Talk:Modern Celts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 I changed a sentence 2 I have edited this article 3 Modern celtic art 4 Celtic Nations 5 Iberia 6 Parliament and Assembly 7 Reference to England 8 Celtic diaspora 9 Independence 10 Cumbrian 11 English and Celtic 12 Elitist and/or racist "Celts"

[edit] I changed a sentence

In the paragraph:

In neither Galicia nor Asturias has a Celtic language survived, and as such both fall outside of the litmus test used by the Celtic League, and the Celtic Congress. Nevertheless, many organizations organized around Celticity consider that both Galicia and Asturias "can claim a Celtic cultural or historic heritage." [1]. Justification for these claims to Celticity derive from similarities in music, dance, folklore, and culture to the other widely recognized Celtic countries. [2] [3]

I changed the following sentence:

Justification for these claims to Celticity derive from similarities in music, dance, folklore, and culture to the other widely recognized Celtic countries. [4] [5]'

And replaced it by this one:

These claims to Celticity are historically justified and derive not only from a factual long-time tradition of Celtism in these regions but also from the obvious fact that numerous Celtic tribes settled in the Iberian Peninsula (see Celtiberians) and left mark, culturally and genetically. Consequently, similarities in both the cultural (music, dance, folklore) and genetical aspects [6] can be found among the nations of the Northern Spain and other Celtic Nations [7] [8].

I did so because I don't think appropiate to say that justification for these claims to Celticity derive from similarities [...] to other widely regonized Celtic countries. The justification for these claims DO NOT derive from the resemblance of the culture of the Northern Spain with other widely regonised celtic nations, but from historical facts. The fact that these other nations are widely regonised as Celtic is just because mainly they are in the UK (and don't say it's because they have kept a Celtic language, because as everybody knows, many Irish and Scots consider themselves as Celts but they don't even speak Gaelic). I mean, the people in Spain who culturally and genetically bear Celtic heritage DO NOT have to justify their origins to people of other countries who believe themselves to be the true celts; their reality is not in function of the existence of other celtic nations in other parts of the world. They have the right to claim their celtic origins without having to justify it to anyone else. I am not a human being because I look like you, and you are a human being, so I am a human being too; I am a human being because I consider myself a human, and I don't care if I look like you or not, because I know what I am. I guess you got the idea.

Onofre Bouvila 15:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have edited this article

As i thought it was expressing to strongly th political views of a few people who are seeking to promote areas of england as celtic nations. I have left references in for this but toned them down to a realistic level. The article sould be about 'modern celts' whereas orginally it was more an article about this viewpoint which is a tiny proportion of the 'modern celts' subject and a recent devolpement.I also thought this not as siginificant as the continous argument regarding galicia, which it overshadowed. Perhaps instead a realistic 'celtic remains in england' page would be more appropiate. bg

It's actually not your place to do that Enzedbrit 07:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely true - but its our perogative to move stuff if its pov or useless ;) Robdurbar 11:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have thought that it should be debated on here first. I'd have taken part in it, but only recently 'discovered' the talk pages. Durham uni eh? My mam's family's all from Peterlee Enzedbrit 15:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you from Swindon NZB? --MacRusgail 15:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was born there and lived there until 9 months. My paternal family had been there since 1950 Enzedbrit 22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern celtic art

Hi, I just wrote the Celtic art article which covers the Middle Ages, if anyone has anyting to contribute to Modern celtic art, even a short blurb a sentence or two, that would be helpful. Thanks! Stbalbach 17:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Nations

Hey all; I created a stub last night of Celtic Nations to fix a link on the Celtic Fusion article (although there's also a link to it on Modern Celts). It's extremely bare-bones, and I'm wondering whether I should just make it link to a section of this article, probably "What are the Celtic Countries?". Or, alternatively, someone could expand the Celtic Nations article so that it's not quite so ridiculously stubbish. What do y'all think? -GlamdringCookies

The colonies in Cape Breton and Chubut can't really be called nations, and "modern" should also appear in the title. --MacRusgail 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iberia

