Jump to content

Talk:Celtic nations/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Celtic in NW Iberian peninsula

Many studies and historical references are contrary to your post that show there were Celtic languages used in NW Iberia and up to and after Roman times. Please refer to the sterling work done by Koch, Guerra and Wodtko in the peer-reviewed publication Celtic from the West as one instance.Jembana (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that Celtic languages were spoken in two thirds of the Iberian Peninsula at one time. For anyone to claim that Celtic languages were not spoken there is simply ludicrous. The historical record is most clear. London Hawk (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, wholeheartedly - at least we have a consensus on this.Jembana (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Tricolour flag and the Irish Free State

At least one user, (Night of the Big Wind) keeps inserting in the tricolour footnote that the Golden Harp on Green background was the flag of the Irish Free State. Please desist from stating that. It is completely untrue. The Golden Harp was NEVER used as the flag of the IFS. The tricolour (as a flag, though the use of the colours and their meaning can be dated even further back) was first seen (in so far as can be referenced) in 1848 when it was presented as a gift to Thomas Meagher from Waterford. It did not become popular until the Easter Rising in 1916 when it was adopted by Irish nationalists. Subsequently it was officially adopted by the Irish Republic in 1919. When the Free State came into being in 1922 the tricolour was again adopted (with much opposition from radical nationalists who "regarded the tricolour as the flag of the self-proclaimed Irish Republic, and condemned its appropriation by the new state") "to forestall its use by republican element and avoid legislative regulation", although it was not legally enshrined until the 1937 constitution came into force. ‣Mac Tíre Cowag 09:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and other concerns

