Talk:Celts (modern)/Archive 3

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

Music

This article is getting weirder and weirder. "Unaccompanied styles of singing are performed across the modern Celtic world due to the folk music revival..." What is the point of this passage? There is nothing especially "Celtic" about "unaccompanied styles of singing", so I fail to see the relevance of this. What we need is an account of the phenomenon of "Celtic music", which emerged in the 19th century and came to be associated with the bagpipes and harp. Though neither of these instruments are Celtic in origin, they came to be 'symbols' of Celticism. Gaelic folk traditions came to be adopted as internationally Cetic (partly displacing very different Breton and Welsh traditions) and then the concept of Celtic folk-rock music developed. At the Interceltique in Lorient 'Celticism' comes sometimes to be a kind of model for the wider notion of 'ethnic' musics. All this exists in the literature on the 'Celtic music' phenomenon. We need clarity. Paul B (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Like your additions to the Music section - complements it nicely.Jembana (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Celtic choirs are a popular part of modern Celtic culture and sing these unaccompanied styles as part of their repertoire. They are also sung at the very popular Celtic festivals such as HebCelt and at Lorient.Jembana (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it has, certainly with the agenda pushers, and whichever idiot went and removed the section on Celtic Studies. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Dbachmann removed the Celtic Studies section that I created as a section.Jembana (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Cold War

What a strange title (and paragraph)! The "Cold War" was to do with communism, not "celticity", and whilst nationalists in the north of Ireland have indeed "sought an end to endemic discrimination", the Ulster (Scots) Workers' strike was in part an attempt to maintain that discrimination. How that strike can be linked with "Modern Celts" beggars belief. Do people put this sort of thing into the article just through muddled thinking, or to pursue some sort of whacky agenda?

As someone has said below, the article grows "weirder and weirder". Ausseagull (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, very odd title and wording. If you want to go nuts with ur Delete button on that section, i would fully support it lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The idea of a Cold War is nonsense, the Civil Rights movement is a reality but it has little to do with this article --Snowded TALK 20:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Modern Celts"

MacRusgail, it has become abundantly clear that you have no interst in helping fix this article's issues. There is no such term as "Modern Celts". There are at best "modern Celts", i.e. modern speakers of Celtic languages, which is not the topic of this article. This article is plainly about modern Celtic identity and nationalism. You yourself are a prime example of that. I have no idea whether you are a "modern Celt" (native speaker of a Celtic language), but you are not here as such, your function here is that of a "Celtic nationalist" pov-pusher. --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Speak for yourself as a blatant POV pusher. "Celtic identity" is not a good title, since it could cover ancient peoples. Also your religion section is completely anglocentric, as one would expect. "Modern Celts" are not just neighbours of England, or appendages of the UK. I bet you thought we'd all be so tied up with Xmas we'd miss your little move.
The idea to merge Pan-Celticism into here is a different matter again. A bit like confusing the issue of Europeans with the European Union.
Actually what you talk about is the subject of this article. Tha sinn ann fhathast. Co-dhiu, Nollaig Chridheil dhuit. :-)--MacRusgail (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Long long ago in another lifetime I proposed to merge this article and Celtic Nations. The idea seemed to have support then but I don't think anything further has been said about it.
What is the feeling now? What is the substantive difference between te two topics that they should not be merged? (I would still be in favour of such a merge.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
As I've said before, they're quite different, much as "Arabs" (the people) and the "Arab League" (the Pan-Arab organisation) are different subjects. Or indeed Europeans and the European Unionist. It's much more common to hear various modern people describing themselves/described as "Celtic" than to propose pan-Celtic ideas.
One is a political (or at least cultural) movement, and the other is a matter of personal identity.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not proposing to merge the Celtic League into either article. However, "Modern celts" (excuse the scare quotes) and the Celtic nations are the same thing. Keeping them separate is like having separate articles for the Irish people and the Irish nation (note the difference between the Irish nation and the Irish state). The Irish people are the Irish nation. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, what does that mean: "the Irish people are the Irish nation"?Ausseagull (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
"However, "Modern celts" (excuse the scare quotes) and the Celtic nations are the same thing." - Well, that depends on whether all these groupings are nations or not. I think that the Cornish are, but some people would dispute that. Some people would have the Northern Irish as a nation. Some the so called Ulster Scots etc. So even the matter of the Irish people is not agreed upon. Also, there's the matter of the New World. I don't think the Gaels of Cape Breton, and the Cymry of Chubut consider themselves nations in their own right.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, you're saying you oppose a merger because "nation" is an ill-defined concept ... do you think "modern celt" is better defined?
I take it from your mention of the "Gaels of Cape Breton" and the "Cymry of Chubut" that you see this article as being solely a matter of linguistics. Yet, the article itself seems to be entirely about the Celtic nations. Tell me, where did those "Gaels of Cape Breton" and the "Cymry of Chubut" come from? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
A merge makes sense but would need to be under a different title. It can't be celtic nations as that is not a wide enough concept. Modern Celts is OK, but Celts in Modern Times might be better --Snowded TALK 14:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not hung up on "Celtic nations" if a better title can be thought of. "Modern celts" (or variations thereof) I find a little makey-uppy - it draws to mind images of Roman-era farmers with a iPods. Celticity (Celticity? Not a word that many would be familiar with but maybe the most catch-all for the things we meant to talk about. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
nice image, how about Modern Celtic Identity?--Snowded TALK 15:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Modern Celtic identity would be fine as a page rename here. I would, however, be against a merger with Celtic nations under this title (which was suggested here earlier). Celtic nations is a legitimate and used term/expression. Daicaregos (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You make a couple of pretty broad assumptions there about my views, Snowded! I'm sure you guys will find something far more clunky and impractical to call this page by... "Modern Celts" does it for me, because even if one disagrees with the notion, it does at least match the usage. A bit like British Israelites --MacRusgail (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I didn't make a single assumption about your views. --Snowded TALK 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Like Daicaregos, of the two current titles I'd favour "Celtic nations" simply not least because it has more frequent usage. I don't think "celtic identity" captures it for (maybe) the same reasons as others don't go for "nations": it is not a wide enough concept. (I'm pleased to say I'm from a Celtic nation but I can't say my heart burns with celtic identity.) Some OED definitions to dwell upon:
  • Celt: 1. a member of a group of peoples inhabiting much of Europe and Asia Minor in pre-Roman times. 2. a native of a modern nation or region in which a Celtic language is (or was) spoken.
  • Celtic: 1. (noun) a group of languages including Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton, Manx, and Cornish. 2. (adjective) relating to Celtic or to the Celts.
    • Derrivitates (both nouns) include Celticism and Celticist.
Celts (contemporary)? ("Modern" sounds like 'new and updated'.)
MacRusgail, are you OK in priciple with a merger so long as an appropriate name can be found? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, you wrote "I didn't make a single assumption about your views." -> "you see this article" and "you're saying". Enough said.

