Talk:Gaels/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

'Geal'

I don't know if this has been picked up on by any linguists, but the term 'geal' in Scottish gaelic means 'white', (eg "Tá a craiceann chomh geal le sneachta" - Her skin was white as snow") and the root of the Scots Gaelic word for Scotland, Alba, also means white. Is it possible this is in reference to the colder, snow-topped mountains of the Highlands, or even a distant memory of the ice age which according to this map seems to perfectly cover the modern area of Scotland? Further circumstantial evidence is the Roman name given to Ireland, 'Hibernia' meaning 'winter'. To the Gaels invading Scotland from the relatively warmer climate of Ireland this must have been an apt description! Of course this is pure cojecture, I'm aware this is not a discussion forum but perhaps those more knowledgable than myself could enlighten me. Thanks.

Also there seems to be an ongoing edit war with one side who wish this to remain an article of historical significance, and another who wish to rewrite the article as an ethnic group page. As a descendant of Highlands and Islands Gaelic speakers I would support this notion, gaels are definately a seperate group, having originally invaded from Ireland and displaced or intermarried with the Picts and Brythonic peoples who were already there. However their language, culture and territories (as ruled through the clan system) remained consistently strong until the highland clearances. Mention could perhaps be made of lowland 'Scots' (I dispute this term as the word Scot would be a synonym for the gaels, eg those descended from goidelic language speakers, but is not applicable to either the Picts or Brythonic tribes who were and are present in the rest of modern day Scotand). I digress, mention could be made of some instances where the differences were starkly contrasted, for example with the phrase 'teuchter' and historical use of the term sassenach as applied to the lowland scots. I tentatively suggest this page becomes the ethnic grouping page, whilst the historical aspects are moved to the Scoti article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.109.188 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The apparent similarity between the Gaelic "geal" and English "Gael" is purely accidental. If you look back, the English "Gael" is derived by several steps from the Old Irish "Goidel", whereas the Gaelic "geal" comes from Early Irish "gel".

The word "Alba" derives not from a Celtic word for white, but from the [i]Latin[/i]. The Irish "Albann" originally referred to the whole island of great Britain, although it now refers exclusively to Scotland. Similarly, the pseudonym "Albion" for England also originally referred to the whole island (and the English crown claimed for centuries that the whole island [i]was[/i] England). The usual explanation for the Latin name is that they first crossed at Dover, with its white cliffs. Alternatively, it may be because the only bit you can see from mainland Europe is Dover, so they may have referred to it as that for a fairly long time before attempting to cross. But it's definitely a name based on the cliffs of Dover.

Prof Wrong (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Albion (Brittonic *Albiū, genitive *Albionos) and Old Irish Albu/Alba (gen. Albann) are cognate with the Gaulish root albio- and Old Welsh elbid (Modern Welsh elfydd) meaning "(visible) world, earth, land, country". Cagwinn (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Cagwinn

I don't see why Cagwinn keeps removing the work in this article, without saying why. I noticed that, before I started editing, the "rating" for it was on 1 at the bottom bar for all things. My focus is to simply develop the article so it is complete like the ones for other peoples on Wikipedia. If Cagwinn doesn't have the time or energy to write articles (judging from his contributions) then fine, but its counterprodutive to obsctruct others who do with vague rationale. Claíomh Solais (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I HAVE given reasons for my reversions - you are making quite a lot of unnecessary revisions, removing/changing some perfectly good information, and adding a lot of unsourced passages.Cagwinn (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted you the second time, not Cagwinn. It is nothing personal; reverting major changes is not unusual, and per the preferred WP:BRD editing method, the next step is to go to the talk page to work out your differences. In the spirit of collaboration, please don't restore your material again until we've had a chance to work out the issues.

I reverted the material after noting several major issues with it. First and foremost, you've essentially changed the focus of the article from a discussion of a linguistic group to what appears to be a discussion of a poorly defined "people". This is always going to be a problem in articles like this, but the commonest definition of "Gaels" refers to speakers of the (a) Gaelic language(s). In contrast, your edits claim the Gaels are "are a Celtic people, a subgroup of the Indo-Europeans, the core of whom claim patrilineal descent from the Milesians", which further introduces some unnecessary mythic history into the lead. You further say that their homeland is Ireland and they spread as a people to Great Britain. This is simply inaccurate; it is very likely that it was the language, rather than a huge mass of immigrants, that spread through Scotland.

Your edits also add large swaths of unsourced and poorly sourced material into the article, for example in the "Terminology/Etymology", "Origins of the Milesians", "Christian kings, saints and scholars", and "Music" sections. Two of your footnotes had no actual sources, others were to blog posts and outdated texts, and others were primary sources.

