Talk:Celtic nations/Archive 3

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)

Tags

I removed the clean-up tag as although this article certainly isn't perfect, it no longer needs a major overall. I'm not sure that the factual dispute tag is justified any more either. I will be removing it if there are no objections.GordyB (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object, as I said in my edit note when I put the tag back in on two occasions. This article used to have tags in the past - they just get taken down every now and again. Basically, without a tag I am 100% unhappy with Wales linking to here (at very least), and from the first line of the second parag of its introduction too! Scotland and Ireland don't link here, why should Wales? But if this article is as serious as it thinks it is, why would it not?

This is frankly a League of Fudge Tins article, and the 'term' (in its use here) is in no way a WP:COMMONNAME - where are the verifies sources?? Only through WP:synthesis could it be so, as the area of 'Celtic Nations' described and mapped here is singular entity that is far-removed from most people's meaning when they connect the two words, 'Celtic' and 'nation'. When people call Wales a "Celtic nation" (or country), it is simply a two-word statement. The world 'nation' means just that, and the word 'Celtic' is most-typically used in a traditional, historical and grouping sense (to connect Wales with Scotland and Ireland). And that's it. In no way are the people who most-often say the words "Celtic nation" conjuring up 1) Celts as a modern-day ethnic group, 2) nationalism, 3) a very specific group of nations that include Cornwall! There is no capital 'N' in the majority use! If any of these meanings are actually ever meant, it will be in entirely context-specific matters that do not involve number (3)!

This is not just about Wales - the article itself is simply misleading and it barely passes notability, although I wouldn't go as far as to AfD - though I've seen it happen. How many here had really heard on the 'League of Celtic Nations'? Even before Wikipedia has been promoting them to the world!

I have no time for this nonsense, and I may put this directly to RfC. This article simply needs a tag (if not two or three, for more refs etc). It really is 'out there' in the real-world sense. The Introduction to Wales is not a souvenir shop, with links like trinkets and chains, and I really resent seeing my country sold in such a way,

These 'nations' should be mapped together in the Celtic article under the appropriate heading, and that is it. No completely obscure 'League' nonsense. In fact I've just talked myself into starting an AfD deletion/merge. Don't be afraid though gentlemen, knowing AfD's as I do, you will almost certainly pass it by default.

I've just seen another fork - Modern Celts - I'll put that up for deletion-merging too. That article and this one should be in the same section in a strong Celts article. What on earth is wrong with the Celts article if we are indeed still Celts???? Sentiment has got the better of admin here (and sympathy too), but enough is enough for me. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just notice this has been labelled a 'High importance' article re Wales too! I've put the tag back in, and will start an AfD later today if I can. Please do not remove the tag. I am removing the link from the Wales introduction again - Scotland and Ireland do not link in this way, and wrong for Wales to do it too. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the dispute tag, which referred to a dispute in May 2009 about including 'parts of England'. I referred the citation to the Reliable Sources notice board (see WP:RS#Anglo-Celtic.org), who confirm it is not a WP:RS. Reference to 'parts of England' has been deleted. That dispute is, therefore, resolved. If there is/are any other reason/s why this article is disputed it/they should be noted explicitly (and rationally) so that any issues may be resolved. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not up to one person to decide which 'dispute' this tag is here for, and whether it is closed or not. A tag is intrinsic to the article as far as I'm concerned. I've said from the beginning that I'm not happy with this article, and repeated the reasons why here and at Wales. You cannot just ignore me Dai - I've explained my feelings (and why) before! I could only accept the link from Wales with the tag in place - as I was always unhappy with the link/article, as are others. If there continues to be no taste for debate here - for example this rather cynical removal of my tag (pushing me towards 3RR - is that really fair play?), and the request on my talk page simply to repeat my arguments (the same old, same old), I'm pretty much forced to take this to a higher lvel than this talk page, aren't I.

Who can justify this article? Matt Lewis (talk)

If you think it is necessary to take this to a higher lvel then you must do so. I would prefer that, rather than on/off threats to do something which don't then happen. As for 3RR - if you have reverted on this article more than once since 4th December please provide the diffs, so everyone can see what you are referrring to, otherwise calling my actions "cynical" and "pushing me towards 3RR" are total fantasy. Sorry you feel I have been disrespectful and have chosen to ask me not to reply on you talk page, but there we are. As for ignoring you, I couldn't understand what you were talking about. What is a League of Fudge Tins article? If you were referring to the Celtic League then I don't understand the relevance. References for "Celtic nation" include the Welsh Assembly Government and National Museum Cardiff and there are many more. I haven't checked with the WP:RSN, but I feel pretty confident that either one of these would be sufficient to include the term in any article. btw "nation", as in "Celtic nation" is lower case, if that helps. Daicaregos (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

@Matt Lewis - your dispute is entirely unrelated to the earlier dispute that Daicaregos and I (among others) were involved in. He was right to remove the tags, my notice that IMO the dispute was over had stood for some time and nobody had objected. He was also right that you should have used to the talk page rather than revert the tags. Nobody could have known the nature of your dispute without you explaining it.GordyB (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring the Wales issue. Dai's always known of my concerns there, and it came up not long ago, when I explained myself then. If edit notes are not good enought for you, then ask me for more.

Dai may have known of your concerns but how could I? It seems to me that your issues surround the Wales article rather than this one and editing the sentence containing the link from that article to this one would suffice.GordyB (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Until yesterday when Dai changed it, this article said "The six territories recognised by the Celtic League and Celtic Congress as Celtic Nations are..". That said it all, didn't it? Also, are there 6 Celtic nations, or 8 like the Eisteddfod ref says? IMO, this article is clearly a fork of the (probably) non-notable Celtic League (political organisation), and a fork of Celts. The itself not-unproblematic Modern Celts also makes this article particularly pointless, so I'm putting it up for AfD as soon as I have got the sufficient information into the main Celts article. People can then link to that (or perhaps Modern Celts) if they need to. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Despite my anger now (as my tags replacements were simply reverted), I must say that my few brief edits surrounding this article has been perfectly normal and by the book. Language like "threats to do something", "minor edit war" (for Wales - and hardly a 'war'), "Celtic nations revisited" (my talk) is rather accusatory, and certainly identify you as an interested party yourself Dai! Up to now I have compromised by actually accepting the article (even keeping it, albeit within a better-phrased link, at Wales, for crying out loud). And I've actually grudgingly accepted it for as long as I remember, but not any more after this tag silliness.

How would it "help" if 'nation' has a capital N or not? The words 'Celtic nation' at Wales directly linked to here - that is the whole problem!! There are still two clear meanings, and one is overtly politicised (and includes Cornwall etc), while any 'WP:COMMONNAME' use of "Wales is a Celtic nation" is an entirely different claim altogether. You cannot blur them both, no matter how my eisteddfod blurb you find that refer to "8 Celtic nations". And no group of refs are in-themselves "good enough" for anything. Policy is king.

This Celtic nations article is entirely propped up by the 'Celtic League (political organisation)', and I do not think it is notable enough for its own article. The information should simply be a section in Celts, providing it passes consensus at that article. It is propaganda by stealth in my opinion. I think it also fails WP:WEB in light of this, as the Celtic League has a clear commercial side to it (Celtic League (political organisation) probably fails WP:WEB too).

Modern Celts is another fork that should be a section in Celts.

And there is also Celtic Revival too. I find the saturation political. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2009 (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)