Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gaels: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:35, 4 November 2022 edit88.110.119.210 (talk) →260,000 Gaels in the Rep. of Ireland?: ReplyTags: Reverted Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:47, 6 October 2024 edit undoKowal2701 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,060 editsm →top: add wikiproject banner, Added {{WikiProject Anthropology}}, replaced: WikiProject Anthropology|class= → WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yesTag: AWB 
(47 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{afd-merged-from|Gaels of Scotland|Gaels of Scotland|14 July 2019}} {{afd-merged-from|Gaels of Scotland|Gaels of Scotland|14 July 2019}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|class=C|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Celts|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Celts|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Scotland|class=C|importance=Top|scotsgaelic=yes}} {{WikiProject Scotland|importance=Top|scotsgaelic=yes}}
{{WikiProject Ireland|class=C |importance=high |attention= |peer-review= |old-peer-review= }} {{WikiProject Ireland|importance=high |attention= |peer-review= |old-peer-review= }}
{{WikiProject Isle of Man |class=C|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Isle of Man |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject New Zealand|class=c|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yes
}} }}
}}
{{ScE}}


== Ethnic group vs Ethno-Linguistic ==
==Goidelis==
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[REDACTED] with this term and not other groups? ] (]) 09:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
in Lithuanian language means a rooster <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:In effect it is one Pazymuk who is changing it into an ethnic group without giving proper evidence. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 10:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
==Common uses of the word Gael in Ireland==


::Evidence? That the Gaels are an ethnic group? Are you serious? ] (]) 11:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
* Gael is the word for "Irish person" or "Irish people" in the Irish language. I propose adding this fact to the article.


:::Yes, I am serious. I want proof that what you claim is correct. We work here based on sources, not personal ideas. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 11:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
* Cumann Lúthchleas Gael (GAA Gaelic Athletic Association) - promotes sports unique to Ireland - Hurling, Gaelic football, and Gaelic handball.
* Fine Gael (Family of the Irish) - second largest political party in Ireland
* Gael Linn - promotes Irish language
* Gaelic Telecom
* Clann na nGael GAA Club Co. Roscommon
* Enniskillen Gaels GAA Club Co. Fermanagh
* O'Loughlin Gaels GAA Club Co. Kilkenny


::::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. ] (]) 17:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Bands/Music Groups -
::::Also, who else is listed as an ethno-linguistic group on wikipedia? Ive seen no others. ] (]) 17:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
::::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? ] (]) 17:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


:::::Do youy have any evidence of your claims? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 17:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
* Gaelic Storm
:::::Ow, see also ], ], ], ], ], ], and others, all ethno-linguistic groups. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 17:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
* Gael Force
* Full Gael
* Gael Warning
* Caerda na Gael


::::::Gaels are to Persians as Celts are to Iranian peoples. ] (]) 17:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The word Gael is a reference to a person who identifies with Gaelic culture, according to its usage in Ireland at least. This culture includes music, sports, history, heritage, as well as other ideas. I therefore propose removing information which attempts to equate the term Gael with language only. Information regarding the number of speakers of the three Gaelic languages should be found under "Gaelic Languages". ] 03:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


:::::::And? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 18:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
==260,000 Gaels in the Rep. of Ireland?==


::::::::So why are you classifying us as an ethno-linguistic group rather than an ethnic group? ] (]) 19:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It is completely wrong to define Gaels in terms of those who speak Gaelic. A Gael is a person belonging to the Gaelic culture, the latter being defined by more than simple language. For example, I love Irish traditional music and GAA (Gaelic sports) and excercise this love in terms of playing this music and going along to watch matches whenever I can. I keep Gaelic culture alive via this process and I consider myself a Gael even though I am not very good at speaking the Irish language. I think it is wrong to try to put a number on the number of Gaels existing in the world since such a term cannot be defined in simplistic terms. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: Agreed. This article has took a very narrow view of Gaelic culture and one that completely opposed to the popular and accepted idea of what 'Gaelic' means. The article needs a complete overhaul. ] (]) 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If you spoke french but really liked tea, would you be culturally English? no, a Gael or a Celt is one who speaks the language. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== 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? ==
By that token anyone who speaks English as their first language can claim to be English ] (]) 16:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== 1,770,000 Irish speakers isn't accurate. ==
:Are you suggesting they can't? ] (]) 00:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)</small>


:Evidence? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 23:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
You can't take my ethnic identity from me just because some English people forced my great great great great grandparents to speak English. Despite doing everything in my power to learn our language, I refuse to have to 'earn' my Gaelicness by doing so. Is Gael mise, agus cé go bhfuil an teanga an-thábhachtach, más Éireannach thú, is Gael thú. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


::https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp10esil/p10esil/ilg/
:Well your 'Gaelicness' clearly isn't very important to you at all, is it, if you're not even willing to spend a few months/years 'earning it' through simply learning to speak, read and write the Gaelic language fluently.
::''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 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You're just another Englishman desperately seeking to feel 'exotic' and 'different'. It's nothing new under the sun.
:There are tons of Ancient Greek and Roman writers who had full or partial ancestry from other ethnic groups, sometimes quite exotic ones half a world away. Nobody distinguishes their works or the people as anything but Greek and Roman today.
:Gaels didn't descend from different people than anyone else in Europe. They were the same threeway Bronze Age (that's only 5,000 years ago, bud) admixture of PIE/WHG/EEF that all of Europe is. The only reason they BECAME distinct and distinguished from neighbors is because the Proto-Indo-European language ancestral to the vast majority of Europeans eventually corrupted into something distinct and distinguished in Proto-Gaelic (via a few other proto language corruption stages) somewhere in Ireland at some point in the recent past.
:Gaels in Ireland didn't even see themselves as a single ethnic group or race. They merely saw themselves as distinct populations united by their Gaelic tongue. In fact there were several ethnic divisions in Gaelic Ireland: Milesians, Eireann, Laiginn, Cruithin and several others. These were considered different races with different ancestral origins who merely 'spoke Gaelic'. Only those patrilineally descended from Milesians were considered 'true Gaels'.
:Purityspiralling is a tale as old as time. Gael is a term that loses absolutely any meaning if it does not apply to people who speak the Gaelic language. ] (]) 00:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


:::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 ] page, no need to re-iterate everything here. Take it up with the census people. ] (]) 17:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
==Definition of a Gael?==


::::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.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Can anybody come up with one? I would say it is membership of a cultural world and, formerly, of a political world as well. But that is off the top of my head. That way the Muintir Mhic Gearailt in the Fíor-Ghaeltachta in ] and the ] of ] are included, an important fact considering those of'' patrilineal'' Norman stock make up a substantial part of the modern ]. I was reading a book a while ago and it was dedicated by ] to the late ] praising the latter as a 'Fíor-Ghael'(true Gael). This would indicate he shared the same definition. However at a certain point in our history- Dónall Ó Néill's Remonstrance in 1317 springs to mind- a Gael was one who claimed descent along the ''patrilineal'' line to the Milesian invasion of Ireland. So, if your sister married a Mac Gearailt, her children they were no longer Gaeil under Ó Néill's interpretation. In other words, a Gael was defined by blood on the male line by that particular source (and others), although even then this view was nowhere near universal. At any rate, I invariably use the word 'Irish' as it, unfairly or not, still sounds more inclusive and progressive. But I'd still like to know how the rest of you define a Gael, both modern and historical types. ] 02:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


:::::And again: evidence? Misplaced Pages is based on sources, not on personal opinions. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 10:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
:A Gael is a Gaelic speaker. The dichotomy within Gaelic society is quite simple ; Gael = Gaelic speaker, Gall = Non-Gaelic speaker. There are some other aspects which might be taken into account but this is the basis of it. ] 12:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


:::::"I know..." "I never" are not evidence, get over yourself. Find reliable sources or you'll get ignored and/or reverted. ] (]) 11:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
::If a person learns to speak Gaelic do they become a Gael?
::] 19:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


== Merger discussion ==
I will shortly be visiting the United States. I am interested in experiencing the significant population (0.00879%) of this
I don't quite see the point of the ] 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? ] (]) 09:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
ethno-linguistic group. How do they differ from the rest of the population ethnically and culturally? Where can I find them and how will I recognise them?
] 10:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


:'''Support''' Looks like largely double with Gaels. And it looks like a way to circumvent the earlier merge decided at ]. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 09:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:According to Misplaced Pages The ] are a nation and an '''ethnic group''' indigenous to Scotland. As an ethnic group, Scots are a composition of several groups such as Picts, Gaels, Brythons and others. Are the ] also an ethnic group? What about ] or ]s?


::(a bit off-topic but since you seem to know a lot about articles in this area, have you seen ] 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. ] (]) 09:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC))
:Are the Gaels an ] within an ] within an ] ... or is Misplaced Pages just very silly?
:] 16:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


:::With a quick look, I would say it has the same problems. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 10:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:I would say a Gael is anyone of Gaelic blood, it seems silly to create an article just for those speaking a Gaelic language...I dunno but there are more people with Gaelic blood than just 400 000! : <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


::::'''<s>Support</s>''' per the points already made and I was about to say the same re concerns raised at ]. These articles have the feel of being created to advance a thesis. ] (]) 10:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
this is a bit silly gaels do not have to speak gaelic fluently to be gaels,
most irish people would consider themselves Gaels] 22:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
:Well if that's the case most Irish people are deluded. It's the same in the colonial nations (USA etc) where people claim to be this that and anything on the basis of having a grandfather who was (possibly) 1/8 native american or italian or whatever. A Gael is a Gaelic speaker. A non-Gaelic speaker is a Gall. That has always been the case. ] (]) 09:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::This article states that Gaels are an ethno-linguistic group but then defines Gaels in terms of their ability to speak the Gaelic ( see right hand side table)!
] (]) 07:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


::::I'm ] that there is no material worth retaining for a merger and the artice should simply be deleted. ] (]) 12:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
== Etymology and first record of the Gaeil==


== Origin myth ==
I just noticed this, 'The Gaels, during the beginning of the Christian era (at which time Gaelic people were mostly restricted to Ireland)'. I'm open to correction here but wasn't the very identity, Gaeil, a product of incursions into modern day Wales where the the local inhabitants called the arriving Irish 'Gwyddel', or savages, out of which came geídil and goidel and thus the Goidelic tongues? If it is true that the Gaeil were so called due to their very lack of restriction to Ireland, my second question is: what is the earliest known record of an Irish community being referred to as 'Gaeil'? ] 03:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:The etymology of the name seems to have a Welsh origin but 'identity' is an entirely different matter. ] 12:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
: : I disagree that the origin is Welsh, I think it's an example of a false cognate - 'G-A-L' roots for certain tribes go back to Proto-Celtic. The regions of Galatia and Galicia have been called a testament to that, although I suppose no one has made the argument that "Galilee" was once Celtic. In any event, one would expect the modern word to be something like Gethil if 'Gwyddel' was the origin of the term. But regardless of all this - this is the English language Misplaced Pages, and "Gael" properly means a native{"Celtic"} inhabitant of Ireland, Scotland, or the Isle of Man quite irrespective of the language spoken. Gael is not the equivalent of Gaeilgeoir. - Caoimhin Roibeard <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 02:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::: The "Stair na Gaeilge" (History of Irish) section in my Leaving Cert Irish book gives the 'Gwyddel' explanation, so I'd go so far as to call it the official one, given that it's what's taught to Honours Irish students. Whether or not "Gael" now means the same thing as "Gwyddel" originally did is a different thing. ] 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


This segment:
It seems to me there are problems with the etymology text on this page.


