Talk:Celts (modern)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

about Criticism of modern Celticism

I am OK with most of the article. I must point out one thing though: everything is said justifies objectively the feeling of common appartenance of the 6 nations sharing Celtic languages, festivals, types of houses, etc.(which culture, by the way, are not protoceltic but a mix of preceltic and celtic), and even with Great Galicia and Asturias, speaking even of genetic. So many discussions are not about a reality which is not contested, but about the name "Celtic" itself. I think that the realty is more important than a word and has not to be considered as a dream as we read often. My point of view has always been that having not found another term easy to use ("romanised- teutonized-celtic-proto-celtic peoples"?...), we will still use the term "Celtic" for a long while. Or have you another term to offer? 86.203.120.212 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How about 'British' ? ..no chance of that taking off anytime soon though, eh? Gazh 12:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And what would you have done about the Irish, Bretons, Galacians and (non-Cornwallian) English? (The latter of course finding that they were suddenly no longer British and the formers surprised to find that they suddenly were.) --sony-youth^pléigh 12:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The English no longer British? Didn't you know that the Anglo-Saxons, the precursors to the English, invaded Britain in the fifth century? Millbanks (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I was joking for a kick-off, but: Galacians are arguably not even 'Celtic', the Irish are 'British' just not in it's political entity IMO. And the English lost their language to the germanic invaders, probably forced, due in part to out eastern location. Gazh 12:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me here. "The English lost their language to germanic invaders". What on earth does that mean? The English were themselves Germanic invaders. They overwhelmed the native British and introduced the Anglo-Saxon language, the forerunner to modern English. Surely you knew that? Millbanks (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Appologies. Took it to be serious. My mistake. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem Sony-youth. Gazh 13:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Link added to ‘Anglo-Celtic’ article

Hello, as it is of relevance, I have added a link to the ‘Anglo-Celtic’ article in the ‘See also’ section. I am not sure how to place it in the box there, so if anyone wants to pop it in there in the 'Related' section, please feel free! I also made the small (but significant to some!) change in the introduction by exchanging 'British Isles' for 'Britain' and 'Ireland'. I hope everyone's cool with this. Kind regards, Pconlon 12:28, 27 June 2007 (GMT)

Hello Pconlon! I'm not too sure if your exchange will be too happily accepted, my understanding is that the term 'British isles' is not too popular within the Irish Republic, and we have a couple of contributers from those parts. Gazh 12:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a geographical term. I'm an Irishman (and quite a pedantic one too) and I see see no problem what so ever with it. 86.46.56.53 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is completely Original Research

How could one possibly put a figure on the number of "Modern Celts" in any given region when the definition of 'Celt', and who they are in relation to the British Isles, is so much in question?

Let's take Ireland as an example. The article states that Ireland is home to 5,950,100 "Modern Celts". I feel sure that many of the people on the island would not "self-identify" as Celtic, whether Modern or not, and only a small percentage of that population speaks a Celtic language.

I propose that the article be nominated for deletion, and that its contents be 're-thunk', if any of it is to be salvaged.

--82.18.171.97 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt very much if Ian Paisley or Peter and Iris Robinson would like to be labelled Celts. But perhaps someone could write to them to ask? Millbanks (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've marked it as requiring references - it does - but considering how often these countries are called the Celtic fringe or the Cetic nations, market themselves as Celtic, preserve and exhibit culture called "Celtic" (language, music, dance, art), and considering that the very term Celtic (in its modern sense) was coined to describe them, I don't think its going to be such an arduous task. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree to an extent with the anon poster. This article is an example of what can potentially go wrong when Wikipedia is abused by those with an agenda. While there are some definite tidbits of fact in the article they are far too often used to justify OR and blatant POV. siarach 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparent Demand that England be recognised as a Celtic nation

A number of activists on behalf of other regions/nations have also sought recognition as modern Celts, reflecting the wide diffusion of ancient Celts across Europe. Of these, the following regions are prominent:

Galicia

Asturias

If England is indeed "prominent" in its supposed desire to be recognised as a Celtic nation, as certain users insist it is, then it should be no trouble whatsoever to reference the claim. As it is the determined effort to reinsert England despite a total lack of evidence to support the existence of Anglo-Celtic nationalism on any prominent scale seems to be a pretty straightforward case of POV/OR. siarach 12:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"If you can include the Asturas and Galicia, then England should be included also, as they are all places which have previously have extensive celtic language sand cultures. There ya gan mara.) "

Nonsense. Now i think the claims of Asturias and Galicia are just as ridiculous as those of England but the difference is that the former two actually have a reasonably active and long standing claim to being included which is what justifies their being listed in the disputed section while England does not. As for the historic presence of Celtic language and culture being justification then the entirity of western and central europe as well as various other bits (central Turkey for example) should be included. Regardless, you still havent provided any kind of reference or evidence to justify your repeated addition of England to the list. siarach 12:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, a quick browse is enough to put this to bed. Just search Google Scholar: "Galicia modern Celt" and "Asturias modern Celt" produces plenty of discussion about their inclusion, whereas England modern Celt produces only contrats between England and the modern Celts of "the Celtic fringe" with no-one arguing that England should be included.

The last few edits that persistently added England to the list sound like nothing more than "Its not fair! I want to be a Celt too!" This is really rediculous stuff and the editor behind it should simiply desist. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Im holding back from reverting atm purely because this is exactly the kind situation that busybody admins love as an excuse to throw ridiculous 3RR warnings around blindly. The inclusion of England is not defensible. If it was then those who insist on including it would be capable of providing some evidence. They cannot and this almost fanatical demand that England be considered Celtic is, in my experience, restricted to Wikipedia and within wikipedia only to two users that i can think of. siarach 13:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I will not claim the previous edits, as i will always use my log-in, so if you were attempting to pin that on me Sony you are mistaken.

Also have a look on your talkpage, you did not reply to my post a while back.