That's enough for a start. Again, this is nothing personal, and I'm sure you have a lot of material that can be incorporated into the article. I look forward to working with you on the improvements.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Gaels in general, not just Gaelic languages (which has its own article). I do not see how there is a contradiction here? The Gaels are a people and there are references in the article which back up all information added.

(1) The Milesian concept is an important and core concept in the history of the Gaels and their culture; just as for example on the article Jews there is mention of their national mythos that they descend from the Israelites/Hebrews in the introduction.

(2) Ireland is the core homeland of the Gaels. They spread out and founded some colonies in what is today Wales (Dyfed), Dal Riata (some Scottish nationalist archaelogists dispute this and the fact that they, a minority view, claim otherwise is mentioned in the body, with a reference that I added) and the Isle of Man. Whether it was mass migration or largely lingustic doesn't detract from the central point of Ireland being the core of the Gaels.

(3) Its a work in progress. Most of the sections I have added have sources. Some of the stuff which I cut down, for example the pointless paragraphs babbling about the word "Scots" have simply being trimmed into a more to the point form (this is marginal importance when this article is about Gaels, not the history of the word "Scots"). You will have to be more specific regarding "outdated" texts, this seems to be a very subjective opinion; most of the books are from the 2000s. If there are specific passages which you will like references for, please feel free to add a tag to it.

I welcome any collaboration and contructive criticism, at least you have given something to work on, other than Cagwinn who just seems to sit around reverting on articles for a laugh, without being willing to put any work into it. Claíomh Solais (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems Claíomh Solais is not aware of Wikipedia's No personal attacks policy. Cagwinn (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Claiomh, please stop restoring your disputed changes as it's clear others take issue with them. You're misunderstanding the issue of definition. To reiterate, "Gaels" means speakers of the Gaelic language(s). This is significant and it needs to be clear to avoid confusion. For example, while it is true that Gaelic speech originated in Ireland, and was then (probably) brought to Great Britain by immigrants, this doesn't account for the total spread of Gaelic, and therefore of the Gaels. Direct settlement of Irish Gaels in Scotland was likely confined largely to the western coast - however, Gaelic speech eventually spread throughout the Highlands and Galloway. This doesn't imply a mass of Irish immigrants taking over; the language spread, displacing earlier languages like Pictish. As such, there were many Gaelic speakers for whom the concept of an Irish "homeland" was pretty meaningless, just as England is hardly the "homeland" to all modern English speakers. And the mythical Milesian origin is not something that needs to be in the lead.

As for the sources, again, a lot of your additions were unsourced. Your two "notes" were unsourced. Other passages were poorly sourced; specifically this and this appear to be self-published personal websites, while this is a personal website reprinting a work from 1906, which is certainly outdated. The Adolph book hardly appears scholarly, and this is a primary source. In all, I agree with Cagwinn that the changes are not yet an improvement over what's there now, but I will certainly work with you to fix it.Cúchullain ^t/c 05:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"To reiterate, "Gaels" means speakers of the Gaelic language(s)."

According to who exactly? A few opinionated modern descendants of Viking raiders in the Hebredies, who have the added motivation of recent conversion to Calvinism to try and sabotage Irish Gaelic history and continuing ethnic identity? This is a Scoto-centric definiton of the word "Gaels" and doesn't reflect the reality of its widespread common usage elsewhere (perhaps in Scotland there is the added problem of differentiating ethnically from the historical Lowland Scots population who have a different origins and culture, rather than being simply lingustically Anglicised Gaels).

In Ireland, the modern day descendants of the core ethnic group who created the Gaelic culture, still widely consider themselves to be Gaels despite linguistic Anglicisation and many of the institutions of their public life clearly testify to that. For example; the Gaelic League, the Gaelic Athletic Association, Fine Gael, etc. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, ie - that Fine Gael for example are just a party of the Gaeltacht? Do you dispute that this definition of Gaels, as synonymous with the pre-Norman originated ethnic group living in Ireland, is widely prevelent? None of this justifies the removal from the article of the history and cultural practises of the people when they were completely Gaelic speaking anyway (which is most of the work).

