Jump to content

Talk:Celts (modern)/Archive 2

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

Reference Needed

In that part of the article entitled, "History of Celticity" it is stated that in the Victorian era, "in Scotland both Norse and Anglo-Saxon heritage was played up". Can we have a source for that rather sweeping statement, please? Millbanks (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I can think of several quotes to this effect. For example, the fact that Scots are referred to as "Anglo-Saxons". Actually Norse is more accurate, as they were to be found throughout Scotland.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, presumably you will be putting references in that part of the article? I'd be interested in hearing quite who referred to the Scots as Anglo-Saxons. All sorts of people say very stupid things, and not only in Wikipedia. The latest nonsense, as I think I've mentioned before, is "the Scots are not British" theme. My point is that there is little point in giving a quote unless it is from a reputable source.

I'd heard that Victoria and Albert, a worthy German couple, were rather keen on all things Scottish, and in particular liked the kilt. No, I can't source it, but I suppose given time I could. Millbanks (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually planning on an article on Scottish Teutonism for wiki. This occurred in Scotland from the 18th century through the 19th and and into the 20th. It's origins lie in the Anglophilic British nationalism and the "Scots" language movement popular among a section of the Scottish elite in this period, but became untenable as scholarship got better (esp. after the incomparable W. F. Skene). Refs are easy (Colin Kidd has a bunch of stuff), but see this for a quickie. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Worth mentioning John Jamieson in this context too. I have a quote to this effect somewhere. Of course, making Scots "Anglo-Saxon" made them theoretically equal partners in the empire.--MacRusgail (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it "worth mentioning" a quote from a relatively obscure Scottish lexicographer 200 years ago? I'm sure he was a very worthy man, but did his pronouncements cut much ice? And do they now? Millbanks (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of Celts, mainly Scots, were very prominent in the Empire, but I really can't see how trying to portray them as "Anglo-Saxon" makes a ha'porth of difference in that context, unless you've unearthed some Victorian conspiracy theory. Look, a lot of people are very keen to be Celts, probably more than like to portray themselves as "Anglo-Saxons". And for what it's worth, various people who are thought to have Indian blood in their veins try to deny it. Millbanks (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC). Millbanks (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Because people at that particular point in time were extremely racist, and to make the Scots Anglo-Saxon made them "racial equals", rather than considered inferior like the Africans, Asians etc. It is a common tactic of a colonising power to emphasise thier superiority and to justify their presence as being somehow civilising or helpful. By playing up the "Anglo-Saxon" thing in Scotland, certain people were able to opt into the British Empire fully.
OK, so in the eighteenth century some fairly nasty things were said about the Scots by the English (I'm not sure if the word "Celt" was used much then). Doubtless they were reciprocated. Certainly if you listen to the Oirish CDs sold in the local tourist shop here to Americans, they contain some unpleasant references to the English. But I hadn't realised that the Scots "were considered inferior like the Africans, Asians, etc". I know that you appear to like to argue that Scotland was (is?) a colony (!), but are you really trying to tell me that Scots, like blacks and Asians, were banned from clubs, restaurants, hotels etc? Yes, I've seen "no blacks, no Irish" signs (over forty years ago) but never "no Scots". And I imagine that a cockney might have trouble getting into certain high-fallutin' institutions even today. Were Dalhousie, Macquarie, etc. considered racial inferiors? Millbanks (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Jamieson is not obscure. Get a clue. Can you also stop claiming that there are no Welsh bagpipes. There certainly are. They're not a prominent part of modern Welsh music, but they certainly are not uncommon.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not Jamieson is obscure is debatable - I hadn't heard of him and neither had my wife (and we're both university graduates). But thanks for the clue. Now for goodness sake, I never said that the Welsh didn't play bagpipes. What I did say was that non-Celtic peoples also play them. Even the English. Millbanks (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You may have never heard of him, but he has had a massive (often indirect) influence on modern Scottish literature. Even Irvine Welsh. The Northumbrian pipes are globally famous since Sting included them on some of his records. However, I think you are missing the point by a mile.
Now, can you run off to a real discussion forum somewhere please.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention of running off to a "real discussion forum" anywhere, although I'm sure that you would like me to. The problem with this article is that it is in danger of becoming a nationalist polemic. Perhaps it already is and perhaps that was/is the intention. However, since we're here to suggest improvements to the article, I think that we need to go easy on references to "British atrocities", "anglicisation", etc, and attempting to find unique links between Celtic nations, and concentrate instead on the very real achievements and contribution of Modern Celts. In other words, accentuate the positive. That is what I have tried to do in the paragraphs I have written. Millbanks (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC).
Seems like you've lost this one, Millbanks. They've deleted all the "achievements" bits, reducing the article to a woolly whinge. Ausseagull (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

UK/Ireland Bias

This article is far too narrow. Note the Literature bit, and the Religion bit: all UK and Ireland. And Celts in UK politics - why just the UK? And in any event, no mention of Gerry Adams, Alex Salmond or the Ulster Unionist MPs at Westminster, for example. And I imagine that the entire Irish cabinet is Celtic. And talking of Celtic politicians, not one mention of the 100% Irish JFK! There are Celts outside north west Europe, you know. Ausseagull (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How can an American, born in America, to American parents, be 100% Irish? Don't you need to be at least slightly American to be President of the USA?--62.163.131.85 (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No disagreement here. I think everyone feels this article could use some (or a lot of) improvement. Have you talked yourself into a project? Hope so. :) Daicaregos (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a UK/Ireland bias, it's mainly a UK bias. The article is woeful on Brittany, for example.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 

:::Well, add something on Brittany. Ausseagull (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not just Simon James is absent from the article, also Malcolm Chapman

Malcolm Chapman wrote The Celts: The Construction of a Myth - seems relevant to the article also. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Pity people don't write more books about the myths of certain dominant cultures e.g. British.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a "British" culture as opposed to an English, Scottish and Welsh culture? And if there is, surely it's a blend of all three?Ausseagull (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you read the stuff at the top about how this is not a general discussion forum? It isn't. Go to a web forum somewhere and have it out there. Or at least research your edits before you put them down.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC) 