{{talkquote|1=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.}}
Firstly, there is a lot of confusion about names that currently look a little similar...


needs clarification that modern scholars do not take this origin myth (of a Middle/Near Eastern origin of the Gaels) seriously.
:*''Gaul'', from Latin ''Galli'', possibly from a Celtic tribal name with a *gal- root, maybe related to the following.
:*''Galatia'' (in modern Turkey), from Greek ''Galatai'' 'Gauls, Celts'.
:*''Galicia'' (in modern Spain), from Latin version of Celtiberian tribal name ''Callaeci''.
:*''Gael'', from Old Irish ''Goídel'', from Old Welsh ''Guoidel'' (Brittonic ''*Ue:deli''). Borrowed prior to the 7th century.


See, e.g., ] for how WP should handle the "Scythian myth". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 18:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
It's not possible that ''all'' these words are related, the most obvious problem being that historically ''Gael'' has had another consonant in the middle of it, unlike the ''gal-'' or ''call-'' words. This was a voiced dental fricative {{IPA-all|ð}} and to prove a relationship you would have to explain how this sound was added to the Irish form or removed from the others.


== Gael/Irish/Scottish ==
People who seem to know what they're talking about also claim that it is very hard to construct a native etymology for ''Goídel'' because it doesn't show evidence of sound changes that it would have been subjected to if it wasn't a loan word.


<del>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 any case, consider this fascinating suggestion that the 'native' word ''Féni'' may have the same ultimate etymology.
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.</del>


<del>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.
<pre>
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. ] (]) 08:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)</del> <small>Blocked sock. ] (]) 11:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)</small>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 14:26:43 -0500
:Do you have reliable sources for this or is it just your personal opinion? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 10:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
From: Christopher Gwinn
::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. ] (]) 11:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
To: OLD-IRISH-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
Subject: Re: Irish


== Relatedness ==
> What is the etymology of Féni?


@] in your , 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? ] (]) 00:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
John Koch (The Goddodin of Aneirin, pg. xcvii, note 2) mentions Eric Hamp's
:Read the article about English people, I would suggest. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 00:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
suggestion (PHCC, XII, 43-50) that Féni and Goídel (which was borrowed from
::I'm reading this one at present; can you explain your reasoning behind your edit? ] (]) 00:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Welsh Gwyddel by the 7th century AD) come from the same source: PIE *weidh-.
:::English people, also called Anglo-Saxons, derive most of their Ancestry from German/Danish tribes. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 09:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Féni would represent a suffixed form *weidh-n-yo, (thus giving a Proto Irish
::::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. ] (]) 23:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
*Uednii) while Gwyddel represents an alternate suffixed form, *weidh-el-o -
:::::Please read the article about English people. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 00:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thus giving Brittonic *Uedeli. Compare Common Celtic *mag-l-o giving Welsh
::::::I have, it doesn't support the claims you've made; hence the request for reliable sources to support your claims... ] (]) 09:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Mael "prince" and *mag-n-o giving Welsh Maen "stone" from PIE *megH-
::::::@]: I see you've just undone the of the ] stuff. Would you be able to provide the sources that back the inclusion, or would it be better to take it to arbitration? ] (]) 11:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
"great."
:::::::Did you actually read those articles? But yes, if you want a ], I would like that. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 12:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Koch suggests in Insular Celtic, *weidh-l-o and *weidh-n-yo meant "forest
::::::::Did I read them? Yes. Now do you have the sources? ] (]) 12:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
people" (in other words, marginalized people outside of regular society) -
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
but I note that PIE *weidh- means "divide/separate" (I might also suggest
* 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.
instead of *weidh- we may have *weid "see" in its secondary sense,
* Celtic Britons: also uncontroverisal, there were centuries of toing and froing between the Gaels of ] and the Picts/Britons across the central belt of Scotland
"inspired," which may have led to the sense of "frenzied, " making *Uedeli
* Scottish Romani Travellers - if in doubt of a link between Gaels and travellers, research ]
"the wild ones").
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. ] (]) 12:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


: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 ], that is a language; is it your position that 'relatedness' is defined by language? ] (]) 12:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-Chris Gwinn
::Sorry, say that again? I don't quite get what you're trying to say.
</pre>
::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. ] (]) 13:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


== Gaelic influenced areas ==
'''What I'm changing & why'''


The picture shown does not communicate the influence that Gaelic culture has on the non-Gaelic parts of Scotland like Orkney and Shetland. ] (]) 03:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
'Irish ''Gaedhealg'' and Old Irish ''Goídeleg'' '&mdash;these are the names of languages not people and the modern Irish spelling is ''Gael'' not ''Gaedheal''


== Mythology ==
'British ''gwyddel'' (Old Welsh ''goídel'')'&mdash;''Gwyddel'' is modern Welsh, not 'British' whatever that might mean; ''Goídel''is Old Irish; AFAIK the Old Welsh was ''Guoidel''.


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.
Under '''See also''', 'Irish Gaelic' -> 'Irish' as this is what Irish people call the language in English. 'Irish Gaelic' seems to be an Americanism (as well as a tautology?). Also 'Manx Gaelic' -> 'Manx'.


This section should be under mythology and not history, as it is not history, its an Irish myth with no evidence to be history. ] (]) 15:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
☸ ] 06:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC) ]


:Agreed. Especially now that DNA analysis provides a more reliable history than the opinions of medieval scribes. ] (]) 09:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
==Iberian origins==
The possible Iberian origins of the goidelic Celts in Britain, while an interesting hypothesis, is more based in myth than fact and until conclusive evidence is produced that this is historically accurate should not be stated as anything but myth with possible root in actual events.

]

I disagree. Evidence here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1256894.stm
"The Welsh and Irish Celts have been found to be the genetic blood-brothers of Basques, scientists have revealed.
The gene patterns of the three races passed down through the male line are all "strikingly similar", researchers concluded.

Ethnic links: Many races share common bonds
Basques can trace their roots back to the Stone Age and are one of Europe's most distinct people, fiercely proud of their ancestry and traditions.

The research adds to previous studies which have suggested a possible link between the Celts and Basques, dating back tens of thousands of years.

"The project started with our trying to assess whether the Vikings made an important genetic contribution to the population of Orkney," Professor David Goldstein of University College London (UCL) told BBC News.

'Statistically indistinguishable'

He and his colleagues looked at Y-chromosomes, passed from father to son, of Celtic and Norwegian populations. They found them to be quite different.

"But we also noticed that there's something quite striking about the Celtic populations, and that is that there's not a lot of genetic variation on the Y-chromosome," he said. "

The study can't be considered conclusive as is noted by the researchers performing the study. Studies on MtDNA and X-chromosomes have yet to be carried out. ] 04:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You are all forgetting the fact that the inhabitants of Britain and Ireland were never Celts; they had a ''culture'' that was ''generally'' Celtic. But it was not a word they ever used for themselves. ] 11:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

:They were Celts and this ridiculous point - that they never called themselve Celts - is irrelevant and simply ignorant of the nuances of language. The Persians never called themselves Persians - this word is a Western creation of Greek origin derived from the name of a region within Iran but that doesnt for a second change the fact that the Persians are Persians regardless of the fact they did not historically refer to themselves as such in their own language. You think the Indo-European peoples referred to themselves as 'Indo-Europeans'? Do you think the Neandarthals referred to themselves as Neandarthals? Of course not but this doesnt change the fact that both the Indo-European people and the Neandarthals are referred to by those terms in the English language.

:No Celts ever called themselves by that name. Instead, we generally referred to ourselves in reference to our tribes, or families. Hell, "Gael," or whatever the root of that word is, originally meant "outsider," or "foreigner," yet today I'm damned proud to call myself a Gael. ] 06:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

exactly well said] 22:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Those comments would be more appropriate to an article titled 'Nationalist sentiment.' Unless you can agree such terms cogently and with rigour, they are meaningless. There is no such person as a Celt. Except for a person who wants to call himself a Celt.

::There certainly has never been such a person as an Indo-European. That is an academic term for the conjectured linguisic root of a wide group of languages now referred to as Indo-European. Etc.] (]) 10:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

:As for the DNA evidence Epf i read about it at the time but completely forgot about it. Very interesting and very pertinent.]


===Currently Unsubstantiated Iberian Origins===
"In fact, the latest scientific facts prove that the ancestors of the Gaels actually came from Spain." This statement should be removed unless this "latest evidence" is documented. I presume it refers to the research reported by the BBC, from which I quote as follows:

:"But it is still unclear whether the link is specific to the Celts and the Basques, or whether they are both simply the closest surviving relatives of the early population of Europe.

:"What is clear is that the Neolithic Celts took women from outside their community. When the scientists looked at female genetic patterns as well, they found evidence of genetic material from northern Europe.

:"This influence helped even out some of the genetic differences between the Celts and their Northern European neighbours.

:"'We conclude that both of these populations are reflecting pre-farming Europe'."

If this is the source of the statement, then translocation of the Celts from Spain is not so clearly proven. In addition, the Basque language (Euskara) is different from all other languages in Europe. Gaelic is much closer to Anglo-Saxon than it is to Basque, which is not thought to have Indo-European origins. It is possible that the original inhabitants of Ireland, whose Y-chromosomes have been handed down were not Gaelic in looks, language or even culture. Either the Basque or the Irish men (or conceivably both) must have given up the language of their common paternal ancestors.

Incidentally, has anyone else noticed that southern Welsh are stereotypically short and dark, as are the Basques... (oh... I find that the Misplaced Pages article on the ] already has...). And someone else has written of the dark curly-haired . From elsewhere I understand that Tacitus wrote of the ] having Iberian roots (quote below). Perhaps the male antecedents of Ireland (or at least a significant number of them) were dark Basque-speaking tribes who married fair-haired Celtic (and Norse/Germanic) maidens...

