Talk:Celtic nations/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Disputed

Well i have added a dispute tag to this article to warn people that it may be inaccurate as nobody responded to my latest comments over 24 hours ago. I have some big concerns about the introduction, and whilst i accept progress is being made to alter them i dont think we should leave something so misleading in an encyclopedia without at the very least giving people a warning. If i started removing content im sure someone would reverse it as has happened on another related article, which is why i chose to place the dispute tag instead reducing the urgency for major changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Been several months very little has changed, so im adding POV tag aswell and because of recent additions which have not been sourced adding morerefs tag. thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing Info

In the "Linguistics" section, a name is clearly missing from the following sentence: "For certain purposes, such as the Festival Interceltique de Lorient, Galicia, Asturias and [MISSING] are considered three of the eight Celtic nations." What is the third "nation?" I read the "Festival" article, which stated that the third nation was St Breton Island, and inserted that. Someone then deleted my addition without offering an explanation.Neoplatonic (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics

The article states:

It should be noted that within these areas, the majority speak English (in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and The Isle of Man), Scots (In Scotland), or French (In Brittany)

Do the majority of people in Scotland actually speak Scots?--Rhyswynne (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it means Scots language rather than Scottish Gaelic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I know the difference between the two, thanks! <wink> On the Scots language article, the estimated number of speakers varies from 200,000 to 1.5 milion, both well below half Scotlands population of 5 milion+, so the majority therefore don't speak it as far as I can see.--Rhyswynne (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitions

I have placed a NPOV notice on the artical on Celtic nations as it uses bias to exclude or include what is a Celtic nation or region and what is not especially in regards to Galicia, the norther western Celtic region of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.12.247 (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Other claims section is unencyclopedic

The Other claims' is a very un-encyclopedic section (though much of this article is verging on being un-encyclopedic). Who makes these claims? What gives them the authority to speak for the nation/region/ethnic group? None are official, unlike the claims of the Celtic Nations who are actually part of the Celtic League. The whole section seems to be written by various people who want their country/region to be considered Celtic without their being a strong reason for them being so, most of it amounting to the fact that the area was inhabited by Celts long ago regardless of their being any self-identification with the Celts, Celtic Languages being spoken or in some cases even meaningful (non-ambiguous) modern influences.

I wouldn't try to claim that many of the regions are not influenced at all by the Celts, most of Europe is, but I think in Wikipedia's time of need we should remove such drivel and opinionated sections from the articles and strive to make them more encyclopedic. We should try to turn Wikipedia into an actual "free encyclopedia" Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Celtic nations do not refer to the ancient celts from the greek and roman ancient texts, the people from Ireland Hibernia or the people from Great Britain Britannia were never called celts and never called themselves celts, so they were not celts, not in their own time. The celtic language(s) belongs to a language group created by Edward Lhuyd in 1707. It is a modern concept. The celtic nations have nothing to do with the ancient celts, but most people do not understand this. Unless someone tries to clarify this there will always be a big confusion. About the "celtic language spoken" today, remember that very little gaulish survived to really known how was a celtic language, apart from linguistic theories and modern databases. All I can say is that one should understand the misappropriation of the term celt causes many confusions. It is misappropriation in the sense that it was the name of ancient ethnic groups like the celtici or the Supertamarici who buried their people as celts ,and today , in the Celtic nations sense, it is the designation not of an ethnic group (the ancient celts), but the designation of a celtic language, a branch of the Indo-European language family. Also notice that the term "Celtic nations" is confusing for other nations who understand it in the historical sense not the linguistic or political one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.52.83 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cultural traits

What are these please? Where is the evidence that all Celtic speakers have these in common? Did they also have these in common 2500 years ago? I know the phrase isn't in this article, but it's implied by the link Celticity. This article mentions 'Celtic tradtions'. What are these and how are they identified as Celtic? Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I see this (very good) question hasn't been answered. I therefore propose that reference to "Celtic cultural traits" (as distinct from language) be removed from the article. No one seems able to say what such traits may be, and the claim is anyway unsourced. The article also says that historic "Celtic cultural traits" have largely vanished in these regions.Irvine22 (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Music, dance, sport, art, festivals, mythology, the clan system, personal/family naming systems, forms of land subdivision, etc. Whichever are known to be Celtic in origin. Although some of them are shared by some of the countries, they need not be. ~Asarlaí 01:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The clan system and forms of land subdivision would be excellent examples of "cultural traits" that have vanished from these regions. As for the rest - how are they "known to be Celtic in origin"? Do we have sources? Irvine22 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't expect me to list every single "cultural trait" and give sources to prove each one is Celtic in origin. That belongs on the articles for Celtic music, Irish dance, Irish art, Gaelic games, Irish calendar, Irish mythology, Scottish clans, townlands etc. ~Asarlaí 02:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd just like to see some sources that say there are such things as "Celtic cultural traits" that are shared by the regions in question. As it stands, it seems a very nebulous, unsourced assertion in the article. It is also internally contradictory as the article goes on to say that such traits have "largely vanished" from these places. Irvine22 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Irvine22, these are excellent questions and ones which the authors of this article should think deeply about.

Here's an example quote describing the view from the 'outside' (one side of the same coin). I'll dig up another this evening showing the view from the 'inside'.

To emphasize the coupling of Ireland and Wales may seem counter-intuitive, an odd variation of the more familiar coupling of Ireland and Scotland. Indeed, in pre- and early modern theories of racial origin, it was a commonplace that the peoples of Ireland and Scotland derived from the same stock. "The Scots and the Irish are all one people ... mixed of the Scithian and Spanish blood", claimed William Harrison, Edmund Spenser, and countles other commentators. For the English observer John Dymmok in 1600, the consanguinity of Irish and Scots could also be inferred from the fact that in Ireland "the wilde Scottes" lived alongisde the "English Irish, the meer Irish, [and] denegrate English." Yet an exclusive focus on the genealogical and spatial proximity of Irish and Scots obscures a widespread English impulse to see connections between all its borderlands, and to merge Ireland, Scotland, and Wales into a single territorial and ethnographic zone, with common linguistic and cultural ties, and with a shared hostility towards the English. Such an impulse went back at least to the twelft century when writers like William of Malmesbury and Gerald of Wales siexd upon the distinct agricultural, military, and sexual practices of Britain's border peoples to construct the stereotype of the Celt and Celtic culture that persisted with little modification into the sixteenth century and beyond. Historian John Gillingham argues that William of Malmesbury's "revival of Greco-Roman modes of perception resulted in the Christian view of the world, one wich divided men and women into two basic groups - Christian and non-Christian - being decisively supplemented by a non-religious system of classification, one which divided men and women into the civilized and the barbarians. In the course of British history this was to be the great divide, the creation of an imperialist English culture." - Christopher Highley, Shakespeare, Spenser, and the crisis in Ireland

Terence Brown, et al. in Celticism draws a parallel between Celticism and Orientalism but with a major (and quite important) exception: Orientalism was marked by a silence on the part of the so-called "Oriental" (who largely rejected the notion). Celticism on the other hand is wholly embraced by the "other".

(None of this is to say that Celitic cultural traits don't exist, in fact quite the opposite. All cultural groupings are invented (often from the outside). What are the cultural traits of an American? Does it mean to wear a Stetson and cow boy boots? What if one doesn't? Does it mean they are not American - or that they don't have American traits?) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Picts

The northern islands and Northern Scotland are usually regarded as former Pictish, not Celtic territories. Please clearify. St.Trond (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't mutually exclusive positions. Pictish Scotland was colonised by Celts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.161.143 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of those who lived in the northern islands after the picts were Norse. The term "Scotland" is also not a Gaelic name. It had been better to use Alba, as it covers the "Celtic Land" which this article is about. St.Trond (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That only works if you can disprove the (albeit tentative) evidence that the Picts were themselves Celts. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It works the other way round. The Picts had their own name and territory. Someone has to prove that they are Celtic. Start with this: The ancient Celtic word for "island" in compounds is pronounced -ey, which is the Norse word for island. The Celts just took over the local, Norse names. St.Trond (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Err... all the evidence from place names to personal names (just about the only linguistic evidence we have of Pictish) points to a Brythonic language. So the onus is on you to prove it isn't. And the "ancient celtic" (presumably you mean Insular Celtic) for an island is not -ey. -ey is the anglicised spelling of the Gaelic ending -aigh /aj/ which is from Old Norse ey "island". eilean "island" is also a Norse loan. The native root of Insular Celtic for "island" is innis. So I'm afraid the existence of -ey place names tells us nothing about Pictish as they're all from a later linguistic layer. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you require others to prove something wasn't there, which you claim was there, but you cannot find. St.Trond (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We're fairly certain now that the people living in the kingdom of the Picts between the Forth and the Spey spoke a version of "P-Celtic", recently styled Pictish British. Beyond that, in Moray and Ross and Cat, it was almost certainly Celtic too, though it may have been transitional between Pictish British and Argyll Gaelic. Non-Celtic and non-Indo-European theories of Pictish are no longer mainstream. Germanic theories of the Picts have been out since the days of Pinkerton and Überdeen Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

St.Trond, the Gaelic word for Scotland is indeed Alba, derived from the ancient name for the island today called Britain (cognate in English to Albion). The English word is Scotland, derived from the Latin word for a Gael (Scot), which is why in earlier writing you will read that the Scots are from the island of Ireland.

In any event, whatever the connection between Gael, Picts and Celts of ancient times (by all accounts the Scots of Hibernia and the Picts of Caledonia were bosom buddies) it is not relevant to why Scotland is called a Celtic nation today: "The term 'Celtic nations' in the sense in which it is widely used nowadays, refers to Ireland, Scotland, the Isle of Man, Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this has nothing to do with race." (Glanville Price ed., 1992, The Celtic Connection, Collin Smythe Limited: Buckinghamshire) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Map

The article on the map is nice, but the Orkney and Shetland islands shouldn't be included as part of Celtic Scotland, as they were formerly Pictish and latterly Norse, but never Celtic.--feline1 (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The map shows those areas that are designated Celtic nations by the likes of the Celtic league. There are very many IMO dubious claims but it is their term and their map.GordyB (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That makes it worse, not better, surely? ;) If the map is promoting a non-neutral POV of a political organisation, rather than reflecting referenced reliable sources and the consensus of academic opinion on the matter?--feline1 (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are going to get academics debating exactly which parts of England, Wales, France, Ireland, Scotland etc qualify as "modern Celtic". The term is pretty close to being nonsense. Most of Europe has been Celtic speaking at some point or other. You could have any number of different maps.GordyB (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, the map shows those nations which self-define as "Celtic" on the basis of their current and/or historic language, and as recognised by the Celtic League and similar organisations. The map caption could usefully be rewritten to indicate that - for example, "Celtic nations as defined by the Celtic League". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK but Orkney & Shetland did not become part of Scotland until the 15th century or thereabouts? Their historic language was Norn_language, which is not a Celtic language.--feline1 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's perhaps worthy of a brief mention in the text - effectively a footnote, which could also refer to the Picts - but not much more than that. The fact is that Scotland as a country - including Orkney and Shetland - is regarded as a "Celtic nation", which is what the article says. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is precisely that this is *not* a "fact", but perhaps a lazy and uninformed generalization :) --feline1 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As the article says, "The terminology has no official recognition or standing within major political parties or legal institutions." To which may be added "...or academic circles." But it still exists, as a term in use. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

lol well we're only making it worse for ourselves - if the term has no political, legal or academic recognition, it teeters on the brink of not being notable enough to merit a wikipedia article in the first place...--feline1 (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly notable. There are multiple citations from government sources, etc. See article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How about if the map caption you've added read "...as defined by the Celtic League", rather than "as recognised by the Celtic league" - the latter implies that the recipients *asked* for recognition in the first place.--feline1 (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-define is very dubious. Whilst there certainly are people in Cornwall who think it is a Celtic nation, the Cornish County Council doesn't have a stance on the issue. What basis is there for saying that these territories do self-define as "Celtic nations".GordyB (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No. of native-competent speakers - Irish this time

The reference used to state that 1.66m Irish speakers are competent-speakers of the language does not back up the statement. '1.66m people in Ireland have some knowledge of the language', as referenced in the article on Irish language. Surely a competent speaker is someone who can have an everyday conversation on general subjects, not someone who can say "hello", "goodbye" and "I like playing tennis". One of the two articles is incorrect, either this one or the Irish language page. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Celtism / Racsim

I have juts been looking at another article on the Celts and there is a discussion that 'Celtism' is racsim in disguise. When I look at this article I start to agree. Full of all sorts of dreamer nationalists. Breton nationalism Cornish nationalism Irish nationalism Scottish nationalism Welsh nationalism Anglo-Celtic Celt etc etc etc. Very perturbing that this seems to be on Wikipedia at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BullBreaker (talk • contribs) 12:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's nationalism, not "racism", unless you see any suggestion of a "Celtic race". The term "race" isn't even mentioned in the article. Even historical scientific racism didn't consider the Celts a race. The Insular Celts were grouped under the Mediterranean race while the Gauls were grouped under Alpine race.