 ::Is the above comment addressed to me? If so, note that it was you who referred to British culture. So why not explain what you mean by it? Ausseagull (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What Makes A 'Modern Celt'

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

Is teanga, dúchas agus cuid de comhstair é. Tuiginn? --sony-youthpléigh 13:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Béarla only. Oops. Gazh 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Only joking - thought you'd get back quicker. What I said was language, heritage and a bit of shared history. --sony-youthpléigh 15:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Something to chew on that has more than just language (from the 1835, so not just a modern thing):
"There is some reason to believe, that the original inhabitants of the British Isles possessed a peculiar and interesting species of music, which being banished from the plains by successive invasions of the Saxons, Danes, and Normans, was preserved with the native race, in the wilds of Ireland and in the mountains of Scotland and Wales. The Irish, the Scottish, and the Welsh music differ indeed from each other, but the difference may be considered as in dialect only, and probably produced by the influence of time, like the different dialects of their common language."
- R. Burns, J. Currie, 1835, The Works of Robert Burns: With an Account of His Life and a Criticism of His Writings
I'm guessing you've never heard NE Folk and Ceilidh music then, it's quite famous; even more so when it's sang to, always in English albeit in NE dialect, the tradition is carried over in NE Football (soccer) also; "Wor me lads, it's good ta see yas gannin, gannin alang ta Roker Park divny hoy it in the wata".
http://www.birchmore.clara.net/html/northumbria.html
The above football chant is not remotely Celtic. If anything it's Germanic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.71.161 (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the music seems to be Instrumental on the site however. Gazh 09:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I hadn't. A browse around on Google brings up lost of interesting stuff. The first, I had heard before from Origins of the Britons (which I will try and dig up), if I remember it correctly it was just in this exact context that it was mentioned:
Within living memory, shepherds in Cumbria have been recorded as using a counting system which is clearly Brittonic in origin, and children at play use a counting system which is probably derived from it: Gregor, again, quotes from I. and P. Opie (The Times Literary Supplement, 14 July 1979, p. 799), who say that children, counting aloud, use 'twenty' as a unit, and there is some likeness between many of the numerals from 'one' to 'ten' and those of Welsh, he quotes yay, tau, tethea, meatrea, pimp, sethera, lethera, nothera dothera, dick trough sethera (if correspondent with siath) is not optiomally ordered for the correspondences with Welsh, which are un, dau, thre, pedwar, pump, chwech, saith, wyth, naw, deg.
- Donald MacAulay, The Celtic Languages
So shepherds in Cumbria had a Brittonic counting system. Ah well, until the middle of the nineteenth century two old English dialects were spoken in Ireland, Fingallan in the Dublin area, and Yola in parts of Co Wexford. The lowland Scots dialect is also Germanic. Meanwhile, the words London and Thames are Celtic. But what's this got to do with "Modern Celts"? You tell me. Millbanks (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Tempered with a "bad new" quote:
There is, as Professor Mawer implies, nothing unusual in the survival of pre-English river names in Northumbria. They have survived everywhere, and are nearly always unintelligible.
- Historical Association, History
This is about the 'Celitic nations':
From this account of the congress, you will have realized that language was considered the major criterion of Celticity for the Pan-Celtic Association. Indeed the Cornish Celtic cultural association, Kowetthas Kelto-Kernoweg, was initially refused membership of the Pan-Celtic Association in 1901 on the grounds that Cornish was no longer a living language. However, in the course of the 1904 congress, Cornwall was admitted as a Celtic nation and a sixth stone, representing Cornwall, was added to the 'Logan stone' monument.
Traditional music, costume and 'native sports' were also considered important. Chapman and other have commented on the way in which archaic, previously general cultural features and artefacts, such a bagpipes (one common throughout Europe, but now associated with Scotlande, Britanny, Ireland and Northumbria), have come to be seen as timelessly an dtypically 'Celtic' (Chapman, 1992, pp. 118-19)
- Open University Course Team, Mark Pittaway et al Globalization and Europe
You should start digging more into this. Take a look at Celtic music and [Music of Northumbria]]. --sony-youthpléigh 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
For your Cumbrian point, i think there is recorded evidence of this or a similar counting technique being used as far down as Whitby (i was down there yesterday enjoying the rain btw) on the Yorkshire east coast.
As for 'digging more into this' I'm not about to, the fact that NE England and Lowlands Scots have an alot of cultural similarities is nothing new in the slightest, and has been looked into many times by numerous people, the evidence is right there to see if anyone wants to see it, but the fact that the people of the region are English and acknowledge that (unlike the people of cornwall) is what goes against us in these instances, maybe we should all lie and denounce England? ..then upon joining the CL suddenly reclaim our Englishness? haha, would be a laugh. Anyway, personally i think the cultural similarities possibly existed before any border was in place and before Scotland and England had it's names. Gazh 07:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Actually, what tends to set apart Lowland Scots from Geordie/Northumbrian tends to be the Gaelic element. The accent and syntax are also heavily influenced by Gaelic.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sport

