Talk:Celts/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Needlessly Vague Language

"... the mid 1st millennium AD..." Really?! We can't be any clearer than that? Use numbers for crying out loud, even if you think this sort of rubbish sounds more stuffy and encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.228.6.74 (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Articles are collaborative efforts and there won't be many (any?) out there that can't be improved in some way. Have a read of Wikipedia:Be bold, which nicely frames the notion that anyone should feel free to edit an article if they feel they can improve it.
In this case, the vague language is probably a deliberate attempt to generalise about a process that was gradual and that we have insufficient information about to be more exact. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the exact timings of events relating to the contraction of Celtic culture and language and, in some cases, uncertainty about what the events were. Nobody knows exactly when Gaulish became extinct but it's sometime in the middle of the first millenium AD. The same is true for Common Brittonic in England and for Celtiberian, etc. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Celts of Britain: Genetically from northern Spain

The genetic studies in UK show that their are mainly of celtic backgroud (between 60 and 85%), and that their are genetically from the north of Spain.

Therefore, the Hallstadt origin is a myth, related with the "Greenland" and the "temperate weather in Germany" (-25ºC and in the polar climatic cell).

Then the Wiki website needs a complete rewrite.

--2001:4C50:21F:7300:F5D7:E07:1325:A4EF (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The Celts of Britain were not a unified genetic group. They had cultural and linguistic similarities in some part, but the idea of a once unified Celtic state is patent nonsense and an idea only pushed by romanticists and historical revisionists. Unsure about the Spanish (Urgh...Iberian!) claims. --90.55.0.204 (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC

..................

Interestingly, all those with the Spanish or Iberian claims are not Spanish or Iberian scholars but British scholars from geneticists like O.Sykes and S. Oppemheimer to Archaeologists like Barry Cunliffe, from Oxford University. Here you have a full lecture of his on the subject. He asserts that very few historians continue to support the traditional views on the origins of the Celts, while he is in the article in the minority views section, which speaks of the bad quality of the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8FM9nMFbfI

Here you also have an interesting lecture by O. Oppenheimer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEL7nCM5itg

So, either there is now a mysterious craze about being Iberian among British scholars interested in twisting all facts, or maybe it is just what they are finding out.

Cunliffe's ideas are not universally accepted. Celtic language still comes from Central Europe according to most scholars. Proto Celtic may have other origins as well but this is not sure. The genetic background from Iberia has nothing to do with that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Watch the lecture: 1. Cunliffe asserts that his views are now mainstream and that very few stick to the old theories. 2. He does relate it to genetics. 3. If I provide a source in the form a of lecture of a reputed archaeologist I follow Wikipedia's guidelines. If you provide your opinion that is considered self research and it is not accepted in Wiki. In any case, I have no ax to grid. Put whatever you want. The worse for the article and Wiki in this case. Those were my two pennies....JusanUser.

You should see the stuff going on between archeologists and linguists on matters like these..... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Basically, at the time the Iberians left their refuge in the vicinity of the Basque country and were headed for what is now England, there were no Indo-European languages spoken in Europe. So no Celtic either. Although I don't think that that's exactly what Cunliffe says. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course the issue is complicated. It is all in the two lectures. I do see in Wiki a tendency to favor theories based on 19th century science versus new theories based on 21st century science, here and in other similar or somehow related articles. Jusanuser.

Celtic mercenaries in the Eastern Mediterranean

If anyone is interested, a good source.[1] Doug Weller talk 15:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Celts in Croatia

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. The first source makes reference of Celts in Croatia in general and the rest concentrates on the La Tène culture in Croatia. Since I first applied this source in the article it didn't really work out the way I planned to. If there's a way to properly format any of these sources that'd be great. (N0n3up (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

A tourist guide is hardly a sufficient source, if you can find one please make the case here and remember that you are under restrictions in respect of reverts. The fact that you also reverted your own source, but did not revert the edit was meant to support could be considered disruptive ----Snowded TALK 06:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Snowded, first of all my revert restrictions mostly applied at the time given which has long passed and doesn't come to this case and appreciate if you concentrate on edit rather than making personal attacks, second, you failed to concentrate on the other sources which are certainly more than just a tourist guide manual. You also failed to realize that all the mentioned regions in the lead were as equally as sourced as the Croatia part you took out. Third, the reason I reverted my source rather than your edit was because I find it necessary to keep the article in the original form since it doesn't make any sense to keep Croatia out when all are equally as supported (rarely as a whole) and leave the article in a POV version rather than the original. (N0n3up (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
There is no particular reason to include Croatia in that paragraph which is a summary of regions. To include it you would have to show particular notability (hence the request for a reference). If you include Croatia without that then you have to start listing all countries. Otherwise I think you will find that your previous behaviour (and history of edit warring) will come into play pretty quickly if you are not careful. So not insert the material again with agreement on the talk page. ----Snowded TALK 07:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Snowded I would appreciate if you stop the personal attacks. Personally I don't agree with your statement "If you include Croatia without that then you have to start listing all countries" since countries can be mentioned as locations to reference where Celtic cultures such as La Tene had once occupied as regions tend to do the same as well. Sources mention the Celtic presence in Croatia, thus it should either go in the lead or body, but it's gotta go somewhere (unless there is and haven't checked properly). (N0n3up (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
If you repeat previous poor behaviour (not respecting WP:BRD then expect your previous sanctions to be mentioned; that is not a personal attack. As to the content, the section describes in the main areas with two (from memory) large countries mentioned specifically. Listing all countries with a Celtic presence, referenced or not would mean duplication (with the regional descriptions) and long lists of no particular value. If anything there is an argument for purely regional descriptions not mentioning any country. It does have to do somewhere unless it adds significantly to the usefulness of the article. ----Snowded TALK 07:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
If you were serious about WP:BRD, you would've not reverted the original neutral version twice and instead have discussed in the talk page for an edit you did. Personally, I think that the countries in the lead should stay to reference the region locations and be more specified as should've been done to info on Celts in modern-day Croatia, something I think you should've done instead of only erasing Croatia. Either mention Celts in northern "Illyria", northwestern Balkans or "Slavonia", a region in Croatia. (N0n3up (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
Sorry, I removed a contested addition per WP:BRD not an issue of neutrality but of needless additions. I did not initiate an edit so your statement above is false. Open to a specific suggestion of an amendment from you but otherwise let's see what other editors think. ----Snowded TALK 08:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Next time click on the revert or show in your edit summary that you reverted an edit, otherwise it will appear as you deleting a part of an article based on POV. I think it should stay either in the lead or body paragraph. Since there is clear reference about Celts and La Tene culture in Croatia. (N0n3up (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC))
Any even moderately experienced editor should not require that type of help, use the history toggles and you will make fewer false statements. Otherwise you are not addressing the argument, if Croatia why not every other country in all the regions mentioned? ----Snowded TALK 09:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed - some ?30 countries have Hallstatt or La Tene archaeology altogether. Ref 6 (3rd from last) above is much the most useful, and discusses how much of this is likely to be cultural influence without the presence of actual Celts, and how much movements in population. It only affects the north of the country for a relatively late period. Earlier and futher south, like all southern Europe, Celts moved through but seem not to have settled. We have "much of Central Europe" in there, which I think adequately covers the areas concerned for the lead. Croatia could certainly be mentioned in the "Eastward expansion" section, which should anyway mention "south" in its name (changed it). I think that section should perhaps be more cautious in implying that all the areas mentioned were Celtic in linguistic let alone ethnic terms. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Good point. But in reference to Celts in Croatia (if there were any) we should at least include this detail of the Celtic influence and possible Celtic presence in Croatia as an example of Celtic cultural influence in the region. (N0n3up (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2016

Remove line "One of many theories for the history of Europe is related to the building of Stonehenge and the Great Wall of China." No source for information.

