Talk:Celtic nations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Northumbria?

In the article it says that "Celtic traditions and customs have continued in England, particularly in extremities of the south west and the north (see Devon, Northumbria and Cumbria)." and while this is not a completely untrue statement it is a misleading one. Northumbria seems to be included on the whim of a certain northern 'friend' who seemingly cannot face the idea that maybe the North East is not an all together Celtic region. All parts of Britain as well as mush of Europe do have traditions that are somewhat Celtic however I have grave doubts that the person who added Northumbria to the list knows what actually constitutes as survived Celtic tradition. I have a feeling these traditions are the use of Bagpipes (that are common throughout the world including Sweden, France and parts of Eastern Europe), Kilts (a reasonably modern tradition. Kilts themselves are Norse in origin and are only associated with Scotland via the Norse-Gaels) and Tartan (which is hardly the original Tartan of old...the colour for one thing is different. Tartan is a common Indo-European pattern, a very old sample being found in India), and possibly fairies who are alternatively called elves occasionally in the same tale (the word 'fairy' is neither Celtic nor Germanic in it's origin and is used for many small folkloric beings).If you think 'Hobs' are Celtic, again they are probably English and are similar not only to the Scottish brownie but the Scandinavian tomte. Culturally it is rare to find a Northumbrian that thinks themselves Celtic rather than simply Northern English. In fact it is far more common for people to (over-)emphasise the Norse element in the culture (which is usually English in origin and merely mistaken for Norse due to the similar source culture).

I suggest it is removed (which I shall do) unless someone can give any good reasons to how Northumbria is more Celtic than say Essex or Kent or Dorset...etcetera. At the moment it seems the "British" fantasies of someone's opinion reigns. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Map and Naming issue

This article is a mess!!! Anyone who will make an edit should read the article Modern Celts first. -Behemoth

It is indeed a mess. Maybe this link should redirect to the relevant section of the modern celts article. Any thoughts? I'll post a request for comment on the modern celts talk page too. -GlamdringCookies 00:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• This page should be moved back to "Modern Celts". This is because some of the areas, e.g. Cape Breton or Y Wladfa, are not considered to be nations. The map is helpful though. "Modern" should appear somewhere in the title too. --MacRusgail 21:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was created as a number of pages were linking to 'Celtic Nations' rather than Modern Celts. I don't think there's any harm in having this as a seperate/sub-article. The 'Out of Europe' bit could be removed, I just added it to expand around the subject a bit. How about a move to 'Modern-Celtic Nations'? Robdurbar 21:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is decent; it focuses specifically on what today are called the "Celtic nations". Modern Celts is different, as this is (or ought to be) more orientated to actual Celtic speakers. This page shouldn't be moved. - Calgacus 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we move to Celtic countries or modern Celtic countries? I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to make the old "What are the Celtic countries?" section a main article; there does seem to be enough interest for it. The map is a little bare-bones – in particular, the eastern boundary of Brittany is not very accurate – but I've got other maps on my home computer I can upload tonight, if I remember. (Not that I'm supposed to be working now or anything.) QuartierLatin1968 18:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just copied the map from my atlas by hand on paint... not the most accurate way of doing this I'm afraid. I think Nations is good for the title - some would argue that 'countries' implies indpendence, whereas nation is applied to socio-cultural or linguistic groups, which is what these are. 'Modern' could be introduced to the title; either way it doesn't matter too much, as long as if the move doesn't happen, the 'modern celtic nations' is introduced as at least a redirect. Robdurbar 19:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how people have a completely different linguistic sense about these things? For me, it's almost opposite. I guess I think of 'country' in the old-fashioned sense, as something like the French pays... My instinct is that anybody could accept that Wales, for example, is a country; but to say it's a 'nation' sounds a bit like an assertion that it deserves more political respect than people at some ends of the spectrum could tolerate. (Also, if we do keep the word nation, shouldn't it be lowercase per wiki naming conventions?)

So I uploaded one of those maps – I know it's not perfect, but it's a start. Do people think it would look better with the 'slanted' bits of England and France cropped? Any interest in having me play around with the colours, etc? QuartierLatin1968 01:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel similarly to Robdurbar on the "nation" vs. "country" issue. For me, "nation" implies a culturally linked group of people, frequently across state boundaries. "State", and to a looser extent "country" indicate a sovereign political entity. And I should think a simple move of the page to conform with naming conventions is totally sensible. Finally, to throw in my two cents on the map issue, I tend to favor a cleaner map over a more detailed one, and for that reason I prefer the old one to the current one, but the new one is more accurate in coastlines and all. The rivers are kind of distracting though. And maybe more clearly articulating the borders of the distinct Six Nations? Or is that not doable while retaining the precision? I'm not totally hot about the yellow, either. Maybe red? Blue? Purple? Let's play with it and see what looks good and says "Celtic". -GlamdringCookies 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone would like to make a formal proposal on where they think this article should be, using the standard "Requested moves" template, then we can discuss it and reach consensus in a more structured fashion.--Mais oui! 08:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that would be needed to move to 'Celtic nations', to fit in with Wiki conventions, its just whether anyone really wants the move to take place to country. I prefer the newer map to my paint-created one, though if anyone had the time, knowledge and inclination to improve the Britanny bit of the older map, I think that would work best as the new one does contian a number of 'distractions'. Robdurbar 11:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is simply the lower-case "n" then as far as I'm concerned: use that move button, because I cannot see that it is a proper noun. But any more radical rename needs consensus.--Mais oui! 11:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you realise that the term British Isles is a particularly offensive term to use. especially to Irish and Manx people. The term is not used in the Republic of Ireland and is considered insulting to the memory of the people who fought and died for independence. The Atlantic Isles is now the term officially used. Americans and English people do not seem to realise this. Thats just my 2 cents anyway. (MarkyMark)

Galicia in Wiki

Yes I agree with all the poeple here. You should just not forget one thing. GALICIA IS CONSIDERED TO BE ONE OF THE CELTIC NATIONS. It always was and most of the community believes so aswell, this is the way it is seen by most people in celtic Revivalism. What does this mean? Nothing, its just a name, there are many other tribes of celtic descent in europe and the celtic nations dont have any priority over them. It is only because The Celtic League has monopolized Wiki, that other people are not allowed to put theyre facts in. The Celtic League are a bunch of idiots and a very small minority and the scheaming little gits are trying to change facts by flooding all wiki pages.(I dont know how they can be proud of their celtic origin, acting like this..)

There are 7 nations, there have been 7 nations for a long time, and there will allways be seven nations.

As for you comparison of Galicia with England, Enzedbrit, it makes no sense. England was colonised, migrated to by many other tribes like the anglos the saxons the jurgens the vikings etc, which pushed out the celts. Galicia didnt have any tribe migrate to it, after the celts, only the swevi and the goths passed through.

Philipp, Welsh and Proud.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phillip88 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

A bit late but - wrong Phillip.

