Talk:Celts

German word welsch

The German word welsch, which is listed in the first section, never means "Celtic speaker". In its broader sense, the word means any language or parlance one cannot understand. But usually it is used for speakers of Romance languages. (The French-speaking part of Switzerland is often called Welschschweiz.) So, maybe the word meant "Celtic speaker" 2000 years ago when Celtic speakers still lived in what is now Germany, but in modern German welsch can never be understood to mean that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.238.103 (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

This page needs serious formatting help,but I can't do it. Anyone who nows how would help this page hugely.Rwenonah (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Poor article.

This article exemplifies why many people don't trust wkipedia.77Mike77 (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

77Mike77 - the purpose of Talk pages in Wikipedia is to discuss improvements to articles. Your post doesn't really do that. But your thoughts are welcome. Can you please tell us what you think should be changed, and how? HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. For starters, the whole first section has no narrative. It's just a string of facts - a data dump. It's unreadable. It needs a total re-write.

The section claiming that Celts were all gay is far-fetched and unsupported.

No insult intended. There are a lot of referenced facts that could support a good article, but it needs a narrative to connect the facts. It doesn't flow. It is not literature at all. Few people will read this right through. The author did some research, but didn't write a good article.77Mike77 (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this is an encyclopedia, & the subject is very complex & doesn't lend itself to an easy narrative. The section on Greek & Roman accounts of Celtic sexuality is heavily referenced, though of course it may amount to little more than their prejudice. Johnbod (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

At no point does the article state that Celts were "gay". It says that same-sex practices were considered quite normal, which is true of many other ancient societies including Athens, Sparta and Rome (if Suetonius is to be believed). It is well referenced. As for "narrative", if we had a smooth narrative, that would make the article less reliable, not more, as we would be glossing over issues that did not fit into a simple story. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever read an actual encyclopedia article? You seem to think that it is impossible to convey facts in a logical, organized way that doesn't resemble a list of disconnected details. The number of poorly written articles in wikipedia is apparently exceeded by the number of people defending them in a knee-jerk way. I've found better sources and won't need to revisit this heap of garble you are defending. 77Mike77 (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what? Witless mouthing off with no intelligent content whatever just makes you seem like an idiot. You have made no constructive suggestions whatever, so garble away. Paul B (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Identity Politics

It seems to me that this article is missing something important - a section on Identity Politics. Without some discussion of this, the article is very confusing. This is not the fault of the contributors to the article but a reflection of the source material itself which contains a number of differing theories (ie the 'Out of Halstatt' theory) some of which have been discarded along the way but still have some influence.