I've always found it interesting that we don't get constant critiques of Britishness and Americanicity (?) which are even more flimsy concepts, based largely on modern invention and myth. The contemporary Celtic thing is used and abused, but the same can be said of Irishness, which is not something in doubt.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Irishness.......is something not in doubt". Come off it! An Irish friend of mine says that Oscar Wilde wasn't Irish (cf "No True Scotsman": Irishmen are not gay, Oscar Wilde was gay. So OW was no true Irishman. For "gay" you might also read "Protestant"). Anyhow, look at the articles about Chris de Burgh, Shane MacGowan and Peter O'Toole. Their "Irishness" is hotly debated. And Bill Clinton? He was an "Irish-American of the Year" who is probably one sixty-fourth Irish? And of course, "there's no-one as Irish as Barack Obama". Ausseagull (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


That was me that wrote that, not Snowded.
I'm not critiquing Celticism, and I don't think that Snowded or Daicaregos is either. It's just that we have two articles that on the face of it deal with the same thing. That's the only reason I'm proposing a merge. If they deal with different things then a decision should be taken: what is this article about and how is it different to the other article? Is this article supposed to be about the Celts i.e. the people considered as individuals? Whereas the other article is about the "Celtic nations" i.e. the aggregates of those people? What is the difference between them? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with dab to some extent. This article should be moved to Neo-Celticism and then have Pan-Celticism merged into it. With a background on the whole psuedo-pagan, Jacobin Ossianism of the Victorian peroid from which the leftwing political-ideological current originated. IMO there should be some sort of article separation between the counter-culture, romantic left wing cranks (Celtic League, "opressed", native English-speaking hobby types who pretend to be "bards" /"grand druids", and writhe around rocks dressed in cloaks at Glastonbury) and the actual small existing communities which continue to speak Gaelic and Brythonic languages as native, which are unrelated to the eccentrics (like the Gaeltacht). - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. Daicaregos (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. I think the two articles names should be (1) Neo-Celticism, for the mytho-political current mention above and contained in this article; expand to mention its relation also to the United States. (2) Celtic-speaking peoples for the communities who live in Gaeltacht, Y Fro Gymraeg and Gàidhealtachd. Though the existing Celtic languages article could perhaps be improved to cover this. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Daiceregos, I'm interested you find the bards and druids "hobby types" and eccentrics, but you have nothing to say on silly invented traditions as when Prince Charles pretends he can speak Welsh a few times a year, and the British royal family pretend to be Scottish. Or other people in comical outfits like beefeaters, Chelsea Pensioners, Pearly Queens etc who were invented more recently. --MacRusgail (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so "the British Royal Family pretend to be Scottish". Don't they also pretend to be English? Ausseagull (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Freemasons? Are you implying that being a Freemason is incompatible with being a "Celt"? Can you be an Orangeman and a "Celt"? Come to think of it, it might be interesting if you told us what the characteristics of a typical "Celt" are. Rugby playing, whisk(e)y drinking, anti-English, Roman Catholic.....? Tells us more, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausseagull (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)...as well as the very very large communities that follow Gaelic games, play Celtic music, identify with Celtic art and symbols, unself-consciously celebrate Celtic festivals and religious traditions, and for whom, in law at least, a Celtic language is the primary language of the state. I get what you mean about "bards" and "grand druids" and writhing around on rocks dressed in cloaks at Glastonbury but there is a substantial middle ground between eccentrics and "isolated" communities. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Gaelic games is probably Irish specific enough to just belong on "Irish people" and "Irish culture" article. Most of the British GAA clubs are in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds, rather than north Wales and the Scottish Highlands, so there isn't any sort of broad based cultural hegemony along such lines. While conversly, those in west Scotland who congregate around Celtic FC are part of Neo-Celticism in an ideological context, without particpation in actual Gaelic culture as such. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Just on the sports side - in Scotland we just don't call them Gaelic Games but shinty (the scottish version of hurling IS nonetheless widely played. Relatively speaking. "Gaelic X" wouldn't cover Wales in any case as that's the Brythonic branch.
I'm not averse to some merging along the lines proposed by Yorkshirian, there does seem to be a profusion of articles on similar topics. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)...as the name would suggest, Gaelic games are confined to the Gaelic nations: compare hurling with shinty. You can add coursing and greyhound racing as pan-Celtic sporting pass-times (though of course enjoyed by other nearby cultures as well, as with nearly all aspects of any culture).
The point is that while language is a very ready identifier of culture, there's more to culture that just the question of whether one speaks a Celtic language as one's native tongue (or at all). There is graphic art, music, sport, food, identity, literature, tradition, and all manner of things besides and as well as language. When we think about what it is to be French, we don't just think that it means to speak French as one's native tongue. There's far more to it than that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Daiceregos also fails to differentiate between the different types of druid, i.e. the pagans and the literary types. Most Welsh "druids" are native speakers of the language, and not necessarily pagan. Yes, they're invented, but then again so is the Union Jack, the British coronation ceremony, the Spirit of the Blitz and so on. The literary druids are no stranger than the Freemasons, and plenty of people high up in the British legal system etc belong to lodges.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I think your eyes are playing tricks on you again, MacRusgail. That was Yorkshirian, not Daiceregos. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Offensive/patronising, to suggest this sort of thing is "normal" and represenative of culture in Gaeltacht and Y Fro Gymraeg communities?

MacRusgail, oh I agree with you on the Freemasons. Not comfortable with them governing or having a stranglehold over the judicial system myself—should have probably being supressed when the Revolution in France came to light. But I suppose since they go back to 16th century Scotland, they are more authentically "ancient" than the 19th century pseudo-Druidry and the scene surrounding it. I believe it was a freemason who invented the Wicca movement actually. As for "native speakers"? Errr, you mean like Rowan Williams, Ron Davies, etc? Or the neo-"bards" of the Gorseth, which has no native speakers anyway; Peter Berresford Ellis (an Englishman, though acceptably far-left), Philip Payton (see former), etc.