The Celts of what is now England were not 'pushed' anywhere to any large scale degree, they were simply assimilated into these 'invading' cultures - just how the indiginous peoples were assimilated into Celtic culture, be it by force or choice. Gazh 21:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Other Claims

Should this section be bulleted for each "claim"? I feel that that would be more appealing to the eye, but some of them don't have enough info to stand by themselves, it seems to me. It is a well-written paragraph, so maybe not. Also, "the French people themselves, whose identificative affinity with the Gauls has already been mentioned": it may have been mentioned in the modern celts article, but i don't see it in celtic nations. --GlamdringCookies 22:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I've restructured this section lightly – no bullets, but something on similar lines. What say? QuartierLatin1968 01:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Say yes :) -GlamdringCookies 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Lloegr

Oh yeah! And I nearly forgot Lloegr. Sorry, Lloegr means the lost lands? I'm more than happy to reinsert that astonishing statement if there's any reputable, citable source for it. But 'lose' in Welsh is colli – 'land', well there are probably a dozen words, bro, gwlad, tir, cenedl, pau – but none of them look anything like Lloegr. (A discussion on Talk:British Isles (terminology) couldn't produce any evidence for this alleged etymology either.) QuartierLatin1968 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UT

Before the Saxon invasion of Britain, the Celts that are now in Wales and Cornwall lived in England as well and since the days when these lands were taken there has been a longing for those lands to be recaptured. Lloegr is a direct reference to this. To check this look at books on Welsh legends and mythology.

No, sorry, that's not good enough. A tremendous amount of outright drivel is published on the legends and mythology of Celtic lands. Produce an actual source; then we'll see if it's verifiable and credible. (By the way, there's no dispute over whether whether England once belonged to the ancestors of the Welsh, Cornish, and Bretons. It did. The 'longing to return' is also an obvious theme in mediaeval Welsh poetry, etc. But I do dispute whether the name Lloegr has anything to do with it, because as far as I've been able to learn Lloegr's etymology is perfectly obscure.) QuartierLatin1968 06:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the majority of the ancestors of the Bretons lived in France. Brittany wasn't completely repeopled by migrants from Britain, anymore than Wales and Cornwall played host to the Celtic population of the rest of England. England once belonged to the ancestors of the Welsh and Cornish as much as it did to the ancestors of the English. This was a prolonged fruitless debate I was having with a North American on other pages. It's important to note that most historians these days believe that a mass depeopling of England in the wake of Teutonic migration did not occur. I even have one of my early Welsh books published in the 1970s that states the Cymry of England eventually lost their language as they became governed by the Anglo-Saxons - very poignant admission I would have thought from back in those days!! (when I think the 'English wiped out the Celts' argument was still the norm ...?)Enzedbrit 02:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A number of suggestions concerning the origin of the word "Lloegr" have been put forward (one I saw recently was "the border areas") but there seems to be no agreement among academics. One meaning I have never seen suggested in any scholarly publication is "the lost lands". Sadly there are many books on Celtic legends and mythology where the rule seems to be that the author can make things up as he/she goes along. Rhion 13:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I could give you the names of books that have refernces to Lloegr meaning 'Lost Lands' if you wanted me to. Also wouldn't it make sense for Lloegr to mean Lost Lands as that is what modern England is to the South Celts, as well as the fact that the other Celtic languages refer to Seaxeland meaning Land of the Saxons and the other languages I know all also refer to either Saxeland or Angleland?

The first reference I had to LLoegr meaning 'Lost Lands' was in the Warlord Trilogy by Bernard Cornwell. If you ever have a chance to read it, I highly recommend it. You'll never look at an Arthurian legend the same way again. Enzedbrit 02:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the question is whether it makes sense, it seems to be whether that is actually the origin. And I think the point of this whole string is that we do want references if it's to be included. So, if you provide those references, it might be a good thing to put back in. -GlamdringCookies 23:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Lloegr" translated as "lost lands"

Welsh as Lloegr literally, the "lost lands"

Lloegr, ‘lost lands’

Lloegr which means ‘the lost territory’

Lloegr which means ”the lost territory"

lost lands of Lloegr

Lloegr ('The Lost Country')

"Lloegr" translated as "lost lands"

The Welsh name for an Englishmen is Saesneg so why the difference between the two?

-86.135.77.85

Well then...what do people think? -GlamdringCookies 01:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, 86.135.77.85. You've now documented that there are people out there who assert that Lloegr means 'lost lands' or the equivalent. But you certainly haven't proved that they're right, or even that there's a favourable academic opinion towards this etymology. That's okay though – on the strength of these links, you can now accurately go around Wikipedia saying "...Lloegr, which is sometimes asserted to mean 'lost lands'[1]".

By the way, Saesneg specifically means the English language. An Englishman is a Sais, plural Saeson. If I follow your line of thinking in that rhetorical question, you mean to ask "Lloegr doesn't refer to Saxons, so what else could it mean but 'lost lands'?". Perhaps I do misunderstand you; but in the event I don't, Lloegr could mean a lot of things. It might be an old name for a region or province of England that became generalized to the whole country (compare Holland vis-à-vis the Netherlands). It might commemorate a legendary person like Locrinus. More legitimately, there's a theory that it comes from the Latin locus, or place, along the lines of other Brythonic place names like Locmariaquer, Locronan, etc; or else that it might mean frontier. (My source for these last two is a casual posting by somebody whose son's a PhD student in linguistics at the University of Wales and seems to know what s/he's talking about.) Geoffrey Samspon writes, "I have seen it suggested that Lloegr is the “lost land” — that is a very romantic idea, but so far as I know it has no basis at all in Welsh etymology." He's a linguist at the University of Sussex, though not a Celticist. So much for grabbing the top few google hits. The question warrants some further investigation; if anybody can get their hands on Eric Hamp's article "Lloegr: The Welsh name for England", it might prove illuminating. QuartierLatin1968 17:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't take the top few Google hits.

Perhaps we could put that Lloegr is by some thought to mean lost lands but this is disputed until we can prove one way or another on the matter.

Sorry that I put Saesneg above instead of Saeson, a small spelling mistake on my part.

