From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Celts:

There are no active tasks for this page

    Traditional Celtic Medicine[edit]

    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.

    Move from "To Do" list[edit]

    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 (December 2010) and (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."

    External links modified[edit]

    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}}).

    You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

    • 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.

    If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

    Couple questions/points[edit]

    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[edit]

    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 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)