As for your google search, you know fine well that England is still regarded by the masses as Anglo-Saxon, something which we can soon put to bed from new research. A Celtic-England is something that the hierachy have wanted to hush away for a longtime, however redent findings are suggesting that we a much more alike that previously believed, like it or not boys - myself and many like me are a taste of the future. Bitter isn't it? Gazh 13:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on you talk page. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Gazh your argument is both irrelevant and self-defeating. What is at issue is whether or not there is an active demand in England to be recognised as a Celtic nation. You admit that there is not. Why there isnt and whether or not there should be and whether or not any potential claims would be legitimate are neither here nor there as all that is important is the presence of an active support or claim to be considered Celtic and this simply does not exist. As for anyone being "bitter" its a label more appropriate for yourself. I couldnt care less if the English were to suddenly imagine themselves to be Celtic. DNA findings are interesting but totally irrelevant - they do not make you anything other than what you are. Possibly having Celtic ancestors 1500 years back doesnt make you Celtic anymore than it makes the French Gauls, the Spanish and Portugese Celtiberians etc etc. The issue is whether or not there is an existing demand to be recognised as such - which is what is required to justify your demand that England be included on a list of nations which actively claim the right to be recognised as Celtic - and this demand does not exist as you yourself admit. siarach 13:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not saying that. But whatever, you will eventually remove it so you may as well do it now. Why do you remove us from the population list aswell? you will try to take it eventually. Remove it, i am beyond giving a toss anymore. Gazh 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Gazh, look here. Lord Loxley 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As an Englishman I find this whole debate insane. It is true that recent genetic studies show that the English aren't genetically all that different from the Welsh and that Celtic languages were spoken in England. What I don't get is why people think that this means that we are Celts. The vast majority of English people rightly or wrongly identify Englishness as being of mixed heritage (including Celtic) or identify it with the Anglo-Saxons. Nowhere but in Cornwall would you find many people who considered themselves to be "Celtic" (if one excludes those of Irish / Scots / Welsh descent). I really don't wish to be labelled as Celtic not because there is anything wrong with "Celticness" but because that's not our identity. You might as well label us as being "Roman".GordyB 21:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In the field of "ethnic differences" (real or imaginary), current thinking is that culture is far more importance than genetics. So that if, as appears to be the case, many people in southern England have similar DNA to those in "Celtic countries", this is not of great relevance. To take another example, although the majority of Australians are of British descent, their culture is markedly different in some ways to that of Britain (or at any rate England). But this argument cuts both ways, implying that a second or third generation American or Australian, of Celtic origin, is more American/Australian than Celtic and rather damages notions of "celticity".

I am also wary of "ethnic cliché mongering". I've heard Scots described (in Australia) as heavy drinking trade union activists, and in America as dour, hard working Calvinists. To claim that there's "something intangible" is hardly encyclpedic. Millbanks (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You could argue that only a Celtic speaker is a modern Celt. Maybe that should be the definition, it doesn't have the problems that other definitions seem to have. Doug Weller (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That argument would exclude nearly all Scots, the majority of Irish and many Welsh people. Millbanks (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

so it would. The vast majority of these are fully Anglicized. There remain about 2 million "Celts" (speakers of Celtic languages) in Europe. This is certainly the base line definition. Add to that all sorts of fuzzy ideas of "Celtic culture" or "Celtic blood", with proper references. --dab (𒁳) 15:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Celts in UK Politics

The Prime Minister of the UK is a Scot. The last two leaders of the Liberal Democrats were Scots. The leader of the Tories is English by birth but has a Scottish father. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Scot. The Speaker of the House of Commons is a Scot. Queen Elizabeth II is more Scottish (through her mother) than English. Millbanks (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Also both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster are Celts; neither of the two CofE Archbishops is English; and none of the managers of the top four teams in the English Premiership are English]. Millbanks 22:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler was an Austrian, Stalin was a Georgian, Napoleon was a Corsican and Franco was a Galician. And? Brown is just a climber, he's no more interested in his native country than any of these people were.

Brown just a climber? Does that mean he's not a Celt? Come off it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.52.188 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

NB: The CofE is not established in any of the Celtic countries except Cornwall.

--MacRusgail 15:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a point for you to put to Gordon Brown. I couldn't possibly comment on it. I'm from Ireland, so it's hardly a big issue for me, but I gather that a large number of English people would like Scotland to be independent.

Re your NB, well that's an odd comment. Of course it's not! Why on earth should the Church of ENGLAND be the established church in Scotland, for example? As you know, the (established) Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, not Anglican. The (Anglican) Scottish Episcopal Church is not established. Neither are its two sister churches, the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales. Whether the fact that they're Anglican (rather than "Roman", or Presbyterian for that matter) makes them any less "Celtic" is arguable. Millbanks 22:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If the English people push us, many of us will be pulling... Many of the managers in the English premiership are foreigners. --MacRusgail 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, being from Ireland I'm to some extent "off line" in this discussion, but it seems to me that many English people feel as you do, that it would be better for the two nations to go their separate own ways. I say "many" because I'm not sure if that's the majority view in England or Scotland. Only a referendum would establish that. Perhaps I should say, referendums (or referenda), but you can be quite sure that no-one will ask the English what they think. This is not a place to give "POV", but it does seem that since Ireland has benefitted enormously from independence, so would Scotland. Whether England would is debatable, but I'm not sure that's not relevant to this discussion page. Millbanks 08:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to say the majority of under 30's in England would be in support of ending the act of Union, ofcourse i cannot source that as a fact. It is the opinion of myself that in order for the British countries (and Ireland) to more forward in identifing a 'common union' (or at least a aknowledgement of our similarities) we need to be seperate, it is only then that the non-English countries can put to bed alot of the negatives they have because of the union. I ofcourse could be wrong and they could cling to the 'historical atrocities' for hundreds of years? Something similar to the slavery issues of America's past. I'm not saying that those things are unimportant at all, but i think you will be able to understand what i mean. 82.22.131.140 12:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally off topic and let's not allow this to fall into discussion, but I could go along with what 82.22.131.140 just said. The North will be a long-standing issue in Ireland, but England/UK have fairly much washed their hands clean of it (in terms of responsibility and interest, in a postive way) and I for one am feeling OK about the British govt. (and people's) attitude towards it. An independent Scotland would shake a lot into the mix though. What would you be left with? The United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland? That's not going to last for too long! More power to the Scots but I'd like to see N.I. standing on firmer ground (and more pleasant towards - and integrated/cooperative with - the South) before throwing dice on the break-up of the UK. I do agree that, in the long term, it is the way forward and would lead to a happier relationships all round, including the Republic. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox and essentialism

I have two comments, partly in response to the anonymous suggestion that this page be scrapped as Original Research.

1. Wikipedia article names are case-sensitive except for the first letter of an article. When I penned the first draft of this article – a few years ago now, I think – I never intended to create a flashy new ethnonym, the "Modern Celt". I wrote that draft because the article on Celts was preoccupied with the ancient Celts, and I was interested in the post-18th century application of the term. Ancient people calling themselves Celtae/Κελτοι were exclusively continental; modern people calling themselves Celts are predominantly insular; there's also a temporal difference of a millennium or more – so these are really discrete categories. If it would avoid confusion, I'd suggest a move to Celts (modern).
2. The {{ethnic group}} infobox is really inappropriate for this page, because 'modern Celts' is not the name of an ethnic group; it's an umbrella term for several ethnic groups. As this talk page and its archives can attest, there's little agreement as to which ethnic groups count as Celtic.

I agree with Siarach that this article has partly fallen prey to POV-pushers who seem to want to use the article as a platform for publicizing various claims to 'Celticity'. On the other hand, I suppose that both sympathetic and critical attitudes towards Celtomanie must be described here.

