Jump to content

Talk:Scottish Gaelic: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Scottish Gaelic/Archive 9) (bot
 
(35 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
| algo = old(30d)
| algo = old(30d)
| archive = Talk:Scottish Gaelic/Archive %(counter)d
| archive = Talk:Scottish Gaelic/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 8
| counter = 9
| maxarchivesize = 50K
| maxarchivesize = 50K
| archiveheader = {{Aan}}
| archiveheader = {{Aan}}
Line 23: Line 23:
}}
}}


== New information on official status ==
== An Leabhar Mòr ==


Take a look at the current version of the Scottish government webpage [https://www.gov.scot/policies/languages/]. It has been changed, with the '''new version''' saying :
The article [[An Leabhar Mòr]] has been proposed for deletion. I can't decide whether this is important or not. Maybe Gaelic enthusiasts would like to look in there? [[User:Doric Loon|Doric Loon]] ([[User talk:Doric Loon|talk]]) 15:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
*"Bills and legislation<br/>The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 gained royal assent in June of that year, giving Gaelic greater protection and prominence and working towards securing its status as an official language of Scotland."


The '''old version''', that existed on 6/6/24, said: "The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 gained royal assent in June of that year, confirming Gaelic as an official language of Scotland."
:Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not actually sure what the criteria are for pages regarding pages on individual books/art projects aimed at a fairly small community? Any thoughts? [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 18:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


This change therefore makes clear that the 2005 act merely gives an ambition and does not make Gaelic an official language. (Of course, we got that from the act itself, but at the time, this conflicted with the government website.) I think the fact that the webpage has been changed closes this matter, with Gaelic '''not '''being an official language of Scotland. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] <sub> [[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|TIR]]</sub> 19:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
== What official language Scottish Gaelic is not ==
: Thank you for discovering this. I propose that this link should be used to cite the content, and the use of the Act as a source be removed, [[WP:PRIMARY|for all the usual reasons regarding use of a primary source]]. The content in the article should also be changed to say something like "The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 works towards securing its status as an official language of Scotland.", so that the article reflects what sources actually say, rather than containing conclusions about what they ''don't'' say, as it does presently.--[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 20:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::But you presumably agree that mention of the "official language" in Scotland in the info box should go. I would be inclined to use the source found today to support the article content, but to also include the Act as a source, since that would assist the encyclopaedia user (whom we all serve). I am not going to make those edits now as I am getting ready for two days on the road and consequently doing anything in Wikipedia until, perhaps, Wednesday. Obviously, anyone else can make appropriate edits. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] <sub> [[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|TIR]]</sub> 20:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
⚫
:::@[[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] Agreed. The act can be cited to verify its existence. But it cannot be used to verify analysis of its contents. [[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 07:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::::The act can be used to verify its content. There is no need for any {{tq|analysis}} of its content, because it is written at a reading level that is surely a basic requirement for a Wikipedia editor.<br/>Incidentally, I have removed the info box element that appears to state that Gaelic is an official language of Scotland. This disagrees with the article{{snd}}and the info box is meant to summarise the article. The deleted element also has a {{template|failed verification}} tag on it, which is another reason it should not be in the article. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] <sub> [[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|TIR]]</sub> 19:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
⚫
Someone explain to me, incidentally, what makes scotland.org a RS? A brand marketing site? [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 10:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:It's [https://www.scotland.org/more-info/contact-us owned by the Scottish Government]. --[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 10:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


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


This is probably a useful place to store comparable legislation in New Zealand[http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/mla19871987n176159/]. I am not specifically looking for any comment on this at present, but this official language legislation may be a useful point of comparison at some time in the future. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] <sub> [[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|TIR]]</sub> 08:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
So I can't see much reason why the lead of this article should concern itself with Scottish Gaelic not being an official language of the UK, when it is far, far more significant that it is an official language of Scotland, which is only mentioned in the infobox. It is also what the source cited (a Scottish Government document) actually says. This source does not discuss UK official languages at all. In fact, I don't think there is any source cited in the article that does.