:"... the swarthy faces of the Silures, the curly quality, in general, of their hair, and the position of Spain opposite their shores, attest the passage of Iberians in old days and the occupation by them of these districts; ..." (Tacitus Annales Xi.ii, translated by M. Hutton)

As a result, I propose that the assumption of proof of general Iberian origins for Gaels be removed from the article unless supporting references are provided, since the science does not appear to "prove" anything of the sort. Perhaps the article could mention the Silurian link, and soften the "proof" statement? --] (]) 05:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

*There also has been research done in Ireland at the university of ], and DNA connections with northern Spain have been established. These connections would go way back to before the ] populated Spain. ] (]) 16:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

:: The Moors did not populate Spain and they never occupied northern Spain- Galicia, Cantabria and the Pais Vasco. "Moor" is an imprecise term that reflects the dominance of North African dynasties in al-Andalus from the late 11th century AD.it does not refer to movement of population. True, the majority of the troops in the Arab army that invaded in 711AD were probably Berbers, but this still represented a small proportion of the population of Muslim Spain and only in the far south. The Arab elite was an even smaller grouping. The common view now is that the bulk of that population in Muslim Spain were indigenous converts. It may be the case, however, that indigenous Iberians and North Africans were from broadly the same genetic stock, or at least had seen close admixture from very early on. ] (]) 10:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

'''more ... Incorrectly Stated Iberian Origins'''

The claim "Recent genetic studies by Brian Sykes, Oxford University, suggest that these myths are based on historical facts since the people of northwestern Spain, especially those from Galicia and Asturias are genetically closely related to Irish, Scottish and other so called "Celts"." is not accurate.

Before anyone gets offended, let me make it clear that, growing up in the Irish diaspora, I do not speak Irish and so I'm disqualified from being a "Gael". But in the light of the fact that I've moved back here to Ireland and have been living here a number of years, have competed in traditional cultural events at the in All-Ireland level, have studied a great deal more about medieval Irish history than most of my Irish-born friends, and am generically more closely associated with the English/Irish haplotypes than with Iberian ones, I at least claim to be allied in spirit to its authors. So I'm trying to be constructive.

The problem with the statement is that Sykes connects Iberia to Ireland at a time around 4,000 BC, while the earliest reasonable estimates for the Milesian invasion of the "Book of Invasions" is three to four thousand years later. In "Saxons, Vikings, and Celts", Sykes says (p. 281), "The Irish myths of the Milesians were right in one respect. The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or about the same time as farming reached the Isles."

Those people, however, did not speak a Celtic language, though they spoke an Indo-European language. Reviewing the chapter called "Contesting Europe" in Nicholas Ostler's book ""Empires of the Word (sic)", highlights several facts:
* Continental Celtic appears to have differentiated itself from Ligurian and the Italic family by around 500 BC, in the Celtic heartland, with perhaps 1,500 years since they were common, so Celtic is too young to have travelled along with agriculture. (p.284-286 )
* Continental Q-celtic seems to have been the original form, with P-celtic becoming more widespread, and the Celtic-speakers spread the Iron-age technology through Northern Europe (p. 288)
* Celtiberian remained Q-Celtic (p.291)
* Islandic/Atlantic Celtic (both P and Q) are distinctly different from Continental Celtic (both P and Q) (p.292).

All of these say that the genetic connection Sykes was talking about is not about the Q-Celtic speaking Milesians.

To make life more complicated, the part of the Iberian gene-pool that went to Ireland itself came from Northern Europe. The evidence for this lies in the gene for extended lactose tolerance, and is presented well in "The Peopling of Europe" by Barbara Arredi, Estella Poloni, and Chris Tyler-Smith in the book "Anthropological Genetics Theory, Methods and Applications", edited by Michael Crawford.

I actually do think the Milesians came from Iberia, bringing Q-Celtic back to an Irish population that was mostly speaking P-Celtic and establishing itself ass the ruling dynasties over the five provinces, but it's my opinion. But I suspect that linguistics will provide better support for that belief than genetics will.

In sum, it is wrong to say that Sykes' or other genetic evidence shows anything at all about the Milesians, on the basis of current investigation. In fact, developments in genetic anthropology over the past year seem to indicate otherwise, the L21 haplotype, R1b1b2a1b5 (YCC/FTDNA) or R1b1b2a1a2f (ISOGG), has a very high frequency in Ireland (and the other Celtic Isles), which contrasts strongly with its relative scarcity in Iberia. This haplotype is dated to around 800 BC, probably arising in northwestern Europe. But you have to find this stuff on the web as it's too new to make it into journals.

Unless there are better or more recent references, I think it's time to remove the claim.] (]) 23:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaelic language is Q Celtic, as are the modern Gaelic dialects found in Ireland, Scotland and Mann. There are numerous points of connection including genetic, linguistic and archaeological records. No serious scholar believes the Gaelic people magically came to exist in Ireland one day; they arose from migration of Celts from the Iberian peninsula. There is no doubt about this. ] (]) 09:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

== Neutrality of article ==

This article involves more the lingusitic group of Gaelic speakers and these people are not officially unified in any sense other than language. The article is also largely original research and mostly POV without any valid sources or citations stating the existence of a "Gaelic ethnic group" or people. If it deals with the ancient Gaels, then there is no issue but the current article does not represent that and is referring to groups of people who can currently speak the Gaelic languages. There is already an article on the Gaelic language elsewhere and this article may soon be nominated for deletion if not cleaned up. ] 04:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

:This is quite untrue im afraid Epf. Your suggestion that there is no gaelic 'unity' (offical or not, whatever you mean by this is unclear ) beyond language or any links between gaels is quite simply ignorant of the reality. As for accusations of POV and 'original research' i notice little in this article which is not historical fact,widely accepted theory or clearly qualified ( as mythological or whatever). ] 09:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

:Erm ... the article is in an early form, and hasn't had much attention; so people have written about the ancient Gaels, but the modern Gaels are spoken about; if not enough, then the correct status for the article is stub. But the Gaels are an ethnic group, and that is orthodoxy. The article is in no way POV, so I'm removing the tag. - ] 16:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unverified statement: "large proportions of Gaelic speakers live in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh in Scotland". If we take the Census 2001 as a good indicator, I don't think most people would regard 1.2% and 0.9% respectively as "large" proportions of these cities. Alternatively, this statement might mean that large proportions of Scotland's Gaelic speakers live in Edinburgh and Glasgow. This is much more plausible, with respective proportions of c. 10% and 5%.--] 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
: It clearly means proportion of Gaelic speakers rather than proportion of city-dwellers in Glasgow and Edinburgh, hence "large proportions of Gaelic speakers live in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh in Scotland". '''] ('']'')''' 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:: Hehe. It's about as clear as Mel Gibson's driving licence! Can I suggest "although large proportions of Scotland's Gaelic speakers live in the cities of Glasgow (c. 10%) and Edinburgh (c. 5%), as is the case in Galway and Dublin in Ireland." ?



==Anglo-Scots/Irish==
An alternative, if strictly speaking more ambiguous and less accurate, term is available for tha Anglo-Scottish population - that of 'Lowland Scots' but what possible alternative is there for the Irish? The Anglo-Irish speaking population may well find it offensive to be class as such (though that is what they are ) but how else would one refer to them to distinguish them from the Irish Gaels? I need an answer because having 'Scots' and 'Irish' as related ethnic groups to the Gaels is simply ridiculous and needs to be altered.]
: It is. Lowland Scot is silly though, since it implies that such a group of people actually exist (which they don't), and moreover, implies that all "Highland Scots" (and Galwegian Scots if these aren't lowland Scots) are Gaels, which they aren't. It'd be fine if we lived in the 18th century, but of course we do not. The only choice is to remove them from the list (as it is at least), or just say Anglo-Scots/Irish; but again, since the links are to "Scottish people" and "Irish people", this has the disadvantage that ethnic-Scots and ethnic-Irish are actually Scottish people and Irish people too. - ] 19:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::I think the easiest thing to do would simply be to revert the 'related ethnic groups' section simply to those directly related to the Gaels as other sub-groups of the Celtic language family/Celtic civilization ; the Breton French, Cornish English and Welsh. If we take the Anglo Scots and Irish into account because of the Gaelic influences then using the same rationale we should place the Australians, Canadians, Americans,Native Americans (especially in Canada : ]) New Zealanders, Norwegians, Icelanders etc etc as 'related' ethnic groups as well as they all have varying levels of Gaelic/Celtic influence as well? Where does it end? The simplest thing is simply to stick to those who have a direct relationship as part of the same grouping or family imo. ]
::: Oldest sons always prefer primogeniture, don't they?! ;) Or perhaps I'm being cynical. You are correct though, to some extent at least. But there remains the problem that, no matter how ever much language use ought to be prescribed, you yourself once argued on the Scottish Gaelic language talk page that on wiki one has to slavishly reflect popular usage. Moreove, culture is not the same as language, and in both Ireland and Scotland, the principle, and in Scotland (outside Lothian) virtually the only means of language transition was through native Gaelic-speakers simply changing language (rather than immigration) through a process of which you yourself have experience, which I'm sure you'd admit allows their descendents to get classified as slightly closer to current speakers of the language than native American "Indians". - ] 20:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You make a totally valid point ( though i most point out that the American "Indians" referred to were as close, if not closer, to being 'Scottish' than many anglicized Scots given that their language was/is a Scottish Gaelic creole, that they were/are directly descended from Scots and that their culture was/is also, consequently, notably Scottish ) but the reason i propose a language qualifier is quite simply that its easier. As i said if we take 'influence' etc into account then where does it end? Its not really the most tangible of criteria/qualifiers while language is fairly easy. Perhaps we could have sub-categories within the 'related ethnicity' section such as Celtic: Breton, Welsh,Cornish and also 'Germanic' or 'Other' and then any people who also have close links or have been notably influenced by the Gaels? ]
: If you put the ethnicity model used for most of the rest of the world on Scotland, then all of this makes sense. But most books on the topic avoid the awkward points that you make, for the obvious reason that this would eliminate most of the authors from Scottishness, of which they are generally immensely proud (as their society, whose structures and identity are of Gaelic origin, has made them out to be). Hence most users, who fall much lower down the intellectual food chain that these authors, will give you grief for your views. But anyways, I don't know how alterable the template is. It's probably best for the minute to delete Scots and Irish from the group, as most Gaels are either Scottish or Irish, and, as you say, keep it linguistic, permitting only the inclusion of the Welsh and Bretons (the modern Cornish are totally English, and have no place there according to the arguments you have outlined). - ] 21:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to a Roman in Caledonia and hed treat you with the derision you deserve, say it to a twentieth century nazi and he/she would probably agree that the "pure race" theory you propose makes Nazi sense (unless he was aware of the truth about the origines of Scotland's population being Britons and not Gaels, as the Roman would have told you between laughing and having you check out a map of where the Gaels come from in his era, and who lived in Scotland before it came under Irish influence and gained the name and confusion you seem to play on to condemn those you see as beneath you (going by what you have written here)] 04:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)