We must be vigilant in keeping this and related articles on topic and avoid duplication. Celtic nations, Celts, and Pan-Celticism contain huge amounts of duplicated material. Let's divide the labour between these various articles, and use the {{main}} template and the briefest of introductory paragraphs to link to pages that deal with specialized topics in full. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with regards to the ethnic group infobox being totally inapropriate to this article. siarach 08:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I also fully agree, but would go further: I'd propose a merger of this article and the Celtic nations one. Having the two apart somehow invents some modern "ethnicity". (As for the infobox, that box is the source of no end of trouble anywhere that I've come across it. I don't know how, but I feel it needs a serious reworking across all articles, but certainly is not relevent here.) --sony-youth^pléigh 09:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. siarach 09:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, Sony-youth. Within the remit of the present article are the diasporas of Celtic countries and an assessment of the cultural meanings of 'Celtic' today. Do you think these subjects can fairly be handled in a Celtic nations article? Or should we choose a different article name? Best, Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of

"Elements of Celtic music, dance, and folklore can be found within England, and the Cumbric language survived until the collapse of the Kingdom of Strathclyde in about 1018. England as a whole comprises many distinct regions, and some of these regions, such as Cumbria and Devon , claim more Celtic heritage than others. Notably, although modern Cumbria has similar borders to the older kingdom of Rheged, it is an amalgation of Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire over sands and part of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and many Cumbrians still identify first with these older counties. [1]. Northumbria has taken the "Border check/tartan" also known as the "Shepherd's Tartan", [2], and rebranded it as "Northumbrian tartan". It is in fact known from the trans-Border region, and the earliest known example is from Falkirk and is known as the "Falkirk sett". Northumbria is also known for its melodic pipes."

I request the deletion of the above as it is not about a Celtic nation, and thus is quite irrelevant. YESYESandmanygoals 09:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Orkney and Shetland

Is it correct to include Shetland and Orkney in the "celtic world"? Inge 08:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really - but depends on your definition. Orkney is more Celtic than Shetland in some respects. --MacRusgail 17:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Glaring omission

A distinction between Celtic Countries and Celtic Fringes has not been made. In the case of Cornwall and Man, this no longer exists, but it does in the case of Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Western areas that still speak the language vs a greater area which generally doesn't.--MacRusgail 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your right, but I had always heard the phrase being used in terms of centre-and-periphery in the UK i.e. Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland being the "celtic fringe", or simply all non-English (and Channel Island) people on the islands that dare not speak their name. Kind of in the style (to recycle a quote I posted here before) of here:

... So-called ‘British’ histories were, until relatively recently, largely the histories of England and the English; the so called ‘Celtic’ nations of Scotland, Wales and Ireland were largely ignored, or where they were directly addressed, were largely problematised (Kearney, 1989;Colley, 1992). Likewise, as David McCrone observes of the early development of British sociology:

"British sociology simply accepted that ‘society’ was coterminous with the British state, unitary and highly centralised, driven by social change in the political and cultural heartland of southern Britain [i.e., England]. If there was a particular sociology of the ‘periphery’ – in Wales, Ireland and Scotland – it had to do with analysing a ‘traditional’, pre-capitalist way of life. It was judged to be the task of the sociologist of these parts merely to chart its decline and ultimate incorporation into ‘modern’ society, or so it seemed." (1992: 5)

This, of course, simply reminds the Welsh, Scots and other non-English peoples living in Britain that they continue to live in a multinational state dominated by the English (Connor, 1993; Crick, 1989, 1995; Miles, 1996). But it is further problematised by a second set of assumptions, about what it is to be English. The less contested, the more tacit, this identificatory category has been – or, more accurately, has been seen to be – the more it was an assumption that ‘the English’ were delimited as white, broadly Christian, and whatever was and is meant by ‘Anglo Saxon’ (perhaps it simply meant ‘not Celtic’). ...

The Gaeltacht, Gàidhealtachd and Y Fro Gymraeg would surely be better dealt with elsewhere - or at least I never thought of a person from a Gaeltacht being more "celtic" than I am. Saying otherwise, to me at least, smacks of 18th century English bigotry à la the Times quote during the Famine, "In a few years more a Celtic Irishman will be as rare in Connemara as is the Red Indian on the shores of Manhattan." --sony-youth^pléigh 22:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that the language fringe idea doesn't cover England at all. Since there is no current Celtic speaking area of England. Not even Cornwall, if you consider that English, because a community of speakers hasn't been properly re-established. --MacRusgail 10:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My point was does "celtic fringe" not mean Scotland, Wales, Ireland and (less often, if ever) the Isle of Man, usually as contrast against England, such as here? --sony-youth^pléigh 19:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about places where Celtic languages persist as indigenous languages e.g. Outer Hebrides, rather than brought in by migrants, e.g. as in Glasgow. --MacRusgail 13:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK - but is a resident of those places a "Modern Celt"? Or more of a modern celt that someone else? This is what I meant before ("The Gaeltacht, Gàidhealtachd and Y Fro Gymraeg ..."). Also, I've never heard of "Celtic Fringe" being used in that context, but that could just be me. Certainly worth mentioning somewhere though. Incidentally, is there stil support for a merge between Celtic nations and here? --sony-youth^pléigh 13:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no yes/no answer to this. I am using the term "Celtic Fringe" for a kind of fringe within fringer... Some would argue that the people from these areas have far more right to the Celtic label than many Dubliners, Edinburghers, Cornish, east Bretons etc who lost their Celtic language long ago. --MacRusgail 13:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Celtic Nations article uses Celtic Fringe to mean all the Celtic nations, which I think is plain wrong.--Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I hadn't realised that there were substantial numbers of Roman Catholics in north east Scotland (where the population is in any event fairly low). Can this claim be substantiated? As for the statement that Wales is primarily Christian or Atheist due to its close links with England, what on earth does this mean? I'd like to delete it. Millbanks (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "substantial". It's all relative. There are quite a few indigenous RCs (i.e. not of Irish origin) in Banffshire.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added 16%, being the figure given in the 2001 census. I have no figures for Banffshire, but I understand that in the northern part of the Outer Hebrides most people are Protestant, and in the south RC. Millbanks (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

UK

I don't known if UK must be considered parts of the modern celts but, a real facts is UK did face wars again almost any celts country (even Spain and Portugal). Even now, they still are "reigning" over celts territories (Scotland, Ireland and Gibraltar). So, it's not hard to say that UK is more a anti-celts country than any other state.

You can say the same with USA and Mexico, where currently USA share many mexican traditions (even paganism) but, at the same time, there are a anti-mexican "doctrine" on many states on USA. So, USA culture (current) can be considered as part (or root from) the Aztec-Hispanic culture?.200.73.30.108 (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me! What a remarkably obtuse comment. It's the sort of thing that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Thank you for your reply, TharkunColl. Millbanks (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The UK probably has more Celts in its population than any other state, and British culture has for a very long time been heavily influenced by that of the Celts (i.e. at least two and a half millennia). If that is anti-Celtic then I think you must have a rather strange definition of what "anti" means. And by the way, since when were Spain and Portugal Celtic countries? TharkunColl (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The UK also brought the Celts "Welsh Not" boards, and the equivalents, anti-Celtic language legislation and many other things. In no way can it be claimed to be a friend of them. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And more recently it has done everything it can to preserve those languages. Policies and attitides change, and the fact remains that Celtic culture has been one of the essential influences on modern British culture. Other influences also exist - Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and Norman, and all these are mixed in unequal and different proportions across the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

When were those 'Welsh Not' boards and anti-Celtic language legislation? I first came to the UK in 1970 and when visiting Wales was struck by how much of the Welsh language was in evidence.--Dougweller (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

perhaps in Cromwell's time? Some people are capable of remarkable effort when it comes to keeping a grudge alive... The Gaelic revival in any case was in full swing by the 1850s. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Gaelic revival in any case was in full swing by the 1850s."