A discussion of what the Classical writers such as Herodotus and Julius Caesar ment by Keltoi or Celtae as opposed to what people now regard as Celts might be useful. The point about identity politics is that the people who regard themselves as Celts today (Irish, Scottish, Welsh) are almost certainly not descended from the Keltoi as decribed by Herodotus (these Keltoi probably lived in Spain) whereas the people who are (probably)descended from them do not identify themselves as Celts and, of course, the French prefer to think themselves as descended from Gauls rather than Celts. The strong effect of nationalism in the writings about Celts makes the whole subject a 'live' debate rather than a dry academic one, which adds to the confusion of the whole subject.89.206.230.105 (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea. Can you suggest any sources? Can you make a first stab at writing the section? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The article does go into these issues. One of the relatively few uncontroversial aspects of it is that the Gauls were Celts, which is not an issue for the French, so don't let's try to confuse the issue further! The whole term is an unfortunate anachronism, but unfortunately we are stuck with it, and there is no way it won't be confusing. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is just a silly point. People have a right to call themselves whatever they want and identities are fluid, changing often over the centuries. "Celtic" is a perfectly useful classification for the language family in question (and, by extension, the wider culture of the speakers of Celtic languages) so there is no problem with modern speakers of Celtic languages identifying themselves as "Celts". I suppose you also have a problem with various Eastern European people identifying as Slavs, including people who anciently spoke other languages and were only Slavicized in the middle ages? Or Norwegians identifying as Germanic (most Germanic peoples didn't even calls themselves "Germans" in antiquity!)? How about a native of Delhi calling himself an "Indian" (not a native term, but ultimately a Persian term for people from this region)?! Cagwinn (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a point invariably made by any academic writing on the subject. If "Celtic" were just a linguistic term, there would not be such an issue, but it has come down to us as also an ethnic and cultural term, which causes the problems. Your "and, by extension, the wider culture of the speakers of Celtic languages" begs any number of questions! That "People have a right to call themselves whatever they want and identities are fluid, changing often over the centuries" is true, but this is exactly what renders the term all but meaningless in a broad context. Clearly most people who today identify as Celts don't speak any Celtic languages at all. Nevertheless we have to live with it. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So what? They identify with what they perceive to be a Celtic culture and heritage - who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that this is somehow wrong?? This is incredibly obnoxious and presumptuous. Cagwinn (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "what they perceive to be a Celtic culture and heritage" may very well be wrongly described as such. And Johnbod, like anyone else, has every right to to say that something is wrong if he believes it is. However, besides that, academics have for a long time been exploring the construction of Celtic identities. It's an unusual case because modern self-identified Celts are so very far removed for "their" ancestors and because it is not a national or even linguistic identity, but a set of cultural markers that have been "chosen" for real and imagined pasts. It's one reason why the concept of modern Celts is so fascinating. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, calm down, and try to follow the logic! They are not particularly wrong, because they use the term in an accepted way. But the multiplicity of accepted meanings for the term makes it what I said above, "an unfortunate anachronism" and "all but meaningless in a broad context" (strictly linguistic uses excepted). Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yours is an obnoxious position - go deconstruct some other ethnicity's identity and see how well that is received by those who identify with it!Cagwinn (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Do get a grip! I'm not trying to deconstruct anyone's ethnicity - if they want that they only have to get a DNA analysis. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have good friends who are not discernibly different in appearance or culture from me - an American of NW European descent, raised nominally Protestant, but now atheist - yet they identify as being Jewish. They were born and raised in America speaking English, are multiple generations removed from being immigrants, have forgotten what little Hebrew they were taught in Hebrew school as kids, haven't been to a synagogue in years - and even then only for major family events (in fact, they are pretty much agnostics, if not outright atheists), they have never been to Israel (nor do they have no plans to go). They even celebrate Christmas and their only apparent ties to Jewish-American culture are an appreciation for intellectualism and self-deprecating humor, a love of bagels and Chinese food delivery, occasional neurotic behavior, and gathering with family for dinner on the high holidays. Yet, here they are, identifying as Jewish Americans. Are you going to tell them that, since they don't closelty resemble their ancient Judaean ancestors, they should abandon this identity - that it's somehow incorrect or wrong? Good luck with that, buddy! Cagwinn (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll continue to resist your attempts to put words into my mouth. The term "Jew" has it's issues, but they are nothing as compared to those around "Celt". I'm actually completely uninterested in "modern Celts", despite, according to you, being one. They merely add another layer of confusion to the term, beyond those set up by much earlier Celts. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's completely different. Judaism is a real continuous ethnic/religious identity. Celticism is not. It is a concept derived from the genetic commonality of languages which diverged thousands of years ago. Paul B (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

