Talk:Celts (modern)

What Makes A 'Modern Celt'

Is it just language? Gazh 13:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is teanga, dúchas agus cuid de comhstair é. Tuiginn? --sony-youth^pléigh 13:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Béarla only. Oops. Gazh 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Only joking - thought you'd get back quicker. What I said was language, heritage and a bit of shared history. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Something to chew on that has more than just language (from the 1835, so not just a modern thing):

"There is some reason to believe, that the original inhabitants of the British Isles possessed a peculiar and interesting species of music, which being banished from the plains by successive invasions of the Saxons, Danes, and Normans, was preserved with the native race, in the wilds of Ireland and in the mountains of Scotland and Wales. The Irish, the Scottish, and the Welsh music differ indeed from each other, but the difference may be considered as in dialect only, and probably produced by the influence of time, like the different dialects of their common language."

- R. Burns, J. Currie, 1835, The Works of Robert Burns: With an Account of His Life and a Criticism of His Writings

I'm guessing you've never heard NE Folk and Ceilidh music then, it's quite famous; even more so when it's sang to, always in English albeit in NE dialect, the tradition is carried over in NE Football (soccer) also; "Wor me lads, it's good ta see yas gannin, gannin alang ta Roker Park divny hoy it in the wata".

http://www.birchmore.clara.net/html/northumbria.html

Most of the music seems to be Instrumental on the site however. Gazh 09:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I hadn't. A browse around on Google brings up lost of interesting stuff. The first, I had heard before from Origins of the Britons (which I will try and dig up), if I remember it correctly it was just in this exact context that it was mentioned:

Within living memory, shepherds in Cumbria have been recorded as using a counting system which is clearly Brittonic in origin, and children at play use a counting system which is probably derived from it: Gregor, again, quotes from I. and P. Opie (The Times Literary Supplement, 14 July 1979, p. 799), who say that children, counting aloud, use 'twenty' as a unit, and there is some likeness between many of the numerals from 'one' to 'ten' and those of Welsh, he quotes yay, tau, tethea, meatrea, pimp, sethera, lethera, nothera dothera, dick trough sethera (if correspondent with siath) is not optiomally ordered for the correspondences with Welsh, which are un, dau, thre, pedwar, pump, chwech, saith, wyth, naw, deg.

- Donald MacAulay, The Celtic Languages

Tempered with a "bad new" quote:

There is, as Professor Mawer implies, nothing unusual in the survival of pre-English river names in Northumbria. They have survived everywhere, and are nearly always unintelligible.

- Historical Association, History

This is about the 'Celitic nations':

From this account of the congress, you will have realized that language was considered the major criterion of Celticity for the Pan-Celtic Association. Indeed the Cornish Celtic cultural association, Kowetthas Kelto-Kernoweg, was initially refused membership of the Pan-Celtic Association in 1901 on the grounds that Cornish was no longer a living language. However, in the course of the 1904 congress, Cornwall was admitted as a Celtic nation and a sixth stone, representing Cornwall, was added to the 'Logan stone' monument.

Traditional music, costume and 'native sports' were also considered important. Chapman and other have commented on the way in which archaic, previously general cultural features and artefacts, such a bagpipes (one common throughout Europe, but now associated with Scotlande, Britanny, Ireland and Northumbria), have come to be seen as timelessly an dtypically 'Celtic' (Chapman, 1992, pp. 118-19)

- Open University Course Team, Mark Pittaway et al Globalization and Europe

You should start digging more into this. Take a look at Celtic music and [Music of Northumbria]]. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

For your Cumbrian point, i think there is recorded evidence of this or a similar counting technique being used as far down as Whitby (i was down there yesterday enjoying the rain btw) on the Yorkshire east coast.

As for 'digging more into this' I'm not about to, the fact that NE England and Lowlands Scots have an alot of cultural similarities is nothing new in the slightest, and has been looked into many times by numerous people, the evidence is right there to see if anyone wants to see it, but the fact that the people of the region are English and acknowledge that (unlike the people of cornwall) is what goes against us in these instances, maybe we should all lie and denounce England? ..then upon joining the CL suddenly reclaim our Englishness? haha, would be a laugh. Anyway, personally i think the cultural similarities possibly existed before any border was in place and before Scotland and England had it's names. Gazh 07:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Same as what made people "Celts" (or Germanic or any other similar kind of group) historically - language. However that doesnt really serve the great many people who like to think of themselves as being "Celtic" despite having no linguistic or cultural connection so various tenuous and really rather meaningless links such as ancestry or geographical location are claimed as relevant and hence this article. siarach 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If, as Ive been told, Ulster-Scots are Celts, then presumably Ian Paisley is one. I'm not sure he'd like that label. Similarly, if Scots are Celts, then are Rangers in fact celtic? Millbanks 08:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing i've learned since having an interest in the Celts is that it is all about opinion when it comes to the modern definitions. I obviously do not speak any Celtic languages and my history knowledge is 'ok' at best - although purely learned through reading on the web and a few books etc I do vaguely remember my Grandad trying to teach me a few phrases and the like as a bairn and thinking back to that was what garnered my initial interest, i do plan to have a go at Irish in the near future, wish us look won't you. Gazh 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "bairn" is not Celtic. It's similar to the Danish for a child. Most Scots dialect is in fact Germanic. Also, before you "have a go at Irish", would it not be a good idea to improve your English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.239.29 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

about Criticism of modern Celticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link added to ‘Anglo-Celtic’ article

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

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

This article is completely Original Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparent Demand that England be recognised as a Celtic nation

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

Galicia

Asturias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celts in UK Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox and essentialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of

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

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

Orkney and Shetland

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

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

Glaring omission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religion

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

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

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

UK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Glaring Omission -- Simon James

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

History of 'Celticity'

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

Sport

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

I suppose things like shinty.

List of Modern Celts?

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

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

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

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

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