== Scottish Languages Bill ==
I also don't think that preventative "heading off" erroneous additions is much of an argument for determining what appears in an article lead. If incorrect or unsourced information is added it should simply be reverted, or an editor note added. [[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 21:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


The Scottish Languages Bill is currently being considered. The first draft of the bill can be found at [https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s6-bills/scottish-languages-bill/introduced/bill-as-introduced.pdf] .
:These discussions arise in the context of - and to an extent due to confusion with - the impact of the [[Welsh Language Act 1993]], which confers much broader rights to Welsh at a '''national i.e. UK level''' as it was - predating the Welsh Assembly - passed at Westminster. Coupled with the legal odditiy of English not being an official language either, stating that ScG is NOT an official language is neither irrelevant nor expressing an opinion on whether it should or shouldn't.
:This is not hugely dissimilar to the [[United States]] article which in the infobox states "Official languages : None at the federal level" [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 21:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] Stating what it is not, however, is unsourced. As would be any comparison with Welsh. How is the reader to verify this? Whether the intention is to state an opinion or not, that's how it can appear. Otherwise, why is it there, in the lead? There are thousands of things Scottish Gaelic is not.
::I would suggest that what is there is changed to begin with what it is, and what the existing source actually verifies. Anything about its UK status can follow, supported by a source that actually discusses its UK status. If good sources can be found, and it's absolutely necessary, this can be expanded on to include a contrast with the status of Welsh, later in the article in an appropriate section. This would actually address the confusion in a far more informative way, than an unsupported claim, as present. [[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 22:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:::And your comparison with the United States article is not similar at all. This would be more similar if the English Language article lead with "English is not an official language of the United States". I haven't checked, but I doubt it does. [[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 22:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
::::I'll try and respond a bit more later but I'd like to point out that this page doesn't "lead with what it is not", you're making it sound like it's the opening sentence. It's a clarification on the legal status of a minority language, which is information commonly found in or near the top of such pages. It's in the 3rd paragraph of [[Welsh language]], the 1st paragraph of [[Galician language]]; also in 1st for [[Catalan language]] and [[Hungarian language]] which contrast "official" with "spoken" (i.e. not official). Maybe for speakers of big languages who are used to the luxury of having everything at their disposal in their own language it's no big deal whether their language is official or not, but for smaller languages it IS a big deal whether your language is official or not. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 13:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::All the examples you gave are supported by a source, and start with what the language '''is'''. If this article is to take them as an example, it should do the same; Scottish Gaelic ''is'' an official language of Scotland, (cite) but not an official language of the United Kingdom (cite). I've no issue with the lead clarifying its UK status, but do not think this should be totally unsourced (there is no source for this claim in the lead, or anywhere in the article), and should take precedence over its Scottish status. --[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 12:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Escape Orbit|Escape Orbit]] If I understand you correctly, you don't mind this info being there in principle, you just want it sourced? If that is all you are saying, then you are quite right: everything needs to be sourced. But if that's all you want, you don't need to start a discussion on talk page. Simply add the tag {{blue|<nowiki>{{citation needed|date=May 2024}}</nowiki>}} at the place where you think a footnote should be added. Then hopefully someone will try to find an RS. If none is added after a year, you can delete the unsourced information without seeking consensus. [[User:Doric Loon|Doric Loon]] ([[User talk:Doric Loon|talk]]) 09:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


The bill starts with "An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about support for the Gaelic and Scots languages; to make provision about education in relation to Gaelic and Scots; and for connected purposes." So, that's "support" not "official language of Scotland".
== How is it not official? ==


It mentions "The Gaelic language has official status within Scotland." which appears to have no real meaning whatsoever. The official briefing[https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2024/4/30/c94fb358-2f52-4a96-aca7-86ee78bc1c9b#24a70828-ae42-417b-a615-26a8e82c2860.dita] that accompanies the bill has an estimate of its financial cost over 5 years of £700,000. This is a particularly small budget for anything, let alone making a minority language a country's official language.
there seems to have been back and forth about this, but the Scottish Government website literally says "The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 gained royal assent in June of that year, confirming Gaelic as an official language of Scotland". that's on an official Scottish Government website, it ''literally'' describes it as official. the act being referred to itself says "The functions conferred on the Bòrd by this Act are to be exercised with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language..." which is admitedly ambiguous, but i don't think the strange wording means it isn't an official language.