Are there any academic sources which refer to the 'Celtic Nations' and group them together in the way this article has done? It may be a viewpont held by a small minority of non-academics, but such things have no place on Wikipedia. Im afraid this article reads too much like original research, there are better articles on these parts of the world, as well as Celtic history and languages.JacksonKnight (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"...such things have no place on Wikipedia". Yes they do, if they are supported by reliable sources - not necessarily "academic" sources. The article gives, at the last count, 77 different sources for its information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
1. There may be 77 different sources of information, but combining infomation from multiple sources, then advancing a position not explicitly stated by any of the sources is the very definition of original research. Look no further than the very long discussion above on which flags to use to discover the mindset of the creators of the article - they are essentially just making it up as they go along. The result is a dull essay borrowing information from better articles. No good information directly supports the material as presented, which is a breach of Wikipedia's editing policy.
2. The whole pretence of this article (the "six territories") relies on information from a tiny pressure group with a website. There are no commonly accepted reference texts with such information. Giving undue weight is not a neutral style and in breach of Wikipedia's editing policy.
3. I therefore think that this article should be merged with an article on modern Celtic nationalism. JacksonKnight (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
JacksonKnight, could I suggest you look around a little before you start off with such a grand move? There have been various debates on the topic on this talk page and various associated ones and I think you would benefit from having a shufty first. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Jackson, your argument that no reliable sources discuss this topic as such isn't correct. The cited Celtic Culture encyclopedia contains an entry on the "Celtic countries", discussing the six regions where Celtic languages are either still spoken or were spoken into the modern era; various other entries in the work refer back to this definition as well. The article does need work and often suffers from unnecessary romantic tampering, but the topic itself is legit.--Cúchullain t/c 20:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder and ask myself what are the "cultural traits" that would be Celtic, I mean common in all the "Celtic nations" and typical of them that the others non-celtic would not share ??? I do not read any answer, except those traits artifically featured in the 19th 20th century for political reasons. I would like to add another thing : Brittany is not a Celtic nation, because a part of it always spoke a romance language and another part was bilingual until the Breton language was definitly lost in the 10th 11th century. "Celtic nation" is a miserable ideology, like a empty cask, without any meaning like Germanic nation or Latin nation.Nortmannus (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So Breton died-out and was revived? This is news to me. Hav you eny evidence to support this extraordinary claim? ~Asarlaí 19:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Brittany is a Celtic nation because it is included in the category by the groups that determine that fact. The fact that Gallo and standard French were always spoken in some parts of the Duchy is largely irrelevant. English was always spoken in "Scotland", or at least as far back as it becomes clearly defined as a "kingdom". That goes for "Wales" and "Cornwall" too. In any case, the borders of what constitutes all these areas have constantly shifted, with the possible exception of Ireland if it is defined as a land-mass rather than a polity. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Wales did not speak English when it was an independent country.GordyB (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't be daft. "Wales", just like "England", is a construct. The name was simply a term for territory occupied by "foreigners" from an Anglo-Saxon point of view. It then became a recognised principality with distinct territory. At no point was it exclusively Brythonic in language, any more than Brittany was. Paul B (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
It was a united construct before the Normans invaded in the 11th century and it was no more English speaking than it was Irish or French speaking up to that point.GordyB (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
It was not "united", and of course most people didn't speak English. No one is saying that most people did. You don't seem to quite get the point at issue. In order to be defined as a "Celtic nation" there does not have to be a defined territory in which 100% of the population speak a Celtic language. Nortmannus seemed to be saying that this should be a requirement, and quite arbitrarily picked out Brittany as non-Celtic in this sense. Paul B (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
In terms of linguistics, the "Celtic nations" are just the territories where a Celtic language is spoken, or was spoken until the modern era. It doesn't particularly matter if other languages were spoken in the same area, especially where people are bilingual (which is virtually all Celtic-speakers today). Otherwise, all we can do is report what various sources claim the "Celtic nations" to be, which is what we're doing.--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Asarlaí, I am sorry I did not express myself very well, I am not a native English speaker (if you did not notice it, LOL). I mean Britanny (the former duchy of Britanny, not the modern region Britanny that excludes the region of Nantes) was divided into three parts concerning the use of Breton language 1/ in the eastern part of Britanny (around Rennes to the east around Fougères) : Breton was never spoken and in the southwestern part of Britanny (around Nantes) : Breton was never spoken too. It is significant that the two capital cities of Britanny never spoke Breton as a vernacular language. People of Gallo speaking part of Britanny used to call "the Bretons" people from the western part of Britanny. 2/ a significant region between Rennes and Loudéac to the south was never monolingual Breton, on the contrary the Breton language used by some communities and villages disappeared around the 10th. 3/ a monolingual breton speaking region until the first world war, except the main cities of this part. Paul : Most Breton people of gallo origin don't want to hear anything about such Celtic stuffs : you should visit the French wikipedia to notice that : some extremists try to write Breton names of Gallo cities, that are suppressed by others, etc. and I can add that a large part of the former native Breton speakers do not want to hear about that too. So a Celtic nation without "national" unity, without "national" feeling, what does it mean ? I repeat it (sorry that is the old age) what is specifically "Celtic" in a Celtic nation ? Certainly not the building of fana. Concerning these fana, strangely there is no article (as far as I know) about these typical Celto-Latin temples in the English Wikipedia. See for example fr:Fanum or de:Gallo-römischer Umgangstempel, there were such temples in Great-Britain too.Nortmannus (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
You are repeating a point that has already been dealt with. I'm sure many people here are aware of the history of the loth line. It's as completely irrelevant as the fact that the lowlands of Scotland have been English speaking ever since the borders of the kingdom of Scotland were defined. "Brittany" originally simply meant the territory of the Britons/Bretons in Armorica, just as "Wales" meant the territory of the Britons in Britain. As soon as it became a clearly defined Duchy with definite borders it was no longer simply an ethnic/territorial concept. Later on, nationalistic ideology emerged which defined "nations" with specific borders in terms of ethnicity. That's what the concept of "Celtic nations" involves. Of course you can reasonably criticise it. There are many quite legitimate criticisms to be made of the idea. These can be included in the article, but they have to be sourced, not just expressions of your opinion. Find scholars who share your opinion and include their views, with due regard to NPOV. However, I have to say that in my experience Brittany has strongly embraced Celticity as part of its identity. You can't move for triskels - as much in Nantes as in Brest. Paul B (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but I would like somebody to explain the first sentence "the cultural traits" what are they exactly ? what are the common Celtic cultural traits that are shared by all the Celtic nations, that would make the difference between them and the non Celtic countries of Europe ? I am sorry, but except the Celtic languages and those created artificially (f. e. Celtic Music), I do not know any of them.Nortmannus (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's sourced to an encyclopedia, which seems to link several pages. In a sense I agree that there is no definable set of common traits, but there are real links between some Celtic areas - so there is a kind of network of commonalities and differences. To some extent the links are not to do with being "Celtic" at all - they are to do with a common experience of being geographically and culturally marginalised, and even with the weather and landscape. It's certainly been claimed by Celticists that there are common traits, so maybe it should be changed to something like "said to be..." Paul B (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the Celtic Culture encyclopedia (and various other sources) define the Celtic countries by language - they're the places where a Celtic language is spoken, or was spoken into modern times. But other sources clearly base their definition of what's a "Celtic country" on elements besides just language, and these are mentioned in the encyclopedia. Specifically, they mention costume, music, national identity, and literature. The first three are mostly of a much more recent vintage; the only one the encyclopedia discusses in depth is literature. That one's legit; Gaelic and Welsh literature do bear a number of similarities to one another that do not appear with any regularity in the literatures of other groups. However, it is not the case that these similarities are really represented in the literatures of all six Celtic nations (largely due to the historical gaps in the output). The only thing that's truly inarguable across all six countries is the language.--Cúchullain t/c 14:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As seems common wherever Scotland turns up in Wikipedia there is a lot of re-writing history to suit a nationalist agenda. 'Caledonia' was a Pictish land in Roman times; Picts were not as far as I know celts. In the 7th century Scottii 'celts' from Ireland invaded Caledonia from the west to create a small Kingdom of the Scots. At exactly the same time Anglo-saxons from Europe invaded the lowlands, the south and east of Caledonia (as well as what would later become 'England') and created an 'Anglish', 'English' or Ynglisc' or 'Inglis' kingdom of Bernicia. Though Scotland as a whole takes its name from the early Scots kingdom, its heritage of language, culture and ethnicity appears in fact to be predominantly Anglo-saxon - just like England. As much of it has for the last 1,500 years. I'd describe Scotland as an Anglo-saxon country with celtic fringe, and not a celtic country in any sense other than a romantic one. Steve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.10.72 (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
You make a number of valid points, but you rather overdo it in you additions to the article: changing "Celtic" to "Gaelic" and the labelling Gaels as "Picts" just creates confusion, as does the labouring the point on anglo-saxon heritage. So, I've tweaked your changes. Paul B (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Rome section