149.169.174.76 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. The recent, rather dodgy edit has been reverted. Thanks for your vigilance! Favonian (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Genetics

I guess we have to write that the genetics of Wesern Europe is Basque-derived. This doesn't age the Celtic language here, of course. On the contrary, it speaks in favour of Celtic Hallstatt language diffusion in contrast to population replacement (at least on the Continent). --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Celts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Move from "To Do" list

Contentious points/poor refs no one has done (Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)): Move the article to the singular Celt so that educated people will take our encyclopedia more seriously. Reference works do not list entries in the plural form. I would do it myself now, but I'm new to this article and thought it would be better if someone with more time invested in it made the move. Eric talk 21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Use references like http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20101228-32083.html (December 2010) and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13225829 (May 2011) to document what BBC News calls evidence that the Celtic "heartland was actually in the region in the upper reaches of the Danube, from where the Celts could trade." Here's a quote from Dr Dirk Krausse, who is in charge of the excavation of the aristocratic burial site both articles are talking about, which is located at the Celtic hill fort at Heuneburg in Baden-Württemberg: "Celtic art and Celtic culture have their origins in south-western Germany, eastern France and Switzerland and spread from there to other parts of Europe. They were then squeezed by the tribes from the north and the Romans from the south, so that today they remain only on the western edges of the continent."

Couple questions/points

  1. The map at the top doesn't match the text. The text says that by "later La Tène period" Celtic culture had reached Poland, as well as, by 279BC, the Balkans. Yet the map does not note these areas in the "maximal Celtic expansion by 275BC".
  2. The sentence in the lede reads "in particular, the ways in which the Iron Age inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland should be regarded as Celts has become a subject of controversy". But it's difficult to verify this claim - which at least to a casual reader may appear extraordinary - with the given sources since no page #s are provided. This lede sentence also appears to refer to a fairly minor ("it should be noted...") portion of the main text and as such it's arguable whether this really belongs in the lede.
  3. The map File:Roman_period_tribes_in_Illyria_and_Lower_Pannonia.png says "Celtic tribes in S.E.Europe, c. 1st century BC (in purple)". While this is sort of a map of SE Europe (the Balkan part at least) there ain't no purple there.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the map seems not to match the text. I'm not sure that leading off with a map is particularly useful for the lede. Better, perhaps, to illustrate the topic with an example of what most readers (and scholars, of course) would recognise as distinctively or typically Celtic - not all things pertaining to Celts are controversial. Maps, correctly labeled, might be more useful in a sequence below.
I agree that the Celtic identity as "subject of controvery" seems only vaguely cited, and probably should not be given pride of place in the lede; though I'm not even sure how "controversial" it is.
Actually, "there be purple" in the Balkans map, though you'd need a very fine pair of eyes to see it - I had to don my ultra-power-specs - the Roman names for those tribes c. 1st century are written in purple. Haploidavey (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That Celtic "identity" is a subject of controversy cannot be overstated. I agree with the rest. Ceoil (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that the map says it shows "Diachronic distribution of Celtic peoples", while the text talks of "Celtic culture" and its diffusion - the two are not the same. It is easy enough to reference the controversy claim - most modern literature talks of little else. Some references are vague, others are books largely devoted to this topic, and a look at the cover blurb should suffice, should anyone actually reach the books to attempt verification. It is a point that most certainly belongs in the lead, & more precise quick refs would be nice. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If there are any changes that need to be made to the map to conform with sources, let me know and I'll make amendments. There's also a better quality vector version of the map, but it differs slightly: File:Celtic expansion in Europe.svg. Rob984 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Controversy implies there exists scientific or academic disputes. What is the controversy? It needs to be detailed if "controversy" is to be justified. Controversy is not intended to indicate a discrepancy exists between established academic opinions and popularly held beliefs that are based on general ignorance. Is there an ongoing academic controversy over the separating as distinct peoples the Celts of Europe and the inhabitants of Britain that are popularly also called "Celts"? Or are the academic disagreements actually about the degree of cultural influences and interactions between them? In other words, is there actually another controversy in addition to the "although the relationship between ethnic, linguistic and cultural factors in the Celtic world remains uncertain and controversial" one summarized in the lede. Isn't the "ways in which the Iron Age inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland should be regarded as Celts has become a subject of controversy" controversy really just an extension of that first "controversy"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Maps not very precise concerning Northern Italy

I want to signal that the maps concerning the expansion of the Celts in nowadays Northern Italy are not very precise: the actual Veneto region and also Trentino region were to the most part not inhabited by Celts. The Veneti and Raeti were NOT Celts. There should be an area in the North-East of nowadays Italy left outside the green color used for Celtic peoples and civilizations! The EXTREME North-East of Italy (nowadays Friuli), on the other hand, was indeed inhabited by Celts: the Carnii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.174.230.17 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"Celtic" language?

Don't the Celts speak Gaelic, technically? And, several dialects of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.252.22 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The Gaelic languages are a group of related languages that are (or were) spoken by some Celtic people, and their modern day descendants; but it would be wrong to say that all Celts spoke Gaelic. The Celts spoke a range of languages which included the Gaelic group, among others. See the article on Goidelic languages. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2017

Replace "rarely" with "or":

The Celts (/ˈkɛlts/, rarely or /ˈsɛlts/, see pronunciation of Celtic) […]

The link seems to contradict the claim of "rarely." 67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Done – Train2104 (t • c) 03:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit. "selts" as a pronunciation is vanishingly rare in the context of the subject in question. Whether football teams or newspapers are pronounced that way is neither here nor there. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. In contemporary usage, the words "Celt" or "Celts" are virtually never pronounced with a soft c. "Celtic" is, but only in the context of sports teams. In the context of discussing the language group or the ancient culture, it's always a hard c. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Then we should cite a source that supports these claims, rather than linking internally to something that does not. The supporting link still directly contradicts the claim. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Just occurred to me that I hadn’t mentioned it here, but the above user was me on a public network (and this is me on a private one). Sorry for any unintentional socking. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: If a reliable source can be provided that shows it is not rarely used, then it can be added. —MRD2014 talk contribs 01:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@MRD2014: But why keep the internal link giving conflicting information? That’s just confusing. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Let me reopen this for further discussion because of the confusion. —MRD2014 talk contribs 01:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify: The current requested edit is to either remove the “pronunciation of Celtic” link (optionally replacing it with a supporting source) or make the originally requested change. Without doing one of these, we’re contradicting ourselves. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This request can be acted on by any autoconfirmed editor and doesn't need an admin. But from what people have said so far, this edit which adds 'rarely' — EdJohnston — continues after insertion below
Actually this edit from February. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
should be undone until such time as anyone can source the 'rarely'. It doesn't make sense to have the Celts and Names of the Celts articles giving different pronunciation guides for the word 'Celts'. EdJohnston (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm leaving a ping for User:Ogress since she was the first to add 'rarely' to the article in February. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, there does appear to be some confusion here and it's one of British vs American English. According to The Routledge dictionary of pronunciation for current English (second ed.). Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge. 2017., "Celt" is always kelt in British English and either selt or kelt is acceptable in American English. "Celtic" is always keltic in both American and British English when referring to the languages and peoples and always seltic in both forms of English when referring to sports teams. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Great. Can we replace our pronunciation note with this information? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I've edited the lead to remove "rarely" and to refer to Names_of_the_Celts#Pronunciation "...for different usages" to implement the consensus arrived at here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Traditional Celtic Medicine

I am curious what traditional Celtic medicine consists of as I believe it should be covered by Wikipedia Project Traditional Medicine, a new wiki project which aims to construct a detailed anthropological pharmacopoeia of medicines used by peoples all over the world; to give wikipedia the multi cultural perspective it deserves. Please help increase coverage on organisms and minerals used traditionally in Celtic medicine so this topic can at least go from from peusdo science to social science. There is currently no page for traditional celtic medicine, help change the world.