Could someone please let me know why they deleted my entry in the article on sport? Ausseagull (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reinserted it. If anyone wishes to delete the paragraph, could they ay least please have the courtesy to have the courage of their convictions and tell me why. Ausseagull (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it's been deleted within hours! And the perpetrator, MacRusgail, didn't have the good manners to say why. Ausseagull (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You cannot equate "living in a Celtic country" with "identifying as a Celt". Issues of Celtic identity are far more complex than that. You might get away with that in Wales or ROI but especially in Scotland, this is a tricky issue as Gaelic/Gaeldom and Scottishness have been disassociated for a long time. If he ever comes out saying he feels as a Scottish Celt and sends his kids to a Gaelic medium school, the that would allow you to stick Andy Murray in there but failing that, it's conjecture. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
If you're trying to say that being Scottish does not necesssarily mean you're a Celt, well, that's a point you need to take up with MacRusgail, who seems to be trying to claim, inter alia, that Rangers are in fact celtic. But that's not my point, which is this: why are the bits on Celts in UK Politics, Religion, and Music and Literature allowed to stand, but not the entry on sport? Only Big Mac can answer that, and so far he has failed to do so. Ausseagull (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The edit couldn't stand as it was, the "none of them English" was OR and the other items were picked at random. I suggest you look at politics as an example and get a more representative list without commentary. I'd try proposing it here first as well --Snowded TALK 22:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I doubt if Big Mac, with his nationalist agenda, would have baulked at the "none of them were English" sentence - which is true. He also appears to be a rugby fan, and that's covered well enough in my proposed piece. Perhaps he's unhappy because Scotland aren't winning much at rugby? I don't know, because he won't reply to my question(s). In Aus we know that the Poms aren't keen on sport. But I didn't think that went for the Celts. So I propose that we include what I have written. Will anyone second that? Ausseagull (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia and needs to be written as such. While I have a general rule of supporting any team that plays against the English I would never say that they are not keen on sport nor incompetent. Your proposed edit is unbalanced, un-encyclopaedic and lacks citations. Its not going to be accepted and I strongly recommend that you look at some of the other sections and use them as a role model if you want something on this subject. --Snowded TALK 08:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Come off it. What I said about sport is just as balanced and encyclopedic as the bits on politics and literature, and as for lacking citations, are you really trying to tell me that I need to back up every generally established fact with references. Are you questioning the rugby results I cite? Or that the six top Premier League managers include two Scots and an Irishman? Or that the top Britsh tennis player is a Scot. And what on earth is the fact that, presumably, you'd support Afghanistan against England at water polo got to do with this article, apart from showing a degree of prejudice and bias on you part? Ausseagull (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the position is fairly clear and I have nothing to add to my previous comments or advise other than to apologise for using irony in my previous comment. --Snowded TALK 15:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
i)Thank you for the apology which is accepted. ii) I don't think the position is at all clear. iii) Mac has given me a weak and specious response. iv) I will shortly be reinserting the piece on sport. Ausseagull (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
(i) It didn't work the second time either (ii) OK (iii) no, you just don't like it (iv) don't it will be reverted unless the you gain consensus. --Snowded TALK 15:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

->"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."<-

Your section was removed because we are trying to make this article less UK-centric. Look at the top.

"Or that the six top Premier League managers include two Scots and an Irishman? Or that the top Britsh tennis player is a Scot." - This is an entirely anglocentric perspective. Since you're talking to a Scot, I should remind that most of the "premier league" sides have been managed by Scots, premier league sides such as Aberdeen, Falkirk etc. (Sorry, there is no such thing as "THE Premier League". Certainly not on an international encyclopedia.)

Seriously, what are you on? What about sport in the Republic of Ireland? What about Breton sports players? What about the GAA? Why is it you're only writing about stuff that interests Fleet Street? What about the Scottish and Irish people involving in the invention of Aussie Rules? Or the Irish Experiment? The influence of shinty on ice hockey? Do you know anything at all about Breton sports people? Make this article less UK-centric, not more so. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


I mentioned Ireland winning the grand slam at rugby, and Leister winning the Heineken Cup. I know nothing about Breton sport, nor shinty for that matter. The origin of Aussie Rules are complex and certainly have an aboriginal in-put. I've read that they were influenced by Gaelic football which is rubbish because Aussie Rules was being played before Gaelic football was invented. But my real point is this, Mac: instead of deleting my in-put, why don't you expand it and include your bits? You seem to prefer whingeing about the Poms, mate. Ausseagull (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The Aboriginal input is as debatable as the Irish one, BTW. I did some research into this years ago. Both or either are possible. There is some definite rugby input though. Scots and Irish were instrumental in setting up some of the first Aussie Rules clubs.
"The very first competition and trophy in 1861 was the instigation of the Royal Caledonian Society and known as the Caledonian Challenge Cup. One club formed by Scots was the still-existing Essendon Bombers in the elite Australian Football League in Melbourne, Australia."
But since you're only interested in things from a Home Counties perspective...--MacRusgail (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, I'm not sure whether the curious sentence above is addressed to me, but since a) I'm Australian and b) I've never lived in what you call the "Home Counties" it seems really odd. Are you feeling all right, mate? Ausseagull (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Funny, your edits seem to be incredibly anglocentric for an "Australian". Surely as an Aussie (at least one on the right side of the Barassi Line), you'd have heard of this. But then again, I learnt long ago that not everyone on the internet is what they claim! Fair dinkum, me old china...--MacRusgail (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Celtiberians

My comment was deleted by user McRusgail. Id like to know why you deleted my comment McRusgail.

In this page i can read that These claims to Celticity are rooted in the long historical existence of Celts in these regions and ethnic connections to other Atlantic Celtic peoples (see Celtiberians and Castro culture). As i said, old Galicians and Asturians werent Celtiberians and Castro culture was not really celtic but the original north-western iberian culture. BTW, this "castro culture" was not only in galicia but north-central iberia too (avila, Leon, etc..). In fact, there are more celtic archaeological remains in north-center iberia (Celtiberians, vacceos, vettones, etc..) than in pure northern iberia. Whats wrong with this?