While these people are obviously welcome to get up to whatever eccentric activies they please. It seems unjust to paint actual native speakers from real communities of Brythonic and Gaelic langugues, in an article supposedly about them (modern Celts), as if they are in the same category as the former bunch mentioned above. As if the recreactionalists, neo-primitivist intelligencia and fellow travellers (most of whom are outsiders), are somehow representative of the real modern communities and what they get up to in everyday life. The article should not misrepresent these people by shoving them into a largely unrelated mythyco-ideology (the unmentioned American connection is especially relevent for that part).

Regarding Prince Charles/The Queen, etc... well the Queen's mother was Scottish and they sit on the throne due to descent from James Stuart (a real Stuart, unlike the English eccentrics who invented modern tartanry). So I suppose its up to the Royal Family, what they want to express regarding their Scottishness (just be glad that they are not democratically elected or anything crude like that). I suppose its no less unusual than somebody from the Saxon Lowlands of Edinburgh reinventing themselves as a mythologised version of a "Celtic" Highlander (from way back when) and activist. Different strokes, as they say. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Royal Family aren't particularly English are they? Ausseagull (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you're trotting out the same old chestnuts. The question is one of hegemony - who has the power and who doesn't. Minority cultures get deconstructed, while accepted dominant norms do not. You meekly accept the Royal Family's nonsense, and mythology, but not anything that would undermine them. The UK and Britishness are built around such nonsense, which falls apart under close examination. We hear far less of that of course.

Sure Ron Davies and Rowan Williams are Welsh, but this article only seems to deal with people who are well known from an English perspective. Where are all the Bretons in the religion section for example? The stuff about the origins of Episopalians in the USA (the first bishops in the USA were ordained by the Scottish Episcopal Church, because the Church of England refused to deal with the rebel colonies)

If the last part is supposed to be a veiled dig at me, just because I live in Edinburgh doesn't mean I'm from there originally. Just like most of the people in New York City aren't. Anyway, Edinburgh was an Anglian city once, and a Brythonic capital before that. Apart from in the novels of Walter Scott (someone who never bothered to learn Gaidhlig, despite speaking several other languages), "Saxon" (Sasannach/Sasunnach etc) is not used in traditional Highland parlance to refer to Lowlanders. The usual term is Gall.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

To add some late comments, i'd say that "Modern Celts" is not simply made up. The term is used in Marion Bowman's essay "From Keltoi to Cybercelts" in the OU book Globalisation and Europe, though in passing. I agree that we need a "master" article that will explain the history of modern Celtic identity, which should be a history of neo-Celtic identity and of Pan-Celtic movements and organisations. I don't see a need for a separate article on "Celtic nations", but there might be a need for separate articles on specific organisations and congresses, if they are sufficiently notable. But we need a central article from which others are linked. "Modern Celts" is a servicable name. Paul B (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "modern Celts" is simply used compositionally, in discussions where the Celtic-speakers of today need to be disambiguated from the Celts of antiquity. It's not capital-M-"Modern Celts". The neutral and reasonable title for the topic under discussion here is Celtic identity, but of course these articles are WP:OWNed by the ethnic nationalists. --dab (𒁳) 16:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient peoples had "Celtic identity" too: or at least Caesar says they did. So we'd probably have to go with "modern Celtic identity", which puts us back pretty well where we started, but with an even more awkward phrase. I don't see that Modern Celts is a problem. I don't know whether or not it is deliberately capitalised here, or not. The first word of titles always is capitalised. I don't think it matters all that much. Paul B (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

no, Caesar does not discuss a "Celtic identity", this is altogether a modern concept. Caesar just says that the tribes in one part of Gaul call themselves Celtae. This article should be merged into Celtic nations and/or Pan-Celticism anyway, as both articles discuss the same thing, the modern notion that a number of "Celtic nations" share a number of common features vis-à-vis the neighboring populations of Europe. I have nothing against the concept, but the way this has been handled here, WP:OWN by dyed-in-the-wool Celtic nationalists, is not acceptable. This article is not about the sum of speakers of the various Celtic languages, that would be a redirect to Celtic languages#Demographics. It is about the patriotic or nationalistic sense of belonging to a "Celtic race" by culture or birth. Do we discuss Modern Teutons on top of Germanic Europe and Germanic_languages#Contemporary? No. The article on this is at Pan-Germanism. --dab (𒁳) 18:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Caesar isn't interested in identity. And the "part" happens to cover the most part of Celtic speaking Gaul (as the Aquitanii were Basques and the Belgae in all liklehood Germans. Will you give it a rest? A name does not have to have roots in the eocene for it to be an acceptable term. Whether the celtic speaking people of any age ever formed a unity, either political or linguistic is irrelevant, it's a *descriptive* term, not a stamp in the passport. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you aren't addressing me? I didn't bring up Caesar. I am, like you, pointing out that Caesar and antiquity is perfectly irrelevant to this problem. I do not object to the term "Celts", I object to the {{duplication}} under the dubious title of "Modern Celts". "Modern Celts" is descriptive of Celtic languages#Demographics. The article erroneously placed under this title is descriptive of Pan-Celticism. I am trying only to fix this. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably a case of hand typing befor brain was properly engaged (on my behalf) - and I seem to have conflagrated an answer to various people and the world at large into one. Bad idea. However, I still maintain that whether this is an internally grown or externally imposed label on the group, it is not a case of extreme nationalism to discuss the issue of the ancient group of X versus the modern day group of X. Is it possible that the problem is not so much the naming of THIS article but rather the fact that most other pages seem to dab their historic aspect under Ancient X and the modern concept under X (cf Ancient Britons/[[Britons (historical) vs Britons/British people; Ancient Assyrians vs Assyrian people etc) but we seem to be lumbered with Celts (the guys Caesar was fighting) and modern Celts - their modern descendents. Perhaps we should consider dabbing the Celts to Celts (historical) and either use Celts as a dab page and/or move this page to Celts (modern)? Akerbeltz (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Celts (modern) is superior to Modern Celts. The "modern" in "Modern Celts" strikes as being an adjective rather than part of a noun phrase that forms the title of Wikipedia articles. If that is so then it is a disambiguating word and sould appear in parenthesis after the title rather than as a adjective before it.
A few of the options were run through near the top of the thread (such Celts (contemporary) and Modern Celtic identity). I still feel however that a merger with Celtic nations is the best way to go for this article. They deal with substantially the same thing and "Celtic nations" is the common term. See news reports for "Celtic nations" vs. news reports for "modern celts". -- RA (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Celts (modern) is superior to "Modern Celts", because the "modern" is not part of a proper name, it is just an adjective used for disambiguation from the Celts of antiquity.
However, Celts (modern) will still need to be disambiguated, as the term may either refer objectively the million or so Celtic speakers of current times, or then again to some political or ideological notion of a "Celtic nation" or "Celtic ethnic essence", probably best termed Celtic identity. Merging with Celtic nations is fine, too. Modern Celts can redirect to Celts (modern), and Celts (modern) can be a disambiguation page for extreme clarity. --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In reading the various Wikipedia articles on Celts and Celtic identity, there seems to be little attention to and, indeed, hostility toward a tendency among some of us in the "diaspora" who do not speak a Celtic language but claim a Celtic identity based on heritage. As an American with Scottish ancestry on both sides, I fail to see any harm in claiming a Celtic identity (rather common here among descendants of Scottish, Irish and Welsh immigrants, where such "identity" has nothing to do with protest and politics and everything to do with ancestry) and am mystified as to why so many seem to find that offensive. Could someone shed some light on that, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.166.184 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, we can add ancestry to the definition of "identity" as you suggest and add a new section on "Ancestry". I think people would be interested and I don't think it would cause offence. Would you like to start this off ? I can add to it if there is anything more from my sources. Good idea :) Jembana (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to. Unfortunately, all I have is my own personal experience in various Celtic organizations and festivals here in the States. That's original research and unsuitable for Wikipedia. Glad you like my idea, though. I think it would flesh things out and temper the politicization somewhat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.166.184 (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I have some sources for such contributions so I will add something along those lines myself and you can add to it as you see fit. There is a list of Celtic Festivals page (see Festivals section) that you could add your celtic festivals to. Maybe we should also start a list of Celtic Organisations page - I'll see what other ethnic groups do for their organisations on the Wiki. Jembana (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Celtic studies