  • If there is such a thing as "Traditional Celtic Medicine", then it, just like "Traditional Chinese Medicine" is pseudo-science, and should be covered as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunerat (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"Were" ?

"The Celts 'were' an Indo-European people..." The Celts still very much are. The article about the Slavs does not imply that they no longer exist. I think that the structure of this article should be amended. The Irish, the Scottish, the Welsh, the Bretons, these are the Celts living today, just as the Russians, Poles, Czechs, etc, are the Slavs still very much existing into the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:DD00:5000:74BF:7D41:2A93:18AE (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

See Celts (modern) for the modern day people. It's split like that because the ancient Celts were quite different in scope than the modern day Celtic nations, with their core territory being in modern-day central Europe. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with "were", as the modern use of Celts has changed the meaning; effectively, there are two different words that have the same spelling, and have separate articles, even though they had the same etymological root. --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, modern Slavs still speak Slavic languages. The Celtic languages are (sadly) dwindling minority languages in all the territories they're spoken in. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2018

The link to Celtic Warriors leads to a rugby team. I request that you either find the correct article, and link it to that, or just remove the link altogether. 206.219.152.10 (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not finding any separate articles to link to, so I've removed the link. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

*WAY* too much weirdness. (The Encyclopedia of Pedophilia – FFS)

Just noticed the whole section on gender opens with a bizarro sentence made to sound like Aristotle is its source which, in fact, seems to have been synthesized from a book ENTIRELY ON ANCIENT PEDAPHILIA.(!*) One that actually only includes the word 'celt' a miniscule number of times. (*FFS.)

Moreover, the entire upper gender section (about homosexuality) paints a picture so at odds with the widely documented historical record (ancient Roman sources) – which widely painted the Celts as savage warriors – that it's really hard not to view this as someone's strange private perversion on public pirade.

i.e. Stressing homosexuality first and foremost when talking of Celtic masculinity is a bit like stressing cross-dressing and pedophilia when discussing the golden era of Motown. (i.e. On account of Michael Jackson and Marvin Gaye's father.) Namely, so outside the norm that – again – it seems to / likely tells you infinitely more about the interests of the writer than the reality of his subject.

i.e. Not exactly 'grade A' material for the openning paragraph of the subsection.

- -

Let alone the dubiousness of linking such a prominent anthropology article back to what basically amounts to The Encyclopedia of Ancient Pedophilia.

(i.e. Something that might honestly raise the eyebrows of local police, let alone casual readers.)

- -

Bottom Line: The whole thing should at the very least be moved to the bottom of that section,

And that erroneous statement ('Aristotle') and its linked-to source material, either relocated to somewhere appropriate (???) or struck clean from the current / Celtic historical record.

Thanks. Respectfully.

Seipjere2 (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: Would do it myself but my original (eleven year-old) account was hacked.Seipjere2 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you rewrite it in English? Zezen (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Unclear map legend

Re: 

Main language areas in Iberia, showing Celtic languages in beige, c. 300 BC

What looks beige to me reads "Iberian" instead. Let us relabel the map or copy the color as graphics in the text. Zezen (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Streches

The word 'stretches' is misspelled in the first paragraph but I'm unable to edit it. Murdokdracul (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   Thanks for making the effort to “drop a flag” (or a dime) on that figurative “play”. An intervening edit seems to have obliterated the word completely, tho a confirmation by a colleague with a more limber toolbox than mine could be worth the (non-)ink & (non-)paper it’d cost us.
-JerzyA (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Celts as Indo-European speakers

Kip1234,

(1) "the entire premise of Indo-European people at all is hypothetical". => wrong, this is not a premise but an hypothetical conclusion that emerged from the widely accepted demonstration that a Proto-Indo-European language existed in time. This means that there were speakers (≠ people) of this language since (a) purely constructed languages like Esperanto did not exist at that time, and (b) writing was also unknown so it could not have been a literary language like Classical Latin; on the other hand, you’re right to note that concluding that a “people” spoke this language remains hypothetical (although one could point out that the linguistic geographical extent must have remained restricted; otherwise, we would observe important dialectal variations);
(2) "that only ever lived in Europe and never came close to being part of any other continent.” => wrong, Celts have migrated towards Anatolia, which is not on the European continent;
(3) a clarification in terminology: “Indo-European people” (speakers of an Indo-European language) does not equal “Proto-Indo-European people” (speakers of the original (proto-) Indo-European language).
(4) "If languages pass between different peoples does that automatically mean that those peoples are part of the same category?" => yes, that's exactly the point. Culture can be transmitted to people that don't share the same genetic background. Celts are not a "race" but a cultural group. Alcaios (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Alcaios

Thanks for engaging on here. As you have just recognised (very astutely), I did not change any references to the category of Indo-European languages on the article of "celts" or "celtic people" because most modern scholars have grouped a sub-section of languages together in this way. Likewise, on the separate page of "celtic languages" I have also not modified mentions of the category of "indo-european" languages.

  • The original "Proto-Indo-European language" evolved and differed as the people who spoke it migrated to different continents. These languages have evolved and spread in much the same way as the original people who spoke it (from ONE particular area). That is why there are many similarities between Urdu, Pashtun and Arabic for instance. Are the people who speak these languages classed as a mixture of Afro-Asiatic and Indo-Europeans because they happen to speak a particular language? What "people" are they according to your logic of "indo-european people"? If you want to get involved in that debate, here's a link to get started: Hindi–Urdu controversy.
  • Indeed, there there is less than 1% genetic difference on average between the average Chinese, Japanese and Korean alone. The same research showed that in Europe alone there was a 10% genetic difference on average between the people of that continent.[1][2] There are also large/identical genetic similarities between the Han and many Vietnamese and Thai people. Yet, the Han supposedly belong to the "Sino-Tibetan" language family, the Japanese to the "Japonic language" family, the Thai to the "Kra-Dai" and Vietnamese to the "Mon–Khmer" and the Koreans to the "Koreanic". Maybe you would assert that all of these people are Mainland South-East Asian people according to your logic? I'm not sure, I can only keep up with recent scholarly interpretations. This is despite the fact that Chinese and Japanese alone are incredibly similar (using broadly the same alphabet in a similar way to most of Central and Western Europe).
  • Leaving aside the dubious linguistic categorisation of Indo-European compared to other language families, which includes an untold amount of alphabets and other fundamental linguistic differences, my basic point is that the Celtic people have no connection to India or Asia Major (and the vast majority of Asia Minor) because some scholars have argued that their languages are considered to be part of one linguistic family. The Celtic people originated in Europe, stayed in Europe (99% of them) and only survive in Europe today.
  • 4) "Celts are not a race but a cultural group." This article is about Celtic PEOPLE. Even within the wider European "race" (which I didn't actually mention) modern-day Celtic people have different genetic characteristics on average (highest prevalence of red hair being the best example) that were and are associated with people paler than all other ethnicities. Why did no Celts go further south/beyond Galacia? A large part of that was because evolution meant that they probably wouldn't have survived particularly well in these areas because of their inherent racial or genetic visible features (paler skin etc.). On this point, what if someone speaks more than one language- what "people" do they belong to according to you? A cultural group is not the most important aspect of a "people" and can even change within a generation multiple times. If you want to create a new category of cultural group to reflect the fact that the Celts have had no contact whatsoever with "Indo" people then feel free. I will eagerly await these latest feat of scholarly, linguistic and genetic interpretations and conclusions.

