Talk:Celtic nations/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Dubious edits?

We seem to have picked up some intriguing edits from an anon in the last couple of days. I'm not au fait enough witrh current research to know if this is genuine, but at first site it appears to be very spurious. If someone with more info can confirm/deny the veracity of this it'd be much appreciated! Grutness...wha? 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubious looking indeed. I've removed it as unsourced for now. —Angr 05:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read large parts of the book in question, and idea is that what we know of as "Celtic" in fact has its origions in north Spain.... the author goes on to illustrate how migrations from northern Spain - through the west cost of the Aquitaine, then Brittany, then up to Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, then Scotland- is demonstrated by the high percentage of DNA markers with simularities with the Basques and others in Northern Spain (as opposed to DNA/RNA markers with the residents now inhabiting the traditional location of Central Europe, which you would expect some residue DNA/RNA markers even in subsumed population). It is known that trade and the exchange of ideas existed along this route on the Atlantic seaboard, from Spain all the way to the lands bordering Irish Sea, to a much greater degree then hitherto recognized.

In essense, the idea the author proposes has recent DNA and RNA evidence to back him up, and I feel it should be included. The author only states that the origion has been mis-identified as in the Alps, and rather proposes that it was in Celti-Iberia, based on DNA and RNA evidence.

HOWEVER, the edits removed say that it is widely accepted now, or is becoming widely accepted, but this I do not know to be true. That would be my only 'however'. Removing the statement that it is 'widely becoming accepted' would be my only recommendation. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 12:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The genetic evidence point has been used previous to demonstrate genocide/forced migration by other authors (I am not at home so cannot check). That links to the linguistic evidence that English eliminated Welsh (to use modern language) names far more effectively than it did elsewhere in the world. That would imply settlement into a space with no previous knowledge, to be named anew. I agree with Drachenfyre, it is cited but claims such as "widely accepted" are not. --Snowded TALK 13:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder to what extent this is even relevant to this article. If there's an alternative to the conventional theory that the Celts originated with the Hallstatt Culture just north of the Alps, surely Celts is the right article for it, not here. —Angr 14:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No. of native-competent speakers

The table claims 500,000 native Breton speakers, yet in Breton language we read 200,000 (or 200,000 - 300,000 in the table), sourced as follows: "The most recent census (2001) shows about 270,000 speakers, with a yearly decline of about 10,000 speakers." This makes our half-million look rather dubious.

The figure here of 3,500 native-competent Cornish speakers looks very inflated too, given that a 2000 study counted a mere 300 (See Cornish language).

I've {{fact}}ed the two figures in the article. Thoughts, anyone?
--Yumegusa (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Even 300 native speakers of Cornish looks inflated. It's probably really about 300 less than that. —Angr 11:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

When people make attempts to revive languages they deserve better than supercilious comments Angri. It took a couple of minutes to find this which talks of 1000. It needs checking but the figure is not 1000. The same EU site estimates 32000 for Breton, see here --Snowded TALK 12:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The EUPOPA link mentions estimates of 1,000 people able to speak Cornish (without stating to what degree), not native-competent speakers, which is what we're discussing here. The same site's article on Breton gives 320,000 (not 32,000 - your typo Snowded), but appears to be based on a 1991 sampling of just 1,000 people in one specific area. That is surely less reliable than "The most recent census (2001) shows about 270,000 speakers".
--Yumegusa (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree Yumegusa - suggest you put the 270K in and cite, no objections. I found a source which justified removing the fact tag (I prefer trying to source before so tagging myself). I suggest a quaification for the figure on Kernow to say that it has been revived. --Snowded TALK 13:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of "native-competent", as used here, is "as proficient as a person who speaks no other language but that language". For example, I consider myself a fluent speaker of several languages, but am native-competent in none but English. So if MacKinnon's study in 2000 suggested that there were then about 300 people who spoke Cornish fluently, where does that leave us with regard to native-competent speakers today? In the absence of any more recent sources, even 300 begins to sound like an inflation for native-competent speakers. While I have every respect for people who try to revive a language, they do their cause no service by exaggerating their numbers, or by blurring definitions.
--Yumegusa (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I can sympathise with that, but I think that definition would provide a misleading impression as to the state of the language. Maybe a better route would be another column for "some fluency"? --Snowded TALK 15:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise back, Snowded, but this article is Celtic nations, not Celtic languages, and perhaps the latter would make a better home for such detail?
--Yumegusa (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Language is a part of nationhood and an extra column seems to be reasonable, or change the column to fluency. Otherwise its misleading. --Snowded TALK 15:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Language is not necessarily part of nationhood (think e.g. of the many English-speaking nations) so the appropriate place for such linguistic detail is surely in an article about language. Putting the number of native-competent speakers under the column marked "native-competent speakers" is hardly misleading. You might argue that replacing that column with 'Native speakers' (which would substantially reduce both the Cornish and Irish figures) would be misleading, though I would tend towards the opposite view.
--Yumegusa (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree I am afraid. Given that control and elimination of language is a common feature of Empire it would indicate that practice agrees with me. However the issue here is one of clarity. To list only first language speakers gives the impression that a language such as Kernow is dead. To have two columns, first language and some fluency gives valuable information. I really don't understand why you would oppose that? A table is a table, another column is no issue on presentation (the table is sparse anyway). --Snowded TALK 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It would informative, and relevant to this article, if the number of 'speakers' were added to the column, not just "native-competent speakers". Also, I've always considered language to be a badge of nationality, particularly for subject nations. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, Snowded make a valid point, and I withdraw my opposition to replacing the existing column with two (native speakers and fluent speakers), though I still think the Celtic languages article is in greater need of such data. But is there enough reliably sourced data to populate them with? Addition of number of 'speakers' (without defining whether they are native, fluent or just manage a cúpla focal) would not be informative.
--Yumegusa (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Recent edits have pushed this article away from the neutral point of view. "Outsider political-pressure groups"? Outsider compared to whom? Exerting what sort of political pressure? According to its article, the Celtic Congress is non-political. "Minor groups"? Minor compared to what? This just sounds derogatory. What "terminology has no official recognition or standing within major political parties or legal institutions", and what difference does that make? Ireland and the Isle of Man are only "usually included" among the Celtic nations? Meaning that some of the time they're excluded from the definition? —Angr 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree and think that the recent edits should be reverted immediately and discussed on the talk page. The recent edits not only are pretty bold and change the tone of the article, but they make the assertion that the idea of "celtic nations" is some kind of theory not supported by anyone but a few "pressure groups" and no one in academia. Is the concept based more on historical times than current reality? Probably, but I think that these edits take it too far in tone. It sounds like a personal opinion article now with some of the weasel words inserted. The same user has removed the celtic nations template from all articles as well. If there were inaccuracies or problems with the article previously, I think each point should be discussed here first rather than such bold changes. Kman543210 (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted them to the previous stable version and will place a note to voice of the walk asking him/her to discuss such changes here. It looks like a POV edit. --Snowded TALK 07:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

--Re "Outsider political pressure groups" that's something which often catches people out. In the UK, pressure groups are divided into insider and outsider, depending on their influence with policy and law makers. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

This article in its previous form is very bias and almost acts as a piece of Anti-English propaganda, perportrated by bitter and obscure recreationalist and secessionists groups with no references. I will present below the explination of edits.

• 1) Outsider pressure group: see also List of pressure groups in the United Kingdom. The term outsider pressure group is used to describe a pressure group who have little or no relationship with government policy makers. This perfectly describes the reality of small groups such as Celtic League and Celtic Congress. There is no evidence that they have had any connection to government policy makers, thus they are not an "insider pressure group".

• 2) Definition: these areas defined as "Celtic nations" is the specific definition of Celtic League and Celtic Congress. These groups do not hold global rights to decide who does and doesn't have rights to the Celtic identity. So the fact that it is these organisations definition needs to be presented. Especially as people, such as those in England, Galicia and Asturias also sometimes claim Celtic identity. One man and his dog speaking Cornish as a second language, doesn't really give those organisations a right to choose who to include and exclude.

• 3) Lingustics: it needs to be made blatantly clear the lingustic statistics for the areas claimed and that use of a Celtic language is mostly as a second language. 1.2% of people in Scotland speak a Celtic language according to the sourced Demographics of Scotland. While 16.3% in Wales, fully speak, write, etc a Celtic language according to the sourced Demographics of Wales.

• 4) The sovereign nations in which these areas fall within need to be pointed out. The United Kingdom, France and the Republic of Ireland. Also Cornwall is officially in England as one of its counties, like it or not.

• 5) Anti-Union secessionist mythology such as "The Romans wiped out all the Celts where England would be" need to be sourced and addressed. After the Romans left Britain, Brythonic nations took their place such as Elmet, Gododdin, Rheged, Ebrauc, etc. so this is highly unlikely.

