't ask about the proficiency of their Irish just if they speak it, might as well ask me if I can speak French because I can say "la revolution" doesn't mean I actually speak French and doesn't mean these people can speak Irish. 1,761,420 figure on this article is wrong and misleading on every level. I know I live here no one can speak this language outside of a tiny minority and these are located in Gaeltacht isolated villages and speak English fluently, there are more people in Ireland who speak Polish than Irish. There's a difference between rusty and never being able to speak the language, those speakers were born speaking English the mother tongue of Ireland and their definition of speaking Irish is knowing 3 words like póg mo thóin. The above source clearly states that 418,420 indicated they never spoke it so they can be removed from the number first of all, those 586,535 who spoke it within the education system only did so because it was mandatory and if their like me they probably failed that class spectacularly with a vocab of only a dozen words. 70,000 is probably a more accurate number but even that seems to high.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfellower (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And again: evidence? Wikipedia is based on sources, not on personal opinions. The Banner talk 10:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I know..." "I never" are not evidence, get over yourself. Find reliable sources or you'll get ignored and/or reverted. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion[edit]

I don't quite see the point of the Scots Gaelic people page and it feels somewhat artificial. While I've occasionally heard the term Scots Gaelic people, I've never come across it quite with that definition (i.e. Scots Gaelic people = Highlander), especially since Gaelic is not exclusive to the Highlands and while the page has sources, it doesn't seem to have one for the definition of the term itself and might be OR? Akerbeltz (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks like largely double with Gaels. And it looks like a way to circumvent the earlier merge decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaels of Scotland. The Banner talk 09:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(a bit off-topic but since you seem to know a lot about articles in this area, have you seen Lowland Scots people by the same page author, which reads rather similar in style and seems a bit flimsy to me too but it's not my area of expertise. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]
With a quick look, I would say it has the same problems. The Banner talk 10:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the points already made and I was about to say the same re concerns raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#Lowland_Scots_people. These articles have the feel of being created to advance a thesis. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now of the opinion that there is no material worth retaining for a merger and the artice should simply be deleted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origin myth[edit]

This segment:

In their own national epic contained within medieval works such as the Lebor Gabála Érenn, the Gaels trace the origin of their people to an eponymous ancestor named Goídel Glas. He is described as a Scythian prince (the grandson of Fénius Farsaid), who is credited with creating the Gaelic languages. Goídel's mother is called Scota, described as an Egyptian princess. The Gaels are depicted as wandering from place to place for hundreds of years; they spend time in Egypt, Crete, Scythia, the Caspian Sea and Getulia, before arriving in Iberia, where their king, Breogán, is said to have founded Galicia.

needs clarification that modern scholars do not take this origin myth (of a Middle/Near Eastern origin of the Gaels) seriously.

See, e.g., Pictish language#Discredited theories for how WP should handle the "Scythian myth".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gael/Irish/Scottish[edit]

It's completely inappropriate to claim/assume that every person identifying as 'Irish' or (especially) 'Scottish' today is 'ancestrally Gaelic', as this article seems to at times suggest. These terms do not correlate with Gaelic ancestry at all today. It is true that the gradual fusing of the Gaelic world with the English world in these regions has led to a blurring of the lines and a repeated watering down of what 'Irish' or 'Scottish' means to the point of near total irrelevance by this point, but there are large amounts of people identifying as Irish in Ireland today with Norse, Norman, English, Brittonic or other types of ancestry (full or partial). Even many prominent Irish nationalists who identified only as Irish were, at best, half 'Gaelic' by descent. In the case of Scotland, it's just absolutely beyond ludicrous. As they were overwhelmingly of non-Gaelic ancestry even at the time Gaelic's zenith in the region and many of the Gaelic-speakers themselves at that time were of Pictish or Norse descent.

