Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglosaxoncelt

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 13:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglosaxoncelt

This is a protologism and original research -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this article only serves to promote the point of view of it's creator. It is unverified and appears unverifiable. It's also a ńeologism. Alun 17:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I prodded this earlier; a Google search turns up only hits as a username on yahoo sites and gaming forums. Geoffrey Spear 18:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you go back to the article you will see a link. In addition, if you google up "anglo/saxon celt" you will see thousands of hits. The condensing of the term to anglosaxoncelt serves only to eliminate the slash and space. Furthermore, if you state that this article serves to promote the point of view of the user, then you must also delete the wikipedia page which denotes "English people" because it also is only promoting a point of view.Ldjenks 19:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an issue of verifiability. The link you mention points to the English people Wikipedia article (itself not a reliable source), which doesn't even mention the term. Wikipedia does not promote new words or new meanings. I would possibly suggest this article is forced into a redirect to Anglo-Celtic, but the referencing in that article is rather poor. At least it is a verifiable term. Anglosaxoncelt is not. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, even "anglo/saxon celt" gives only 50 Google hits, no reliable sources. --Huon 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I thought the word for this was "British". I don't see where the source uses the term. Not in common usage per google. :) Dlohcierekim 04:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an originally researched article on a neologism/protologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Agree with Dlohcierekim, there's no need for this phrase to distinguish from British which itself is distinct from Briton. MLA 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Huon, to correct you; I just googled your designation and got over 400 hits, and from all around the world, especially from former colonies of the UK, and many on reputable sites. The exponential growth of the use of the term on the Internet warrants its placement on Wikipedia. Furthermore, if you delete this term you must most certainly delete the designation of "English people" as an ethnic group. Worldwide the word "English" is used increasingly to denote a linguistic term, especially since English is the global language of the world. I travel the world as an ESL teacher, and believe me, since English has now reached global status, it would be in the best interests of the descendants of the UK to use more appropriate terms to denote their cultural heritage than "English".

I see you deleted my link from the article. So here it is again, another source which suggests mixing of anglo/saxon and celts involving DNA research. I have found other research alluding to similar discussions online, but can't locate it right now.

"At one time it was widely believed that the Anglo-Saxons mostly supplanted the Celtic populations. Recent genetic studies disagree, suggesting the Anglo-Saxons established political and cultural dominance over the Celts and intermarried with them. In particular, analyses performed upon the mitochondrial DNA of modern day English suggest that any continental admixture from the period of Germanic invasions would have been almost exclusively derived from the male line, suggesting a process of intermarriage between male invaders and female indigenous Celts." experts.about.com/e/e/en/English_people.htm

Oh, by the way, it appears that someone might have hacked into the about.com website and made a redirect of the above link to wikipedia's website on "English people" sometime within the past 12 hours- a rather shocking development. Which means that as an educated professional, I am now going to copy and paste all of the submissions on this topic, until this little matter can be cleared up, and until the link to about.com is working properly again. I am starting to wonder whether there is some political and/or racial motivation behind one or more of the people who want this submission deleted.

You seem be be willing to designate "English people" as an ethnic group. I don't know how you can rationalize "English people" as an ethnic group, while at the same time dismissing anglo/saxon celts, or anglosaxoncelts as an ethnic group when there are millions of us all over the world. I am merely changing the spelling from Anglo/saxon celt, a term which is showing exponential growth, largely as a result of DNA research, Furthermore, the reduction of the term into one single word "anglosaxoncelt" is starting to see growth on the Internet. This ethnic designation applies to millions of the descendants of former colonists of the UK and Ireland. It is a good solid term which, by the way, is also 'unifying' and not divisive and full of controversy like the term "English", which is more of a linguistic term, "English" seems to separate the 'celts' from the rest of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, and furthermore, leaves the descendants of the colonists worldwide forever referring to ourselves as "Heinz fifty-sevens".

You need cultural experts, DNA experts, linguistic experts, anthropologists etc, on this topic. Submissions by bioligists and computer programmers, etc. to delete anglosaxoncelt or, if you prefer, anglo/saxon celt, from wikipedia, although important, I am afraid, are not adequate. The terms, anglo/saxon celt or anglosaxoncelt, should no be dismissed so lightly.

To quote Websters:

anglo-saxon: a person of English descent in any country

celtic: a branch of Indo-European languages spoken by the CELTS: Cornish, Breton and Welsh and Irish, Scottish, Gaelic and Manx.

So why not anglosaxoncelt or if you wish, the more traditional anglo/saxon celt?

I have read the page on wikipedia discussing 'anglo-celt'. I suppose the reason I am passionate about the addition of 'saxon' is because anglo/saxon is more commonly used in DNA research as well as celt. I don't see much of anglo-celt in DNA research papers. There should at least be a cross referencing of anglosaxoncelt and/or anglo/saxon celt to 'anglo-celt' until the matter can be settled. In Canada, an anglo-celt would be a person of celtic descent who speaks English, to be distinguished from a franco-celt, a person of celtic descent who speaks French. Ldjenks 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon is used in DNA research papers only when they are investigating the possibility of invasions during the Sub-Roman Britain period. Recently genetic markers assumed to be Anglo-Saxon have been shown to be indistinguishable from those of Danish-Viking origin. A more correct term for your meaning, that would cover the English (who are not exclusively descended from Brythonic and Anglo-Saxon people (see Danelaw) as well as the non-English inhabitants of the British and Irish Isles would be something like British and Irish people. You are exclusively describing descent from ancient times, modern English people are not Anglo-Saxons, and the ancient pre-Roman peoples of the islands would not have thought of themselves collectively as Celts. Your search on Google seems to be faulty, did you use quotes around your search words? I get 145 hits, one of which is to Stormfront, a nazi organisation, many of these do not use anglo/saxon celt as a single term, but simply have the two terms anglo/saxon and celt adjacent to each other in the text. The fact that English people seem to be descendants of both the indigenous Brythonic populations of Britain and immigrating Germanic peoples, does not detract from their status as an ethnic group. Not only is ethnicity not the same as descent, but what makes English people an ethnic group and nation has everything to do with their shared identity/history/culture/politics/language/religion in the millenium or so since the Anglo-Saxons ceased to exist. DNA studies can tell us a lot about our biological origins, they can tell us nothing about our ethnic/national identitues. Anyway surely the correct way to write it would be Anglo-Saxon-Celt. Alun 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Word doesn't exist and certainly isn't in usage, and the user is POV pushing. Someone who described themselves as an Anglo Saxon/Celt would be meaning they had English and Irish/Scottish/Welsh/Cornish ancestry. Their comments on the talk page for "English people" says it all.