This is my first effort at involvement with Wikipedia. If I did anything improper or crossed any line, I apologize. I want to serve notice that I edited this article to add a paragraph regarding the claims to celticity of both Galicia and Asturias. I noticed that previosuly existing text referenceing these claims has been removed. In re-editing this test, I was careful to provide support for the sentences I added, and to qualify each comment (i.e. I tried to not make sweeping statements). I also tried my best to be balanced and neutral. I felt that my (re)addition of this test is justifiable by the fact that the issue of whether to apply the label "Celtic" to these regions is still in contention, and there are intelligent and educated people who hold positions in support of its inclusion. For example, both regions have provided participants to Celtic-oriented cultural events. A quick search of the internet finds this, this,this and this. While the reference in each of these sites to Galicia and Asturias as "Celtic" doesn't mean that such statements are accurate (after all, just about anyone can put up a site saying anything), and I dont vouch for the accuracy of any of those sites, it does show that the idea that these regions are "Celtic" is not an arbitrary idea. The website of the Celtic league international states that the Laegue "recognises that in Galicia and the Asturies, not only do vestiges of Celtic influence remain, but that some people (still) consider themselves Celts." From website of Celtic League International. To remove the text entirely arbitrarily deletes this legitimate viewpoint. Further, the idea that these regions are connected by a common culture is supported by apparent commonality in genetics. See article. Lastly, the removal of test referencing the claims of Galicia and Asturias to being "modern celt" nations also limts the concept of Celticity to that of a language based litmus test. While that is the test preferred by certain organizations, as is noted in the text of the article, it is arbitrary to see this as the only possible definition for Celticity. My added test retains the paragraphs which affirm that certain important organizations continue to use a language based test, and still affirms that there is some contention as to celticity beyond the "six [main]celtic nations," but allows inquiry into other definitions of what constitutes a "Celtic" culture. -Lazloholifeld

Lazlo, neither the Celtic League nor the Celtic Congress include Asturias and Galicia, so the League is hardly a witness for the case for them!

Secondly, I believe there are no such things as "Celtic genes". The Celtic peoples, and those of G&A include a number of genes of different origins. What are referred to as "Celtic genes" are often in fact, pre-Celtic in age. The Basques apparently share a number of genes, and the so-called "Celtic bloodgroup", but they would deny being Celts to the hilt, since they are pre-Roman in origin.

The main reasons for excluding G&A by their detractors are:

1. The reasons for inclusion - with the exception of music - would lead down the slippery slope of racism.
2. That there are areas, equally, if not more "Celtic" in Europe notably England and France beyond the "Six". If it comes down to it, north and west England are much more "Celtic", perhaps, in terms of music, language, and those dreaded genes. And there are political reasons for some people to keep England and France out.
3. The argument that their languages contain Celtic words is an interesting one, but it should be noted that both English and French, not to mention Lowland Scots, all contain far more Celtic words than Galician and Asturiano.

Their music is the most convincing argument, but Celtic influences are just as apparent in Northumbrian music, or even in the Faroes and Iceland. --MacRusgail 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, your contributions are completely in line of good Wikipedia practice, Lazlo... we just happen to disagree with you! :-) Seriously though, Wikipedia is no real judge of the merits of one claim or another. So it's completely acceptable to report that so-and-so is claiming X, while the other person claims Y. And you're right; it is significant that Galicians and Asturians are making hay with their Celtic heritage (... while the Leonese and Castilians generally aren't). And I've noticed that Breton activists are generally (more) inclined to recognize the Celticness of their Iberian neighbours. But for my own part, I tend to agree with MacRusgail: there are lots of cultural affinities among the peoples of northwestern Europe – Icelanders, Faroese, Basques, English, and plenty of others I wouldn't consider Celtic... Still, that doesn't prove that my POV (point of view) is more valid than that of the Celtic Asturias lobby! QuartierLatin1968 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with respectful debate and disagreement. :))) I understand the points being made in contention with my addition. I think a great degree of the debate involves what factors to consider in categorizing certain cultures as "celtic" while not others. The criteria used in making that categorization is what would lead to inclusion or exclusion for a given culture. I would dispute the statement that "neither the Celtic League nor the Celtic Congress include Asturias and Galicia, so the League is hardly a witness for the case for them!" Actually, as both the League and the Congress use a language based standard for defining Celticity, the exclusion of Galicia and Asturias from both organizations is a strike against them only if one accepts that language based criateria as being the only factor in determining Celticity. The very fact that an important organization which utilizes such a language based criteria is willing to acknowelege that both Galicia and Asturias (which they exclude based solely on language) "can claim a Celtic cultural or historic heritage" or that in both Galicia and Asturias "not only do vestiges of Celtic influence remain, but that some people (still) consider themselves Celts" is excellent testimony to the fact that other criteria exists beyond language and that these two nations are meniotned by name as falling into that non-language category of Celticity. (The first quote comes from the website of the American brach of the League, the second from the website of the international branch of the League.)