Kip1234 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"there are many similarities between Urdu, Pashtun and Arabic for instance" => that does not make them part of the same language family, like English is not a Romance language because 2/3 of its vocabulary is from Latin/Old French. That's not how we define a language group (the systematic comparison of intra-linguistic facts that cannot be explained by chance or borrowing).
"some scholars have argued that their languages are considered to be part of one linguistic family". => are you serious? Can you provide an example of a contemporary linguist that does not state that?
"A large part of that was because evolution meant that they probably wouldn't have survived particularly well in these areas because of their inherent racial or genetic visible features (paler skin etc.)." => wow... wow... wow... are you aware that Ancient Celts were not even genetically homogeneous in Ancient times since their languages were adopted by indigenous peoples in the lands they settled or do you think that Celtic speakers exterminated and replaced all indigenous peoples in modern-day France Spain or the Balkans (and later Ireland)? You seem to equal modern Irish and Welsh with Celts.
And what does genetics have to do with that? We use genetics to understand ancient mating networks and migrations, not to make racial categorization. I use the word "race" because you clearly consider Celts as a race (e.g., "If languages pass between different peoples does that automatically mean that those peoples are part of the same category?"; "A cultural group is not the most important aspect of a "people" and can even change within a generation multiple times."). Am I reading Richard B. Spencer? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have a Romantic and racialist vision of Celts.
"If you want to create a new category of cultural group to reflect the fact that the Celts have had no contact whatsoever with "Indo" people then feel free. I will eagerly await these latest feat of scholarly, linguistic and genetic interpretations and conclusions." => I don't get what you mean, but I can provide many examples of linguistic cognates and mythological reflexes common to Ancient Celtics and Vedic India if this is what you mean. Alcaios (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
"There are also large/identical genetic similarities between the Han and many Vietnamese and Thai people. Yet, the Han supposedly belong to the "Sino-Tibetan" language family, the Japanese to the "Japonic language" family, the Thai to the "Kra-Dai" and Vietnamese to the "Mon–Khmer" and the Koreans to the 'Koreanic'." => so what? Sicilians are genetically closer to Palestinians than Swedish. The language is not the culture, but it gives a vision of the world. If you speak English, watch English shows and your parents chose to give you an English name, for instance, you're closer to the English culture than the Irish culture, regardless of your genetic relationship with Ancient Celtic speakers. PS: Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area is a Sprachbund. You seem to confuse different concepts of historical linguistics, which makes it difficult to understand what you seek to demonstrate. Alcaios (talk)

Alcaios

Ironically, your argument for an Indo-European "people" is far more like Richard B. Spencer's than you seem to be aware. There are extensive racist arguments that support the idea of "Indo-Europeans" being racially superior to other Asian races, hence why they were (apparently) able to conquer/settle land to such a wide extent. I would like to point out that it is you bringing up "race" and then citing a racist orator to try and prove your point, whereas I would prefer it if we could stick to "ethnicities" and leave these unrelated topics out of it.

However, you are definitely not "reading Richard B. Spencer", largely because you were the one who brought race into it. Ethnicities/Peoples are not just the languages that they may speak or even the cultures that they may have, nor the category of linguistic family that SOME scholars have asserted. Your comparative method of grouping languages should mean that Japanese, Han Chinese, Koreans, (probably Vietnamese as well) are all definitively part of the same "people" but because this has been vigorously opposed by scholars and politicians this has not been done so. That's why there's the classification of "East Asian languages" or wait, is it "Sinitic Languages"? Does this language (and ethnic categorisation according to you) include Tibetic languages/ethnicities or the Bai languages/ethnicity? Oh, but the "Sino-Tibetan" language categorisation must mean that they are all the same ethnicity/people, even though the comparative method shows that Tibetan and Han Chinese are less related than the vast majority of all other East Asian people's languages. Now there's some confusion over the similarity of Turkic languages and East Asian- are they all Altaic languages? My point is to show that linguistic families are subjective according to different linguists and appears to be changing pretty frequently according to whom you speak.

Leaving aside your complete lack of consistency on this matter, which I could go into further with Urdu/Pashtun/Arabic etc. of conflating ethnicities/peoples with language grouping and scholarship, I will try and make it more specific to the Proto-Indian-Aryan people/language. First of all, there are no written records for the existence of this language and there could be plenty of other factors that might have influenced similarities between modern-day "Indo" languages and "Aryan/European languages". Do you know that Greek and Sanscrit are commonly cited to prove the similarity of larger "European" and "Indian" languages, but that Alexander the Great conquered much of Asia Minor and Major before eventually stopping just shy of modern-day India. Do you think that this extremely short-term migration created a new "people" or might just have influenced some aspects of these languages? The fact that there are no written records seems to mean that linguistic scholars (not ethnographic or demographic scholars) who were the first to propose this (according to you) ethnic grouping have relied upon these modern-day similarities to extrapolate their theory and have it accepted as fact. How does the (seemingly separate) existence of a Proto-Turkic Language (and people) fit into this argument of Proto-Indo-European people?

Leaving aside the purely linguistic categorisation and comparison that you seem to have adopted (which has inconsistencies anyway) and seems to forget that people and languages can move temporarily (that probably does not constitute the creation of new ethnicities/peoples each time), where does this end? If the first people came from Africa, are all subsequent ethnicities/peoples that came into being in different parts of the world considered African? You seem to also forget that there is no proven place as to where the Proto-Indo-European language actually supposedly first originated from: the Kurgan Hypothesis (the one you seem to have gone with) argues the steppes of the Black Sea, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov argue Anatolia, the Indigenous Aryans model seems to argue for the Indus Valley and then there seem to be other slightly different variations that would argue for other places in Eurasia to name but a few.

Frankly, I see that you've been active on other pages like Slavs and Germanic Peoples and in Indo-Aryan peoples and I may soon start questioning this in a similar manner to other ethnicities: Han Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Turkic Peoples, Muhajir that appear to have been grouped together/classified on a radically different basis. I will eagerly await the arbitrarily-selective arguments that will allow certain ethnicities to be classified in certain ways whilst demanding that others are grouped together in a different manner.

Kip1234 (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Folks, WP:TLDR (Is this becoming Talk:Germanic languages, part 2?). And sick to see editors implicitly comparing e.o. to Richard Spencer. That's a toxic insult.

Just looking at the edit summaries, I agree with Kip1234 here. If "Indo-European peoples" means "ethnic groups speaking Indo-European languages", as Alcaios suggests, then let's say exactly this, e.g. in following manner:

"The Celts are a collection of European peoples identified by their use of languages of the Celtic branch of the Indo-European languages."

"Indo-European peoples" is a weasel expression. Using it, we create a shady ambiguity as if we wanted to suggest that these contemporary ethnic groups have more in common than just their linguistic affiliation, i.e. if we didn't know they spoke languages of the same language family, we could still define a bundle of shared cultural features that unites them to the exclusion of other ethnic groups. And this is of course nonsense, not just for "Indo-European peoples", but even also for "Romance peoples" (which I gladly supported to be deleted in an AfD), "Modern Germanic peoples" and so on ad nauseam (anyone for Talk:Ugric peoples? I mean except for the racialist sockmaster Sprayitchyo?). I could open another round for "The Celts were...", but I won't.

