Talk:Conradh na Gaeilge

Name

I wonder if we shouldn't move this article to Conradh na Gaeilge. No one really calls it the Gaelic League any more, though that's what CnaG means. Evertype 18:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved it accordingly and added some explanation. – Kaihsu 18:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this supposed to be the English wikipedia? I would never have understood what the title meant in any other titile but the English. 84.72.62.80 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gaelic Union

The Gaelic Union rediects to this page however, Aondacht na Gaeilge, or the Gaelic Union, predates the Gaelic League. The Society for the Preservation of the Irish Language was founded in 1876, the Gaelic Union was founded as a result of a slit in this movement, the Gaelic Union. The Gaeilge Union achieved some notable success including ensuring that Irish was placed on the syllabus, and the founding of the first irish magazine in Irelan "Irisleabhar na Gaedhilge", one of the members was Douglas Hyde who later founded the Gaelic League, as he felt that the Gaelic Union didnt concentrate on the living language.

To redirect to the Gaelic League is like redirecting the Fenian Brotherhood to the IRA, they are different, distinct organisations... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredbobhurst (talk • contribs) 10:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Irish League (Conradh na Gaeilge)

Surely this is a much more modern title for this organization (Conradh na Gaeilge) and would reflect the 'modern' name 'Irish' instead of 'Gaelic' which is used for the language that it is allegedly trying to keep alive? Isn't this supposed to be the English wikipedia! English Wikipedia could then persuade the Gaelic Athletic Association to accept the title 'Irish Athletic Association', which I dare say would be more in keeping with the modern aims of the Association.(Note the recent appointment of a non-Gaelic speaking president, for example.) Really all references to Gaelic and Ireland should be deleted, erased, expunged, forgotten, left out, precluded, so that the Wiki policy on reducing the obvious confusion that exists between things Gaelic and things Irish.Eog1916 (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Not Moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Conradh na Gaeilge → Gaelic League — Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title of this article complies with both WP:EN and WP:IMOS: "Conradh na Gaeilge" is the name most commonly used in the English language to refer to the topic of this article as it currently exists.--Kwekubo (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Some examples demonstrating "Conradh na Gaeilge" in contemporary English usage:
    • the organisation's official website;
    • news stories from website of RTÉ, the Irish national broadcaster;
    • a press release from the Oireachtas (Ireland's parliament) (other results here from the Oireachtas's website);
    • examples of articles from The Irish Times.
  • In current usage, "Gaelic League" refers to the organisation historically:
    • some examples found on the RTÉ website;
    • Examples from the website of the Oireachtas;
    • Examples from The Irish Times.
  • --Kwekubo (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:ENGLISH. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Over 80% of the Conradh na Gaeilge traffic comes through the redirect from Gaelic League. See [1] and [2]. WP:IMOS notes that when the English version of a name is more common and recognised by English speakers than it should be used. The stats speak for themselves. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Gaelic League is the more common name, certainly from a historical perspective (which is more likely to prompt readers to look up the organisation). I've only come across the Gaelic version of the name in recent years. Mooretwin (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose until some evidence of the relative usage of the two in English is given. Without that, this request seems to be based on a clearmisunderstanding of WP:UE. Knepflerle (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. BigDunc 11:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I am startled by Mooretwin's statement that "Gaelic League is the more common name". I simply find that that is not the case in my experience. Conradh na Gaeilge is the norm; the default; the best recognised in Ireland; as well as the preferred form for obvious reasons by the Irish-speakers for whom the organization exists. The Wikipedia article concerning the French Academy is quite properly called Académie française. Why should Conradh na Gaeilge be treated any differently? Opposition is the only correct stance here. odea (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Gaelic LEague is the more common name in historical references. Contemporary references I don't know about. The organisation is rarely mentioned or discussed in the media: it appears today to have a very low profile. But historically it is a very important organisation, which appears almost always to be referred to in the English. I should imagine most readers would have read or heard about the organisation from reading IRish history. Mooretwin (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised anyone thinks Conradh na Gaeilge has a low profile; its profile is quite evident in Ireland. The contributor says, "Contemporary references I don't know about". But I do know and can assure her or him that the organization is evident. 174.16.17.50 (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I too find your comments startling. I've run across plenty of media mentions. And usually as Conradh na Gaeilge. Perhaps Gaelic League in historical contexts. Certainly no question but that the modern most common name would be Conradh na Gaeilge in English just as in Irish.
• Oppose Certainly no question but that the modern most common name would be Conradh na Gaeilge in English just as in Irish. Gaelic league's primary use nowadays seems to be in historical contexts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luachair (talk • contribs) 18:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:IMOS. See also Áras an Uachtaráin, Bord Gáis, Bord na Móna, An Bord Pleanála, Bus Éireann, Dáil Éireann, Fáilte Ireland, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Garda Síochána, Luas, Oireachtas, Raidió Teilifís Éireann, Seanad Éireann, Sinn Féin, Tánaiste and Taoiseach. These are the common names of these various entities in the English language in Ireland, to use the English language translation of their common name is possibly WP:OR. Also, this is not an Irish language issue, the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany sits at Bundestag on the English language wikipedia not German Parliament. Snappy (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