1.

  • "by July 390 BC an army of Gauls is known to have reached—and for a time overrun—the gates of Rome[citation needed]"
  • "It would be nearly five centuries until Julius Caesar engaged Celtic combatants in the Gallic Wars of 58- to 51 BC."

If the missing citation supports 390 BC even approximately, "nearly five" should be "more than three".

2.

  • Hellenic gods(?) "are described by canonical Greek writers as Xanthos or xanthe (ξανθός) or canqh or khrysokomes."

What's the point?

--P64 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's undisputed that Brennus (4th century BC) overran Rome at that date. And yes, that would be around 3½ centuries, not 5. I guess someone was counting them as if they were AD numbers. What the paragraph about Hellenic gods has to do with anything I've no idea. Paul B (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Well that whole section on Rome seems to have been written by some deranged exponent of Celtic Nordicism. Classic pronouncement: "Compelling evidence suggests he [Caesar] was re-connecting to the land of distant ancestors—ample surviving accounts of Roman noble phenotypes suggest the Roman ruling class was phylogenically Celtic that is, noble characteristics of the hereditary rulers of Rome were the issue of long-forgotten Celtic (or pre-Celtic) seed stock." What utter tosh. Amazingly, this drivel has been in the article since October 2011 [1] Paul B (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Scotland is not Celtic.

