Talk:Irish language/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Number of speakers, once again

As so often before, there are users who are inserting the hillarious figures for the number of Irish speakers. As anybody with even the slightest knowledge of Irish knows all too well, there is nowhere near even 500.000 Irish speakers. Manipulating the infobox to suggest that there are close to two millions is very close to vandalism in my opinion. Itäs true that there are that many people who can say at least a few phrases in Irish, sure, but the infobox for any other language report the number of people speaking the language as their native/everyday language. Using the same logic here, should we claim in infoboxes that there are 7.500.000 English speakers in Sweden? Or 40.000.000 French speakers in the UK - people learn it in school and are able to utter at least a few phrases. Is there any reason that we should treat Irish separately from all other languages and claim the number of Irish speakers to be the same as those who know a few phrases. At least half of those 1.860.000 Irish speakers could not even carry out a conversation for ten minutes and I would be positively surprised if one in ten use Irish as their first language. JdeJ 11:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd hold issue with putting people into two boxes - "people speaking the language as their native/everyday language" and "those who know a few phrases." Reality falls in between. I've copied and pasted the run down from the census (from above) here:

• Persons aged three and over: 4,057,646
• Can speak Irish: 1,656,790 (40.9% of speaking population)
  • Can speak Irish (in educational system): 453,207 (27.4% of Irish speaking population, 11.2% of speaking population)
  • Can speak Irish (outside of educational system): 1,203,583 (72.6% of Irish-speaking population, 29.7% of speaking population)
    • Daily: 85,076 (7.1% of Irish speakers outside of education, 2.1% of speaking population)
    • Weekly: 97,089 (8.1% " ", 2.4% " ")
    • Less often: 581,574 (48.3% " ", 14.4% " ")
    • Never: 412,846 (34.3% " ", 10.2% " ")
    • Not stated: 26,998 (2.2% " ", 0.001% " ")

The comparison with Sweden is something I'll take up. Assuming that there are 7,500,000 English-speakers in Sweden, would you add these to the English-language info box if English was a national/official language of Sweden? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"The comparison with Sweden is something I'll take up. Assuming that there are 7,500,000 English-speakers in Sweden, would you add these to the English-language info box if English was a national/official language of Sweden?" No, not if Swedish was their first language. Let's compare with some other countries with more than one official language. In Finland, Finnish and Swedish are both official. The number of Swedish speakers in Finland is around 350.000, but using the same definitions as here, it's above two millions. Same thing for French/English in Canada, French/Dutch in Belgium, French/German/Italian in Switzerland etc. When talking about the number of speakers of a given language in any of those countries, we talk about those who actually speak it regularly, usually as native speakers. That's the norm here at Wikipedia, in any other encyclopedia, that's what's used within the whole range from academia in socio-linguistics to guidebooks. Irish is the only exception to this that I'm aware of, and it makes this article look downright silly to anybody with any knowledge about the situation of Irish. Infoboxes should follow the same guidelines for all languages, but some users are trying to invent their own methods for reporting the number of Irish speakers. JdeJ 16:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardly surprising in any of the examples you gave. To pick just one of those countries, monoglot French or Dutch speakers are the norm in Belgium, whereas there are scarcely any monoglot Irish speakers remaining in Ireland. My question was about a hypothetical situation where English was an official language of Sweden. If it was the case, would you include the number people in Sweden who can speak English in the English language infobox? In fact, direct comparisons to that situation do exist, for example English speakers in Pakistan or India. These numbers are included in the figures given for first-language English speakers in the English language infobox.

So, what number would you suggest? 260,000 fluent speakers according to Ethnologue? (At least its better than pulling a number like 400,000 out of the air.) Personally, I would support both numbers being in the info box. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, I inserted the Ethnologue figures. Everybody knows that they are too high, but I agree with you that it's important to have a source. I don't know who came up with the 400,000. JdeJ 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Ethnologue figure actually says 355,000 (for all countries) not 260,000. But anyway; a more reliable figure (ie. not from 1983 ;) ) could be the latest Eurobarometer poll on Europeans and languages. It says that 21% of people in (the Republic of) Ireland aged 15 and over have reported confidence in Irish; while 9% call it their 'mother tongue'. The article then states that the population aged 15+ in Ireland is 3,089,775.