As for "nationalism in disguise", it's not in disguise, it's just regular ethnic nationalism, period. Nothing disguised about it. If you find it 'perturbing' that the topic of nationalism is found 'on Wikipedia at all', you may also find it perturbing that we have articles about measles, black plague and cholera. --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Boys and girls. Boys and Girls. I think you will find 'good ol' ethnic nationalism is actually outlawed by Europe. Because like Measels, Small pox, and the Black Death, we are all trying to do away with this kind of disease. Because it is seen as RACIST. Like this article which tries to put forward a rising 'Celtist' state. Think I am going to write to a few people. Quoting the article. Which, of course, is in full public view. And of course I have screen printed and copied. Wonder what certain people are going to make of this 'nugget' of back water hill billy nonsense? BullBreaker (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. The European Union is based on a shared concept of "Europeanness" which is just as "racist" a concept as "Celticity". If the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh want to hold hands and express their belief in a lot of fairy tales then that's their right to do so. Ethnic nationalism is not outlawed, only tinpot banana republics outlaw ideologies.GordyB (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course the EU is very much against ethnic/cultural nationalism. That must be why it was so condemnatory of Kosovo's independence. Oh wait... --129.11.12.201 (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The EU has neither condemned nor condoned Kosovan independence. It has left that up to each individual EU state to do that. Hence the reason Ireland and the UK among others have recognised its independence and Spain amongst others has refused to recognise it. But I think this is off-topic regardless. --MacTire02 (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Iberian Peninsula

Why wikipedia says that the celts in iberia were north-western peoples?

The Celtic nations in the Iberian peninsula were the celtiberians, the celtici and the celts near the Nerian promontory in Gallaecia.

Ok, but there were many other celtic tribes in iberia : vaccei, vettoni, etc.. More :

The north-western part of the Iberian Peninsula is an area influenced by Celtic culture. In particular this includes the regions of Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria and León, all in Spain, and also Northern Portugal (and to a somewhat lesser extent Central Portugal).

And not only in north-western iberia! Celtiberians (arevaci, belli, titti, etc..) were in fact north-central iberians! Vettones were western-central celts! vaccei the same! This paragraph suggests that only north-western iberia was celtic and THIS IS FALSE! In fact north-central celtiberians were the most influential celts!.

Celtiberians (arevacos, belli, titti, pelendones..), astures, galaicos, vettones, vacceos were DIFFERENT celtic tribes! Can you understand? Not only north-western iberia (galicia and asturias) were celtic. This is the same error in all celtic pages in wikipedia!

And then, you talk about celtiberians! why you say that celts were in north-western part of the iberian peninsula and then you talk about celtiberians that lived in the meridional north-center iberia? It is a very confusing text!

The Galician language and Asturian language also contain many words of Celtic origin.

Galician, Asturian, Castilian, Catalan, etc.. are all romance languages and all contains many words of celtic origin. There are hundreds of celtic toponimic names but not only in galicia and asturias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.16.10 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you right back, "Can you understand?" that there is is a different article from the list of Celtic tribes one? It is unclear what you want to suggest for this article. --dab (𒁳) 16:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there are many Celtic place-names in Spain, but less than in the major part of Europe, where we consider there were Celtic settlements. For instance, we found every where the old Celtic suffix -āko (-acum in Latin). In Wales it is -og, in Ireland -aigh, -agh, -each, Britanny -euc / -ec (-eg), France (except in Provence and Corsica) north ies/-ey/ay/y/é, south -ac/eux/-ieux, Flanders -eke/ ecq /ecque(s), Germany (south) -ich/-ach, extrem north of Italy -ago. It meant at the beginning "location" and then "location of a property". Why is this common suffixe quite inexistant in Spain ? It seems to me strange, because it a real efficent way to make the difference between the places where the celts settled in Germany or not, where the Celts settled in the north of Italy or not. We can trace this suffix. What does it mean : I suppose like in Provence, first the Celtic population was a minority among other peoples, probably a kind of aristocracy, second, Spain was as deeply romanized as Provence. Concerning the Celtic vocabulary in Spanish, I don't think it is more important than in Italian, because the romans borrowed many words to the Celts. The only romance language with a large Celtic vocabulary is French. That's significant for example, that the two most symbolic trees (oak and yew) of the Celtic religion have both in Spanish (roble and tejo, also in Galicia carballo (not indo-european) and taixu) and in Italian (quercia and tasso) a latin origin. On the other side both French words have probably a Celtic origin chêne (cassanos) and if (ivos) Nortmannus (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with the article

The whole article should be restructered. In its present form, it gives the uninformed reader the impression that Celtic nations who identify themselves as Celtic nations do exist. The term 'Celtic nations' was created by people who think that a language defines a nation. In other terms, this term was created by Celtic nationalists. The article contains these nationalist views. Therefore, this article should underline the fact that the term 'Celtic nations' and its definition are views held by Celtic nationalists. Nationalism is a pseudo-science. All wikipedia articles related to nations should note that some definitions are based on nationalistic views. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nationalism isn't a science, let alone a pseudo-science. The article is perfectly clear that the term "Celtic nations" has no official standing and is used mainly by Pan-Celtic groups:

The terminology has no official recognition or standing within major political parties or legal institutions.

~Asarlaí 18:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, those English nationalists really don't give up do they. I see no problem with the article as it is. It clearly states that nation does not mean country or state. --Joowwww (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Who says that Nestorius is English?GordyB (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mayhap he meant Enlish nationalist by conviction rather than ethnicity? You can get Scottish nationalists after all who are ethnically, say, Asian or German. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

English nationalists do not care how the Scots, Welsh and Irish choose to define themselves.GordyB (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But they care how the Cornish choose to define themselves. I'm not convinced that this thread is helping to improve the article, rather than slagging it off for the sake of it. Constructive criticism would be welcome, though. Daicaregos (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking personally, my issue is that the way *some* Cornish and Celtic nationalists chose to define Cornwall gets presented as an established, non-controversial fact.GordyB (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to add any notable definitions and/or information referenced by Reliable Sources to improve the article (please do), which would include opposition to the term, opposition that I really don't understand. I hope that the recent changes to the article goes some way towards showing that the term is in widespread (and non-threatening) use and explaining what it means. Daicaregos (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If people were in the habit of arguing that "Monmouthshire" was not part of Wales and the people living there were part of the "Anglo-Saxon world" then I imagine that a few Welsh people might have issues (and not necessarily just nationalists). Most English people see Cornwall as being part of England and we don't generally feel the need to write articles on just how English it is, for pretty much the same reason why people in Wales don't feel the need to write articles on how Newport is a Welsh town.GordyB (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(ahem)..you mean city, not town, I think... Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Asarlai, pseudo-science means false science. All nationalists base their theories on their fundamental false axiom: a nation is defined by its language. Both English nationalists or Celtic nationalists use the same logic. The problem is with nationalism and with everything derived from its logic. If someone uses the term 'Celtic nations' for granted, then he is following nationalistic logic, although he might not be necessarily Celtic nationalist. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It seems to me that your sole purpose here is to attack the concept of nationhood and nationalism of any kind. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any scholars or even any nationalists who think that a nation is defined solely by language. If you want to argue why "nationalism is a pseudo-science" then start a blog. ~Asarlaí 00:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Asarlai, nationalism is an ideology that pretends to be a science, like Marxism and Feminism. Don't confuse nationalism with patriotism. I don't need to argue or prove anything. Nationalists of all kind should prove that what they say is true. Those who wrote this article should prove that "Celtic Nations" exist. Further, they should prove that their use of the adjective "Celtic" is valid. Most important of all, they should prove the continuity of the "Celtic" identity which the map titled "The Celts in Europe, past and present" implies. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

May I ask, Nestorius, what, in your view of the world, the term Celtic is suppsed to refer to? It's clearly a word so it has meaning except yours seems to be a bit mystifying to most of us here. Care to explain? Akerbeltz (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Structure

I was thinking that the article needs more depth. How about including sections on Religion (particularly the Celtic Church), Celtic diaspora, Celtic music and Celtic art and design. Some of these would obviously include mention of Galicia and Asturias. Any ideas for improvements (not necessarily agreeing with the expansion suggestion)? Daicaregos (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it needs no depth. What needs to be done is to explain the history of the use of the term "Celtic Nations": who started the name and based on what? how did it spread? who is it used right now? etc. Expanding it as such endorses the nationalistic claims, especially when talking about the non-existent Celtic Church. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Please try to think about WP:NPOV. For example, if the Celtic Church is non-existant we won't be able to cite any references and you'll be able to delete it. Now, anyone with no axe to grind? Daicaregos (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the Celtic Church (which existed and continued to influence monasticism through to the current day, it was also linked to the Orthdox tradition), it provides a key linkage and the Synod of Whitby a key moment. I fail to see how such actions would endorse a nationalistic claim. Music, art and design are distinct and are a part of modern celtic identity. The origins of that are misty, but far more authentic that the use of the arthurian legends as a part of English nationality for example. Snowded ^TALK 08:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

English nationality is an exceptionally complex entity, but it is one which incorporates pre-Saxon Celtic elements, as well as Saxon, Norman, and so forth. The inclusion of Arthurian legends may be "inauthentic" in one sense (in that "Arthur" was British rather than English), but the fact that the Welsh, for example, have a historically relatively straightforward cultural identity cannot be taken as an indicator that English cultural identity is equally clear and unambiguous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree, my point was that it is perfectly possible for identity to be associated with a historically revised view of reality. The Scottish Kilt would be another example. --Snowded ^TALK 09:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Daicaregos, I don't think I will be able to win the argument because the rules of Wikipedia will not let it happen. The rules of Wikipedia are fair but the problem is from the outside. NPOV is defined as "a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." The problem is that not all the sources are reliable. But since Wikipedia is not a place to discuss the reliability of sources, all external sources will be taken as reliable as long as there is no opposite. So in this manner, "Celtic Nations" and "Celtic Church" exist in the world of Wikipedia because there are external sources that mention them and there are no opposite sources. The only thing I can ask for is that you give the history of the use of these terms, i.e. when was the term "Celtic Nations" fist used and how did its use evolve gradually. Put quotations from ancient and modern sources. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder... right, this is from The Companian to Gaelic Scotland (1994, Gairm Publications, edited by Derek Thomson) on Celtic Church, the (6th to 12th centuries). ...saw the rapid expansion in Ireland of a monastic Church which had its roots in the third century religious communities of the Egyptian desert (Hughes 1966, 10-16). From Ireland it spread to Scotland etc etc. So much for the Celtic Church not existing. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It was unfortunate wording but I don't think NA was saying the Celtic Church had never existing. rather than it does not exist today in the context of the Celtic Nations.--Snowded ^TALK 15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I read it that NA believed the Celtic Church had never existed. Not that it really matters. As NA rightly says, if there are sources it can be mentioned. Any other sections not mentioned above that people think would merit inclusion? Daicaregos (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. I'm sympathetic to NA because the ethno-linguistic concept of 'Celtic nations' basically originates with the 18th c. Romantics, Edward Lhuyd, Iolo Morgannwg et al. Celtic Christianity, as I understand it (which is not to any detailed extent), is something different. If the 18th c. writers drew heavily upon the Celtic church in arguing for a shared Celtic ethnic identity, then it is worth mentioning here, but if not, then in my view a simple 'see also' link will be enough.--Pondle (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