Modern celticity has nothing to do with this ancient cultures so galicians and asturians can be "modern celts" today if you want, based on pipes etc, but this has nothing to do with Celtiberians and other ancient celtic tribes who settled in north-central iberia long time ago. So, the sentence i wrote before is false itself because historical facts can not support the "long historical existence of celts" because castro culture was not celtic and celtiberians were north-central people not galicians or asturians. I am not an english native speaker so my english could be very bad. Can you understand what i mean?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.106.229 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bretons

I agree, the Bretons have not been subjected to "Anglicisation". But they have had very little joy from the French authorities, who have traditionally been hostile to their language. I'm putting this in just in case one of our less educated friends thinks that the English were more "oppressive" than the French in this regard. 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And? Do you think that people are not already aware of this? --MacRusgail (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that you're aware of it, but I'm by no means sure that everybody is. Take for example the guy who in another article wrote about "the British invading Wales" in the seventh century. Or the person who thinks that bairn is a Celtic word. Our less educated friends. Millbanks (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's wikipedia for you. But I'd remind you that in most parts of the world, that British and English are synonomous, so it's hardly surprising such an error was made. Even children's TV does it, I saw a programme which spoke of the British navy defeating the Spanish Armada. Erm, no they didn't... --MacRusgail (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually work with someone who identifies as Breton, he doesn't speak the language at all though - but he does have a little flag on his desk, awww bless. 92.41.197.242 (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well...thanks for sharing that with us. Daicaregos (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I for one am very happy to recognise that the English and French colonial histories are ethically comparable, although I don't think the French ever beat kids for speaking their own language in the playground. --Snowded TALK 15:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they beat them or not, but in the north of France, on the Belgian borders, children of Flemish speaking parentage were made to wear dunces hats if they spoke Flemish at school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.71.161 (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The French state - like Quebec - is hypocritical. Always going on about the danger to French from American culture, but at the same time suppressing other languages within its boundaries.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not think it is a question of hypocrisy, on the contrary it is the same battle. I think it is political realism to keep the national community. France, to make the difference with most other European states, is only a political and mental construction. There is no ethnical common basis. If the governement began to recognize a national minority, the others would like to do the same and the country would diminish of about a half.....In Great-Britain, it is easier to keep a unity because the Celtic minorities are isolated on an Island as well and exists only in Great-Britain (except modern emigration). In France, they are connected with bigger communities outside the boarders (Flemish in Belgium, Basque in Spain, Catalans in Spain, Alemannics in Germany, etc.)

Nortmannus (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Nortmannus (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Celtic nations

It has been proposed to merge this article with the Celtic nations articles. This has been proposed several times above and has been received quite well on most occasions but never pursued for what ever reason.

Comment - I suppose Celts could be a disambiguation page though, considering that there are several sports teams often referred to by that name as well.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would, however, support a page rename to Celts (modern) and would support Akerbeltz's proposal to rename Celts as Celts (ancient). BTW nothing happened previously because, as usual, the discussion was hijacked and then fizzled out. If everyone remains focussed, perhaps we may finally reach a definitive agreement. Daicaregos (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    Would support that too but would need to know where the delimiter between the two articles is. Is the Celtic nations article about the countries and this article about the peoples? If so should we move Celtic nations to Celtic countries for clarity (since "nation" refers in the first instance to a peoples and only secondly to the territory of a peoples)? -- RA (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    No objections to the ancient/modern split either. As far as nation/country goes, I think nation is the better choice because of its ambiguity. In the case of Scotland especially, it's hard to argue for it being a purely celtic *country*, what with the strong Scots element going back a long time. But if we're going for Celts modern/ancient, then that's not really an issue anymore, no? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    Happy for Celtic nations to be about the countries, but ... If you think there is opposition to the concept of 'Celtic nations', just wait 'till you try to include Brittany and Cornwall as countries. Nothing would ever be done. I really think the title Celtic nations should stay. It has strong references and it has been a real slog to get it this far and keep it from deletion. I am convinced an article entitled Celtic countries would not survive. Daicaregos (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    Another reason to keep Celtic nations is that it starts with the word Celtic. Readers trying to find information on things Celtic are unlikely to happen across Modern Celts or Pan-Celticism. Daicaregos (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I support in principle a merger to reduce the number of overlapping and inter-related articles, as well as a renaming of this article, but reserve judgement at the moment on which ones it would best to merge. I think there are other articles, apart from this one and Celtic nations, where some consideration should be given to reducing overlaps - such as Pan-Celticism and Celtic Revival. I am most definitely not suggesting that they should all be merged into one, but think that serious consideration should be given to "mapping" the existing articles, in terms of their coverage, before proceeding to merge any of them. If articles are not to be merged, I think that any overlaps of content between them should be reduced, and the relationships between the various articles clarified. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    Perhaps if we started by listing all those that need looking at and the mapping out what is actually needed? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    I think there's a much stronger case for merging Celtic nations and Pan-Celticism. ~Asarlaí 19:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • For my part, I think there's a lot of merit in dab's suggestion to move this article to Celtic identity (which currently redirects here to modern Celts). Pan-Celticism could then be merged into Celtic identity. Celtic nations might be merged into it too, but I tend to think it should remain its own fork (so for the record, I oppose the original merge suggestion at least for now). Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose--MacRusgail (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is also "Celticity". I am not sure what the best article title would be for this topic. I am just instisting that there should be a single article on the topic, as opposed to separate articles, all broken and all tagged for cleanup, at every synonym or near-synonym. For reasons discussed above, "modern Celts" is probably not the best WP:NAME. This article is currently linked from

I suggest that "Celtic identity" is the most inclusive title and that the article should be moved there for the time being. As for Celtic nations, that has lots of other redirects, not all of them extremely straightforward:

The merger of that article into this one does not suggest itself because "Celtic areas" is somehow a synonym of "Celticity", but because Celtic nations adds nothing whatsoever to Modern_Celts#Celtic_nations. Celtic nations can, within its own scope, just state "here's the six 'Celtic nations' of Celtic nationalism (ref, ref): 1,2,3,4,5,6." Any other content is strictly off topic. The article does go on to discuss the ancient Celts, random points of terminology, etc. In other words, while the term "Celtic nations" may be appropriate, there just isn't a full standalone article in there. We don't carry one article per term (as Wiktionary), we carry one per topic. --dab (𒁳) 10:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Stating "here's the six 'Celtic nations' of Celtic nationalism (ref, ref)... " would be rather POVy. There is no need to assume that anything Celtic is necessarily nationalistic. We would not state that just because something is Danish, for example, that it relates to Danish nationalism. Celtic ≠ Celtic nationalism. Daicaregos (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from, but the Danish example is not a good one. Why? Denmark is a sovereign state, and Danish just refers to what's in it. Most of the Celtic nations would be more similar in position to the Danes in Germany, the Germans in Denmark, Frisians etc. That's not to say that there isn't a civil element, but until the identity of these regions (including Ireland, which although mostly sovereign, has certain anomalies regarding the north) is better defined... --MacRusgail (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I just picked Denmark out of the air. Sorry to have chosen a bad example. Nevertheless, that Celtic ≠ Celtic nationalism still holds. Daicaregos (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Not really. In my experience, people who talk about things Celtic tend to be either quasi-nationalist or a bit on the New Age side. My point stands - you can have a Danish passport, but you can't have a proper passport for any of the Celtic countries (there are even certain issues concerning the Manx and Irish passports).--MacRusgail (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
the "Celtic nations" need to be compared to the "Nordic nations", not Denmark. Why? Denmark is one Nordic country, just like Wales can be considered one "Celtic nation". It is of course perfectly straightforward to say you are Welsh, or Breton, or Irish, but that isn't what is being discussed here. The topic of this article is the notion of "Celticity" uniting Irish, Scots, Welsh and Bretons. If you want a comparandum from the Germanic sphere, you would need to group Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Faroer, the Shetlands and perhaps Yorkshire as "Nordic nations". Saying you are Danish, or a Welshman, or a Breton, or a Gael, is equally straightforward, national sovereignty nonwithstanding, but saying you are "Celtic" or "Nordic" rather than just Welsh or Danish is a different kind of statement altogether.
it is even worse, in fact, as "Celticity" implies an ethnic essentialism claiming cultural coherence over 2,500 years (the presumed separation of British and Gaelic). This can only be compared with a "Teutonic identity" uniting the Anglo-Saxons, the Germans, the Scandinavians, and Catalonians and Ukrainians as descendants of the Goths, as "Modern Teutons". Sure, we can discuss the "Celtic identity" and not the "*Teutonic identity" because the former is well attested in references, but we need to discuss it as the construct of ethnic essentialism that it is, not to be confused with simple cultural patriotism associated with a Welsh identity, or a Gaelic identity, or a Breton identity. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Once again, you miss the wood for the trees, and miss out the key component here. I'll leave you to guess what this is. The Catalans and Ukrainians make no claim to be Teutonic (although I'm sure one or two eccentrics may do so), especially after what happened in the Spanish Civil War and Operation Barbarossa. Gothic masses are still said in parts of Iberia, but there is no surviving Teutonic culture there, other than some fat red North Europeans lying on the beach and generally bothering the locals.
It is certainly no more bogus than the British Identity. Britishness, which is rammed down our throats at every available opportunity by the BBC and ITV etc, has only existed since 1707, and only started developing in any real sense in the 19th century. Despite this, you will see the likes of David Dimbleby and Andrew Marr trying to persuade us that the builders of Stonehenge waved Union Jacks, and that the predominance of England over its neighbours was some kind of historical inevitability.
Likewise there are attempts by the European Union to pander to an imagined continental identity. I think there is such a thing as European culture, but not in quite the way the penpushers of Brussels would have us believe. The difference is that the modern Celtic or "Celtic" identity is actually polycentric and multicultural. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose the proposed merger. "Modern Celts" is a good title of the current status of Celts as long as it is kept up to date. I have made some edits to this effect and will continue to improve this article in cooperation with others so it keeps true to its title. It would be a shame to lose this pointed current status information source and I think others may value it too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jembana (talk • contribs) 12:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Irritating but perhaps unconscious bias

This is a rather poor article but one aspect is particularly irritating. The almost universal use of quotation marks around the words "celtic", "celticity" and "modern celt" in the article demonstrates either a deliberate or unconscious bias or ignorance of the proper use of quotation marks. Quotes have a number of functions in written English. Two are relevant here: as a means to refering to a word (or phrase) as opposed to its denotation (which is perfectly fine and NPOV) but also as a way of expressing sarcasm or derogatory feelings towards a subject. At a number of points in the article the use of quotes can only be read in the latter sense.

I am going to remove the superfluous quotes unless someone can offer a good reason not to. Unfortunately I still believe the article to be flawed in many ways. For example the reference to the 20 or so ex-SS Bretons who settled in Ireland seems odd and out of place and would seem to suggest that fascism is a noteworthy aspect of pan-Celticism. The reality is that there was never a unified political outlook behind Celticism; even Irish nationalism and the Irish-based Celtic revivalism included champions from every part of the political spectrum. It was and is almost exclusively a cultural movement. Breton nationalism (and Irish rebellions) far pre-date Celtic revivalism.

Jimg (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest removing those quotes that seem to express derogatory feelings and also removing or at least neutralising out of place suggestions of fascism that offend. If I do not get action or discussion on this by May Day 2010, I will make the necessary edits myself to remove the tag at the top of the article. I would prefer it if Jimg did this instead of me.Jembana (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. See the note on use of scare quotes in teh manual of style. When a phrase is the subject or object of a sentence, we use italics e.g. "Since the Enlightenment, the term Celtic has been applied to a wide variety..." --RA (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaker geography

Jembana, whatever its original meaning, the term Gàidhealtachd today describes a geographical region, most frequently that of the Highland Council. Even if taken in the sense of "Here be Gaels" it's wrong in the modern context because it excludes the Western Isles, inlcudes Orkney and Shetland (which never were Gaelic speaking), excludes areas in Perth and Kinross and Argyll and Bute that are Gaelic speaking and most importantly, ignores the fact that over half of Gaelic speakers today live in the Central Belt. Personally I'd remove all the geographical references from that section because funnily enough, strong identification with Gaelc/Welsh/Irish etc-ness is probably more often found in the *urban* areas outside these traditional Celtic speaking areas. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, we need to take care about our terminology when talking about things like this, fortunately there are any number of good sources we can use for language geography here. Also a good point about identification outside the traditional areas; to whit a notable percentage of Welsh speakers live in London and have for over 200 years. As an aside, we really need an article on the Welsh in London.--Cúchullain t/c 12:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up. The Outer Hebrides in the Western Isles are certainly the strongest Gaidhlig speaking area particularly Uist. Glasgow is a city a lot of Hebrideans have settled and I have friends from Achmore who are settled there now and speak Gaidhlig as a first language at home.Jembana (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yesno. The Western Isles have the areas with the highest *density* of speakers but the term "strongest" is ambiguous, it could mean "highest density" or "highest usage" or both and that is a question that's hard to answer as we don't have much research into that. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Akerbeltz and Cúchullain, I agree most strongly with your points and think current usage should be written up in this article. I have lots of references for this as I am sure you do. Since it is your initiative, Akerbeltz, it would be best if you add it. Cúchullain and I can then add to it if we have anything more. I much appreciate you devoting your time to this discussion and so it would be good for us (and others that may like to join in) if we had a positive outcome.Jembana (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