You wrote, "I didn't take the top few Google hits." No, but I did, and I said so in the interests of full disclosure. And that's why I say the matter might deserve real research. :-) But my main point is that we probably can't prove this word's etymology one way or the other... and that as a consequence, it makes no sense to trumpet an etymology that is at best speculative. Incidentally, I noticed that three of your links are to Wikipedia mirrors (the about.com and ufaqs sites), so their information is no more authoritative than ours. Norman Davies, on the other hand, is an actual writer and historian (but again, not a Celticist). Which brings me again to Eric Hamp's article, if we could find a copy... Cheers, QuartierLatin1968 23:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Lloegr may have been an ancient Welsh word in common use that has since then become extinct and is now only used to mean England. This has happened to many words in languages so Lloegr meaning lost lands could just be another example of this. 'Eric P. Hamp's, 'Lloegr': the Welsh name for England' is located in Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies Volume 4 and it is published by Patrick Sims-Williams, Department of Welsh, Old College, King Street, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 2AX, Wales. "Lloegyr The part of Britain occupied by the Saxons,literally 'the lost lands'. In modern Welsh Lloegr means England" Bernard Cornwall The Enemy of God page xiv.--Rhydd Meddwl 17:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am late to this discussion. But I have a copy of the Hemp article. (From the local university library down in the periodicals in the PB (Modern and Celtic languages) section.) It's one of the sources I referred to briefly when contributing to the debate over in Talk:British Isles (terminology)#Lloegr. There is absolutely no mention of "lost lands" in it. At all. It's about a completely different possible derivation. Hamp starts with an observation from Ifor Williams (an expert on the early language) that Lloegrwys is used in two different contexts in different literature (one in "the Cynddylan englynion", which is Mercia-ish; and one in the Gododdin poem, which is much further north). Then "This causes him [Williams] to seek a dispersed reference for the name and to stretch it so as to include the British North." Hamp disagrees and looks for a more specific meaning. Hamp's suggestion is "Therefore, Lloeg(y)r must be the adjacent area across the border from whatever British Celtic -- that is, at least Welsh and Cumbrian -- vantage point where the term was spoken". And that "the term was indexical, not appelative". That's the start of the article, which then descends into reconstructions of possible words and roots and comparisons of Greek, German, Irish and Armenian. I propose to gloss over this bit: I'm not even sure I can generate half of the characters. But all the examples and proposed examples have to do with distance or its lack; from German in die Nähe to an assertion that Sanskrit (I think) caramá- (outermost, last) is to be equated with Welsh pellaf (farthest). Finally we reach the conclusion (drum-roll, please). "Provisionally, I propose Lloeg(y)r < *(p)les-okri-s 'having a nearby border, being from near the border'. Functionally the Celtic term Lloeg(y)r is the exact opposite of the Germanic term in English, Welsh, originally singling out not the foreignness but the nearness of the neighbour."

So there you go! I should probably have typed all that in the first time this came up but I was hoping to avoid that. (Incidentally, for people wishing to confirm this, the publication is -- or was then -- Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, not Cambrian.) I don't know enough about the topic to know which other publications or authors (well, Ifor Williams excepted) to look for, but I did have a rummage and found a couple of other mentions of the word. Most described it as obscure. None of those (which I found) connected it with any idea of lost land.

Of the other suggested sources, User: QuartierLatin1968 is right: most of them are Wikipedia mirrors and thus not terribly useful as references. The Davies one is preceded by a mention of the Welsh calling themselves the Cymraeg, which I find odd. (Cymraeg is the language; Cymry is the people.) It doesn't predispose me in favour of the lost land theory. And whilst the Cornwell books are a fun read, I am not sure that a glossary of placenames at the start is really enough for us to be definite about it.

I see that currently "lost land" isn't in the article text. But having typed all this in, I'll leave this comment here in case it comes up again. Hope it's been of some use.

Telsa (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks a lot! I find this summary very interesting. (My own university library had the publication on its shelves, but not the right volume...) Thanks for taking the time to tell us all this; the subject is likely to come up again on Wikipedia, I imagine. :-) QuartierLatin1968 17:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me as interesting that no one seems to have tried to connect the name Lloegr to the word llwgr (corrupt, defiled etc) and its derivatives like llygru (pollute, taint). Rather more plausible than 'lost', though almost certainly equally false. garik 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Map

Copying Glamdring's comment to disentangle the map discussion from the naming issue ...

[snip] Finally, to throw in my two cents on the map issue, I tend to favor a cleaner map over a more detailed one, and for that reason I prefer the old one to the current one, but the new one is more accurate in coastlines and all. The rivers are kind of distracting though. And maybe more clearly articulating the borders of the distinct Six Nations? Or is that not doable while retaining the precision? I'm not totally hot about the yellow, either. Maybe red? Blue? Purple? Let's play with it and see what looks good and says "Celtic". -GlamdringCookies 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Less is more, I suppose...! I can remove the rivers with a few clicks of a mouse; I'll do that tonight. Remove lines of latitude and longitude as well?
Would you like the borders thicker, Glamdring? That's easy enough, but yes, you will lose a little precision. What about the Northern Ireland border – thicken that as well? remove it, since Celtic nationalists usually support a United Ireland? make it a different colour, to show that it's an intra-Celtic boundary?
As for colours, how about a sort of dark, dignified red? Or else green (the Celtic colour par excellence, at least here in North America) ? (This is fun – I've never gotten so much input on map-making before!) QuartierLatin1968 19:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A map is a map, ultimately, so the details aren't the MOST crucial thing in the world, but to answer your questions (my arbitrary opinions, now)...no latitude or longitude lines, keep borders how they are, remove Ireland/N.Ireland border, go with red for color (I feel green is too cliched for most celtic circumstances)(although it's my favorite color too, Quartier, don't get me wrong). Now remember, this is just me expressing my unfounded opinions, and I'm doing so just because...well, who doesn't like to express their opinions, really?

-GlamdringCookies 19:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, kids, I've swapped me owd map for me new one. Spare me no criticisms, censor no feedback. I've implemented all the suggestions above, except for balking at the removal of the Northern Ireland boundary – at the last minute I just couldn't bring myself to it. One day the island may be whole again, but not yet... Not without further wikiconsensus anyway. Word, QuartierLatin1968 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a map showing 'areas that claim a celtic culture or language'. I don't really see the point in this. The Celtic Countries are clearly marked as the 6 with a surviving Celtic language. Many other countries/regions including England, Galicia and Asturias retain Celtic cultural influences. Why on earth the region of Italy should be likewise included in this map I don't know. It shows a strong bias. I think it should be removed for this reason; it's redundantEnzedbrit 06:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed such a map at the top of the page. The pictures are nice, aren't they? But if you would read the text next to the objected-to map, you would see that Italy is mentioned in the article. It's not just about the languages. Those are indeed important, which is why there is a map of the "six pillars". The second map is about the further extension of culture, which includes things other than language. I think as there is more to be said in the second map, even something different, it needs to stay. But maybe you're saying that England should be included. I think that's a perfectly valid suggestion. -GlamdringCookies 06:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed that is my point but if you include England then others should be included too, which is why I see this map as redundant. I know that Italy appears in the article. Are there other opinions to this as well? Enzedbrit 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that you guys may find helpful. On my hard drive at home, I've been making a version of the 'Celtic Friuli' map that has presented us so many problems... My draft has Celtic-speaking areas in dark green, the remainder of the six 'Celtic nations' we're all familiar with in an intermediate shade of green, and all areas where Celts have historically settled in light green. Now this offers the advantages of letting people see at a glance that Friuli, Asturias, France (less the Basque Country), Austria, and so on all have in some sense a 'Celtic heritage', without arbitrarily privileging Friuli or Devon above say, Piedmont or Cumbria. Shall I upload it for your perusal? QuartierLatin1968 15:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. Combining both on one map would be all nice and concise, and that's a good thing. Word. Sorry I was a little mean last night, enzedbrit. Slainte. -GlamdringCookies 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All right! The replacement map illustrates something a bit different from what Image:Celtic europe.PNG did, but I think there's an advantage to leaving Celtic 'status' open-ended. There's every reason for the Aragonese, French, and southern Germans to be proud of their Celtic heritage, and many are; and by saying that I don't mean to detract anything from the aspirations of the Galicians (or even Devonians...). QuartierLatin1968 03:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That's MUCH better I must say!Enzedbrit 02:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! :-) QuartierLatin1968 04:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I still see a major oversight of the excellent set of maps is that the initial, color-coded map has no legend. As far as I can see there is no way to determine which color belongs to which "nation". dangerpin 22:35, 01 June 2007 (UDT)

Merge

Since this article now exists, it seems to me that Celtic fringe and Celt belt should redirect here. We've built up more material on this article in a few days than Celt belt already has – is there an objection to merging the two? QuartierLatin1968 05:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) PS: Lá Fhéile Bríde maith libh.