• 21% (total) of 3,089,775 = 648,852.75
• 9% (native) of 3,089,775 = 278,079.75

We could then add the figures from other countries (US / Canada / Australia / New Zealand) and if more exact/reliable figures for Northern Ireland (if not the whole UK) to make a more reliable, realistic figure than 1.8mn. Maybe this could be more reliable than both the census (which would be a bit exaggurated) and the outdated Ethnologue figures? Sulmac 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, this beautiful language is not taught and has not been adapted for use in the modern world. For teenagers interested in rap and travel it has no place. For those of us working in an ever more technical environment, ditto. It is a great language to dream in. Don't bust a gut working on the figures, just take an empirical stroll down 99.9% of Irish streets and you will hear more Polish spoken than Irish.Red Hurley 20:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Gaeltacht on the Irish language page

One last post on this. This page, through a painfully long process, was reinstated by administrator xoloz. Please come over and take a look! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_North_American_Gaeltacht)

I would ask that it is reincluded under the 'Gaeltacht' section of the article as (and Éamon Ó Cuív backs me on this, see the Baile na hÉireann main page above for his direct quote) it is a gaeltacht. But I leave that up to you. (Oh and saying the entire area is unpopulated shows a lack of knowledge and is a little insulting to the people who do live in Tamworth) Danjdoyle 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The place of Irish in non-geographic articles

Ultimately we could do with a section in WP:IMOS to cover this for non-geographic articles. But in the meantime discussion is here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djegan (talk • contribs) 22:51, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Non-english learning books

It would be interesting to note the existence of books for learning Irish through languages other than English. Having the language learnable by non-English speakers is an important value, as is having Irish speakers who don't speak English (to prevent it being overly English-ised). "Parlons gaelique" and "L'Irlandais de poche" are two books in French for learning Irish. If anyone knows of books in other languages, can they mention them here - or better yet can someone add a not to the article? Just an idea. --Gronky 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I came across a Dutch "Teach-your-self Irse" book and CD a while back in a bookshop in Holland. It was the only Irish language book among a host of the usual suspects (Italian, French, German, etc.). It looks like it was sold because I went back a week or two later and it was gone. I don't recall the series of teach-your-self books it was from, but recall that it was a famous label. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an Irish-German dictionary as well as a German-language tourist's guide to Irish. —Angr 23:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are surprisingly many Irish courses in other languages than English. Apart from those you've already mentioned, the very extensive course Learning Irish has been translated into German [1] as well as into Welsh [2]. Interestingly enough, another quite extensive course is written by Irishmen but has only appeared in Polish [3]. JdeJ 07:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Irish-lc-results.jpg

Image:Irish-lc-results.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements removed

I am removing the following statements that have been tagged as need a source for some time:

• The term "Erse" in most current contexts is considered derogatory.
• Of these 85,076 (7.1%) speak Irish on a daily basis, 97,089 (8.1%) weekly, 581,574 (48.3%) less often, 412,846 (34.3%) never, and 26,998 (2.2%) didn't state how often.
• There is a concerted effort by some to promote the language among recent immigrants.

If anyone can find sources for these claims, feel free to re-add them. —Angr 18:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Added refs for the first two, could not find ref for last. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag Icons

I re-added the flag icons. Cruft is disputable. They are a conventional feature of the infoboxes for languages, designating the "official language" status more clearly. Using the flag underlines the sovereign decsision made by a state to use a language. If you look at the pages for other european languages, you'll find it is present in virtually all cases, occasionally (as eg for English of Spanish), they are even links to whole flag-filled subpages. athinaios 13:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The main issue (other than flag cruft) is that one of the flags in the infobox is no longer valid. The flag used in the {{flagicon|Northern Ireland}} template is no longer the "Flag of Northern Ireland". And hasn't been since 1972. (See Flag of Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland flags issue). So it's use on this page to represent Northern Ireland is not entirely accurate. These problems with accuracy are not outweighed by the value of having flags here. (The display of 3 flags to supplement 3 names, doesn't neccesarily aid the reader's understanding of the jurisdictions in which the language is spoken). And so the "safest" thing to do (in my view) was to simply remove them. (That and Flagcruft). Guliolopez 18:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I admit I had entirely forgotten about that flag issue. The correct flag to use for NI, technically speaking, would probably be the Union Jack, and even the commonest wiki convention is not worth the trouble that could cause. athinaios 19:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated. Thanks for the response, and apologies for not highlighting this rationale more completely in my original edit summary. Guliolopez 19:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Order of the First Paragraph

I strongly believe that the current official status should come first in this intro paragraph.