And in Scotland the education act twenty years later, banned it from Scottish classrooms, for decades after that. You need to do your research. In Ireland, the revival came from the hedge schools--MacRusgail (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

we actually have a Welsh Not article. it appears this "institution" was in steep decline by 1888. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"d more recently it has done everything it can to preserve those languages." No it hasn't. Only Welsh has got anything much off the UK.--MacRusgail (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Glaring Omission -- Simon James

How can an article like this exist without discussing his ideas? http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/intro.htm Ok, Collis is mentioned, but no mention of Chris Snyder, Simon James, Chapman, etc. I don't see you you can write about Modern Celts without mentioning their ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

History of 'Celticity'

I've just seen the argument about the lack of reference for part of this section. I agree, a few days isn't anywhere near long enough. I can't find a Wiki article about how long. But the whole section needs references and it looks to me that this would be an opportunity to improve it.--Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sport

The article states that the, "Celtic link is claimed to come [inter alia] from sport". Isn't this rather a sweeping statement? What sports are we talking about? Soccer? It's played extensively in all Celtic countries. Rugby? There's a Celtic League and three of the four "Home Nations" are Celtic. Highland Games (rare outside Scotland)? Gaelic Games (rare outside Ireland)? Millbanks (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose things like shinty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.212.48 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Modern Celts?

I'd wondered if this article should contain a list of famous Modern Celts (or refer to a separate list which could merit an entry on its own). I mean there are lists of famous British Jews, Old Etonians, Irish Americans, etc. And the Celt list could be broken down into categories such as sport, religion, politics, entertainment and so on. But then I hesitated. Who would qualify? Presumably all famous Irish Americans/Australians, Scots, Welsh and Irish? And would it include renegades such as Gordon Brown, David Cameron, etc? Or people who don't fit the stereotype (if indeed there is one?). And Ian Paisley? Any ideas? Millbanks (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is feasible, or desirable, because the term is too fuzzy. --dab (𒁳) 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need a list of Modern Celts any more than we need a list of famous Latin Europeans, Slavs or (God forbid!) Indo-Europeans. Instead, we should have a list of famous Welshmen, Bretons etc., which we do.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

good similes :) dab (𒁳) 06:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

These are all well covered enough at the lists of individual nations.--MacRusgail (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Diaspora

There's another "glaring omission" in this article. What about the 36 million Irish Americans (plus five million in the USA who claim "Scots-Irish" descent)? Many of these people refer to themselves as "Irish", even "absolutely Irish", so presumably they are Celts? Add to that people of Celtic descent in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc and the number of Modern Celts is really quite great. Millbanks (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Which just shows how meaningless this is. I'm sure the vast majority don't speak a Celtic language. they are not (or at least not all) meaningfully Irish or Scottish, etc. dougweller (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We might have to admit that the driving force behind the notion of "Modern Celts" isn't the Gaeltacht but the nostalgia of "Irish Americans". It is also a major factor in the Irish and Scottish tourism industry. This is typical -- in my experience you tend to find ethnic nationalism mostly in people who are on the brink of losing their national identity, or past that brink, acting out of a diffuse sense of nostalgia. "Modern Celts" doesn't refer to an ethnic group, but to a diffuse sentiment within the Anglosphere of "Celtic" ancestors. --dab (𒁳) 08:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Language does not define ethnicity and the motivation is not relevant, if its noteworthy and citable then it should be in there. In that respect celtic dispora is no different from any other, if they keep up pipebands, create choirs (the Welsh in Sydney and elsewhere) then is another aspect of cultural mobility. --Snowded TALK 12:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In some cases it does, and in some it doesn't. I suggest you do your research before making such sweeping statements. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Are you really saying that celtic ethnicity is defined by language? I'm really doing my best to assume good faith here. --Snowded TALK 07:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Modern Celts" isn't an ethnicity, I don't think anyone claims that. It's a nostalgic sentiment, and a notion in pop culture. The actual modern Celtic ethnicities are the Gaels, the Welsh and the Bretons. --dab (𒁳) 17:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting division between "Gaels" and Welsh. Are the French wrong to call Wales pays de Galles? Millbanks (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But don't forget the 26,475 Gaels in the USA, nor the 6,470 in Canada, nor the Welsh in north America or Patagonia. Surely they're modern Celts? For what it's worth.....(I wonder if they play rugby?) Millbanks (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a grouping. Does it belong in the ethnic groups wikiproject though? Yes...--MacRusgail (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, one thing that is clear is that there was no Celtic ethnicity until the modern era. Even though all Celtic languages were probably mutually intelligible into the "Dark Ages", no-one ever had a collective term for them. Boudica and her kind were "Britones" (and variants), never "Galli" or "Keltoi". 'Tis purely a modern notion, and modern Gaels and Britonnic-speaking peoples do not speak languages any more mutually comprehensible than Swedish and English. Yet people use the term, so it is a term. Articles like this and its brothers (e.g. [modern] Germanic peoples) should be about the construct, they shouldn't pretend to be like zoological classifications. Fortunately, this one, kinda already is like that. Shame the others ain't like it. IMHO all ethnicity articles should be banned from wikipedia, as the inbuilt demographics and natural editing algorithms guarantee they'll be spurious nonsense doing little beyond wasting the time of good editors and misleading the more innocent reader. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the ideas of Polynesians, Europeans, Asians, Africans, Latins, Slavs etc are all fairly modern too.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the last two aren't, but Polynesian is probably a decent parallel in terms of the course of historical identification. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Pan-Slavism seems to have started in the 18th century, and peaked in the 19th. The main legacy seems to be in flag designs...I don't think there was any love lost between the Poles and Russians, particularly when the border of their Empires went back and forth... And of course, Serbs and Croats aren't that fond of one another either.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, there are tensions between the Scots and the Irish, under the pan-Celtic gloss, though possibly not in Dublin and Edinburgh rugby playing circles. Millbanks (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Slavs, MacRusgail, were a people in the Middle Ages. The language ancestral to the modern East West and South Slavonic dialect groups was just about always called Slavic even in the 12th century, so the Slavs were a real ethnic group and "Pan-Slavism" unlike Pan-Celtism can be seen as an attempted revival of an earlier ethnic identity that had only declined because of political and geographic separation in the later middle ages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

But in the end, Pan-Slavism was a Trojan Horse for Russian and Serbian imperial interests... Millbanks - there may well be tensions between the Scots and Irish, as there are between these two and the English. However, there's plenty of tension within these nations too - Scots have always fought one another. Infighting does seem to be a Leitmotif of the history of the groups termed "Modern Celts".--MacRusgail (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Part Celt