Further, regarding my citation of genetics: I really dont think that the citation of genetic studies have to descend into any sort of racism. I repudiate racism. But, racism exists where someone claims that one race is better or superior to another. I definitely dont claim that. My point is simply that there is a common genetic background among peoples of the "Atlantic Ridge" of Eurpoe, which embraces all the main Celtic nations and the contested region of northeastern Spain.

I think the article I cited from the American Journal of Human Genetics is interesting, because it does two things. First, it actually throws some question as the idea that the cultures presently called "Celtic" are actually the same people who are defined as Celtic who once dominated continental Europe. It seems to suggest instead that some form of cultural transfer has occurred which led to the present "Celtic" societies obtaining the traits now considered to be Celtic. This seems to refute (or at least question) some earlier notions that there was an invasion of Celts from the continent onto the Atlantic coastal regions where the modern Celtic nations exist. In other words, to be blunt, the modern Celts may not actually be the same people as the ancient celts. A cultural tranfer may have occurred.

The second thing the article does, is to show that that, whatever name one wishes to call the people presently living on the Atlantic coastal regions of Europe, from Scotland, down to Ireland, down to Wales, down to Cornwall, down to Brittany, and yes, down to galicia and Asturias, they all have a great deal of genetics in common. Call them what you want (Celt, Modern Celt, "People of the Atlantic Facade of eurpoe," etc.), they all are related genetically in a distict way.

These two points are important because I often hear the argument presented that Galicians and Asturians are not really Celts because they are not close enough in relationship with the Celts who once dominated Eurpoe. Well, I would say, neither are Scots, Irish, Welsh, Bretons or any other of the modern Celts. While there appear to be genes passed on from the ancient Celts to many of the populations of Europe, they dont appear to be any more distinct in the "six [main] Celtic nations" than in other cultures. The people Scots, Welsh, Irish, Bretons, et. al. are related to are... Galicians and Asturians! Here is a copy of a short article that gives a brief overview of the findings: Article It was originally in the Sunday Herald, but its now stored away in the "for pay" section of that website's archives. Heres the archive section. And heres a full copy of the study it is referring to: American Journal of Human Genetics Article Theres a link to the same article in PDF format (for easy printing) on the side bar.

I think this is important because of a question I once read in one of these debates about whether Galicia and Asturias are celtic. Someone who was a proponent of these two cultures being Celtic asked "where do you think all the bagpipes [used in Galician and Asturian music] come from?" As silly as that sounds, the idea that there are shared cultural traits, when coupled with the notion that the people of the "six cultures" and those of G & A are all actually genetically related, together make (for me at least) a strong case that all these cultures really do belong in a common cultural category. Call them Celtic, Modern Celtic, or whatever.