• 6) The template for the minor recreationalist groups Celtic League and Celtic Congress do not belong on the articles of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. The CL and CC are an incredibly small group of people with no political power of any sort. Such templates only belong for significant entites, for example the Arab nations template on Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt articles. These countries governments are actually involved actively in something called "the Arab League", CL does not have such power or authority. - Voice of the Walk (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As an Anglo-Celt myself, I find myself very much in agreement here. This article has alot of bad bad content in it. A cull of the POV stuff would actually make for a more honest and informative history of the Celts in Britain and Ireland. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the same situation - as an Anglo-Celt I agree that the article needs substantial work. However, this doesn't necessarily mean the wholesale removal of material that is there. Given that the term "Celtic Nation" is clearly one which means different things to different people, it is definitely important to attempt to maintain balance by retaining some of that information as one of the known meanings of the term and explaining it as such, rather than by excising it completely. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Most articles need substantial work and a cull of clear POV material is obviously a good thing. I don't see where the article is anti-English however (unless recognising a celtic heritage is considered anti-English. Points 4&5 I can agree with, the others need discussion. Item 3 is certainly controversial in respect of Wales where in large parts of the country the primary medium of education is Welsh. Item 2 represents a fairly contemptuous attitude to the efforts to establish Kernow and the historical position of Cornwell as celtic (the same group as Wales and Brittany) is clear and citable. Item 1 needs discussion. Rather than making whole scale edits across many pages I suggest strongly discussion of the points here then make agreed changes. --Snowded TALK 04:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Voice of the Walk is also editing Template:Celtic nations to push his POV that the idea of Celtic nations is somehow an invention of the Celtic League and the Celtic Congress. —Angr 07:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well a good starting point would be to cite some sources that it isn't an invention, would it not? I'm not seeing anything in the article to suggest where the origin of term is from or where and how it is applied in real world practice. Without verification its unclear what is and isn't POV here. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It being impossible to prove a negative, sources need to be cited to show that it is an invention of those organizations. Otherwise, there's no reason to suppose the term is anything but a trivial combination of the adjective "Celtic" with the noun "nation". —Angr 11:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources need to be provided for everything. How widespread is this term? Who uses it? Is it used in scholarly papers? Newspapers? Websites? Is it formal/informal? Why are they "Celtic nations"? Where did the term comes from? Who decides what it includes?... --Jza84 |  Talk  21:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd like to avoid a celt/ant celt discussion if possible (have more than enough of that at the moment elsewhere. Basically it is not difficult to establish that Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Cornwall, Brittany are distinct groups with a linguistic history and culture. The two base P and Q celt languages basically mak out the Scottish-Irish group and the remnants of the Romano-Celts in Wales, Cornwall and Brittany driven into those areas by the Saxons. Brittany by immigration, Wales and Cornwell separated at the Battle of Dryham and so on. Its also possible to establish that direct attempts were made to wipe out the Welsh Language in the 19th C and indirectly in Scotland and Ireland (the clearances and the famine). The various Celtic revivals in the 19th and 20th C are also there and lead to the recreation of older customs and the creation of pan-celtic festivals that survive to this day. Its not anti-English per se to state though (and its not a good part of British/English history).

Whether they are nations or not is more ambiguous. Brittany and Cornwall were Dukedoms, Wales and Scotland independent states to varying degrees. The claims of individual pressure groups should be a part of any such article but we may want to rename it and do some work. The subject area is important, there is a lot of material that should be here and some which is badly worded.

I'd like to suggest that before we get mass edits that we talk about what this article is about (possible renaming) the gaps etc then execute. Its been around for a bit a few days conversation could get us to a good article rather than yet another edit war. --Snowded TALK 13:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But as I've said above, everything needs to be sourced. You say "it is not difficult to establish that Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Cornwall, Brittany are distinct groups with a linguistic history and culture", well prove it. I say Mancunians and Liverpudlians are distinct groups with a linguistic history and culture (which they are), but I don't start an article about it.

Why is England not included exactly? Cornwall is in England, whilst Manchester was founded a "celtic" fort, having been a stronghold of the Brigantes. Whilst some historians attribute the Highland Clearances and Potato famine are attributed to Scottish and Irish landowners (I'm looking on YouTube for a clip of Simon Schama I have in mind!).

Where has all the critical thinking gone from Wikipedia lately? I don't know why there is so much defence over a such a poorly sourced article that (in its present form) could easily be wiped clean if we press the WP:V and WP:SYNTH buttons. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

actually I am agreeing its not a brilliant article (but that stands for a lot of articles) and may need to be renamed and needs some work. I am also trying to get some agreement as what might happen rather than trigger another celt/non-celt debate. Getting the citations to support the points above is not difficult (I can see the books on the shelf in front of me), but it might be better to agree what the article is about first. The Manchester/Cornwell comparison doesn' stand up. Manchester did not retain a celtic language until the end of the last century. The Saxon (etc) conquest of England created Wales and Cornwell and Brittany (half a dozen history books to that effect. Oh and there are more sentences in the Manchester article without citations than are with by the way --Snowded TALK 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

PS A tentative suggestion would be to rename this "Celtic Fringe" cover the basic history of the two celtic language groups, refer to the celtic revival and modern pan-celtic associations and leave it at that? --Snowded TALK 21:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Manchester article has been independently reviewed, four times, the last being unanimous decision to promote it to featured article status. That's quite different to what's happening here. Not every sentence needs sourcing - paragraphs that are attributable to a single source are fine. What we have in this article is reams and reams of text that's taking statements as fact without going through normal editorial norms of citation.

There wasn't a "Saxon conquest of England". England was a concept of the future to the Anglo-Saxons. They invaded/migrated to Great Britain (and despite popular belief, that included a large part of what is now Scotland - there are many Old English place names in the Lowlands). Another issue is calling the whole of Ireland, "Celtic". Last I remember there was the Plantation of Ulster which supplanted the majority of Irish "celts" with Scottish lowlanders and English settlers.

I think what's happening here is that people who are familliar with a certain view on history and culture (and I not saying I disagree), are taking that as "obvious", whilst those who are questioning it are finding it to have been written with a little poetic licence for convenience to get an article going. That's fine; my problem is that Celtic history on Wikipedia is dire - I'd love to read an article about the celts which was a GA or FA, using proper scholarly citation. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK a Saxon conquest of the territory which is now know as England (but not including Cornwell - sorry I was using short hand). There is a dispute as to whether that involved effective genocide or not (which gets political) which spins over into other articles from time to time. There was a similar plantation in Wales in the 13th C but it was confined to the walled towns and was eventually absorbed, but yes the plantations diluted the celtic nature of Ireland and that needs be noted, however those were both post the Norman conquest. I think this article needs to be about the Celtic position that emerged with the collapse of the Roman Empire, the period from the 11C to the 18C (plantation, conquest) followed by the collapse of language in the 19C and the Celtic revival (which includes the newwer pan-celtic institutions, proactive work on language etc. I agree with your last paragraph, hence the suggestion above to rename and write from the outline suggested. --Snowded TALK 05:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I could live with a rename. I'm sure that something about the Celtic (percieved, revivalist, real or otherwise) heritage and identity in Britain and Ireland is worthy of an article somewhere. I'd be interested in knowing what the other guys think - particularly User:Voice of the Walk. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This tiny movement, Celtic League and their concept of a Celtic nations, is simply a "get together lovefest over the Republic of Ireland's independence" game. Bottom line. Especially look into the movement's origins, the history of Celtic Congress in regards to this. There is no evidence or source of the term "Celtic nations" for these six areas in a context not related to CL, CC, etc. 99% of it is based in mythology, fear of facts (real language %'s), "woe is me" history revisionism of a tiny fringe minority of people who live in a part of the UK that is not called "England" (well, apart from Cornwall, but 99.9% of Cornish don't even speak Celtic anyway). No other country would have to put up with such secessionist propaganda/nonsense for articles as the UK does. The only good thing is this bigoted Anti-English organisation has no real authority.

It would seem these people are much annoyed that they did not have a Famine too so they could hold a pity party. I mean, the five people in Wales that vote Plaid Cymru and are all "Celtic League" just don't seem to be able to pull off the "English repressers" myth. Especially as it was the descendants of Welshman Owain ap Mredydd who took away Welsh "independence" by annexing the Principality of Wales (an entity of Gwynedd imperialistic origins, who had subjugated the Deheubarth and Powys) to the Kingdom of England in the 1500s with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542.

It should not be viewed as if this is a movement genuinely interested in the real history, legacy and culture of the fascinating Brythonic peoples to which all of the areas of Great Britain have a heritage claim to, or presenting a neutral Anglo-Brythonic outlook for our state. Its simply about one thing, via revisionism trying to break up the United Kingdom (one of the most developed nations on earth). Since there is a lot of mixing between the peoples of the British Isles (I can personally trace, English, Irish and Welsh), the recreationists can't claim distinct "race" or "ethnic" differences, so their measuring stick is language but when you view the actual statistics, the farse becomes clear and their real goal comes out the shadows.

I mean what next? An equivelent to this article would be somebody starting an article called Teutonic nations... including some countries and random areas based on Germanic language speaking. Lets say...100% speak Germanic language in England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Austria and Netherlands. We'll throw in somebody obscure Flanders and Normandy. Pretend that "some call this the Teutonic Horseshoe". But we'll exclude Germany and pretend they have no Germanic history just out of plain and simple bigotry. - Voice of the Walk (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that's made your political position fairly clear. Given that Plaid Cymru is currently power sharing with Labour in the Welsh Assembly it makes a bit of a nonsense of your "five people" argument, and the nationalist position in Scotland is hardly a minority. I love your idea of Gwynedd imperialism and the fiction that the 1500 sees the abolition of the Principality of Wales, sounds like the level of historical accuracy you get in a Mel Gibson movie. I can see no successionist propaganda in the article by the way unless it is successionist to talk about anything other than an homogenised English identity. The idea that people who do not live in England form a "tiny fringe minority" is fairly freakish as well. You seem to confuse UK with England as well by the way.