The paragraph should inform the reader of the important official status of the language in Ireland and the EU, before telling them, effectively that it is a minority, dead language.

At present, it says:

Irish ([Gaeilge] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is a Celtic language of the Goidelic branch spoken in Ireland. Although once spoken across the whole of the island, it is currently a minority vernacular in Ireland, spoken in specific communities and most particularly in officially-recognised Gaeltachtaí, which exist around the Republic of Ireland.

I belive it should read:

Irish ([Gaeilge] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is a Celtic language of the Goidelic branch spoken in Ireland. It is constitutionally upheld as the national and first official language of the Republic of Ireland, and it is an official language of the European Union. It is also an officially recognised minority language in Northern Ireland. Although once spoken across the whole of the island, it is currently a minority vernacular in Ireland, spoken in specific communities and most particularly in officially-recognised Gaeltachtaí, which exist around the Republic of Ireland.

With the sheer amount of effort that the Irish and EU governments have done to keep Irish in the forefront officially, I think the intro paragraph should reflect this, instead of just brushing it off as an inferior, minority language. Thoughts? Wiki01916 04:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree. But is this not a simple edit? Is anyone opposed to your version? (Sarah777 07:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Agree that the official status is important, but the section as proposed is a bit long. I'm not sure that the official status NEEDS to come before the "practical" status. One other suggestion. Move the sentence "It is also an officially recognised minority language in Northern Ireland" to the end, after all discussions of the Republic of Ireland. As it stands it's a bit mixed up. Hughsheehy 07:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Splendid idea. I've implemented it. -- Evertype·✆ 09:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; in an encyclopaedia, the most important facts about a language is the range and distribution of its speakers, its actual life. Its symbolic, official life is important, but distinctly less so. Pleidhce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleidhce (talk • contribs) 18:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the first paragraph didn't give clear information on the state of the language as it is today, for someone looking for it. I inserted the following clarifying statement, which I hope gives a realistic sense of the current situation. "Irish is now the mother tongue of only a small minority of the inhabitants of Ireland, but continues to play an important symbolic role in the life of the country." I'm a mother-tongue Irish-speaker myself, and I think it's not right to hide the marginal status of the language as vernacular. Hope this meets with people's approval. Pleidhce (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pleidhce. I just merged/consolidated some of your changes into the sentence which immediately succeeded the one you added. I think the point that "Irish is really only spoken as a first language by a minority" is already covered in the sentence which reads: "Although once spoken across the island, is currently a minority vernacular, spoken only in specific communities and the Gaeltacht". If you think this isn't strong enough, I'd recommend rewording that sentence to be more forceful. (Instead of adding another sentence that says the same thing in a different way.) Otherwise we'll have a lot of redundancy in the intro. GRMA. Guliolopez (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Guliolopez, let me try again; I still don't feel it gets across the truth, and too much of this article seems to be clouded by well-intentioned efforts to "bury bad news" about the precarious state of native Irish today. Let me know what you think of my version. Thanks. Pleidhce (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FiorGhaeltacht.png

Image:FiorGhaeltacht.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

External links (yet again)

Yet again the External Links section is becoming a repository of links for anything remotely related to the Irish language, or for pages written in the Irish language.

Like any other good long Wiki page you restrictive constipating non helping hinderance. When you and your minions are finished wiping all the links off the internet maybe we can kill you and start linking it again.

ThisMunkey (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the External Links section is for.

Per WP:EL, the "Ext Links" section should really be limited to official links (like Foras na Gaeilge or similar), links to accurate/neutral reference material about the subject (that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright/length considerations), or sites which are otherwise relevant to the context of the wider article.

