Talk:List of ancient Celtic peoples and tribes

message: The map for my country is wrong. Celtie is a different country than Armorica.
And we had more 300 tribes in the territory of France.
One point feels me a little nervous, it's, all these names only in Latin. ("ii", often = "wi")
Nobody could find and write the name in the true Celtic language?
For us, in ARMORICA (but ARMORICA is not a good name to call about KERNEV, the CORNWALL of SOUTH, or CYMRU of SOUTH). Anyway the name should be write in old CYMRIC language, for the tribes from the CYMRIC branch, and in Old GAELIC, for the branch from EIRE and ERSE (scotland); with the meaning of the name of tribes, because these names of Tribes means always something.
To go on to diffuse the wrong latin information given by Rome, i cannot agree it.
Hominn, Kernéô Abrincatuï   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.243.136 (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the 300 tribes of France ? 

message: I added an article link for Ancalites, hope that's ok, now there's one! ;) Ciriii 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancalites

message: I now believe this useful article name "List of Celtic Tribes", has been edited into a less particularly useful, perhaps nationalist and factional article. Headings such as "[Asia minor]" which then do not go on to list any Celtic tribes, a single heading of [Celtiberia] as a seperate heading to the tribes within [Spain], an edit about the tribes which lived within the political borders of the republic of [Ireland]...This i have reverted, and i intend to revert more if there is no dispute in 48 hours. This is intended to be a list for easy access surely? Which tribes lived in Spain, ireland..etc. Unfortunately the celts did not respect modern day political boundaries, and we cannot impose them upon history. Further adding Continents and nations which contained no celtic nations is not only ludicrous but factually wrong; yes it's a shame, but we can't all have a celt! Ciriii 03:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Havent deleted anything, but made some cahnges, links, changed alot...might actually be just for my benefit as nobody sems to care! lalala....Added a few peoples who should be classed as celtic sub group, and put some into the sub-group who shoup who should be there, though I'm a bit confused about the Illyrians and where this information came from, I never knew there were Illyrian Celts?I assumed they would all be Helennic, but due to the gallic progression, have left it! Ciriii 16:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand why Scythia and Dacia are included in the list described by ambiguous words "These peoples are believed to have strong Celtic associations, though not thoroughly proven to be Celts". They were not the Celts, though there were wars (and trade) between them and the Celts. But the same would be true for Greeks and Germanic tribes. I do not think that all peoples who fighted (or traded with) the Celts should be listed here. And I do not know ANY "strong Celtic associations" of Medes. I would be happy to know the opinion of other editors. Tankred 20:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you are right and i would be happy for the wording to be arranged. There are several differing theories theories that the "Celts" (in the very broadest sense of the word) were originally inhabitants or the same people as the Dacians or Scythii. With the Scythii there has been much work done in relationship to their migration west and possible resettlement into the British isles. Because the celts were a migratory people and didn't simply spring up in these lands, the evidence shows more than trade and relatively few wars, especially linguistically and militaristically, but perhaps that does not belong here. As for Medes, there was a large celtic presence in the Medes army. These were the Anatolian Celts. I will add sources to the page. I am happy for the section to be re-named or enlarged, perhaps contemporaries of the Celtic peoples, in actual fact there wouldn't be that many withing local boundaries.Ciriii 16:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General improvement