19th century ideologists tried to divide Europe (and the rest of the world) by setting up linguistically-based ethnic demarcation lines, according to which e.g. Bavarians are supposed to be more closely "related" to Icelanders than to Bohemians. The most asinine example is Turanism, based on an obsolete linguistic proposal.

I strongly suggest not to use "Indo-European" for anything else than the languange family and things pertaining to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-Europeans. FWIW, Indo-European peoples redirects to Proto-Indo-Europeans, and that’s a good thing, because Indo-European peoples aren’t a thing. –Austronesier (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Austronesier

Hi, Austronesier I appreciate a slightly more objective perspective that realises I am not doing this on the basis of some ethnic nationalist identity. I do not oppose the grouping of certain languages in this way but as most people know people and languages aren't the same.

I am very confused as to the abritary grouping of ethnic groups based on a relatively recent linguistic argument that has been applied to some (Celts, Slavs, Germanic Peoples and possibly "Indo-Aryans") but ignores others such as Turkic Peoples (which should actually be "Turkic-SPEAKING peoples", Muhajir people and more. I am also very conscious of this being very inconsistently applied to a whole host of ethnic groups and linguistic groups in East Asia and South-East Asia and have personal experience of significant opposition on these pages that imply or state that they are much more closely genetically related languages, people and cultures.

I have not changed any reference to a Proto-Indo-European language (even though no written records of it actually exist) because I am not a linguistic scholar and that is a separate topic to ethnic groups. I would also suggest that categorising Slavs and Germanic Peoples as "Indo-European peoples" should be changed for the same reasons as above. Otherwise, all East Asian and South-East Asian ethnic groups would have to be changed, as would a significant percentage of groups in the Middle East and South Asia and probably quite a few in Africa as well. This is going to create an almighty battle but I would suggest the easier option is for Alcaios to differentiate between languages and ethnic groups. Likewise, where does this end? Technically the first people came from Africa, so does that mean that all ethnic groups should be described as African?

It initially started off as a geographic correction, as the Celtic ethnic group has never been anywhere close to "Indo" regions, but I then corrected this to include reference to a small part of the Middle East. Ethnic groups are not just determined by the languages that they speak. I speak Chinese and rudimentary Japanese, so does that mean that me or my descendants will be Anglo-Celtic-Sino-Tibetan-Japonic? It's inconsistently applied and makes no logical sense to conflate ethnic groups and linguistic similarities in this way.

It gets even shadier when it's revealed that the main evidence that this is based on is the fact that Sanscrit is similar to some European languages (most notably Greek, which is not Celtic). This completely ignores historical invasions and migrations that may have influenced these similarities (Alexander the Great is one of the most obvious links/possible explanations).

Please let me know if you think that Germanic Peoples and Slavs should also be changed. By the way, I found it amusing that his argument for the existence of Indo-European people is far more racially inflammatory than mine -just ask the Dravidian peoples (which again should be Dravidian-SPEAKING peoples or slightly corrected.

Regards,

Kip1234 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kip1234: "I am not a linguistic scholar" No need to stress that, it perfectly shows in your musings that the similarities between Sanskrit and Greek may have been influenced by historical invasions and migrations (Alexander the Great etc.). You don't have to be a linguistic scholar in order not to state something like that. I agree with your basic point that ethnicity and linguistic affiliations are two things, but I'm afraid the rest of your arguments don't serve well for the purpose of advancing that point. –Austronesier (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

:@Austronesier:

Fair enough, but I have seen the comparative method between Greek and Sanscrit being extrapolated to then prove the existence of Indo-European "People", rather than a hypothetical Proto-Indo-European language that may be the origin for many incredibly different and distinctive languages. Do you not see how the comparative method for Japanese, Chinese, Korean etc. has definitely not been extrapolated to categorise all of these ethnic groups together on their articles (and other such examples)? Following on from that, why are Slavs and Germanic Peoples also considered to be Indo-European PEOPLES on their articles in this manner? My basic point is that pages should also be changed. I would suggest something more like: "Celts are a group of overwhelmingly European (European for Germanic Peoples and Eurasian for Slavs) that lived over .......(wherever), who are commonly grouped together by Celtic/Germanic/Slavic languages, cultural similarities and relatively distinctive physical features. Celtic/Germanic/Slavic languages are considered by many to be Indo-European languages by virtue of the comparative method, which has prompted discussion over the existence of Indo-European people."

It's a far clearer distinction in line with other ethnic groups articles that I have seen.

Basically not arguing Ethnolinguistic groups and ethnic groups to be the same thing.

Kip1234 (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier:,
I'm glad to see that you tolerate such racialist thinking as This article is about Celtic PEOPLE. Even within the wider European "race" (which I didn't actually mention) modern-day Celtic people have different genetic characteristics on average (highest prevalence of red hair being the best example) that were and are associated with people paler than all other ethnicities. Why did no Celts go further south/beyond Galacia? A large part of that was because evolution meant that they probably wouldn't have survived particularly well in these areas because of their inherent racial or genetic visible features (paler skin etc.). Africans living in Europe will appreciate that they won't "survive particularly well" due the colour of their skin. This is wrong anyway since humans adapt over the generations to their environment. Alcaios (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
PS: The definition of "Celts" according to Drinkwater: A name applied by ancient writers to a population group occupying lands mainly north of the Mediterranean region from Galicia in the west to Galatia in the east. (Its application to the Welsh, the Scots, and the Irish is modern.) Their unity is recognizable by common speech and common artistic traditions. Alcaios (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Alcaios: I'm glad to see that you tolerate such racialist thinking, I don't. WP:AGF, wtf! I just happened to stick to the topic. –Austronesier (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This is full of linguistic revisionism Austronesier (e.g., some scholars have argued that their languages are considered to be part of one linguistic family whereas virtually all linguists are stating that), so it seems that you haven't read the messages and rather focused on my provocative comparison with Spencer. But anyway, let's forget this petty feud. Kip1234 please accept my apologies regarding the comparison with Spencer. You're certainly a racialist, but there is no evidence that you are a supremacist so it was a libel. I withdraw this statement.
Other examples of linguistic revisionism: Do you know that Greek and Sanscrit are commonly cited to prove the similarity of larger "European" and "Indian" languages (no, we use the systematic comparison of linguistic facts between several languages to classify them within the same family) – the Indigenous Aryans model seems to argue for the Indus Valley and then there seem to be other slightly different variations that would argue for other places in Eurasia to name but a few. (so now the IAT is just a theory among other theories) – Your comparative method of grouping languages should mean that Japanese, Han Chinese, Koreans, (probably Vietnamese as well) are all definitively part of the same "people" (they don't even belong to the same language family), It gets even shadier when it's revealed that the main evidence that this is based on is the fact that Sanscrit is similar to some European languages (most notably Greek, which is not Celtic). This completely ignores historical invasions and migrations that may have influenced these similarities (yes, systematic linguistic similarities between Old Irish and Sanskrit can certainly be explained by Alexander's conquest) etc. Alcaios (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Now that we can start on a clean slate, let's stick to Drinkwater's definition: "Celts are population group [or: peoples] defined by common languages and artistic traditions." Alcaios (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
PS: the argument that the Proto-Indo-European-language, which has been reconstructed based upon systematic linguistic similarities, with sound changes explained by sound laws in a predictive manner, is somehow contestable because there is not written record would be the equivalent of saying to an astrophysicist that the Big Bang didn't happen because the event has been reconstructed based upon observations of the current state and evolution of the Universe. Alcaios (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

::@Alcaios:

− − So you accept that your theory for the origin of a Proto-Indo-European language is just one of many then? The comparative method hasn't been applied consistently and the similarities between Greek and Sanscrit (as well as Latin) ARE commonly cited to prove the existence of a wider Indo-European language and people.[3] [4]

Once again you are confusing races and ethnic groups, stop it. There is no evidence that I am a "racialist" or have "racialist thinking", merely that I have pointed out that the Celts were/are an ethnic group within one particular area. As I have previously pointed out, the existence of "Indo-European people" is a historically far more racist argument than pointing out that the Celts were an ethnic group within Europe, as this has been used to assert allegations of racial supremacy. I also pointed out that in 1000 years BC being very pale-skinned likely meant that you wouldn't have been able to survive and reproduce very well in hotter climates, which is why Celtic populations are overwhelmingly found in (and still are within Europe) although yes this has changed considerably since the Industrial Revolution.