BNP

I've put Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, in the Celts in UK politics slot. I'm not sure if he's a Celt himself (though I'm told Griffin is an Irish name), but apparently his children are Welsh speaking. Although the BNP polled poorly in Wales in the 2009 Euro elections, and very poorly in Scotland, I've heard that they plan to divide people into "Folk Groups", at least three of which are Celtic.

Born in Barnet, London, was educated in Suffolk. He is not a Celt, nor does he claim to be. This has no place in the article. --Snowded TALK 22:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I wondered how long that snippet would last before deletion. Nice about the folk groups though, isn't it?

Was it you who deleted the piece I did on sport? (See above) Ausseagull (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at the edit history and it will tell you--Snowded TALK 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking on BBC Radio 4 on 30 April, Griffin said he had Irish ancestry and that "the Irish are part of Britain". Ausseagull (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Past Criticism of modern Celticism - Remove ?

This section appears to be a biased (one-sided representation) of a debate on the following article published in 1996: "Ancient Celts and modern ethnicity. Antiquity | March 1, 1996 | Megaw, J.V.S.; Megaw, M.R. | Copyright". Unless this original article is cited in a way that readers can read the full original article's argument to make up their mind on the subject in a publicly accessible manner, I propose that this section be removed. Such citation to be added by May Day 2010 or it will be removed to reduce bias for whole page. If the original argument is not publicly readable and no agreement to remove is reached, then the many modern counter-citations to the gist of this section will be added even though this a debate from last century now (which is why removal it the best option to me).Jembana (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

From the sound of it, it appears that the article concerned is both from a reliable source, and relevant to this article. So, on the face of it, it appears that it should be summarised and mentioned - along with any reputable published sources that refute its arguments, or demonstrate that it represents a minority view, such as here. Articles that are biased should be balanced against other sources, not simply ignored. Published offline sources are perfectly acceptable as sources on WP - WP:SOURCES. What is not acceptable (but is very irritating) is any editor trying to set a deadline by which X will happen if Y is not done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle, this page has been tagged as biased for a considerable time and no other editor appears to have made an attempt to remove the bias all this time. Is this an acceptable situation ?Jembana (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

if the article is misrepresented, propose a rephrasing. If there are other sources that should be cited alongside it, include them. Removing a 1996 reference because 1996 lies in the "past" is hardly arguable. But the section needs to take great care to stay focussed. Any discussion of archaeology or the Iron Age is off topic. Whatever "Modern Celts" may or may not be, they are not an Iron Age ethnic group, so it is entirely beside the point to discuss archaeology here. --dab (𒁳) 11:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

dab, so what do we do with the original editor of this article's Iron Age and archaeological references if you say we can't discuss them here, yet we can't remove them. This would be maintenance of the bias which is surely not acceptable.Jembana (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
dab, You misunderstand what I am saying. The problem is that the 1996 original reference is missing that is being criticised by the authors whose references are cited here making this a one-sided biased argument since we are missing the original argument that is being discussed by them that happens to support a modern celtic identity.Jembana (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I have found that the full text of the original article that prompted this discussion "Ancient Celts and modern ethnicity. Antiquity | March 1, 1996 | Megaw, J.V.S.; Megaw, M.R." is publicly available and have cited this. This will allow the public to finally read the original argument. I gather that the consensus (except for me) is to keep the article which I will respect. Thanks for everybody's time on this. It is an important question that cannot be left to have biased or unbalanced treatment.Jembana (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Just refreshed my recollection of this debate by reading the Megaws' article. One thing is plain, the sequence of the debate has been misrepresented by this section, so the reader's impression will be wrong. We cannot leave this historical inaccuracy as it is. I will rectify this - there were other instigating players in this debate that have not been mentioned. Also, the Megaws' article makes so many valid points that they will have to be enumerated. Personally, I think all this section (plus part of "Contempory Celtic identity" maybe) should go on another page called "Celtic identity". This underlines my ealier point that we need to point to links that the reader can access online wherever possible.Jembana (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

well, of course it is permissible to refer to authors who discuss the Iron Age wrt the modern identity. The point is that this is no excuse to go off on a tangent about the Iron Age in Wikipedia's voice. Any mentions of the Celts of antiquity in this article are strictly confined to illuminating the concept of "modern Celts".

Thanks, dab, that is exactly my thoughts too.Jembana (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You will note that this is the Celtic identity page. The fact that it is entitled "Modern Celts" is due to a little bit of pov-pushing, visible further up on this talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 13:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Good, then we can really enrich this page for readers.Jembana (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