Once again, to reiterate this is an article about Gaelic people, not just the Gaelic languages, which has the article Goidelic languages as an overview. I give again the example of Jews, or other people such as Samaritans, etc. There is no cut off where is says "no Hebrew language? Sorry not Jews", to do so would be a fringe POV. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The textbook definition of Gaels is Gaelic speakers. This is attested in the sources already present in this article, and is a far more workable definition than your poorly deliniated "people". Please stop reverting your changes back in when they're challenged by knowledgeable editors. This constitutes edit warring.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with Cuchullain there, Gaels spoke Gaelic. That language has been thru many changes, just like its speakers. As there are only 20,000 Gaelic speakers in Ireland today, the maps of Gaelic areas should be seen as deep-historical.78.19.218.128 (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

False, the vast majority of the 4,000,000+ people in Ireland speak Irish, but the level of proficiency is varied, individually speaking. ÓCorcráin (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the difficulty of defining the number of speakers, especially w.r.t. Irish, I'm going to remove that part of the infobox. In my opinion, it isn't adding much (quite confusing for non-experts) and it really belongs over at Goidelic languages more so than this article. Alázhlis (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Overuse of the term "Gaels"

The term "Gaels" is used 14 times in the main text of this article. The article itself is in desperate need of a rewrite and a number of statements are unverified. Uamaol (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Brian Boru a gael?

History records he was one of the Déisi, so how exactly was he a Gael? Fergananim (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Also Brigit of Kildare, who was not a Gael but one of the Fortuatha; as for some of the others - espcially in modern times! - would they not be better classed as Gaeilgeoir, rather than Gael? Fergananim (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The article implies that if you are a Gaeilgeoir, you are a Gael, and that this is how the term originated. Not so! It was an ethnic term that only later came to have a linguistic dimension. The names of languages all derive from pre-existing people, not the other way around. And Gael most certainly is not and never has been a term for all the Irish.

"The Irish Gaels can be grouped into the following major historical clans; Connachta (including Uí Néill, Clan Colla, Uí Maine, etc), Dál gCais, Eóganachta, Érainn (including Dál Riata, Dál Fiatach, etc), Laigin and Ulaid (including Dál nAraidi)." The Connachta were not a clan [family] but a confederation. Clan Colla, the Uí Maine, Eóganachta, Érainn, and Dál gCais were not ethnic Gaels and only became so by genealogical fiction. Most of them too were not clans but political confederations.

Can I suggest that a section detailing the evolution of the term, and how it only became a cover-all term for the Gael-Irish AFTER 1171? There was then and after a term for all Irish people, Gael and Gall. Fergananim (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Barry. Fell.

Barry... Fell... Have you seen the scratches he claims are ogham? Putting his bizarre, long-disproven, speculations about "American ogham" in here is not going to reflect well on the article or the 'pedia. Editors reverting to preserve content that includes support for... Barry. Fell. *smh* - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree - fringe nonsense such as this has no place in this article. Cagwinn (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Fell aspect is marginal to what the paragraph is trying to get across; a tradition that St Brendan and thus the Gaels reached North America, before the contact of Columbus. Which is quite well established. The Fell sentence is simply stating that his ogham theory also exists, using the word "controversial"... and mentions that David H. Kelley also claims that some are ogham. I do not have a strong feeling either way on the Fell thing, if you know of some sources which show his theories have been debunked, then that should be added to it. Claíomh Solais (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Said tradition may be "well established", but only in the world of fringe pseudo-science. Cagwinn (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This nonsense doesn't belong in this article. It's ok in Fell's article, not here. Doug Weller talk 20:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: St Brendan. National Geographic is "fringe pseudo-science"? Think not. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Just noting that "Spanish documents suggest Irish arrived in America before Columbus"[1] is fringe nonsense based on something Richard Thornton wrote. See Jason Calavito's comments here. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Is there any more information of Thornton and his work? Is he notable enough to have an article on here and a section where this information contradicting his work can be presented? Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, his books are self published through lulu.com, so fail our criteria for reliable sources and suggests he couldn't get them published normally. And an article on him was deleted after a discussion showed he failed our criteria for notability. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Expansion of the lede

Hi Asarlaí, thanks so much for your contributions to the history section of this article. I'm concerned about the lede being too long. Although it doesn't overstep the letter of Wikipedia policy, it does go against the intent by hindering navigation of the article. Catrìona (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment Catrìona, and thanks for your edit. I've had a go at making it a bit more concise. I think the new lede summarizes all the key points, without going into too much detail on each one. I agree that it needed some trimming, but I think it'd be hard to cut much more without removing key points. Maybe other editors could give some ideas. I plan on expanding the History and Culture sections when I have time, so the article will become a bit longer, but I think the lede is long enough for an article of this size (and the size it'll be). ~Asarlaí 21:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Colonization/Indigenous status of Gaels

Some recent edits and reverts on this article have raised the question of the indigenous status and therefore whether Anglicization of Gaelic areas constitutes colonization. I've added a note referencing the status of this question in Scottish history/historiography but I am not sufficiently acquainted to answer this question with regards to Irish history. Anyway, in my opinion this issue should be addressed in the main text of the article. I believe that Scottish Gaelic is protected under the UN charter for indigenous languages (?) but I am not certain of that. Catrìona (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