In short, if enacted, I cannot see that this bill will make any changes apart from allowing parishes with more than 20% of their population proficient in Gaelic to use the language more in local affairs. That falls far short of an official language. So I don't think the article will need to change in any great way if the bill is passed. There may well be some press comment when that happens which may be useful, but that's it.
also, "The Scottish Government declares that it protects Scottish Gaelic "as an official language of Scotland", however, this is disputed by others, who argue that Scottish Gaelic is not an official language of the United Kingdom or Scotland." what? if the Scottish Government doesn't decide what language is official, who does? it may not be an official language of the UK, but the page for [[Welsh]] says its place as an official language of Wales, even though it isn't either. hell, even the page for [[Scots language|Scots]] mentions its official status. if Gaelic isn't official in Scotland for the reason that our government doesn't decide that, then neither is Scots, and Welsh isn't for Wales. [[User:Clydiee|Clydiee]] ([[User talk:Clydiee|talk]]) 22:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
:Relevant references appear to include
*[https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-secretary-of-state-for-wales/about/welsh-language-scheme#:~:text=coming%20into%20effect.-,The%20standard%20of%20service,legal%20persons%20and%20corporate%20bodies.]
*[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2005/7#:~:text=An%20Act%20of%20the%20Scottish,language%20plan%2C%20of%20requiring%20certain] (warning, this is a primary source: [[WP:PRIMARY]])
:You can probably find others{{snd}}newspaper reports would probably be decent sources if from a quality newspaper. Once you have some sources, go ahead and edit the article. There might be some disagreement from others, but the end result will probably be a suitable change. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] <sub> [[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|TIR]]</sub> 07:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
::The problem arises from the shoddy language used by the people writing the website vs the wording of the actual legislation. I wish it were different but if you read ANY legistlation relating to Gaelic, there is NOTHING in there that says it's an official language. And since there is no precendent of a website (even if produced by some government department) trumping primary legislation, I'm afraid the status quo remains that Gaelic, legally speaking, is NOT an official language. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
⚫
:::In that case can we get a better source than a 27 year old essay talking about Gaelic's "present" situtation, 8 years prior to the 2005 Act? [[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 21:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Very funny. How often do you think an under-resourced language like Gaelic spends time and effort on restating something everyone knows in an academic essay? I'll have a look but chances are, there's nothing more recent. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 07:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
⚫
:::::We're in luck, BBC Alba did a piece on the proposed new language bill, see ref 13 [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 07:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be funny. The use of a source that's nearly three decades old, specifically quoted "At present", is not a convincing way of verifying the present status of Gaelic, particularly when it is prior to legislation that is likely to have changed things. --[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 10:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
::PS Welsh, funnily enough IS an official language, not only of Wales but the UK, because the Welsh language act predates the Welsh Parliament and was passed at Westminster. The Welsh Language Act is worded much more strongly than the Gaelic 'equivalent' and is the reason why - for example - the HMRC website is available in Welsh, but not Gaelic. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 09:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
:::This[https://www.gaidhlig.scot/en/gaelic-language-plans/the-national-gaelic-language-plan/] is the outcome of the 2005 act. It mirrors the language of the act with "...seeks to secure the status of Gaelic as an official language of Scotland..". That means that status has not been achieved. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] <sub> [[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|TIR]]</sub> 07:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
:I'm quite certain that you're correct and that [[User:Akerbeltz]] and [[User:ThoughtIdRetired]] are misunderstanding the 2005 act, particularly the portions I've italicized below.
:[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2005/7 Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005]: {{bq|'''The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 21st April 2005 and received Royal Assent on 1st June 2005:''' An Act of the Scottish Parliament to establish a body having functions exercisable ''with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language'', including the functions of preparing a national Gaelic language plan, of requiring certain public authorities to prepare and publish Gaelic language plans in connection with the exercise of their functions and to maintain and implement such plans, and of issuing guidance in relation to Gaelic education.}}
:{{bq|...}}
:{{bq|(3)The functions conferred on the Bòrd by this Act are to be exercised ''with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language'' through ...}}
:This is a typical constitutional act, declaring that some general condition or principle prevails and then ordering measures to be taken, legislation and regulations to be enacted, to implement it, to give it flesh, to "secure" it so that it isn't just empty words in a document. This isn't "Board, if you arrange things to our satisfaction, if you jump through these hoops, if you can convince us that Gaelic deserves to be official, then maybe we'll finally be nice and make it official." It's "Gaelic ''is'' official now, so, Board, go out now and make that principle a reality, giving life to the language's official status, giving it the full dignity to which it is entitled just as English is." [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|...and then ordering measures to be taken, legislation and regulations to be enacted, to implement it...}} So, until those measures have been taken and legislation has been enacted, it is not an official language. I am guessing that you would have less difficulty understanding this if the change being discussed was, say, a decrease in speed limits. If the first legislation had set up a board to reduce speed limits, those limits would not reduce until the board had put forward a bill which was then enacted. All that exists at the moment is something that might be variously described by politicians as either an "intent" or an "ambition". [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] <sub> [[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|TIR]]</sub> 13:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|So, until those measures have been taken and legislation has been enacted, it is not an official language.}} No, that isn't how it works. It should occur to you that if that were how it works, it's really, really weird that the Scottish government is completely ignorant on that matter. Basically, I'm watching two Wikipedians debate the Scottish government over how to interpret law that is squarely within the Scottish government's domain of expertise and with which they are intimately involved.
:::You have "official" and "in effect" conflated with each other. When a government declares something official, it doesn't do it by first setting up infrastructure to support it while insisting it's still unofficial and then, maybe one day, saying "OK, it's official now". It declares it official, then does whatever it sees as appropriate to put it into effect. Until the latter has happened, one can say it hasn't been put into effect yet, but it ''is'' neverthless ''official''. If an act declares that men and women have equal rights, then they officially have equal rights, whether or not laws have been put into effect yet to remove actual inequities and penalize unequal treatment.
:::The speed limit equivalent is if a law reduces the national speed limit and directs signs to be posted with the new limit. The limit is in effect immediately. The country doesn't wait till some number of signs have been posted and then some reliable source pipes up announcing "Well, we're calling it now: was far as we're concerned, enough signs have been put that we feel comfortable calling the new limit official". If a constable stops you for exceeding the new limit, you don't get to argue that enough signs aren't up for the limit to be official. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Sorry but the reality of the 2005 act is such that other than setting up Bòrd na Gàidhlig, it confers NONE of the legal rights that being an official language entails. Someone takes you to court, you cannot insist on proceedings being in Gaelic. You do not have a right to have your children educated in Gaelic, not even at the primary level, never mind any other level. Heck, you can't even get your council tax form in Gaelic. Don't you think we would have taken every opportunity to litigate for these things if there was a law that says 'hey, it's official now. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 14:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::The main problem with your argument, Akerbelt, is that it seems to rely on interpretation of a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]]. Similarly counter arguments from others, by alternatively interpreting the same source are equally flawed. We should all know that this simply isn't good enough. Whether you are qualified to interpret government legislation or not, it simply isn't allowed from Wikipedia editors. (I'm not saying either side is wrong, I'm certainly not qualified to determine. I'm saying non-primary sources are needed, and the one we have so far says "official". --[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 08:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::And one - from a lawyer no less (Wilson McLeod is a lawyer by training) - who says 'not official'. And before someone mentios it being n years old or something, that's the reality of under-resourced langues. Welcome to our world. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 08:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The problem with Wilson McLeod's cite is not its age, but that it pre-dates significant legislation which may have, or may not have, completely changed the situation. Not just the 2005 Act, but even the formation of the body that created the Act. Using it as a present day assessment of the present status is highly questionable, and likely to mislead or confuse the reader. --[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 11:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
::::PS ''giving it the full dignity to which it is entitled just as English is'' – that wishy-washy statement about 'equal respect' meant literally nothing. The SNP did put forward an amendment to grant it 'equal validity' [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4467769.stm] (still short of being co-official) but that was voted down. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 14:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::The Scottish government says it's official. Your counterargument is that it isn't official because the act doesn't confer a variety of conditions that in your opinion ''ought'' to be what official status confers. Your own [[WP:OR]]/opinion/grievances and your [[WP:POV]] characterization of the status as "wishy-washy" don't override what is clearly and unequivocally declared. It's like saying North Korea isn't officially a republic. It certainly doesn't behave in any way that merits it being described ''in effect'' as a republic, but, nonetheless, it's ''officially'' a republic, and Wikipedia accordingly says so.
:::::Here's another example: [[Amsterdam]] is officially the capital of the Netherlands. It ''isn't'' the ''actual'' capital according to any normal definition of "capital city", as the country isn't governed out of Amsterdam. No branch of the Dutch government is seated there. Nevertheless, Amsterdam is (for whatever historical reasons) ''officially'' the capital, we declare it as such, and then we explain the reality behind that in the appropriate section of the article. We don't refuse to declare it the official capital on the grounds of what ''we'' think that ''should'' mean.
:::::The fundamental ''meaning'' of "official" is that the pertinent body has declared it thus. It's an ''ipso facto'' thing. While I can contemplate arguing that something not so declared is official anyway in essence by virtue of its use for official purposes where alternatives are not provided for, I don't see any avenue for arguing that something that ''is'' officially declared is actually not official. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 14:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
You fundamentally misunderstand what the concept of an [[official language]] is. As the Wikipedia page says, ''An official language is a language having certain rights to be used in defined situations. These rights can be created in written form or by historic usage.'' If it doesn't, it's not an official language of whatever political entity. To date there is no law that bestows such rights on the citizens of Scotland or the UK. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 17:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