Lastly, I would point out that the text as it now exists in the "Modern Celt" article doesnt actually say that Galicia & Asturias are or are not Celtic. It simply notes that "A number of activists on behalf of other regions/nations have also sought recognition as modern Celts, reflecting the wide diffusion of ancient Celts across Europe. Of these regions, Galicia and Asturias are prominent." It then simply presents the argumentation behind that view. Note that it still keeps the "six [main] Celtic cultures" in the prominent place as being the most commonly accepted Celtic cultures, and acknoweledges that G & A lack an existing celtic language. That there are people beyond the "six cultures" that consider themselves Celtic is a statement of fact. I think it is also demonstrable that Galicia and Asturias are "prominent" in asserting that they too are celtic, as the Celtic League (as far as I know) has not singled out any other non-member cultures for specific reference, as it has done with these two. Lastly, a search of the internet will show how much more frequently G & A are listed along with "the six" as celtic cultures, moreso than any other regions of Europe.

Please excuse the long explanation.

-Lazloholifeld

[edit] Parliament and Assembly

I have replaced the word FORCED with SUPPORTED in the following sentence: "Scottish and Welsh Nationalists have recently supported the institution of the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, which are seen by many as a first step towards eventual independence from the UK" I made this change for 4 reasons:

1. Although Welsh Nationalists (Plaid Cymru) have long supported the establishment of an assembly in Wales, the Scottish Nationalists (SNP) were ambivalent on the issue of a Scottish Parliament - some of them feeling that the Scottish Parliament was a sop that would make independence less likely to occur (subsequent events have proved them justified, at least in the short term). In fact the SNP withdrew from cross-party group (the Scottish Constitutional Convention) which defined the powers and role of the Scottish Parliament. So the SNP certainly didn't force the Scottish Parliament on the UK.

2. The introduction of Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been supported for many decades by the Liberal Democrat Party of the UK (about 20% of the national vote) and since the 1970s have been supported by the Labour Party of the UK (between 35 and 45% of the national vote). This means that there is a vastly wider constituency of support in the UK for devolution than just Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, so there was no need for forcing (though undoubtedly historic pressure from nationalists [note the small n] contributed).

3. Had the Conservatives won the 1997 or subsequent elections, there would be no Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly: they would have refused to be 'forced' just as they did between 1979 to 1997.

4. Both Assembly and Parliament were endorsed in referenda the their respective nations - thus the people of Scotland and Wales could have rejected the proposals.

In general, the sentence as it originally stood overemphasised the role and power played by the Nationalists (not capital N). --Simhedges 16:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Well spotted. QuartierLatin1968 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

-I Think that there is a strange offensive opposition to the concept "celtic" when there is no one against "latin"; is it not strange? How many people have seriously studied and compared the celtic cultures to get a real point of view?

kej

It's political. There's also a strange offensive opposition to the concept of "Kurdish", which is also an identity mobilized through political contestation. QuartierLatin1968 15:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to England

The reference to England on this page is as legitimate, far more so as I'm concerned, than any place in Spain. To remove it should require discussion on here first. If not, it will be replaced. Enzedbrit 22:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

England should have its own subsection. --MacRusgail 15:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We are seeing now someone state things like 'English atrocity' for the Irish potato famine, even though the UK government was in control of Ireland, England didn't exist as an independent country and English people died in the famine; independence from England although England is a body of the United Kingdom, etc. I will revert this and I urge others to do the same Enzedbrit 06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The victims of the famine were British subjects, as was everyone else involved in the famine. In general it would be better to avoid terms of nationality in this context as they tend to sound emotive and accusing. Perhaps "government-aggravated tragedy". Gagonis 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic diaspora