the move to the current title, "Celts (modern)", is not the best of solutions. It still isn't entirely clear what the scope of this article is going to be, what with the pending possible mergers with articles of overlapping scope, but the point is that this article appears to be addressing modern "Celtic identity", possibly including "Celtic nationalism", in an ethnic, not linguistic sense. "Celts (modern)", otoh, would by default simply be a linguistic term, i.e. referring to Celtic_languages#Demographics, grouping the 1M or so living people speaking a Celtic language natively. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Celtic identity, or similar, would be a better title (is that what you mean?). It would also make it clearer what the difference between the two main articles is and Celtic identity already redirects here.
I disagree that "Celts" by default is simply be a linguistic term, referring to living people speaking a Celtic language natively. "Celts" has two meanings, an ancient group of peoples and a modern group of peoples. I don't believe that it infers that a "Celt" today has to be a native speaker of modern Celtic language. See OED definition.
So, all that said, Celts (modern) is superior to Modern Celts as a title and "Celts" at least pushes the title towards what is discussed in the article. --RA (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
as far as I can see, this article discusses modern Celtic identity as it emerged since 1800 or so. That is, excepting random tangents on the Bronze Age which I have now removed as off topic. The "Criticism" section has an incoherent account of a debate on how the modern identity interferes with the study of antiquity or prehistory. This may be relevant, but it needs to be cleaned up, as it is currently little more than a confused quotefarm on a scholarly flamewar. I think the point there is that "Celtic" in Britain is used as a term for "indigenous prehistory" in general, unrelated to actual Celtic-speaking peoples, including British prehistory from about the Mesolithic (Renfrew's "forefathers" of 4,500 BC). It is interesting to see how this affects Celtic identity, but this discussion needs to be based on solid sociological studies, not on a pot-pourri of quotes that happen to contain the term "Celtic". --dab (𒁳) 13:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Move request: Modern Celts → Celts (modern)

It's clear there's no consensus above to merge with Celtic nations but there is (to my ears at least) disquiet about the current name of this article. A small change that may be made then is to move this article from Modern Celts to Celts (modern). There are other alternatives, which have been stated above, as well as the suggestion to move Celts to Celts (ancient) as well. I'm not proposing that we rule those out or anything like that but I think getting consensus on those would be difficult too.

The smallest possible move that would a) address issues raised about the title; and b) have a minimum impact on i) the title of the article; ii) the substance of the article; and iii) other article would be to changed the "disambiguator" in the title. To my mind, while not getting into an argument about the use/non-use of "modern Celts" as a term, dabbing by use of parenthesis seems more in line with the encyclopedia's style.

Therefore the proposal is:

--RA (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Support, certainly as a stop-gap until we decide how to merge these. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I will also support the proposed move of Celts to Celts (ancient). Daicaregos (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (Struck by RA. See below) I am currently revamping the Modern Celts page to a global outlook, the lack of which was one of the objections to it. Celtic Nations is not a suitable page topic name for addressing the diaspora aspect or for the growing interest in the Celts by people from other cultures or who feel they are Celts by cultural adoption. Modern Celts is a suitable page topic to address all these aspects in tandem with cultural developments in the Celtic nations themselves.Jembana (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Jembana, the proposal is not to change the name to Celtic Nations. The proposal is to change the name to Celts (modern). --RA (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks RA for clearing this up. I followed a Discuss link to here on the Celtic Nations page where it says there is a proposal to merge it with the Modern Celts page. I will support Celts (modern) for the current Modern Celts pageJembana (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC) as long as it is not a part of a merge move with Celtic Nations which as I said would narrow the thrust of this topic. So are we looking at Celts (modern) referring to the end of the Western Roman Empire AD 476 and onward and events in any date before this falling into Celts (ancient) ?Jembana (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Jembana (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. Perhaps once this is accomplished and necessary changes are made, we can better gauge how to deal with the merge.--Cúchullain t/c 13:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - uses more or less the same wording, but is more cumbersome. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Agree with MacRusgail's comment. Look at the approach for other ethnic groups such as Greeks, Armenians and Jews where they use whole phrases not the bracketed proposal suggested. Actually, I think we should make Celts the main article and have each period and aspect linking off this with an appropriate summary paragraph like has been done for the Greeks for example. Also, some comments so far have associated the proposed change to Celts (modern) with a merge with Celtic Nations which I oppose on the grounds I have stated before.Jembana (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
There is not such page as Modern Greeks or Modern Armenians. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Obviously modern Greeks are different to ancient ones, in certain respects, but the following articles are on wikipedia (amongst others): Greeks, Byzantine Greeks, Ottoman Greeks, Names of the Greeks (+ Aeolians, Ionians etc). Ancient Greeks redirects to Ancient Greece. I haven't checked out the various articles on Chinese, Egyptians, Indians, or Arabs in different periods.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - per WP:PRECISION. The article is about the word "Celts", as the term is used currently about people who exist now. The word (modern) in brackets is simply for necessary disambiguation. The article is not about the term "Modern Celts", a term which is used much less frequently (if ever). I agree with Akerbeltz and Cuchullain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle, Modern Celts is in common use. Just Google the term and you will see that it is used by various people from Family Ancestry researchers to John Collis who is referenced on this page.Jembana (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It is used to an extent when differentiating them from the ancient Celts. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
"Modern" is a very common adjective, we can all agree on that. Whether "Modern Celts" - as a meaningful phrase by itself, not only in the sense where "modern" is used as a simple adjective - is a common name is another question. Whether it is appropriate for an article title on Wikipedia is another question again.
Usually we choose the common name as the title of an article. A dictionary will have give two definitions for "Celts" (an ancient people and a modern people) but no entry for "Modern Celts". I suspect then that "Celts" is the common name?
We then have two topics by the name of "Celt" with no alternative name for either except by differentiating one from the other by means of another word. On this encyclopedia we do so, in titles, by adding the other word in parenthesis after the common name. So, just as an author might differentiate one Celt from the other by calling one the "modern Celts", we do so, in the title of articles, by setting the title of one as Celts (modern). --RA (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
RA's view seems logical to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is a Modern Greeks section on the Greeks Wiki page, Akerbeltz, they just haven't separated it. Both Greeks and Armenians page both have the relevant Diaspora pages. None of them uses any cumbersome bracketed portion to the name for their diaspora pages. On the web keeping it simple is best.Jembana (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Jembana, opposing twice still only counts as one... Using brackets is an acceptable way of dabbing on Wikipedia, it's not cumbersome. It also makes the article appear on the search dropdown, which Modern Celts does not. I must say I'm slightly astonished though at the number of IP editors and new single-page-editors who are springing from the woodwork to object. However, I tend to agree that part of the problem is the unusual naming pattern for the Celtic articles where the normal pattern of assuming ETHNICITYNAME refers to the modern group and Ancient ETHNICITYNAME to the ancient ethnicity but we've talked about that before and didn't seem to get anywhere. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Akerbeltz, I had to put oppose again because I had said I would support the rename briefly after RA's clarification but before MacRusgail made his very valid point which convinced me that we shouldn't go ahead with this rename and prompted me to do further research on this which made me even more opposed to the rename proposal. No, I am just new to Wikipedia editing and saw this page as a place where I could make improvements. I think you are right, we need to work out the best page design for Celtic topics and move towards this goal rather than adopt a piecemeal approach and would be happy to cooperate with you and others to get this done. Good to hear that you have already tried to do this. If we come up with a good design, I will support you if you want to attempt this again.Jembana (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bold?