I'd like to ask exactly how Scotland qualifies as a Celtic nation. Less than 2% of it's population actually speaks a Celtic language natively. By this logic England is a Celtic nation due to Cornwall.

Our past is irrelevant really, by saying we're somehow Celtic due to the fact that Celtic culture used to dominate most of our country would also imply nations like German, Spain and France are also Celtic. It's just absolutely preposterous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

They are ethnically Celtic, and there is a difference between Celts (modern) and "old" Celts. If we went by past ethnicity's then England would be part-Celtic regardless of Cornwall, as it is plainly obvious a decent percentage of people living in England have "Celtic" (British aka the Britons) blood!--Porthenys (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
In fact the majority of British ancestry descends from the paleolithic, which is pre-Celtic and pre-Saxon. The traditionally "Celtic" areas, because they are also usually the most marginal, typically have greater pre-Celtic ancestry than the non-Celtic ones. Such are the paradoxes of history. Paul B (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The point is that Scotland is one of the nations described as Celtic nations, however much truth lies behind that description. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course, Scotland is a Celtic nation because the people who use the term include it, not because it's 'true' either ethnically (whatever that may actually mean) or genetically. Paul B (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Irish speakers

There's no way 41% of Irish people "speak" Irish. Could we have a less dubious number in the info box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymru123 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 10 July 2013‎

Find a source. I imagine the statistic is related to the teaching of the language in schools. I guess it depends on what degree of competence is required to be able to say a person can "speak" it. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What is this article about?

This article seems to cover the modern distribution of celts however this is already covered on Celts (modern). Shouldn't this be merged with Celts (modern)? Regards, Rob (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Celtic nations" is a political / cultural concept with its own specific history. Sure, it could be a subsection of Celts (modern), but there's enoughh for a stand-alone article. Paul B (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but the page as a whole could be clearer about the fact that it is a cultural/political concept rooted in advocacy and activism as much as it is a universally acknowledged and objective classification, academic or otherwise, and offer more detail about the history of that concept itself. For example, "The six territories recognised as Celtic nations are .." is begging for a "by whom? Everyone?" N-HH talk/edits 21:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. I'd support a merge of Celts (modern) and Celtic nations. --Tóraí (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There's enough here and on Celts (modern) for them to remain stand-alone articles as Paul B has pointed out. In particular Celts (modern) has an important discussion of Celtic Identity in a modern context. Jembana (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