For information, the deadline for the bill in stage 1 is 20 Sep 2024, as per [https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/S6M-12567]. Its progress can be followed at [https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws] [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] <sub> [[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|TIR]]</sub> 19:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
:I'm having an extraordinary amount of trouble believing that you brought forth a Wikipedia article as the authority on what a phrase means.
:The official state bird of Virginia is the cardinal. Its state flower is the dogwood flower. No special rights inure in Virginia to cardinals or dogwood flowers, nor to people who raise them or bear them. The whole thing is pretty damn meaningless, yet they're official because people who, by virtue of their ''office'', possess the ''official'' capacity to declare things "official" because they say so, have said so.
:Please do not ''ever'' again cite a Wikipedia article as a reliable source to support any argument.
:Your argument falls apart anyway even if we do take that article's definition into account. The board has been accorded powers to spend money to engage in a bunch of activity to promote the teaching and use of Gaelic. Neither that board nor any other agency has been giving similar power for Cornish, Pictish, Manx, Old Saxon, or any other language. It has ''officially'' given Gaelic a special status not provided to 99.999% of the world's languages. They aren't the rights that you'd like to see accorded but, again, your approval isn't required. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 20:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
::According official status to a language is hardly comparable to deciding what badge you’re going to have. Giving something a budget has no implication of the according of status. Can you clarify the assumptions you are making in “They aren't the rights that you'd like to see accorded but, again, your approval isn't required”? Not sure I understand it but my best guess makes it seem highly presumptuous. [[User:Mutt Lunker|Mutt Lunker]] ([[User talk:Mutt Lunker|talk]]) 22:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
:::It is not the role of Wikipedia to make policy decisions for Scotland or anywhere else. Our responsibility is only to state the facts. The fact is that the Edinburgh government has not (yet) made any policy statement on the subject. Until the official Scottish government makes an official statement, officially declaring Gaelic to be an official language, we cannot presume to declare it to be official. [[User:Mediatech492|Mediatech492]] ([[User talk:Mediatech492|talk]]) 05:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
::::It's as though you're all willfully not seeing the word "official" in the act. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 06:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course he has seen the word 'official' but what he is apparently capable of seeing is the difference between a statement about what is vs what may be in the future. Declaring an official state flower and suchlike is an absurd comparison, that has no legal or financial implications, mottos and symbols often involve extinct or mythical beings and being a state flower doesn't entitle you to legal rights you can claim in a court. Being an official language does. If your wilful reading of 'with a view to' was correct, then why would the authors of the currently proposed Scottish Languages Bill [https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/scottish-languages-bill/introduced?fbclid=IwAR1J1wuYq9OrV-fK_5ddyxQleq_c1Gtfkh7JnpVErDNQH0lNPy0-EGzDUcY] feel the need to state that the '''proposed''' legislation will do the following:''The Bill gives the Gaelic and Scots languages official status in Scotland''? If Gaelic already was, surely only Scots would be elevated to this new status. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 07:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