To be

Great work done, folks, yet more still to do. A number of iffy links and not-quite-correct statements, without quite enough reliance on actual Gaelic scholars. Still to be. Fergananim (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Gaeil

We should iron out out differing interpretations here, as this amount of reverting does no good. Regarding my last edit on Gaels, which you reverted with the comment "You changed the meaning of the underlying text without sufficient rationale" - well, is it not obvious this was the case? The Connacht and their major offshoot, the Uí Néill, were explictly Gaeil from the start. None of the rest were - Clan Colla, Uí Maine, Dál gCais, Eóganachta, Érainn, Laigin and Ulaid. So, rather than go back and forth, can we please here discuss this and at least reach some common ground? Fergananim (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The current information in that part of the article is already sourced to reliable sources. Is your assertion above actually supported by the source? If so, it would be helpful to provide a quote. Catrìona (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Can't say I have ever come across this in my 30+ years of research on the early medieval Irish. Lets have the sources! Of course, "Gael" (Old Irish Goídel) was a circa 7th century borrowing from Archaic Welsh, so it might have taken a while for the population of Ireland as a whole to accept the term, but the literate classes certainly seem to have adopted it rather quickly. Cagwinn (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sunburst flag

The Sunburst flag is a modern Irish nationalist and republican political symbol. That it was inspired by Irish mythology does not signify that it was intended to represent Gaels, specifically in Ireland or generally. I think it would be pushing it to give it pertinence in the article at all but there is certainly no place for it at the head of the infobox as a supposed "symbol associated with Gaels", many of whom would be oblivious to it or actively opposed to what it represents. It makes no more sense than would the display of The Red Hand of Ulster with "its roots as a Gaelic Irish symbol" but prevalent use in diverse situations, including political ones of a variety of hues. Neither have strong associations outside of Ireland, aside from those with an interest in Irish politics, only a minority of which would be Gaels anyway. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I've replaced the Sunburst flag with a map showing areas which were linguistically and culturally Gaelic in the medieval and early modern eras. ~Asarlaí 13:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Other languages in small print

This is for some bloke named Matt Lunker who contested this. It is the Gaelic languages that are most commonly used and natively spoken by the Gaels. That is a main thing that marks them as a group, even in those who use it less. Anglic languages like English and Scots are not identifiers or even used much by some of them. This is why I put English and Scots as secondary, and in small text. With the Scots language, very few - if any - Gaels use it. Scots is a language and culture of the Lowlands and east Ulster, and never really penetrated the Gaidhealtachd. Gaels in Scotland mostly use Highland English in my personal experience, which has a lot of Gaelic vocabulary, phonology, etc., and sounds more like Hiberno-English than Scots or Scottish English. Gaels in Ireland use Hiberno-Engish. If you mean Gaels as an ethnicity, even those who don't speak Gaelic usually speak Hiberno-English and Scottish English. Scots is popular among people in the Lowlands of heavy Anglic (Northumbrian) and Brythonic (Strathclyde) roots but little Gaelic culture or ancestry. 142.116.202.86 (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Many of these assertions are dubious or false. Gaelic has been sufficiently marginalised that at the very least a significant proportion, more likely the vast majority, of Gaelic speakers live in communities that are significantly bilingual, to varying extents. That "Anglic languages... (may) not (be) used much by some of them" may be true for a very small minority but not representative of the whole. Many Gaels are less fluent in Gaelic than in English. Scots may well be used less by Scottish Gaels than English, but most will be a least partly conversant through the media, and by necessity when they are in contact with the considerably more numerous lowlanders, not least in the case of the significant number of urbanised Gaels, first or second generation.

My personal experience differs somewhat from yours and neither of us are reliable sources. Highland English, as employed, tends to be closer to Scottish Standard English than that employed in the lowlands, with the latter's widespread code-switching with Scots. And these various dialects of English are still English and should be noted as such. To imply that they may be close to creoles is a bold claim.

Even if your claims were true, is there a WP:MOS style justification for minimising the font size? The infobox category is simply "languages", not "identifier languages" so it is not for us to downplay certain ones. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on several points. However, Highland English is very different from Scottish English and Scots. It is closer to Hiberno-English than to Scottish English in many areas, especially in parts of the Hebrides like Barra or Islay, with a lot of Gaelic vocabulary, pronunciation and even some grammar. It uses Gaelic words, phrases, sounds and pronunciations unique to the Gaidhealtachd. Scots-influenced Mid Ulster English in eastern Northern Ireland sounds closer to Scottish English in some respects. There is also stronger code-switching in Highland English than in Scots, because Gaelic and English are completely different languages, while Scots and English are essentially from the same language. Scots is closer to the English dialects of northern England, and closer to Scottish Standard English than Highland English is.