Fair enough. Yes i agree with regard to the Cornish and normally wouldnt have placed them there but seeing as Manx was also involved i thought it would be consistent. ]

The Scottish and Irish have been significantly influenced by Gaelic culture and language but you can not compare this influence with that on Canadians, Australians, Americans, etc as they are not ethnic groups in any shape or form and are merely citizens of those countries. I really do debate the Gaels as an existing modern ethnic group and the Gaels of Scotland are different than the Gaels of Ireland in both language and cultural terms. The Gaels of Ireland are very much Irish just as the Gaels of Scotland are Scottish. The Gaelic-speakers do have a linguistic connection with each other but can not be considered a single ethnic entity. I my opinion, as well as many others, they can't even be considered a modern "ethnic group" in its current accepted definition. I mean under the idea of this article, if someone just deicdes to learn a Gaelic language, whether it be Scots Gaelic or Irish, that deems a person a member of some non-existent "Gaelic ethnic group". Both non-Gaelic speaking Irish and Scottish people have a large degree of Gaelic influence in all aspects of their language, culture and origins, especially with the Irish who for example in Ireland have to learn Gaelic in school till a certain grade level. ] 05:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


First of all the Gaels are an ethnic group. Ties between them are strong with official organizations existing to further and maintain links and there are significant levels of co-operation between them. I recommend you read up on the situation before making these arbitrary, incorrect, changes and statements. Secondly your attitude towards the Gaels as an ethnic group is entirely inconsistent with the attitudes expressed to me regarding ethnicity previously. Thirdly you cannot list "Irish" and "Scottish" peoples here as both terms includes the Gaels. If you wish to signify the influence on Anglo-Irish or Anglo-Scottish culture and peoples you have to qualify the peoples as such although their inclusion, as previously pointed out, means there are numerous others we should include. Are you seriously going to argue that Canada, with its historical population of hundreds of thousands of Gaels and existing population of Gaels, does not merit inclusion ? Similarly parts of the USA, notably the Carolinas, had huge populations of Gaels - are you going to argue that it has not been influenced to any significant degree by them? By restricting the 'related ethnic groups' to those directly related to the Gaels as part of the same greater language family or celtic civilization we avoid these pitfalls. ]

I don't see how my views regarding Gaels disagrees with my previous arguments with you on ethnic groups. I don't see them as a unified ethnic group though and although there are Gaelic speakers in both Scotland and Ireland, the people speak different Gaelic languages and are just as much part of indigenous Scottish and Irish peoples as to their own group of people. Canada and the USA can be said to be countries where Gaelic culture and language may had influence but there is no Canadian or American, etc. ethnic groups and they are not distinct peoples. Pretty muc hevery known ethnic group in the places like Canada and the US has had an impact on the identity there and on all of the citizens. Since the page shows them as a current lingusitic group anyway, I understand that their only "related groups" would be other Celtic speakers, regardless of origins or ethnicity. ] 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
: As An Siarach says, they are an ethnic group. Moreover, even if you could succesfully argue they are not, you could not argue they never were. - ] 16:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
:I do not believe Epf is arguing that they never existed, but that their existence now is merely of some similar linguistic ties and a few similar cultural traits. If the modern "Gaels" are an existing unified ethnic group then you could say the same for the Frisians, Dutch/Flemish and the English as some "West Germanics" ethnic group, and this is obviously not the case. ] 20:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
:: The analogy doesn't work at all, saying modern Gaels constitute an existing ethnic group is less of a stretch than saying Norwegians Danes and Swedes constitute an ethnic group. The split between the different Gaelic communities has only really developed since outside domination, prior to that there was a common literary dialect and culture.. and today Gaels still haven't abandoned the idea of a common identity (also, there's nothing too different about their cultures, and the languages form a dialect continuum more than anything, much differant than the "West Germanic" situation).--] 06:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The existence of things such as IonadColmCille, the Sruth na Maoile radio program etc also demonstrate the existing unity between the groups. Worth considering as an example of the perception of 'brotherhood' or the Gaels as a single race is a line from the Runrig song "Fuaim a' Bhlair" :

:''Saidhdear mi sa' Fhraing 's sa Ghearmailt''
:''Saidhdear mi air raointean Chanada''
:''Saidhdear mi san Spàinn san Eadailt''
:''Saidhdear mi ''''nam aghaidh fhein an Eirinn''' ''

]

==Ambiguous phrase==
The last sentence in the section "Current Distribution" is extremely vague, it states: "There are between 500-2,000 Canadian Gaels although they are generally of a very advanced age...". What does the author mean here? That the mean age of this population is old? That they have been settled there for a long time now? If so, it should be stated in unambiguous terms.

:I dont see whats ambiguous about it tbh. "they are generally of a very advanced age" seems to refer quite clearly to the fact that the age of the population is old. ]

==Qualifications for Famous Gaels==
Hi everyone, I though it might be a nice supplement to the article if we were to add a list of famous Gaels. I drafted a preliminary list of about 30 Gaels when, struck down by the weight of the disproportionate number of Irish Gaels I had included, I began frantically supplementing the list with as many famous Scottish Gaels as I could think of off the top of my head(The current list has a head count of around 45 or there abouts). It was only when An Siarach pointed out that including a member of Oi Polloi on the list was a bit silly that I was awakened from this frenzied trance.(: However, this does raise an interesting question regarding the qualifications for the list of Famous Gaels. i.e. what exactly are they?
Example A: Seamus Heaney learned Irish during his school years and is a fluent speaker of Gaeilge. Seamus Heaney writes in English. Seamus Heaney has often translated works of Irish literature such as the Buile Shuibhne into English. Does He count as a 'famous gael?'
Example B: Liam O'Flaherty was raised in the Aran Islands and spoke Irish as a first language. Like Heaney, Liam O'Flaherty also wrote almost exclusively in English. Does he not count as a 'Famous Gael?'
Any opinions on what should be the qualification for inclusion? A generally accepted consensus would be handy before we go on to develop the list. Cheers. ] 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
:Im not too big a fan of these "Famous X" type lists anyway and i think its especially gonna be troublesome creating/maintaining one for an ethnic group which is so clearly defined on the basis of language. King James IV spoke Gaelic fluently, yet few if any would class him or any of his immediately preceeding monarchs as Gaels. Perhaps the solution would simply to be to keep the list short and very elite - say 5-10 Gaels from the "Middle Gaelic" period when there was a single language from each of Scotland and Ireland and then a further 5-10 speakers of Irish/Scottish Gaelic respectively from more modern times ( this would of course take in a great many possible candidates from the colonial expansion - bear in mind the huge presence of Gaels in Northern America ). Perhaps it might be best to move the section from the article proper to a development user page until a proper criteria for inclusion is decided upon? ] 17:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
:: I'll forward a few initial suggestions for pre-Classical period: ] (pic?), ], ] (no good pic), ], ] or ] (no pic), ], ], ], ]v(pic?). It'd be good to make one of those picture collages ... but who has a picture can be quite random. ] (<small>]</small>) 09:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

==Misc Stuff that shouldn't be at the top of the page==
What happened here?

] 01:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Here's a question for our more learned types. Is there a connection between the English word Gale and Gael? It's not as silly as it sounds, at least not to me at this particular moment! Gael is apparently etymologically rooted in the Old irish, Goidel which itself comes from the Welsh word for the Irish, Gwyddel. Gwyddel in turn derives from the Welsh name for wild, which apparently the Irish raiders were in the 6th century. Any link?

Gee, first I've heard of it! You have the orign of the term right, so, who knows?] 11:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


==The List of Gaels==

By what justification is Enda Kenny a Gael moreso than anyone else born in Ireland from the beginning of Gaelic culture to now? ] 00:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

==Ethnic groups|class is Start|importance is High==
Hi,
I rated this article Start class. The sections it has have been expanded, but it is missing many sections such as language, culture, etc.
--] 02:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

== western Scotland ==
I put western Scotland, instead of Scotland in the opening sentence. The Picts inhabited the eastern parts. ] 03:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:That doesn't make any sense ... Gaelic spread to eastern Scotland too. '''] ('']'')''' 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

::What happened to the Picts? Or was it just language shift? ] 20:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:::It is a matter of debate, but the general acceptance is that over the course of several centuries, Gaels and Picts interbred. Gaelic culture came out on top, before the Norman influence with David I, but in some parts of Scotland today, locals can still recognize a "Pictish nose." :^) ] ] ] 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

== "related groups" info removed from infobox ==
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{tl|Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the ''']'''. ] 23:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

== Gael links being removed by anon user ==
A few links and cats relating to your interests have been removed recently by ] without edit summaries. See . I can't tell if these changes are reasonable or if they are part of some kind of dispute related to use Gael v. Celt discussions regarding ethnic terminology. Perhaps one of the regualr editors here could look.--] 19:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


==Famous Gaels==
I cut out about half, the ones who seemed unnecessary to me on first glance. Maybe we should put some organisation into the list and cut it down more? Sorry if people disagree with the deletions, but as one of our Famous Gaels said: "be bloody, bold and resolute". ] 17:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:That list should be deleted entirely. ] (]) 09:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::And as nobody bothered to contradict my suggestion i have (very belatedly) delted the list. ] (]) 19:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:::I have restored the list. You should be more clear about your objections. I do not think that ''"These sections are utterly subjective POV fests"''. -- ] (]) 14:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::It is you who needs to be more specific with your objections "I don't see it as being POV" is pretty poor. You might want to start by explaining how a list of pretty much random entries with no effective criteria but a)some ability in Gaelic and b)an existing Misplaced Pages article without any references whatsoever can be anything other than subject to POV. You can then explain what makes a “notable” Gael and how we might go about submitting all potential entries to this criteria. Is the Western Isles MSP and minor politician ] a notable Gael? Or should we only count major historical/cultural figures like ]? These lists are obvious targets for POV and im pretty sure I remember reading that they were generally discouraged by[REDACTED] policy. Anyway you’ll doubtless be happy enough to come up with some all-encompassing, flawless set of criteria for inclusion upon the list and to fully reference every entry yourself. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::If you think that the list conntans names that should not be there, I suggest you point out the one who you think has the ''least'' reason to be on the list. We can then proceed by discussing his/her merits and dismerits. -- ] (]) 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::So you kick off a dispute and i have to do all the work? I think not. How about you try and come up with some criteria of notability and then we go with that. At the moment (as shown by the comment on this latest ) the only criteria is a) speaking Gaelic and b) having a[REDACTED] entry. At the moment this list should include absolutely every[REDACTED] article about a Gaelic speaker which renders the very idea of a list of "notable" Gaels something of a joke. It should be renamed "List of Gaels". ] (]) 14:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::If you want to do major changes to Misplaced Pages, then ''you'' have to do all the work - and lots of it. -- ] (]) 22:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::But not you, it would seem. Of course for those times when we are unfortunately too busy to go about correcting the mistakes of others and referencing completely unsourced statements/claims we are lucky to enjoy the option of drawing attention to questionable sections and pieces requiring more work by using templates like these: "(fact)", "(references)", "(pov)". The tags have been re-added and don't bother removing them unless you've actually done the work finding sources to back up your POV (and atm it is purely your POV that the list of notable Gaels contains just that) and thus provide legitmate reason for getting rid of things like the "(fact)" tag. ] (]) 22:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I knew i could remember seeing this ridiculous "Famous X" lists discouraged somewhere and sure enough heres the wiki policy: ]. You might want to read it before you remove legitimate tags drawing attention to genuine problems with the article simply because you happen to personally like a section. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I added the trivia tag, as there's no indication that the material in the list is important. That's why ] really ought to be avoided in articles, they offer no context as to why an item is important enough to include. And as the material is uncited and offers no indication as to why it's particularly relevant, the ] lies on Petri as the one restoring it, not on An Siarach.--] ]/] 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