St. Jerome (died 420) in the prologue of the "Commentaries to Daniel" says the following: "cumque omnes christi ecclesiae, tam graecorum quam latinorum syrorumque et aegyptiorum." He identifies the churches of his time (within the Roman empire) as the churches of the Greeks, Latins, Syrians and Egyptians. This classification is based on language because we know that in the 4th and 5th centuries, four languages were used among Roman Christians: Greek, Latin, Syrian and Egyptian. So, labeling a church according to its language was a commong practice, hence the logical labeling of the Celtic Church as such because its people speak Celtic languages. Since the Celtic language was defined in the 18th century as the mother language of Gaelic, Welsh, Bretton and the others, it is obvious to conclude that terms such as "Celtic nations" or "Celtic Church" are posterior to the 18th century which means that they are modern. But, the 'Celtic Church' was already formed before the 18th century and no one mentions the 'Celtic Church' before the 18th century. That is why I conclude that it does not exist. Compare with St. Jerome. At his time, they were able to identify four churches which still exist now. Why then between 420 and the 18th century no one ever noticed the existence of a 'Celtic Church'? Even nowadays and within the context of the Celtic Nations, no Celtic Church exists. Take note that saying that a Celtic Church does not exist does not mean that Celtic-speaking Christians do not exist. I wonder, does a Semitic Church exist? Does an Indo-European Church exist? Nestorius Auranites (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a peculiar argument. The Norse did not see themselves as a unified political or cultural entity either but from historians to linguists people are happy to use the label Norse as a descriptive term that groups together various groupings that share linguistic and cultural traits. Similarly, it may or may not be the case that the Celtic Church referred to itself as the Celtic Church (I suspect it probably just saw itself as THE church in Britain at the time and did not bother labelling itself) but seen from the outside from today's point of view, it was the "Celtic Church" in the same way the "various groups of people up and down Scandinavia sharing linguistic roots in North Germanic were the "Norse" even if you probably couldn't get more than half a dozen fiefs at a time to agree that they were ethnically/culturally/linguistically the same. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that a Celtic church already existed or exists. However, we can notice that there was a special kind of catholicism in Ireland in the middle ages, that extended to Wales, then to different countries of Europe. The monastery of Pentale, founded in the early middle ages in the Seine river estuary, that developed and extended its influence to Paris, is very often called a 'Celtic monastery', because there were monks from different places in Great-Britain and probably more from Ireland and they applied the Colombanus monastic rule. The kings of the Franks for instance fought to limit their influence, because they wanted to have good relationships with the pope and the church of Rom, that did not accept the very independence of these monks, their behaviour and traditions. Britanny was not really concerned, other regions of Europe too. We can't conclude there was a 'Celtic church', because the organisation of the bishoprics in Britanny was the same as in the Frankish kingdom. Another thing : in Britanny, compare to Great-Britain and other regions of today's France, big monasteries never developed. May be is there some connections with a 'Celtic organisation' in the so-called "plou" and "tre", as far as I know, they did not exist the same way in Ireland. It must be a Breton church more than a Celtic church. I do not understand the comparison with the norsemen, because I am sure they shared the feeling to belong to the same community, because they could speak about the same language. Still today people from Norway, Sweden or Danemark can understand each other. In the middle ages they all spoke old Norse, they shared all the same ship technology and the same Nordic paganism (they were the last pagans of this part of Europe)..What's for example the common point between a Breton and an Irishman in the middle ages ? they talked sure the same rooted language, but they did not understand each other : too different. The Irish monks wrote in manuscripts the remaining myths of the ancient Celtic mythology, but the Bretons did not, because it did not exist anymore...There is much to do, before making a good article. For me "Celtic nations" does not mean anything, I prefer the French title "Pays celtiques", because pays is a land, so a place and celtique is first the language. A celtic land is a place were Celtic languages were spoken until recently, so that have a literature, documents written in a Celtic language. The Celtic lands don't share more in common than with their Germanic or Latin nearest neighbours. Nortmannus (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wether it's historically correct or not is not really our problem I feel. Many things are mis-named - like the Tasmanian Tiger which has nothing to do with tigers except for the fact it had stripes. So whether the "Celtic Church" called itself that or if it indeed was "pan-Celtic" is not our problem, history books refer to it as the Celtic Church.

I brought up the Norse because there were questions raised about the idea that the Celts saw themselves as linguistic/cultural brethren or not and I was pointing out that that's also not really relevant. Linguistic/cultural proximity is not always condusive to some form of unity. Just consider the Balkan War between 3 groups which are nigh impossible to tell apart. Similarly, the Norse were as much at war with each other as with anyone else and never formed a unified political entity. Yet no one questions the label "Norse". And sure, the administration in the Celtic nations is very un-Celtic but it would be a first I think to define nationhood or non-nationhood through types of administration... Akerbeltz (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on medieval history, but I get the impression that the Norse were perceived by contemporaries in other parts of the Carolingian world to have some sort of 'collective identity'- even if they didn't perceive themselves to have any collective identity (see for example Malcolm Barber's The Two Cities, p.380-383). This doesn't appear to be the case for the Welsh, Scots, Irish until Edward Lhuyd and co. began to use the collective descriptor 'Celts' or 'Celtic' for these groups in the 18th c.--Pondle (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The period prior to the Synod of Whitby sees contrasting approaches between Roman-Saxon and the whole Irish/Scottish/Welsh/Northern England movement which is known as the Celtic Church. Its not suprising that in the 18th and 19th Cs it became one of the points around which the modern idea of "celtic" emerged. Identity is an evolutionary phenomena and we need to respect that. --Snowded ^TALK 09:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

On the question of the Celtic church, the Encyclopedia of Wales and other sources state that there was no common ecclesiastical organisation across the Celtic lands, but Christianity in these areas did share a number of common characteristics, which were noted by writers as early as the 16th c. I think that 20th c. scholars actually coined the phrase 'Celtic church'. I go back to my original position - if it can be shown that the Celtic church/Celtic Christianity influenced the 18th c. authors who developed the concept of the Celtic nations, then it should be mentioned here. If this can't be demonstrated, then we shouldn't reference it.--Pondle (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

But one of the essential features of the Celtic Church (as opposed to the Roman one) was that it did not have or believe in a common ecclesiastical organisation. It was one of the issues at Whitby and it, along with the date of Easter etc. are in contemporary documents. It certainly influenced some of the neo-Orthodox aspects of the Church in Wales some decades ago and there was a secondary revival in interest in the 60s and 70s. That said, it will need sources and I know (having just sorted the library with the aid of a scanner) that I don't have the material anymore. --Snowded ^TALK 12:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is to give quotations from the sources showing when 'Celtic Nations' and 'Celtic Church' were first used per se and why. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely we can agree there was a form of Christianity which can conveniently be called the Celtic Church? When F. E. Warren published his monumental Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church in 1881, he was careful to define what he meant by the term. At the time, it needed definition, but it surely doesn't now? Moonraker2 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Warren is a good source to be put here. So Warren was the first who coined the term 'Celtic Church'. If a word is newly coined, it surely needs a definition. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that it's often nigh impossible to identify the "first usage" of a term? Not everything is written down, not everything written down is published and not everything published survives or is known about... Akerbeltz (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are many cases where it is impossible to identify the "first usage", this does not mean that in this specific case it is impossible. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We wouldn't need to say Warren's was the first usage, just to quote from "Warren in his Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church in 1881". If there are any prior sources they can be included later. Daicaregos (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone before Warren has used the term, surely we will not say that Warren's was the first usage. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of an earlier printed source, but I agree that it seems unlikely Warren invented the expression. I guess it probably came to life in the Oxford common rooms a few years before he used it. The OED doesn't help with 'Celtic church', but the first instance of Celtic it finds is from Thomas Blount, who in his Glossographia (1661) defined "Celtique" as "pertaining to the people of Gaul". Moonraker2 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Iberian Peninsula

Interesting as it is, the entire Iberian Peninsula section may be appropriate for the article Celts, but not for the artilce Celtic nations. I think it should be deleted (and/or copied to the other article). Any views? Daicaregos (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Worth a brief reference, but its not a Celtic nation --Snowded ^TALK 17:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's already in Celts. I basically agre with you both. Even if in the past these were Celtic teritories, today they are not, even if some groups in Galicia and Asturias, and to a lesser degree Northern Portugal, play the Celtic card (and that should be mentioned). The Ogre (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement too, shouldn't be on here at all. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There is surely a case for limiting this article to the six acknowledged Celtic nations, with additional mentions for those other areas which have some associate status with an organisation such as the Celtic League - one example being Patagonia. On their website is this:-

Q: "Why isn’t Galicia listed by the League as the seventh Celtic nation?"

A: "In the mid 1980’s the League decided on a linguistic criterion for national membership of the League, based on a definition of what it is to be ‘Celtic’. This definition argues that an area is Celtic if a Celtic language was spoken as a historical community language, within living memory. This definition was and still is in line with the accepted position of Celtic scholars and the pan Celtic movement. This means that Galicia cannot have a national branch of the League, because the modern historic language of Galicia is Galego – a Romance language – and has been for many centuries..."

Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Daicaregos (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Daicaregos... You overdid it! A mention of the claim should be there, just not all that historical stuff about tyhe Celts in Iberia. I'm adding just a few lines about the claim. The Ogre (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Galicia and Asturias shouldn't be excluded entirely. Sorry you feel they were. They are mentioned in the paragraph directly above the Iberian Peninsula section. Do you have any references for the text? Considering the history of this article, and that some would be quite happy if it were deleted, there's no point provoking them by providing a present of more unreferenced text for them to whinge about. Daicaregos (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I didn't mean to suggest that specifically the Galicia and Asturias sections should be deleted, but I do think there needs to be some clarity and consistency over how those areas which do not come within the Celtic League definition of Celtic nations should be addressed here. There are those other areas where there are some Celtic languages spoken now - eg Patagonia - which are recognised as such by the CL and similar bodies. There are also those areas - such as Galicia, Asturias, England, etc. - where Celtic languages were spoken in the past and/or have some elements of Celtic heritage (eg in folklore). Those two groups of area need, in my view, to be mentioned in this article - but not at length, and they need to be clearly differentiated from the six recognised Celtic nations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What is Celtic folklore and in what way can a folklore be recognized as "Celtic" instead of Germanic, Pre-Celtic or Roman ? In Europe, all the traditions intermingled so much, that it is quasi-impossible to make the difference. Nothing can be recognized as specifically "Celtic" except the religion that disappeared and the language. Concerning the language the most celtized language among the Non-Celtic languages of Europe is probably French much more than Asturian, Galician or English. The only fact is the language fact all the rest is Pro-Celtic ideology.

Nortmannus (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Nortmannus (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion?

This article is clearly written with a biased point of view, and refers only to the nations that the Celtic League is associated with. What is wikipedia to say what nations are celtic and which are not? The article is obviously written from a nationalist point of view. I for one have never heard of the term 'Celtic Nations', and don't believe any of the places are well recognised as purely Celtic, particularly the smaller places, such as the Isle of Man, Cornwall and Wales. It is completely biased, and poorly researched so should be deleted. 92.27.203.153 (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately we don't take people's individual knowledge and experience as a yardstick on Wikipedia but facts that can be backed up with sources. You've probably have never heard of an osedax either but that doesn't mean it does not exits. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not just the Celtic League that calls them the Celtic nations, academic books on the subject of nationalism, ethnicity and identity also do. --Joowwww (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I have seen pages which include parts of Spain in them aswell. Why should they not be included, only the nations recognised by the Celtic League? Also, why should one county of England be included due to its regional language, yet the whole of Scotland be included, despite the fact that only a tiny proportion of it speaks the native language in the western hebrides. This article uses the point of view of the Celtic League, so is undeniably un-balanced. It should treat all countries which claim to have Celtic identity the same, whithout claiming that some are recognised, and some aren't, because that is clearly not the case. Otherwise, it is just a bad and biased article, which should be deleted. 92.27.203.153 (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And having just looked at your page 'Joowwww', I'm guessing you probably would say that. The only reason the article is the way it is, is because the majority of people who edit here have that sort of nationalistic view. Perhaps someone with a more neutral point of view could contribute here? 92.27.203.153 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, it really seems like you don't know much about the subject - you don't think Wales is well-recognised as a Celtic country? Maybe you could just take it to AfD - that's where more neutral editors will be found. Not many will be passing through here. When it's thrown out of AfD, you'll have your answer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My or anyone else's POV is irrelevant, that academic books on the subject of nationalism, ethnicity and identity also call them "Celtic nations" is a fact. --Joowwww (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a very good point that this article argues the Celtic League's / Congress' point-of-view. Either this should be broadened to include competeting claims (such as Galicia) in equal depth or the article ought to be merged in with the CL / CC articles.GordyB (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That there are Celtic nations is well documented. It is not the preserve of the Celtic League and/or Celtic Congress. The Welsh Assembly Government, for example, use the term: see here (Minister promotes Wales’ status as a Celtic nation). Celtic culture: a historical encyclopedia, Volumes 1-5 by John T. Koch uses the term Celtic countries (although using that term here would cause more trouble than it is worth). Defining the term, he says (p 365) “As a conventional term 'the Celtic countries' means Ireland (Eire), Scotland, (Alba), Wales (Cymru), Brittany (Breizh), the Isle of Man (Ellan Vannin) and Cornwall (Kernow)." In the same paragraph he says "… Galicia is often considered a Celtic country, particularly with regard to its music.”. He uses the term Celtic nations throughout the work. The Iberian claims are mentioned in the article. Opposition to their general inclusion is from the origins of the term denoting a linguistic connection (see The Celtic languages by Martin John Ball, James Fife and Who were the Celts National Museum Wales. Any editor wanting to improve the article would be more than welcome. WP:RS references are the key, as ever. Daicaregos (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Languages