CommentThe name needs to be appropriate for worldwide English. As per your examples, Taoiseach and Sinn Féin are about the only two an educated English north American would pick up. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The limits of knowledge of even educated North Americans is irrelevant. North Americans do not exist as some ideal calibration point, whatever their chauvinistic views to the contrary. 174.16.17.50 (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not North American chauvinism but assuring that articles hold a n appropriate worldly view of the English Language. Just because a Gaelic name is the common term in Ireland doesn’t mean that it’s the common term in the entire English speaking world. As mentioned earlier, 80% of the Conradh na Gaeilge traffic is derived from a redirect from Gaelic League (Please see traffic comparison of Conradh na Gaeilge:[3] vs. that of Gaelic League:[4]). Sometimes the English translation is more appropriate when a term is more commonly used in the full of the English speaking world. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. But I still have to oppose and agree that the knowledge of North Americans is in no way a calibration point that we should judge anything on, this is after all an encyclopedia and the correct name should be used. BigDunc 15:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says use the common name, even if it's not the "correct" name. Mooretwin (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:EN says "Use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language as the title of the article". Conradh/Seachtain/Foras na Gaeilge are the most common names in English. Anyway, I thought people looked up encyclopaedias to find out the facts. A fact like the correct and common name of certain entities in Ireland which are referred to by an Irish language name in the English language. Btw, what do North Americans (educated or otherwise) have to do with this debate, I find it somewhat irrelevant. Snappy (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support as this is the English language Wikipedia. It's safe to assume that English speaking laymen (like myself), find 'Conradh na Gaeilge' difficult to read & pronounce. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Gaelic League" is not the organisation's current name, however: it has been dropped from use in all spheres of activity. The reliable third-party sources have followed suit (as demonstrated above): the Irish-language name has come to be used as the standard name in English too. --Kwekubo (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - What has reading and pronunciation got to do with it? My reading and pronunciation of Bundestag, Gesundheit, Bête noire, En plein air and Académie française are definitely not correct but I am not proposing to move them to the English language titles just because of that. Is this a campaign to rid en.wikipedia of all "foreign" words and phrases? Snappy (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Agree with Snappy we cant reward ignorance. Or if it is too hard for some editors maybe they should try Simple Wikipedia BigDunc 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We can always put those non-English language spellings in the article lead. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. --Joowwww (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Unfamiliarity with a word or term should not be sufficient reason (on its own) to change it. This is an encyclopaedia; we should expect to encounter words that are beyond the limits of our knowledge. Daicaregos (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. In a contemporary setting the organisations is referred to as Conradh na Gaeilge when speaking in English. In a historical setting the Gaelic League is appropriate, but not for the purpose of title of this article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for that comment. My only real encounter with the organisation is in a historical setting, hence my support for the move. I still think most readers would only have heard of it in the historical context, but I guess the article is about the organisation today. Mooretwin (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Conradh na Gaeilge is what English speakers in Ireland refer to it as; in the same vein as Taoiseach and Tanaiste. Fribbler (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose "Conradh na Gaeilge" calls "Conradh na Gaeilge" "Conradh na Gaeilge" and so do most people ClemMcGann (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - everyone I know, including foreigners, calls it Conradh na Gaeilge, and I've never heard it called anything else. Hohenloh ⁺ 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It's too bad we didn't redirect our debate efforts towards actually improving the article instead of debating the correct name. The shame of fighting over such minor details when the article contains no real citation at all and no prospects of improvement. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note that the English title is given in the article. Continuing to use the Gaelic title here in en.wikipedia seems just as inappropriate as using an English title on ga.wikipedia would be. As for improving the article(s), if you look at the history you'll notice that the article title was hardly my primary concern. The person who made a big deal about this reverted all of the actual article improvements as well. This looks like a good example of ownership, to me. *shrug*
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  I presume you're referring to me? It is regrettable that you chose not to respond to the comment I left on your talk page before you nominated this article (and Seachtain na Gaeilge, and Foras na Gaeilge) for renaming. Regarding my reverting "actual article improvements", this is the edit in question; I removed the mention of 1893 in the lead as the full date of establishment appears in the first line of the next paragraph, and I changed the Institute of Irish link back to the article's title of Foras na Gaeilge. Quite unfair to call that ownership, I think. And for what it's worth, English titles are commonly and quite appropriately used on ga.wikipedia where Irish speakers refer to a topic predominantly by its English name - for example, the Premier League, or Free Software Foundation. --Kwekubo (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  I started the RM's because that's what you're supposed to do when there's a dispute like this... it's much more productive then having a pointless argument. As for ga.wikipedia... maybe I should have used a more mature wikipedia project such as the french or german wikipedia. Regardless, my only involvement here is as a copy editor. You've made it abundantly clear that my input isn't appreciated here, which is fine. Someone, as some future date, will undoubtedly straighten all of this out eventually. *shrug*