:{{tq|Declaring an official state flower and suchlike is an absurd comparison, that has no legal or financial implications, mottos and symbols often involve extinct or mythical beings and being a state flower doesn't entitle you to legal rights you can claim in a court. Being an official language does.}} That first sentence was exactly my point: something can be official without any legal or financial implications following from its declaration as such. (See my reference to Amsterdam.) The second sentence is you making up your own rule, [[WP:OR]], distinguishing languages from everything else that might be declared official.
:If your willful reading is correct, why does the Scottish government disagree with you on its website? At least my reading (a) is consistent with the way many such provisions read, providing that something is true and then providing for actions to be taken to give it effect ''and'' (b) is consistent with the Scottish government's own interpretation on its website. Yours is also possible. A lot of it depends on the bizarre use of the word "secure": one can speak but of securing what one already has, but "secure" can also mean "to get, firmly" something that one doesn't already have.
:Now, finally, you bring up the proposed Scottish languages bill, which is indeed predicated on your interpretation being the correct one, as in paragraph 13 it says {{bq|Section 1 of the Bill inserts a new section before section 1 of the 2005 Act, providing for the status of the Gaelic language. The statement in subsection (1) that the Gaelic language has official status within Scotland is given legal effect by the provisions of the 2005 Act conferring functions on Bòrd na Gàidhlig, the Scottish Ministers and other persons (relevant public authorities, as defined in section 10 of the 2005 Act) and enactments relating to Gaelic education.}}
:While this leaves open the question of why the Scottish government is contradicting the clear implication of this on its own website, at least now it's a matter of contradictory statements from authoritative sources rather than a statement from one authoritative source and your insistence that it wasn't correct because what it says doesn't meet your personal understanding of what being an official language ''should mean'' or because its implications fall short of your expectations. This is what you should have started with. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 11:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
::Or arguably it's one source that is open to interpretation, contradicted by one that is clear. Either way it would not be appropriate to declare that the language is official, so I'd say we're done for this question, unless and until there are any further developments. Happy to draw a line everyone? [[User:Mutt Lunker|Mutt Lunker]] ([[User talk:Mutt Lunker|talk]]) 12:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm done. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 14:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:37, 20 July 2024