The section on Celtic studies refers to ancient Celts, not "modern Celts". As such, the section either needs to be removed from this article as it's tangential, or the article needs to renamed to Celtic identity. Nev1 (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The bottom bit is just the current O'Donnell lecture topic this year - this month in fact !Jembana (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is utter rubbish. I suggest you actually do some reading up on Celtic departments and courses. Yes, they do study Gauls and the like, but you'll also find them doing studies of modern Welsh culture, language use etc, Cornish placenames in the modern period, development of the Gorsedd, medieval Irish literature, the 20th century Scottish Gaelic renaissance etc. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

while this is correct, what is it supposed to prove? the comment is pointing out that this article's section at Celts_(modern)#Celtic_studies goes on a tangent about people called Keltoi, the La Tène Style, and ancient Celtic languages. I am not sure why this article even has a "Celtic studies" section. It is indeed very likely that the "Celtic studies" departments and modern Celtic identity have a connection, but discussion of such a connection will need to be based on actual references. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the page for Modern Celts - the topic of this year's O'Donnell lecture is relevant as it shows an example of the ground-breaking research being done at an Advanced Centre for Celtic Studies. Such research centres in the Celtic nations and among the Celtic diaspora are an important aspect of Modern Celtic identity and activities.Jembana (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is nonsense. Research on the Iron Age is an important aspect of Modern Celtic iedntity and activities? Whose claim is that? Did the Battlefield Band issue an album in Proto-Celtic or something? --dab (𒁳) 20:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Dab, the Iron Age references are not in the section Celtic studies , they are from the original section Criticism of modern Celticism now renamed. Do you want them removed as well ?Jembana (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is, what is the "Celtic studies" section doing here? If academic Celtic studies has any relevance to modern Celtic identity, let's see sources that discuss that, not discuss Celtic studies in general. "Celtic" identity as a rule means Gaelic and Brythonic identities rolled into one. I have never yet met a Welshman reminiscing about the glories of the Hallstatt culture in Austria. Hell, megalithic monuments are usually more relevant to "Celtic identity" than the Iron Age in Gaul. --dab (𒁳) 06:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is just in the title of Koch's current O'Donnell lecture this month and this year - it actually says that Celtic origins lie in the Atlantic Bronze Age which sort of has bearing on the thesis in the next section Discussion of Criticism of modern Celticism which some earlier author than me put in with reference to Simon James and Richard Warners ideas which specifically rely on the Iron Age thesis. As such Koch has broken new ground that undermines the arguments present below. You cannot stop the presentation of evidence that shows their ideas to be wrong. Do you realise that there are young Welsh people who are attracted to Koch's research estabishment and want study and research with this centre because the research there is breaking new ground. I am a bit surprised that you appear to be pushing just one side of the story. This has lead to the bias objection to this page.Jembana (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but can you please stick to the question? Why is any O'Donnell lecture, and specifically this O'Donnell lecture, mentioned in this article? "Sort of has bearing" isn't a good enough to burden this article with reports on random lectures. The debate of "Celtic origins" in the early Iron Age does explicitly not belong on this page, at all, or else we can as well merge it all back into Celts.

I am sure there are young Welsh people attracted to each and every academic branch because the research there is breaking new ground, I have no idea how you are trying to argue this has anything to do with the article subject. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Read what I have said in its entirety and stop trying to put words in my mouth. The core issue is actually the bias on this page that others before me have flagged. It did not come across as neutral and I have attempted to remedy this. Constantly snipping out the contributions that don't agree with your POV is the introduction of bias by stealth (which you have now done multiple times to my referenced contributions without even discussing them with me and been reverted back not just by me).Jembana (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have read what you have said. I do not have any "pov" on this, except the idea that there should be one identifiable topic per Wikipedia article. Whatever this article's topic might be, it is not the Atlantic Bronze Age, nor is it academic Celtic studies. If you cannot distinguish a debate about article scope from a "biased" view on a specific subject, I don't know how we can have any discussion at all. I have no opinion whatsoever on the Atlantic Bronze Age. If I want to discuss the Atlantic Bronze Age, I would probably go to the Atlantic Bronze Age article. If you have a source that the Atlantic Bronze Age is of any relevance to modern Celtic identity, cite a reference that says as much. Just citing what Professor John Koch said about the Atlantic Bronze Age does not establish this. --dab (𒁳) 12:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I take your point that Iron Age and Bronze Age arguments have no place on a page about Modern Celts and that the section below also containing such arguments was incoherent and needs the attention of an unbiased expert on the subject. Removing whole section along the same line of argument.Jembana (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In keeping with the tradition of Wikipedia being written by amateurs, I notice that someone has removed the Celtic Studies section altogether.