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think that's fair of you. I've tried my best to give plenty of examples and provide reasoning as to why I feel the article should remain where it is, so please don't accuse me of bad faith. If you have real reasons why you're not in agreement with whatever consensus may be emerging, then do discuss them here. Regarding similar naming practices in other more developed Wikipedias, take for example fr:Free Software Foundation, de:The Coca-Cola Company, it:Slow Food. --Kwekubo (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  Brand names such as "Coca Cola" retain their English names for exactly the same reasons that brand names from other languages retain their native names in English (for example: Renault, Ferrari, Nintendo, etc...); namely because there's no sensible means to transliterate their names into the other language. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with retaining native names where appropriate, but in the case of these articles the English equivalent it right there in the first sentence! Drawing comparisons to FSF and Coca Cola is very disingenuous, for exactly those reasons.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  I think there is a difference in these cases, Ohm's. Ireland is, de facto, an English speaking country, and yet the common names for these entities is the Irish name. I think a better comparison would be with Médecins Sans Frontières which has an English equivalent name; but the non-English name is more commonly used by English speakers. WP:COMMONNAME is about what the most common name used by English speakers is, rather than using an English equivalent simply because one is available. It's about usage rather than language.Fribbler (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  I have a nasty sneaking suspicion that there's a significant underlying cultural issue here. I'm guessing that yourself and others who are objecting here are either Irish or English, living in Ireland or the UK. There's probably some systematic bias occurring here, and looking over the examples given above I could probably make a real case for that if I wanted to. Personally I don't really care about this (other then being somewhat ticked about being outright reverted), since I did not and do not have any real stake in these articles (I never did watchlist these, for example), so to be blunt I'll hardly really care what the closer does here. I still think that these articles should use their English names as the article title (with the Gaelic name mentioned prominently in the first sentence), but it doesn't actually bother me one way or another.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  It may well be that editors from the British Isles are more likely to go with the Gaelic name. It's not a conspiracy or a bias, they're just more familiar with the usage of the names. To paraphrase Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by familiarity." :-) Fribbler (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well yea, I don't really attribute any of this to malice. I'll readily admit to absolute shock at the reaction here though. There's a rather obvious emotional issue here, at some level, that I'm very willing to admit that I don't really understand. Still, that Gaelic sources (or English sources that are very close to the subject, with attendant political considerations involved) prefer to stick to the Gaelic isn't very convincing to me personally, in relation to the Wikipedia article title. I think that the actual usage statistics which User:Labattblueboy cited above are particularly damning, as well. Regardless... I think that I've had my say (and I've spent way, way, way more time on this then I ever intended to by now), so I'll gladly leave resolution of this in the capable hands of those participating in WP:RM.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're discussing the use of another language in the English-language Wikipedia, yet what about your own sig? What are those squiggles supposed to mean? And that last thing on the right is certainly not an English-language character ;-) Cheers! Hohenloh ⁺ 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME. Using Google Book Search, there are far more results for this organisation being called the Gaelic League[5] (including by Irish historians themselves) than Conradh na Gaeilge [6]. Also WP:ENGLISH should be taken into account, in such a situation as this, English language is preferential. If people want to write encyclopedias in Gaeilge, by all means learn the language and contribute to ga.vicipéid. IMO this isn't comparable to something like Fianna Fáil, because the translation "Soldiers of Destiny" is not well known at all or used often by historians. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a toughie, but at the end of the day I believe Fribber makes the best point so I oppose. --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:IMOS. "Gaelic League" is so 1890s-1940s. For the last 40 years or so, if not more. CnaG is referred to as that - Conradh na Gaeilge - in all Irish media and by the public.--Damac (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME. Even those with no Gaeilge call it Conradh na Gaeilge (or CnG). Calling it "The Gaelic League" would also confuse people looking for info on football. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Super-duper-counts-ten-times support. (Just in case anyone was under the delusion that qualifying their !votes with "strong" makes a difference.) Looking at the Google book results, and the internal view traffic, it's clear that the English is the WP:COMMONNAME in this instance. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First newspaper