England/Lowland

Jembana writes in an edit summary the following "Please provide a citation for the change from the long-standing England to Lowland Scotland reference here - Scots are adopters of the English language due to the economic success of the burghs - they were not displaced people." This has to be one of the most utterly nonsensical remarks I've read in a long time on Wikipedia. There is no essential difference between the way in which Lowland Scotland and Northern England adopted English/Scots. The extent to which there was "displacement" of people in Northumbia, Strathclyde or anywhere else in the general region is not known. Celts were assimilated and "Anglicised" in exactly the same way whether it be north or south of the modern border of Scotland. There is no distinction between what is now defined as "England" and "Lowland Scotland". It just so happens that one part got incorporated in the bigger "Kingdom of Scotland" and the other got incorporated into the bigger kingdom of England. To pretend that there is some sort of essentially "Celtic" identity to the whole of modern Scotland is just dishonest. The evasiveness of using the term "Scots", as if it is not an Anglo-Saxon language, in the context of a discussion of Saxon influence just leads to obfuscation, as does the use of "England" in a way which blurs the distinction between the nation and the different issue of Anglo-Saxon speaking territories. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul, this is a contentious point and requires reliable sources to back it up if you are to maintain this statement in its present form. I invite you to refine it and use such sources that you know.Jembana (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think he whole of England could be included - and should be really if we are going to at least attempt to be fair and 'academic' in the creation of these articles - ie when we carry on using Original Research! So many people from England have always wanted to wear this romantic cultural mantle (due to their ancestry the rotters), they've just not been allowed to do it, with virtually no historical authority at all! What actually defines us all in the UK is our Britishness - ie our shared modern identities since the Enlightenment - but of course I've been informed by The Wikipedian Celts that 'Britishness' doesn't really exist at all. It's a myth created by "the English" to keep us down. The hypocrisy is beyond belief really. But 'Celtic nations' and 'Modern Celts" as noteworthy (let alone academic) terms? Give over.
This whole article (and its new sub article) is a complete 'Wikipediaism' - a concept created by a dedicated group of Wikipedians to take hold in the real world. It's similar to the Wikipedia-only idea that the linguistically-loose but commonly-used term 'British Isles' is being eschewed for other terms like "Atlantic Isles". Where? It took one dedicated guy years to shore up enough semi-ambiguous and obviously polemical refs: anywhere else that alone would prove it wasn't true (per WP:The Rule). But on Wikipedia people cite inclusionism and cry human rights. And play 3RR, and work at getting the objectors compromised and/or blocked.
The people who disseminate this stuff just want readers to believe it and absorb it into their everyday lives. That means eventually getting more-substantial real-world refs and cites which would "prove" it's all true. As always there is a common driving force: in this case it's basic politicised minority-nationalism. Not the democratic river that runs open and free, but the covetous enemy of peace, love and science.
Wikipedia grooming the world to eventually underpin and justify itself is of course the very 'way in which madness lies', but unfortunately for us all the Celtic Cabal is like no other cabal on Wikipedia: They have an iron (age) grip on this place. Matt Lewis (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What makes a nation Celtic?

I have been thinking about this for quite some time, but have never been able to come to an acceptable conclusion about this. What makes a nation Celtic? Kezzer16 (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been sorted out before. Please read the Definitions section of the Celts (modern) page. Glad to answer any follow up questions you may have after reading this section. Look at the references cited if you have them, if not I can provide the relevant (see the lede on the Celts page too).Jembana (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
This has not been sorted out. Kezzer16 (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The same thing that makes a nation Scandanavian, or Slavic, or Latin. Don't over think it and stick with sources. --Tóraí (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree Kezzer. The idea of "Celtic Nations" is a pure political ideology, only based on a linguistic definition and originally created to save the Celtic languages, all threatened to disapear. Tóraí, what you write is not relevant, because according to you, a nation is only a language family : Celtic, Romance (you call Latin), Slavic. Where is Germanic ? If it is the case, to be logical, you must put Scandinavia, Germany and England together in a big "Germanic nation". I do not think a nation has only something to do with a language family (most languages belonging to the same language group are not intercomprehensible, do not have mutual intelligibility). In most nations, the language is a chosen language : a national language or official language. According to your theory Britanny cannot belong to the French nation, because a part of it is (was) Breton speaking. To be logical and coherent, I suppose you would exclude French pays Basque (Basque speaking), French Flanders (Dutch speaking), Alsace and a part of Lorraine (German speaking), because they cannot be considered as "Latin". You would keep only in the French nation, the "Latin" speaking people. Historically it does not make sense, because the last peoples to join the French national community are "Latins" : county of Nizza and Corsica in the 19th century, not the Bretons that have been French since the 16th century. What makes a nation is the will to live together, not the vernacular language. Most Bretons feel French first, and Breton only second (it depends on the circumstances) and do not want to leave the French national community and do not want to live in the same community as the Scottish protestants, to take a extreme example. Another contradiction with this idea of "Celtic Nations" : Breton was never spoken in the main Breton cities Rennes and Nantes, and the very eastern end of Britanny never spoke Breton, but a romance language, while another part of Britanny was only bilingual in the Middle Ages. So, another contradiction for you : you can belong to a "Celtic Nation" if you are a Romance native speaker without knowing it, good ! Concerning the idea of nation, many nations have a national religion : state religion or national church, what was and what is the "Celtic" national church ? What is the common point between the very strong catholic tradition of Britanny (stronger than in many parts of France) and the Scottish calvinists ? No, Celtic is only a language family, not a common history, not a common culture, so not a nation, it is totally different.Nortmannus (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
This is contradiction - language family is common history. Brettons came from somewhere in what is now England, before they settled in Brittany before iot became France, so they are also sharing celtic history with other celts of Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.249.94 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
"Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor.", per WP:TPG. If you have any suggestions to improve this article, please share them. Please try to be succinct. Daicaregos (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I just wrote a language family cannot define a nation, it is not relevant. In addition, there are nations like Switzerland, Luxembourg or Belgium that have three national languages Germanic / Romance.Nortmannus (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I think english is not very precise about distinguishing what is nation and what is ethnicity. To make these things more complex, nation quite often also means people. However I can not agree that language does not define nation - it *is* one of main distinctive parts, that makes nation - the others are shared territory, common culture and history or descent. In a sense France is not unique - it is a country, which is inhabitated by many nations, but policy of France is always been that there is only one - french nation and that rest do not exist, even if they had their own country that made them nations before... Switzerland example, however is completelly different - there are no swiss ethnicity, and actually nation is not a correct name - it is a federation of independent cantons that came together and they have 3 or 4 equal languages. Yes, there is Swiss country, even people who inhabit switzerland are swiss, but if swiss some day would break apart because of ethnic principle, there would not be a swiss 1, swiss 2 or swiss 3 nation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.249.94 (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The Channel Islands do not belong to Brittany