I'm afraid you're in the wrong here Cuchullain. It's true that the majority of Cornish and Manx speakers are adult learners, but in the last 20 or so years this has produced a small (but increasing) number of neo-native speakers. The introduction of immersion education in Manx [1] is adding to that still. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Akerbelz is correct - the sentence refers to the six Celtic nations so all have living speakers and these are documented on the table sources of numbers of speakers if you read further.Jembana (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Koch, Celtic Culture, describes Kernow (Cornwall) as "one of the six regions in which a Celtic language was spoken in modern times or has been continuously spoken up to the present time" (p. 1053). The four regions where a Celtic language is still spoken are given as Cymru, Alba, Breizh, and Eire. In the work the Celtic countries are consistently defined as "the six countries in which a Celtic language has been spoken in modern times (see Ellan Vannin; Kernow) or is still spoken (see [Alba;] Breizh; Cymru; Eire)" (p. 34, and also 365, 529, and elsewhere). The revival movements in Cornish and Manx is now described later in the same section. In the case of Cornish, the forms now spoken are even known as "Revived Cornish", and there are actually several versions, not just one language. Indicating that Cornish and Manx are "living" in the way Welsh, Breton, Irish, and Scottish Gaelic are misleads the reader.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do your research and keep abreast of developments, the Cornish have an agreed single SWF (Standard Written Form) so your argument collapses. It is therefore you who are misleading the reader. The original text that you tampered with was correct and was presumably put there by soemone who had doen their homework first.Jembana (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You didn't observe the discussion etiquette you insisted on and added an older source than that used on the Celtic languages page. I have therefore reverted your changes to the original on this page and added two more recent sources that evidence that your are wrong.Jembana (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're nit-picking. It's not more "misleading" than the Israel page stating that the official languages are Hebrew and Arabic. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm reporting what the source says. The real point for this article is not that all these "Celtic nations" have (at least a few) Celtic speakers now, it's that historically they had a lot of them, who participated in vibrant Celtic cultures and produce substantial bodies of Celtic literature, etc.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I rewrote to include all the information, most of which does not appear to be contentious. Namely, 1) all six countries had languages that were spoken into the modern era; 2) four of these have been spoken continuously to the present, and 3) two of these went extinct but are currently experiencing revivals. I've included all the sources that have been added in a way I hope will please all involved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems a fair solution to me :) Akerbeltz (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone want to comment on what the agreed definition for language extinction is? If we are going to state that Manx was extinct we had better have an agreed set of rules stipulating what extinction means. After all the wikipedia article on language extinction states that a language is extinct when there are "no native and/or fluent speakers of the variety". Ned Maddrel, a native speaker of Manx, died in 1974, a date recognised as the date of the death of the Manx language. One of the agreed criteria for language death is that the chain of speakers must have been broken to qualify a language as having become extinct. However in the case of Manx several people learned it directly from native speakers including Brian Stowell, Bernard Caine, Juan Crellin and Leslie Quirk. Even Ned himself did not learn the language from his parents, but from relatives and from fishermen at sea. This is a direct chain, unlike Cornish, where the speakers there had to learn from scratch. If we are to be more accurate, we could say that Manx went extinct but is now undergoing a revival (as most sources tend to suggest it did go extinct - a point I disagree with personally) and that Cornish went extinct but was then subject to reconstruction and revival. --MacTire02 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Extinction is fully breaking the chain of children (pre-puberty) acquiring the language. Ned Maddrell learned from being a youngster AFAIK but the others learned after puberty. It's all about the time-window in which we can acquire native languages. Anything past that is, at best, near-native. In that sense, Manx, Hebrew and Cornish went extinct and had to go through a period where there were only adult learners of the language before rejoining the circle. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's accurate. The sources I've seen indicate that Manx went "extinct" at the point when there were no more native speakers, who died in the 20th century (for example here the Britannica article). But even when it was totally extinct, late Manx was well preserved, due to efforts to make recordings and write it down. Cornish on the other hand certainly went extinct and there was a long gap between people the last generation of fluent, native speakers, and modern attempts to restore it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a thorn in the side or anything like that, but if it is a requirement of extinction that the chain of children (pre-puberty) acquiring the language is broken, then why is that information not mentioned in the language death article? If someone follows the link to that article from here then they are being provided with misleading information in that case. Also, if it is a case that the child must be pre-pubescent, who is inspecting the child? Some children enter puberty as young as 7 or 8, others as late as 14 or 15. My own opinion (and I do stress that this is my own opinion) is that if there has been a degree of vitality throughout the history of a language then that language can not be said to have become extinct. In Manx, the revival was underway before Ned Maddrel's death. In Cornish, there was no such continuous period of vitality.--MacTire02 (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair point but I've never looked at the language death article. Maybe I should. And generally you don't need to "inspect" the child, Secondary sex characteristics are usually a good indicator. In humans, pimples, breasts, a breaking voice... you know, puberty. It hinges on that because in linguistics, anything before that point counts as L1 (i.e. a native language), anything past that as L2 and with L2 there is massive variation as to the degree of fluency. L1 usually has clear identifiers - native pronunciation, native grammar and so on. L2 can be anything from market-stall speak to near-nativeness but you can virtually always detect L1 traces in an L2, no matter how fluent. That's why L2 activity makes a bad indicator of the "life" of a language. There's a good example, Latin. Latin was in continued use as an L2 for centuries after the downfall of the Roman Empire but overall agreement is that Latin is dead as a language. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think different people give different definitions for language extinction, and they're not all mutually exclusive. For instance some people might say that a language is dead when there is literally no one left who can speak it, as with Gaulish, Tangut, or Timucuan, while others might say it dies when there are no native speakers left, for the reasons given by Akerbeltz. This what happened with Manx, as there were adults who learned the language at the time the last native speakers were dying. But the bottom line, for this and related articles, is that the sources routinely describe Manx and Cornish as having gone extinct, at one point, and to have been the subject of revival movements, so that's what we should report.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Retract my comments agreeing to this change - reference provided for "extinct" only puts Cwmbraic in the "went extinct" category not Manx not Cornish. There are enough references to show that the use of the wording "went extinct" is just pure 'nit-picking' as Akerbelz said at the beginning.Jembana (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I updated the citation to various other parts of the Celtic Encyclopedia that discuss the "Celtic countries" and their languages. The idea that is used consistently is "... has a Celtic language that was either spoken in modern times, or is still spoken", or some variant of that wording. That's the important thing here: that these six regions had a Celtic language spoken into modern times, even if it later died out. I've no idea why you removed it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've got your pages right. Can you please correct them. What relevance is the Celtiberian section of Koch's encyclopedia got to do with this topic on Modern Manx and Cornish ?Jembana (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I just checked them and they appear right to me. Page 34 is a discussion of Alba which defines it as one of the six regions where Celtic languages were spoken into modern times or are still spoken. 529 is the same thing for Cymru. 365–366 is the definition section of the entry for "Celtic countries", which we should probably be citing here much more than news articles and the like. 1053 is the entry for Kernow, which it says is "one of the six regions in which a Celtic language was spoken in modern times or has been spoken continuously up to the present time" (it's one of the former).--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see the issue. You weren't checking out the whole page. I just double checked and it's all there, so I re-added them. I don't have much problem with the rest of your changes, except that I don't think we should be using this brief overview as a source when we have academic sources already, and I don't think your caveats about "community language" make much sense. What is this supposed to mean? In my experience "community language" refers to this, which could hardly be relevant.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were referencing the idea that Cornish and Manx were extinct at some stage - that's what your positioning of the reference suggested to me - in which case page 973 of Koch's is relevant and supports actually your next sentence. Have a read of both reference I have added and you will see there are claims that there was an overlap of speakers native and revivalist adults - same can be said for Manx BTW. The term used by Maga Kernow seems more appropriate to describe this occurrence since although subsets (fishermen) or individuals may have kept it alive - it fell out of use by a whole community.Jembana (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The references were being used to support the whole sentence; I can't see p. 973 on Google Books and I don't have the hard copy with me so I can't check it, but I left it there. On continuity, I don't see any indication on the Maga Kernow site (which isn't as reliable as an academic text anyway) that there was overlap between the death of Cornish as a native language and later revivalists picking it up. It says that "By the nineteenth century, Cornish had died as a spoken community language, although there are records of the language being spoken particularly at sea by Newlyn fishermen." It then says that there was academic interest in the language later in the 19th century, but "It was not until early in the twentieth century, however, that an attempt was made to revive the language." No dates for the fishermen, and no indication of continuity. Even if there might have been some, it is very poorly attested. I don't have access to the Ellis source right now, but I have read it, and if I remember correctly (correct me if I'm misremembering) the only good evidence of possible overlap was John Davey, but there is no solid evidence that he ever met any of the revivalists, and it is unknown how much of the language he might actually have had.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I was mistaken: I didn't read this work by Ellis (The Story of the Cornish Language); what I read was his The Cornish language and its Literature. This does say that Davey, and some earlier folks, had some traditionally-learned Cornish into the 19th century, but it is unknown how much they knew; it's likely to have been slight.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 edition of Jenner's Handbook of the Cornish Language includes notes regarding an investigation into surviving Cornish phrases in the late 19th Century. Cornish certainly wasn't spoken fluently then but it had survived in the form of phrases and words right up to the time the revival started. --Joowwww (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Words and phrases surviving do not equate to the language surviving. I know some Cornish words and phrases, but I would not say I know the language. What Jenner himself says in the book you mention is that "...Cornish, as a spoken language, died out", but that "even if the spoken Cornish be dead, its ghost still haunts its old dwelling, for the modern English speech of West Cornwall is full of Celtic words, and nine-tenths of the places and people from the Tamar to the Land’s End bear Cornish names."--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The insistance on continuity is getting us away from the topic of this article, which is about the Celtic nations. The modern Celtic nations are associated together because they had related languages into the modern era, and thus have inherited cultural traits, such as literatures, music, etc. People from these areas can be "Celtic" in the modern sense even if they don't speak a Celtic language at all; fortunately this focus on commonality has inspired people to preserve and restore their Celtic languages. The focus on language continuity brings us closes to a definition of "Celtic" that proscribes that only those who speak a Celtic language are "Celtic", or the even more dubious assertion that these six nations are only "Celtic" if they have at least a few Celtic speakers living there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Celtic Tiger"

This is just a catch-phrase used - or rather formerly used - to describe the Republic of Ireland. It is not an acknowledgement that Celticity was somehow a factor in economic growth (!) as asserted in the absurd claim that "Acknowledgement of their Celtic history led to the period of rapid economic growth in Ireland between 1995–2007". Paul B (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the most insane claims in Wikipedia. Irish economic growth was driven by EU structural funding and low corporate taxes attracting overseas investment.GordyB (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too worked up over it. The claim has been removed, so there's nothing to worry about. One of the nicer aspects of Wikipedia.--MacTire02 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of good order I point out that the "quote" noted in the first post in this section was not the entire sentence. The full original text read "Acknowledgement of their Celtic history led to the period of rapid economic growth in Ireland between 1995–2007 (and to the country itself) to become known as the Celtic Tiger." , which changes the meaning completely. The point being that they were acknowledging their Celtic history by using the phrase Celtic Tiger, rather than any insane claim that Celticity was somehow a factor in economic growth. The question here is whether such misleading scaremongering was deliberate or was simply incompetence. As I AGF, I must assume the latter. Further, could editors please check ridiculous claims using supposed quotes from the article before jumping on the bandwagon. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't change the meaning at all. Why on earth would you think it does? The phrase "... to become known as the Celtic tiger" simply implies, even more absurdly, that other people acknowledged that Celticity was a factor in economic growth. Far from mitigating the absurdity, it compounds it. The question here is whether such misleading misrepresentaion of the English language was deliberate or was simply incompetence. I will assume the later: fuelled by ideological mania. Paul B (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it was acknowledgement of their Celtic history that led to the period (and to the country itself) to became known as the Celtic Tiger. Removing the phrase "to become known as" implies that the period was caused by the acknowledgement of their Celtic history. Don't you see the difference? In any event, if you are quoting text it is important not alter it (as you have done here), which could lead to accusations of bias. Daicaregos (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Baloney. That's not what the sentence said, and if it did it would be a trivial - almost meaningless - statement. For example, the fact that aspects of French culture are sometimes referred to as "Gallic" does not say anything about linking to France's specifically Celtic heritage. It just functions as synonym for "French". The grammar of the sentence is clear. I did not alter it at all. I quoted it verbatim. Not including the ending of the sentence changed its meaning not one jot. Indeed the second part was a supplementary assertion that would have had the same meaning if expressed in a separate sentence. Paul B (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Surprise surprise - Daicaregos is the author of this assertion. [2]. Paul B (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