In my opinion, you are confusing Ethnolinguistic groups and ethnic groups, somewhat like calling someone a racial supremacist/racist because they don't agree with your definition of "people". Can you please answer how the Turkic peoples and their separate Proto-Turkic Language fits into your model?

Don't apologise by making another Personal Attack against me, even if we disagree. You have committed libel again and I will consider how to proceed.

Kip1234 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Source Two".
  2. ^ "European and East Asian Genetic Differences Range".
  3. ^ "Greek Sanscrit Similarities Indo-European Language and People 1".
  4. ^ "Celtic to Latin/Greek to Sanskrit".
There are 3 main theories on the PIE homeland (rather 2 now since the Anatolian hyp. has been falsified), and IAT is not one of them. Read: Proto-Indo-European homeland.
We don't reconstruct PIE by comparing Ancient Greek and Sanskrit only (btw we have written record of both languages way before Alexander's conquest). Read: Comparative method (the sub-section /principles/ in particular).
Stop with your argument that "in 1000 years BC being very pale-skinned likely meant that you wouldn't have been able to survive and reproduce very well". Humans have migrated and adapted to their environment since the first migration out of Africa ca. 75K BC.
You are accusing me of conflating terms while you have repeatedly proven with pseudo-arguments that you don't understand historical linguistics. I wouldn't dare debating people on General relativity for instance, it would be ridiculous.
I think we can close this discussion now and adapt the lede to Drinkwater's definition. I'm losing my time answering your nonsensical arguments.
PS: my account is being DDOSed so I can't log in or edit any longer 92.184.117.181 (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (not a DDOS, global technical issue with the platform)
PS2: don't edit or alter my messages. 92.184.117.181 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Alcaios

Just notifying you that I have requested administrative action because of some of the language that you have used. I have recorded all of these remarks with screenshots.

Kip1234 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Kip1234, you don't need to take screenshots, everything is stored in the history of edits. Alcaios (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Would have just saved me some effort if revisions had been made.

Kip1234 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kip1234: Make use of the time then gained through saving your efforts to get acquainted with comparative linguistics.
@Alcaios: The Drinkwater definition is a good working base. I like their formulation "common speech", which elegantly avoids the question until when the Celts spoke mutually intelligible dialects. The famous Jerome passage suggests that the Continental lects were at least recognizably similar until the late Classical era. –Austronesier (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier:

Hi,

I would recommend more specific examples on the comparative linguistics to show the application of the various methodologies. It might mean that people who are acquainted with it are less likely to apply comparisons selectively, misinterpret or equate differing languages/language families. Maybe a section on different theories as well.

Thanks,

Kip1234 (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Struck out comments by blocked sock–Austronesier (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Just read a handbook on comparative linguistics. The current scientific consensus is that Proto-Indo-European existed in time, which implies that there were speakers of this language. The part that is debated is whether we can conclude that there was a PIE people or not. There is no serious scientist who argues that there was no PIE language and or PIE speakers. There are no "various methodologies" and linguists don't apply it "selectively". This is the foundation of historical linguists: you compare linguistic facts within a system of correspondences. As A. Meillet said : "Every linguistic fact is part of a whole in which everything is connected to everything else. One detail must not be linked to another detail, but one linguistic system to another." Alcaios (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing the lead per Drinkwater