Currently the article states: "The League's first newspaper was An Claidheamh Soluis" - is that because Gaelic Journal (published since 1882, run by CnG since November 1894 wasn't a "newspaper"? Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Female role

"In contrast with nationalist political organisations and literary associations the League accepted women on an equal basis from the start."

I'm changing this because it isn't true. Women had a role in nationalist politics outside of the League such as Cumann na mBan, Constance Markievicz founding Fianna Éireann, etc Claíomh Solais (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conradh na Gaeilge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070322183055/http://www.gaeilge.ie/foras/news/article.asp?id=136 to http://www.gaeilge.ie/foras/news/article.asp?id=136
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://69.57.161.177/~cnagie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129&Itemid=55&lang=ga

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of info

@Craoibhin: - can you please elaborate on your edit summaries, namely [7] and [8]. You state that the removed text is partially inaccurate and that there is recent information that discounts parts of it without actually stating what bits and providing no evidence for it. If something is partially inaccurate then amend it to be fully accurate.

The text you removed (the italic and bolded sentences below) is highly relevant to the stuff you didn't remove that comes before it. Indeed MacStiofan being the first chief of staff of the PIRA is highly relevant and important considering what the PIRA are in terms of politics and republicanism and how it is at odds with what the Gaelic League was meant to be. Indeed more should be made of the fact that quite a few of the organisations leaders and prominent members were Shinner's (the political wing of the IRA) or had connections to them.

Though apolitical, the organisation attracted many Irish nationalists of different persuasions, much like the Gaelic Athletic Association. It was through the League that many future political leaders and rebels first met, laying the foundation for groups such as the Irish Volunteers (1913). However, Conradh na Gaeilge did not commit itself entirely to the national movement until 1915, causing the resignation of Douglas Hyde, who felt that the culture of language should be above politics. Most of the signatories of the 1916 Proclamation were members. It still continued to attract many Irish Republicans. Sean MacStiofain, the first chief of staff of the Provisional IRA was a prominent member in his later life.

Mabuska ^(talk) 22:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of branch material

Hi all, I've been in contact with Conradh na Gaeilge, and the reason behind not wanting that information included in the article is that it is wrong, and out of date. They are working on a new branch locator that will provide correct information on branches in the near future, but what has been included here may be misleading to the reader. So the citation I added to the information on the CnaG website on their branches is out of date. We can open a discussion, but I think it might be best to leave the information off the article for the moment. Smirkybec (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:, @Materialscientist:, @DVdm: the citation used to add the branch information has been removed from the CnaG website in an effort to stop the dissemination of incorrect information. Can we remove it now that there is no supporting citation? Smirkybec (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)