Just to be clear, Dbachmann removed the Celtic Studies section that I created as a section.Jembana (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of nonsense which does it no favours... Perhaps people here need to start reading up on this subject and not merely expressing their opinions. For if they had, they'd notice that Celtic Studies in most universities includes modern Celtic culture and language.

In fact, informed people would know that the setting up of certain Celtic departments, notably the one at Edinburgh Unviersity, were very much connected up with the modern Celtic revival (creation - delete as appropriate). --MacRusgail (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

true enough. I certainly would welcome a discussion of these aspects under "Celtic revival". I fail to see how a university course in Welsh or Gaelic on the face of it has anything to do with "Celtic identity" any more than a course in German has a connection with "Germanic identity", but the history of the field and its establishment in the 19th century certainly has a bearing on the topic of this article. --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WW2

What is this drivel about WW2? We have a whole paragraph on Creston's resistance activity - entirely cut and pasted from the Creston article. Then there is a very brief mention of the fact that other Breton Nationalists were collaborators. In fact the Parti National Breton's official policy was not only collaboration, but outright support for Nazi Germany. Plaid Cymru declared themselves 'neutral' (leading to the 'Bards under the bed' controversy) and the Republc of Ireland was equivocal to say the least (it also harboured many collaborators from the PNB after the war). It was hardly the high point of Celticist glory. Also, ethnic nationalism of the period had distinct links to racialist ideas. Still, it's arguable that that this is all rather marginal except in the very specific case of Breton nationalism, but this whole section seems like a bizarre attempt to promote the idea that Celticism was linked to anti-Nazism, which plainly it was not. Paul B (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul - I agree this is of marginal interest on a page called Celts (modern). Feel free to delete the whole new section - it is adequately covered elsewhere IMHO. Other authors have also objected to it too as an example of anomalous bias. Please don't leave just one side of the story - that was the objection before.Jembana (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that "Modern Celts" are any more likely to be Nazi than "Modern Anglo-Saxons". Within both groups there are considerable varieties of views. And yet again we come back to the problem that this article appears to be infected by stereotypes and generalisations. A common flaw in the "ethnicity" debate. Ausseagull (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It's of interest that Celticism was linked to wider ethnic nationalisms, as one would expect, and to a lesser extent to Aryanism of the period, but it probably deserves no more than a sentence. Creston (who politically was a Breton regionalist BTW) is a rather marginal figure to say the least - and I say that as a fan of Creston (and as creator of the Creston article itself). Paul B (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No True Scotsman

The above article might be of interest in the context of this one. We had,"Gordon Brown is a modern Celt", to which there was a reply, "Gordon Brown is an opportunist", with the implication, ergo Gordon Brown is not a true Celt. Ausseagull (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting but I've taken out the link because it is only tangentially related to this article.
There are many reasons to say that Gordon Brown is an opportunist, most of which have nothing to do with whether he is a Scotsman or a Celt. In any event, "No true Scotsman" (a expression that includes the word 'Scotsman') and "Gordon Brown" (a Scotsman) have only a tangential relationship to "Celts (modern)" (an category of people that includes Scotsmen).
--RA (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Adds: I see someone else beat me to it. --RA (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
"No True Scotsman" is a conventional label for a logical fallacy. It could just as easily be "No True Englishman" or "No True Italian". The fact that Scots are Celts, sort of, is irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
it's still funny. Not encyclopedic, but funny. For some reason, people seem to agree that "being a Celt" is a plus, and from this it seems to follow that Gordon Brown can be either a Celt, or an opportunist, but hardly both :) --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, doesn't that sum up this article? Non-encyclopedic but funny. Ausseagull (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
there is some valid material in there, but it is unclear how this article has a different scope from that of Celtic nations and/or Pan-Celticism. We do not need three articles all pointing out the same fact that there is a "Celtic identity". --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown is indeed Scottish, but he is still an opportunist, and would have sold his gran if he had the chance. (Actually for many Scots he did, when he claimed to support England in football. I don't think most English people bought that nonsense either).-MacRusgail (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC) p.s. I see you gentlemen still have plenty of time on your hands. ;)

PS I'm glad you still have plenty of time on your hands too. But the real problem with your article is that it fails to identify any characteristic of a "Modern Celt". See my comments on "Irishness" above. Taking this further, in Australia Scots are labelled as drunken trade union activists; in America as dour, hard working Calvinists. And of course there are many varieties of "Modern Celts". Now someone could write an article on "Modern Anglo-Saxons", which would be less fashionable, but just as spurious and unencylopedic. Ausseagull (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


What bearings do your comments above have on whether or not Gordon Brown is a "Modern Celt"? If the answer is "none", why are they relevant to the subject? Ausseagull (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It's indicative of the sad dead end that is resentment-driven ethnicity-based politics. He's an "opportunist" because the then chancellor of Britain supported England in the 2006 world cup after Scotland had been knocked out. Interestingly even the leader of the SNP [1] takes that view about a recent bid! And of course politicians have to concern themselves with such matters because, bizarrely, some voters have such a ridiculously distorted view of government that they put supporting football teams above the management of the economy and social policy. BTW, Brown is a long-term supporter of the Scottish team Raith Rovers. Paul B (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Maps