==Merged with Celtic?==
Why are there two separate articles? Are Celtic and Gaelic the same thing? If they are, there should be a merger. ] 07:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:Because they are two separate things. Gaelic is a subset of Celtic, actually the goidelic branch of the ].--] 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

==Gaelic Galicia (or Galiza)==
Might the ancient Gallaeci (self-named Calleach, sons of the Celtic Mother Goddess) and the present Galicians be considered Gaels as well? Perhaps they brought the goidelic language at Ireland, and many gaelic roots remain (dunn, named "castros", popular music, Gaelic placenames, remained celtic superstitions. Even the Irish word "Gaeilge"(meaning gaelic) is pronounced like the Galician-Portuguese word "galego" (meaning Galician). <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Might the Galicians also be considered Gaels? No. The fact that they claim to be a Celtic nation, and the fact that some accept them as such, is ridiculous enough without misapplying the term "Gael". Galicia is not Celtic, it simply has a Celtic history which puts it in the same boat as pretty much all of Europe and if we're gonna talk ancestry you can add the Americas and Oceania as well. ] (]) 09:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Galician's celtic claims ridiculous? But you consider yourself ethnically a Gael, when Scottish Highlanders are a mix between Gaels and Pictish, more related to Basques.
I could give a lot of ties between Galiza and Ireland: Milesian tale, old Scottish legends about Gael origins, Q-celt oghamic inscriptions,toponimy,Aodh Rua Ó Dónaill's claims in the seventeen century about his ancestors, the same gods, even a place in Galicia called Eire,...
The population remined largely unmixed until very recently, therefore was not a big ethnic change. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Galitzia/Galia/Gaul/Portugalia/Galindia (in Spain, France, Ukraine, Prussia, Lithuania and Russia) and similar are coming from Lithuanian language and means 'the end land for Lithuanian nation' like Finland...all those names are in those places where in ancient times Lithuanians travelled and settled...it is even written in Spanish king's Alphonse X chronicle (11th century).] (]) 17:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

:OK then, when was Potugal part of Lithuania?
:] (]) 12:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

== Ethnic Gaels or Native Speakers ==


I edited the page a while back, seeing as this refers to ethnic Gaels. But now it's been changed back.

The figures at the left of the page are for the total number of speakers, which is '''NOT''' the total Gaelic population. There are millions of ethnic Gaels around the world (all the people with Highland ancestry in America and Canada), and do not forget the fact that at least half the population of Ireland and Scotland is ethnically Gaelic, even if they do not speak the language.

Could someone please change the figures back to represent the ethnic Gaelic population, as this page is for, rather than the Gaelic-speaking population, which is a separate page (or should be)?

Tapadh leibh <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:A Gael is a Gaelic speaker by definition. Having distant, or even fairly recent, Gaelic ancestry doesnt make you a Gael. A Gaelic speaker is a Gael; A non-Gaelic speaker of Gaelic ancestry is, regardless of his ancestry, a "Gall" like any other non-Gaelic speaker. ] (]) 19:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

But the same does not apply to other ethnic groups - Africans born and bred in England, for example, are still African, as are stateless ethnic groups around the world, such as the Tatars, Saami, and to a lesser extent the English. Africans born outside of Africa are still counted as African - why should Gaels be excluded from this? The word Gael did indeed originally mean a Highlander, but so did the word Manchu refer to a Manchu, and although many speak Chinese it makes them no less an ethnic group. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The word Gael has always meant "Gaelic speaker". Eventually it came to be synonymous also with the words "Scot" and "Irish" but as people descended from these Gaels became Galld and essentially English these latter words ceased to have essential "Gaelic" connotation while "Gael" maintained the meaning it has always had. The word "Gael" has an inherent and explicit meaning and definition both within the Gaelic languages and in English and that is that a Gael is a native speaker of Gaelic. There are words denoting ethnic background, regardless of language, for people of Gaelic ancestry and those words are "Scot" and "Irish". One day the word "Gael" may come to be as utterly meaningless, vague and all-ecompassing as you desire but at the moment its original, native and valid meaning persists. ] (]) 23:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

'''Siarach''', that is not true. You know it. The word 'Gael' in English does not have the same meaning as the native word for Gael - it denotes a Highlander. I looked at the article on here for the English people, and there are not ninety million people in England - yet it says that there are ninety million English people worldwide. Therefore, Highlander must also mean not only Highlanders who live in the Highlands, but also Highlanders worldwide. To apply one rule to one group of people and another rule to another group of people is exactly that, no matter how you disguise it. People with Highlander ancestry are Highlanders just as much as people who live in the Highlands now are, unless you want to continue to make up definitions that never actually existed to further your either anti-Gaelic or traditionalist (either way biased) views on the matter. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Lets knock off the racism. Gaels are an ethnic group. Most Gaels dont speak the language due to colonialism and concerted anti Gaelic movements. You cant strip someone of their ethnic identity simply because they speak the language of the empire which colonized them. No one would claim Navajos who dont speak the language are not Navajos. The activity on this article needs to be reviewed by an administrator. ] (]) 19:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

==Need for Citations==
As a "consumer", I came across this page because I was trying to learn more about the current state of knowledge about the origins of the ethno-linguistic group that could be called "Gaels" or "Clan na Gael", For example, from genetic distributions, one might look atthe haplogroup R1b1b2a1b6 which was culturally "Celtic" and seems to have become very common in Northwest Europe since about 3000BP. One if its immediate sub-clades is known to be that of "Niall of the Nine Hostages".
The first line in the article states that "The Gaels are an ethno-linguistic group which originated in Ireland and subsequently spread to Scotland and the Isle of Man." - I would love to see a reference here, because this bears right on what I'm trying to learn. But that statement is contradicted in the subsequent section on "Arrival in Ireland" which indicates that the group may not have originated in Ireland. Boy, would I really appreciate some references there.
I read through this discussion page and found no further information except that the POV of the page's controller is that Gael is a linguistic term, rather than an ethnic one, i.e. one of two twins can be a Gael while the other is not.
If at all possible, could someone add the references that would have helped me learn the current state of knowledge about the ethno-linguistic group that could be called "Gaels" or "Clan na Gael"?] (]) 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
*I think that the word ''Gael'' means something different in Scotland than it does in Ireland. In Scotland it seems to mean speakers of Gaelic, and in Ireland it's just another name for Irish people, especially from the old Irish tradition. ] (]) 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
::The word meant the same in Irish/Ireland as it did, and does, in Scotland. However there certainly seems to be a movement (evidenced by the ridiculous (mis)translation of ] as "''Gael-Mheiriceánach''") in Ireland towards reducing Gael from its historic meaning to something as vague and general as "Irish" - a triumph for the English language mindset over the native Gaelic one unfortunately. Anyway the need for better referencing in the article is undeniable. ] (]) 09:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
*This puzzles me; were the Scottish Gaels different from Picts? History is emphasised differently in different jurisdictions. There is another problematic aspect to the article. It suggests that Gaelic came from somewhere outside these islands, which I don't believe there is evidence for. The Basque connection is very strong indeed. Recently a 3,500 year old remains of a young girl was discovered in the Burren, Co Clare, and there was DNA. The Basque DNA connection was found again in that instance. My point is that science is revealing some of the missing pieces of ancient history. Now I wonder is the Basque language anything like Gaelic. ] (]) 02:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Basque is very different from Gaelic. It is a language isolate, and it definately not Celtic. There is ''no'' Basque connection. There is evidence for Gaelic arriving from Iberia, which is both architectural and seen in placenames, whilst there is little or no evidence for it originating in the British Isles.
But many clans of the Highlands have mostly Pictish ancestry, and others are Gallgael. Only a few are descended from the original Gaelic immigrants and Dal Riada, and these actually tend to be Lowland clans or clans that quickly became Anglicised. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

"Gallgael", haven't seen that on WP yet, maybe it should have it's article. It seems that the article can be written from two different perspectives, an Irish one, and a Scotish one, and just trying to tease out some of the differences. There is no evidence of ], or Gaelic, arriving from outside Ireland, and it's pretty well established that it developed in Ireland since the ]. The article does need to be rewritten in places. ] (]) 15:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

== Gaels article and Scoti article ==

(cross-posted at "Gaels" and "Scoti")

The ] article seems to be largely a cut-and-paste duplicate of material from the Gaels article. The Gaels article section "Historical expansion" refers to the Scoti article as the main article for that topic, while the Scoti article has a short section "Settlement in Britain", listing ] as the main article. This is unuseful if someone arrives at the Scoti article by following the link in the Gaels article. So perhaps:
* The Gaels article might have the few historical expansions of the Gaels, with main article references to the ], etc.
* The Gaels article might have a section covering the ancient references to Scoti or Scotti in the historical record, including how the term came to be applied to the Scots of Scotland.
* The Scoti article can then be a redirect to Gaels.
Any opinions? Regards, ] (]) 16:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC) / correct my typo. ] (]) 16:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

==Neo-Druidic centrism/appeasement==
Gaelic speaking peoples have been Christian since the Early Middle Ages, yet this rattles on about paganism and animism. I think mythology and religon need separate sections. For instance this should discuss the strange Egyptian influence that was seen in early Christianity in Ireland. - ] (]) 14:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


==Sport==

Can someone explain why they deleted the sport section? One of the more important relevant aspects of the Gaelic culture I would think.

] (]) 19:33, 21 January 2010(UTC)

== Historic maximum spread ==

:Red: the historical maximum expansion of Gaelic-speaking areas in the British Isles.
...except that some of the places with the strongest Gaelic today are green.