This article is not linked to the status or value of the Celtic League. I'm not wild about them as a group either and the title of Celtic nations is a misnomer which needs changing but that doesn't mean that we don't need an article which covers the two P and Q Celtic linguistic/cultural groups. There are some very simple facts here. Scotland and Ireland have a common celtic heritage (with intrusions at various points in history as is true for all countries). Wales, Cornwall and Brittany are in effect linguistically and culturally the remnants of the Romano-celts. Yes there is a celtic history in England as well but it was wiped out progressively between around 500 and 800AD while it remained in situ in Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. Those facts are available from many sources and are not linked with the celtic league. That and the revival of celtic identity over the last 150 years is something that exists and needs an article. --Snowded TALK 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Going forwards, we need some kind of compromise and strategy in place. I agree that Voice's addition is politiced, but underneath I think lie some legitimate concerns inline with WP:SYNTH and WP:FORK. I'm still not seeing any suggestions or citation? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on that (and the need for citations) which can be addressed (need to get books down from shelf when home). One important thing however is renaming. The Celtic Nations is I agree linked to the Celtic League which should be a part of this, but not dominate it. Celtic Fringe is one alternative? --Snowded TALK 21:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

After consideration, I believe Snowded's proposal to rename this article 'Celtic Fringe' has some merit. It will then require considerable reworking: add History section, lose 'Other claims' etc. What are others' opinions on this as a way forward?
--Yumegusa (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Atlantic fringe" might be better, since none of those places are majoritary celtic, but rather germanic (Scotland, Ireland or Wales), or latin (Britanny). If it is not supposed to reffer to a linguistic classification, then the article should prouve that "celtic" is a biological concept (good luck), and that what makes the celtic identity is somehow a common dna herency or common looks, which is invalidated by history or just by observation of the diversity among those "celtic nations".

Then, what is celtic about them? people would refer to a feel of relation to countries of similar landscapes, shaped by similar strong atlantic climatic conditions, giving birth to common points in terms of traditional habitat or in a way of life somehow related to a oceanic way of life of peoples (culture of fishers that have shared for centuries the same seas, exchanging music in the different fisher ports of those "nations", from Galicia in Spain to Ireland). Are these common points really a "celtic culture" in the historic point of view? Actually no, since historically celtic had referds to a diverse group of peoples originary from central Europe united by common languages, then how places were most people don't speak celtic languages can be reffered as "celtic nation"? It seems more similar to a common geographical identity that gives to the places that border a same sea can share, similarilly to the concept of "caribean nations" or "mediterranean nations". In that sense the word "celtic nations" to speak about the Atlantic European fringe is a strong misuse, like it is to use the word "latin nations" to speak about the common identity of the mediterranean fringe, since a lot of places of the mediterranean fringe are not speaking latin languages, and all places of latin culture and herency are not necessary along the mediterranean sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome and some of the arguments above are tortuous. Wales, Cornwell and Brittany belong to one language group, and their populations were created during the post roman invasions of Britain. Wales and Cornwell were in effect the parts of Britain not conquered at that time, Brittany was populated by refugees. Scotland and Ireland belong to another language group, with Scotland in part populated from Ireland although there were other cross overs. I can't speak for the Isle of Man or the other areas but there is a clear celtic group, they are referred to as such, there are current cultural and other festivals etc. etc. Celtic Fringe is a possible rename, Atlantic Fringe I agree does not make sense. --Snowded TALK 22:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I must admit that I am always suspicious when a new anon IP address suddenly appears and starts editing on any pages to do with matters celtic, a lot turn out to be sock puppets. However lets assume good faith. In respect of recent edits:

• The statement that is written like an essay is a contentious statement, If that claim is going to be made then it needs to be illustrated, or better have the tag put in the relevant sections so they can be improved.
• It is the case that none of the celtic tribes made up England, yes they had influence but the current wording does not say that. In effect England was formed by the various invaders post 300 who pushed the Roman-Celts back into Wales, Cornwell and parts of Cumbria. This is covered on various other articles and can have a citation if necessary but its hardly controversial.
• To state that local linguistic and cultural forms persist into the anglo-saxon formation of England is hardly contradicted by that earlier statement. Its a misunderstanding to make that claim.

Other comments? --Snowded TALK 12:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"During the 'Celtic' era, Great Britain was populated by a number of regional Celtic tribes, none of whom directly ended up forming the English nation, only the gene pool." What is that supposed to mean? If the intended emphasis is on "forming", that is on the process of creating Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, it could be true, but it appears that the emphasis is on "nation" as opposed to "gene pool", which is mystifying or at least does require clarification. I thought that both a "nation" and a "gene pool" comprised people. Ghmyrtle (talk)

Agree, its needs clarifying (although that is not what the IP is saying). The whole artice needs a hard edit. However it is true to say that the Celtic tribes did not form England and its doubtful if they controvuted much to the gene pool.

Well, the argument that the pre-Anglo Saxon inhabitants of England did not contribute to the local gene pool and were "forced west" is now highly debatable, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Depends a bit on which book you read, and what evidence you accept. However it is not a fact, and any wikipedia entry should state the two points of view. I do think the myth of peaceful integration (the arthurian ideal) is pretty much shot to pieces however. --Snowded TALK 13:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Having read both Canu Heledd and Y Gododdin (poems on the destruction and murder of Welsh property and people in what is now Shropshire by the Saxons c 550 CE, and on the defeat of Welshmen at Catterick c 595 CE, respectively), I never believed there had been peaceful integration. There may have been some form of Anglo-Saxon overlordship of the British in southern Strathclyde and Dumnonia, but the kingdoms overwhelmed earlier were ethnically cleansed. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to the anon IP (Napoleon?), I don't think anyone would argue that this is a well thought out, or even coherent, article. However, anyone is welcome to contribute to make it better. Inserting 'drive by' citation/ref required tags just doesn't seem very constructive. Yours Daicaregos (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can't cite something then it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Nations are cultural entities, its entirely possible through cultural domination for a people to form part of a gene pool but not the nation, but you need to clarify this and add the relevant citations, face of Britain by McKie and the Origin of Britain by Oppenheimer both base their analysis on genetic evidence that show large ammounts of celtic dna in the english gene pool, and this has generally replaced the earlier theory that the germanic and viking settlers surplanted the celtic and romano british inhabitants. The whole article is badly written and contradicts its self and needs a heavy rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.42 (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone would argue that this is a well thought out, or even coherent, article. However, anyone is welcome to contribute to make it better. Inserting 'drive by' citation/ref required tags just doesn't seem very constructive." Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just found this link on England#Demography as a reference. Anyone know if the research is still considered valid? Daicaregos (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that the claims were too broad given the evidence, but there is more recent research which contradicts it. I don't think the people involved in this bit of research have changed their minds though. dougweller (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving forwards

I have done some work on the citations and fact tags. I earlier proposed renaming this "Celtic fringe" as not all the units described are nations. So:

• what do people think of the renaming?
• which areas need additional citations so we can remove that tag? --Snowded TALK 11:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that the term 'Celtic fringe' isn't perjorative? Rather sounds it to me. I'm quite happy with the name of the article as it stands. The term is in current use (well, I use it anyway). Which of the Celtic nations do you consider not to be a nation? Daicaregos (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Open to other options, but Brittany is not, not the small area on the north of the Iberian Peninsular,. Nations is a misnomer and could lead to the article being deleted etc. --Snowded TALK 14:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The article Brittany says it is a nation. I was only aware that 6 nations were considered to be Celtic. Although I suppose it depends on the criteria for inclusion. Shared language origins seem pretty high on the list and that would exclude Galicia. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well much as I think it should be it isn't, and never was. At its height it was a Dutchy. The other celtic areas are important. I think we need to make these things bullet proof given the anti-celtic group. --Snowded TALK 15:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you confusing nation and state? Nation refers to the people, whereas state refers to the legal apparatus. By this means, any group that conceives of itself as nation is nation, irrespective of whatever legal foundations may have existed in the past. I can validly conceive of myself as belonging to a Celtic nation, although my research indicates that my ancestors were probably Normans and did not speak a Celtic language. Thus 'nation' is not dependednt on DNA, language, or state. See nation.--Yumegusa (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No one would be happier than I if you find a valid citation to establish nationhood for Brittany. As to the distinction between nation, country and state that has been done to death on the various UK country pages over the years. I know that if you attempted that statement on Wales or Scotland it would not survive. --Snowded TALK 19:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I agree that you cannot confuse nation and state.A national group has a defined territory ( not necessarily a state ), normally an identifiable language and culture, shared history, emblems, historical memory etc...The breton fit that description and claim a primary identity as Breton,not necessarily incompatible with a secondary or tertiary identities as French, Europeans etc... Secondly,if it matters, a historian by the name of Yann Brekilen ( my spelling of his last name may be off ) spends several chapters of a French-language book on the history of Brittany expounding the fact that Brittany was in fact an independent kingdom for centuries before becoming a duchy, so the earlier claim that it "at its height" a mere duchy is challenged. In the interest of disclosure, I am a Canadian of Breton origin. I say this as the challenges to the article appear highly political. --Guythegood (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly - that's original research and not admissible. Secondly - that's evidence of how historically Bretons were seen rather than how they are seen today and so not relevant.GordyB (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds as if it is WP:OR - but WP:OR by ″Yann Brekilen″ (if Guythegood is able to find the reference to quote), which would be an acceptable citation if written by an historian. Whether relevant, or not, would depend entirely on the reference itself. Daicaregos (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The first part of the Guy's post is clear cut Oringinal Research.GordyB (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations

The fact tagged is being used to excess. If you look at the recent reversion by Yumegusa the link I placed went to a rich source (which links to others) and was useful for a reader. The residue of celtic languages in England is hardly controversial, just look the name Carlisle and its origins. As WP:facts clearly states "you don't need to cite that the sky is blue". --Snowded TALK 19:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, I put in an additional sentence on language. The examples now given in the paragraph support the earlier statement and there are no grounds for a fact tag at that point. If you think any of the following statements are not examples of "the sky is blue" then make the case here. Far too many fact tags were thrown into this article after a sentence, without reading the sentences which followed. --Snowded TALK 20:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The sky is not blue - look outside, Snowded. Adding (unreferenced and uncited) sentence B to "illustrate" or "support" (unreferenced and uncited) sentence A ("there is... a recognition that local linguistic and cultural peculiarities can be back to Celtic origin") helps not a whit. Sheep-counting and placenames - is this really the best that can be come up with? Replacing a {fact} tag with an interwiki to an unreferenced and uncited article is downright shoddy. I think we all know that per WP:VER "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources" and that to replace a {fact} tag with such a wikilink is not acceptable.