The maps in this article illustrate modern day borders. Does anyone have a map illustrating the actual extent of Celtic influence, and I'm thinking here of the western parts of Cumberland as an example. I've got one in a book but I should think it won't be acceptable here. Lancashire Druid (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not a map with symbols and a key of surviving Celtic traits - such as shepherds counts, etc for the Modern Celts page ? Do you want to do that or participate ? Jembana (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The extent of Celtic influence would depend on the period in question, but this is really a question for either the main Celts article or possibly Britons (historical). This one is about modern self-definition. Yes, Cumberland was part of various early medieval Brythonic kingdoms for quite a while before it was Anglicised (see Rheged). Of course this does show how arbitrary "Celtic" identity can be, since parts of modern Scotland were "English" long before the "west of England" was. Paul B (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a great map for this in the British Museum - I have a photo of it: Rheged as Paul mentioned is just one area - there is Dumnonia which spans basically the present day Duchy of Cornwall or Stannery Parliament areas, the famous abode of poets Gododdin near Edinburgh in Scotland, Strathclyde, Elmet and more. Jembana (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
A map of the ancient Celtic-speaking areas would not be a useful in an article on modern Celtic identity. --Cúchullain t/c 18:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Again we come back to the need for a Medieval Celts page to include the early Medieval period as well. Jembana (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if dab's "no" (below) is a response to Jembana's suggestion, but if it is I agree - a "medieval Celts" page would be bizarre, since no-one in that period referred to themselves as Celts, and no medieval scholar that I'm aware of spoke of 'Celtic languages' or linked ancient people mentioned in Classical sources to modern ones. When the Scots insisted to the Pope that they had a right to be defined as a people distinct from the English, the genealogy of Scottish distinctiveness they created had nothing to do with claiming Celtic identity. [2] Paul B (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No. "Celts" covers about 700 BCE to 700 CE. From 700 to 1700, there were no "Celts", just Welsh, Irish, etc. After 1700, the "modern Celts" were discovered and/or discovered themselves. --dab (𒁳) 06:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, the Medieval Period starts with the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD. Thus the early Medieval Period covers a remarkable period when Celts achieved a degree of cultural unity in the "Age of Saints", then there was the poetic saga literature of Ireland with analogs in Welsh literature - have you ever heard of Kenneth Jackson ? I am prepared to write this up - there are plenty of sources on this. Jembana (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you are confusing different issues. Of course its possible to discuss the histories of the various 'Celtic' peoples in the middle agres. One could equally discuss 'Germanic' peoples, or 'Latinate' peoples in the middle ages. No doubt one could also find some significant cultural similarities between the Welsh/Britons and Gaels. But the point is that none of these people conceived of themselves as ethnically linked. You do have a real sense of self-identified cultural commonality among the Brythonic groups (Welsh, Cornish, Bretons) and also within the Gaelic group (Irish/Scots), but there is no meaningful claim on ethnic commonality among the Brythons and Gaels. They do not think of themselves as part of a common identity. The "cultural unity" in the age of saints you describe is the exchange of Christian evengelisms. I agree there is some significant commonality there, but its defined by Christianity not by Celticism. Even the concept of Celtic Christianity is a modern construct. Paul B (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
No confusion at all, Paul. Irish Gaelic influence was in all the surviving Celtic areas, there were well documented migrations and please consider the poetic saga literature so ably assempled by such as Kenneth Jackson. Jembana (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
That's wholly untrue. The fact that some Irish missionaries could be found around the place does not create cultural unity beyond Christianity, any more than missionaries from Rome makes everyone Latinate. The Britons and the Gaels had no known concept of being Celts. Paul B (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the Britons and Irish had certain Christian traditions in common has nothing to do with their "Celticity". It is accounted for by historical and geographical factors (the two islands are not very far apart). The idea that the Celtic peoples were united at this time by a distinguishing form of Christianity is romantic twaddle. I don't know what a "medieval Celts" article could do except discuss what similarities there are between the Britons and Irish in the period, while ignoring the differences as well as their connections with non-Celtic elements.--Cúchullain t/c 15:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
"Celtic Christianity" is, for better or worse, the conventional term for a medieval topic. Of course it refers to the influence of the Hiberno-Scottish mission vs. Anglo-Saxon and continental traditions, and does not intend to bracket the Britons and the Gaels. This sort of counfusion is what you get when people with no clear notion of the issues involved google "Celtic" and then throw everything they find into a large "Celtic" cauldron and let it simmer. Wikipedia deserves better than this. "Celtic Christianty" is not a self-designation. The Hiberno-Scottish missionaries had no notion of being "Celts", they were interested in spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, not in this or that ethnicity. Latter-day historians may label them "Celtic" but that's just a label, not part of their contemporary understanding of who or what they were. --dab (𒁳) 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Celtic music

It happens I will be delivering an academic paper on this topic next week, so I'm not entirely talking from the top of mmy head on this one! We have a modern concept of 'Celtic' as a category in popular music. That includes groups like Clannad, and idiosyncracies like Simon's Excalibur. These have no discernable connection to medieval Celtic cultures. We also have musical traditions recorded from the 18th century on - certainly not dating back to the medieval era. We can find meaningful connections between Irish and Scots folk music, which does suggest inherited commonalities from the medieval period, but linking this to Welsh, Cornish and Breton folk-musics is problematic to say the least. We also have the fact that medieval musical froms develop across and between language-communiies. After all music is a universal language. It's easier to communicate musical forms than literary ones. Much that is supposedly "Celtic" is common to non-Celtic peoples. See the Northumbrian pipe traditions for example. In the nineteenth century there were attempts to construct a "Celtic" musical identity, which you find among a number of musicians and musicologists. You begin to get composers like Paul Ladmirault who create a kind of syncretic Celtic sound, combining material from various musical traditions. These conventions feed into the Celtic folk-rock scene of the 70s on. Intead of making false, essentialist assertions we need to discuss details. Detailed information is more informaive than essentialist mystifications. None of this alters the fact the Druid website is not remotely a reliable source. Paul B (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could turn your attention to our article on Celtic music, which is currently pretty inadequate. It's hard to blame the writers, though; I think Celtic music in general suffers the fate of many other musical genres in that everyone knows what it is but no one could give give you a useful definition. I heard a thing on NPR recently about old-time music in the United States. Old-time certainly does have roots in the folk traditions of the British Isles, but it is not usually considered "Celtic music", while any number of horrendous New Age bands typically are, though their roots are all modern.--Cúchullain t/c 16:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the upshot is that Jembana is not making helpful contributions. Edits such as this are just a nuisance and we would let the bots roll them back if we could get them to recognize them. That said, this is the article on modern Celtic identity. Celtic music is clearly an aspect of that. Of course it is a product of the 20th century, informed by dodgy 19th century theories. But such is the topic this article is supposed to discuss. We just need to point out that "Celtic identity" (modern) involves "Celtic music" (modern), never mind the ancient Celts or what we know about their music.