I just felt that Highland English Manx English and Hiberno-English deserved special mention somewhere in the article because they are the most heavily influenced by Gaelic out of all English dialects, and are the dominant forms of English spoken by native Gaelic speakers. I did not mean to say they are creoles or mixed languages today, but they are known to have been so in the past. Scots, on the other hand, came right out of Northumbrian and other northern English speech, with barely any Gaelic influence (except in the case of Doric Scots). Scots never was a language of the Gaidhealtachd or Gaeltacht, which is where the core of native Gaelic speakers are. Very few, if any, Gaelic speakers are also Scots speakers. Scots speakers usually are more concerned with keeping that language alive, with little interest in Gaelic or 'Highand speech', and their speakers are confined to the least Gaelic-speaking parts of Scotland, along the northeast coast and in the southeast. 142.116.202.86 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If sources back any of this up, it could be potentially included in the body of the article but, for the infobox, simply stating "English", without listing umpteen dialects thereof and pondering inclsuion criteria, covers the matter comprehensively and is less cluttered. Your view seems somewhat idealised, or outdated by decades at least, regarding the real, modern situation. It doesn't reflect that in the totality of a few tens of thousands of native Gaelic speakers and maybe an order of magnitude more who are not fluent but could arguably be classified as a Gael, many live, work or regularly travel to areas where Scots is the vernacular or now common in the Highlands, due to migration from the lowlands, including much of the the Gàidhealtachd, or what comparatively recently was. Numerous have one parent from a Gaelic background and one from a Scots-speaking one; weight of numbers makes this inevitable. Gaels do not live in a bubble and travel is much easier than it was even a few decades ago, changing the mix of influences on language throughout Scotland.

The assertion that code-switching is stronger because Gaelic and English are much less closely related is dubious. It might be that, with Scots, the switch is often to a term that is cognate or otherwise potetnially mutually intelligible to an English one but that doesn't make its occurrence less strong or prevalent. You also have a significant gap in your knowledge of its geographical spread if you think Scots is confined to the northeast and southeast of Scotland. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I included the mention of Gaelic-influenced English dialects in the 'Languages' section. Native Gaelic speakers do not live in a "bubble", but in a region (the northwest Highland and Islands) which is highly geographically isolated from the rest of Scotland and has been so for many centuries. English only became common here since the 18th century, while in the southeast it had been present since the old Kingdom of Northumbria, in the 6th to 7th century. [2] This is part of why Scots was, and is, strongest in the southeast and along the eastern and northeast coastal areas due to to migration of Lowland Scots and northern English in the High Middle Ages. Obviously it spread elsewhere, such as into the southwest, but Scots again never really penetrated into the Gaidhealtachd except for a few, tiny boundary areas. By the time English became common in the Gaidhealtach in the 18th and 19th centuries, it was Scottish Standard English, and not Scots, which became the common vernacular. This is part of the reason why Highland English is so different from other Scottish English dialects, in addition to the massive Gaelic influence. The only former Gaelic stronghold where Scots became common was in the southwest, in Galloway and Ayrshire, where Gaelic was gone by the 17th - 18th centuries and Scots had been present since the High to Late Middle Ages. In any case, the English speech of native Gaelic speakers in their strongholds today - the Hebrides - is almost completely Highland English, with some Scottish Standard English. The only places where Scots exists as a native speech in the Gaidhealtach is in some parts of Inverness and in Campbeltown, where Scots has been present for centuries. Scots never penetrated elsewhere in the region due to major geographical, cultural, linguistic, ethnic (see the recent Irish DNA Atlas on the genetic distinction of the Highlands and Islands Gaels from the rest of Scotland; they are closer to Gaelic Irish genetically than to other Scots [3]) and religious barriers (the Gaidhealtchd was the part of Scotland which remained Catholic the longest - Barra and South Uist are still Catholic today). Migration of Lowland Scots to the Hebrides, even in recent decades, has been extremely low due to economics. The direction of migration for a long time has almost always been of poorer, agricultural Gaels from the Highlands and Islands to the large, industrial, Scots-speaking cities like Edinburgh, Dundee and Glasgow.

As for code-switching, you make a very good point. But there are many more terms in Gaelic without a cognate in English than in Scots, so it is much more common among modern native Gaelic speakers today than native Scots speakers. The concentration of regular native Scots speakers (and not Scots-influenced accents of Scottish Standard English) today also still is overwhelmingly confined to Orkney, Shetland and the Lowlands [4]. 142.116.202.86 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the English dialects, I think that is appropriate.

Otherwise, we are talking about the pertinence of Scots in the infobox. The bulk of the above is either not in dispute, not pertinent and much even effectively a re-statement of things I have said, though I note you have conceded that the heartland of Scots is considerably more extensive than you initially thought or stated.