I hope it's clear that I am not a member of "the anti-celtic group" as you name it; on the contrary, I believe that it does articles such as this no service to pass with less than the best editing standards. Snowded's past record indicates that her standards are the highest. Let's get this one right, and not compromise with second-best.
--Yumegusa (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Snowded is male by the way (but thanks for the comment on past record). The text in this paragraph relates to the statement that that are some residual effects of Celtic language and custom in England. These are minor (place names, sheep counting etc.) and no claim is made that these places are celtic. The residue IS place names, sheep counting and some minority sports, that really is ALL there is. If someone wants to make a case to remove the map, and wipe this whole section down to a simple paragraph (based on the final two). As it is the evidence is in names, language and games which are listed. Now each of those statements technically could require a reference but (to take one example of many) the toponymy of "Carlisle" is not cited.

Now I have tidied that section up a bit, in particular on the revival and I have removed any language which implies that the celtic element has any major significance. I have added aspects of celtic revival during the restoration and subsequent empire which was an attempt (like the Elizabethan use of "British Ises" to create a longer legitimacy for empire.

Please note that I placed a citation tag on the WHOLE article. It is as several of us have said very messy. I've tried with a series of edits to make it at least accurate and eliminate overclaims (see my comments above re the use of nations). Many parts of it now need citation (hence flagging up the whole article). My insert on Purcell for example can be cited but I am in Singapore at the moment without access to my books. What I think would now help, rather than splattering the article with fact tags, is that all interested editors work on inserting citations to the point were we can remove the tag in the heading--Snowded TALK 00:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that full answer. I think your latest edit is a good move in the right direction, successfully eliminating an apparent overclaim. I'm not that comfortable with blanket article-wide citation tags, as they tend to obviate the possibility of pointing up the most needed. But let's go with what we have and make a concerted effort. The renaming debate is one that would be better settled sooner than later, as its result affects where we go with the article to some degree. Will get back to this in detail tomorrow when it's not so late in the "British Isles".
--Yumegusa (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (and its very late in the UK!) - will try and do some more myself but have to prepare for meetings tomorrow so it may be later in the week. --Snowded TALK 00:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

I find it hard to take seriously those of you who contnue to think that the name "Cornwall" is spelt "Cornwall".

What?? Shonty08 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORK for deletion

Participants may be interested in the nomination of Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Celtic_nations. Keep in mind this is not a straw man vote, but rationale is to be provided. - Che Sell (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No. of native-competent speakers (Manx this time)

Please see discussion on Talk:Manx language. All constructive input welcome. For now I have cn'd the number of native speakers of Manx on this article. --Yumegusa (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:2007 Ireland 20 Euro Celtic Culture Reverse.jpg

The image File:2007 Ireland 20 Euro Celtic Culture Reverse.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

England

The article could do with some POV edits. It asserts in the beginning that certain countries are "Celtic Nations" without referencing exactly who agrees with this view. For instance the view that Cornwall was a nation distinct from England is very controversial within England (actually we tend to find it funny) and I would imagine that Britanny was similarly controversial in France.

The England section references Parkin as being Lancastrian when it is usually associated with Yorkshire - is it proven that this is Celtic in any case?, refers to Celtic place names in the West when all of England has Celtic place names - they are just more common in the West. It is not sure that Cumberland wrestling is of Celtic origin and not Scandinavian.

You would think that a reference to Cornwall would be appropriate as it is officially part of England. Yes I know that some people have issues with that but one would have thought that if they had a decent legal case then they would have taken it to court.GordyB (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And yann, tann, tethera has been extinct for some time. It's just something that appears on tourist postcards these days. It wasn't just used for counting sheep either, according to my granny it was part of normal speech on the Cumbria - Northumberland border.

Rheged isn't a place that "profiles the Celtic culture of the surrounding area", it is a history museum that covers local history from all periods Celtic, Roman, Germanic and more modern.GordyB (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

By nationalists

Insulting or not, this is the truth. Cornwall and Brittany are only considered nations by Celtic nationalists, the previous wording implied that British and French governments agreed that Cornwall and Brittany were separate from England and France. They definitely do not.

If you think other groups do in fact recognise Cornwall and Brittanny then let's have some references and we can alter the wording.GordyB (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GordyB is quite right. Cornish nationalists (by definition) view Cornwall as a potential nation; others do not, and so far as I know Cornish nationalists are not a majority within Cornwall. The Celtic League website cited is self-evidently non-neutral. The BBC page cited - which seems to be an excellent and neutral source - refers to Cornwall as a "so-called" Celtic nation, and as a "beautiful English county". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree its incorrect to say that they are "celtic nations" as if it was an established fact, but neither do you need to be a nationalist to recognise that the common linguistic (and ethnic) origins of Wales, Cornwall and Brittany is distinctive and in the case of Cornwall makes it not just another country. In the case of Brittany it puts it in the same group as the French Catalonians and Basques in terms of distinctiveness. I'm trying to think of a form of words that avoids weasel words like "and others" but we need something. --Snowded (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just expand your above statement. It is not a controversial fact that Cornwall has more Celtic heritage than any other part of England though ancient Cornwall doesn't quite correspond to modern Cornwall as Cornish was spoken in places like Exeter which is in Devon.GordyB (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

E/C If 'Cornish nationalists (by definition) view Cornwall as a potential nation' then the term 'nationalists' is redundant. Your contention here is that 'Cornwall and Brittany are only considered nations by Celtic nationalists', therefore the onus is on you to provide references for this misleading statement, otherwise it is merely unsourced POV. Both the articles Cornwall and Brittany refer to them being Celtic. Why haven't you raised these issues there? Are there any other of the Cetic nations that you dispute? I haven't seen any references saying that Cornwall and Brittany are not Celtic nations. Are there any? This article has enough problems with references. Please don't add any further material without taking the trouble to provide citations. Daicaregos (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I did. If the statement is that they are Celtic nations then this needs to be referenced, otherwise it should be deleted. If the only people who consider them as such are nationalists then that's what the article should say. What you seem to want is for a an official statement that they are not Celtic nations. Presumably I should be allowed to call Cornwall a Slavic nation just because there is no official statement denying it.GordyB (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You did what, exactly? The statements added here, here and here do not have citations. The burden of proof is on the editor adding content. Daicaregos (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You are seriously doubting whether Celtic nationalists see Cornwall as being a Celtic Nation?Would you prefer that it read that the Celtic League and Congress view Cornwall as a Celtic Nation?GordyB (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you could misunderstand me. As I stated above: if 'Cornish nationalists (by definition) view Cornwall as a potential nation' then the term 'nationalists' is redundant. Consequently, the sentence implies that only Cornish nationalists view Cornwall as a nation. That is why the statement requires citation. Any additions to the article should be referenced anyway. Had the statements been referenced in the first place, we wouldn't all be wasting our time here now. Daicaregos (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It says "Celtic nationalists" not "Cornish nationalists", I think it is pretty clear that members of the Celtic League see it that way whether they are from Cornwall or not. If there are any groups other than Celtic nationalists that see things that way then let's have a reference and we'll ammend the article.GordyB (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you define "Celtic nationalists". Quite honestly, I've never seen the term before it was used by you. So there's one thing that should be referenced for starters. All I can see is that some unreferenced POV statements have been added to this article and now you require other people to discover a reference to refute your statement. That is not how it works. I say again: The burden of proof is on the editor adding content. And you still haven't said what it was that you 'did'. Daicaregos (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine so let's replace "Celtic nationalists" with Celtic League and Celtic Congress and reference it. If any other groups can be found that agree with them then that can be added. With reference to your last sentence, I have no idea what is it is that I am supposed to have doneGordyB (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to your first two words in this diff. Daicaregos (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I get you now. A year or two ago I took up similar issues on the Cornwall page though I don't know whether all my changes have been subsequently reverted. The article at the time gave the impression that politics in Cornwall revolved around Mebyon Kernow whereas Cornish particularism has historically manifested itself in the shape of support for the Liberals / Liberal Democrats and the main two British political parties are also both stronger than Mebyon Kernow.GordyB (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not a monarchist. But I recognise that the UK is a monarchy. Similarly, you do not have to be a 'Celtic nationalist' to recognise that Cornwall is a Celtic nation. I've found two more references for you: First a map showing the Celtic nations. Next the National Geographic refering to them as Celtic countries, here. Is that enough to show that it isn't just 'nationalists' that recognise Cornwall and Brittany as Celtic? Daicaregos (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is sufficient to support the statement that this view is sometimes given support in the media. The difference between the UK being a monarchy and Cornwall being a Celtic nation is that the UK states that it is a monarchy and acts as if it is a monarchy whereas Cornwall is ambivalent at best. I was reading a book review on the Mebyon Kernow website of a Cornish history book and even MK say that Cornwall can be viewed as a Celtic nation, a county of England or both and that Cornwall is both "of England" and "not of England".GordyB (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

e/c Funny thing. Until you brought this up, I wasn't aware that anyone actively thought that Cornwall was not a Celtic nation. I realise that some/many people wouldn't be aware of it. But ignorance is all around (and I include myself in that). I still think that you need to provide a reference for the implied statement that it is only nationalists who consider Cornwall Celtic. Also, it is bad form to edit a topic on the main page, while it is still being discussed on Talk. Unless it is to self-revert following any controversy. Daicaregos (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people disagree with this idea which is why the Cornish Nationalists get about 6% of the vote in Cornwall. We don't tend to discuss whether Cornwall is separate from England for the same reason why we don't discuss whether Sussex is not part of England but here are some random references.GordyB (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC) [1]

[2] [3]