When people identify as 'Scottish' today, they absolutely are not identifying as Gaelic. I can 100% assure you of this. Now you can absolutely make the case the term Scottish has been culturally appropriated by the vast majority of people using it today and how inappropriate it is (I firmly agree with that), especially considering many of the people using the term 'Scottish' today as a self-identifier are ancestrally descended from the people responsible for the near total, forced ethnocide of Gaels within Scotland historically. But this article is effectively lending validity and credence to that ethnocide of Gaels historically within northern Britain by suggesting what it at times does throughout this article. 2.99.72.43 (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources for this or is it just your personal opinion? The Banner talk 10:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's sort of right regarding Scottish vs Gaelic identity, less so on the Irish one. There are sources for the disassociation between Gael(ic)ness and Scottishness but I don't have them to hand. I'm also not sure which bit of the article the IP is taking exception to, it would be helpful to know in rather less sweeping terms. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedness[edit]

@The Banner in your recent edit, you said: "...why? Looks like a completely different ancestry", does that logic not also apply to Norse-Gaels, Gaelicised Normans, Celtic Britons, Scottish Romani Travellers? Alssa1 (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article about English people, I would suggest. The Banner talk 00:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading this one at present; can you explain your reasoning behind your edit? Alssa1 (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English people, also called Anglo-Saxons, derive most of their Ancestry from German/Danish tribes. The Banner talk 09:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two assertions that require sources: 1.) Where's the source that says English people and Anglo-Saxons are synonymous? 2.) Where's the source that says that English people as a whole "derive most of their Ancestry from German/Danish tribes"? You also haven't explain the logic behind the: Norse-Gaels, Gaelicised Normans, Celtic Britons, and Scottish Romani Travellers. Alssa1 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article about English people. The Banner talk 00:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have, it doesn't support the claims you've made; hence the request for reliable sources to support your claims... Alssa1 (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: I see you've just undone the removal of the WP:UNSOURCED stuff. Would you be able to provide the sources that back the inclusion, or would it be better to take it to arbitration? Alssa1 (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read those articles? But yes, if you want a Wikipedia:Third opinion, I would like that. The Banner talk 12:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I read them? Yes. Now do you have the sources? Alssa1 (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the fuss suddenly about the "related groups"? Yes, it lacks sources in the infobox but the pages linked themselves contain numerous sources and none of them are controversial

  • Norse-Gaels/Gaelicised Normans: this is so uncontroversial it gives me a nosebleed, there were periods of intense Norse/Norman settlement and intermarriage with Gaels over many centuries to the extent that looking at a map of Lewis, one of the most Gaelic speaking islands today looks like a map of Iceland in funny spelling.
  • Celtic Britons: also uncontroverisal, there were centuries of toing and froing between the Gaels of Dalriada and the Picts/Britons across the central belt of Scotland
  • Scottish Romani Travellers - if in doubt of a link between Gaels and travellers, research Beurla Reagaird

Yes, in an ideal world we source everything, but the reality is that nobody has that much time and that a lot of uncontroversial stuff is left unsourced for long periods. Which is where subject experts are due more weight than policy lawyers, so I'm with the Banner here. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of context that's being missed somewhat. The Banner removed an edit that was justified by an unsourced assertion that isn't in keeping with other pages on the subject matter (including what's cited on the English people page). If one is going to undo an edit based upon: "...Looks like a completely different ancestry" then that should surely apply to the groups listed there. As for Beurla Reagaird, that is a language; is it your position that 'relatedness' is defined by language? Alssa1 (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, say that again? I don't quite get what you're trying to say.
Regarding Beurla Reagaird, I have not read anything which unpicks whether the speakers of BR are travellers who somehow become fully Gaelic speaking OR whether they're Gaels who became travellers or both, but you cannot have a traveller group speaking an X-language based variant without intense/extended contact, so there's clearly a strong link, even though we cannot be sure at this stage (and perhaps not ever) about which way round this happened. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic influenced areas[edit]

The picture shown does not communicate the influence that Gaelic culture has on the non-Gaelic parts of Scotland like Orkney and Shetland. 84.203.151.5 (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology[edit]

It has been years since I was last on the page, but it seems that actual, important recorded history has been erased under the history page,and a section form mythology has been places as the first segment of history? Prior the rise in Irish identity, or nationality, there was never a mention that Gaels were related to egypt or Scythia, yet for 100s of years the Gaels amd Romans wrote mamy things.

This section should be under mythology and not history, as it is not history, its an Irish myth with no evidence to be history. 2A02:C7F:C7A:4A00:81E1:550A:D9EC:2ABE (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Especially now that DNA analysis provides a more reliable history than the opinions of medieval scribes. Gortaleen (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaels&oldid=1209962142"