We are not just talking about the Hebrides and not just talking about places where Scots has been present for centuries. Even if we were, Inverness and Campbeltown count and historically, many Gaels in parts of the Highlands closest to the Lowlands would also speak Scots, particularly in parts of Perthshire, Aberdeenshire and Argyll, also certain individuals from further afield, such as drovers. Likewise in Galloway and Carrick.

Regarding "The direction of migration", it has not "always" been any one thing; when in the Highlands, the Gàidhealtachd included, have you seen how many lowland Scots, and English people, and others for that matter, are settled these days? Most do not speak Gaelic but Gaels are thus, to a significant enough extent, exposed to Scots and Scots speakers have kids with Gaels. I've already mentioned the Gaels who migrated to and migrate to "the large, industrial, Scots-speaking cities like Edinburgh, Dundee and Glasgow.": they are not immune to this vernacular and neither are their bi- or trilingual Gael children.

Cite your source re comparative frequency of code-switching. If it is your own projection, I'd argue the increased presence of cognates can actively facilitate code-switching, but both theories are WP:OR, so inadmissable.

A significant enough numbers of Gaels, historically and particularly currently, can speak or have a very good grasp of Scots, so it is pertinent for inclusion in the infobox. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Regarding recent edits, please see WP:BRD, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and Talk:Gaels#Sunburst_flag above. The purpose of much of the rest of the series of edits seems unclear, of no apparent improvement to the text or to its active detriment and includes uncited additions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

An Gal Gréine is a pre-modern symbol, used as an ethnic symbol of Gaelic people from the mythology of the Fiannaíocht. It is used across all sorts of political lines in Gaelic organisations in both Ireland and Scotland, whether it be in the logo Royal National Mòd to the Irish Republic Movement. I don't see how a medieval map (duplicated in the article) for a people that continues to exist is a better representation. On the article of Scottish people, an explicitly political flag, originated among Lowlanders is used there (there would appear to be more to object to with that than this).

As for the rest, you'll have to be more specific, very vague statement. Gaelic settlement in Cornwall was very limited, don't see why we should mention it in intro? not that important... anachronistically refering to early Medieval northern Britain in parts of the prose as Scotland before Dál Riata and Pictland merged to form Scotland doesn't make much sense either. Battle of Brunanburh massively relevent to mention in history section, definitive event. Mentioning the source of the claims about Iceland, also relevent. And the rest is just correcting formatting. Not sure objections carry much weight at all, unless you specify. Alasdair Mac Colla's Ghost (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You are WP:WARing; do not. However valid you believe your edits to be, per BRD, gain consensus for them before reinstating them. Please self-revert now.

In the meantime: MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is crystal clear. What's more, per the Sunburst flag article, its representation in that form, in isolation is very closely associated with Irish nationalism and republicanism. That is contentious. You must provide reliable sources for your edits. "Scotland" is being used geographically here and is no more of an anachronism than Britain and Dál Riata's extent was notably to numerous islands other than Great Britain. That there may be fault at other articles does not facilitate the introduction of similar faults at others. Regarding where they are native to, why remove the usefully specific "Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man", leaving just "northwestern Europe"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop warring now. Belligeretly disregarding the concerns of another editor and repeatedly adding back your edits without even attempting to gain consensus is not the way to win anyone over to your case.

I carefully sifted through your edits, retaining some and removing or amending those that were unsourced, where the wording was problematic or otherwise deficient, leaving highly detailed edit summaries and comments above as to why I was making each edit. And you just dump it all back, addressing none of the concerns beforehand? I'll also note that you have a comparatively sophisticated ability at editing for such a new user. Have you edited under another user name before? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Your explanation for the removal of my edits was lack luster and simply revolved around not constructive your claimed some of my sources were not legitimate, who are you to decide this? The sources I provide were very clear and proper legitimate sources. Again I will point this out again, but this article reads like nationalistic rhetoric. The Gaels in Ireland and Britian have a totally different history and experience separated by several centuries yet you have merged the two into one without any clarification on what is what historically speaking or culturally speaking in some cases, this is highly inconsistent. My proposal would be just to add the absolute minimal information or to have three separate sections for the Irish, Scottish and Manx respectively. There does feel to be a touch of POV pushing on here and it reads more like a blog at times than a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.240.215 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

My reversions to your edits purely address your edits; I make no comment on the existing material in the article so do not labour under the misapprehension that I necessarily support all or any of it - it has many deficiencies. That your editing adds to these deficiencies is the reason for addressing it. Your sources are often perfectly reliable, it's just that they don't support what you say in your edits. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Different experiences: re-add my edit, While the Irish and Scottish share similarities as Gaels there are major difference due to geography and these should be highlighted and explained properly, not merged into a super entity.