Bretons are indeed considered to be Celts; in point of fact, they are genetically related to the Welsh and Cornish. One needs to look at the origins of the Celtic name Arthur-it originated in Brittany! Bretons themselves claim Celtic ancestry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Everybody in the British Isles is genetically closely related and the same in France. This "Celtic ancestry" limited to six chosen nations is a fantasy.GordyB (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get into Arthur here!! - I thought that the Bretons came originally from Wales and Dyfnant (= Dumnonia = Devon + Cornwall) after the 5th century. There's no dispute that Cornwall has a Celtic heritage, but it seems to me that the remaining unresolved issue is whether Cornwall in fact is a nation. I'm not denying that, in many senses, it once was, and to some people (nationalists) it still is, but to other people (the UK government, and I'd suggest, most people in England) it isn't - it's a county, albeit one with cultural characteristics which are different from most parts of England. In my view, a statement that it is a nation, of any sort, requires proper references. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Three more references: In the first the BBC site shows a western European map with Celtic nations highlighted. In the second the BBC site says the Lorient Interceltic Festival provides a showcase for eight Celtic nations' cultures. And in the third a Googlebook search finds book entitled 'Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations' which states: 'The Cornish are a Celtic people ... the Cornish retain their distinct character and remain separate from the English majority.' It is not just nationalists who consider Cornwall and Brittany to be Celtic nations. I have provided you with the evidence, please now revert your POV statement. Daicaregos (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If by revert, you mean return to the situation where it is stated that the Cornish are a Celtic nation without any qualification then no, there are very many people who disagree with with this, in particular the Cornish. If you look at the referenced data in Cornish people from census figures then more people in Cornwall consider themselves "English" than "Cornish". What we need is some kind of compromise wording.GordyB (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I meant revert the statements added here and here yesterday. I see no need for them. Daicaregos (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In any discussion of whether England / France are Celtic nations, it is rather odd not to mention Cornwall / Britanny. Perhaps a solution would be to delete the sections for France and England, very few people in England would claim that we were a Celtic nation and I suspect France is similar.GordyB (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not confuse "Cornish people" with "people in Cornwall". The reason that more people in Cornwall consider themselves English rather than Cornish is that there are a large number of people in Cornwall who are English rather than Cornish. Recent movement of people from the rest of England into Cornwall is great, and those people are very unlikely to associate themselves with any Cornish or Celtic identity. Things like the census have no bearing whatsoever on what the identity the Cornish may or may not hold, or whether they believe Cornwall is or isn't a Celtic nation / entity. Moving to Cornwall does not make anyone Cornish. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is kind of why people tend to find the argument that Cornwall is a Celtic nation rather odd. If there was a Celtic survival in Cornwall then it has been obliterated by recent demographic trends.GordyB (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The argument you put forward that 'If you look at the referenced data in Cornish people from census figures then more people in Cornwall consider themselves "English" than "Cornish"' and, therefore do not consider Cornwall to be a Celtic nation, does not stack up. Please read WP:SYN. It does not follow that because they idenify as English they do not, therefore, identify as Cornish/Celtic. Would you use the same argument to say that because they identify as English they are not British? Daicaregos (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with people having a mixed English / Celtic identity, so far as I am concerned that is the essence of Cornishness. The problem is that "Celtic" gets defined as "not English" and therefore any evidence that people in Cornwall have a Celtic background "proves" that they aren't English. I don't have a problem with Cornwall being described as being a Celtic nation so long as Cornish is not used in opposition to English without there being an explanation that this is a particular point of view rather than an agreed fact. The problem I have is that the fact that Cornwall is dealt with early on and then England later but with no mention of Cornwall. This clearly implies that Cornwall is not in England, which whatever one's point-of-view about the rights and wrongs of it, is certainly true from an administrative point of view.GordyB (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the idea that recent demographic trends have "obliterated" any Celtic survival is ridiculous. People from the rest of England have moved there in large numbers, but that hardly means that those identifying as Cornish and upholding a Celtic revival have disappeared. Secondly, I'd say that your view of the essence of Cornishness being a "mixed English / Celtic identity" is way off the mark. A significant number of Cornish people that have no non-Cornish blood in their heritage would be offended by that. I, for one, have no non-Cornish English heritage and do not consider myself English in the slightest. That said, I do not claim that it's a fact that Cornishness and Englishness are mutually exclusive, it's just my point of view. Others will differ, that is the nature of ethnic / national identity. Trying to use the political status of the day to denounce the identity people choose to hold is futile, e.g. the idea that because Cornwall is politically part of England, anyone from Cornwall is English and should just deal with it. I'm not saying that's the view you're putting forward, by the way, but it's a common view. It doesn't change what a lot of people believe.

The problem with this particular article is that in debating whether or not Cornwall is a "celtic nation", we are dealing with two rather woolly concepts. The definition of a nation is an argument that will rage forever, and equally, the definition of Celticness is also something ill-defined and problematic in today's political world. The reality is that Cornwall's Celticness and nationhood mean different things to different people, and the article should probably reflect that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

arb. break

I reverted to the previous version while we sort this out. If I attempt to summarise - In terms of language group, we have two celtic groups: Cornwall, Wales & Brittany, then Scotland and Ireland. - There are groups like the celtic league who refer to them as celtic nations - However it is wrong to define it by those organisations as they did not create the term and you don't have to support their aims to agree that there are celtic nations - It is equally wrong to say that only nationalists call them nations - It is also true that English nationalists don't like the terms - and also most people outside said celtic nations are not really aware of the term Now I think that is reasonable - can we see what we agree/disagree on, then find a form of words which matches that common agreement? --Snowded (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think English nationalists have a problem with Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man being Celtic nations nor is there an issue with Cornwall having Celtic heritage. The main problem is whilst nobody claims that Highlanders and Islanders having a Gaelic heritage proves that they aren't really Scottish; people do argue that Cornwall's Celtic heritage proves that they aren't really English. Not referring to Cornwall in a section on England implies that it is not part of England, using the word "nation" next to also implies this.

I don't really see why there needs to be an English section anyway. The number of people who claim that England is a Celtic nation is very, very small.GordyB (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful coming to an article and saying that you find its premise funny as you did here, especially when you went on to make unsourced POV edits that you failed to revert, even after reliable sources proved those edits to be wrong. The article had been stable for some time prior to you arrival. I suspect it would be again should you choose to move to other pages. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It may have been stable but it was full of nonsense such as Lancashire being famous for Celtic Parkin cakes. It's also been tagged as being in need of improvement. The fact that Cornwall's status as a Celtic nation is disuputed has been cited, you just chose to ignore this.GordyB (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

e/c I didn't choose to ignore it. I hadn't noticed. There is a difference. There must be many thousands of tags on Wikipedia. Which individuals are to blame? Now that I have provided reliable references will you accept them? Daicaregos (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we really have to have the current version of the England page. To say that it is full of nonsense is putting it mildly. I strongly suspect that it was written by Enzedbrit who has this very singular idea that Cumbria is a Northern version of Cornwall and backs this up by citing things that aren't remotely Celtic.GordyB (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest the England section is renamed, or it's at least made clear that it talks about parts of England that aren't Cornwall. There isn't a single cite in that paragraph, which can't be allowed to continue. Non-Cornish claims to Celticness in England are minimal, as far as I know. Maybe a referenced piece on Cumbria, a mention of Devon... not a lot else, I suspect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the least bit precious about the England section. As it is all uncited, I suggest we remove it all. It has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Can we achieve consensus on this? Daicaregos (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly simplify things. Cornwall has a Celtic movement but England (as a whole) doesn't really.GordyB (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me - England as a whole certainly has no Celtic aspect, today at least. Any regions / counties of England that apply to the article can be dealt with individually. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

E/C However, removing any reference to England outside Cornwall could give a wrong impression by suggesting a clearer divide between England and the "Celtic" areas than actually exists. I suggest reducing the section but referencing those parts of it (for example, persistence of some aspects of the "Cumbric" language, and perhaps a reference to the extent of the shared genetic heritage) which are relevant to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't any persistance of the Cumbric language beyond place names. Yann, tann, tethera died out a long time and was never specific to Cumbria. It was used from the North Midlands upwards (though not the North East).GordyB (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is a simplification to state that "England as a whole certainly has no Celtic aspect". Apart from the migration aspect (ie. that there are many, many so-called "English" people whose ancestors migrated from "Celtic" areas in the Industrial Revolution and later), and the ancient shared genetics angle (ie that many people in England descend from "Celtic" people who were here before the Anglo-Saxon invasions), I am sure that there are many survivals of Celtic folklore etc. in what is conventionally thought of as "English" culture. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be a simplification, but as a whole, England is not considered Celtic. That's my point. Any Celtic-derived aspects of English culture can be dealt with in terms of those aspects, providing they're well referenced, of course. With regard to Cumbric, it did exist, even if it has died out, so it should probably be mentioned. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but England certainly has Celtic aspects to which some reference should be made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There aren't a lot of things beyond genetics, place names, personal and surnames that survive as a Celtic legacy. English folklore doesn't really exist because it was destroyed by the Christians and then the Normans. There may be quite a few things that are Celtic but we don't know about them. There is very little that could be referenced.GordyB (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That does seem an over-simplification, particularly the statement that "English folklore doesn't really exist because it was destroyed by the Christians and then the Normans." I'm no expert, but what about well dressing, green men, etc etc? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We only have fragments. Nobody really knows what the green man was about.GordyB (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If we mention Celtic-influenced elements of English culture, they should probably at least be notable in themselves. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The section 'England' should be removed. The article is on Celtic Nations. England does not come under that heading. As Bretonbanquet says, if any parts of England are mentioned (excepting Cornwall) they should be dealt with in their own right, if they are notable in this context. Daicaregos (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