The map needs a better explanation, or it will only serve to confuse readers.
] (]) 15:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

:I took a stab at it.--] ]/] 17:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

::That was my first guess, but no way should Islay be red if that's the case. It's a shame that the person who uploaded the map didn't explain this in the notes...] (]) 19:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

:::I just noticed, the explanation is actually in the notes, it's just in several different languages. I think the map just has some errors.--] ]/] 17:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

::::What I mean is that there's no mention of green in the notes. They only mention red and orange in all five languages. Which is a bit weird. ] (]) 16:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::It says "The green areas are those where Gaelic is still spoken as the vernacular."--] ]/] 17:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::Oops.. So it does. In my defense, it doesn't in any of the other five languages... ;-)
::::::However, it wasn't the map's author that added the comment, and the original author must have chosen the green areas against some statistical threshold. Without knowing what that threshold is, the map's rendered kind of useless.] (]) 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, it's really just not a great map. A good effort though.--] ]/] 13:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

: The map is noticeably inaccurate regarding Wales, and elsewhere as well. See ] for an effort at accuracy (source information is cited, which is something to look for, considering the variety of maps in articles). All of the inscription stones suggest Irish influence, not only the ones with ogham (eg, no ogham stones found on Anglesey but the stones that are there are regarded as an Irish influence). Note that inscription stones haven't been found in Arfon and Arllechwydd in N. Wales, nor along parts of the west coast.

:Stones with ogham may also contain Latin text, with names in ogham being in Irish form, while the same name in the Latin text is of Brythonic form. See article ] for an example. If the inscription stones in Cornwall are taken as a measure of Gaelic-speakers, then ] is an effort at accuracy. Regards, ] (]) 18:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

:Gaelic spoken throughout Lothian, in Northumberland and West Cumbria? I call shennanigans on this map, unless someone can show otherwise. It's more of a maximum estimation of a historical maximum. ] (]) 16:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I think the idea of a geographic difference in terminology is nonsense -- I only added that bit in because I felt it was the quickest way to get rid of the ludicrous notion that all Scots are Gaels (I'm ethnically Irish myself, but I come from a fairly Anglo-Saxon part of the country). I agree completely with Cuchullain's edit -- I'd deleted all that myself a day or two ago, but Jembana reverted and stuck in a few citations I didn't have the time or inclination to check, although I wanted to make it clear it certainly wasn't universal.

As the discussion here shows that the citations do '''not''' refer to all Irish and Scottish people (as I expected), the current version is (IMO) correct. I agree wholeheartedly with Cuchallain's edits.
] (]) 01:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

== Are "Gallia" and "Gael" cognates? ==

Gael: 1810, from Scottish Gaelic '''Gaidheal''' "member of the Gaelic race," corresponding to O.Ir. '''Goidhel''' ('''cf. L. Gallus'''). The native name in both Ireland and Scotland, Gael was first used in English exclusively of Scottish Highlanders.
from: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Gael&searchmode=none It says: O.Ir. Goidhel ('''cf. L. Gallus'''), Is it true? ] (]) 12:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
:No, ''Gael'' is not in any way related to Latin ''Gallus''. ☸ <span style="font-variant: small-caps">]</span> ] 12:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

:The superficial similarity is very modern, as can be readily demonstrated.
:The modern Irish form ''Gael'' has lost a lot. The Scottish Gaelic ''Gaidheal'' has a lenited D y-glide, which is the vestigial remnant of the D still found in the taxonomical term ''goidelic'', used to describe the family of Irish, Manx and Scottish Gaelic. The closer we get to the time of Latin, the less similar the words appear, which is the opposite of what we'd expect with cognates.
:] (]) 16:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

:The word Goidel ("Gael") was supposedly borrowed from British/Old Welsh word meaning "wild men". ] (<small>]</small>) 21:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

== All Scots as Gaels(?) ==

To clarify this, can we have the exact quote from the dictionary here on the talk page regarding all Scots, not just Gaelic speakers, as Gaels? I'd regard this as at best a minority or unconventional usage but, depending on what it says, it may be verifiability over (my perceived) truth. ] (]) 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
:I didn't ask for more citations, I asked for the wording please. I have checked two dictionaries which do not support this usage if we want to fill the article up with citations. What do your citations say please? ] (]) 08:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
:Per Prof Wrong's recent edit, there may be a geographical divide in the usage of the term and it would be interesting to know. The wording in your citations would be helpful in knowing this. In Scotland the usage you are citing would be unusual. ] (]) 09:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
::I removed the line again. One of the dictionaries that was cited was the 1961 ''Concise Oxford'', but the full OED's definition for "Gael" is: "A Scottish Highlander or Celt; also, an Irish Celt." The ''Merriam-Webster'' source has "1: a Scottish Highlander" and
"2: a Celtic especially Gaelic-speaking inhabitant of Ireland, Scotland, or the Isle of Man". Clearly the definition of "Gael" is not for ''any'' Irish or Scot regardless of language, there's some Celtic connection necessary, real or claimed. And at any rate the purpose of this article isn't to cover all possible definitions of the word "Gael", it's to describe the speakers of the language past and present.--] ]/] 12:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
:The online version of Macquarie says "''noun'' someone who speaks a Gaelic language, especially a Scottish Celt or Highlander or an Irish person. " - also unsupportive of the wider def. ] (]) 13:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
::Ha, if not a single one of the cited refs actually supports the material, it obviously shouldn't be in the article.--] ]/] 14:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
:::The jokes on you unfortunately ] - at 20:22 on 14 April 2010 you yourself put the definition in the article - you just removed your own work.] (]) 23:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Prior to the edit by ] at 20:22 on 14 April 2010 the lede said the following:
<blockquote>
The Gaels are an ethno-linguistic group which originated in Ireland and subsequently spread to Scotland and the Isle of Man. The term in its broadest sense is used to refer to the Irish, Highland Scots (or Scots of Gaelic or mixed Gaelic descent) and Manx. In the strictest sense of the word Gaels are speakers of the Goidelic (or Gaelic) languages – Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx. The Gaelic languages are a branch of the Insular Celtic languages, the other branch of Insular Celtic is Brythonic.

There are many people with Gaelic ancestry amongst the populations and legislatures of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK.

</blockquote>

The edit by ] changed the leded to say this instead:
<blockquote>
The Gaels or Goidels are a Celtic ethno-linguistic group that speaks one of the Goidelic languages: in modern times, these are Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx. Goidelic speech originated in Ireland and subsequently spread to western and northern Scotland and the Isle of Man. '''In modern times, as the Goidelic languages have been significantly replaced by English, the term is also used for modern Irish or Scottish Celts regardless of their language.'''

The Goidelic languages are one of the two branch of the Insular Celtic languages, the other being Brythonic.

</blockquote>

Yet now ] has again depaupered the lede to say just:
<blockquote>
The Gaels or Goidels are speakers of one of the Goidelic Celtic languages: Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx. Goidelic speech originated in Ireland and subsequently spread to western and northern Scotland and the Isle of Man.

The Goidelic languages are one of the two branches of the Insular Celtic languages, the other being Brythonic.
</blockquote>

Seems to show IMHO a series POV edits by ] at work to depauper this page.] (]) 00:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
::::Let's not score points. Surely it's commendable to amend one's own edits in the face of subsequent evidence. Should Cúchullain have supported ill-fitting citations to an assertion they don't support? ] (]) 23:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::Mutt, the line I provided citations for after they were requested was the following (as bolded above but I added Isle of Man later because the Mirriam-Webster dictionary supports this):
<blockquote>
'''In modern times, as the Goidelic languages have been significantly replaced by English, the term "Gael" is also used for modern Irish, Scottish or Isle of Man Celts'''
</blockquote>
Firstly, the Mirriam-Webster (Brittanica) online says:
<blockquote>
1. a Scottish Highlander

2. '''a Celtic especially Gaelic-speaking inhabitant of Ireland, Scotland, or the Isle of Man
'''
— Gael·dom noun

For kids it says:
1 : a Scottish Highlander
2 : '''a Celtic especially Gaelic-speaking person born or living in Ireland, Scotland, or the Isle of Man'''

Origin of GAEL

Scottish Gaelic Gàidheal & Irish Gaedheal

First Known Use: 1753
</blockquote>] (]) 00:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Secondly, the Macquarie Dictionary citation says:
<blockquote>
Gael 1. '''A Scottish Celt''' or Highlander. 2. '''An Irish Celt'''.
</blockquote>
Thirdly, the Concise Oxford Dictionary citation said:
<blockquote>
'''Scottish Celt; Irish Celt.'''
</blockquote>
Note that the last 2 older references say that the usage for Irish Celt is rarer.

All these support the original wording for which citations were requested by an anonymous IP editor.] (]) 00:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

:Sorry, with your splitting of your posts before and after mine and the inconsistent justification of the lines, in relation to themselves and the posts of others, (coupled with the very late hour here) I'm finding the readability rather difficult (and imagine third party observers would find it more so) and thus the following of your thread. I'd appreciate you addressing this. I'm also unfamiliar with the word "depauper" so I'm not sure what you are suggesting ] is doing.

:What's more, your patronising and point-scoring posts and edit summaries are in danger of obscuring any merits to your arguments. ] (]) 00:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I think the idea of a geographic difference in terminology is nonsense -- I only added that bit in because I felt it was the quickest way to get rid of the ludicrous notion that all Scots are Gaels (I'm ethnically Irish myself, but I come from a fairly Anglo-Saxon part of the country). I agree completely with Cuchullain's edit -- I'd deleted all that myself a day or two ago, but Jembana reverted and stuck in a few citations I didn't have the time or inclination to check, although I wanted to make it clear it certainly wasn't universal. I couldn't say for sure that Jembana's edits were incorrect, so I just tempered them a bit to avoid an edit war. However, as the discussion here seems to pretty definitively show that the citations do '''not''' refer to all Irish and Scottish people (as I expected), the current version is (IMO) correct. I agree wholeheartedly with Cuchallain's edits.