And your point is? Daicaregos (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What I said. You wrote nonsense and you are defending it by misrepresenting English and making spurious accusations as you do so. Paul B (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul that comment is a bit beyond the pale (sic( and I think you should withdraw it. In general its not uncommon for issues of identity to influence performance and if I remember my economic history aright the period in question, linked to EU membership was when Ireland created an economic identity distinct from its prior subsidiary position to Britain. I don't think the citations support the original text with a casual link between them, but the question of identity and economic growth were at least coevolutionary. The "Tiger" phrase also links with growing national identity in Asia. The new phrase has swung the pendulum too much, but we should look for other sources. --Snowded ^TALK 19:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the comment was wholly justified. He made completely false accusations of incompetence and of misrepresenting the text. The only incompetence and misrepresentation were his. As for "identity", the Republic of Ireland did not achieve economic success by acknowledging "Celtic" history, if anything I'd suggfest it was linked to an increasing liberalisation that was associated with moving beyond an obsession with history and essentialist models of identity. Paul B (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a clear failure to follow WP:AGF on your part, please try and use less emotive language and engage with the content. Its bad enough to use that type of language in the first place, but then to perpetuate it and add in phrases like "incompetence" and "misrepresentation" to an established editor with a good track record is unacceptable. Please withdraw it. --Snowded ^TALK 19:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no failure to follow AFG. The accusations were made by Daicaregos, not by me. So there is nothing wrong in my assertion that the accusations were spurious. Your argument is wholly topsy turvy. Have you even read the exchange? It was Daicaregos who used the word incompetent. I merely returned the word, accurately. Paul B (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the article with care and Dai did not use the word incompetence in respect of another editor. I see you even in this last comment can't address content issues. Its your call, but sooner or later AGF violations catch up with editors. --Snowded ^TALK 06:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Two editors in this discussion made suggestions ("assumptions") of incompetence about other editors. I strongly suggest that everyone recognises that fact, acknowledge that these things happen sometimes, forget about it, and move on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already addressed the content issue in great detail. As for what "Dai" said, I quote "The question here is whether such misleading scaremongering was deliberate or was simply incompetence." So, either I deliberately lied or was incompetent. I have argued in great - and unnecessary - detail that I was neither, as I think any uninvolved editor would accept. Did I get angry at such offensive suggestions? Yes I did. Should I have maintained a Buddha-like calm? Ideally yes, but I'm human and false accusations upset me. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this was/is just a mutual misunderstanding that's got out of hand. I don't think that Dai's edit was really trying to say that Ireland's embrace of Celticism 'caused' the boom of the 'Celtic Tiger' years, but text was a little awkward and is now much better. On Snowded's point about the 'co-evolution' of identity and economic growth, I don't think that's a sustainable position. The 'Celtic Tiger' phase of growth in Ireland is generally agreed to have begun around 1987, i.e. 65 years after the creation of the Irish Free State. Economists who've written about it tend to say that the key factors behind Irish growth were FDI (attracted by a very generous corporate tax regime) and a sustained expansion of college education. There was also an element of catch-up and a demographic factor.--Pondle (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Things do get out of hand, but you then expect people to back away not continue to self justify. On the wider issue I don't think you can ascribe it to a single fact which is the point I was trying to make with the co-evolution word. The date is less important, in practice the Irish Economy tended to follow the UK and matched currently for a very long period. It started to get more assertive around the time of the EU, then investments like the explosion around Limerick and elsewhere (which were linked to US identity issues as much as tax) and a growing sense of celtic identity. If I remember aright you started to see reverse emigration around that time as well. The point is that its messy with lots of interdependencies and no single cause (although there is a lot of retrospective coherence). That however is all a personal opinion and is not a proposal. I think here we need a stronger reference if anything is going into the article --Snowded ^TALK 18:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know exactly when Ireland "abandoned" its Gaelic / Celtic heritage because it seems to me that they never did, so I find it rather odd that the "reassertion" of this heritage led to the "Celtic tiger" label. To reassert something you first have to let it lapse.GordyB (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That's partly what I was driving at, it seems the apogee of state-sponsored Celticism (for want of a better phrase) pre-dated the 'Celtic Tiger' boom of the 1990s by several decades. Irish governments promoted the Irish language and Gaelic culture aggressively from the 1920s and 30s onwards, and apparently entrants to the Irish civil service had to be proficient in Irish until 1974. In fact you could argue that Ireland became more economically successful as it relaxed the emphasis on identity politics from the early 1970s.--Pondle (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The 'self-justifications' (i.e. replies) continued as long as the accusations did and stopped as soon as they did. I entirely agree with what Pondle said. The emphasis on Celticism was most prominent many decades before the economic boom. Insofar as there was a co-evolution of culture and economics it was towards a cosmopolitan "European" identity and away from the "Celticist" one, at least in its ethnic "Gaelic" model. Of course the concept of Celticism has itself evolved and has come to be associated with a "postmodern" acknowledgement of diversity and and marginal/alternative cultures in general. Paul B (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Galicia and Asturias are not celtic nations

It's pretty annoying continuously removing unsourced claims about Galicia and Asturias being Celtic nations. They are not. They don't speak a Celtic language anymore so they are not Celtic nations, full stop. Celtic influence over those regions is by no means larger than that over England, France, much of Central Europe, Northern Italy, parts of the Balkans and Anatolia. --Fertuno (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You may not be wrong but your reasoning is weak: vastly more of the population of the Celtic nations speak a Germanic language than speak a Celtic language; by your language-centred logic, these "Celtic nations" should actually be better-named "Germanic nations".
--Yumegusa (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What a stupid argument Fertuno. Only because 2% of the population speaks a Celtic language those countries are Celtic, that is stupid. Galicia is so celtic as these other countries because we have same culture, myhts and folkore. There are Celtic stones in Galicia, there were Celts living there during several centuries. Only because Rome and other invaders destroyed the original celts habitants in Galicia, none celtic language is spoken here. No problem if Galicia is not considered Celtic Nation by such erudits as you, but we are. --83.53.31.197 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, a whale is a mammal regardless of how much it looks like a fish! Those countries are not considered Celtic because a majority of people speak a Celtic language, but simply because a Celtic language is spoken. As today, this is the only factual criterion we have to define Celtic nations. Other claims are just groundless folklore. --Fertuno (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your sweeping statement has far-reaching implications. Thus, during the time there were no speakers of Cornish or Manx, they were not Celtic nations? Conversely, if palaeo-linguists uncover record of an ancient Asturian Celtic language, and a few people there learn it, Asturia becomes automatically a Celtic nation??
--Yumegusa (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. If all the English speaking people in the world would stop speaking English and turn into Aramaic, then Aramaic would become the most spoken language on Earth. --Fertuno (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a nonsense, while language is one distinguishing feature of a celtic culture it is not the only one. Common traditions, stories (as important for culture as language) and the like are equally important. --Snowded TALK 12:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Celts are today an ethno-linguistic group, just like Germanics, Slavics and Latins. As such, it is solely based on language. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. Only a linguistic group is based solely on language.--Yumegusa (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

first at all: Language do not mean culture, culture do not mean race, genetic sources shows more links between british celtics and northern iberian penninsula peoples than to those central europe "original" celts, the pictish language from Scotland were not an "traditional" celtic language but have many indo-erupean features and an archaic celtic language form, there is two traditional linguistic groups Goidelic and Cymbric, but evidence can show the reamins of another more archaic groups as in lusitania and Galicia and even pictish, is imortant to know: Hallstatt culture were not celtic, were illyrian and illyrians were one of the most importatn culture on central Europe, another polemic discussion, there is the Noricii, pannonians, venetii, istrians, liburnians, Yapigues, messapians, dalmatians and many more, today slavic and another scholars discuss about the "venetic group" as an independent indo-european language, is possible the same thing on celtic disussion? i say that if the "celtic" british do not like the galicians into their classification is fine, Galicia have a powerful heritage and do not need to be linked with any culture around, the galicians have a strong traditions and culture with many continuos form of living while british islands only see these manifestations on museums; and fianlly the most powerfull link between celtic tribes were not the language were religion and i spoke as an archaeologist, think that.--Järnvarg (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This means thar England is definitely a Celtic nation then, because it has a Celtic language spoken in it, namely Cornish - in Cornwall, which is part of England. ðarkun coll 12:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that an ironic agreement with my point Tharky? --Snowded TALK 12:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a comment on the absurdity of the whole concept of "Celticity", which is a purely modern invention and completely artificial. Hence, for example, it's okay to divide England and detatch Cornwall from it, but the whole of Scotland is included on the strength of a few tiny outposts in the Hebrides - despite its vastly greater Norse cultural antecedents, and the fact that its native language, Scots, is Germanic. It is all completely ridiculous, blatantly politicised, and an obvious example of anglophobia. ðarkun coll 14:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it curious that you use such pejorative language about other people's identity and choose to interpret it as anglophobia. I can't be bothered dealing with the mass inaccuracies of your first couple of sentences its just not worth it, but I can assure you that I am not anglophobic, but I do take offence when the English start to assert that everyone in Britain is a part of one single glorious imperial legacy. --Snowded TALK 14:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's okay then, because I don't think anyone was asserting that everyone in Britain is part of "one single glorious imperial legacy". Given your earlier comment, can you provide an example of a tradition/story that is common to the so-called "Celtic nations", but is not found in England? ðarkun coll 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pleased to hear it Tharky, but I am afraid its how you come across so you might want to reflect a bit on that. If you want stories then look at the Mabinogion (not the Victorian Arthurian stuff) and you find that links with similar material in Cornwell/Brittany (one of the celtic language groups). You will find common elements between Irish/Scots material although I grant you the lowland issue in terms of original language, but separate stories of Scottish identity have emerged since over the different ethnic groups. I think because you are an "anti-celt" you assume that other people define themselves in the same extreme terms. Sorry they don't. --Snowded TALK 14:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

An "anti-celt"? That's a rather offensive remark, because nothing could be further from the truth. I asked for some examples of common stories but you only gave me Welsh examples, asserting that I'll find connections between those and the others. So in other words, you have provided nothing at all to back up your earlier assertion, and presumably don't intend to either, since in your edit summary you said this was your "final reply". ðarkun coll 15:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

a nation not is only a language; the empires too have languages, because not are nations; a nation is a etno-group..the northwest iberia is a celtic nation; the center-south iberia is a sub-celtiberian people.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.202.63 (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes?