England should go, but I think there is room for a remnants section (which would include the Portuguese etc) outside of the six which are the only real ones the article is about --Snowded (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But weren't the pre-Roman Britons of Celtic origin, hence the mtDNA of the English is Celtic. Boudica was from England, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Romano-Celts otherwise known as the Britons were driven into Wales and Cornwell by the saxons et al. The Battle of Dyrham separated Wales from Cornwell. We then had emigration to form Brittany. Its why that is all one language group. You also get a shorter surviving fragment in Cumbria. The term "Celtic Nations" is in effect post Roman. --Snowded (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The English don't just have mitrochondrial Celtic DNA, there is patrilineal Celtic DNA as well just not as much. The old theory that the Anglo-Saxons drove the Romano-British away is a myth. What seems to have happened is that one elite replaced another and Anglo-Saxon culture replaced Celtic culture with very little Celtic survival.GordyB (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Snowded's statement is at least debatable. Certainly many of the Britons were killed by the invaders; certainly the use of the languages retreated into Wales, the SW and north; and certainly some, perhaps many, Britons would have moved physically as well - but I thought that some of the genetic evidence suggested that, indeed, many of the inhabitants of what became England remained in situ and became culturally - but not genetically other than through inter-marriage - "anglicised". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

PS - interesting website here. Quote: "The term Celtic means very different things to different people. Indeed asking the question is a good way to start an argument." Quite! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there no Celtic influence in Devon or Shropshire?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You get some in Devon, but the Tamar became the real boundary (and Kernow is all west of there). Shropshire has areas with Welsh names that were under welsh law (the final invasion of Wales was legally based on a dispute about which law applied to a Shropshire town). In practice if you take Celtic Wales you would extend a bit into Shropshire and Gloucester, get rid of the SW corner of Pembrook and argue about NE Flintshire plus parts of Monmouth and Glamorgan. All border areas. The Treaty of Montgomery 1267 is probably the best definition. Also its the last treaty as opposed to invasion imposed "peace" that exists between the Welsh Princes and English Kings. --Snowded (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

..not forgetting Ergyng or Archenfield, in Herefordshire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Another introduction of Welsh blood into Shropshire occurred with the intermarriage of many Marcher families such as the Mortimers, de Braoses, de Greys, etc. with Welsh nobility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

and of course the Twdurs were the welsh revenge on the English for the conquest. However all European nobility intermarried, it doesn't really impact on this article. --Snowded (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have reached consensus to remove the England section. Any further comment? Daicaregos (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅Yes and No, I suggest we create an "Other" heading and include some of the stuff under England, as well as the other miscellaneous European stuff. --Snowded (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct Snowded, as the European nobility was a vastly intermarried network of families whose main ethnicity was Teutonic French. The Tudors did produce England's greatest monarch Elizabeth I, although her Welsh blood was quite diluted by intermarriage with non-Welsh. Henry VII was only a quarter Welsh, and Anne Boleyn had just a trickle herself, which made Elizabeth roughly just a little over 1/16th Welsh. That was why it was decided to place her image in the collage on English people--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure on the greatest there for Elizabeth, although she did have the best spin doctor. Edward III, Henry II and others probably achieved more --Snowded (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, my favourite English king was Richard III, but I'm sure he's not a popular sovereign for the Welsh!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well in practice I think the Tudors were bad for Wales and England for that matter. If Bosworth had gone the other way then the UK might have stayed within the wider European community. And he was subject to some really bad propoganda, overall (a bit like John before him) he was cast in the sterotype of "bad king" with little justice. --Snowded (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard was highly regarded in Yorkshire where he governed for years prior to becoming king. Henry Tudor had a very weak claim to the English throne, and I personally believe he was guided by his mother Margaret Beaufort. I also firmly believe it was she who told him to dispose of the Princes, although I'm really venturing into the dangerous waters of Original Research here. It would be interesting to speculate as to how world history would have been altered had Elizabeth married King Philip II of Spain!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a section named 'Other' already. Some of it, such as the Iberian subsection, seems relatively well sourced. However, I would not want to include any of the 'England' subsection, as none of it is referenced and most of it seems to be complete rubbish (apologies to whoever took the time and trouble to create it, but - USE REFERENCES). Please don't let me stop you looking for sources to substantiate the parts you want to retain, but I'm not sure they even exist in print. We would be better off deleting the entire subsection now, and if anyone wishes to add cited information subsequently, that would be fine. Which parts, if any, do you think are worth retaining? Daicaregos (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have missed much of this debate however i think the concerns raised by some are correct. The introduction of this article says that most of Europe was once celtic, which is clearly no longer the case. What i would like to know is why is Cornwall still "celtic" whilst the rest of Europe isnt? Whats the big difference please?? Cornish people who consider themselves "celtic" are a tiny minority, and if this is linked partly to language, well very few people speak it.

There appears to be a pattern throughout wikipedia when it comes to Cornwall, and that seems to be grossly overplaying Cornish nationalism and the celtic identity of cornwall. What i find most concerning is this seems to be being pushed by certain Welsh and Scottish nationalists who clearly have political motivations and interests in seeing England divided up along with the rest of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And exactly who are these 'certain Welsh and Scottish nationalists' whom you accuse having some agenda they are 'pushing'? You are outside the boundaries of WP:AGF. Please moderate your tone. Either be construcive, by improving the article with referenced sources, or go away. You are out of order. Daicaregos (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I never accused anyone of anything, i simply said it "seems", which is simply an observation. I am trying to be constructive. Please explain to me how Cornwall is today a celtic nation when the rest of Europe was mostly celtic (according to the article) but no longer are celtic nations? Whats the big difference? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your observations to yourself in future. Asking someone else to do your research for you is not being constructive. If you want answers to your questions, read the article and the references from where they are sourced. This article is referenced. The parts of it which are not, are the parts that we are trying to obtain consensus to remove from it. Please do not join threads that you either have not read, or do not understand. I say again: Either be construcive, by improving the article with referenced sources, or go away. Daicaregos (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, you should withdraw your "certain nationalists", its a breech of WP:AGF and a nonsense in the case of this article. I suggest you read some of the earlier comments and you might want to check out Kernow as well. I'd look at the content and the references rather than assuming playing conspiracy theory games. --Snowded (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to withdraw my comments, i wasnt just talking about this article and i never accused anyone of anything, i simply said it seems to be the case. Im sorry but i consider this article rather misleading, which is why im asking a very simple question. Why is Cornwall still a celtic nation when the article says most of Europe was once celtic too? Cornwall was a celtic nation in the past, i fail to see the evidence to say it is one today. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you fail to see the evidence, then it's really not up to anyone else to try and make you see it. If we're asking questions, why do you think Cornwall is any less Celtic than Scotland or Wales? Just because it's politically part of England? That's not really much of a reason. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for including cornwall on the list seems to be the celtic league and congress, im sorry but these are rather one sided organisations and are not mainstream views, those groups have a clear political agenda. Wales and Scotland are nations and countries, i have yet to see the evidence that Cornwall is infact a nation today, even if it was a celtic nation 100s of years ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense

If there are no objections, I'm going to remove the nonsense regarding Parkin cakes (its own article argues that they were invented in the Industrial revolution and associated with Yorkshire not Lancashire), Lancashire (article claims that Lancaster is a Celtic place name even though castra is blatantly Latin), wrestling (articles source this as either Celtic or Scandinavian) and non-existant Celtic folklore and customs.GordyB (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've given people ample time to object and will be editing this section later today to remove the nonsense.GordyB (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do. No objection here. Daicaregos (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No objections re removing the references to parkin, the etymology of Lancashire or wrestling if they are incorrect, but in light of your comments earlier on this page I'll reserve judgement on other matters until I see your edits. There is considerable evidence for the existence and perseverance of "Celtic" genetic and cultural heritage, as well as placenames, over much of England, and particularly those areas (such as the North, the Welsh Marches and Devon, as well as obviously Cornwall) where Celtic (=British) influence lasted longest. It is important (for overall balance) that this is reflected in the article, rather than being deleted wholesale. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is basically the same edit as I made before with the last sentence ommitted (for now). I don't have a problem with Celtic cultural heritage provided that it is referenced accordingly. Cumberland wrestling is claimed as Celtic by some and Scandinavian by others but it is considered "Celtic" by a Celtic sports organisation. I think much of the (well referenced) material on Cumbria could be incorporated here as well as mentioning Southwest Brythonic which belongs to the same dialect continua as Cornish.GordyB (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem except that I've added a reference to Welsh speaking in Herefordshire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lists of people