OK, there is more warmth to this at least. While acknowledging the concerns raised by Jembana and,Jembana (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC) MacRusgail and 121.210.*.*Jembana (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC), suppose I was to be bold and move it, would anyone jump out of their skin? --RA (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... we're not through discussing it (if we ever will be!).--MacRusgail (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. I'd welcome a bold move personally but you might incur flak for it... Akerbeltz (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Just testing the water. Am I right in thinking, MacRusgail, that you are less opposed to this proposal than others and could (if need be) live with it? --RA (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a discussion over the Easter holiday season counts as a fair test of the waters, so no please don't pre-empt the thoughts of others on this who may be on holiday.Jembana (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point in using the exact same words but adding brackets is!!! What gives? --MacRusgail (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
By "testing the water", I meant the post above. --RA (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
RA, many people are still on holiday and away from their computers, please wait until May Day (end of this month) as a drop dead date for further comments from others.Jembana (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That's their problem, really. The last round of this debate has been going on since December, after all. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Akerbeltz, what's your preferred structure for Celts topics ? I have mine which I will outline (almost finished a draft of it). Would like to know your proposal so we can compare, come to an agreement and start the process towards it.Jembana (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Play nice, Akerbeltz. --RA (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do try to play nice - I guess being involved in too many of these debates that crop up again and again and take eons to finish sap your energy (which is why I recently too Yue Chinese off my watchlist). And this debate *has* been going on for months. The difference, MacRusgail, is simple. Using the word modern as a modifier in front of the noun makes the word ambiguous because (though not solely) due to the capital M. It's not clear from the Modern Celts spelling whether we mean "people with hair bleached white riding motorcycles" or "descendents of people who used to bleach their hair white" (exaggerating, yes). By sticking it behind in brackets, it's clear it's just a dab to distinguish it from Celts (ancient).

Jembana, as far as what I'd like (without getting too hung up about names), I think we need a pages on:

  • Celts (anienct); i.e. Gauls, Britons etc
  • Celts (modern); i.e. the descendents of this linguistic/ethnic group
  • Celtic identity; i.e. something on the modern identiti(es) emerging
  • Celtic nationalism; i.e. the movement(s) to politicise modern Celtic identity

I think that would cover it for me mostly. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Akerbeltz, a good plan though I would prefer a top-line summary article that was just Celts that someone can go and read to get the gist and follow links to more detailed articles on each topic that interests them. Something like this maybe:

Celts - top line summary with the sections (each with sub-page links to existing or new articles):

  • History - summary of Celtic history.
  • Origins
  • Iron Age Celts (with many of the paragraphs and sub-articles from the current Celts page)
  • Modern Celts
  • Celtic identity (agree with you strongly on this one)
  • Celtic nationalism (including all that's in the current Celtic Nations page but wider perspective)
  • Celtic Diaspora
  • Celtic Languages
  • Religion
  • Art
  • Science
  • Symbols
  • Surnames
  • Sea
  • Timeline

This is just a first pass. Happy to discuss further. I think we need others input on this.Jembana (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are proposing with this list, perhaps something like Celtic (disambiguation)? The topic of this article is cleary the construction of a "Celtic" identity (as opposed to Welsh, Breton or Gaelic identity) since 1800 or so in Romanticism and ethnic nationalism. It is a perfectly valid topic, but people keep mixing it up with other items from your list. This is what disambiguation is for. --dab (𒁳) 12:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

dab, no that is not what I am proposing. For readability, I am proposing that there be a single summary entry page for "Celts" with sections a shown and where the section is too large it goes on a referenced separate page but with a summary section on the Celts entry page. People can then get the gist and go on to read what interests them in more detail. I think user Snowded has picked up on what I am proposing from his comments.Jembana (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with that, although its difficult to fully separate in practice. Overall I am coming round to the idea of a single article. --Snowded TALK 12:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, I too think a single article is the best wayJembana (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jembana, then you want to read the WP:LEAD section of Celts, which does exactly what you are proposing, including a link to both Celtic Revival and Modern Celts. If you want to tweak the Celts page, you should go to Talk:Celts. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Performing move

It has been about a month since the last person commented on the move request so, with six in support and two in opposition, I'm going to call it in support for a move. 75% is not consensus but I hope everyone can live with the move and I hope it can put the title question to bed for some time. --RA (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

RA, dab just disagreed with the move too (see end of next section) - should we reconsider ?Jembana (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think he disagree with it for reasons what would support a revert. I think he disagrees with it insomuch as it doesn't go far enough. --RA (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
RA, it appears that this move has hidden this article in Google. Now that your move is indexed, if you search for Celts it returns just the ancient Celts page called Celts and no sign of Celts (modern) on the first page, whereas before Modern Celts was second on the list under the ancient Celts page. How to remedy this disappointing result ?Jembana (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
That is a concern for Google, not us. It is their business, not ours. In time I'm sure it will correct itself. --RA (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It has corrected already - thanks for the reply :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jembana (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Google is pretty well tied in to Wikipedia (if I recall there was one an offer of Google actually hosting Wikipedia). I suspect they monitor new pages and page moves explicitly and update their databases frequently on the back of them. You'll often seen new pages and page moves pop-up in Google straight away. --RA (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celts_(modern)/Archive_2&oldid=1136332211"