Sounds good to me, didn't realise that this article existed, and I think that its a less common phrase than 'Celtic nations'. Robdurbar 09:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Celtic Europe"

Could someone please comment on the article Celtic Europe and a possible Friuli claim to Celticity? Behemoth 08:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As for Friuli's claim to being Celtic, it wouldn't surprise me too much – we've already heard from Padania, Switzerland, etc. And I've lately been in touch with an Austrian who's starting a Celtic Reconstructionist group there. But I haven't heard much about Friuli in particular yet. All of these regions, of course, were Celtic in antiquity, and have not had a Celtic spoken language since Roman times. QuartierLatin1968 23:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this and the Celtic nations article are a bit redunant. By merging them, we can iron out the contradictions between the two Robdurbar 09:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a possibility for every region from Iberia right across Europe to Scotland in the furthest north and even stretching as far east as parts of Turkey. There are even slme parts of North America which can claim Celtic more accurately Welsh/Cornish origin due to the migartions from western Britain to the American contient led primarliy by Prince Madog of Wales.

Merge

It seems that this and the Celtic nations article are a bit redunant. By merging them, we can iron out the contradictions between the two Robdurbar 09:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No merge. I think article Celtic nations deals with another issue. Article "Celtic Europe" is, on the other hand, is created in comparison to "Latin Europe", "Slavic Europe", etc. The basic criteria for the mentioned "Europes" are clear; they are linguistic ones. However, the criterion for inclusion in "Celtic Europe" is ambigious. Areas with non-Celtic languages are also included, even those with no constant claim to Celticity (like Friuli). I really don't know how we can "clean" this article... Behemoth 12:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support a merge. In fact, Behemoth, the single most common and accepted criterion for being accepted as a 'Celtic nation' is linguistic. QuartierLatin1968 23:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Amending that. Strongly support a merge or deletion on the grounds of original research. The whole European superculture hypothesis page needs really critical attention. And the map is dreadful; there's almost nothing on there that's right. QuartierLatin1968 23:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"Created in comparison to Latin Europe, Slavic Europe, etc" is NOT a justifiable reason for an article's existence, and certainly not a reason to create a new term of "Celtic Europe" that's supposed to have an objective existence. Aris Katsaris 10:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If the Celtic Europe is dealing with this superculture hypotheses thing, then it is a highly misleading article, which should clearly state that it forms one division of a contested hypothesis, not a definate region as it currently suggests. However, there is no reason why a section on modern celticity, in realtion to this hypothesis, could not be a good expansion of this nations article. Robdurbar 10:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The new (Green) Map

This one is better than the "Celtic Europe" map. But, wait a minute, where is Scottish Gaelic? :-) Behemoth 00:19, 22 March 2006 UTC

I think that the Hebrides are coloured. Enzedbrit 06:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't find any more places on the Scottish mainland that are majority Gaelic-speaking – I dearly wish it were otherwise, but there it is. The Breton portion is certainly inaccurate as well, because French has become the majority language in most of Lower Brittany as well, I suspect. But in the absence of specific data... I believe my Scottish data were based on the 2001 Gaelic report. QuartierLatin1968 21:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic's only spoken by about 70,000 people in Scotland (so we're told) so the outer islands could only be the areas where speakers were in the majority - you have done well, young squire Enzedbrit 07:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Cumbric

Behemoth, I would very much like to know more about these 50 fluent Cumbric speakers. Have you contact details? Or is this a cruel hoax! Enzedbrit 07:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is not in fact Cumbric but "Cumbric", a hypothetical language claimed to be "reconstructed" by Cumbrian Celtic revivalists. Sure, when one "reconstructs" a language by himself, he can be a fluent speaker. That's all. In my humble opinion, that's not a linguistic data but an info on how some circles tend to take this Celtic Cumbria issue seriously. I agree that this should be explained in detail in the Cumbric article. Behemoth 16:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Siol nan Gaidheal link

http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/ Siol nan Gaidheal - The Scottish Cultural & Fraternal Organisation was removed by User:130.195.86.36 with the comment: "Does one really want this page listed? It is very hateful, filled with venom and obscene POV. There is no worth to it."

This link has been a part of this article for months, if not longer. I have not read the entire site, but didn't see a problem with the sections I read. Please indicate where the "hateful, venemous and obscene" parts are so we can decide if it should be removed. For the meantime I'm leaving it on the page. --Kathryn NicDhàna 02:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• We cannot bring back the lost years of Berwick's history. We can only strive to undo the cultural and social damage which has been the result of English expansionism and intereference in the rightful and lawful affairs of Scotland. In addition, we Scots can only regain our full self-respect as a people when Berwick has been liberated. We cannot ever accept that even a few square miles of our country should remain under the domination of the English.

- Berwick is English and the people are proud Northumbrians.

• but while the Arabs sold carefully and used their newly gained millions to improve the conditions of their peoples, the Scots allowed the English to rob them of everything.

- A lie bought into by culture-starved Americans.

• But the English carry their charges to a greater degree than any of the other imperialists. The English - following the Roman example - consider that they are conferring a tremendous honour on the barbaric Celts whenever they care ot offer citizenship. Anyone who refuses to accept is immediately proclaimed a traitor to England - or "Britain", whatever "Britain" may be.

- Just hateful lies.

• This in-migration is not that of several different ethnic groups (or nationalities, as we shall discuss further on), each bringing minor additions to the host culture which do not in any way threaten its viability, but that of one group only - the English. That migration is a constant in human history should not obscure the very real fact that wholesale population movements and especially those of the overspill variety have tangible and in most cases permanent effects on the settled country and of course on the indigenous people confronted with this in their midst.

- Where did all this come from?

• Sorry, but no, the Irish and those of Irish descent in Scotland are of the same ethnic stock as the Scots. Ceud Mile Failte to historical fact.

- Someone misunderstands history.

• Now as that old homeland stands poised on the brink of the possibility that, for the first time in an age, it may reciprocate that loyalty and affection, we must not fail to fulfil the hopes and dreams of the exiled children of Scotland.

- Almost a rallying cry for terrorism.

• The Scottish race was here, under whatever name, long before the English were woad-painted savages.

- Denial of history, again feeding American culture-lust.

• Tartan as a typical Scottish fabric has survived to this day; so has the English prejudice against it. Only recently, with Scotland so full of English settlers and Anglo-British control over Scotland's media and Cultural institutions, has the negative image of 'tartanry' become part of Scotland's own self-perception.

- Completely untrue, considering too that the oldest continuously worn tartan is English from the north of England.