An interesting point has come up in another Wikipedia Discussion forum. An Irish American is claiming that being Irish is like being pregnant - you either are or you aren't. Now that begs the question: "can you be part Celt"? The poster in question is specifically saying that you can't be British and Irish (but presumably you can be American and Irish). However, I imagine that you can be British and Celtic. Indeed the original Britons were Celts. But can you be part English and part Celtic, for example? Or a Celtic Jew? Millbanks (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We have had these discussions over and over. I suggest you take them onto an internet forum somewhere. There are plenty of Celtic Jews. Have a look at the relevant webpages. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but isn't this an internet forum? Anyhow, you seem to be conceding that you can be part Celt, so we can leave it there. Millbanks (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia has no internet or discussion forums. This is a talk page to discuss improvements in the article on Modern Celts, not to discuss Modern Celts. See WP:NOTFORUM which says "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article". Thanks. dougweller (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, but we also have WP:RS -- "the relevant webpages" (47 hits) are irrelevant regarding the existence of "Celtic Jews". I am not saying they cannot exist in principle, it just appears that "Celtic Jew" isn't an identity embraced much by anyome. You can of course be of partly Celtic heritage, which in common parlance may be abbreviated to "partly Celtic", but in these questions it is essential to distinguish ancestry (diachrony) and actual identity (synchrony). They are not the same. As a Swiss, I do not have an "Urnfield identity" even though, of course, significantly descended from Urnfield people (as from Cro Magnon, Corded Ware, Beaker and what have you), nor, indeed, a pronouncedly "Celtic", "Gaulish" or "Helvetian" one. I am saying this because fuzzy conflation of diachrony and synchrony is a very, very common fallacy in any debate involving ethnic nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've known one or two Scots who consider themselves Celtic and Jewish by background, but that's another matter. But again, we can't have endless discussion on the same bloody stuff - take it to yahoo groups, a web forum, or somewhere like that. --MacRusgail (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Come now, MacRusgail. You are the leading light in these discussions; indeed, for all I know, you are the creator of the article. But it's all fairly intangible, and you have to face some fairly awkward questions. Simply to use the tack, "sorry, but this isn't a discussion forum" smacks of a cop out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.52.124 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't a discussion forum. Does anyone have any intention of creating a section in the article on whether or not you can be part Celt? If so, I'd caution against it, since I can't imagine it being much more than opinion and OR. If not, then this is not the place for the discussion. Let's put a stop to it now. garik (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye, but how aboot having a wee bit on Black Celts? I see that Caleb Folan is playing for Ireland tonight.

And how about the Coatbridge born Chris Iwelumo?Millbanks (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that's more relevant. The answer to that one is that I reckon that any such section will be irredeemably POV whether it's coming from. Anyway, I've answered enough "awkward questions" - several times - let's not have our own wee Groundhog Day of Circular Discussion, take it somewhere else. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It might not be a discussion forum, but it says at the top, "discussion". I'm not good at semantics. Anyhow, if you can't define a Celt, what's the point of having an article on "Modern Celts". Isn't it all POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.52.84 (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

hello? we are looking into the question whether it would make sense to add material on "partial Celts", "Jewish Celts" or "Black Celts" to the article. That's perfectly within WP:TALK, and the constant interruptions to the effect of "bugger off" aren't really helping in keeping this focussed. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Read it more closely - this header should have been on here months ago - "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Modern Celts article. [snip] This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Pretty self-explanatory... --MacRusgail (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving the article. Add a paragraph on Partial Celts, Jewish Celts and Black Celts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.52.188 (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The North of Ireland

Another faulty entry I'm afraid: "Nationalists in Northern Ireland sought an end to endemic discrimination with the Civil Rights Movement." But hold on. They weren't discriminated against because they were "Celts", but because they were Roman Catholic. And the people who discriminated against them (albeit with the British turning a blind eye)? The Northern Irish Protestants. That's certainly the view of Tim Pat Coogan, a Celt, in his book "The Troubles". Now of course, you might try to claim that the Protestants are "English". But aren't they Ulster Scots, or Scots Irish? And surely that makes them very Celtic, even if some might claim not to be. I fear there's been yet more woolly thinking, and I suggest that that bit's deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.34.40 (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the (Presbyterian) majority of Ulster Protestants are of Scottish origin, but certainly there are also quite a few with English forebears, eg David Trimble. Millbanks (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

They are a clear mix of the three, although with much more Irish input than they'd like to admit. Gerry Adams has English forebears too. --MacRusgail (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

James H Webb

I'm not sure that this reference adds much to the article, and I think that it should be deleted. "Celtic traits" smacks of ethnic cliché mongering. And the reference to "British atrocities" sidesteps the fact that the majority of Celts are British. As for "military readiness", well, yes, but this is exemplified in the remarkable bravery and contribution of Scottish and Irish regiments in the British army. I suggest that the paragraph is deleted. Generally I'm unhappy with the implication that to be a "real" Modern Celt you have to be a nationalist. Personally, if I lived in Scotland, I'd probably vote for independence, but were I to have a different point of view, that would not make me "less Celtic".Millbanks (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am having difficulty finding what you are referencing here. Can you be more specific? --Snowded TALK 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the final paragraph of the bit entitled "Modern 'Celticity' ". Meanwhile someone has been quick to delete my caveat about sport and music, where I argue a contrary case to what is asserted in the article. There is no point in there being an article which purports to be encyclopedic if it is allowed to be one-sided, and I will reinsert the uncomfortable points tomorrow. Millbanks (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My comments have yet again been deleted. I've taken the matter further. Millbanks (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just spent some time trying to figure out where your comments were deleted, and now realise that you think that edits to an article are 'comments'. Sometimes it looks like they are, sometimes they are, but of course they never should be comments because Wikipedia is not supposed to report our ideas or opinions or even knowledge, but what reliable sources (see WP:RS say. And we call adding text to articles making 'edits'. You can see an edit history by clicking on the edit tab at the top of the article.

Now -- when you edit, just below the window you type in there is a line that starts Edit summary and has a space in which you should always put a short explanation of what you are doing. If you don't, someone might delete your edit just because of that. If you add unsourced material even to an article with a lot of other unsourced material, someone may delete your edit because it has no source. If it is impossible to verify your source, it might be deleted - again, when you are editing, look a couple of lines below the edit window where it says 'Encyclopedic content must be verifiable' - you can click on verifiable to see what that means. dougweller (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried again. It's fairly easy to demonstrate that bagpipes are not exclusively Celtic. I can produce evidence, and will. And I've heard them played in Greece. As for sport, that's harder. But we all know that whereas soccer and, apparently, rugby, are played in all "Celtic" countries, shinty, hurling Gaelic football etc are not. However, it is clear that someone here is trying to produce a nationalistic, pan-celtic article. Fair enough. But simply deleting verifiable and obvious (uncomfortable) truths is really not good enough, surely?