B.S. - they're not different at all! You folks are just trying to justify your awful prejudices and bigotry. Cagwinn (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What bigotry? Do youtr really believe that anyone anywhere is prejudiced against "Celts". It's a nonsensical concept. And I see you have no argument. Paul B (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? In my life I most certainly HAVE seen anti-Celtic bigotry, in many forms. The fact that you cannot even recognize its existence tells me all I need to know about you. Cagwinn (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti Irish, say, or anti Scottish prejudice is not "anti-Celtic". In other for these to be "anti-Celtic" prejudice the anti-Celt would have to view, say, Bretons with the same distain for the same reasons. That's a complete fiction. There is no such prejudice. Of course you can find prejudice against Bretons too, but in a different context and for different reasons. You can find prejuduice against any group that exists if you look for it, but that does not justify arbirarily combining various separate peoples and saying they are all victims of "anti-Celticism". That's like saying separate prejudices against Australians, Germans and Swedes is "anti-Germanic" prejudice because they all speak Germanic languages. Paul B (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You really don't know what you are talking about and are just embarrassing yourself at this point. Cagwinn (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Again I see you have no argument. As it happens I'm from Liverpool. My mother is Welsh and I live half the year in Brittany, so I think I have rather more than abstract knowledge! Paul B (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to tell me that there is no history of anti-Celtic bigotry in Europe, especially in the UK (where people of primarily English descent have imagined themselves [due to their perceived Germanic heritage] not only as different from, but superior to Modern Celtic people - as the term is commonly understood today) and in France, where the government has very discriminatory policies towards the Breton language and culture, you are either hopelessly ignorant of modern history, or a liar. Which is it? Cagwinn (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, you just don't hear what's being said do you? Racial Anglo-Saxonism is a phenomenon of the 19th - early 20th century. Are there English nationalists still? Yes, of course, but that derives from the fact that Wales, Scotland and Ireland have (or had) distinct national and constitutional positions within UK nationhood. It would make no difference if Gaelic and Brythonic were completely unrelated languages and the concept of "Celts" as such had never existed. What I have been saying all along is that there is no prejudice against "Celts" as a unified group. In both Britain and France (especially France) national unity was promoted, which included linguistic and religious unity (the main problem with Ireland was that it was Catholic, not Celtic). In France all non-standard French languages were deprecated. The fact that Breton was Celtic did not mean that it was treated in a specifically different way (a lot of people in Brittany spoke the non-Celtic Gallo language). In other words we have a complex of overlapping factors. They overlap in differing ways with the multiple meanings of Celtic. What we don't have is some sort of single anti-Celticism, especially as the French promoted "our ancestors the Gauls" as part of French nationalism. Who do you think it was it who stuck up those statues of Vercingetorix and wrote melodramas about Eponine and Sabinus? Paul B (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Deconstructing (and constructing) ethnicity happens all the time. We should all be prepared to acknowledge the truth about our multiple and fluid models of identity. It might lead to much less of a rigid "us versus them" mentality. All I can say is that I know of no discernable commonality between Bretons and Glaswegians greater than that which found among all Europeans. Paul B (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The discernible commonality between Bretons and Glaswegians lies precisely in their historical Celtic heritage. But why don't we get some verifiable sources instead of each pontificating our opinions about the modern validity of cultural heritages that some parties may want to be dismissive of. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a totally circular argument. What "Celtic heritage"? Language, religion, music, genes? Tell me how they differ from the "English" or the "French" in ways that are held in common. As for soueces, there is a huge amount on this topic. The only question is whether it should be discussed in this article. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have some kind of special litmus test a source has to comply with to be used in this article? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's called WP:RS. Perhaps you've heard of it. The topic I was referring to is the identity politics of modern Celticity, which, you may recall, is the subject of this thread. Paul B (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No Paul, that's not a "special" litmus test, that is the regular standard. I'm asking if you have a special litmus test for "reliability" - for example, all sources that espouse such-and-such a POV pass the litmus test and are therefore "reliable", whereas other sources discussing a different school of thought fail your litmus test and are thus adjudged by you as "unreiable". You know, that old chestnut... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Empty taunting is not helpful in any way. You know perfectly well what's acceptable. As Doug has just pointed out the literature is widespread. There are regular conferences, many books, journal articles and essay collections. What's the problem? Paul B (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't "know perfectly well what's acceptable" because I'm not a mind reader. There have been many cases where I would have thought that a source was perfectly reliable for establishing that a POV exists. But the self-appointed arbiters don't want that POV mentioned on wikipedia at all, so the sources demonstrating that the POV exists thus become "unreliable", and the editor who introduced them is accused of "original research" as if he made it all up himself. I see it all the time, even though it is quite honestly sickening to see wp regularly choose whose side it's going to fight on while maintaining a pretense of "neutrality". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Til, this is empty ranting. Do you something to say about what should be included in this article? If you don't, take your grievances elsewhere. Paul B (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