It's obvious that you have strong feelings about this, and disagree with the POV on that website. However, it is not a requirement that linked pages be completely NPOV. I think that the views expressed on that website are representative of a significant number of people who are part of, or support, the Celtic Nations. Therefore I think it's a POV that deserves to be represented. I think pretending that no one has any historically-based anger at the English is not the answer, and I disagree with you that the site is "hateful" or "full of lies" or that it somehow inspires "terrorism". I am for leaving the link, or one similar, on the page. Thoughts from other editors? --Kathryn NicDhàna 02:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kathryn. While I don't care to delve into the politics of the website in question, I will state that it's not about the historic "Celtic nations," but about a modern political movement. As such, I have grave doubts on whether or not it belongs in the article whatsoever. If it's notable, perhaps it needs an article of its own ... but it is not a "Celtic nation" by anyone's definition. Justin Eiler 02:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the distinction you've set up between "historic 'Celtic nations'" and "modern political movements" is a false one, Justin, because any time I say "place X is Celtic", I'm making a political statement. Anyway, the concept that any of these countries – Ireland and Scotland included – are 'Celtic' is modern (18th century to the present); in the middle ages, nobody talked about Celts at all, but about Britons and Gaels. As for the idea that Celticness was an important condition of 'nationhood' for these places, that's more modern still. Turning to the Siol nan Gaidheal site itself, it seems to give a pretty good example of nationalist rhetoric in one Celtic country. I'm not sure what we're really looking for in our external links for this article; can we only have links with a pan-Celtic theme? That seems peculiar, when each of the several countries is so unique. But I'm not too sure of the guidelines for external links. Q·L·1968 ☿ 09:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking at the External Links guidelines page. It says nothing about POV sites being undesirable, but it does say that if a site is very POV, its POV should be explicitly described with the link. So, if anyone's got a grasp on this POV better than I do, please be bold. -GlamdringCookies 17:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(I'm not sure what the best phrase would be, so I'm here and not Being Bold ;-)) As for a description, I think something very brief like "Scottish Nationalism" would do the trick. --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest that site basically reads as a race hate site and has very little to do with either any real Scotland that exists, either now or in history, or with the Celtic Nations in general. The views on it aren't representative of either Scottish nationalism as a political movement or any accepted view of Scottish history or of the views of actual Scottish people as far as I can see...so, speaking as someone who is Scottish and someone who would actually vote for an independent Scotland (not that my beliefs are anyone's business - I point this out purely so its clear I'm not coming at this from any outraged unionist agenda or anything) - I think that this site is of such marginal relevance it should be removed for that reason alone - we don't even need to go near its bizarre factual inaccuracies and the moral repugnance of their racial agenda. Plus they dont even seem to be able to tell the difference between "English" and "British" at times, which always raises the hackles of most actual Scots. If we need a link to do with Scottish Nationalism surely it isn't best represented by what's basically a KKK view of history? Reynardthefox 19:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your characterization of the site as "KKK" is rather extreme. I also disagree that it does not represent a noteworthy POV. Can you suggest an alternate link that covers a Scottish Independence POV? If not, I say we put it back and call it either "Scottish Nationalism" or "Radical Scottish Nationalism". --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

PS - For clarity here, Reynardthefox, you are the one who did the unsigned, bulleted list of objections above, yes? --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Galicia

Galicia has been always considered a celtic nation (7 celtic nations not 6). The history, traditions, and culture in general are celtic. It is true that the celtic language has not survived but the spirit has. --81.41.170.22 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine; add as much information as you want on the theme of Celtic Galicia. But please, do not falsify any information already present. Galicia may well deserve to be counted as a full-fledged seventh Celtic nation, as indeed it sometimes is; but equally, it sometimes is not. Remember, Wikipedia does not arbitrate on matters of what ought, it reports on what is. And currently, opinions are divided on Galicia (as they are on Asturias, Devon, Cumbria...). QuartierLatin1968 06:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that Galicia has always been considered a Celtic nation at all and have seen no proof of this, mostly because Celtic identity in Britain has been created only as recently as about two centuries ago as a unifying term for an older cultural period and linguistic family. I know that England was not seen as Celtic because of pseudo-supremist views that saw it as Teuton and rejected its Celticness in favour of something 'better', and this damage is only in recent years being undone. Yet with regards to Galicia, England at least is able to claim that remnants of the Brythonic languages of England remain! Not only in placenames all over the country but in dialect as well, and this doesn't even touch on the culture and traditions of the Celts that have endured. To have Galicia considered as Celtic and not England is, to me, frustrating and offensive. Enzedbrit 02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Offensive? Read this article Celtic Gallaecia, and read about the galician history and traditions and you will see if Galicia can be or not considered as a celtic nation. Galician was celtic, is celtic and will be celtic. Please, do not make comparisions with zones that can be difined as zones with celtic influence like England or Asturias. --81.41.168.80 15:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Perdona pero no te entiendo, cuando dices 'please, do not make comparisions with zones that can be dfined as zones with celtic influence like England or Asturias' - que quieres decir? Ya no existe una lengua celta de Galicia. Possessing a Celtic language is the defining feature of a Celtic country. Half of Europe has Celtic heritage somewhere. Outside of the six identified Celtic countries there are some with lots of surviving Celtic heritage and others with less. Galicia had Celts, was Roman, is Spanish. It can't always have been Celtic because this is such a modern construct and articles like you've pointed out will only spur on this sentiment - that Galicia's Celtic: accept it, embrace it, believe it and make it real by consensus. Anyone can scribe an article like that and use it to justify something, but I would never regard a work of literature that sources Wikipedia, as credible. What is offensive is to be told that England can't be classified as Celtic but Galicia can. This isn't a battle over who is more Celtic than others, but the least we should do is not usurp real culture and real identity from other parts of the world. If Celtic is, as I fear it may just be, a way for people to hate non-Cornish English and non-Breton French people, then maybe Galicia is Celtic, so that we can hate non-Galician Spaniards; anything Celtic is about the other, and the term becomes merely a rallying cry for disassociation, difference and bigoted nationalism. Enzedbrit 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Enzedbrit, you sound jaded, and that makes me sad. But I see what you are trying to do: Celtic identity in Europe is something of a continuum. It seems to me that you're trying to draw a line that determines which regions are deserving of inclusion in this article on Celtic nations and which aren't. I think, though, that drawing such a rigid line as you propose (even on the worthy basis of language) is not true to reality. Regions that do not have Celtic languages possess strong Celtic identities sometimes. I think that is where the line must be drawn. It isn't clear. It's rather vague. But I think only a fair determination of whether a region has a "strong Celtic cultural identity" is a viable criterion for inclusion or not. Some things are not clear-cut. We may feel the need to make them that way, but sometimes it's just not right. -GlamdringCookies 04:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Did the Galicians not speak a celtic language? Do the Galicians not wear Kilts and play bagpipes? Do the Galicians not wear clogs and have celtic traditions? well i can answer these questions and say yes the Galicians wear skirts just like the type on braveheart that the scots wear, yes they also play the bagpipes as a state symbol, yes they have celtic traditions and yes they used to speak a celtic language until something happened along the lines.. but the Celts of Galicia have continued to be celts, otherwise what have they become?