message: I see this text: The Ibero-Celts were most certainly Celts, but heavy influence, firstly from the Iberian Almerian civilisations, then Carthage means they probably should belong to a separate sub-group. In the same logic, heavy influence on the Romans from the Greeks and the Etruscans would mean that the Romans are not Romans; similarly heavy influence from the Phoceans of Massalia, the Ligurians, and the Etruscans would mean the Gauls are not Gauls... cultures influenced each other substantially at all periods in history. There was much trade and travel. I can't see why the Celtiberians are down there in the 'not really celtic' section along with the Medes and the Dacians... --Nantonos 11:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Celtiberians are recognised as Forebears of a celtic civilisation in Hispania, at least this is one theory. Is the link for Celtiberian not to that appropriate page which explains this, i will check, if not please adjust. Also, i am putting the Gallic tribes back, it is all very well having a sperate page, but this a page to include all tribes.Ciriii 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course the Celtiberians are Celtic - that is my point. Thus they should be moved up into the main section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NantonosAedui (talk • contribs) 
No, please don't put the small poor list 'back'. It didn't list all the tribes before (clearly this page started as a list of British celtic tribes and has grown by adding a selection of others). You could put a copy of the main Gaulish list, but would you then ensure it is kept up to date? --Nantonos 17:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that not only did you put the old, poor list back, you also deleted the link to the much fuller and better list. I am reverting your change, because your edit reduced the quality of the page. --Nantonos 17:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I deleted the link from the top in the first place, because it already existed at the bottom, which is generally where links are located. I have no problem with the same information on the tribes of gaul page being repeated on here, but not to simply ignore them. I don't think whether this started as a tribes of Britain page or not is relevant, as it is not now. Do you think you could then add improve the list of Gauls, rather than deleting it simply again?Ciriii 22:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Celtiberians

message: This map is much better than the last one...but can anyone find one both where all the tribes mentioned are noted and where Wales looks half realistic! Ciriii 17:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Is "tribe" really the best term for Celtic population groups? The convention seems to be that such a group is a "tribe" before being conquered by Rome, implying primitive political organisation, and a "civitas" thereafter, implying a more sophisticated setup, but the word used in Latin texts is civitas in both instances, and the level of political organisation seems to me to be more complex than tribal. Certainly the "tribes" (civitates) of Gaul described by Caesar have a stratified social structure (class system) which is typical of chieftoms, proto-states, or even in the most advanced cases full states. Wikipedians tend to base their edits on older reference works, particularly public domain ones on the internet, but it seems to me that in recent years there's a move away from the term "tribe" among scholars. A. R. Birley, introducing his 1999 translation of Tacitus's Agricola and Germania for Oxford World's Classics, says "I have avoided the word 'tribe' to describe the native peoples or states of Britain and Germany... 'Tribe' is, I think, a misleading expression... Instead I have used terms such as 'state(s)', 'people(s)', 'community', occasionally 'nation', according to the context." A. J. Woodman, in his 2004 translation of Tacitus's Annals, uses "community" or "kingdom". I saw the first part of Terry Jones's Barbarians on BBC2 last night and he savaged Roman historians for their dismissive and condescending attitude towards the Celts, but it seems to me that Caesar and Tacitus look down on the Gauls and Britons less than most modern historians, and in many ways it's the choice of the word "tribe" to translate civitas that's to blame (that and assuming the word "barbarian" had its modern connotations of unrestrained viciousness and brutality, which is another argument). I'd be interested to read people's opinions on this. --Nicknack009 13:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is very valid, tribe is often misleading. Though I think it is also appropriate in some instances. Although tribes is still probably what most people would refer to as a celtic social structure, i believe "celtic peoples" would be more appropriate. Ciriii 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: Will people please stop nationalising this page. It is highly inappropriate.  Like removing Portugal from Celtiberians; they inhabited northern Portugal, and the wikipedia page states so. Or removing Croatia from the Scordisci, their range incompassed this; also stated in wikipedia itself, and despite your own opinions, it is necessary merely for a consensus, and because it is a viewpoint. Removing things like that is essentially nationalism, iunless you explain why....and present your views and an opposite and valid point??Ciriii 23:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is just nationalism, please stop