No one is in any way claiming that these things are exclusively celtic, what is the point of their inclusions? --Snowded TALK 09:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Snowded. That's really my point. But if you look at the article, it says that the "Celtic link is claimed mainly to come from:...sport...music". I'm trying to qualify this, but my comments have now been deleted for a third time. We could, of course, simply delete sport and music from the original list, but I've found out who the deleter is (no prizes for guessing who) and rather than have an edit war I'm contacting him direct. Incidentally, as a member of the Church of Ireland, I'm pleased to tell you (as a Welsh Roman Catholic) that he claims we have "certain religious practices" in common. Of course we do - very many. But I don't think that any of them are specifically Celtic. Millbanks (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OK I made a much simpler edit to remove the issue. Please indent your comments by the way, I did the last one for you so you have an example. --Snowded TALK 15:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In the next few days I'll be inserting into the article sourced and referenced pieces about the role of Celts in the formation and development of the British Empire. And Celts in UK politics. Counter comments, if verifiable, will be welcomed. Comments like "Gordon Brown is an opportunist" (ergo he is not a Celt), or similar ones (for example about Lloyd George), will be less appreciated. Millbanks (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm making progress with Celts in UK politics. Prime Ministers will include Bonar Law, who was born in Canada, but to Scots and Scots Irish parents and grew up in Scotland. It will not include Harold Macmillan, even though he had a Scottish grandfather. But should it include Michael Howard, a former Leader of the Opposition, Llanelli born and bred, but not Welsh by parentage? Any comments? Millbanks (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Michael Howard, as requested: Can't see anyone, least of all Mr Howard, being convinced that Michael Howard is a Celt. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't stick here either. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've omitted him. Bonar Law, by the way was born in Canada, but of Scots and Scots Irish parentage, and brought up in Scotland. (Note that I've learnt to indent - thanks, Snowded!) Millbanks (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

British Empire

Perhaps the article ought to include those Modern Celts so prominent in the British Empire? Mungo Park, Lachlan Macquarie, Lord Dalhousie, Sir Thomas Makdougall Brisbane, John A Macdonald, and, I presume, Dr Livingstone, spring to mind. Millbanks (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is already covered under Nova Scotia etc. Without a corresponding note about the French Empire, it would be one sided.

And of course you're probably unaware that Scottish mercenaries were to be found in every major European army at one point, along with the Swiss.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. I have a degree in Modern History. Millbanks (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thinking further about your comment, I'm not sure quite what point you are trying to make. If you're suggesting that the article should include something about Modern Celts as mercenaries, fair enough. But perhaps you are suggesting that Scottish soldiers served in the army in a purely mercenary capacity, and would have fought for other countries had the pay been better. If that's so, I suspect that many of the brave officers and men of the Scottish regiments might demur. Millbanks (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that the history of these countries/nations doesn't revolve exclusively round England or the British state - or indeed fighting either of them. Where's your material on the extensive Scottish settlement in Poland and Paris, or South America, or the role played by Bretons in the French Empire for that matter?--MacRusgail (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Achievements

I'm working on an addition to the article covering the enormous contribution Modern Celts have made to poetry and literature. But perhaps we ought to have a paragraph or two about music? And art? I'm not really equipped to write these, so can anyone help, please? As for sport, well, the only sport I follow is soccer, and in any event modern celtic achievements in sport are such that we could have separate articles on Celts in just about every sport, including tennis and cricket.

I will not, incidentally, be including "absolutely Irish" American writers, any more than I would describe John F Kennedy, let alone Bill Clinton, as "an Irish politician". Millbanks (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

These are already covered in various articles - links will suffice. I take it you won't be including Breton contributions to these areas though.

I also note that you only include writers in English - true Celtic literature is written in its languages. And I don't mean English and Lallans.

--MacRusgail (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of the greatest celtic literature has been written in English, to say true celtic literature is written in its languages would be to deny that all mediaeval literature written in Latin. Think of Yeats, the Anglo-welsh poets such as Dylan Thomas and RS Thomas. Lets not be parochial here. --Snowded TALK 16:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How can "Celtic literature" be written in a language other than a Celtic one? Celtic is a linguistic term. ðarkuncoll 17:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Was that you being provocative Tharky? I find it difficult to believe that you would define a culture by language alone. --Snowded TALK 17:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Celtic" is a linguistic term. It is meaningless in any other context. ðarkuncoll 18:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that is a nonsense. You would have to produce evidence to support that view given that the field of literature (to take one example) talks about anglo-irish and anglo-welsh literature. The majority of people in the celtic nations do not speak their original language (in part because it was beaten out of them, literally in some cases) but they are still distinct cultures. --Snowded TALK 18:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact, if true, that it was beaten out of them is completely irrelevant - they don't speak a Celtic language, therefore aren't Celts. And you have just proved my point by referring to "Anglo-Irish" and "Anglo-Welsh" - i.e., the reference here is to Ireland and Wales, not "Celts". ðarkuncoll 18:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Its an interesting world you live in Tharky, must be strange at times. --Snowded TALK 10:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Talking of parochialism, why are all the writers mentioned English language ones? There are many noted Breton writers who have used French such as Pêr-Jakez Helias. Probably for the same reason that the new edits only mention people successful in the British Empire.

Anyway, it is disputable enough how far the "modern Celts" are Celtic when they don't know Celtic languages. Scots, Bretons and Irish get the "Celtic" tag by virtue of the Celtic language which survives amongst them, but some would take that further still, and place it only on users of those languages.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Alan Heusaff

At the risk of adding to my unpopularity, I feel I need to alert you to another aspect of this subject. In order to increase my knowledge, I looked up Pan-Celticism here. This led me to Alan Heusaff. He was a Breton nationalist. Well and good. But during the War he was involved with Breton fighters who were on the side of the Nazis and opposed the French resistance. At the end of the War he was smuggled out of France with the help of Plaid Cymru members, and went to Ireland, where he lived happily ever after, but still supported a holocaust denier. Now I know that various Nazi supporters did flee to Ireland (and that's a bit embarrassing). I also know that the vast majority of Modern Celts were anti-Nazi, and many died fighting them. However, I find this Breton/Welsh/Irish Nazi link uncomfortable. And my point is, is it significant enough to be included in the article? Millbanks (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting. Not sure if it's notable or not. If it is included it should be noted that this isn't indicative of Celts in general and must be supported by reliable references. But is is a good example that no group is wholly good or wholly bad. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as always. Having researched it a bit further, I think it probably does need to be mentioned. The article on Yann Goulet gave me great concern, and Eoghan Harris's comment in the Irish Independent says it all. You are of course quite right to state that no group is wholly good or bad, and an insertion about this in the article should help it become more balanced. There are plenty of sources. Millbanks (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlike you, I actually met Alan Heusaff once. He certainly did not come across as a Nazi. Some Breton nationalists collaborated, as they were promised their own state, as did many other people in the French state. Some of these were out and out Breton Fascists, but others were doing a deal with the Devil.

However, after the war, the French establishment used this as a stick to beat all Breton nationalists with. Many collaborators from other parts were left alone. For example, the relationship between Mitterrand and the far right is a controversial one, but he became president. By the way, there was no such thing as the French resistance - there were in fact a number of resistance groups - notably the Communists had one which acted independently. There were also Breton anti-Nazi groups.

But as Daicaregos says this is just about one man and the article is not about him.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was about one man. Initially. But having researched further, there were a lot more Modern Celts involved than just M Heusaff, and not only in the War. Did you read the article by Eoghan Harris, a Modern Celt? Millbanks (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody speaks of Alan Heussaff. Why nowhere is quoted another Alan, totally positive, Alan Stivell. He (a true democrat) has been for a consequent part responsible of what we can call the modern Celtic movement and conscienceness. Or perhaps here people are not aware of the influence of Music stars.