I think what this article needs to overcome is its tendency to try and be critical of "Celtic identity" being unhistorical or modern. It shouldn't do that, it should simply discuss it as a modern phenomenon. Even the article title says "modern". What we need to do is accept that this is a topic of modernity and discuss it in such terms, rolling back edits that try to distract the article into discussing the historical Celts or their legacy. --dab (𒁳) 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Celtic Mythology and Religion in Modern Media and Festivals

Just saw and interesting program on the evolution of the story of Merlin into Gandalf and wondered if we should have a section on these sort of influences. Also, Jim FitzPatrick posters artwork and such from Irish Mythology. Hybrid works like SoulCalibre 2 with Loreen McKinnit as well and such. Festivals like Halloween and Lughnasa. Also, Celtic wishing wells and such like Madron. Any thoughts ?Jembana (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

In principle, possibly, but in practice I think it would be difficult to find reliable sources giving firm information on the influences. In fact, it's quite likely that the process is often that modern fantasy and alternative ....stuff.... tries to give itself some sort of justification by referring back to a highly idealised conception of "Celtic culture" that bears little relationship to what that culture was actually like. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Found quite a few reliable sources for this actually and a lot of lovely Wiki pages referring to these. There's a wealth of information on this topic. Thanks to user Lancashire Druid for suggesting this on this talk page previously.Jembana (talk)

Literature, Sports, Science, Ancestry and Politics

There is a lot of referenced material on these topics so that each could have a section in their own right - let me start with the example of the stirling work of Professor Steve Jones in the area of genetics and DNA ancestry which was one of the catalysts that started the Human Ancestry area of study especially as it relates to the various strands of the Celtic peoples. I know there were a lot of good contributions on all these topics in the past that seem to have been subsequently removed for obscure reasons. I would like to contribute in the a new Politics section the work of outstanding native-Celtic-language speakers such as Governor Lachlan Macquarie of Australia (lots of good reference material there). Any body else got any other ideas for inclusion should I or they start these sections ?Jembana (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


The following request for an "Ancestry" section by Wiki editor 174.100.166.184 will now be implemented in stages - I have now assembled a large number of reliably cited material - apologies for the delay 174.100.166.184:


In reading the various Wikipedia articles on Celts and Celtic identity, there seems to be little attention to and, indeed, hostility toward a tendency among some of us in the "diaspora" who do not speak a Celtic language but claim a Celtic identity based on heritage. As an American with Scottish ancestry on both sides, I fail to see any harm in claiming a Celtic identity (rather common here among descendants of Scottish, Irish and Welsh immigrants, where such "identity" has nothing to do with protest and politics and everything to do with ancestry) and am mystified as to why so many seem to find that offensive. Could someone shed some light on that, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by174.100.166.184 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, we can add ancestry to the definition of "identity" as you suggest and add a new section on "Ancestry". I think people would be interested and I don't think it would cause offence. Would you like to start this off ? I can add to it if there is anything more from my sources. Good idea :) Jembana (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to. Unfortunately, all I have is my own personal experience in various Celtic organizations and festivals here in the States. That's original research and unsuitable for Wikipedia. Glad you like my idea, though. I think it would flesh things out and temper the politicization somewhat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.166.184 (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I have some sources for such contributions so I will add something along those lines myself and you can add to it as you see fit. There is a list of Celtic Festivals page (see Festivals section) that you could add your celtic festivals to. Maybe we should also start a list of Celtic Organisations page - I'll see what other ethnic groups do for their organisations on the Wiki. Jembana (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


OK - made a start. Much more to come over the coming days (nights for me): please have patience while I build this up from my references or feel free to contribute from your own.Jembana (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Art

The huge popularity of Celtic Art on so many things from Jim Fitzpatrick posters to tattoos hasn't even been mentioned here and there are masses of references for this.Jembana (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've restored the last version, minus the Megaw quote which was both too long and WP:UNDUE - an attack on Collis without any balance or explanation of what Collis wrote. I'm not saying it's perfect, but such a section belongs in the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

England, Celtic?

See [3]. Not sure if this is significant, but I though it might be. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not add a precis to the Ancestry section on this page ? A number of other recent studies agree with the one you have pointed to so it is not unsupported.Jembana (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Further to the points made above, I am removing the {{Template:Infobox ethnic group}} from the article. That is not because I think that modern Celts cannot be described as an ethnic group - clearly, some of those in the Celtic nations do have feelings of a shared identity with those in the other nations, in ways which match definitions of ethnic groups - but because the infobox conveys no additional information to the text and is in some respects misleading. There are no references suggesting that any of those illustrated have stated any awareness of a shared Celtic identity (though some may have done); and there are no references giving a breakdown of religious allegiance, or indicating how many of those identifying as modern Celts speak modern Celtic languages. The infobox was only added a few weeks ago, in this edit, by a now-blocked sockpuppet. Happy to discuss further per WP:BRD. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I support this move. --John (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
These infoboxes with lots of photos of celebs representing some ethnicity, nationality or whatever are silly. They are recipes for pointless disputes about who should be in or out, and add nothing of any real substance to any article as far as I can see. There's no reason to either include or exclude George Best. He's Irish. He's no more or less "Celtic" than any of the other Irish people included. The box was full of people arbitarily identified as Celts because they have Irish, Scots, Breton or Welsh ancestry (I mean, J. M. G. Le Clézio?). Paul B (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

George Best

Does anybody have any evidence that George Best was a Celt? I removed his image from the list of Celts but an administrator restored it again telling me to read the article. Even if the article does claim George Best to be a Celt, that does not constitute a reliable source. I will remove the image again and suggest that anybody wishing to restore it should discuss the matter here first and provide sources. 86.180.33.60 (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As the article says, "The extent to which a modern Celtic identity remains a useful concept continues to be debated." That is an insufficient basis for including any images in the infobox. They should all be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I would fully agree with you. I think that all the images should be removed because there are no sources which say that these people are Celts, and because there is no such thing as a full blooded Celt anyway. Everybody in the British Isles is a blend of Anglo-Saxon, Dane, and Celt, and it's merely a question of proportion, with the Celtic proportion rising in the Western outlying fringes. In fact the whole article is original research and cause pushing. 86.180.33.60 (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article is a terrible mess, evidently the work of one author (possibly Jembana), who has an inordinate love of italics. Some sentences seem to make almost no sense at all. e.g "In 1996, Dr Ruth [16] and Emeritus Professor Vincent Megaw [17] of Flinders University in the Antiquity article "Ancient Celts and modern ethnicity" examined ethnic identity particularly in relation to Celtic identity in arguing against critics seemingly motivated by an English nationalist agenda opposed to further integration with Europe who saw modern Celtic identity as a threat" This explains nothing, and in any case seems to be criticism of criticism. Paul B (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Celtic DNA does not exist because it was a Culture not a group of peoples.