Oh, and the most recent citation for "depauper" in the OED is from a 1571, and it isn't even English. Was Jembana trying to write in medieval Scots? Commendable, but not really appropriate...
] (]) 01:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

::The has a mention of depauper from 1650 but I was very small back then so it wasn't not so fresh in my memory. ] (]) 22:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

:I have provided the definitions of "Gael" from 3 authoritative reliable sources in bold above which support the original text (now deleted). These sources cover English, Australian and American English usage so I am following the core Misplaced Pages tenet.] (]) 01:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

:"Depauperate" in the Concise Oxford dictionary of 1961 (page 321) means:
:<blockquote>
:Impoverish; reduce in vigor, stunt, make degenerate.
:</blockquote>
:One way of introducing POV to an article is to depauperate it to the extent that it fits your POV only. I see evidence that that is happening on this page. So I think an NPOV banner is called for.] (]) 01:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

:This lede for this page has had POV edits to remove any other POV to the thesis that "Gael" is defined on a purely linguistic basis. I have attempted to address this defect by providing authoritative and reliable citations that support a broader definition - a definition that was until April 2010 (and as summarised as a one-liner until the recent edit war) present in the lede to this article. Therefore I have raised a POV banner since the other editors concerned in this discussion have shown themselves unwilling to accept Misplaced Pages policies ] and ].] (]) 03:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

::It seems that here in the USA, "Gael(ic)" is occasionally (usually you will only hear it around St. Patrick's day!) used as a term for any Irishman, no matter their mother language (in fact, few Americans - including many who are of Irish descent - are aware of the existence of the Irish language), but in general speech the term is rarely used to describe a Scot. I think that in the UK the term is more restricted to those Irish and Scots who speak Irish and Scottish Gaelic. Few in the UK would call a Scots dialect speaker (who is likely the descendant of early medieval Anglo-Saxon colonists anyway) a Gael. ] (]) 14:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Cagwin, Cuchullain's new wording makes that last point clear. My experience is that people do use the term Gael e.g. for their children if the parents have a Gaelic clan origin.] (]) 23:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
::::Largely agree but, just as an aside, although the influence of an influx of Angles and their subsequent descendents may not be insignificant, the factors for the spread of the tongue which became Scots are various. Other ones, such as it's success as a lingua franca/trading language in medieval towns almost certainly outweigh actual numbers of Angles. Most Scots language speakers will have Pictish/Brythonic/Norse/Gaelic antecedents as well or instead of Anglic ones. ] (]) 22:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
:::I removed the tags as totally out of proportion to the current content dispute, which is over ''one single claim''. I think we can clear it up by sticking more closely to what the sources actually say.<br>
:::First, the article is primarily about the Goidelic-speaking peoples as a group, not on the term "Gaels" and all its possible definitions. In medieval studies, speakers of languages in the Goidelic branch are referred to as the "Gaels" or (especially in older works) "Goidels". This doesn't appear to be disputed.<br>
:::Second, in modern parlance, "Gael" can obviously refer to people who don't speak Gaelic. However, it doesn't refer to just any Irish or Scottish person; the dictionary definitions are clear that it's only to those with some Celtic connection.<br>
:::I suggest we change the wording to something like, "in modern parlance, as the Goidelic languages have been significantly replaced by English, the term "Gael" has been used for Irish, Scottish, or Manx persons with a Celtic background, whether or not they speak a Goidelic language." Then, in the article body, we can add a few lines about the etymology and history of the term "Gael", cited to the dictionaries given here. How does that sound?--] ]/] 15:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
::::That wording is an improvement that I would support.] (]) 23:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
::::And obviously it doesn't matter if I added the line initially. Once it became clear it didn't match what the sources said, it needed to be corrected, whoever added it. And no, I'm not trying to "depauper" the article, just to make it accord with the sources, and not some unspecific and subjective ideas about what the term "Gael" means.--] ]/] 16:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

::Jembana, as others have said, your citations do not say "Irish person or Scottish person", but "Irish Celt or Scottish Celt". These are very significant differences.
::Regardless, as Cúchullain quite rightly points out, this is an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary entry. It is not intended to define the word "Gael" but as a description of a particular ethno-linguistic group who ''just happen to go by'' the name "Gael". ] (]) 20:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
This contended wording really is a peripheral usage of the term Gael and I'm uncomfortable about it being given much of a mention and, if it is, it really doesn't deserve a place in the lede. Although they don't necessarily rule it out, in no way do these citations actively support the wording "In modern times, as the Goidelic languages have been significantly replaced by English, the term is also used for modern Irish or Scottish Celts regardless of their language". Nothing in the citations compares usage of the term "Gael" in particular periods, modern or otherwise. Nothing in the citations mentions a change in usage with the decline of Goidelic languages. Throughout most of the citations emphasis is given to the term Gael being applied especially to those who who speak a Gaelic language. Citations should support, not just "not quite rule out" the related text. ] (]) 22:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
:Mutt, you are narrowing the meaning of the term beyond popular usage to a purely academic usage, for an example of popular usage that supports Cuchullain's wording see the world-renowned dance group as an example:

::And you seem to be veering to a folksy, sentimental, Brigadoon usage. I contend that your usage is not popular but at best a minority usage. What a ludicrous link to add as a potential source for an encyclopedia article. This literalist approach would indicate ] has a peerage. There are other examples of looser usage of the term, some by ] but, as mentioned by others, this is not about an all inclusive dictionary def.

::I could see usage of "Gael" for people in families where older generations are Gaelic speakers or where there is living or recent memory of those who do. Talk of clan origin is dubious though: the clan system was shattered two and a half centuries ago. Probably most Scots, myself included, have substantial Highland and/or Gaelic ancestral origin. My family tree is peppered with Gaelic names, and family stories of origins in Lochaber. It doesn't make ''me'' a Gael. If this is about spurious wannabe diaspora blanket usage of the term it should have no part here.

::I much appreciate Cúchullain coming up with a proposed wording but, Jembana, it was still under discussion. Can you have some patience while this discussion is ongoing rather than precipitately claiming "agreement" has been reached yet? ] (]) 07:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

:::OK, but while we're doing this we may as well do it properly, in the same vein as you asked me - what is the complete definition of the term "Gael" (NOT "Goidel") given in the citation for the first sentence of the lede ? It is not publicly verifiable, requires a sign in to verify - can someone who has a logon give us the OED online definition from the site (my trial one has expired now) ?] (]) 11:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Note my involvement in this stemmed from an IP editor requesting a citation for Cuchullain's original sentence - all I did was lookup the dictionaries in my own home and give the citations and give the definitions as I have provided to you (in bold above) - now that IP editor has turned out to be you, Mutt.] (]) 11:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
::::I would suggest the following from the verifiable-by-everyone Mirriam-Webster definition:
''A "Gael" is a Celtic especially Gaelic-speaking person born or living in ], ], or the ].''] (]) 11:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
::::...or, maybe even simpler using the Concise Oxford and Macquarie Dictionaries:
''A "Gael" is a Irish, Scottish or Manx Celt'' with the necessary wikilinks.] (]) 11:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

:''Edit conflict'' To clarify, ''I'' requested citation for the sentence "In modern times... regardless of their language" after removing an additional sentence from an IP, which qualified/negated the sentence in contention (don't know where you get the idea that the IP is me). So far, there are no citations which actively support that sentence, only ones which don't quite close the door on it.] (]) 11:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(responding out-of-line due to complexity of indentations)
''Mutt, you are narrowing the meaning of the term beyond popular usage to a purely academic usage'' (Jembana)
As I've already tried to point out, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. This article does not define the term "Gael", but discusses an ethno-linguistic group. It does not "narrow" the meaning of the term, because the article by definition should only be discussing ''one'' usage of the term.
] (]) 15:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
PS. Forget about the OED. It's a historical dictionary and doesn't remove old definitions, it only adds new ones. It's no guide to current or popular usage.
] (]) 15:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:In that case the first sentence in the lede has no valid citation by your argument for it then since it relies on the OED definition so the lede's first paragraph fails ], the very cornerstone on which the Misplaced Pages is based.] (]) 22:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:I do not accept this, however, since the OED is the authoritative cornerstone on which International English language is based, so why all the bluster just tell us what it says for the term "Gael" - I think you are avoiding giving the OED definition ?] (]) 22:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:::In which case why suggest it? Will you stop slinging out clearly baseless accusations (like your earlier one (that I'm editing both as an IP and myself?)). How would I know what the OED definition is any more than you do? I don't own every book on the planet. Frankly you are straining my A of GF and, at best, I can't decide if your combative and unpleasant style of engagement is down to clumsiness in expression, carelessness in following the debate or issues of competency. ] (]) 22:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

::If so, in that case provide a reliable citation or remove it. ] (]) 22:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:::For the record, items in the lead do not need to be cited directly, but they do need to reflect (cited) material in the article body. My wording suggestion wasn't meant to be cited by those sources directly, but to be a summary of a few sentences on etymology of the terms to be added to the article body, which would be. I think such a discussion is fair, and will work on something for review. As another note, there's no need to use the 1961 ''Concise Oxford'' when we have access to the full OED.--] ]/] 12:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

::::I think the problem here is that there is quite probably no concise definition that will satisfy the modern usage, while also avoiding being anachronistic when applied to various points in the history of the 'Gaels' in Britain. Where do we draw the line? Were the Deisi in southern Wales and Cornwall, or the Laighn in Gwynedd 'Gaels', since they had been driven out or absorbed before the term was borrowed? What of the later kings of Dal Riata, who are considered 'Gaelic', although their lineage was Pictish?

::::Obviously, not all modern Scots are Gaels - neither are all modern Irish or Manx, for that matter. In a few years, there will be several thousand Irish citizens, speaking Irish (since it is compulsory in school), who will be ethnically Polish, or otherwise Eastern European. Ethnicity is always a blurry issue - people have always bred and married outside their ethnic group - sometimes (such as in Iceland) giving rise to new ethnicities. OED, etc. notwithstanding, we should at least attempt to strike a balance between the modern and historic definitions, and make our best effort to avoid implying it is an umbrella term within the modern geographic areas. ] (]) 21:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


::Jembana, the OED is not "''the authoritative cornerstone on which International English language is based''", it is a historical record of usage, and includes many obsolete senses. I can assure you (having studied ] as part of my English degree) that the OED is not considered an authority on current usage by professional academic. It was not intended to be so by its authors either -- it was originally devised under the title "A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles". I'm not "avoiding" giving their definition, I'm just telling you it's ''irrelevant''. The OED is not a corpus-based document, so is no measure of modern usage.
::But seeing as you asked so nicely, whyever the heck not.
:::''A Scottish Highlander or Celt; also, an Irish Celt.''.
::Now, though the dictionary was first published in 1926, they started ]; also, the citations they give are from 1895, 1810, and 1596! A great deal of the Highlands still had Gaelic when they defined the term and the difference between "Highlander" and "Gaelic speaker" was pretty much academic.
::Anyway (at the risk of labouring a point) '''wikipedia is not a dictionary'''. Regardless of how many senses the ''word'' has, this is an encyclopedia article about a particular ethno-linguistic group. You may want to include a history of the usage of the term elsewhere in the article, but it is not suitable in the article head.
::] (]) 09:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm Scottish and honestly I've never heard us once refer to ourselves as Gaels (Gaelic speakers being the only obvious exception).
The Gaelic language/culture never fully enveloped Scotland and would be incorrect even at Gaelic's greatest extent in the country. It would certainly be incorrect now as less than 1% of the Scottish poplulation can speak Scottish Gaelic. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:What an amazingly stupid argument this has been!

:It’s ridiculous to argue that “this isn’t a dictionary” when the actual meaning of words is rather relevant when deciding what information to include in an article! Most articles actually ''begin'' with a definition of sorts and the one now in the lead is now misleading. It no longer makes any mention of an '''ethno-'''linguistic group, only the language.