A lot of what is currently linked (in particular links to news resources in Irish, etc) fails WP:EL for promotion, relevance, etc.

Take - for example - the German language and English language articles. In these we don't find an ever expanding list of all websites which have German/English content.

Comments welcome before I make yet another pass at summarising the list. Guliolopez (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would keep the Ethnologue link, Foras na Gaeilge, Gaeilge ar an Ghréasán, Braesicke's grammar, the Wikisource links, and the least spammy of the dictionary links (focal.ie, ceantar.org). I'd even add a link to www.acmhainn.ie, which has no advertising and which I find to be a useful resource. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Many various links relevant to the Irish speaking community should have a place on the Irish language page. If wikipedia is not designed to be an ever expanding collection, what is it? There are more than four relevant links no matter how you clean it up. What about the Belfast Gaelic speaking community?ThisMunkey (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Firstly, please read WP:NPA. If you post any further comment or threats which even remotely intimate physical violence (or anything close to it) you will be blocked immediately and indefinitely. Ignoring your other trolling and blatant breaches of WP:CIV, I will deal with your question: "If wikipedia is not designed to be an ever expanding collection, what is it?". To answer the first part, please read WP:NOT#DIRECTORY which will confirm for you that Wikipedia is very much NOT an "ever expanding repository of links". It is in fact (to the second part) an enyclopedia editted for relevance according to guidelines. (One of which sets out that external links should be "kept to a minimum" and "appropriate to the article".) The summarisation of irrelevant links that occured a few weeks ago was in line with these guidelines. (Given that many were simply in Irish rather than about Irish). With regard to "What about the Belfast gaeltacht?". I'm not sure I understand the concern here - there is a lot of content on the subject available in this article and else-where. Including on the GA project. (With appropriate external links I might add) What specifically is the issue here? Guliolopez (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is the Belfast bit on the Gaeltacht map?

http://www.sinnfein.ie/news/detail/12924 Gaeltacht Quarter, Belfast ThisMunkey (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish received official recognition in Northern Ireland for the first time in 1998 under the Good Friday Agreement.

What is the evidence for this statement? I very much doubt that it is correct!Eog1916 (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's correct. Both Ulster Scots and Irish were "officially recognised" under the Belfast Agreement as part of the various "parity of esteem" clauses. Specifically:

"All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland."

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the British Constitution/Law does not recognise an official language and no legislative provision has been made in the case of English, Irish Gaelic or indeed Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland, I would suggest to you that you are misreading the Belfast Agreement! The statement in the Agreement that "All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity," simply means that...we recognise / respect/ understand/ tolerate/ linguist diversity! The other part of this statement "..including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland." has little or no importance and has not generated any new rights or legislation. The 'CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES' in the Agreement, I would suggest, represents a quasi Constitution for Northern Ireland and as such can be taken as having the force of law. The "parity of esteem" issue is dealt with in section(v) and ( vi) which state; ". "The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will: (v) affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of thepeople of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;"(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as theymay so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland." These paragraphs imply that Irish, British or those with dual nationality will have full parity of esteem as regards their choice of nationality. In the case of an Irish citizen living in Northern Ireland who may wish to use the National Language (Irish Gaelic) in dealing with the State ( UK authorities) there would be an expectation of equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination and parity with the those that wish to use English language. This 'linguistic right' based on Irish Citizenship has not yet been at issue in the High Court in Belfast, but I would not be surprised if such a matter were to be raised in the near future.Eog1916 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The statement in question simply notes that the language has "a degree of formal recognition in NI". Which is accurate based on the related article in the BA. Neither the BA, nor this page, speak to any intrinsic importance, and neither infer any kind of "official legislative status" (akin to the status in Ireland). Therefore, as noted, the reference supports the assertion. (If the article here was suggesting an official/national/legislated language, then there would be a cite issue. But it doesn't. So there isn't). Anyway, if you think there are inaccuracies or "misinterpretations" here, you may want to raise them in the article Irish language in Northern Ireland (which deals with the issue at length), before raising them here. (Where it is just a passing reference or two). Guliolopez (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So what's new? A degree of formal recognition has been the case since the old Stormont regime ruled the roost!

Eog1916 (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)