Vinneyt6 21:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I see wikipedia is allowing the term anglo-celt, which is increasingly popular in Australia. Either both terms should be permitted or deleted as cultural referents.Ldjenks 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Anglo-Celt is an article about an Irish newspaper. Its existence is completely irrelevant to this debate. Geoffrey Spear 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I need to make a wee clarification. The Anglo-Celt as it refers to Australians is discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons Ldjenks 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 22:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Its Anglo-Celtic, and in this case the prefix Anglo refers to English (English people/English language and sometimes British people, as in Anglophobia, Anglophilia, Anglocentric, Anglophone or Anglo-Catholic) and not to the Angles as it does in Anglo-Saxons. The words English and England come from Anglo, as in Angle Land (land of the Angles). So use of Anglo in this term is not synonymous with it's use in Anglo-Saxon. Anglo-Celtic is a well known term in Australia and is not a neologism. Alun 09:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment So, to be clear, you're arguing against the deletion of one article based on the fact that a similar term, which does not have an article of its own, is mentioned in some other article on Wikipedia? Arguing that one bad article justifies another bad article is one thing, but arguing that a reference to a questionable term in a perfectly good article justifies a bat article borders on the absurd. -Geoffrey Spear 13:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are truly not being clear enough about why you are so hostile to anglo/saxon. It seems to me that your views have a political base; I WANT to hear them, because I am also interested in the anglo-celtic term, but I would prefer anglo-celt. You have to understand that anglo/saxon is a very well known term in Canada. What's wrong with it...and give me a well thought out, researched response along with your political views. I would like to hear both. I am probably going to start up a web page in Canada, and I need to coin a good term that works for us, but that also won't start a war of words throughout the former colonies and the UK and Ireland....As an aside, Germanics also massively settled in North America. At one time the USA debated adopting German as the official language. So perhaps that move in the USA to designate 'anglo-celts' was a response to the huge influence of Germanic populations in North American. But to tell you the truth, there has been so much intermarriage that anglo/saxon/celt seems most appropriate for North American descendents of the UK and Ireland these days.Ldjenks 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me that your views have a political base;

Whereas your views seem to have no basis in reality. You do not even seem to be aware of the meaning of the term Anglo-Saxon. Alun 15:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• give me a well thought out, researched response

Your responses to date have been neither well thought out nor researched. You have not even provided any citations, simply your opinion. Alun 15:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Please WP:AGF. I can't speak for anyone else's motivations, but I can assure you I have no objection whatsoever to you referring to yourself as an Anglo-Saxon Celt, Anglosaxoncelt, or any other label you wish to apply to yourself. This is an AfD discussion. The only thing that matters is that this term is not in common usage anywhere in the world, and Wikipedia is not the place to coin new terms, however good your argument that they should be used is. Geoffrey Spear 15:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Celtic has an article. It seems to have the same general meaning as the neologism anglosaxoncelt, given that this seems to be a well accepted term, and given that it uses the word Anglo in it's proper context (as in English), rather than using the term Anglo-Saxon (which has a completelly different meaning), I cannot understand why Ldjenks doesn't just use this term insted. Anglo-Celtic Isles is also sometimes used to describe the British and Irish Isles (search for both of these terms in wikipedia and you will be redirected to British Isles, a term many Irish people object too) and to refer to the peoples living on those Islands Anglo-Celtic.org.uk. So to summarise there are at least two terms that are more commonly used and more accurate than Anglo-Saxon/Celt, these are British and Irish or Anglo-Celtic. Ldjenks has failed to produce any verifiability for their term, I find it somewhat hypocritical that Ld then accuses others of not showing evidence of research. Alun 15:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Alun, I went to anglo-celtic.org.uk, and I would like to speak with the people who created the site, but they list no contact. How do I get in touch with them? I do wish you would truthfully tell me why you don't like the "saxon" word. Hopefully they will. I don't want to start up a web page until the name issues are settled. And you have to admit that anglo/saxon/celt is seeing growth on the Internet.

I'm relieved to see this anglo-celtic.org.uk page. I'ts time for reconciliation in the UK and Ireland, because the strife has hurt the descendents of the former colonists as well. But why anglo-celtic.org.uk and not anglo-celt.org.uk....why the "ic" on celtic?Ldjenks 16:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a completelly different issue, but the vast majority of people from Great Britain already consider themselves British, usually British and Welsh, British and Scots, British and English. Irish people mostly do not consider themselves British for different reasons. Alun 16:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Alun, if you give me an email address I can send you a file that will give you information about Canada that will likely rock your world. The file is circulating all over in Canada. It`s a pdf and takes about 900 k of space. Then maybe you will understand better the kinds of grassroots movements that are taking place in Canada, and maybe better understand why, worlwide, the descendents of the colonists are seeking unity. You can send me an email contact for you to lyjinx@hotmail.com. LDJenks

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.