Another observation: When some scholar rejects the name "Celts" for peoples from Far-west Europe, they should propose an alternative name for what everybody call modern Celts. As they don't do it, it is perhaps because they don't like Irish, Scots, Welsh and Breton to come back to a certain unity, perhaps "dangerous" for the dominant English and French powers. Special:Contributions/82.126.37.93|82.126.37.93]] (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dealing first with your second paragraph, how about "Gaels"? (Though how you manage to translate a matter of nomenclature into yet more anti-Anglo/French paranoia and conspiracy theories, I'm not sure). My second point is that you'll see under "Achievements" above that I've suggested a paragraph about music. Perhaps you could write this, including a reference to Alan Stivell? Millbanks (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. I will try to write an article about the musical movement. Remember that it's not only music but social influence, much more important than Alan Heussaff, etc. 81.48.173.148 (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge necessary

Strongly support merging data with Celtic_nations article. Ledenierhomme (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur, suggest you formally propose --Snowded TALK 03:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

it has been proposed for ages, I think this is the right time for someone to finally sit down and do it properly. --dab (𒁳) 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's been proposed for ages, by all of two or three people. Strongly oppose - not the same thing. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Listing living people as Celts

Like any ethnic listing, I think that we should only list those where we have reliable sources that the subjects identify as Celts. As you might guess, I'm also unhappy with the bit in the lead "have been considered by others". Would we do the same for an article on modern Jews? Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sexiness of being "Celtic"

This article needs to elucidate why everyone seems to implicitly agree that it "Celticity" is a desirable label. The edit wars on this page illustrate the same fundamental consensus. Why do the "Celts" have such a good press? In the early modern period, they were regarded as illiterate semi-civilized peasants. The current good press of "the Celts" is obviously a result of Romanticism, but appears to have been taken to new heights by the New Age boom. The hugely positive connotations of the ethnonym in the popular mainstream need some explanation -- I'd be grateful to be pointed to studies on this. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

googling, I find these promising references [3] [4] [5]

-- noting for possible future use. dab (𒁳) 11:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, romanticism. The ethos of the enlightened imperialist age has been killed, leaving love of things Celtic as the archaeology of the earlier Teutonic-Celtic (reason versus spirit) dualism. This allied nationalism, heritage-yearning and nostalgia. Murray Pittock's Celtic Identity and the British Image is a very good study of how such things developed in the British Isles. If you've never read anything on the topic before Simon James' The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention? is kinda alright too, but not mainstream in many of its opinions. The neo-pagan druid stuff is more like the bi-product of this than the cause, so studying the roots of that will be doing it the long way. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)

I'm just amused how this Romantic idealization shapes Wikipedia edit-wars in 2008. Edits such as this one clearly seem to show someone begrudging the English the honour of "Celticity" rather than an English patriot insulted by the attempts to lump England under the "Celtic nations" :) dab (𒁳) 11:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cumbria doesn't show much sign of being a nation. In fact, what we call "Cumbria" now, just like "Strathclyde Region", "Dyfed Region" etc has not too much to do with the original of the same name. It is a council area cobbled together a few decades ago. Most people in the area do NOT identify with it - they're resolutely from Cumberland, Westmorland or Lancashire. Not "Cumbria".--MacRusgail (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For me, it's not a matter of whether the Modern "Celts" exist - they do, in my opinion - so much as whether they have much connection with the Ancient Celts. These are two different issues.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The odd thing though, is that this modern celtism is mostly judged upon a population participating in acts that derive from the ancient Celts - which is? Apart from having an active language more recent than other places i really fail to see why some places are and some arn't classed as Celtic. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Language, folk music, art styles, religious practices, quite a few other things. The Gaelic cultures have quite a bit in common, for example. --MacRusgail (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm..."religious practices". What are you thinking of? Millbanks (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice you've ducked that question, MacRusgail. I can't think that Scots Presbyterians and Irish Roman Catholics have many religious practices in common. Mind you all Celts except Bretons speak the same language. It's called English. And soccer (an English game) is played extensively in all Celtic countries, as is rugby (an English game) except in Brittany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.71.161 (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"I notice you've ducked that question, MacRusgail." - No I haven't. I just couldn't find it in these reams and reams of text here. In answer to your comments - English language yes, but it doesn't make them Celtic... rugby is played in Brittany - did you not watch the last World Cup? Some of the games were played there. The origins of rugby are questionable - like any other sport. One thing is for sure, England may have codified it, but Web Ellis did not invent it. Religious practices - you are a fool if you think that all Scots are Presbyterian. Even Protestants keep a few pre-reformation foibles and superstitions... These are retained in placenames, and a few surviving customs. --MacRusgail (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so rugby is played in Brittany. Fine by me. But are you trying to claim it's a Celtic game? No, I don't think that all Scots are Presbyterian. But are you trying to claim that Roman Catholicism is somehow more Celtic than Presbyterianism? And are the "few pre-reformation foibles and superstitions" (which you do not exemplify) spread throughout the "Celtic nations"?

But arn't these just revived acts? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC) ps. i mean in regards to whole countries, Scotland for example.

Actually, it's not just modern romanticism. Roman writers somewhat romanticised the Britons — there was a very strong sense that many saw them as noble savages, exemplifying a purer sort of life, as they imagined they themselves had once lived, before the weakening effects of civilisation. That said, I'm not sure their view of the Celti was the same as their view of the Britons. garik (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm right in saying that when the Romans left Britain in 410 AD, they abandoned a country with quite a developed Romano-British culture, which was destroyed by the invading Anglo-Saxons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.71.161 (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well i think in reference to this article is it certainly modern romanticism and even if the musings of a few mead influenced Romans did stray towards the yearning for the simpler life, i think it has little influence today with the Celts being uber-cool. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably got very little directly to do with modern attitudes, but I think it's an expression of a similar yearning. garik (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not all "revived". Some of them never died to begin with. (The only time I've ever touched mead was in England.) People here went to ceilidhs, spoke the language, sung folk songs etc with or without a revival. In some cases, they're on their last legs, but they never went away. However, there is a great deal of hypocrisy about these things.

The "Celtic" image is not trendy at all. In fact, it's disparaged all over the Scottish press and elsewhere. The only people who seem to think that it is, are a bunch of New Agers, and their idea of Celticity has nothing to do with what's on the ground here. It was never a simple life, in fact, it was pretty bloody hellish.

The Romans never really romanticised their neighbours and/or subject peoples. They saw most of them as brutes who were continually attacking them or rising against them. Personally I wish that there was another tag for the peoples of the six Celtic speaking countries. It would avoid this rubbish. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC) p.s. I'm sick of having the same discussion over and over. Can't you people read the archives of this talk page?