Enzedbrit, you summarized your recent edits and deletions as: "remove all reference to 'celtic diaspora'. there is no, nor cannot be, such a thing". Could you please explain your rationale. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I second the request for rationale. I see nothing wrong with the concept. Do explain. -GlamdringCookies 03:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I also see nothing wrong with the concept. Unless Enzedbrit shows up soon with a convincing reason to incorporate his perspective into a revision/rewrite, I am strongly leaning towards a revert or similar action. --Kathryn NicDhàna 04:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Enzedbrit has a track record of somewhat distinctive POV when it comes to Celtic topics and this seems to fit right in there with his previous edits. What on earth are the Welsh speakers of Patagonia, the Irish speakers of Newfoundland and the Scottish Gaelic speakers of Nova Scotia but part of a "Celtic Diaspora"? Even if these communities did not/had not existed quite how one might reasonably argue that, for some reason, a 'Celtic Diaspora' could not exist is absolutely anyones guess. Its a straightforward 'revert of POV job' tbh, although out of courtesy il give Enzed a chance to put forward his reasoning before doing so. siarach 07:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, while you may be right, siarach, Enzedbrit's record should be of little relevance in this matter. If he can adequately justify himself, his edits should stay, if not, they should be removed. Our own past experience with him should have no bearing on the end result of this dispute. -GlamdringCookies 12:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody in the Celtic diaspora (I've got Irish, Welsh, and Scottish ancestry), I do find it odd to hear that I do not, nor cannot, exist. Seriously though, the term ‘diaspora’ is used pretty non-controversially here in North America. And I agree with Glamdring, we should judge every dispute on its own merits. QuartierLatin1968 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Bloody hell peoples! The WIKIPEDIA article on Diaspora spells out exactly what a diaspora is. That is why it cannot be a diaspora. Plus, people aren't "Celts". There are groups of people who identify with this culture, but relevant discussions should be taken by their ethnic/national groupings, ex. Irish, and not Celtic. The "Celts" were not forced out of their homelands. The closest example would be specific cases, such as talking about the Irish diaspora, known to be so because of the consequences of the famine. Others have tried talking about any migration of people as a 'diaspora'. I used to do the same. This raises eyebrows and causes offence among people that regard their own background as a genuine diaspora. The scattering of people through the result of calamity fits the description, not people who have chosen to migrate in search of a better life in a new colony.

• And thanks QuartierLatin, that's EXACTLY what I was saying wasn't it. You don't exist. Yup, entirely my point. Applause to you mate. (it's also quite admirable how your family managed to keep English heritage outside its borders, yet be Irish, Scottish and Welsh) Enzedbrit 01:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to add, since many (if not all?) of you are contributors to the same articles as me, you'd be aware that this has been discussed in Scottish people, Cornish people, Celts, and several others, and the agreement has swayed more that the term 'diaspora' shouldn't be simply plucked and used but there are better words to describe this migration, like 'migration'. Enzedbrit 01:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about Enzedbrit ? "The agreement has swayed" ? There hasn't been any consensus at all and in the case of Scottish people, it was decided the section spoke about Scottish emigration as a whole, not just those in the diaspora. Just because not all people who migrated from such countries were forced or induced to leave, does not go to say there wasn't a massive amount of people who were. I can guarantee you right now that hundreds of thousands of Scots who were forced to leave from especially the Scottish Highlands and Ulster to the Americas (and elsewhere) weren't happy to having say goodbye to their homeland. You really need to read into the Highland Clearances and the Scotch-Irish (also see Ulster Scots and Plantation of Ulster). They follow the definition of diaspora just as much as any other group listed on the Diaspora article. Epf 03:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay guys...Enzedbrit, I think you may be right on some level about the Diaspora Wikipedia entry. I didn't read the whole thing, just the opening, and it does make reference to "any people or ethnic population forced or induced to leave their traditional ethnic homelands", and perhaps people of Celtic heritage were not forced to leave. Or maybe they were. I don't know. However, the Wiktionary page for "diaspora" makes no mention of force, defining it as "A dispersion of a group of people from their native land". This seems to apply to the Celtic Diaspora pretty well. However, Epf, it seems to me you're losing your cool a little. But Enzedbrit, your tone (and I've noticed this before) is really disrespectful, and you skirt close to breaking some of the Wikiquette guidelines. I'd advise you to look into that. Finally, if you can accumulate some number of non-wikipedia references which back up your claim that there is no Celtic Diaspora, I, personally, would fully accept such a claim. Citing sources is rather important, especially on Wikipedia. Go find some, but until you do, I say we change the article back to how it was before. -GlamdringCookies 04:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Enzed, I hear your point that individuals aren't Celtic, peoples are. (Now that's one valid POV, but it's a POV that the tens of thousands of US Americans, Australians, and Canadians who identify themselves as being of "Celtic nationality" on their respective census forms wouldn't accept.)
• But even if we do accept your idea that Irish emigrants are individually not 'Celtic' emigrants, surely collectively the sum of the Irish diaspora, Scottish diaspora, Breton diaspora and so on can be described in shorthand as a 'Celtic diaspora' to precisely the same extent that Ireland, Scotland, Brittany etc can be described as 'Celtic countries'. Let's face it, emigration is a major recurring theme in these places, and the communities spawned from such emigration have kept up various degrees of contact and emotional identification with their ancestral countries.
• Given that the diaspora article specifically lists the Irish diaspora, Scottish diaspora, and Cornish diaspora, I'm not sure what pointing us to the Wikipedia entry is supposed to prove. If forced emigration is required for an individual to be part of a diaspora, well okay, I for one have a few Scots-Irish ancestors kicked out of their homes without too much gentility; and one of my Welsh ancestors is supposed to have fled from Britain after the Restoration because his father had just been hanged as a regicide. So I still think the term can be justified. QuartierLatin1968 17:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• PS: Even if a citable source can be found to say "I feel there's no such thing as a Celtic diaspora", we can report it only as the view of one source. (And for the record, my remark that I cannot exist was purely tongue in cheek!)