The English spoke Brythonic; the Northumbrians wear the oldest surviving tartan and play their pipes; English tradition is based on Celtic mythology and likewise these traditions live on. With tradition, the same could be true of France too. The Celts of Galicia lost their Celtic language long before the Celts of England lost theirs. What makes Galicia so special? The Celts of Galicia became Spanish. Enzedbrit 04:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with GlamdringCookies. Galicia has not a celtic languages, but it has been always considered as a celtic nation. Its strong celtic culture and tradition is enough to see it. Please, do not manipulate the information about this country due to personal opinions. --193.144.48.15 17:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you need to add Northern Portugal (Minho and possibly Tras os Montes) as a Celtic country. Minho, in particular must be included since it was part of the ancient Roman province of Galaecia (Galicia today). The original capital of Galicia was in fact Braga, which is in the Minho. The people of the Minho and Galicia share a very similar Celtic history and culture. The significance of this region on Celtic genetics was recently shown by scientists at Trinity College, Dublin (see The Herald 10/09/04). Very simply, the study concludes that the Scots and Irish have more in common genetically with the people of northwest Iberia (Galicia (Galiza) and Minho) than anyone else.

The Celtic migrations from Central Europe flowed to Iberia first and then north to the Isles...

Please good people amend the record. Facts are facts.

Anthropologique 22:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Celtic nations" template

I do think a "Celtic nations" template or footer infobox may be useful to add to all the articles of the Celtic nations.

How about this?

_└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I like. siarach 01:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not bad. Is it right to omit Gallo and Scots, however? (Not to mention French and English.) Obviously they are not Celtic languages, but they are languages "of" Celtic countries... Could the Brythonic and Goidelic languages/nations be placed in different columns? Also, there should be a show/hide toggle. I like the idea, however. (But will there not be endless arguments over Galicia – vide supra?) Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There will be no more conflict than that on Celtic nations. A note could be added to state that it's Celtic nations as defined by the Celtic Congress and Celtic League. As for the non-Celtic languages spoken in the areas, that would defeat the purpose, I think. It could simply be titled "Celtic nations and their Celtic languages" to remove any question of what languages should be included. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it. —Nightstallion (?) 23:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! I wonder if there's a way to further utilize the color-coding on the map. The flags of Scotland and Isle of Man work well with their colors on the map. I'm wondering if there's any way we could also indicate which nation corresponds to which link via the colors or some other visual method. (And no, I haven't thought of one, or I would have suggested it ;-)) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Flag

Unregistered users have twice in the last several days removed the Northern Ireland flag from the list of Celtic Nations. At best, this seems to me an accidental vandalism (although less so now that it's happened again), at worst excluding a legitimate member of the category from its description. I would revert this change instantly, but this will be the second time I revert it. Fair warning. -GlamdringCookies 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the flag of the four provinces of ireland flown at all ireland rugby games would be more appropriate. It's on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Four_Provinces_Flag.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.14.55 (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Lloegr = "the lost lands" ??

I have removed the comment that "Lloegr" means "the lost lands". See the discussion above. If anybody can provide a reference from a reliable academic source (not Bernard Cornwell, who is a novelist) for this meaning, then by all means put it back. However a number of people have looked for such a reference and failed to find one. Rhion 10:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Galicia and the Seven Celtic Nations

Hi, I've read this article and I can't understand why the Galician nation is not included into the celts nations. I've read your arguments, and it is true that galicia has not a celtic language, but the language that is spoken in Galician has an enormous influence of celtic languages. Galicia has a great celtic identity (its history, traditions, culture, climate, landscape,...), altough it has not a celtic language. Who made that list and who drew that line which says what nation is celtic or not? --193.144.48.15 16:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean you can't understand? It's explained quite clearly. In addition, we're not about original research here, we can't decide what is and isn't a Celtic nation; we can only go by the popular view, and in the understanding of two large and influential Celtic organizations, the Celtic League and Celtic Congress there are six Celtic nations. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, popular and expert view...sometimes the popular view is wrong. -GlamdringCookies 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No. This isn't a scientific-type issue, it's a social thing, so social views are all that there is. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Galiza is the purest of the 7 Celtic Countries

Galiza is the most forgotten of the seven Celtic countries. Even so, she has the most pure and oldest Celtic tradition, going back more that 2000 years, without any medieval influence The stone and water crazy galizans only have equals in its Celtic brothers of Eire and Breizh. The similarities of tradition and costumes, between galizans, Irish and Bretons and their philosophy of life is what characterized the Galizian people. These Celtic people, have nothing to do with the Spanish way of life, which galizans are not part.

Galiza is a country in the actual Spanish State with very dependent rule to the central government. Galiza was the first, the oldest independent kingdom of Europe. Its beginnings can be placed in the Old Kingdom of Galiza created by the Germanic people of the suave that in 409 AD came to the them roman province of Galleacia, ( were the romans had convinced them to come , believing they will left quit the rest of the empire that they use to put to sack ). In two years they put out all that was left from the roman empire : people, administration, ... and they unified the different Celtic tribes -the Galizian Trebas- to form the first kingdom of Europe, under Hermerico, making the beginning of the fall of the roman empire. Only in 410 the germanic tribes take Roma.

www.celticland.com—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.150.73 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 2 February 2007

Brief History

Galicia was settled by Celts before the 6th century B.C. During the period of Roman domination, the conventus iudicus of Gallaecia (an advisory body consisting on indigenous inhabitants and Romans who advised the governor on judicial matters) coincided exactly with Celtic territory; present-day Galicia was covered by the conventus of Lugo. As a result of the Barbarian invasions, the Suevian settled on the land until the Visigoth occupation under Leovigildus. Arab rule left hardly any traces in Galicia, which maintained its identity during the Reconquest as an independent Christian kingdom. The role played by Galicia in the history of medieval culture is extraordinary and it was a famous country throughout the entire Middle Ages owing to pilgrims' road to Santiago de Compostela, main route of European Christian pilgrimage to the tomb of the apostle St. James.

Celtic Galiza

Galiza is a county in the actual Spanish State with very dependent rule to the central government. Galiza was the first, the oldest independent kingdom of Europe. Its beginnings can be placed in the Old Kingdom of Galiza created by the Germanic people of the suave that in 409 came to the them roman province of Galleacia, ( were the Romans had convinced them to come , believing they will left quit the rest of the empire that they use to put to sack ). In two years they put out all that was left from the roman empire : people, administration, ... and they unified the different Celtic tribes -the Galizian Tribes- to form the first kingdom of Europe, under Hermerico, making the beginning of the fall of the roman empire. Only in 410 the Germanic tribes take Roma.

In the high Middle age period and thereafter, the kingdom of Galiza stands alone. In times, royal heritages, kings and queens marriages, make two o more kingdom to fusion or change owners. But in all circumstances, Galiza has always conserved its own language costumes and differentiated culture. The inaccessibility , by land, of the West side of the Celto-iberian peninsula is the result of a natural mountain chain formation that isolated Galiza and also Portugal from Spain. In fact the Spanish-Portugal border is the oldest of Europe.

Galiza is the most forgotten of the seven Celtic countries. Even so, she has the most pure and oldest Celtic tradition, going back more that 2000 years, without any medieval influence The stone and water crazy galizans only have equals in its Celtic brothers of Eire and Breizh. The similarities of tradition and costumes, between galizans, Irish and Bretons ... and this philosophy of life that characterized the Galizian people, the Celtic people, has nothing to do with the Spanish way of life, where galizans are not part.