message: I tried to include the recent edits and put links in. But just putting "Gaul-Belguim" in next to certain tribes which already had a different placing i didnt understand, that space i think was intended for where the tribe wass from, and it already stated they weren't? If you could elabortae with some decent links? And if you could write about the Gaulish language on that page, this is for the placing of tribes..though it is interesting? I never heard that?? Ciriii 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Hi Ciriii and The Ogre.  I found your request for a third opinion, and read over your discussion.  I'm no expert on the Celts or Iberia, so I'm not the best person to address the content dispute; however, I have some comments about your process so far:
*The first two comments contained some heated language, but did effectively state the main points.
*The Ogre stated their intentions and quoted from another article with emphasis to support their point, and announced the request for a third opinion.
*The Ogre quoted the other article again, and stated their belief that Ciriii was "contradicting established facts".
*Ciriii created compromise text, and invited The Ogre to contribute to it ("if you could edit it...").
*The Ogre requested clarification of a point, agreed to the requested contribution, and stated disagreement with wording of a heading.
*Ciriii gave the requested clarification. Focusing on process, they requested The Ogre do something differently, explained why the previous action did not work well, and apologized for something Ciriii did previously.  Ciriii thanked The Ogre for their contribution and requested help from The Ogre with some content (a map) which is not Ciriii's strong point.
*The Ogre apologized for what had not worked well.  Then they asked for another clarification of wording, stated a couple of disagreements (with direct quotes), and suggested a rewording.  They agreed to search for a map, and requested agreement to keep the current map in the interim.
You have stated your points clearly, explained your intentions, used direct quotes, collaboratively edited compromise text, requested and given clarification, evaluated and addressed the process, explained what did not work well and what to do differently, apologized to each other, thanked each other, and requested help from each other.  In my opinion, you are negotiating well and moving in the right direction.  The request for a third opinion might have been premature.  Ask again if you still have a dispute after your negotiations, but I don't think you will, if you keep doing what you have been doing.  In the meantime, I hope my perspective is helpful.  Charm ©† 08:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd Opinion

message: Ruteni were mentioned by Caesar, but are not on the list? Why?  They were significant contributors (foederati) to the Roman army, although one part was on the Vercingetorix's side against Romans. - signed by anon IP
Were the Ruteni related to any Slavic peoples (former Yugoslavia) from across the Adriatic sea? The Roman Empire took over Celtic and non-Indo-European lands like the Etruscans. If they were still Celtic people, the Ruteni would have a relationship with the so-called Ruthenians in present-day Belarus, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Ruteni

message: Should this also be listed by tribe? For instance the damnoni/dumnoni of Britain are possibly the same in origin, as are the cornovi, and the brigantes. So perhaps they also ought to be listed by tribes as well. ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's with moving Great Britain and Ireland? ---G.T.N. (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  By Tribe as Well? 

message: Why do we have a modern day attempt at a map of Wales to show tribes that would've inhabited the area thousands of years ago.  Complete nonsense that the tribes began and ended with relative modern boundaries!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.232.195 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you refering to the national boundaries? ---G.T.N. (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The tribes named are definitely Celtic and there are many reliable references for this. I will be adding citations for all the tribes you questioned. Please try to be specific instead of changing the whole meaning of the page by inserting "mostly" in front of Celtic.Jembana (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgae, Boii 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of Celtic tribes. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of Celtic tribes. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611215344/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ligurians had a few different names in this field of study: Ligures, Ligyles, Ambrones and Cimbris. The articles point to Ambrones who were Germanic and Cimbri whose name were derived from Cimmerians of Iranian origin in Europe. Apparently, the Ligurians were either originally non-Celtic, para-Celtic or partially Celtic. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ligurians' other names 

message: A tribe named for living near the Atlantic Ocean living in the southern and western Basque Country, itself not a Celtic "homeland". Sometimes, the Aquitani were listed as Celtic, except it's more probable they were Iberian or related to the Basque people or Vascones. Another name for Atlantii is Alanti (similarly sounds or spelled like "Aryan"), not to be confused with Alans whom settled in Spain and Portugal after the fall of the Roman Empire in the 1st millennia AD. 12.218.47.123 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlantii 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: it repeats itself a lot, and the tone feels off. i also feel like it goes into completely irrelevant tangents, such as with the Nazi mentions. sometimes it sounds like the author does not trust the reader's intelligence, and there are many typos. but there is some good content within as well. 2A01:E0A:163:2E60:B5EE:741:B09D:EB5B (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor had recently added a lot of unsourced and mostly off-topic content. It has now been removed for that reason. – Asarlaí (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is worded very strangely