This is the Wiki definition of diaspora: "The term diaspora (Ancient Greek διασπορά, "a scattering or sowing of seeds") is used (without capitalization) to refer to any people or ethnic population forced or induced to leave their traditional ethnic homelands; being dispersed throughout other parts of the world, and the ensuing developments in their dispersal and culture." [emphasis mine] Due to the Clearances, the Irish who were kidnapped and enslaved in the Carribean alongside the members of the African diaspora, and our ancestors who were given the "choice" of starvation in Ireland or the Coffin Ships, I think it is clear there is such a thing as a Celtic Diaspora. More relevant to Wikipedia, the fact is that many people use the term "Celtic diaspora" and this deserves to be documented. While "Irish diaspora" and "Scottish diaspora" are certainly more specific, the fact is this is an article on Celts, so it is appropriate to use this generalization ("Celtic") in this article. The celtoskeptic position is given its own section in this article, so that base is already covered without chipping away at this in an effort to advance the celtoskeptic POV. I see Enzedbrit's anti-"diaspora" edits as an attempt to further POV, not advance this article. Therefore I think they should be reverted. If someone doesn't get to it before me, I'll try to take care of it later tonight or tomorrow. --Kathryn NicDhàna 01:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (Who also, apparently, does not exist.)

I have once again removed reference to Diaspora. Rather than revert them because you are countering as you say 'my POV', it seems more in spite. If you want to redefine the term diaspora, then do it on the diaspora page, make it credible and then come back and rewrite history that way, that there is a Celtic diaspora, such as people who move 5 minutes down the road from Wrecsam to Liverpool for a better paid job, because that really doesn't weaken the definition or emotion behind a 'diaspora' at all. Now, who are these people that use the term 'Celtic diaspora'? Were all the Scots removed from their homes in the clearances 'Celts'? Were all the Irish for that matter? Reading the definition of diaspora on Wikipedia and in academia, it also appears that a diaspora occurs over a relatively short period of time, not something drip fed. My 'anti-Diaspora' edits are such because nowhere have I ever seen diaspora to mean what is purely and simply a migration, for if that were the case, then there are thousands of cases of diaspora, as everyone who leaves their country is in a diaspora. We have a Cornish diaspora as over several centuries, several thousand Cornishmen left Cornwall and their descendants are now, what, a quarter million? Okay, then we have a Yorkshire diaspora. A Geordie diaspora. Heck, why not an English diaspora with migration to the colonies? Let's not forget the Polish diaspora in Britain since their EU expansion. There is an elderly British diasora living on the Costa del Sol, forced to Spain because of the oppressive weather of the UK. There, that's a justification. So, let's just be happy-go-lucky and add whatever we feel to this article, the diaspora article, any article. You really must be new age Kathryn NicDhana, because it seems anything goes with you.