You should read Tacitus. The point of the "simple life" yearned after by some Romans and many new agers is that it's romanticised — as you say, the reality was considerably more hellish. But I agree. This discussion adds nothing to the article. garik (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

":You should read Tacitus." - actually I have. Decades ago. Still on my bookshelf. Nonetheless a very biased source.--MacRusgail (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, MacRusgail, the question is, why are the Gaelic and Welsh cultures (which doubtlessly exist) dubbed "Celtic" rather than just "Gaelic" and "Welsh"? After all, isn't this like calling the Arabs "Semites", or the French "Italics", or the English "Germanics"? The point is that "Celtic" refers to a linguistic phylum, which has not corresponded to a single people since the Early Iron Age. Since the de-facto "Celtic" cultures comprise Gaelic and Welsh (or rather "Brythonic", so as to include Breton) culture, the question is also, does it make sense to group the two? Is there something like a single "Goidelo-Brythonic" cultural unity? If there is, it may make sense to call it "Celtic", strictly as a shorthand for "Insular Celtic". --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

They are generally dubbed just Gaelic and Welsh. I don't believe "Celtic" is entirely satisfactory, but then again "European", and/or "British" aren't exactly so either. Until someone comes up with a better term, I'll stick with it. It reminds me of the people who complain about the left-right political spectrum, and don't come up with anything better.

"Is there something like a single "Goidelo-Brythonic" cultural unity?" - how strong does "unity" have to be? There are levels of unity and disunity. This goes for just about anything - it's all relative. There are certain grammatical, societal, musical and even religious similarities. It is much easier for a Welsh speaker to learn Gaelic than someone who speaks only French.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

um, there is "Gaelic" and "Welsh" already, so I'm not sure how you argue there are no "better" terms than "Celtic". But, sure, you are right, they are called "Celtic", correctly or incorrectly, we just have to document de facto usage. dab (𒁳) 20:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Welsh doesn't cover anything but the culture of Wales, and Gaelic doesn't cover Welsh... (Although occasionally someone will talk of Welsh Gaelic. A websearch for this phrase reveals just how common it is.)--MacRusgail (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy it, Scotland is a Celtic nation because a very small minority up there in the sticks have managed to retain a few aspects?

And you can't say this modern celtism isn't massively trendy, in say; London, it's common to see someone have a celtic tribal tattoo in honour of their great-great-great-grandparent from (insert celtic nation) and ofcourse you know they'll be playing Irish folk song before a night out on the town where they'll be drinking Drambuie, and ofcourse all the tops in his closet will be a shade of green. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, there are regional cultures, these are Welsh, Manx, Irish, Scottish Highlands, what have you. And there is trendy "Celtic" stuff, such as tribal tattoos, Neo-Druidism, solstice at Stonehenge, etc. The two do not seem to have anything in common. You do not make clear why the Welsh shouldn't just be considered "Welsh", the Scottish Highlanders "Scottish Highlanders" and the hippie Neo-Celts "Neo-Celts". --dab (𒁳) 07:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And how about those Celts of the Shetlands, who still retain their traditional language (derived from Norse)? In fact, whilst I agree with all the above comments about Romanticism being responsible for the trendiness of the modern "Celts", I think another, even more recent cultural phenomenon is at play - victim mentality. It's so, so much better to be part of an oppressed minority - especially if you don't actually have to be oppressed. ðarkuncoll 07:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Celts of the Shetlands"? You mean "Vikings", I suppose? How does "retaining a Norse language" make you a "Celt"?? Not that they do retain it, mind you, Norn has been extinct for a hundred years. So there, calling the Irish or Welsh "Celts" is about as sensible as calling the Shetlanders "Vikings". Your point on victim mentality is duly noted. You'll find lots of that in the {{Religious persecution}} articles. Some people seem to be founding religions with the sole purpose so they can be a persecuted minority. --dab (𒁳) 07:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed - I was being ironic when I mentioned the "Celts" of the Shetlands. They're Scottish, so they must be Celtic, according to the definition given in this article. ðarkuncoll 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't consider the Shetland Islands to be Scottish, and neither do some of the people who live there... They have the same relationship to Scotland that Cornwall does to England. But like England, Iceland, the Faroes etc, there is some Celtic influence on them. In fact, England is more Celtic than Shetland in many ways...--MacRusgail (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But the ancient Celtic linguistic and cultural influences on England have nothing to do with the Modern Celts, who are defined in opposition to England. ðarkuncoll 11:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes they usually are. Work it out. Breton identity has little or nothing to do with England anyway.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry Tharkun -- I am usually able to spot irony. Oh well. MacRusgail, the entire point is that Breton identity is Breton, not "Celtic". "Celtic identity" is a construct by Romanticists and Hippies, not by the rural populations themselves. --dab (𒁳) 20:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point entirely (by a mile). Of course they are Breton - no one but a complete cretin would claim otherwise.

"not by the rural populations themselves"

Funny, George Buchanan came from a "rural population", but I doubt you've factored this in. The irony is that British identity is a complete construct as well, by Romantics and imperialists, but being a majority culture, we don't see people like yourself trying to deconstruct it all the time. Hypocritical, non?--MacRusgail (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

it turns out I am not so much "missing the point" but disagreeing with your position. So British identity is a modern construct. Whoever claimed it wasn't? There is no need to even deconstruct it because nobody tries to imply British identity is somehow derived from the ancient Britons. "British" is just a nationality. Very much unlike "Celtic", which not only clearly isn't a nationality (do you have a "Celtic passport"?), it is also touted as an ethnic identity. dab (𒁳) 15:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

British identity isn't constantly discussed and deconstructed in the way that the issue is here.

"nobody tries to imply British identity is somehow derived from the ancient Britons."

Have you actually read what I said? I say that the issue of so called "modern Celts" and the issue of their connection to the ancient ones are two separate issues. However, your statement is utterly wrong. Britishness has roped in the likes of King Arthur etc for a long time. Television and media invariably speak as if there has been some kind of Britishness going back at least a thousand years or more. "Britain has not been invaded since 1066" etc.

I don't think anyone calls "Celtic" a nationality. It's seen more in the line of "Nordic", as in "Nordic Council" rather than the more sinister connotations. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, this discussion has become futile now. Be a Celt, then: as we note above, it's sexy :) --dab (𒁳) 16:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how it's "sexy". If there's anything to get an anglified Scottish journalist upset, it's the "C- word", as they call it. And I don't mean "sunt".--MacRusgail (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few problems with this article. I get very worried by ethnic clichés. Are we trying to portray the Celts as heavy drinking singers? Or dour Calvinists? Or Roman Catholic rugby players? Or nationalists? Or Unionists? Or perhaps they all have "something intangible" in common? It's interesting too that the Oirish brigade are trying to claim Peter O'Toole and Shane MacGowan, but reject Chris de Burgh. Now why should that be?

Meanwhile Gordon Brown is portrayed as some kind of traitor because he's not a nationalist. But does that stop him being a modern Celt? And what about David Cameron with a Scottish father and a good Scots name that. Perhaps he's eliminated though because he was at Eton? Millbanks (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Brown is an opportunist. Enough said. Who rejects Chris De Burgh? (There are grounds of musical good taste on which to reject him, but that's by the by.)--MacRusgail (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Does being an opportunist debar him from being a Celt? And have a look at the Discussion bit on Chris de Burgh in comparison to that on Peter O'Toole and Shane MacGowan. You'll get my drift.Millbanks (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, bug I often get the feeling that Brown is sheepish about his Scottishness. He can't exactly hide it though.--MacRusgail (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not when there are articles like this[6] around. Not sheepish, more, as you said, opportunist.--62.163.131.85 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)