@Alcaios: Now that the sock has been blocked, we can proceed without further disruption with your earlier proposal. –Austronesier (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I didn't expect a ban. In any case, I'll avoid making such comparisons when engaging with another editor in the future. Krakkos has adapted and sourced the lede. The denomination "Indo-European people" has been sourced too, but I concede that this is difficult to draw a line: the same debate has occurred on Germanic peoples (are Jamaicans and modern Irish, who speak a Germanic language, Germanic peoples?) Alcaios (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Alcaios: Yeah, Krakkos sure has these source up his sleeve. You will find just as many sources (or maybe even more) that do not call the Celts "Indo-European people" (e.g. Drinkwater). And it's not just about obvious cases like Jamaicans, it's about this 19th-century POV that linguistic affiliation is a primary token to characterize and classify an ethnic group. Again, my favorite example, is there any non-linguistic reason to classify Bavarians in a group that contains Icelanders, but not Bohemians? I'd gladly find a consensus with you to adopt the Drinkwater defintion for the lede instead tacitly accepting a drive-by cite bombing. :)
As for the other matter, I didn't expect a ban either. But look at it that way: if you already notice there's Randy in Boise in front of you, you can bet on it they won't be capable to communicate by exchanging reasonable arguments, but will jump on every piece of bait that you and I are "dumb" enough to set out (you by making the Spencer comparison, me by scolding you in front of them for that just because I was too lazy to look what actually has been said). –Austronesier (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Austronesier: You're right, Ancient Greeks did not consider themselves part of the same cultural group as Keltoi, Germani or Persians. That said, the denomination "Indo-European people" can be relevant to a certain point, especially when referring to pre-literate societies that have maintained strong similarities with the (reconstructed) PIE societal and religious concepts.
The main arguments for classifying ethnic groups according to languages are the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (I support a weak or limited version of it) and Linguistic determinism (which is too radical to be a reasonable proposition in my view). That said, even though language is a main component of a culture/identity, it remains only one aspect among many others.
The article ethnic group provides this quote from People & Bailey (2010): In essence, an ethnic group is a named social category of people based on perceptions of shared social experience or one's ancestors' experiences. Members of the ethnic group see themselves as sharing cultural traditions and history that distinguish them from other groups. I think that this a reasonable definition.
Perhaps: Celts were an Indo-European people ===> Celts were an Indo-European-speaking people. What do you think Krakkos? Alcaios (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:GOODDEF, Wikipedia should define its concepts by "giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept". As far as i know, most sources, including John F. Drinkwater, consider speaking Celtic languages to be the primary characteristic of the Celts. In his monumental Celtic Culture (2006), John T. Koch identifies Celtic languages as the "defining criterion" of all things Celtic.[9] Celtic languages are Indo-European, and i assume this is the reason why Celtic studies scholars such as Proinsias Mac Cana define Celts as "Indo-European people".[10] In my opinion, limiting them to merely being an "Indo-European-speaking people" is somewhat misleading, as their religion, law and other cultural traditions were also at least partially derived from an earlier Indo-European root. Having said that, i agree that the lead has potential for improvement, particularly with regards to trimming its size and detail. Krakkos (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Krakkos: Indeed, "John T. Koch identifies Celtic languages as the defining criterion of all things Celtic". But instead of stringing this information into a SYNTH-chain of arguments, we'd better have a look at Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia itself. In this work, the Celtic people are not even once called an "Indo-European people", in fact, the term "Indo-European people" only appears once on 2,128 pages in the entry Gwened (p.820) ("Veneti was also the name of a non-Celtic but Indo-European people in northern Italy"). We should follow the practice of WP:BESTSOURCES in not over-emphasizing things that are not emphasized in those sources either. –Austronesier (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
PS: I'm not AL, so I don't feel strongly about it :) Content-building starts with the lead, but does not die with a not yet fully perfect one. –Austronesier (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Alcaios: The quote from People & Bailey (2010) is good and works well for individual ethnic groups, and sometimes even clusters of ethnic groups who are either aware of sharing cultural traditions and history beyond the individual group level, or are perceived as similar by their neighbors (the ancient Keltoi and Germani seem to fall somewhere between latter two models). NB: when I say "aware", I don't mean science-based constructs that are socialized by ideologists. An interesting case of a self-identifying cluster are the Iroquois, where inclusion only partially overlapped with the linguistic grouping.
If we seriously wanted to apply the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis and Linguistic determinism here (which are retroactive arguments for classifying ethnic groups according to languages, since the concept is older), typological features IMO would be the proper classifaction markers rather than genealogical affiliation. E.g. I would except lack of an infinitive and the existence of a definite article in Bulgarian as part of the Balkan sprachbund to have a stronger Sapir–Whorfian impact than inherited features shared with Slavic sister languages.
"The denomination "Indo-European people" can be relevant to a certain point, especially when referring to pre-literate societies that have maintained strong similarities with the (reconstructed) PIE societal and religious concepts" That's of course a good point, especially where societal and religious concepts are still denoted by cognate words meaning the same thing. The question remains about how much primacy is given to this when we look at the culture of an ancient population in its entirety. For the Romans, Celts and Aquitanians were barbarians alike, and we will never know whether Celts perceived their Italic neighbors as more akin than the Aquitanians. –Austronesier (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I would also stress the limits of my argument (The denomination "Indo-European people" can be relevant to a certain point, especially when referring to pre-literate societies that have maintained strong similarities with the (reconstructed) PIE societal and religious concepts”). PIE concepts themselves are identifiable because they have been retained in several attested traditions. It could turned into a form of circular reasoning if not applied carefully. Alcaios (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Alcaios: I agree about the potential of circularity. But I also admit that retained Indo-European cultural elements are defining insofar as they are identifiable, whereas cultural elements not tracable to the Proto-Indo-Europeans are mostly unidentifiable (in the case of the Celts). It is certainly safer to base a definition on identifiable features rather than on unidentifiable ones that could maximally be given the "wastebasket label" pre-Indo-European. In linguistics, it is much easier: extreme cases of language-mixing aside, as long as the core vocabulary is identifiably IE, the languages remains IE, regardless of how much non-IE elements it has absorbed. But once we leave linguistics: what is the "cultural core", and how do we quantify the degree of the "IE-ness" of that "cultural core" in order to say that it is still predominantly IE...? –Austronesier (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Austronesier: that is difficult to say. Even if a particular concept can be found in many attested traditions, this does not necessarily mean that it was "central" to PIE speakers. It just means that it has been generally preserved. Perhaps I-E speakers did not simply need or dit not find the opportunity to replace this concept with a new one.
That said, one argument may be the extent and transversality of a concept (how deeply it is integrated in the different cultures). The PIE idea of ’fame’ (*ḱléwos), for instance, is attested in the poetic formulas, myths, personal names, etc. of many traditions. This is a stronger case for a central PIE concept that just simply observing the preservation of this root in the lexicons. Alcaios (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Social and sexual practices

Something which be worth further research is the practice of partible paternity: In The Gallic Wars, Book one, Chapter 14, Julius Caesar writes about the Celts who inhabited Kent in England: "Ten and even twelve have wives common to them, and particularly brothers among brothers, and parents among their children; but if there be any issue by these wives, they are reputed to be the children of those by whom respectively each was first espoused when a virgin."

It's Book 5. Don't trust Wikipedia[11]. –Austronesier (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Salt mining and trading of the early Celts

There is no mention of salt mining and salt trading of the early Celts of the section on Hallstatt Culture. Anyone who has been to Hallstatt and the surrounding rugged mountains, lakes, and narrow valleys must wonder why the early Celts lived there. It could not have been for agriculture, and even hunting could not have been good on these steep slopes. Iron working is mentioned, but more important surely was salt mining, as the whole area was rich in salt deposits and is full of ancient salt mines. Nearby Salzburg is said to have been the transshipment point of salt, presumably to take it down the Salzach River to the Danube and up and downstream from there. 71.163.151.170 (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Editors: I can't cite specific references for this offhand, but shall be glad to research the topic and draft a para for insertion into the article. Various articles on salt mining on the internet mention that it goes back to Celtic times. Please let me know. Gerhard Tschannerl, EM tschannerlx2@yahoo.com 12/26/20

There's a good deal at Hallstatt culture, where it mostly belongs. This article has a much wider canvas, but a sentence could be added. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

English are Celts?

Should the Category:English people be placed into the Category:Celtic ethnic groups where it is currently as of 23 May 2021. Historically of course Celtic Britons of England are but when it comes to the English people category there appears to be a dispute surrounding this when English people are today categorised from a modern perspective as Germanic peoples and English is a Germanic Language and not a Celtic language and from a modern perspective they today are not consider to be Celtic as seen here {{Pan-Celticism}} where on the table where they are placed under "other claimants" If this is indeed the case then on this basis shouldn't all of the "other claimants" on this table also be placed into this category Celtic ethnic groups? as the Celtic League definition also states the "other claimants" and it could possibly confuse the readers.