And Quartier Latin, apart from on this page, when have we had conflict?? Enzedbrit 13:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming a great deal, here, Enzedbrit. My edits were not in "spite", but because I, and others on this page and in the greater Modern Celtic communities, disagree with you. I do not know you; and you obviously do not know me. You are the one who has thrown bizarre, ad hominem insults at editors on this article simply for disagreeing with you (yes, I consider new age/newage an insult). The fact is, the term "Celtic diaspora" is in use, and is not out of line in a Wikipedia article. You may not like the fact that this term is in use out there, but this article is not the appropriate place to fight for redefining it. --Kathryn NicDhàna 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Enzedbrit, you make an interesting point. The definition I perceive of diaspora, however, does include any people who have come from another place, presuming they retain a strong cultural identity with the historic people of that place. As far as I have seen on the Wiktionary and Wikipedia pages about diaspora, this definition fits (Granted, I'm sure I haven't scoured the Diaspora page as much as you). All that said, you are out of line. See civility, and "No Personal Attacks" for more info. In searching the guidelines section for things that Enzedbrit was skirting if not violating, however, I encountered the verifiability page, which says quite clearly: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Therefore, it is beholden of those in this dispute advocating for the inclusion of "Celtic Diaspora" to find reputable sources for it and cite them, not of Enzedbrit to find them. So, if you think "diaspora" does apply in this instance, go out and find a good source. Meet you back here in five... -GlamdringCookies 00:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Celtic Diaspora – Irish and Scottish identites in the United States - A course at Chicago's DePaul University.
• Celtic diaspora studies - Web resource compiled by a number of universities in the UK, including Oxford.
• Celtic Studies : Celtic diaspora studies - Humbul Humanities Hub, University of Oxford.
• e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies - "...the Celtic diaspora is represented by living populations in the Antipodes, North, Central and South America, and Africa, among other parts of the world."
• Celtic League - Celtic Music - "Within each style are regional2 and local sub-styles, some of which have developed into distinct traditions within the broader Celtic diaspora, e.g., in the Shetland Islands, Cape Breton, and Prince Edward Island."
• Death of Alan Heusaff - Breton nationalist and inter-Celtic activist - Celtic League memorial page for a man who was "liaison with the Celtic diaspora and also acted as contact for the League's United States branch."
• New Directions in Celtic Studies - University of Wisconsin conference on "the cultures of the peoples of Europe who have a Celtic heritage–in particular, the peoples of Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and Brittany--together with their descendants in the Celtic diaspora of the New World and other parts of the globe."
• Cornish Language News - An Buro - "The International Celtic Congress for 2007 will be held in the Combined Universities in Cornwall Campus at Tremough, Penryn from the 23rd to the 28th July, 2007 with the theme ‘The contribution to the world of arts, science & industry by the Celtic Diaspora’"
• Celtic Emigration Comes Home to Skye - "Over a hundred academics, students, politicians and other interested parties travelled this June from all across the Celtic diaspora to Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, the Gaelic College at Skye in Scotland, to discuss the subject of emigration."

And those are from just the first handful of pages of Google search results. --Kathryn NicDhàna 01:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• From http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/2002/54.html The term ‘British diaspora’ in the title is problematic and its use sums up one of the main problems with the book. The term ‘diaspora’ is now applied to many migrations and histories of exile, although it is perhaps most commonly associated with the long wanderings of the Jewish people in Europe and the dislocation of Africans sold into slavery in the Americas. As such it implies a set of characteristics that mark out a sense of imposed loss, of oppression, of powerlessness in the face of overwhelming populations and systemic hatred.
• From http://www.tamilnation.org/diaspora/articles/diaspora.pdf#search=%22diaspora%20definition%22 a good article that shows 'diaspora' to be a term of more wealth than purely a movement.
• Again, I say that I once thought diaspora to be a movement of people, but that is TOO simplistic. Change it to what you like - you will anyway. I'm not re-inventing definitions, I'm sticking to them. These reverts will help to redefine 'diaspora', weaken it to any migration, making the term largely redundant. That's a shame. Pity you all can't see that. Enzedbrit 02:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This accumulation of sources is great. Do we just base the ultimate outcome of the article upon whoever is more diligent and gets more links? Or what? Perhaps a blurb articulating our debate here? I think there should be a template to include in articles about points that really are of little significance and won't matter to the layman, but have been hotly debated on the discussion page of the article. Seriously, though, I think a blurb stating both sides of our debate is the only way to end this. It would be great if we could resolve it one way or the other, but it doesn't look like either side is going to give in. Leaving it to whoever has more or "better" sources is just preposterous, and totally not a good basis for encyclopedic inclusion. -GlamdringCookies 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought your request for reliable sources was a serious one. That is why I chose mainstream sources that show the term/concept "Celtic diaspora" is widely used in academia. As can be seen by those sources, by websearches, and this talk page, I don't think it's an equal-sided argument at all. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was serious. The burden of proof lay on the side of inclusion of the term, and I think, unless NZ has any serious objections to Kathryn's sources, the debate is over. -GlamdringCookies 06:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independence