They are of Norman heritage; please fix the picture. 82.230.229.84 (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems to me to be a valid point. There is no explanation, either here or at File:Map of Celtic Nations-flag shades.svg, of why that particular version of the map is being used. There is another version - here - which does not show the Channel Islands as part of Brittany. Should we use that version? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we should. Well spotted that OP. Daicaregos (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

POV Fork? Delete?

This article seems to describe what the Celtic nations are solely according to an organisation that seeks to create six sovereign states from the six Celtic nations it acknowledges as existing. Academic studies show the ethnic composition of England is majority Celtic. England, Scotland and Northern Ireland all have varying degrees of Celtic and Germanic ethnicity. The vast majority of Cornish people consider themselves English. The Cornish are not regarded as a nation by the majority of Cornish people. This article promotes a single POV and does not represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This appears to be a Point-of-view fork of Celts (modern), which although not perfect, is substantially more neutral then this article. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia. Rob984 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But the phrase was created by the Celtic League and that is clear within the article. It't not original research because of that origin. Using the term in a wider article on Celts would be ----Snowded TALK 11:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree that, dubious concept(/POV) or not, it deserves an article of its own since it is notably used. An article talking about a notable concept/POV, but without promoting it, has a place, though it's disputed nature could be heightened more prominently in this article I guess. Also, @Rob984, are you really referring to ethnic composition/ethnicity or was genetic composition intended? As the former is about identity there is an aspect of choice and mutability (not just despite of but actively because of mythology) that there isn't in the latter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The topic is notable, as Mutt Lunker says above, per WP:Notability – it has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time - and, consequently, warrants its own article. btw, this subject has been previously discussed on this page. Before proposing an article's deletion, please read the archives, and link to previous relevant conversations, if the matter is unresolved. Daicaregos (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Celtic nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Celtic nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Celtic nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Celtic nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of changes

"Each has a Celtic language that is still spoken or was spoken into modern times" implies that the Manx and Cornish languages are not spoken today, which is not ideal even though this is clarified later in the article. The fact that the languages died out before being revitalized is evident later on. Catrìona (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Celtic nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Celtic nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland to represent Ireland