:The reduction of the word ''Gael'' to a purely linguistic term is completely untenable. Yes, it’s ''connected'' with language and its use can be contested in different contexts. There are definitely Irish people who consider themselves Gaels without any real attachment to the language and I wouldn’t be surprised if the same was true in Scotland. If the article implied that ''all'' Scots were Gaels, that was obviously wrong, but it does not require a complete stalinist purge. The contributor above (88.104.199.128) apparently doesn’t even include Gaelic speakers in the Scottish ‘us’. This kind of contention in the usage of the term is interesting in itself and should be included in the article.

:Just ignoring the aspect of identity in the word ''Gael'' has impoverished this article.

:☸ <span style="font-variant: small-caps">]</span> ] 15:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

== '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 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 ']' and historical use of the term ] 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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 Latin. 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 was 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.
:] (]) 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". ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ] 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.<br>
::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 ], a subgroup of the ], the core of whom claim patrilineal descent from the ]", 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.<br>
::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 ].<br>
::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.--] ]/] 15:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

:::This article is about Gaels in general, not just ] (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 ] 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. ] (]) 03:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

:::: It seems Claíomh Solais is not aware of Misplaced Pages's ] policy. ] (]) 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.<br>
:::::As for the sources, again, a lot of your additions were unsourced. Your two "notes" were unsourced. Other passages were poorly sourced; specifically and appear to be ] personal websites, while is a personal website reprinting a work from 1906, which is certainly outdated. The Adolph book hardly appears scholarly, and is a ]. 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.] ]/] 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 ], the ], ], etc. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, ie - that Fine Gael for example are just a party of the ]? 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 ] as an overview. I give again the example of ], or other people such as ], etc. There is no cut off where is says "no Hebrew language? Sorry not Jews", to do so would be a fringe POV. ] (]) 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.] ]/] 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] more so than this article. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


==Brian Boru a gael?==

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

Also ], who was not a Gael but one of the ]; as for some of the others - espcially in modern times! - would they not be better classed as Gaeilgeoir, rather than Gael? ] (]) 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 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. ] (]) 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* - ] <sup>]</sup> ] 22:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

: Agree - fringe nonsense such as this has no place in this article. ] (]) 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 ] also claims that some are ogham.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://reviewofarchaeology.org/pastissues.htm/|publisher=The Review of Archaeology|title=Proto-Tifinagh and Proto-Ogham in the Americas|date=10 February 2015}}</ref> 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. ] (]) 13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

:::Agreed. This nonsense doesn't belong in this article. It's ok in Fell's article, not here. ] ] 20:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Just noting that "Spanish documents suggest Irish arrived in America before Columbus" is fringe nonsense based on something Richard Thornton wrote. See Jason Calavito's comments . ] ] 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? ] (]) 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. ] ] 19:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150307045739/http://www.minorityrights.org:80/5411/united-kingdom/manx.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/5411/united-kingdom/manx.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150208021900/http://www.irishecho.com.au/2014/10/14/census-reveals-scale-of-nz-irish-population/32913 to http://www.irishecho.com.au/2014/10/14/census-reveals-scale-of-nz-irish-population/32913
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906202149/http://blog.marylhurst.edu/blog/2013/04/23/irish-as-an-endangered-language/ to https://blog.marylhurst.edu/blog/2013/04/23/irish-as-an-endangered-language/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 05:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

==Expansion of the lede==
Hi ], 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 ], it does go against the intent by hindering navigation of the article. ] (]) 05:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:Thanks for the compliment ], and thanks for your edit. I've 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). ~] 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. ] (]) 17:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303230502/http://www.jogg.info/22/ONeill.htm to http://www.jogg.info/22/ONeill.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911080702/http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files1/stats/gaelic-rep-english-commentary.pdf to http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files1/stats/gaelic-rep-english-commentary.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029055757/http://www.gov.ns.ca/oga/aboutgaelic.asp?lang=en to http://www.gov.ns.ca/oga/aboutgaelic.asp?lang=en
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.minorityrights.org/5411/united-kingdom/manx.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120807023750/http://www.gaidhlig.org.uk/index-en.htm to http://www.gaidhlig.org.uk/index-en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303010203/http://www.culturevannin.im/cms/ to http://www.culturevannin.im/cms/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:04, 10 October 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

== Sunburst flag ==

The ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 12:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
:I've the Sunburst flag with a map showing areas which were linguistically and culturally Gaelic in the medieval and early modern eras. ~] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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 ]). 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. 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 ] and in ], 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 ) 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 . ] (]) 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 ], 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. ] (]) 14:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

== Recent edits ==

Regarding recent edits, please see ], ] and ] 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. ] (]) 10:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

:] is a pre-modern symbol, used as an ethnic symbol of Gaelic people from the mythology of the ]. It is used across all sorts of political lines in Gaelic organisations in both Ireland and Scotland, whether it be in the logo ] 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 ], 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. ] 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. ] (]) 12:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

::You are ]ing; 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: ] is crystal clear. What's more, per the ] article, its representation in that form, in isolation is very closely associated with Irish nationalism and republicanism. That is contentious. You must provide ] 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"? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages article. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Many of the original colonists of Ireland would later be the first colonists of the Americas known collectively as west country menEnglish 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

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, and believed that Gaelic culture should be wiped out. 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. 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<ref>Ayto, John; Ian Crofton (2005). Brewer's Britain & Ireland: The History, Culture, Folklore and Etymology of 7500 Places in These Islands. WN. ISBN 978-0-304-35385-9.</ref>

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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>

:One may well be justified in responding to the above with ] or ] 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 ] 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, ]. ] (]) 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Let me get this straight: you are now reverting to sockpuppets to get your POV in? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:So ], having started this thread and now being blocked (the individual is blocked, not just that IP), along comes you, ], 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? ] (]) 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Which sock or puppetmaster is this IP claiming to be, or is it claiming to be yet another unrelated identity? Yes, I am confused...]. ] (])

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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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 ]. ] (]) 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Could you please stop your POV-pushing? What you are doing is distorting the truth, based on selective reading/using of the sources. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Remember that Misplaced Pages is ]. Even your title is not a title but a 35-word sentence. You should open a blog if you want to write essays. Regards, ] (]) 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.'' 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 Misplaced Pages article. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Regarding your original message: (1) You're citing Misplaced Pages in your two first paragraphs, including ] 'templated' for its poor referencing. Misplaced Pages 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 ]. (3) The you linked nowhere says that "ost historians still favour the old model over the revisionist model" and is even contracting your whole point. ] (]) 02:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
<references />

== Ethnic group vs Ethno-Linguistic ==

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[REDACTED] with this term and not other groups? ] (]) 09:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
:In effect it is one Pazymuk who is changing it into an ethnic group without giving proper evidence. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 10:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Evidence? That the Gaels are an ethnic group? Are you serious? ] (]) 11:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
:Yes, I am serious. I want proof that what you claim is correct. We work here based on sources, not personal ideas. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 11:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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. ] (]) 17:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, who else is listed as an ethno-linguistic group on wikipedia? Ive seen no others. ] (]) 17:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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? ] (]) 17:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
:Do youy have any evidence of your claims? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 17:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
:Ow, see also ], ], ], ], ], ], and others, all ethno-linguistic groups. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 17:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Gaels are to Persians as Celts are to Iranian peoples. ] (]) 17:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
:And? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 18:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

So why are you classifying us as an ethno-linguistic group rather than an ethnic group? ] (]) 19:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

== 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? ==

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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 1,770,000 Irish speakers isn't accurate. ==

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.
:Evidence? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 23:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
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 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::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 ] page, no need to re-iterate everything here. Take it up with the census people. ] (]) 17:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:And again: evidence? Misplaced Pages is based on sources, not on personal opinions. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 10:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
::"I know..." "I never" are not evidence, get over yourself. Find reliable sources or you'll get ignored and/or reverted. ] (]) 11:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

== Merger discussion ==

I don't quite see the point of the ] 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? ] (]) 09:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:'''Support''' Looks like largely double with Gaels. And it looks like a way to circumvent the earlier merge decided at ]. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 09:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::(a bit off-topic but since you seem to know a lot about articles in this area, have you seen ] 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. ] (]) 09:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC))
:::With a quick look, I would say it has the same problems. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 10:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::::'''<s>Support</s>''' per the points already made and I was about to say the same re concerns raised at ]. These articles have the feel of being created to advance a thesis. ] (]) 10:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::::I'm ] that there is no material worth retaining for a merger and the artice should simply be deleted. ] (]) 12:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:47, 6 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaels article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2
Gaels of Scotland was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 July 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Gaels. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconCelts High‑importance
WikiProject iconGaels is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconScotland: Scottish Gaelic Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Scottish Gaelic task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconIreland High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsle of Man Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Man, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Isle of Man on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Isle of ManWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of ManTemplate:WikiProject Isle of ManIsle of Man
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconAnthropology: Oral tradition
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.
This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Ethnic group vs Ethno-Linguistic

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[REDACTED] with this term and not other groups? Pazymuk (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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)
Evidence? That the Gaels are an ethnic group? Are you serious? Pazymuk (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
Also, who else is listed as an ethno-linguistic group on wikipedia? Ive seen no others. Pazymuk (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
Do youy have any evidence of your claims? The Banner talk 17:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
Gaels are to Persians as Celts are to Iranian peoples. Pazymuk (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
And? The Banner talk 18:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
So why are you classifying us as an ethno-linguistic group rather than an ethnic group? Pazymuk (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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?

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)

1,770,000 Irish speakers isn't accurate.

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)

Evidence? The Banner talk 23:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
And again: evidence? Misplaced Pages is based on sources, not on personal opinions. The Banner talk 10:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
"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)

Merger discussion

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)

Support Looks like largely double with Gaels. And it looks like a way to circumvent the earlier merge decided at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gaels of Scotland. The Banner talk 09:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
(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))
With a quick look, I would say it has the same problems. The Banner talk 10:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)

Origin myth

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)

Gael/Irish/Scottish

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)

Do you have reliable sources for this or is it just your personal opinion? The Banner talk 10:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
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)

Relatedness

@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)

Read the article about English people, I would suggest. The Banner talk 00:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm reading this one at present; can you explain your reasoning behind your edit? Alssa1 (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
English people, also called Anglo-Saxons, derive most of their Ancestry from German/Danish tribes. The Banner talk 09:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
Please read the article about English people. The Banner talk 00:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
@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)
Did you actually read those articles? But yes, if you want a Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, I would like that. The Banner talk 12:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Did I read them? Yes. Now do you have the sources? Alssa1 (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

Gaelic influenced areas

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)

Mythology

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)

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)
Categories:
Talk:Gaels: Difference between revisions Add topic