An editor disputes the word "sometimes" in the phrase "Limitation to these six [nations] is sometimes disputed by people from Cantabria, Asturias and Galicia", with the argument that "Either it is disputed or it is not". That obviously isn't the case; it is, in fact, only "sometimes" disputed. It isn't "always" disputed by "all" people from Cantabria, Asturias, and Galicia. The wording could be improved, of course, as it's something of weasel wordage, but removing the qualifier just makes it worse, not better.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How about it "has" been disputed. Sometimes is a weasel word in this instance.When is it disputed "sometimes' at some sort of conference every now again or when the Moon is full etc etc --Wikiscribe (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Either a "RELIABLE SOURCE" disputes it or not..You are using the word "sometimes" to indicate some sort of statistical value of people that dispute it? What?Please clarify yourself or perhaps you are kidding?--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources may comment on or note the fact that it is disputed, but the dispute is essentially a political matter. It's not that we need a "Reliable" act of disputation, which somehow makes the dispute undisputed, as it were. The sometimes does not refer to "the statistical value of the people" (whatever that may mean) but to the fact that there are some occasions when it is disputed by some people. I fail to see the problem. Paul B (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Koch's Celtic Culture, cited here, uses a qualifier whenever Galicia and Asturias are associated with the modern Celtic nations. For instance, p. 365: "Galicia is often considered a Celtic country, particularly with regard for its music..."; p. 697: "...the regions of Galicia and Asturias, which sometimes claim Celtic cultural heritage...", and p. 788: "Galicia... is sometimes counted as one of the Celtic countries." Again, our wording could be improved, but your change just made it significantly worse, not better.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How about this change, cited to Koch, p. 365, 697, and 788-791: "In addition, areas of the northern Iberian Peninsula, particularly Galicia, are sometimes identified as part of the Celtic nations, due to the unique culture of the region. Unlike the others, however, however, no Celtic language was spoken there in modern times." And then a paragraph further explaining it in the body. Thoughts?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes very good, i am not racist against the word "sometimes" as long as it is being used in it proper usage/context and that statement is much better than the confusing" Sometimes disputed" one--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Irish flag

It is rather POV to be using the flag of the Republic of Ireland to represent all of Ireland. Suggest that all flags be removed.GordyB (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The flag of Northern Ireland should be alongside the Irish tricolor, but there isn't one. You could make that point in a note if you wish. Daicaregos (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Use the Cross of Saint Patrick or something. The republican tricolour is definitely unacceptable, since some people in Ireland vehemently reject it. Alternately, use nothing at all for Ireland, since no flag is recognised for Ireland (but the flags for the other places are fine). ðarkun coll 15:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

St Patrick's is no good. Some drongos in Ireland don't like it. I recommend the Flag of the Four Provinces. It's got the lot. WizOfOz (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That flag has no official status, so far as I'm aware - "it is sometimes flown when a politically neutral flag representing all of Ireland is required....As it is an unofficial flag, the order in which the provinces are represented is not fixed."[3]. It may be best to remove any flag from Ireland, but given the unique circumstances is it then necessary to remove all the others as well? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The point that the flag has no official status doesn't matter here. Many flags have no official status but are used all over the place. I don't suppose the idea of the Celtic nations has official status, so the flags used to represent them don't have to have it either. I like the flags in the article; I vote keep em - all of em. WizOfOz (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

But the current ROI flag is not appropriate, as the "Celtic nation" shown on the map relates to the whole island of Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agrred. I shouldn't have said keep them all. I really meant keep a flag for every nation. So we need to find and agree on one for Ireland. I'd be fine with the cross of St Patrick, but I guess others wouldn't be, hence my suggestion of the Provinces flag, but if there's no objection to St Pat, let's maybe go with that. WizOfOz (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If we're still using a flag, I'd much prefer the Four Provinces. ~Asarlaí 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Four Provinces would work well. However, if there is a lot of opposition to it my next choice would be the Cross of Saint Patrick. My next choice would be for no flag to represent Ireland. But the other flags should certainly stay, whatever. Daicaregos (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any opposition here, I've changed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:MOSICON#Do_not_repurpose_icons_beyond_their_legitimate_scope and removed . No flag represents Ireland as whole any flag pick is WP:POV.87.198.164.254 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSICON#Do_not_repurpose_icons_beyond_their_legitimate_scope is not relevant in this case, as the flag of the Four Provinces represents the whole of Ireland. I have reinstated. Daicaregos (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no single flag of Ireland. There is no need for any of the flags to be shown, so removing them all would be the simplest solution. If that is not possible then Ireland needs to remain empty. Although i admit that flag is better than using the Republic of Irelands flag which was clearly unacceptable, interesting to note the Celtic League uses the republic of Ireland flag for the whole of Ireland, i guess that sums up the type of POV organisation Celtic League is. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We had a similar situation in the rugby union articles. It was clearly inappropriate to use the flag of the ROI for that of the rugby union team yet we had no "rugby flag" that wasn't copyright. We ended up taking a vote on a symbol that could be used (and this turned out to be a shamrock). This state of affairs lasted a couple of years until somebody pointed out that this wasn't allowed under Wikipedia rules as effectively we had invented a national flag. It eventually got deleted and we now have a situation where no flag is used for Ireland.

I think the same issues will eventually arise in this article. Although I have no personal issue with either the 4 province flag or the St Pat's Cross, I think that the argument will be made that neither flag has any official status as "the flag of Ireland" largely because there isn't a united Ireland that could give official status to any flag.GordyB (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I'm a bit late entering this section. I do not think that the four provinces flag should be used to represent Ireland. It is not official and there is no agreed format to the flag. The St. Patrick's Saltire (although created to highlight the Christian heritage of the entire island) has become synomynous with those in the Unionist community who espouse a united Ireland within the UK and as such is not popular in the Republic of Ireland. Likewise, the tricolour (which was designed to represent both Catholic and Protestant communities on the entire island) is very popular in the Republic of Ireland and amongst Northern nationalists but is very unpopular amonst northern Unionists. While there is no acceptable flag to represent the entire island then no flag should be used (even if the Celtic League or Celtic Congress uses the tricolour though that is probably due to the fact that the majority of those involved in those organisations could be considered Irish nationalists). Keep the flags for Scotland, Wales, IOM, Cornwall (if we're including Cornwall), Brittany but remove the flag for Ireland. Another flag for consideration may be the golden harp on a green background but I expect that would meet with resistance too. --MacTire02 (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best solution. We have a similar problem with Basque related topics with Navarrese folk opposing the use of the Ikurriña to symbolise all 7 Basque provinces. Eventually the consensus was to just do without the flag, especially since there were also problem in relation to the fact that the Basque Country only "notionally" exists and technically is either France or Spain. The only workaround that would make sense to my mind is the use the Ulster flag and the tricolour side by side... Akerbeltz (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that solution is which Ulster flag? There is the provincial flag of Ulster (representing the 9 counties of the Irish province) which is used by nationalists (no official status attributed to this flag but used by the GAA amongst other all-Ireland bodies) but not Unionists. Then there is the Ulster flag (or more descriptively the flag of Northern Ireland), that was used by the Stormont government until the introduction of Direct-rule from Westminster, which is used by the Unionist community and despised by the Nationalist community as they see it as being the flag of Catholic discrimination. The Golden harp on a green field I mentioned above was just another idea but upon further reflection I don't think it's a good idea either - Unionists see it as Nationalist and Nationalists see it as outdated! IMO - no flag should be used to represent Ireland - unless we are going to use the Ireland-stub green map image with no border to ensure it is not misconstrued as respresenting a flag. --MacTire02 (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Why dont we split it up between Rep of Ire and Northern Ireland and just use the two seperate flags? Gfdshgkdhfg —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Just for your information:

- The flag of the traditional province of Ulster incorporating three counties of the Republic. Used by Nationalists but NOT Unionists.
- The Ulster Banner or Flag of Norther Ireland. Used by Unionists but NOT Nationalists.
- The St. Patrick's Flag is unpopular in the south, although it can be seen on historical institutions such as Trinity College, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, the Church of Ireland and by the southern Unionist Reform Movement.
- The flag of the Republic of Ireland is used in the South where it enjoys much popularity but its use in the North is limited to the Nationalist community and is very unfavourable with the Unionist community.

Perhaps we could use something like:

- but without a border. Just a thought. Please don't jump down my throat for it. I don't mind one way or other, I just thought I might be able to contribute some ideas. --MacTire02 (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say definatly NOT the picture of the country as that's not a flag at all. Personally I would say use both the Union Jack or Ulster Banner with the tricolour but I can see that's not a popular option so I think we should use the St Patricks Saltire and be done with it The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

People if you would notice the following members "The C of E God Save The Queen" and "BritishWatcher". You should notice that these people want the FLAGS REPRESENTING IRELAND (and none other deleted)deleted because of their political beliefs and motivations.Just look at their wikipedian profiles for crying out loud.They do not care about the academic well being of this article so let us disregard what they say.It is ridiculous,these are the hard line people (it would not be inaccurate to call them trolls).For example these "Neo Britsh Imperialists" go around changing the nationalies of Irish people living in England to "Irish-British" or just "British".I hope the non-biast editors can see this an revert the flag of the Irish provinces back,I have no problem with the Republic of Ireland's flag being excluded due to its use by republicans.93.107.155.133 (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

On the 16th of October 2009 i think you will find i said "There is no single flag of Ireland. There is no need for any of the flags to be shown, so removing them all would be the simplest solution". I have no problem at all with all flags being removed, they are not really needed for the table. But under no circumstances is the flag of the Irish republic to be displayed as if it is the flag of the whole island. As the above debate shows there is no agreement on an alternative, each with its own problems. There for the best bet is to display no flag. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a problem with the flags as it conflicts with your British Imperial beliefs,do not accuse me of getting personal because that is the truth,and I will be blunt I already stated that I have no problem with the Tricolour being excluded but until a third party finds an alternative flag,the only alternative probably being the Provincial Flag.The other nations flags will not be removed despite you saying that is the best option,because it is not.This is an article on Celtic Nations wether the flags be unofficial are otherwise does not matter as the flags represent the Celtic Nations and belong in the article as they are relevant.The fact that your name is "BritishWatcher", along with your arguments and with your wikpedian profile description should raise eyebrows as to why you are on this article.You are certainly not here to improve the article.UnEtudiantFrancais (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem when someone tries to use a Republic of Ireland flag to represent the island of Ireland which is not backed up by neutral reliable sources. Use of it would be inaccurate and a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. But lets carry on this debate at the bottom of the talk page to avoid 2 conversations at once. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent from all]: Please stop POV pushing. This article is very clearly, in its own infobox and cited sources, defined in terms of what can be sourced from the Celtic League, and what can be source from various other sources as the facts of Celtic nationalism and pan-nationalism or whatever one might want to call this movement (regarding which I'm a neutral party). The Celtic League considers all of Ireland one nation, as do Irish nationalists, and as do virtually all non-Irish nationalists and pan-Celticists. All of these parties accept the flag of the Republic of Ireland as representative of that nation (as they define it). And the sources agree on this (a thousands times too many sources to cite here, such as virtually every Irish nationalist thing published since the founding of the RoI). That's all there really is to it. There are zero reliable sources presented so far that anyone involved in Celtic nationalism disagrees with the RoI flag being used to represent the entire island/"nation". WP not using that flag is a bit like using the French flag for Brittany, or not using one at all, because some French of object to it as not matching the political reality that for them Brittany is just some part of France where people don't speak French well and have some silly local language they keep trying to hang on to. If people who have a political position against the RoI flag being used *even in this clearly defined context* for Ireland as a whole, despite all sources showing this usage as real, and want to continue to make a beef about the flag in this article, then they need get consensus to rewrite the article in terms other than those of Celtic League and similar parties, since otherwise CL's viewpoint and those of the rest of the Celtic nationalist set are being misrepresented here, which is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR all at once. You can't have it both ways, basically. Either the article is based on CL their ilk as the main sources, or it's not. Being one of the principal editors of WP:ICONS, I would normally side strongly with GordyB's initial suggestion to just remove all the flags, but these are in fact relevant here as political symbols, and this is precisely the kind of article that is an obvious exception to the guideline's general rule that flag icons are just visual noise. In summary: There are innumerable sources that these are in fact the symbols being used by Celtic nationalists and pan nationalists. To keep deleting the Irish flag and editwarring over the matter is really starting to border on disruptive editing at best, as well as soapboxing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be neutral, rather than reflecting any POV at all. The obvious answer would be to remove all the flag icons from this article, but to retain them in the article on the Celtic League where they can be described as the flags used by that organisation - wouldn't it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Flags

When I was reading through the article I noticed there was no flag for Ireland,why is that?Because a certain minority of people started complaining about such a concept of a flag representing the island,people that hold certain political beliefs,anti Irish beliefs.There is a flag for every celtic nation listed here,and for Ireland not to have a flag is insulting and a joke based on the biast opinions of a few people,hence I will put the flag of the four provinces in,as it is used by neither nationalists nor unionists.If this is taken off,then I will conclude that wikipedia is a joke,as it certainly is beginning to enhance its reputation within academic circles with pathetic issues like this.109.78.86.239 (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The "celtic nation" in this article is talking about the island of Ireland. The flag that was inserted is the flag of the Republic of Ireland, it is in no way the flag of the island, and it is absolutely unacceptable to be presented as such on this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am prepared to support the removal of those other flags if others feel strongly about this, but the Republic of Irelands flag does not belong next to the island like that. There would also need to be consensus to use an alternative flag like the four provinces, which would complicate matters. It is best to leave the flag blank with a note or remove all the flags. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to disrupt this for a one time IP. The flag of Ireland does reI

This is not a one time IP if you delve a little I made an account UnEtudiantFrancais,so I would be more credible.The fact of the matter is that this article is about the Celtic Nations,Ireland is one therefore it is suitable to have a flag representing the island,however BritishWAtcher here along with a small number of people feel otherwise due to their political affiliations,which for some reason I am the only person to notice.Just look at his wikipedian page for example,he is not interested in the academic well being of this article.He will either have no Irish flag symbolising the island in the article or no flags whatsoever.The Irish Provinces flag is perfectly suitable,adn the only reason why I put in the Tricolour was because it was better then having no flag.