This is what I wrote which was reverted by muttlunker in which he removed sources as per usual, which is not what you're suppose to do on Wikipedia his definition of constructive is very odd. Imperial

The Irish experience.

Ireland was colonized in the 16th century by the Tudors and again in the 17th century by the Stewarts. Ireland can arguably be considered the first colony of the British empire starting in the beginning of the 16th century with the plantations of Ireland[82] Many of the original colonists of Ireland would later be the first colonists of the Americas known collectively as west country men[83]English imperialism in Ireland was driven by military, political, and, increasingly, religious and economic concerns, and by the determination to colonize the island with English, Welsh, and Scottish settlers later the Irish were compared with the ancient Britons (whom the Romans had civilized) or with the Amerindians of the New World. English and later British propaganda and laws sought to remove all hints of what was called the barbarous culture removing the fighting spirit from the people. Also, while most of Britain had converted to Protestantism, most of Ireland had held on to Catholicism. When the leaders of the Irish Gaelic alliance fled Ireland in 1607, their lands were confiscated. James set about colonizing this land with English-speaking Protestant settlers from Britain, in what became known as the Plantation of Ulster. The colonial Irish experience according to some historians is much more similar to that of the Atlantic colonies than that of Europe[84]

See also: History of Ireland (1536–1691)

The Scottish experience.

In 1603, with the Union of the Crowns, King James of Scotland also became king of England and Ireland. James saw the Scottish Gaels as a barbarous and rebellious people in need of civilizing,[85] and believed that Gaelic culture should be wiped out.[86] Also, while most of Britain had converted to Protestantism, most Scottish had held on to Catholicism. In Scotland, James attempted to subdue the Gaelic clans and suppress their culture through laws such as the Statutes of Iona.[87] He also attempted to colonize the Isle of Lewis with settlers from the Lowlands.

Since then, the Gaelic language has gradually diminished in most of Ireland and Scotland. The 19th century was the turning point as The Great Hunger in Ireland, and across the Irish Sea the Highland Clearances, caused mass emigration (leading to Anglicisation, but also a large diaspora). The language was rolled back to the Gaelic strongholds of the north west of Scotland, the west of Ireland and Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia

How is that not pertinent to the Irish geal and Scottish gael experience? You will note here I didn't remove any sources and tried to give the colonized Irish and Scottish experience which were not the same and I tried to explain the experiences, which I view as beneficial to this article. I had directly quoted the references.

not in my edit just pointing this out, The etymology of Scotland, While scotti was used for both Ireland and dal raita, although possible there's no evidence it was used for Scotland until much later, we are going on assumptions here for that one, anyway, Albania and Albany both derived from the Gaelic Alba was exclusively used for all of Scotland

I further added that while Irish, Manx and Gàidhlig are similar, they're not mutually intangible, this was also removed by muttlunker as none constructive and the source deleted.

Campbells theory has been highly criticized by a few historians so far, who called his knowledge of Ireland poor or crude and stereotypical, his archaeological evidence against a Irish migration is almost all wrong and created to give a false window into a part of Irish history that never existed to work off against as a work around to try and discredit the pre-revisionist history. It should be mentioned that Campbells theory is just that and not passed off as fact. Most historians still favor the old model over the revisionist model.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289744587_'_and_they_won_land_among_the_Picts_by_friendly_treaty_or_the_sword'_How_a_re-examination_of_early_historical_sources_and_an_analysis_of_early_medieval_settlement_in_north_Co_Antrim_confirms_the_valid

If you read And they won the land among the the picts by friendly treaty and the sword it demonstrates that this origin is very old and not the product of a 10th century myth like is claimed on this article. I will not touch on the migration theory in the paper here.

If you claim I'm POV than please take a honest look at the current article which demonstrates the difference between the Irish, manx and Scottish when it suits a POV, but disregards it when it doesn't. If you claim this is not about scottish or Irish in particular than why does it mention any differences at all? Because it's a historical reality based on geography. This page is about the Gaels Irsh, scottish and Manxs, but not about merging them into one super nationality, there are many differences that should be noted, including what I added. This is a matter of geography and divergence for centuries if not millennia. Including the different colonial expressions that the Irish and Scottish undeniably faced to some degree, although the Irish case is more solid, while the scottish case is more questionable...