I don't like the reference to independence from England. The four parts of the UK are not controlled by England. If Scotland or Wales get independent it'll be from the UK not England. To say that the Scottish parliament could mean independence from England implies that England controls Scotlnand and it doesnt. The UK is the nation state and it is from the UK that Scotland will get its independence HillaryMawdesley 07:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The UK was created (de jure) by the union of England and Scotland and if they decide to part there will be no UK and we will revert back to the states of England and Scotland. England would thus become free of Scotland too.

The above does not apply to Wales.

The fact that the English are a large majority in the Westminster parliament which has absolute sovereignty in the state means that England does actually control the rest, though that is beside the point here. Gagonis 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cumbrian

The Cumbrian language page doesn't seems to imply that Cumbrian was different from Welsh. Can you provide proof that Cumbrian was the same as Welsh? HillaryMawdesley 07:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Very little remains of the Brythonic of the "Old North". Apart from the works of Aneirin and Taliesin, which are firmly classified as Welsh literature, we have little more than placename elements and odd words. It is up to those who claim separate linguistic status for Cumbric/Cumbrian to provide justification. While the speech of any area is liable to develop its own characterisics, there is virtually nothing in the Cumbria/Strathclyde (etc.) Brythonic that we have that sets it apart from northern Welsh. Gagonis 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English and Celtic

I think someone should consider creating an extensive article on the regions of England with Celtic backgrounds (it appears Cornwall is already well covered). -gazh

Cornwall is arguably not part of England. --MacRusgail 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The other problem is that all of Britain has some Celtic background. garik 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Only in the same sort of sense that one could say Central Turkey (aka Galatia) has a Celtic background... --Krsont 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elitist and/or racist "Celts"

Seemingly discluding the English from having any Celtic heritage. gazh

How? England is included several times in this article. garik 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This exclusion is due to the fact that England has no Celtic language. They don't consider Cornwall part of it by the way. See relevant articles.--MacRusgail 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. The concept of Celt has always had more to do with language than anything else. No one's disputing that a very large proportion of English people have Celtic ancestors. What exactly would you like to see done differently in the article? garik 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the rant, i'm not entirely sure what changes i would like to see - maybe a change in attitudes towards the English on this subject, the 'English' is such a broad word and it's really almost impossible to fit all its people under that umbrella. Example, recently on a trip to Edinburgh (st. paddys day) i was constantly asked where in Belfast i was from, and vice-versa the Irish all thought i was Scottish - i know thats more a question of accent and dialect as opposed to actual language. Lowlands Scots is considered a celtic 'language' on the main page, surely it's a dialect? -gazh 09:59, 04 Apr 07

There's no real answer to the question of whether lowland Scots is a language or a dialect, since there's no real principled way to distinguish between languages and dialects: Spanish and Portuguese, after all, are mutually intelligible, and possibly more so to some speakers than English and broad Scots. In any case, it's not a Celtic language at all. Like English, it's a Germanic language. It just happens, like English, to be spoken by a large number of people whose ancestors did speak a Celtic language. garik 09:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Lowland Scots, Galo, English and French are not Celtic languages. Hence I put them in brackets.--MacRusgail 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)