Talk:Celts

Template:Vital article

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)

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)

• Hmmm. I've done this - moving and adding a line (a ref would be useful here). Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 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)

Indo-European etymology for Kaltoi

The IE word 'kal' is given the article as meaning 'to hide', whereas I had always understood it to mean 'to protect' as in eu-calypt (Gk: truly protected). Thus, if so, the original root for the word 'Celt' may mean to guard; ie a powerful protector.

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. 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)