((od))There is an interesting literature on Modern Celts which was missing from the article - my suggestions there were either rebuffed or ignored. Malcolm Chapman's The Celts: The Construction of a Myth, Chris Snyder, Simon James' The Atlantic Celts. I've just restored it, it isn't perfect but it should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that Chapman's book is still controversial . I think we should just explain the controversy and avoid taking sides in it. I found a overview in the introduction to Amy Hale and Philip Payton, eds., New Directions in Celtic Studies. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Very sensible. Of course we should. That is what the Neutral Point Of View policy, one of Wikipedia's core policies, tells us to do. Doing anything else should lead to reversion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course we should "explain the controversy", but I'm not sure what controvery you think should be explained. It's undisputed that many aspects of modern "Celtic" identity are in-effect inventions. Whether very idea of Celts can be described as a "myth" is another matter. it really depends what aspect of the story you are speaking of. Paul B (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?? ALL identities - from the first groups of Homo Sapiens to today - are inventions!!! Every single one! Cagwinn (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you adopt that position you just get into the land of pure meaninglessness, since there is no basis to distinguish useful and nonsensical identites. I can say that Vietnamese, Angolans and Argentinians are all "Gondolian people", and anyone who expresses negative views about any of them is guilty of anti-Gondolianism. You merely undermine your own claims by resorting to the nothing-is-real argument, since you are making truth-claims about Celtic identity. Paul B (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You have serious issues. Seek help. Cagwinn (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If that's the best you can do, I suggest you give up now. The "all identities is fiction" argument is just the classic post-modern fallacy: like saying "cancer" is a medical-discursive construct so it is no more real than any imaginary disease I can make up. Paul B (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the most idiotic arguments I have come across on Wikipedia! Identities - and this should be blindingly obvious - are human constructs, thus they are invented at some point in history by humans. They are not handed down to us by some supreme power at the dawn of time; people decide collectively that they are part of a group, which someone has coined a name for. A hundred years, maybe a thousand, maybe five thousand, their descendants decide they are part of some new grew with a new name. What is so hard to grasp here? Cagwinn (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You really are not able to get it are you? Your remarks don't even address my point, because you are apparently incapable of understanding it. Of course identities are constructed. The problem is that you are mixing up "constructed" with "fictional" in ways that fail to engage with the actual issue. You make specific truth-claims about aspects of Celtic identity. When claims are challenged you fall back on the "identity is constructed" argument. The problem is the oscillation between the two - and the anger when challenged. If you really believed that Celtic identity was just a construct you wouldn't get angry with people who appear to agree that that's the case, and you certainly would not be arguing that there is some sort of "bigotry" against Celts as a whole. The term Celtic has multiple different usages (or types of "existence") discursively. They overlap and diverge in complex ways and apply in different contexts. To take one example. The idea that a particular group of languages have common ancestry is a truth claim. But its also a construct (it was "invented" by linguists and is supported or challenged within academic discourse). It is simultaneously a construct and an assertion of truth. The claim that bagpipes are "Celtic" may be a similar type of truth claim, or may be simply an assertion that it has become a sign of Celticity. We have to make meaningful distinctions between types of claim. But the idea that there is a unitary "Celtic identity" that has somehow been decided on by some group is quite different. Frankly, in my experience most people in so-called Celtic countries have no idea what the word means. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I just read at Breton language that there are radio stations in Breton, and nearly 15,000 students learning in bilingual Breton schools. I'd have thought schools anywhere would teach students what Celtic means. But you have lived there so maybe you can say from experience if that is not the real deal. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Obvoiously some people know a lot and some people know next to nothing, and some people don't care about it. Lots of people learn Breton, or at least can speak some phrases, but I don't think that's the same as knowledge of what is "Celtic" and what is not. Bretons certainly know that their "old" language is the same as "old" British (after all the same word, Bretagne, is used for both Britain and Brittany in French), but in the history of Breton nationalism that's complicated by wanting to be identified as separate from "Gauls", as Gallic identity was used to promote French nationalism. At one level Bretonism involves identifying as having a common "British" ancestry, to distinguish themselves from equation with Gallic French identity (which both is-and-isn't "Celtic"). But some local peoople I know are very fuzzy about how 'British' is related to 'English' (they often jumble up the two) and have no clear conception of what Welsh means, certainly not of P Celtic and Q Celtic. Of course, others are very knowledgeable. Paul B (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few articles discussing the effect of identity politics on this subject available on the web. Such as:

http://peer.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/57/21/41/PDF/PEER_stage2_10.1191%252F1474474005eu316oa.pdf http://www.laits.utexas.edu/ironagecelts/ethnic.php http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/alternative.htm http://www.academia.edu/2073922/Celts_Collective_Identity_and_Archaeological_Responsibility_Asturias_Northern_Spain_as_case_study http://www2.lingue.unibo.it/studi%20celtici/Articolo_12_(White).pdf https://eric.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/19179/OnbeingaCornishcelt.pdf?sequence=1 89.206.230.105 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

P-Celts and Q-Celts

Re: "Do you something to say about what should be included in this article? If you don't, take your grievances elsewhere." Yes. You would think an article like this would have a detailed section explaining the relationship between P-Celts and Q-Celts. These two divisions btw correspond to completely different traditional ethnogeneses. But I had to look hard to find even the briefest mention of P-Celts and Q-Celts, naturally along with the dogmatic, but completely uncited observation that these terms are supposedly "discredited". I think this assertion may be what we call "pushing" it just a wee bit. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's covered in Celtic languages.Itsmejudith (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to to do with the issue that was being discussed. All you have done is go through the article to find something to complain about. No one is saying the article is perfect, but the discussion was about whether we should have a section on modern "Celtic" identity politics. At them moment that's covered in a spin-off article called Celts (modern). Paul B (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Apparently only Paul B has the standing to dismiss this complaint as out of order, for the reason he just gave. Folks, I think we are getting close to being able to identify who the Chairman of the Board of this article is! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you can be just slightly less childish? You may not have noticed that I was not the person who "dismissed" your complaint. I merely pointed out that what you said has no relevance to the discussion above from which you quote. If you stop trying to lash out you might get some useful discussion. There is a genuine question about how much this article should discuss the languages and the modern identity (including "Celtic" art and music), or whether it should concentrate on the ancient Celtic peoples. I agree that the term "discredited" is probably too strong for the Ps and Qs. Paul B (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not, contrary to what you have assured us, search the article specifically looking for problems. In the above section, which concerns a different matter altogether, you compared Glaswegians and Bretons. As I got to thinking about this, it occured to me that Glaswegians are associated with Q Celts and Bretons with P Celts, and that these two groups have wholly different traditional ethnogeneses. So I thought to myself, "Our article is so pathetic I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't even mention Q Celts and P Celts." So I looked, and found that yes, it mentions them in the briefest possible terms, but with the wild, premature declaration that this is "discredited" and the case is now closed, nothing to see, please move along. So I opened up a NEW topic for discussion. Believe me, if I wanted to go over this article looking for problems, it wouldn't be hard to find a bushelful, because the whole article is similarly laughable as editor after editor keeps pointing out. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The article has certainly got rather gummed up and is no longer very readable. That's true. It suffers from too many people trying to squeeze in too many points. As for "laughable", that's just ridiculous. There is no reason to go into the P/Q distinction in detail, since this is not an article about Insular Celts or Celtic languages. It's an overview article. You forget that there are many many sub-articles that discuss specific issues in detail. Also my point about Bretons and Glaswegians was in the context of modern identity. Modern Glaswegians are not Q-Celts in any meaningful sense. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is currently 89 kbytes long, without exactly going into much depth on any issues, and carries a hat-note saying "This article is about the ancient and medieval peoples of Europe. For Celts of the present day, see Modern Celts", though they also get some coverage at the end of the lead. That seems about right to me. Expansion should concentrate on things like P & Qs rather than a brief section on modern Celts & their identities or lack of them. Anyone who fancies trying to boil down the ancient & medieval Celts into a better concise lead is of course welcome to have a go. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't typically talk about "P-celts" and "Q-celts" as modern cultural identities. P/Q celtic is a kind of fuzzy linguistic concept, one that we're moving away from (as cosy as it was, it's clear that the concept over-simplifies matters somewhat). We can look to the extremes of distribution of the Goidelic languages and Brythonic languages and see that sure, the west of Ireland has certain cultural traditions that are different from those in mid-Wales or Cornwall, but what about your example of Glaswegians? Strathclyde was originally a "P-celtic" area. Then it was a "Q-Celtic" area. Then I guess it was "Scots" area. Before it was "P-Celtic", it would have been a "Pre-Indo-European" area. Are Glaswegians "Scots"? Of course. Are they "Celts"? Which sort are they?

