Talk:Scottish Gaelic

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

An Leabhar Mòr[edit]

The article An Leabhar Mòr has been proposed for deletion. I can't decide whether this is important or not. Maybe Gaelic enthusiasts would like to look in there? Doric Loon (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not actually sure what the criteria are for pages regarding pages on individual books/art projects aimed at a fairly small community? Any thoughts? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What official language Scottish Gaelic is not[edit]

Wikipedia generally does not discuss what topics are not, for the simple reason that this is could be taken as offering the opinion that it should be. Exceptions are, of course, if it is significant and discussed in reliable sources. Otherwise, it's far better to keep articles focussed on what the subject is, especially in the lead. What it is not is rarely as important or relevant.

So I can't see much reason why the lead of this article should concern itself with Scottish Gaelic not being an official language of the UK, when it is far, far more significant that it is an official language of Scotland, which is only mentioned in the infobox. It is also what the source cited (a Scottish Government document) actually says. This source does not discuss UK official languages at all. In fact, I don't think there is any source cited in the article that does.

I also don't think that preventative "heading off" erroneous additions is much of an argument for determining what appears in an article lead. If incorrect or unsourced information is added it should simply be reverted, or an editor note added. Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These discussions arise in the context of - and to an extent due to confusion with - the impact of the Welsh Language Act 1993, which confers much broader rights to Welsh at a national i.e. UK level as it was - predating the Welsh Assembly - passed at Westminster. Coupled with the legal odditiy of English not being an official language either, stating that ScG is NOT an official language is neither irrelevant nor expressing an opinion on whether it should or shouldn't.
This is not hugely dissimilar to the United States article which in the infobox states "Official languages : None at the federal level" Akerbeltz (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Akerbeltz Stating what it is not, however, is unsourced. As would be any comparison with Welsh. How is the reader to verify this? Whether the intention is to state an opinion or not, that's how it can appear. Otherwise, why is it there, in the lead? There are thousands of things Scottish Gaelic is not.
I would suggest that what is there is changed to begin with what it is, and what the existing source actually verifies. Anything about its UK status can follow, supported by a source that actually discusses its UK status. If good sources can be found, and it's absolutely necessary, this can be expanded on to include a contrast with the status of Welsh, later in the article in an appropriate section. This would actually address the confusion in a far more informative way, than an unsupported claim, as present. Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And your comparison with the United States article is not similar at all. This would be more similar if the English Language article lead with "English is not an official language of the United States". I haven't checked, but I doubt it does. Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and respond a bit more later but I'd like to point out that this page doesn't "lead with what it is not", you're making it sound like it's the opening sentence. It's a clarification on the legal status of a minority language, which is information commonly found in or near the top of such pages. It's in the 3rd paragraph of Welsh language, the 1st paragraph of Galician language; also in 1st for Catalan language and Hungarian language which contrast "official" with "spoken" (i.e. not official). Maybe for speakers of big languages who are used to the luxury of having everything at their disposal in their own language it's no big deal whether their language is official or not, but for smaller languages it IS a big deal whether your language is official or not. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the examples you gave are supported by a source, and start with what the language is. If this article is to take them as an example, it should do the same; Scottish Gaelic is an official language of Scotland, (cite) but not an official language of the United Kingdom (cite). I've no issue with the lead clarifying its UK status, but do not think this should be totally unsourced (there is no source for this claim in the lead, or anywhere in the article), and should take precedence over its Scottish status. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not official?[edit]

there seems to have been back and forth about this, but the Scottish Government website literally says "The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 gained royal assent in June of that year, confirming Gaelic as an official language of Scotland". that's on an official Scottish Government website, it literally describes it as official. the act being referred to itself says "The functions conferred on the Bòrd by this Act are to be exercised with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language..." which is admitedly ambiguous, but i don't think the strange wording means it isn't an official language.

also, "The Scottish Government declares that it protects Scottish Gaelic "as an official language of Scotland", however, this is disputed by others, who argue that Scottish Gaelic is not an official language of the United Kingdom or Scotland." what? if the Scottish Government doesn't decide what language is official, who does? it may not be an official language of the UK, but the page for Welsh says its place as an official language of Wales, even though it isn't either. hell, even the page for Scots mentions its official status. if Gaelic isn't official in Scotland for the reason that our government doesn't decide that, then neither is Scots, and Welsh isn't for Wales. Clydiee (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant references appear to include
You can probably find others – newspaper reports would probably be decent sources if from a quality newspaper. Once you have some sources, go ahead and edit the article. There might be some disagreement from others, but the end result will probably be a suitable change. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 07:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem arises from the shoddy language used by the people writing the website vs the wording of the actual legislation. I wish it were different but if you read ANY legistlation relating to Gaelic, there is NOTHING in there that says it's an official language. And since there is no precendent of a website (even if produced by some government department) trumping primary legislation, I'm afraid the status quo remains that Gaelic, legally speaking, is NOT an official language. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case can we get a better source than a 27 year old essay talking about Gaelic's "present" situtation, 8 years prior to the 2005 Act? Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. How often do you think an under-resourced language like Gaelic spends time and effort on restating something everyone knows in an academic essay? I'll have a look but chances are, there's nothing more recent. Akerbeltz (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're in luck, BBC Alba did a piece on the proposed new language bill, see ref 13 Akerbeltz (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be funny. The use of a source that's nearly three decades old, specifically quoted "At present", is not a convincing way of verifying the present status of Gaelic, particularly when it is prior to legislation that is likely to have changed things. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS Welsh, funnily enough IS an official language, not only of Wales but the UK, because the Welsh language act predates the Welsh Parliament and was passed at Westminster. The Welsh Language Act is worded much more strongly than the Gaelic 'equivalent' and is the reason why - for example - the HMRC website is available in Welsh, but not Gaelic. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This[3] is the outcome of the 2005 act. It mirrors the language of the act with "...seeks to secure the status of Gaelic as an official language of Scotland..". That means that status has not been achieved. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 07:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite certain that you're correct and that User:Akerbeltz and User:ThoughtIdRetired are misunderstanding the 2005 act, particularly the portions I've italicized below.
Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005:

The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 21st April 2005 and received Royal Assent on 1st June 2005: An Act of the Scottish Parliament to establish a body having functions exercisable with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language, including the functions of preparing a national Gaelic language plan, of requiring certain public authorities to prepare and publish Gaelic language plans in connection with the exercise of their functions and to maintain and implement such plans, and of issuing guidance in relation to Gaelic education.

...

(3)The functions conferred on the Bòrd by this Act are to be exercised with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language through ...

This is a typical constitutional act, declaring that some general condition or principle prevails and then ordering measures to be taken, legislation and regulations to be enacted, to implement it, to give it flesh, to "secure" it so that it isn't just empty words in a document. This isn't "Board, if you arrange things to our satisfaction, if you jump through these hoops, if you can convince us that Gaelic deserves to be official, then maybe we'll finally be nice and make it official." It's "Gaelic is official now, so, Board, go out now and make that principle a reality, giving life to the language's official status, giving it the full dignity to which it is entitled just as English is." Largoplazo (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and then ordering measures to be taken, legislation and regulations to be enacted, to implement it... So, until those measures have been taken and legislation has been enacted, it is not an official language. I am guessing that you would have less difficulty understanding this if the change being discussed was, say, a decrease in speed limits. If the first legislation had set up a board to reduce speed limits, those limits would not reduce until the board had put forward a bill which was then enacted. All that exists at the moment is something that might be variously described by politicians as either an "intent" or an "ambition". ThoughtIdRetired TIR 13:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, until those measures have been taken and legislation has been enacted, it is not an official language. No, that isn't how it works. It should occur to you that if that were how it works, it's really, really weird that the Scottish government is completely ignorant on that matter. Basically, I'm watching two Wikipedians debate the Scottish government over how to interpret law that is squarely within the Scottish government's domain of expertise and with which they are intimately involved.
You have "official" and "in effect" conflated with each other. When a government declares something official, it doesn't do it by first setting up infrastructure to support it while insisting it's still unofficial and then, maybe one day, saying "OK, it's official now". It declares it official, then does whatever it sees as appropriate to put it into effect. Until the latter has happened, one can say it hasn't been put into effect yet, but it is neverthless official. If an act declares that men and women have equal rights, then they officially have equal rights, whether or not laws have been put into effect yet to remove actual inequities and penalize unequal treatment.
The speed limit equivalent is if a law reduces the national speed limit and directs signs to be posted with the new limit. The limit is in effect immediately. The country doesn't wait till some number of signs have been posted and then some reliable source pipes up announcing "Well, we're calling it now: was far as we're concerned, enough signs have been put that we feel comfortable calling the new limit official". If a constable stops you for exceeding the new limit, you don't get to argue that enough signs aren't up for the limit to be official. Largoplazo (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the reality of the 2005 act is such that other than setting up Bòrd na Gàidhlig, it confers NONE of the legal rights that being an official language entails. Someone takes you to court, you cannot insist on proceedings being in Gaelic. You do not have a right to have your children educated in Gaelic, not even at the primary level, never mind any other level. Heck, you can't even get your council tax form in Gaelic. Don't you think we would have taken every opportunity to litigate for these things if there was a law that says 'hey, it's official now. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS giving it the full dignity to which it is entitled just as English is – that wishy-washy statement about 'equal respect' meant literally nothing. The SNP did put forward an amendment to grant it 'equal validity' [4] (still short of being co-official) but that was voted down. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Scottish government says it's official. Your counterargument is that it isn't official because the act doesn't confer a variety of conditions that in your opinion ought to be what official status confers. Your own WP:OR/opinion/grievances and your WP:POV characterization of the status as "wishy-washy" don't override what is clearly and unequivocally declared. It's like saying North Korea isn't officially a republic. It certainly doesn't behave in any way that merits it being described in effect as a republic, but, nonetheless, it's officially a republic, and Wikipedia accordingly says so.
Here's another example: Amsterdam is officially the capital of the Netherlands. It isn't the actual capital according to any normal definition of "capital city", as the country isn't governed out of Amsterdam. No branch of the Dutch government is seated there. Nevertheless, Amsterdam is (for whatever historical reasons) officially the capital, we declare it as such, and then we explain the reality behind that in the appropriate section of the article. We don't refuse to declare it the official capital on the grounds of what we think that should mean.
The fundamental meaning of "official" is that the pertinent body has declared it thus. It's an ipso facto thing. While I can contemplate arguing that something not so declared is official anyway in essence by virtue of its use for official purposes where alternatives are not provided for, I don't see any avenue for arguing that something that is officially declared is actually not official. Largoplazo (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You fundamentally misunderstand what the concept of an official language is. As the Wikipedia page says, An official language is a language having certain rights to be used in defined situations. These rights can be created in written form or by historic usage. If it doesn't, it's not an official language of whatever political entity. To date there is no law that bestows such rights on the citizens of Scotland or the UK. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]