I would wager that British Watcher would have no problem with this article if it was the Union Jack instead of the Tricolour,I don't mean to come across as being personal,but there is no point in sugarcoating the truth,it is what it is,I strongly suggest a non-bias third party intervene.UnEtudiantFrancais (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a flag which is used for the whole of Ireland (and you will need a reliable source for that) then there maybe a case. You maybe able to make a case for the Provinces flag, but you need to make it here and get agreement. The Union jack has never related to any celtic nation so that is a red herring You cannot use the tricolour with any legitimacy. By the way your old ID password - there is an option to have the password mailed to you on the log in screen.--Snowded ^TALK 13:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok thank you Snowded,regarding my reference to the Union Jack,I was using it as an example in the fact that if it was highlighted as the Irish flag,BritishWatcher would certainly not be here impeding the article's development.

Regarding the tricolour,the Celtic League's website has the tricolour representing Ireland,also it is in fact recognised by the United Nations as an official non-govermental organisation,there is even an article on wikipedia about it.Sheodred (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note WP:INDENT - it makes things easier to follow. The Celtic League is hardly the authority here. However lets see if other editors agree. --Snowded ^TALK 13:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that,but to point out that despite the misgivings of one or two members, it is more logical and encyclopedic to have the tricolour as the flag.It is unencyclopedic to have Ireland listed as a Celtic Nation without a flag,not to mention ridiculous as out of the rest of the celtic countries it is widely agreed amongst scholars that Ireland has preserved its Celtic culture and identity far more than its counterparts.Also the international community sees Ireland as the Republic of Ireland,I know some people will object to that,but it is fact.It is only suitable to have the Tricolour or the Irish Provinces Flag as the flag listed. As we are talking about Ireland and its Celtic identity not the political entities it should not matter.Sheodred (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about the whole of island and its celtic identity, The Republic of Ireland does not have ownership of that history or the whole island, so its flag can not be used to represent it. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your above quotations "The Republic of Ireland does not have ownership of that history or the whole island, so its flag can not be used to represent it," and from below "I have a problem with anything that attempts to suggest a flag of the republic of Ireland represents the whole island of Ireland, which is not the case and is totally unacceptable." Clearly sums up you don't care about the article, only what you want in the article.We are not talking about Irish politics but Irish celtic identity,as this article is about individual nations with a distinctive celtic heritage,with their flags also listed, along with Scotland and Wales who are in the UK. (which strangely whose flags you do not object to).Therefore the Tricolour is an option.Sheodred (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"individual nations" , Wales, Scotland and what? What is the individual nation regarding Ireland? Is it the nation that is currently a sovereign state with the Irish tricolour with its flag? Or is it the nation as in the whole island of Ireland, if it is the whole island you can not use a flag that has no status for the whole island/Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The celtic league has its own political motives and agenda which are very clear, their inaccuracy does not mean it will be tolerated on this article or wikipedia. I have a problem with anything that attempts to suggest a flag of the republic of Ireland represents the whole island of Ireland, which is not the case and is totally unacceptable. There are several solutions 1) remove all flags, 2) display more than one flag for Ireland 3) Agree on a single flag which is accepted by all. Option 3 was debated above but there appeared to be no single flag that was suitable as they all had potential problems. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That matter is up to the public wikpedian profiles not you.It will be discussed.By the way NO FLAGS WILL BE REMOVED.I typed in caps to clarify that.It is unencyclopedic to remove relevant material.Wether you like it or not the fact remains that is is encylopedic content.Sheodred (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Now who is the one that doesnt want the other flags removed? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the above.Anyway, it is quite baffling that you have not argued for the removal of the Scottish,Manx,Cornwall and Welch flags also,they are also in the United Kingdom.If you do not have a problem with those flags listed what is the problem with the Irish flag being listed?You clearly have personal issues with the Irish content.Just wondering have any other people noticed that?Sheodred (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Wales has a recognised flag. Cornwall has a recognised flag. Scotland has a recognised flag. The Republic of Ireland has a recognised flag, but the island of Ireland at present does not have one. You can not use the flag of the state, when the inclusion on this article is not talking about the state, but the whole island. It is not hard surely to see the problem? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If only the republic of Ireland is described as a celtic nation and not the island of Ireland (northern Ireland), then i will have no problem with the Irish tricolour being used. Provided it is clear this article is not talking about Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland has a strong celtic identity also,it was the location of the seat of the Celtic High Kings of Ireland,but also has a rich history before and after the plantations.There is a wikipedian article on the history of Ireland,I suggest you read it,as I said before we are not discussing the political identities but Ireland's celtic identity.Sheodred (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Tricolour is listed as one of the flags of Ireland,along with St.Patrick's saltire and the Four Provinces flag.Check the wikipedian article on flags representing the island of Ireland.Sheodred (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The setup of the flag articles relating to Ireland is most unsatisfactory. The Tricolour is not the flag of the island of Ireland. It is not the flag of Northern Ireland. It has no place next to information simply talking about the whole island of Ireland. If this is not about political identities, why are you demanding the inclusion of a political flag associated with a state. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Read a book so,simple as that,as to your other points,I already addressed them,I will seek a Third Party resolution,there will be a result one way or another,as this is a waste of time,just because you have all day to do this does not mean I do.I will not have some individual such as yourself ruin a good article,just because it conflicts with his neo-imperialist beliefs.Sheodred (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have simply been restoring the stable version, it is you thats trying to insert a flag which is not backed up by neutral reliable sources as representing the island of Ireland. You have to justify your proposed change here, so far i see no justification. Inclusion of the ROI flag in this case would be inaccurate, misleading and lack neutrality, its just wrong for obvious reasons. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Restoring the article to a "stable version",according to the hiistory you have done nothing with the article,and if you did that must have been a long while ago,in regards to the flag,what say you about the Irish Provinces flag?Sheodred (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I usually avoid making edits to articles like this one and simply raise issues or concerns on the talk page, which helps prevent potential concerns about my edits. i may express strong views on the talk page, but i dont want to spark edit wars on the articles.

If there is agreement to use an alternative flag to represent the island of Ireland then i would be prepared to support it although like in the previous debate above from last year people have different concerns about certain flags. Us choosing to use one flag over the others may be problematic, and seeing a flag most editors probably will not recognise has the potential to create more problems than leaving the section blank. Throughout wikipedia usually no flag is displayed for Northern Ireland as there is no agreement on which should be used, if there was then this would probably simply show the ROI flag and Northern Ireland flag. Id be happy to support that if the Ulster banner was used for NI, but there is no consensus for that. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough,to raise a point though, the Ulster banner is not an official flag,although it used to be.The flag of the Four Provinces should be suitable as it represents all the people of Ireland and is not affiliated with any political group.Sheodred (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Outsider's opinion:

The box at Celtic nations#Six Celtic nations doesn't need to contain any flags. Various sections at WP:MOSFLAG partially explain why.
Cross-border flag for Ireland seems to imply that no flag would be suitable anyway. Very reliable/authoritative sources would be needed, to prove otherwise.
I find flag icons in articles that are discussing general history, to be inherently confusing, unless the flag has existed for the entire span of the entity being discussed. E.g. Flag of Scotland only seems to date back to the 15th century (from a glance at that article), whereas this "Celtic nation" article covers a much broader time span than merely the last 600 years.

So, I would strongly recommend leaving all the icons out.

If you decide to ignore that advice, then Portal:Ireland#How to link here advises using the four provinces flag, which seems sensible enough. The tricolour is obviously inappropriate.

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I did just that by removing the flags,I only did so as I could not add the Provinces of Ireland flag since the template does not exist.Any chance that you or a more experienced wikipedian add the template for the flag so I can add it to the article?Sheodred (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think its best we do leave them all out, that will be in line with the MOS on flag use and avoid causing confusion and provoking future debate over the Irish flag chosen. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, the flag of Ireland refers to the Republic whose actual name is Ireland,so it does not refer to NI, only the people who are of Celtic identity in Ireland who consequently consider themselves Irish, the Ireland flag is the Tricolour,Unionists do not consider themselves to be of Celtic origin but Anglo-Saxon and also British,and it is highlighted in the article that they are referring to the Celtic population in the North, thus the flag is valid.

This "celtic nation" club considers the whole of the island of Ireland to be celtic. There is simply no way the Irish tricolour should be shown as the flag of the island, it is deeply offensive and simply inaccurate unless it can be shown the only place considered celtic is within the republic of Irelands borders. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Celtic Nation considers all of Ireland to be Celtic and does not recognise the other ethnicities?Do provide a source for that because until then the flags are staying.By the way the only Celtic thing about Ireland is within its borders, finally you now know how narrow-minded, ignorant and arrogant you are, along with your POV brand you push, the history of Northern Ireland (eg,Ulster) has a rich Celtic history dating back over a thousand years, and then you have the Good Friday Agreement etc, where people have the option of being Irish or British, but that is all I have to say to you, I will follow Snowded and Scolaires intelligent method of dealing with you by simply ignoring you whenever.Sheodred (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make statements that "...until then the flags are staying." I'm not in the habit of agreeing with BW, but on this occasion he is right. There is no consensus to include the flag icons in this article, and indeed WP guidance is against their inclusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok that is reasonable Ghmyrtle, but I must tell you that I will not discuss it with BW, as he rather prefers to engage in long pointless and unproductive talk, if we want to reach consensus I will discuss it with you and others.Sheodred (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose who you discuss things with, in terms of article content. There is a community of editors, and every one has the right to contribute to this discussion, including BW. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know that, but I can still choose to ignore him.Anyway Ireland is the actual name for the Republic. People do not seem to realise that,and the only reason why the north is shaded in is to represent the residents having the option of deciding to be an Irish citizen (Celtic if you prefer BW)instead of being British, courtesy of the Good Friday Agreement.Thus the flag should be valid.Sheodred (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint - but it is a highly contentious opinion, and in the absence of consensus it is better to accept the least contentious option - which, in this case, is not to include the flags (which are unnecessary decoration anyway). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sheodred, you appear to be engaging in equivocation. No one is disputing that Northern Ireland is part of Ireland, and so its citizens have the right to call themselves Irish. The fact that the Republic of Ireland is also called Ireland does not mean its flag therefore properly applies to the whole of the island. We all know it does not. That's like saying that Old Glory should be used for Columbia because Columbia is part of America, and so its citizens can legitimately be called Americans. Personally it does not bother me in the slightest whether the flag is used or not, but we shouldn't misuse language. Paul B (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Ireland on this page links to the article on the island. If you wish to put Republic of Ireland there and use the Irish tricolour then i wont object to that although i think the status quo is the more accurate and the better solution. You mention the Good Friday Agreement and peoples right to be British or Irish, yet you are the one seeking to place the Irish Tricolour to represent the whole of the island of Ireland including the part of Ireland where many consider themselves British and do not recognise or accept the flag in question. It is an extremely controversial and pointless change which is not required, especially when MOS urges against using flags a lot. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already stated that BW that Ireland is the official name for the Republic, so stop repeating yourself, you seem to have the habit of doing that. And you imply to the other editors that the flag represents the whole island when you know it does not,and that I am adding it to make it look as if it is and that I Cheap tricks BW. You know I answered and clarified all that already,btw it is painfuly obvious you have an axe to grind when it comes to articles involving Irish identity and sovereignty.Sheodred (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sheodred, you say you accused of not caring about "the people with British identities only the ones with Celtic identities?" Are you perhaps unaware that "British" is historically a Celtic identity? These are not contradictory concepts, and that's an important issue here. Paul B (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I support not using any flags in this case. Bjmullan (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the issue surrounding the flags. After all the cornish and brittany flag are not disputed. I think this is being made out to be a secterian POV matter when it isn't. --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

They are not disputed because they are flags specific to those regions. If only the southern part of Ireland claimed to be "Celtic" then your point would be valid, but the whole of Ireland can adopt that identity, especially since most of the protestant population of the north are Scots and the Scots originally came from...Ireland. Even "British" was originally a Celtic identity, though, paradoxically perhaps, one that excludes Scots and Irish when used in that sense. Paul B (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the Celtic history of Britain, but that was an interesting point you raised Paul, I have no issue with the flags being included, and to say that we should leave all them all out or include all of them except Ireland to placate the POV of two or three editors is unacceptable, its a disgrace, Ireland out of all the Celtic nations, has the strongest intact Celtic culture and identity and the flag cannot even be included?.The Tricolour as I said does not represent the whole island, so BW and co your accusations of it being otherwise is not true.Sheodred (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

British Watcher is mistaken. "Ireland" in the context of this article is not the physical island of Ireland, but the nationalist idea that there is a "Celtic nation" of Ireland. I.e. the article refers to Irish nationalism, not to geography, and not to de facto sovereign states.