Removal of this seems POV to me, as is reverting to keep removing it. Thoughts from other editors? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That flag was created for the Republic. We need to be careful here - for example the red hand cannot be used for Northern Ireland as it doesn't include the three counties that were not included in the partition. Un referenced material gets removed (which I have just done). If you think there is a case find some sources to support you -----Snowded TALK 21:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan:I fail to see what's POV about being careful about how we deal with coverage of the Troubles and Anglo-Irish relations on Wikipedia. Declaring that the flag of the Irish Republic is the flag of the whole of Ireland is in fact a POV edit in itself and tacking-on the opinions of the non-academic political organisation, the Celtic League gives further weight to that. Alssa1 (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It's best not to use the Irish flag as representative of the entire island. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Galiza, 7 nations

I think that it's important make a section for the 7 nations with unofficial celtic nation galiza. A lot of people think that Galiza should be a celtic nation.

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia if you're new! Unfortunately, it's important to cite reliable sources that show that Galicia is considered by some to be a Celtic nation in an unofficial sense. Unsourced claims, like "A lot of people think that Galiza should be a celtic nation" cannot be evaluated. Also you can sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Catrìona (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, https://wsimag.com/travel/15461-galicia-the-unknown-7th-celtic-nation, http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20131203-where-is-the-seventh-celtic-nation, https://weather.com/travel/news/mysterious-seventh-celtic-nation-galicia-spain-20140127, https://www.transceltic.com/pan-celtic/celtic-identity-language-and-question-of-galicia, https://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2017/05/castro-culture

While journalistic sources can be used for some types of information, it's best to cite scholarly sources for this type of information as the subject is controversial and largely opinion-based (editors who are not experts in the fields are not the best equipped to judge if the opinions advanced in op-eds are really representative of the preponderance of evidence and/or the scholarly consensus). Of these articles, the two most reputable are the BBC's article, which seems to mostly be claiming that Galicia had a Celtic past, and the Economist's article, which claimed that Galicia considers itself a Celtic nation (rather than it *is considered* a Celtic nation). Could you cite any scholarly sources that indicate that Galicia is widely considered to be a Celtic nation? Catrìona (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I leave some academic sources that confirm the intrinsic celtic culture in Galicia. ""The Celts"" by John T. Koch and Antone Minard pages 369-371, "Leyendas celtas de Galicia y Asturias" (in English "Celtic legends of Galicia and Asturias") by Eliseo Mauas Pinto (Compilation of Celtic legends in Galicia), "La hermandad de los Celtas. Últimas investigaciones y vivencias sobre los celtas y su música por uno de sus protagonistas" (in English "The brotherhood of the Celts. Latest research and experiences about the Celts and their music by one of its protagonists") by Carlos Nuñez (Analysis of traditional Celtic music in Galicia), "Los pueblos de la Galicia céltica" (in English "The peoples of Celtic Galicia") by Francisco Javier González García (study of Galician "castreños" culture), "Os Celtas: Unha (re)visión dende Galicia" (in English "The Celts: A review from Galicia") by Francisco Calo Lourido (Reference works of university studies - History and Geography), "Los Celtas de Galicia (Documental)" (in English "The Celts of Galicia (Documentary)") you can watch it in youtube. It is also evidence of this the many folk festivals of Celtic origin in Galicia as Samain (https://sabersabor.es/galicia-cedeira-y-el-samain-la-noche-celta-de-los-difuntos/), Oenach Atlántico (http://turismo.naron.es/gl/conece-naron/que-visitar/espazos-naturais/oenach-atlantico), Lugnasad (http://cedeira.gal/lugnasad/), etc or modern festivals as the internationally known Ortigueira's Festival of Celtic World (https://festivaldeortigueira.com/). SsNewHouses (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Its OR, the fact that there were celts elsewhere in EUrope does not make each of hteir locations a celtic state - that has a specific meaning per the sources -----Snowded TALK 20:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
But Galicia has a heavely celtic culture in their music, festivals and traditions. And there are a lot of people that consider Galicia as the 7th Celtic Nation as you can see in numerous articles and forums [2], [3], [4], [5] both in Galicia and Scotland, Ireland, etc. so I think it's logical to create a section that speaks specifically about this SsNewHouses (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry that is original research. This article is not about the existence of Celtic practices but about the term 'Celtic Nations' which has a specific meaning in the sources -----Snowded TALK 18:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
"The Celtic nations are territories in western Europe where Celtic languages or cultural traits have survived". I think you're confusing the Celtic nations with the Celtic league. Certainly Galicia is not a memeber of the Celtic League but It is a Celtic Nation. What is the "specific meaning" of the term 'Celtic Nations' according to you?. Actually, in the first reference, from which the meaning of Celtic nation is obtained [6] talk also about Galicia and say "Galicia, the north-western region of present-day Spain, is sometimes counted as one of the Celtic Countries." SsNewHouses (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The term is linked to the Celtic League and all those refernces are to six. One causal "sometimes referenced" is really not enough to make it 7. You need [[WP:WEIGHT|a list of seven nations in several reliable sorces), you can't say that these parts of this region have celtic features so its a celtic nation. -----Snowded TALK 14:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
First of all why is the term linked to the Celtic League? Could you cite any reference of this point? and second the proposal given here it's not about make 7 nations but create a section that contemplates the debate about whether Galicia belongs to the Celtic nations not to the Celtic League. Debate that was even held in the Celtic League. SsNewHouses (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Read the first two references in the article its fairly clear. If you want to make a case for that discussion then it will beed some scholary references and could be added to one of the existing sections -----Snowded TALK 12:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to be written from the POV of the Celtic League, a fringe group. Putting the genetics into the lede gives it a tinge of racism. jnestorius(talk) 09:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This whole article is non-academic tripe. It gives no proof of Celts residing in these areas. DNA and archaeological evidence supports Celts moving into south-eastern Britain but not these areas. It is a pure political myth which has no place in an encyclopedia.Acorn897 (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