As the galizans honor the old Celtic cult to the horse in the Galizian known "curros das bestas", the Spaniards , from the North shores of the 'Cantabrico' sea till the pillars of Hercules in the south, feast the Iberian cult to the 'Iberian bull'. The San Fermin, in the heart of the Basque country of Navarra , the 'encierro' , till the south "Spanish corridas" are the attachment of the Iberian people. When the Spaniards kill the beast, the bull, on the contrary, the Galizian take care of they own horses of the hole Nature to whom they have herded the love of the Celtic people. Two people , two cultures.

Even when they share the Celto-iberian peninsula, ( two sides , de Celtic Atlantic and Iberiam meseta North to South ) the culture of the west side and the North-West Galiza in particular, has an origin very different. The subtract people are goidelic Celts in the historical Galiza ( including North of Portugal ) with influence zone going back well south in today Portugal, the Iberians the rest of the peninsula. The natural frontier between what is Portugal and Spain, who is naturally prolonged to all the Galiza East side, is the most oldest frontier in all Europe.

Geography has helped to maintained , purest , the Celtic tradition of Galiza. They have the same Celtic spirituality as 20 centuries ago, today the names have changed, no more names of Celtic gods and goddesses , the names have today references only to the Christian fact, however it can be said that galizans pursue yet now they druidic religion under Christian names, rock, waters, ...are still holy. Living in this country, Galiza, living with this people, the galizans, you could sense this Celtic feeling coming back from the times.

The name "galegs' and "gaelics' ,oldest "gaels" , have similarities that can be explained. On this point gaelic and 'galeg' 's - Galizan - tradition count the same history, two thousands years apart, 450 miles directly north and south, the sons of Breogam sail to Eire, the green land, as the Galizans have named it, so the Irish book of the invasion said also. Add that, a Gaelic dictionary can be used to translated all the pre-roman Galiza's place-names ... you will found that the coincidences and similarities can easily be explain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithivm (talk • contribs) 11:17, 2 February 2007

no mention has been made of switzerland as a celtic nation—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.152.50 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 March 2007

Flags

The flag used to represent Ireland should be the Irish tricolour alone, as Ulster Unionists do not consider themselves Celtic. As such representation of the so called "Flag of Northern Ireland" is pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.139.162 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 March 2007

Why not England?

If Scotland is allowed to call itself a "Celtic nation" by virtue of the fact that a Celtic language is spoken in a small and remote region of it, then why not England too, since Cornwall is part of England? Or has the list been designed specifically to exclude England? TharkunColl 13:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk to the Celtic organizations that determine this. We're just following their definitions. I can guess at their motivations, however--while only a small portion of Scotland now speaks a Celtic language, it wasn't that long ago that a lot more of it did, and people think of Scotland as a whole as Celtic. People don't generally think of England as a whole to be Celtic. It has been a very long time since there was a Celtic language spoken in England aside from Cornwall, and Cornwall has always kept its Celtic identity. So Cornwall is the nation, not England, and Brittany is the nation, not France. Lexicon (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The consideration of Scotland as a Celtic country and England as not a Celtic country does show some inconsistencies in the definition, but the adoption of a modern Celtic identity, I think, is as much about a rejection of England as it is association with a cultural period in the history of Britain and the associated language. It's wrong if people try to deny that England has a rich and vibrant Celtic heritage and identity, but it doesn't have a language - as Lexicon has said, Cornwall is able to detatch itself and use that independence as a determinant for it being one of the Celtic six - hence isn't classified as one of the six. Anyone though that would have Galicia or Asturias as Celtic countries has no basis to thus refuse giving the same status to England! Enzedbrit 03:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Scotland is a Celtic nation by virtue of the fact that it was founded by a Celtic people. England was not. There is no inconsistency in the definition of Scotland as Celtic while England is not. England does not have a "rich and vibrant Celtic heritage and identity" - this is simply fantasy (even the genuine modern Celtic nations - and by Celtic i mean possessing a genuine Celtic heritage and identity rooted in Celtic ancestry/language/culture - of Scotland, Ireland and Britanny possess only dying and utterly moribund Celtic heritage which will cease to exist in any genuinely native, living form this century) . England has some celtic heritage yes (no more so than many other areas which were historically Celtic) but any supposed celtic identity is a modern invention and quite detached from anything which might justify it. If England was a Celtic creation which had a fairly recent history of Celtic language and culture across most of the nation- albeit largely marginalised in modern times- then it would most certainly be a Celtic nation/region as Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Britanny are but it simply does not qualify regardless of how desperately some might wish it did. England was defined and the state itself founded by a non-Celtic people (just like Austria, just like France, just like Spain, just like Turkey etc etc etc) and thus is obviously not a Celtic nation in any contemporary or even recently historical context. The criteria used by such organisations as the Celtic congress which insist on the existence (or in the case of Cornwall recent existence) of a Celtic language (and thus culture/civilisation) are perfectly sound as language (and culture which goes hand in hand) is what historically defined distinct peoples and nations and it continues to do so today regardless of the common, and increasing, vogue for people to imagine themselves to be something other than what they are and seeking justification in things as irrelevant as DNA or nations/cultures/languages which were historically extant within a region. siarach 11:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Also regarding the adherance to DNA/Genes as justification for England and other non Celtic nations/peoples being Celtic il refer to a recent edit comment by User:Hibernian where he quite correctly points out that "Also there is no such thing as Celtic Genes". To talk of "Celtic genes" or DNA is absolutely ridiculous. There are of course genes which might be more common in a certain region which, as a consequence, are genes which come from ancestors/historically present people who may have been defined as Germanic/Celtic/Persian or whatever. Now why were they defined as Germanic/Celtic/Persian/Etruscan ? Because of the langauge they spoke. Language is how people were historically (and generally are still) defined and to talk of DNA as if it could define a people as Celtic or anything else is absolutely, and inherently, daft. Indeed it is even more daft with regards to the Celts than most as this group, more than others it seems, is a group defined by language. Can the possession by the English of similar genes to the Scots, Irish, Welsh etc make them Celtic? No - no more than the possession by the Ancient Britons of Southern Britain (which would become England) of certain genes could define them as Celtic or pre-Indo European or whatever. The ancient inhabitants of southern Britain were defined as Celts not because of their genes but by their language and culture. siarach 11:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The truth is that Celtism is a modern construct, created specifically to exclude England, which is fair enough - I have no problem with that. But there is most definitely an inherent hypocrisy in dividing England so as to include Cornwall, and yet including the whole of Scotland, with the Shetlands and Orkneys as well, which are about as Celtic as Iceland. TharkunColl 12:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly some of "Celticism" is rooted in anti-Englishness but that is another issue. The simple fact is that Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Britanny were until modern times largely Celtic and in the case of Scotland was a nation-state which survived into the modern era founded by Celts. Cornwall (which i do not think should have been accepted due to its language being extinct), unlike the rest of England, was Celtic until modern times hence its inclusion. The inclusion of the anglicised parts of Scotland (which i do not consider to be any more Celtic than England regardless of the fact that they were more recently Celtic than any part of England excluding Cornwall - language is the defining criteria and most of the accepted Celtic nations are English/French in this regard) is justified due to their being part of a larger nation which is of Celtic origin. The Northern Isles havent been Celtic for over a thousand years as you say but they are included for the same reason Lothian "the land of the English in the kingdom of the Scots" is - because they are part of a Celtic nation even if they themselves no longer possess any genuine Celtic characteristics. siarach 12:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Much of this discussion misses the point. To speak of a Celtic nation is to say that a nation defines its IDENTITY in that way. Identity is a construct, which need have little basis in history or contemporary reality. That is not to decry it: identity is important for a sense of community, for group self-perception. To put it blundly, a nation is a Celtic nation if it chooses to see itself that way; Scotland does, England doesn't. And despite the arbitrary element to that, it is nevertheless a very meaningful statement to say that Scotland is a Celtic nation. --Doric Loon 12:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this exactly fits in here. I am planning a project working on the Celts of England (mostly fueled by a desire to find out who the original Yorkshire people are). The original people of England are Celts, the celtic blood is still present in the people of England to some extent because all of these tribes didn't just disapear off the face of the earth overnight, but compared to the other "Celtic nations", the people of England are obviously more mixed with non-Celtic influences. Here is a template of the tribes if anybody is interested in participating. - Yorkshirian 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Galicia is a celtic nation