Also why not mention the difference between Irish, Manx's and scottish surnames? IE Irish O'loughlin or Mc-mac loughlin or Mccarthy ect. Or Scottish MacDonald or Cameron. Irish mac-mc and O', scottish Mac,less common mc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.230.193 (talk • contribs)

One may well be justified in responding to the above with WP:TLDR or WP:TEXTWALL but, after baulking, I have in fact read it through. Similarly, it lacks the coherence, focus and pertinence to the actual subject at hand as displayed by your campaign at article and talk page edits under your various guises and if there is a central point above in regard to the improvement of this article regarding the Gaels, it is elusive. The remainder of what I had initially written in reply pertains to specifics of your editing here but just as much to your editing in general so I will instead post it at the talk page of your currently most commonly used logged-in identity, here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

So your response to criticism is to make accusations? about a user yet refusing to address the criticism itself, about your constant removal of legitimate sources and pov pushing. Do you understand what constructive means? Your removal of legitimate sources was not valid. It lacks pertinence on the actual subject? it has everything to do with the subject. Please don't delete sources without a valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Mcdermott25 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you are now reverting to sockpuppets to get your POV in? The Banner talk 15:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have sock puppets, please don't delete sources without a valid reason, you're pov pushing and manipulating edits to push your pov. No valid reason was and could be giving for removing my sources above. such as your removal of the language improvement I made. I will directly quote the sources to the letter next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Mcdermott25 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

So User:109.77.230.193, having started this thread and now being blocked (the individual is blocked, not just that IP), along comes you, User:Patrick Mcdermott25, an entirely different individual to carry on their dispute? And both these entirely different individual have been inserting the same text into the article? How daft do you think we are? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you're a little confused. Please address my concern instead of throwing accusations it's not constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.240.215 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Which sock or puppetmaster is this IP claiming to be, or is it claiming to be yet another unrelated identity? Yes, I am confused...no I'm not. Mutt Lunker (talk)

Regardless of your accusations, either address my criticism or don't bother commenting at me. Your replies and deletion of legitimate sources is the only thing not constructive here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Mcdermott25 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, I am not addressing "(your) criticism", solely the deficiencies of individual edits. (I do not have a scooby what "(your) criticism" is, if you are referring to the initial post in this thread because you are hardly one for getting to the point.) And WP:NOTFORUM. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Even though I literally told you what my issue was with this article in unnecessary detail as to why I added my edits, so how is that not constructive?. If your criticism is with my sources on my edits themselves than please cite which edit on this page was not accurate because no matter what edits I add you just delete them with wafer thin excuses, like none constructive or not legitimate source or the source doesn't say what I added. So what source are you referring to? because my recent sources I add all back up my edit as far as I'm aware. Please quote the source I added which doesn't say what I wrote, and your not constructive argument does not make any sense, which is what I was trying to explain here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Mcdermott25 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you please stop your POV-pushing? What you are doing is distorting the truth, based on selective reading/using of the sources. The Banner talk 01:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

What truth am I distorting please provide an example. I think the pov pushing is going in the opposite direction here. This article reads like a pov piece doing exactly what you claim I'm doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Mcdermott25 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Even your title is not a title but a 35-word sentence. You should open a blog if you want to write essays. Regards, Alcaios (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This article reads like a pov piece doing exactly what you claim I'm doing. If you're unwilling to accept actual historical facts, which you have no right removing if fully sourced, which you have done to many times to count at this point on wafer thin nonsense. The entire article needs to be scraped and just put the bare bones in. Here are some examples on this page of POV pushing, which you claim I'm doing. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the Gaels were affected by the policies of the Tudors and the Stewarts who sought to anglicise the population and bring both Ireland and the Highlands under stronger centralized control, no source says this and further the difference between what happened in Ireland and scotland is starkly different yet they're lumped together to make it appear as if they're the same, this is not selective reading, but straight up fabrication of history literally. I quoted the actual article which you claim was selective reading despite being used as a source on this page. I added that the majority of the colonists in the ulster plantations were scottish with a significant minority being catholic scots according to current research, the latter is a established undeniable historical fact in every text book, it's removed because of pov pushing by your friend here or none constructive, although your friend seems to have been okay with the statements just not the sources, which I would like to know which aren't accurate.

Seriously you have stuff like Gaels haven't received official recognition of being an indigenous people as per the UN definition, or as the victims of colonization, however this argument has been advanced by notable historians such as Michael Newton, Alastair MacIntosh and Iain Mackinnon.[6][7][8] this is incredible selective reading the majority of historians don't consider scotland to ever have been colonized based on definition alone.

It reads like a opinion on a blog instead of a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Mcdermott25 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your original message: (1) You're citing Wikipedia in your two first paragraphs, including an article 'templated' for its poor referencing. Wikipedia is not a source, cite academic printed books and peer-reviewed papers (2) Whether Gaelic languages are mutually intelligible (not "intangible", sic) or not is irrelevant. Most Slavic languages are not mutually intelligible, yet there are Slavs. (3) The article you linked nowhere says that "[m]ost historians still favour the old model over the revisionist model" and is even contracting your whole point. Alcaios (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)