6 or 7 Nations?

Can anyone help out here, since on the Seven Nations disambiguation page it has Seven Nations (Celtic) redirecting to this page. So is it 6 or 7 Celtic nations, or 8 or 9 ? according to other information in boxes on the main page here. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It's six and I have got rid of the entry from that page-----Snowded TALK 06:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Nova Scotia

Why not include Nova Scotia or at least Cape Breton? Nova Scotia literally means New Scotland, and even though it is still Mi'kmaq country: Mi'kma'ki, it still has a sizeable and influential Gaelic population, including a flag. There are "quite a bit" of Gaelic first and second language speakers, predominately on Ceap Breatainn.

Danachos (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Reworded reporting on conclusions of an Oxford University study.

I added information from an interesting and relevant 2016 genetic study by Oxford University. It was removed on the grounds that faithful reporting of the wording of the conclusions was in breach of copyright. The number of words quoted from the articles referenced was minimal. I think the wording as it stood was both fair use and de minimis and the admin in question did not show an understanding of copyright law. I have, however, added the information again, but carefully paraphrasing and changing the wording of the sources.

In 2015 a genetic study of the United Kingdom showed that there is no unified 'Celtic' genetic identity compared to 'non-Celtic' areas. The 'Celtic' areas of the United Kingdom (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) show the most genetic differences among each other.[1]The data shows that those with 'Celtic' ancestry in Scotland and Cornwall share greater genetic similarity with the English than they do with other 'Celtic' populations, with the Cornish being genetically much closer to other English groups than they are to the Welsh or the Scots.[2]Starple (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Who do you think you really are? A genetic map of the British Isles", University of Oxford, published 18 March 2015, accessed 20 June 2021
  2. ^ DNA study shows Celts are not a unique genetic group, bbc.co.uk. Pallab Ghosh, published 18 March 2015, accessed 21 June 2021
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celtic_nations/Archive_4&oldid=1212781287"