Celts is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Update: 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."
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
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.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "celts in the northwest ..." to "Celts in the northwest..." under DISTRIBUTION/CONTINENTAL CELTS/IBERIA. So this is basically a type-o that requires an uppercase letter, "C", required because we are talking about an ethnic/cultural group. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, well spotted. I think a lot of editors don't realise that a celt is an adze. Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. This map shows the Roman domains and where Celtic, Germanic peoples lived. However, the two are not mutually exclusive, as a large part of Roman territory was in fact inhabited by Celts. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see the problem. The map is in a section about Romanisation. It illustrates territory under Roman control at the time. It makes no claim that Celts were not in Roman territory. Indeed that's the whole point of its use in the section. Obviously its function in the article is in tandem with the other maps. Paul B (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Lets not confuse an ethnic population map with a political map. A population map would show the dominant ethnicities/culture groups of the area; whereas a political map shows what government has claim to the territory, regardless of the ethnicity of the residents. If the Romans ruled it, it was Roman territory, regardless of who lived there. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the map as used here, because there are other maps that describe the population-distribution of Celts, but the map as currently captioned doesn't seem to be able to make up its mind whether it's about population or political units. The green bits are labelled "i popoli Celti" and are presented as a single unit as if there was a Celtic empire of some sort. The white bit in northern Spain corresponds roughly to Cantabria, which is generally believed to have been Celtic, so it's unclear why it's not green. But then again, part of both it and the green bit would have been Aquitanian, an ethnic group who are generally believed to be Basques. They are mysteriously absent altogether. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. That is the whole point, Mediatech492, it can only be both a ethinc population map and a political map if it showed the ethinc polulation of the entire region, and then the Roman controlled area superimposed in a half-colour shading or some or other graphic device such as dots/ lines. Paul B, even if the legends "make up their minds", one would have to recolour the map and also fix the elements that you pointed out. Thanks. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Urselius: "Celtic nations which retained [xyz]" implies that all Celtic nations retained xyz, whereas "Celtic nations that retained [xyz]" implies that some did, some did not. The fact the it says they are "the six" does not change anything:
1. These are the Celtic nations
2. Some Celtic nations retained xyz
3a. These are the ones that retained xyz
3b. These are the Celtic nations that retained xyz
4. The Celtic nations that retained xyz are six
5. These are the six Celtic nations that retained xyz
If you take 4. above, "The Celtic nations which retained xyz are six" you will clearly see that "which" implies that all Celtic nations retained xyz and that - as a secondary idea - that they are six. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, it is not true that "US English tends to restrict the use of 'which' unnecessarily" as you claim. If anything, quite the contrary. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
"the six Celtic nations which [or that] retained significant numbers of Celtic speakers into the Early Modern period" is the full phrase. 'Which' or 'that' are both correct in respect to the restrictive relative clause they introduce. Only six Celtic nations are indicated, therefore six is the upper limit of reference, "all Celtic nations" is not an allowable reference or inference within the phrase. What is inferred is that there is the possibility of an external set, "all Celtic nations", of which the six are a subset. If a comma was introduced before 'which' the case would be different - this would imply that 6 was the number of "all Celtic nations" and that "all of them retained ..." I have seen US grammatical or style guides restricting which to use after a comma. This whole miasma was what I wanted to escape by rewording the phrase to avoid the use of either 'which' or 'that', but this was not appreciated by User:Garik. Personally, I cannot see any problem with "the six Celtic nationsretaining significant numbers of Celtic speakers into the Early Modern period" Urselius (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Urselius, I would agree with you that removing "that"/ "which" would be the logical solution. I mean, if I in good faith straighten a painting that to me appears slightly out of alignment, fine, end of story. If it then attracts a crowd and a committee is formed to decide if the paining is straight or not, then, really it is not worth the point. After all, there is a whole article to work with, like finding references for the Origins section. And after that, millions of other articles. I've just reverted it now for the simple reason that the justification of the previous editor who reverted my edit is that this is a "Varieties of English" issue. It is not. At any rate, cheers, I enjoyed the article and I am moving on. By the way, I landed here trying to figure out why there are a number of pages that/which mention the Celtic "plastic style", always in inverted commas, with no explation as to the use of the inverted commas (which we don't do when refering to other styles) and the only defintion of the style is these few words. Thanks, Guys, good work, regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I think I somewhat misunderstood Urselius's edit summary, for which I apologise. I still think that "the six Celtic nationsretaining significant numbers of Celtic speakers into the Early Modern period" is less good than "the six Celtic nationsthat retained significant numbers of Celtic speakers into the Early Modern period". The latter (with "that") seems to me to convey what we want to convey unambiguously: That there may be more than six Celtic nations, but that these six retained significant numbers of Celtic speakers into the Early Modern period. The other sentence ("the six Celtic nations retaining significant numbers...") is ok, but in principle ambiguous. It could be interpreted as meaning "These are only six Celtic nations, and this map shows them retaining speakers into the Early Modern period." Sure, that might be an unlikely interpretation in this case, but given the unambiguousness of the sentence with "that retained" I don't see why we wouldn't want to phrase it that way. As for "which" instead of "that": Certainly "which" is not exclusively used for non-restrictive relative clauses, so could be substituted for "that" here, and if we don't put a comma in before it, it'll probably be interpreted as restrictive (which is an acceptable use for "which"). But I just don't see what's wrong with "that retained". It's idiomatic and unambiguous. Or am I misunderstanding what this discussion is about. Do we want the relative clause to be non-restrictive? Garik (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
But sure, this is a very minor issue, and I don't mean to be perpetuating it unnecessarily! Garik (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)