If in doubt, just drop the flags. Or else present an unambiguous reference to the effect that each flag displayed is used to express each of the respective nationalisms. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That is what I did before it was reverted, they asked me why it should be included and gave them all the facts,and seems as if they are deliberately ignoring me.I will put the flags back in, admin if you feel otherwise, please tell me.Sheodred (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not up to an admin, it's up to the community. The post-independence Ireland flag should not be used to represent the island as a whole. There is no good reason for any flags to be shown - no justification has been provided - and, for consistency, it is better not to show any here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: Your statement that "Each flag displayed is used to express each of the respective nationalisms" is simply a statement of your opinion. It has no references, and carries no weight, because other readers will have different views. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I already addressed those points you raised and you did not bother replying, you did have the time to keep reverting the edits though, and actually an admin can intervene,I addressed all your points and added a reference at the bottom of the table in the article.

PS:No it is not a statement of my opinion, and I refute that accusation and also what is the problem,I addressed your points added the reference so people will know (because the reference is true),how many more times must I repeat myself to you,next time please take the time to read the discussion.Sheodred (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read your posts. You haven't given any explanation of why you think any flags are helpful in this article. And you haven't given a clear explanation of why you are going against the views of other editors in seeking to include the Ireland flag, given that it is contentious to seek to use that flag to represent either the island as a whole or the historic nation of Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

alternative

How about an alternative symbol? Thistle, Daffodil, Shamrock etc.? --Snowded ^TALK 15:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I respect your input, but I disagree with that, I already addressed the points raised and the opposing editors are ignoring them.Sheodred (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they disagree with you its not the same thing. This article is about Celtic nations (which existed/do exist/should exist etc) not about nationalism --Snowded ^TALK 15:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know, that was added to placate the other editors who think the Irish flag represents the entire island which it does not.Sheodred (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The opinion Ghmytle referred to was Dab's, not yours. There is a valid argument that 'Celtic' identity is part of Irish nationalism which seeks unification within the Irish republic, but there is also the awkward phenomenon of Ulster nationalism. Of course it tended to be associated with hard-line Ulster Protestant culture and did not much use Celticist imagery to the best of my knowledge, but it did draw on the history of Dal-Riata as a specifically Scots/Northern-Irish identity to claim authentic Irishness that is distinct from that of the south. We could have both the Republic flag and the Ulster flag. Paul B (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There are counties in Ulster that are a part of Ireland and not the UK.What would be the point in having the Ulster Provincial flag?The Ulster Protestant culture do not consider themselves Celtic, and they claimed Dal Riada and other Irish mythological figures such as Cú Culainn, which existed long before they colonised Ireland as their own, to give the notion of superiority and legitamcy, and they have never claimed "authentic Irishness", they claim to be British, but this is going off the point here.Sheodred (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do claim authentic Irishness. You only appear to be revealing your own ignorance of Irish history. Cú Culainn belongs to the Ulster Cycle. People from Dublin have no more "right" to see him as theirs than do people from Ulster or Scotland, possibly less, especially since it was the Ulstermen who created Dal-Raita and who therefore defined the dynastic lineage of "Scots" identity. Read the Declaration of Arbroath. Ulster heroes appear in Scots Ossianic traditions. This just indicates how maleable "national" identity is. Paul B (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not listening to me, if anything you are the ignorant one not me,the "Ulstermen" you are referring to are the descendants of British colonists who arrived in Ireland in the late 16th century and 17th century, and have nothing to with Dal Riada or the Ulster Cycles. The descendants of the Celts of Ulster are not these "Ulster Nationalists", but the people descended from the Irish natives of Ulster.Sheodred (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. The colonists came from Scotland. Don't you even know that? They have a claim to direct lineage from the Gaelic Ulstermen. That claim appears in Ulster nationalist ideology. Of course all this is as much 'mythical' as 'real', but it's equally 'mythical' for people from Dublin or Limerick to claim some meaningful link to Cú Culainn and the Ulster Cycle. In contrast the Ulster Cycle did circulate in Scotland. They are all just as much or just as little Celtic as they can claim to be. Don't you get that?? Paul B (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Some colonists may have come from Scotland, but there was a hugh percentage that came from England. The Ulster Cycle is Irish Mythology, it may have circulated in Scotland, just as the legend of King Arthur circulated everywhere, but the fact remains it is Irish Mythology.Sheodred (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you do not understand. First, the overwhelming majority of settlers were Scottish, not English. In any case, there were non-Celtic settlers in the south, including Vikings and Normans. As for the story of King Arthur, it circulated beyond Brythonic culture because it became part of romance literature. The Ulster Cycle circulated in Scotland orally, because the Scots were Irish. That what the word Scots means. Your complete inability to understand this shows that you don't get how ethnicity is constantly reconstructed and how multiple fissures and continuities can exist around the question of when people identify as "the same" as one another or "different". How do you think the Portuguese became different from the Spanish? Paul B (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This has got way off-topic. Irish republicans regard the Irish tricolour as the flag of the whole island, but officially and legally it's not. Likewise, Ulster loyalists regard the Ulster banner as the flag of Northern Ireland, but officially and legally it's not. These are political and controversial points-of-view. Thus, since this is Wikipedia, the best solution is to leave it blank. ~Asarlaí 16:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but Ireland in this article is the Republic not the island, and that has already been highlighted, being a nationalist does not equate to being a republican.Sheodred (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Ireland is the whole island. The map indicates that clearly and that is how common Celticity is defined in practice. Paul B (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The Celtic League uses "Ireland" to mean the whole island, as does this article. ~Asarlaí 16:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No it does not, the map indicates the border in the North and it is shaded to represent the descendants of the Celtic natives.Also Paul,just in case you didn't know, Ireland is the proper word for the Republic of Ireland,see the Good Friday Agreement if you think I am wrong.Sheodred (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Good Friday Agreement does not regulate the use of ther word Irish. Usage does. "Ireland is the proper word for the Republic of Ireland" is an unintelligable statement. It's either a truism or its meaningless. Paul B (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The border is shown because whoever made the map forgot to remove it. I'll get round to it shortly. ~Asarlaí 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to remove the border in the map?Please do not be absurd, the map should stay the way it is.The map is an even more important part of the article, and to change it would be vandalism.Sheodred (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether anyone "forgot to remove the border" or not - but the Celtic League themselves do not show the border on their own map, here, and as the map basically shows their interpretaion of "nations" we should follow their approach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

However, that does not mean that WP should accept their view of the situation in Ireland, or their use of the Irish flag (here), as neutral - because it isn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The Celtic League (and other pan-Celtic groups) use "Ireland" to mean the whole island. Since this article is based on their definition, it should follow suit. ~Asarlaí 16:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I will compromise if a flag of the Four Provinces is put in.Sheodred (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sheodred, you have reverted seven edits by five different editors today. This is not how Wikipedia works. ~Asarlaí 17:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I try to compromise, I give you the facts and you won't help, I already said that there was no problem if the Four Provinces Flag is replaced the Tricolour, but I specifcally stated under the table, what the table and flags represented.Do not forget that it was me who got rid of the flags in the first place, but now I and other editors believe it would be better to include the flags.Sheodred (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Compromise reached, discussion on Tricolour closed.Sheodred (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I make another suggestion? There is clearly no consensus for including the flags in this article as appearing to indicate the six Celtic nations in any objective, NPOV sense. However, it is a fact that the Celtic League itself uses the flags (including the Irish tricolour) to indicate the six nations. The Celtic League itself is clearly a POV organisation. However, do editors think that there is a case for including the flag icons so long as it is made totally clear that their use in this article is solely to illustrate the Celtic League's position? The text would make clear that it is a Celtic League position, just as it makes clear that the references to the whole island of Ireland as a Celtic nation are the Celtic League's position, and is not to be taken as a neutral statement of "fact". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article on the Celtic League but nations with a strong Celtic culture and heritage, if you have any problem with the the Celtic League raise it on that article.Sheodred (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I 100% oppose the flag of the Republic of Ireland being used to represent the island of Ireland. it is simply totally unacceptable and grossly offensive to do so, the fact the celtic league does highlights the agenda of this organisation perfectly. I prefer no flags, but i can live with the flag being shown at the moment for Ireland. Just no Irish tricolour unless the thing says Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm racking my brain trying to figure out what agenda the celtic league have. I have no strong opinion on the Tricolour being used or not, but I will say that I believe flags should be used for this article. Just because there is an argument over what flag if any should be used for one island does not mean we should throw the rest out. Jack forbes (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

BW,I'n not going to get into another arguement with you, you already stated multiple times that you didn't like the Tricolour, we got it the first 10 times you said it,and you quoted "no Irish tricolour unless the thing says Republic of Ireland", Ireland is the offical term for Republic of Ireland (remember that stupid debate you started on that article),see the Good Friday Agreement, how many times must you be told that,"it is simply totally unacceptable and grossly offensive to do so", you are speaking for yourself right there, and yes you "must live with the flag being shown at the moment" because its staying right there, many people believe that is the best flag for a United Ireland too, as it represents all Irish people so it is most suitable,and as I said its staying right there, like it or not.Sheodred (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

We could always just specify what the box entails! In other words, is the box an infobox that displays information on the 6 countries that are commonly considered Celtic, or is it an infobox that displays information on the proposed goals of the Celtic League and other Pan-Celtic proponents? If the infobox is of the former type then we can not use the tricolour, and for consistency, should not use any flag. If, however, the answer is the latter, perhaps it is OK to use the flags as espoused by the Celtic League, as long as we make it clear in the infobox that that is what is being shown. Currently, without explanation, and by using the Irish tricolour (although I realise that as stands the 4 provinces flag is being used), we are informing people that the tricolour is the flag of all of the island of Ireland and the flag for everyone in Ireland, regardless of political persuasion or jurisdiction - remember the infobox also states there are 6,000,000 people in Ireland - this figure includes the majority Unionist population of NI - which is totally incorrect and not based on any fact.--MacTire02 (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the organisation mentioned in this article 'Celtic League' does use certain flags to refer to certain places and that this usage does not agree with current political usage might itself be a topic of notable interest with regard to this article(with sources, of course). There's not even a WP:ICONS issue here, since the flag images are used to identify the flags under discussion, not used as decoration, nor used to push a position, make a claim of nationality, or anything else problematic.

The Irish flag is always used to represent Ireland in Celtic events so it's not normal it's not shown in this article. And it's nothing political, just common sense (what other flag can be used to represent the Celtic Ireland?). In order to make it neutral, couldn't we simply add a note such as "The Celtic League uses the flags shown below to indicate the six nations" (like on the Celtic League article)? Laurent (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The tricolour is used to represent Ireland by the Celtic League. Because of that, the tricolour is used on the Celitic League article to represent Ireland. However, this article is not about the Celtic League and the Celtic League does not occupy some unique position of primacy with regard to the topic of this article. Adopting the symbols used by the Celitic League or re-working the table to say to say, "The Celtic League uses the flags shown below to indicate the six nations", would not represent NPOV. It would advance one POV above others.

As you say, it is nothing political. It is simply that the island of Ireland does not have a flag at this time — or at least there is no NPOV as to what one may be. Per WP:IRISH FLAGS, no flag should be shown to represent Ireland in this article. --RA (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's tru that the Irish tricolor is often used to represent all of Ireland at pan-Celtic events. It's also tru that almost half the population of Northern Ireland see the tricolor as "their flag". However, we must remember that this is Wikipedia and so we should try to be as neutral as possible. Ther is no universally acseptd flag of all Ireland, just as ther is no universally acseptd flag of Northern Ireland. To avoid edit wars, it's best just to leav it blank. ~Asarlaí 17:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed

Missing Info

Linguistics

Definitions

Other claims section is unencyclopedic

Cultural traits

Picts

Tags

The Map

No. of native-competent speakers - Irish this time

Celtism / Racsim

Iberian Peninsula

The main problem with the article

Structure

Iberian Peninsula

Deletion?

Languages

"Celtic Tiger"

Galicia and Asturias are not celtic nations

Sometimes?

Irish flag

Flags

alternative