Talk:Cantiaci

That the Cantiaci spoke a Germanic language is quite a major point if it is definitely true, isn't it? I have always assumed the Cantiaci as Celtic speakers - in fact I have assumed all the British tribes in England at this time to be Celtic speakers - if West Germanic was being spoken so much earlier than Anglo-Saxon times then this is quite sensational! But surely the place names of Kent, like Dover, are of Celtic origin? How so if the Cantiaci were speaking West Germanic? Are any other tribes at this time in England speaking Germanic? If not, wouldn't the Cantiaci be somewhat cut-off from them? And did the Romans not notice that these people were Germanic speakers - I thought the Romans made it clear that they only encountered Celtic speakers in Britain? All very interesting! Angelogravity (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has now changed to say the Cantiaci probably spoke Celtic!!! Well, after reading it back in July when it was suggested they may have spoken Germanic, it got me to research this a bit, and you know some historians are now hinting that the Belgae may well have been at the very least part Germanic - they certainly occupied the Celtic/Germanic border on the continent, so it is not out of the question that they used the western Germanic language - at the very least they would certainly have been familiar with it - and so therefore would the Cantiaci and other tribes in southern England. A very interesting area and I will be on the look out for the latest developments regarding this - it has major historical implications. 81.153.61.1 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

pytheas
It should be noted that the Greek explorer Pytheas named the southeastern province of Britain Kantion, centuries before Caesar arrived. This seems to be evidence that the Cantiaci (or some tribe with a similar name) had been an established presence in the area well before Roman arrival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.206.128 (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cantiaci. 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/20110928080958/http://www.celticcoins.com/pages/New%20iron%20age%20king.pdf to http://www.celticcoins.com/pages/New%20iron%20age%20king.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cantiaci. 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/20051122183653/http://www.roman-britain.org/tribes/cantiaci.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/tribes/cantiaci.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) 20:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Fail
I completed, the extent possible, the first two of the three total citations that appear as superficial cover for this article. They are recent additions, suggesting that the material here, as it first appeared, was unsourced, a suspicion easily confirmed. (Checking the first page of the article history shows that the material was, in all but its entirety, added by editors Muriel Gottrop and Nicknack009, completely without sources. Hence, the material appearing was, and largely remains plagiarised [see these contributions, .]) Note, based on internal search, the term "Cantiaci" does not appear as such at the website roman-britain.org, the only source appearing at all (and then, as an external link), in the original edits that created the core of the current article.

As such, besides being an affront to academic honesty, the article is not encyclopedic—it violates Wikipedia's own rules regarding the appearance of material that is not sourced. Nearly all of the article, even as it appears today, was derived from uncited others' work—web pages, other Wikipedia articles, etc. The three sources that appear were added post hoc, or transferred in with new incoming material (e.g., see the incomplete citation 3). References inserted post hoc are generally understood to be inadequate, or even specious—because they rarely are the actual true source of the original material, and so most often do not fully and accurately cover the content of the unit of material (phrase, sentence, or paragraph) to which they are attached.

As such, it is essentially the case that the whole of the article was and remains unsourced. And as stated, the article contains many purported facts, and presents many ideas, and so it is by academic standards a clear example of plagiarism. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:29EF:93C:8157:9874 (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)