GALICIA IS CONSIDERED TO BE ONE OF THE CELTIC NATIONS. It always was and most of the community believes so aswell, this is the way it is seen by most people in celtic Revivalism. What does this mean? Nothing, its just a name, there are many other tribes of celtic descent in europe and the celtic nations dont have any priority over them. It is only because The Celtic League has monopolized Wiki, that other people are not allowed to put theyre facts in. The Celtic League are a bunch of idiots and a very small minority and the scheaming little gits are trying to change facts by flooding all wiki pages.(I dont know how they can be proud of their celtic origin, acting like this..)

There are 7 nations, there have been 7 nations for a long time, and there will allways be seven nations. --193.144.53.8 17:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Galicia is as Celtic as Austria or England or central Turkey or Northern Italy or France or anywhere else there was an historical Celtic presence. Which is to say in the modern day it isnt Celtic at all. siarach 09:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is considere by WHOM? Galicia is NOT a Celtic Nation regardless of how much some insecure Galician struggle to be considered that. There is nothing fundamentally different in Galicia from the rest of Western Europe, from Britain to France to Germany to Italy to Greece, which are as Celtic as Galicia. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Galicia will never be regarded as a Celtic nation because - by definition - a Celtic nation is any nation that has been conquered, subjugated, or otherwise ill-treated by the English. TharkunColl (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Link added to ‘Anglo-Celtic’ article

Hello, I have added a link to the relevant ‘Anglo-Celtic’ article in the ‘See also’ section (this term is prefered by some who dislike the political implication that can be mistakenly derived when the word 'British' is used in the geographically-intended term 'British Isles'). I also put this section into alphabetic order. Kind regards, Pconlon 12:14, 27 June 2007 (GMT)

Need Gaelic Consent For Inclusion Of Brythons As Celtic, Per User:Hibernian

My version before removal displayed Celtic history and traditions in England apart from Cornwall, but with the "controversial" inclusion of Cumberland, the story of English Bretons is considered a farce by the Gaelic crowd. Compare this to "Celtic" Galicia, which you apparently think is more Celtic than England because of the Milesians. Brythons are as much Celts as the Gaels, but not in Gaelic opinion. Fine, we are Roman instead, but then Milesians are not Celtic. Consider that a handicap to inclusion in the Celtic crowd if you will, but it doesn't hurt my feelings. Such a hateful disposition. Yes, the Celtic nations are a British Isles phenomenon. I won't apologize for admitting this. Gaelic this and Gaelic that, so fair. Celticity is inclusive so far as it has a Gaelic POV, but Hibernian would not consent to Geoffrey of Monmouth. How does Ériu, or any other equally dubious, mythological element of Celtic culture mean more, rather than equal in legitimacy to Brutus of Troy? Because it's Irish. Nice way to make this article NPOV. Thanks for the beat down all evil English deserve. 68.110.8.21 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good source about Bretons in England 68.110.8.21 08:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Iceland?

Wasn't Iceland orginially inhabited by Celts, and nowadays Celtic blood is still common along with Norse. So shouldn't it be on the map of former Celtic-speaking parts of Europe? Drogo 20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Most countries or regions now Germanic were originally Celtic, or at least "Celtic-heavy", or originally had a Celtic focus, before the emergence of Germanic differences, when the Germanics bypassed the Celtic hegemony and interacted with Rome directly, in a much different manner than the Romans were used to, in prior exchanges with the Celts on a whole. One of the most startling breaks with the past in this regard, is Iceland, although the Faroes experienced this too. West Nordic languages are affected in part by the Celtic, whereas East Nordic tongues are influenced by the Slavic. So it is, generally in the demography of Northern Europe, with different types of Germanic due to the evolution of ethnolinguistics. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well... all of that would have to be referenced before the article could be changed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Icelandic is Germanic, specifically North Germanic descended from Old Norse. There may have been Irish there before the Norse, but there is no archaeological evidence for this or for Celts. The Norse supposedly had a substantical number of Celtic slaves, but you still can't call Iceland Celtic because of this.--Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Most of Western Europe has Celtic blood, but that is not a criterion to say a nation is Celtic! The decisive criterion is spaking a Celtic language - that does not happen in Iceland. The Ogre (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality & Accuracy Disputed

This article, besides being very badly referenced, seems to be completely POV. Although it does mention Celtic languages, it also leaves the impression that there is (and was) one Celtic culture, something which is definitely contentious, yet there is no mention of any other viewpoints in the article. It is also pretty amateurish. Eg the second paragraph -- someone seems to have made up a definition of the etymology of the word British (what's wrong with looking at a dictionary?) and then either that person or someone else has used a newspaper article to argue "At one time the whole British Isles was predominantly Cruthin/Celtic" -- funny, the Wikipedia link itself says "The Cruithne or Cruithin were a semi-mythical people, with occasional historic reference in Irish sources, that lived within the British Isles during the Iron Age. Specifically, Cruithne was the contemporary Irish word for the peoples referred to in Roman histories, and subsequent derivative works, as the Picts." And then carries on to suggest that the Cruithne didn't even speak Celtic. It's embarrassing to read that sort of thing, don't people even look at the stuff they are referring to?

I think it needs a "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed." tag and perhaps the merger discussed. It certainly needs to be brought within the framework of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of viewrule. And the Wikipedia:Verifiability rule: ""Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Far too much of the article has no sources at all, and the sources that are provided aren't what Wikipedia defines as 'reliable sources'.--Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify further about official Wikipedia policy: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. --Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Still no attempt to provide reliable sources. Most of the references should be removed as they fail Wikipedia policies. Isn't anyone interested enough in this article to clean it up?Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Fringe

Usually this means the British Isles, so it could be confusing using it differently. See for instance: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~stonerjw/celt_bib.html