New information on official status

[edit]

Take a look at the current version of the Scottish government webpage [1]. It has been changed, with the new version saying :

  • "Bills and legislation
    The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 gained royal assent in June of that year, giving Gaelic greater protection and prominence and working towards securing its status as an official language of Scotland."

The old version, that existed on 6/6/24, said: "The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 gained royal assent in June of that year, confirming Gaelic as an official language of Scotland."

This change therefore makes clear that the 2005 act merely gives an ambition and does not make Gaelic an official language. (Of course, we got that from the act itself, but at the time, this conflicted with the government website.) I think the fact that the webpage has been changed closes this matter, with Gaelic not being an official language of Scotland. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discovering this. I propose that this link should be used to cite the content, and the use of the Act as a source be removed, for all the usual reasons regarding use of a primary source. The content in the article should also be changed to say something like "The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 works towards securing its status as an official language of Scotland.", so that the article reflects what sources actually say, rather than containing conclusions about what they don't say, as it does presently.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you presumably agree that mention of the "official language" in Scotland in the info box should go. I would be inclined to use the source found today to support the article content, but to also include the Act as a source, since that would assist the encyclopaedia user (whom we all serve). I am not going to make those edits now as I am getting ready for two days on the road and consequently doing anything in Wikipedia until, perhaps, Wednesday. Obviously, anyone else can make appropriate edits. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 20:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThoughtIdRetired Agreed. The act can be cited to verify its existence. But it cannot be used to verify analysis of its contents. Escape Orbit (Talk) 07:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The act can be used to verify its content. There is no need for any analysis of its content, because it is written at a reading level that is surely a basic requirement for a Wikipedia editor.
Incidentally, I have removed the info box element that appears to state that Gaelic is an official language of Scotland. This disagrees with the article – and the info box is meant to summarise the article. The deleted element also has a {{failed verification}} tag on it, which is another reason it should not be in the article. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone explain to me, incidentally, what makes scotland.org a RS? A brand marketing site? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's owned by the Scottish Government. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative legislation

[edit]

This is probably a useful place to store comparable legislation in New Zealand[2]. I am not specifically looking for any comment on this at present, but this official language legislation may be a useful point of comparison at some time in the future. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 08:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Languages Bill

[edit]

The Scottish Languages Bill is currently being considered. The first draft of the bill can be found at [3] .

The bill starts with "An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about support for the Gaelic and Scots languages; to make provision about education in relation to Gaelic and Scots; and for connected purposes." So, that's "support" not "official language of Scotland".

It mentions "The Gaelic language has official status within Scotland." which appears to have no real meaning whatsoever. The official briefing[4] that accompanies the bill has an estimate of its financial cost over 5 years of £700,000. This is a particularly small budget for anything, let alone making a minority language a country's official language.

In short, if enacted, I cannot see that this bill will make any changes apart from allowing parishes with more than 20% of their population proficient in Gaelic to use the language more in local affairs. That falls far short of an official language. So I don't think the article will need to change in any great way if the bill is passed. There may well be some press comment when that happens which may be useful, but that's it.

For information, the deadline for the bill in stage 1 is 20 Sep 2024, as per [5]. Its progress can be followed at [6] ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scottish_Gaelic&oldid=1235651131"