There should be a list (with images) of notable Celtic people drawn from various periods of history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This could get pretty controversial in itself. Does anyone born in Cornwall automatically become a Celt for example. Would a 18th century Scottish Lowlander count even though the Lowlands was quite anti-Celtic in this period? How about Irish Unionists?GordyB (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, a Cornish-descended person is a Celt, ditto for Scottish Lowlanders, and Northern Irish Unionists, as the latter two only denied their 'Celtic roots due to political/religious persuasions; ethnicity didn't really come into it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity does come into it. We all have "Celtic roots" but that doesn't make us "Celts". PS Scottish Lowlanders have about as much "Celtic roots" as people in Northern England i.e. very little. It is absurd to claim people as "Celts" if they don't consider themselves to be Celtic.GordyB (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds as if it could be a massive article. Are you volunteering? Daicaregos (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could help out with the images; however there would need to be a consensus on said images, otherwise people would be changing them every hour, based on their own personal likes or dislikes. Oh, and there would need to be an equal ratio of men and women--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your ratio must have cut down the article by approx 90%. Or did you mean adding a collage to this article? I'd thought you meant creating List of notable Celtic people. Daicaregos (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite, somebody isn't more or less notable based on their gender.GordyB (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can see that my suggestion has already created controversy, as it's become a case of Wlll the real Celts please stand up. And, I had quite forgotten there never has been a notable woman born of Celtic ancestry-all famous Celts have male anatomy. Sorry, I must have come onto the wrong page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said that women can't be listed, it is just ridiculous to argue that notables can't be listed if there aren't enough women. People are notable or not notable, if they are notable they ought to belisted regardless of balance.13:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So, did you mean a new article or creating a collage on this one? Daicaregos (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that a collage on this article would be sufficient. Just like the one on English people, Irish-Americans, etc. There's really no need to create another article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm with you now. How many in total? there should be at least one from each nation. Plus Boudica to start, or is she for a difference article? Daicaregos (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is a geographical area that someone can come from (and hence be Irish). It's hard to argue that somebody is a Celt without actually defining what is meant by this.GordyB (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, please, let's not start this. How is it going to be helpful to any readers? What are the criteria going to be? - genetic purity, location of birth, using a Celtic language as first language, or what? The chances of agreement on criteria for inclusion, let alone individuals, seem to me to be vanishingly small. Given the contentiousness and variety of interpretations of terms such as "Celtic" and "nation", it would be a colossal waste of energy and a recipe for disputes to do this. It's difficult enough deciding who is "Welsh"! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what is so difficult about deciding who's a Celt or not. People like Boudica, Brian Boru, and Owen Glendower are obviously Celtic. Then Catherine Zeta-Jones, Maureen O'Hara, Sean Connery would also qualify as Celtic. It wasn't hard doing a similar list for Lapps.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As Ghymyrtle said it was very difficult merely to work out who is Welsh, who is Scots and who is English as we all carry the same passports. If you are born in Scotland of English parents are you a Celt? If you are born in England os Welsh parents? What if one parent is Irish and the other Polish and you were born in the Channel Islands?GordyB (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea, Jeanne. I haven't noticed any suggestion to remove the collage from the English people page, for example, because it isn't helpful to readers, or for any other reason. If an editor thinks it is too complex for them, or don't have the energy, they could take the page off watch and they wouldn't have to be troubled by it again. Do you have any suggestions to start us off? Daicaregos (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Before starting a list, it is necessary to identify the criteria by which individuals would qualify for the list, and whether people meeting one but not other criteria would be included. In some cases, it may indeed be easy to identify that they are a "Celt" (using the modern unscientific cultural use of the term). But, for example, to quote the article, "The Celtic League, Celtic Congress, and some other pan-Celtic groups base the criterion of celticity on language". Does that mean that only Celtic language speakers should be included? Or are we basing it on birthplace and/or genetics as well? What proportion of "Celtic" genes allows one to be called "Celtic"? etc. etc. - a never-ending source of unconstructive dispute. What "troubles" me is those editors who deliberately push agendas which divert away from the objective of producing a useful and value-free encyclopaedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And do you have any particular editors in mind when you mention your snide remark 'those editors who deliberately push agendas which divert away from the objective of producing a useful and value-free encyclopaedia.'? Daicaregos (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a factual statement, but if you feel offended I'll happily withdraw it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Should I feel offended? Was your comment made at me, then? If it was: why didn't you say so and exactly what agenda do you accuse me of pushing? Please share those 'facts'. Daicaregos (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No it was not particularly aimed at you. There are many editors, here and elsewhere, who "deliberately push agendas which divert away from the objective of producing a useful and value-free encyclopaedia". That troubles me, although I accept that I need not have made the point here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it there, then. Daicaregos (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, I haven't an agenda; I had thought a collage showing images of obviously Celtic people such as Boudica, Brian Boru, etc would be interesting. I never thought it would turn into a Donnybrook. I don't understand why the Lapps or Latvian collages don't attract accusations of agenda-pushing. What kind of agenda would I have anyway, seeing as I write articles mainly about medieval noblewomen? I really do not see the problem here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, my comment was not aimed at you - however, I believe that Lapps and Latvians are groups largely of shared ethnicity, common first language, and more clearly-defined territories, and so are somewhat easier to define than "Celtic people". I don't think anyone's yet addressed my question of what the criteria for inclusion should be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

PS.. to be more constructive here, one solution could simply be to take one individual from each of the collages from the various "people" pages (Welsh people, Breton people, etc.) already existing. This would have the advantage of those individuals having previously been "assessed" in some way by the editors of each of those pages, and it should also be easier to get a balance (of gender etc.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Many people in those lists are not actual Celts such as Mary, Queen of Scots and Anne of Brittany as they were ethnically French. I have prepared a rough list; see what the other editors think. Ok: Boudica for England; Richard Trevithick for Cornwall; Llywelyn the Great for Wales; Saint Brigid for Ireland; actress Juliette Drouet for Brittany; Rob Roy for Scotland; Van Morrison for Northern Ireland; then we can add Lord Byron, or Sean Connery, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Enya, Jacques Cartier, Mary McAleese, David Coulthard. These are just a few of my ideas for images, other editors should add their suggestions, then we can have a consensus.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to include someone from the Isle of Man. I suggest either Illiam Dhone or Fletcher Christian (who is noted as his great-great grandson on List of residents of the Isle of Man, but not on his article). I would be happy with Boudica (but please, Jeanne, have some sensitivity. England did not exist until hundreds of years after her death) ; Richard Trevithick for Cornwall; Saint Brigid for Ireland; actress Juliette Drouet for Brittany; Rob Roy for Scotland; and Van Morrison for Northern Ireland. I would prefer Owain Glyndŵr or Hywel Dda to Llywelyn the Great for Wales. And that would be our eight. Daicaregos (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So, there is an assumption (not discussed, not agreed) that people shown should be "ethnically pure" "actual Celts"?!? The only scientifically acceptable definition of "Celts" of which I am aware is a linguistic one. This exercise is getting more and more dubious and unencyclopaedic by the minute! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Daicaregos, your list of the eight people is good. It gets my vote, anyroad. I had forgotten about the Manx. Ghmyrtle, why do the people need to be Celtic-speakers? Do the Irish on Irish people all speak Irish?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Because - unless I'm misinformed - the single reliable definition of "Celtic" is a linguistic one - there are no "Celtic people", only "Celtic languages". The overlapping definitions of "Irish" are quite different - there are people who speak Irish, people born in Ireland, people of Irish genetic heritage, etc. etc., any or all of which would qualify people as "Irish" under one or more criteria. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is presently entitled Celtic nations, not Celtic languages. Nations are normally comprised of people, besides flora and fauna. Obviously, anybody whose ancestors derived from a Celtic nation can be accurately described as a Celt, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be accurate in a scientific sense? - no, in my view it wouldn't. They may think of themselves as "Celts", for a variety of cultural reasons, but that is a different question. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. So, does anyone have any realistic objection to including a collage of notable people from the 6 nations accepted in this article as being Celtic? Any constructive suggestions for replacements to those proposed? Or shall we go ahead with these? Daicaregos (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should go ahead. Oh, you'll have to use Owain Glyndwr as there's no image of Hywel Dda. I checked.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Illiam Dhone or Fletcher Christian? Daicaregos (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Christian is better known, and his image is in colour, so I'd suggest him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dhone is a Celt and whilst it would be nice if there were a few non-nationalist heroes in the list, it is pushing it to call Fletcher Christian Manx.GordyB (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Did Richard Trevithick consider himself "celtic"? Is there not someone from cornwall you could include before it became part of England to avoid possible conflict? There is a whole article on Celts if a list of celtic people belongs anywhere its on there not here. European nations doesnt include a list of notable people although it would be hard to pick from such a huge bunch. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question: I've no idea. But the point is that he is from one of the Celtic nations, so he qualifies. Do you have another Cornish person you would like to propose? I'm sure we're open to offers. I don't think that the historical period is relevant, though. Unless, for example, you would consider bringing up similar concerns on the article English people, on the grounds that they postdate the establishment of the state of Britain? One of their choices is Nell Gwyn, BTW, who wasn't exactly English. Daicaregos (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Cornish identity" is disputed by many and only those that are known to of identified as of celtic heritage or culture should be included on an article about celtic nations or celts. As for the England article, anyone thats English since the formation of the Kingdom of England is fine for me, although i dont know about the current people included and it they are worthy / correct. Just because Richard was from Cornwall, you cant declare him a celt unless we are sure he was and that he identified as one. As for an alternative, ive no idea but there must be some notable cornish person before it was part of the Kingdom of England. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

.The problem is not in locating the person, it's in finding an image to go along with that person. Trevithick is a Cornish surname, which does point to his origins as being native to Cornwall.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Im not disputing that he was from Cornwall and even "Cornish" but are all "Cornish people" Celtic? The article on Cornish people doesnt say they are. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for that. I think you missed my point, which I made when I said 'But the point is that he is from one of the Celtic nations, so he qualifies.' I am not declaring him a celt (sic). He was Cornish and Cornwall is a Celtic nation. If you intend to contribute constructively, that would be a good thing. Unusual, but welcome nonetheless. I have no intention of arguing what is, or is not Celtic with you here. Please be constructive. You are just as able to research the merits of any other Cornish person as any of us. If you wish to nominate someone else they would be considered. Jeanne, do you know how to construct a collage? Daicaregos (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but its not clear that Cornwall today is a Celtic nation and we certainly shouldnt be saying that someone who may not of considered themselves celtic is a notable person from a celtic nation. I was willing to contribute and be helpful, i said choose someone that was clearly celtic from before Cornwall became part of England. Cornwalls situation to England is very very different to that of the situation with Wales, Scotland, England and the United Kingdom. Unless theres evidence Richard identified with "celtic culture" please dont include him. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You honestly believe that being 'willing to contribute and be helpful' amounts to saying 'that person isn't right, choose someone else'? I despair. Daicaregos (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I didnt just say that person isnt right, choose someone else. I said choose someone from before Cornwall became part of England and that clearly identified with being "celtic". If that isnt done this article is misleading and jumping to conclusions. Its partly original research by the looks of it already. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never constructed one from scratch, just added images to collages already in existance. My main problem is in having an Italian laptop, which makes curly brackets a dexterous, time-consuming affair. One has to hold down 3 fingers simultaneously. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're determined to go ahead with this, I strongly suggest it be placed in another article. This one is about the countries (or counties in the case of Cornwall and Brittany) that have largely retained their Celtic languages and culture. I think Modern Celts would be a more appropriate article, since it focuses solely on those people who "identify themselves as Celts". Besides, making space for this collage won't be easy. ~Asarlaí 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I no longer give a tinker's cuss. Does'nt anyone want to construct an article, rather than destroy. Daicaregos (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Daicaregos has expressed my sentiments exactly. One simple suggestion of a collage turns into WWIII.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion here seems to be that, in order to construct a balanced, neutral, encyclopaedic article, sometimes less is more - that is, a lengthy article with collages etc. can suggest - to readers seeking information (the target audience of WP) - an image of neutrality and certainty which does not, in reality, exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall

We shouldnt simply be making up an article as we go which is what appears to be happening here. This may sound stupid but i am really interested in an answer... If almost all of Europe was once celtic, why is Cornwall still considered a celtic nation when the rest of europe isnt??? what is the big difference please? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And we have an article which talks about Celtic cultural traits (without even acknowledging the debate about whether these exist) and references this with a web page on genetics. NPOV anyone? Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The introduction explains it – Cornwall has largely retained its Celtic language and cultural traits in comparison to other regions. The same can't be said for somewhere like Norfolk, since the Celtic language and culture of that area has been completely replaced by Germanic ones. Now let's get back on topic. If you wish to discuss inaccuracies please do so in another section. ~Asarlaí 17:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Cornwall has largely retained its Celtic language" Rubbish, the cornish speakers only agreed an acceptable written language a year or two ago. The vast majority of people in Cornwall do not speak the language. Even if there are cultural ties and still celtic roots, it doesnt make Cornwall a "Celtic nation". Cornwall is not a nation, im sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course the language isn't spoken by many people, the point is that it didn't become extinct (as it did in the rest of England). Also, I'm well aware that Cornwall is a county rather than a nation. ~Asarlaí 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It did become extinct, there are no native speakers of Cornish and haven't been for over a century. The key difference is that Cornish was recorded before it went extinct and hence it could be reconstructed and learnt.GordyB (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok i accept the language didnt become extinct, but my main problem is describing Cornwall as a nation, ive yet to see reliable sources saying it is. Only things that say it is a nation clearly have a political agenda such as the celtic league and congress. I think the vast majority of people in Cornwall would be pretty stunned if someone said to them Cornwall today is a celtic nation. Ofcourse cornwalls history as a celtic nation should be covered and id have no problem with it being included in the section which cover other places sometimes considered celtic nations, but i fail to see the justification for it to be included equally in the list along with clear nations like Wales and Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You said " Also, I'm well aware that Cornwall is a county rather than a nation." If its a county rather than a nation why does this article call it a nation today? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The only reason this article calls Cornwall a "nation" is because the Celtic League and Congress use that terminology. I agree it should be changed ASAP, but what term should we use instead? ~Asarlaí 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem for me is not the term itself (which given the name of the article is unavoidable I'd say) but that Cornwall is a nation distinct from England is not a view held by everybody and not endorsed by the British government. The article gave the impression that this was universally agreed on.GordyB (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Cornwall article itself is very misleading on this matter as well, saying its considered a celtic nation by many residents and scholars, and that it is usually described as a celtic nation. It fails to mention its a certain view held by the celtic league and congress not accepted by many. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To start things off, I'll remove all references (in this article) to Cornwall and Brittany as "nations". After that, we can consider adding a sentence explaining this "terminology conflict". ~Asarlaí 18:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue here seems to be the definition of the word 'nation', rather than any greater or lesser Celticness. Therefore I suggest removing the word 'nation' from the title, otherwise Cornwall and Brittany are in line to be described as less Celtic than Scotland or Wales, which is presumably not at issue. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

nation means people with a common cultural background, it usally doesn't mean a soverine stateQuilong (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Level Set

Firstly can we stop editing the page while discussions are going on This article is titled "Celtic Nations" and the phrase is in use by the Celtic League and others so it is legitimate to have an article with that name. The degree of agreement and use can also be specified there The phrase is used of Four countries and two regions (if I use the geographical terms) and part of one of those countries is a sovereign state. The use of "nation" thus needs qualification and I think that can be done by (i) making sure the historical context is described before the 'nations' are listed and (ii) that the sections make the actual political status clear. This is NOT a debate about whether Cornwall is a country, no one is arguing it is in the political sense of the word. Lets just remember the context, this is a description of the use of a term 'Celtic nations", its that simple. --Snowded (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If the terminology can be qualified to the contentment of all concerned, and properly referenced, then there shouldn't be a problem. The term "Celtic nation" can be used if that term is explained, and if it's clear which organisations / entities use that term to describe Cornwall, Brittany, IOM etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.GordyB (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Asarlaí 20:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - so long as, to avoid any confusion around the world, it is made clear that the named organisations which use the term such as the Celtic League etc. do not have any official intergovernmental status - essentially they are POV pressure groups. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as long as nothing like the phrase "POV pressure groups" is not used without some kind of incredibly good reference. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "POV pressure groups" can ever be referenced. If I think the Celtic League are a POV pressure group then that's just my opinion, there is no objective way of substantiating it.GordyB (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that the term be used in the article - all I meant was that the Celtic League is a political organisation, rather than a governmental body, and to avoid any confusion that should be made evident in the article by an appropriate form of words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it needs to be made clear who describes the six as nations and in the case of cornwall, it should be pointed out that its not a view held by most people. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Opening sentence

I don't believe the current phrasing is specific and straightforward enough. The phrasing I propose is:
[insert term here] are areas of modern northwest Europe in which the native Celtic languages and cultural traits have largely survived.
Opinions? ~Asarlaí 19:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how you can avoid saying "Celtic nations" in the opening sentence given that is the name of the article, I suggest::
Celtic nations is a term used to describe territories in northwest Europe in which the native Celtic languages and cultural traits have largely survived.. The article can then go on to name the six territories recognised by the Celtic League and Congress as being Celtic Nations.GordyB (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fair. It can go on later to explain clearly the different actual statuses of each territory - whether or not that needs to go in the lead paragraph, I'm not sure. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine to me. ~Asarlaí 20:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it misses the point that the term is a fairly modern invention (I actually prefer "Celtic Crescent" which is also used some times). Whatever I am going to sleep on it. Can we please reach agreement, a rapid exchange between three editors who largely agree is not consensus. Hopefully Dai will also come back in and engage. --Snowded (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the age of the term needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence.GordyB (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The age of the term should probably be mentioned in the "terminology" section. ~Asarlaí 21:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Largely survived" seems to me a bit weak and woolly, and "native" is alnso undefined. How about: "...in which Celtic languages and cultural traits have remained important, and in some cases dominant, elements of national life." As an alternative, I strongly prefer the current wording (Celtic nations are areas of modern northwest Europe which identify themselves with the Celtic cultures, specifically speakers of Celtic languages. Since the mid-20th century, people of many nations and regions have used modern "Celticity" to express their identity. Over time, these nations and regions have come to be widely labelled as Celtic.) to that proposed by Asarlai. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really need to define "native". In this sense it simply means "that area's own particular Celtic language". I disagree with using "important" too, since Celtic language/culture is not important throughout all areas. The line identify themselves with Celtic cultures, specifically speakers of Celtic languages is just too vague. Lots of places have been influenced by Celtic culture and have been inhabited by speakers of Celtic languages - we need to be specific and straightforward as to why these areas are different. ~Asarlaí 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Native" is a term commonly used, but very imprecise. For example, there may have been other cultures "native" to Scotland etc. before the Celtic language arrived. If it is "native"to Wales, it was also once "native" to England until superseded by Anglo-Saxons - etc. Regarding ".. survived", the term survival to me implies an active opposition, and I do accept that there was such opposition in many areas. But concerns about the word "important" surely also apply to "largely". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ghmyttle --Snowded (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I like "...in which Celtic languages and cultural traits have remained, and in some cases dominant, elements of national life." Certainly dont think the word Important should be included in the sentence.

I do think there needs to be a qualification of the term in the first sentence. "Celtic nations is a term used (something is needed here) to describe...." - It should say the term is used by some, or by certain organisations etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't agree with using the term "native" I guess it can be removed. However I still don't see a problem with using "largely survived". It simply implies that the languages are not as widespread as they once were. But I disagree with the "elements of national life" part, since it implies Cornwall and Brittany are nations (and we've already had that debate). ~Asarlaí 15:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Regarding the second paragraph, I agree with the phrasing used by GordyB in this edit. Opinions? ~Asarlaí 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph suggested looks ok to me, although im not sure about just saying about the limitations. It seems to me inclusion of some of those territories as "celtic nations" is pretty controversial and disputed, not just those left out of the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm "by people from England," is also too wide open, the idea of England being a celtic nation is certainly a tiny minority view. Just saying by people from England, sounds like it could be a widely held view of the people. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I suppose we could change it to "...some people from England..." ? ~Asarlaí 15:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is too vague.GordyB (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What would you suggest? ~Asarlaí 16:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we make a version that is at least an improvement on what is there currently and argue about the fine details later.GordyB (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the stuff in the Terminology section should be moved up to the introduction. The two paragraphs there are certainly more neutral and factual than the current introduction which is a complete mess and rather misleading. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In geograghy the term nation tends not mean country or state. a nation is defind as a group of tightly-knit people possessing bonds of language, ethnicity, religion and other shared cultural attributes. there are normally mulitple nations in a country or state (william otte)18 may 2009