RyTellyFan91 (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

In reality, there are *no* "Celtic peoples" in the modern world; the entire thing is just as much a sociopolitical artificial construct as modern "Germanic peoples", etc. So having a perceivedly flimsy claim might not separate the English from anyone else here.--Calthinus (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
This hinges on how the term 'ethnic group' is defined. Obviously, many or most of the people generally said to be inhabitants of a modern Celtic nation do not speak a Celtic language as their first language, or at all, and their ancestors may not have spoken one for generations. The ancestors of Lowland Scots, may not have spoken a Celtic tongue for the best part of a millennium, or, for the folk of Lothian, even longer. That being said, a Celtic ethic group seems to comprise any nationality that includes Celtic speakers today, or that included Celtic speakers in the past. As only about 38% of the genetic markers of the modern English population derive from Germanic incomers, this means that well over half of the ancestry of the English is derived from native Britons who once spoke Celtic dialects. Where do you place the temporal cut-off point for derivation from Celtic-speakers to differentiate between real or imaginary Celticity? Urselius (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Or we can be honest and say it's all imaginary. And since when do we determine membership in a group delimited using historical linguistics with genes? --Calthinus (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Celtic identity is real and important because enough people think that it is real and important, same with God, it doesn't matter if it is imaginary or not. Look at the literature - genetics, language and material culture are conflated, for imaginary or real reasons, all the time!
Identity is -- but the specific identity existed only in the last couple centuries. It is not something continuous throughout history. We have no right to argue about which "claimant" is more "Celtic" than another one. We don't even know that the ancient Irish ever identified as Celts at all -- originally the term referred mainly to central Gaul (Celtica) and historically related regions plus cases like the Celtiberi and Celtici in Iberia. Hardly any descendants of "Celtic" named peoples of antiquity still speak Celtic languages, or even did when the modern "Celtic identity" emerged. Most had long ago adopted Romance languages, and to a lesser extent others.--Calthinus (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, modern Celtic identity is an imprecise quantity. I don't think that the English claim, if such it is, to Celticity is any less valid than that of the Gallicians, for example. It is unlikely that any ancient people self-identified as Celtic, but they can certainly be assigned Celtic identity retrospectively. We know that the Usipetes, despite being classed as Germani by the Romans, were Celts because their name and the names of their leaders were Celtic. As for personal Celticity, is a Scot from Edinburgh, whose ancestors possibly last spoke a Celtic language over a thousand years ago, more Celtic than me, English born, with and Anglo-Saxon-derived surname whose gt. grandmother's first language was Irish (Gaeilge)? Urselius (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with most of this except I'd rather say we would say the Usipetes (or at least their elites?) were Celtic-speaking, "Celtic" for short if necessary. How to identify the tribes around the Rhine (Germanic/Celtic) is a controversial issue and not all RS opinions agree that "Celtic names of elites" equals "Celtic"...--Calthinus (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This question remains a bit vague as long it is not clear whether the category is meant to match the scope of Celts or Celts (modern) (or maybe both articles?). In the first case, the answer is obviously no. In the second case, it will strongly depend on the point of view taken. For many Irish, Scottish Gaels and Welsh who identify with the modern construct of "Celts", "English" is the antithesis of Celticness. If we take the perspective of equating linguistic group = macro-ethnic group (which I presume the creator of the category, Krakkos, had in mind), then the answer is also no. If the assignment to a catgory is based on (genetic) ancestry – or better: (genetic) ancestry components – the answer could be yes. But then, where is the cutoff? Although primodialists will staunchly deny this, every ethnic group has been an amalgation at some stage in the past, and has partially or totally absorbed other groups during the course of history. By that reasoning, Germans are Germanics, Slavs, Romans, Celts to some degree. But does this mean that we can assign the article Germans to multiple categories in any meaningful way? –Austronesier (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier the only thing that matters to me here is that anyone claims English as Celts. The Celtic League is a political organization and thus has a conflict of interest on this question -- its word on English not being Celtic is not RS. Of course we don't give a crap if the English are Celts because the Irish are not, never were, and never will be, as far as we know, in any objective reality. The only people that were ever objectively "Celts" are the inhabitants of central France, and certain other parts of continental Europe, in an age that came to a definite end one and a half whole millennia ago. The Irish and the five "other Celtic nations" have a modern constructed identity that exalts a (mythologized) "Celtic" past, so they can be considered Celtic in that sense, but this is also true of cases not endorsed by the Celtic League. --Calthinus (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Calthinus: I know that you know that I agree with you about the objective futility of the whole question. I just tried to address it from the inner logic of the existing category. Objectively, the category itself is totally useless and CfD-able like many others of its kind. –Austronesier (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
What on earth would "objectively "Celts"" mean? There is no useful genetic definition of "Celt", so you are left with those speaking Celtic languages, which certainly includes the ancient British Isles, plus the vague Celtic cultural package, which largely does. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Except the naming of the "Celtic" languages was concocted by appropriating a term that may have never referred collectively to the peoples in question. They may have once had a common linguistic identity, but there is no evidence afaik whatsoever of a common ethnic identity before the early modern era (except "not-English"). The original "Celts"... -- by which I mean literally, the ones who were actually called "Celts", the inhabitants of Gallia Celtica, were on the continent. And adopted Latin. Of course my thing about "objective Celts" is rhetorical. 404 error, no such thing exists, just like there are no "objectively Indo-European" peoples, "objectively Balto-Slavic" peoples etc. The "cultural package" is not a "Celtic" one, it is a not-English-British one and even so it can be quite difficult to find things not shared with the English... (this isn't the case if we're talking specifically Scots and Irish, i.e. not including Bretons... but this is not what's happening.) --Calthinus (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The only true measure of Celticity is speaking a Celtic language, or being the descendant of people who spoke Celtic languages. Also, we know that some tribes inhabiting Britain had the same names as those on the Continent, such as the Parisi and Attrebates, and that Brigantes were found both in Britain and Ireland. Figures, such as the king Commius, ruled both in Gaul and in Britain, difficult to understand if there was a large linguistic and cultural divide between the two areas. Your distinction between people who happen to have been named Celts in Greco-Roman texts and other peoples demonstrably related to them by language, religion and material culture, seems rather pointless. Indeed, Tacitus remarked not only that the Irish and Britons were similar to each other, but also that the Britons were similar to the continental Celts. Urselius (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. If we went by what people called themselves (which we rarely do elsewhere), where would that leave the Minoans? Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me (trimmed [[12]]), but it's not important to the point here. "Celtic" is an objectively salient identity whose scope is subjective, and no framework has a monopoly. The saliency of "ethnic Celtic" identity in ancient times, this can be dicey. The point with "Celt" meaning central Gaul was not "they changed the meaning of the name, so there!". Rather: there was no word whatsoever to refer to all Celtic-speakers. Roman/Greek writers on ethnic identity can be quite unreliable anyhow: i.e. the infamous case of Herodotus claiming the Colchians were from Egypt and resembled Ethiopians. Yes, we know Gauls sent their kids to Britain to study their own druidic faith which suggests a common religious identity, which yes, often in ancient times correlates to a common ancient identity, and yes, there were druids in Ireland too (albeit not(?) afaik in Celtic speaking Iberia). Yet one can also speak of a host of specifically local cult practices. And being called "similar" by Romans (conqueror's point of view...) does not mean they felt themselves to be similar, and one might argue the panchronic (ancient Celts --> modern Celts) identity is rather anachronistic -- it's all subjective. --Calthinus (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"Genetic evidence"

The sentence "Historically many scholars postulated that there was genetic evidence of a common origin of the European Atlantic populations i.e.: Orkney Islands, Scottish, Irish, British, Bretons, and Iberians (Basques, Galicians).[51]" is complete nonsense. This is ONE source, with VERY questionable sourcing (eupedia). Further, it goes without saying that Celts should share some genes (here the HLA system).HJHolm (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are there two separate sections on genetics in the article? Seems they should be consolidated. FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

New article in Nature:Large-scale migration into Britain during the Middle to Late Bronze Age

"Present-day people from England and Wales harbour more ancestry derived from Early European Farmers (EEF) than people of the Early Bronze Age1. To understand this, we generated genome-wide data from 793 individuals, increasing data from the Middle to Late Bronze and Iron Age in Britain by 12-fold, and Western and Central Europe by 3.5-fold. Between 1000 and 875 BC, EEF ancestry increased in southern Britain (England and Wales) but not northern Britain (Scotland) due to incorporation of migrants who arrived at this time and over previous centuries, and who were genetically most similar to ancient individuals from France. These migrants contributed about half the ancestry of Iron Age people of England and Wales, thereby creating a plausible vector for the spread of early Celtic languages into Britain. These patterns are part of a broader trend of EEF ancestry becoming more similar across central and western Europe in the Middle to Late Bronze Age, coincident with archaeological evidence of intensified cultural exchange2–6. There was comparatively less gene flow from continental Europe during the Iron Age"[13] Doug Weller talk 15:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hard to edit

I found that this article, or at least its lead section, has citations that include a very large amount of Wikicode, making these parts of the article hard to edit because you have to wade thru so much visual clutter.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

HLA = Human Leukocyte Antigen

   The term “HLA” refers to a phenom, and WP article, important to genetics and paleogenetics. The unlinked usage should be remedied,by someone with the access that I lack (at least until any sPaddy’sDay-related protection lapses). (Relatively few users will pick up on the TLA, W/o the appropriate, but protection-inhibited, link.) TNX, & Uhhh… “Gael Erin!”. (snicker)
173.162.211.85 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celts/Archive_11&oldid=1182819987"