Go further east, to Tayside. Cultural traditions there are even more related to those of "P-Celtic" areas. Local traditions about Pictish stones relate to the Arthurian legends, yet the P-Celtic language was replaced (slowly) with a Q-Celtic language more than a thousand years ago, much in the same way as happened in Strathclyde. Are they "P-celts" or "Q-celts"? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You call it "moving away from", I call it pushing. Per Starfleet's Prime Directive, it's not out job to move anyone away from anything, but to describe things as they currently are in all honesty. And currently in all honesty, I don't think the P/Q school of thought has all suddenly packed up, gone home and given up the theory in favor of the insular one. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

For the nth time, we don't want to talk about "modern cultural identities" at all here, beyond the little we have - please take that off to modern Celts! But the current state of the Ps & Qs debate is relevant here. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A good place to start would be Schmidt, Karl Horst (1993), Ball, Martin (ed.), "Insular Celtic:P and Q Celtic", The Celtic Languages, Routledge. Essentially, P/Q used to be applied generally to the Celtic languages, but is seen as less significant now and the mutation between Q and P may have happened independently on a number of occasions and is not limited to the celtic languages. It's still used to classify insular Celtic languages, but recent work on early Scottish Gaelic has shown that the dividing lines between P and Q can still be extremely fuzzy. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And it's hardly a very useful way to classify insular Celtic language, when it simply does the job that Brythonic-Goidelic does, but less well. garik (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistancies in article

The article starts with the phrase 'Kelts were an ethno-linguistic group of tribal societies in Iron Age and Medieval Europe who spoke Celtic languages and had a similar culture'

However, as the article makes clear, the Halstatt and La Tène cultures were distinct from their surrounding cultures some of which were just as 'Celtic' according to this article. Also no one knows what language was spoken in the areas described as 'core Halstatt'.

Maybe it would be better to use the definition that: 'The Celts' were a variety of people described by Ancient Greek and Roman writers as living in Western Europe, mostly in the area that comprises today's Spain and France.193.105.48.20 (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Also according to Julius Caesar: 'All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws.' So obviously, Caesar thought that the Celts only lived in part of Gaul and they were different to the Belgae. However according to this article the Belgae are also Celts.77.98.78.8 (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)