Good day all, Please forgive me but I like to list some facts. Celtic dna does not exist because it is a Culture from the Iron age. And there where many cultures before the Celtic culture. History gets rewritten all the time and continues to be updated. So read more and learn about the Celtic culture not Celtic peoples. One different theory from the British Isles DNA project shows a majority of Ireland, Scotland, England peoples came from Iberian peninsula. I do not know if it is correct?.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.232.235 (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This can't be true has my Ancestry.com DNA test identified my origin as "Celtic"... Care to explain??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see Rob's contribution below.Jembana (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Also DNA ancestry testing is quite common now and so it forms part of the mix in what people identify themselves as. Some like myself couldn't care about this aspect but others do so we should accommodate such considerations (DNA ancestry for me is interesting only to help unravel some of the remaining origin mysteries as has been done successfully with the Polynesians, but the Celts remain problematic but with some pieces falling into place in the past few years).Jembana (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe add part to the article expressing that the modern identity 'Celtic' is based on a learned/invading language and not blood, like as if all Scots, Welsh and Irish should take on the 'English' identity as they speak that language now. Shappin Trally (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Devon.

Can someone please remove the reference to Devon being a place of Celtic language revivalism? The link is now dead, and was from a non-reputable source to begin with. People who advocate such nonsense need to realize that the Cornish have extreme hostility towards anything in Devon being labelled "Celtic", and there is very little if any cross-border cultural exchange (not that far East Cornwall is particular hot-bed of Cornish nationalism to begin with). Can we have some common sense here? --86.166.157.231 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The IP makes rather sweeping claims about the anti-Devonian views of "people in Cornwall". after all Dumnonia included what is now Devon, so I've no doubt there are some Devonian Celticists out there. "Cornwall" and "Devon" have not been ETERNALLY SEPARATE. What we call "Cornish" was spoken there too. I don't see why reviving Cornish there is any more "nonsense" than reviving it in Cornwall. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of what you or I think, the text and reference accompanying it were clearly in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. For the record though, when I mean "Cornish" in this instance I refer to the Cornish Nationalists out there. I take it you aren't familiar with Devon or Cornwall - Well, I live in Devon - and I was born on the Devon-Cornwall border. Wikipedia has covered controversy over the Flag of Devon & the proposed "Devonwall" project, and I refer to - "Dr Mark Stoyle, a Devon historian, noted that "People are quite aware in Devon that the Cornish make political capital by claiming to be different." He also suggested that the new-found Devonian identity was a backlash against city-dwellers" - on the flag article. Also, check out other sources used by Wikipedia - Cornwall24, a notorious haunt of Cornish nationalists and cultural experts - some very respected in their circles - along with numerous other Cornish nationalist sites and publications. ALL have the same hostile attitude towards anything Celtic being linked with Devon. Eternally separate? No, but 1000+ years of separation makes the link rather weak. These are verifiable facts, and all make your argument look weaker still. All of this evidence just makes a so-called "Celtic revival" movement in Devon more WP:FRINGE. And to think, none of the controversy mentioned above had little if anything to do with Celtic revivalism in Devon! Final nail in the coffin, me thinks. And finally, by nonsense, I meant people trying to include it in the article as if it's some real thing in Devon - when it isn't. --86.166.157.231 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure there are "some" - maybe 20. As opposed to what, 2,000? in Cornwall. There will be many more in London. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that a bunch of petty-minded provincial nitwits argue about how far Devonians are different from Cornish is truly dismal (and apparently true [4]), but rather misses the point. The sentence merely stated that "Celtic revivalists" in Devon and the West country adopted Cornish as 'their' language. Johnbod might be right that this falls under WP:UNDUE, but it has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE which refers to non-mainstream theories. There isn't any 'fringe theory' here, just the choice of Cornish (presumably rather than Welsh) as the language that comes closest to their claims of Celticity. I don't claim to be an expert on local bickering about whether my-county's-more-hard-done-by-than-your-county, but claims about Celticity can't be rigidly equated with such issues. Nevertheless it seems that the Devonian Celticist website "An Ger Dewnansek" is no longer operational. Paul B (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

p.s given the utter dross throughout this article the great Devon Debate seems even more trivial: "People in traditional Celtic areas can recite their genealogy back though the generations as history, moving rhythmically from one name to another using only Christian name." Can they really? "The celebrations are tied to the promotion of fertility and a fruitful growing season with the 'Obby 'Oss dancing to the music through streets decked out in flowers, and sycamore, ash and maple boughs." Yes, and they don't have similar festivals in non-Celtic areas then? Paul B (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but this was one of the silliest bits, & complained about. Most of the worst bits seem to be reffed to "Moffat, Alistair (2001). The Sea Kingdoms." Is this a RS I wonder? Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Celt-scepticism.

I think the section on scepticism of the Celts as a whole could do with being extended, and probably more balanced. It seems to be a fairly controversial issue and more sources and explanations could probably aid in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatsAndRomans (talk • contribs) 16:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the title POV and/or in accordance with WP:NATURALDIS?

This article, in my view, is quiet well written, and fairly impartial. However the title, "Celts (modern)" is somewhat endorsing the view that there is a distinct modern group of people named "Celts". Whereas the article, as well as academic works, discuss criticism of this idea. Would "Modern Celtic identity" or similar not be more appropriate? Also in line with WP:NATURALDIS: "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title". Rob984 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Celts (modern). 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Celts (modern). 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Celts (modern). 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celts (modern). 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the inclusion of this article in two other more categories titled "Indo-European peoples" and "Modern Indo-European peoples" because it makes sense for an article about this subject to be in these categories given that Modern Celtic peoples are related cultural, linguistically and genetically to a broader group of other peoples.Bird Vision (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs) reverted your attempt to add this category with edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Bird Vision: Up for debate", so perhaps that editor can explain what the perceived issue is. In the meantime I took a look at the category description, which reads:
"This is a category about Indo-European peoples that still exist today (Modern Indo-European peoples). This category is organized by larger ethnolinguistic groups or by Indo-European individual ethnic groups that do not make a large ethnic cluster with other peoples."
The category does not appear well defined to me. "Ethnolinguistic" is something of an overused term on Wikipedia, but OK, I think you could argue Celts are a large ethnolinguistic category if you concentrate on the linguistic part of the term (I note Romance Peoples are in thee, which is also controversial, and it is very clear that Romance peoples are more closely associated linguistically than by any clear notion of ethnicity). But the category then adds that individual IE ethnic groups are okay, and now we have two more problems: (1) we have dropped "linguistic" from the definition making it all very nebulous, and (2) it means that both Celts and individual Celtic peoples would get entered. Again, okay, that is possible, but will every such group get entered? Because that category could get very big and it is currently looking very sparse if it is going to list every such modern IE group. I am not sure if this is what CorbieVreccan was getting at though. Its just a category, which is just a navigational aid. I am not strongly opposed to it myself, but neither do I really see the benefit. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celts_(modern)/Archive_3&oldid=1208441327"