Talk:Celts in Western Romania

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Pretty solid consensus that that the article covers peoples and periods who aren't necessarily what we'd term "Gaulish" in modern English, but would be "Celtic" in the modern sense. Cúchullain t/ c 19:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Gauls in Transylvania → Celts in Transylvania – I am requesting the move back to the original name. The good-faith rename to "Gauls in Transylvania" is unfortunate, since the article covers all the Celtic tribes and cultures that lived in Transylvania, not just Gauls. For example the La Tène culture covered in the article is not Gaulish. Additionally, a search for "Celts in Transylvania" returns 57,300 hits vs the search for "Gauls in Transylvania" which returns 21,400 hits. Furthermore, the term "Gaul" is very narrow in its nature while the article is quire broad. Even more we have a large number of categories in both WP and Commons that focus on Celts not Gauls. Codrin.B (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, per above --Codrin.B (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 10:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, but the article might clarify the terminology, since Galli and Keltoi are more or less synonyms in Latin and Greek. That is, if a Roman author identifies one of the peoples mentioned in this article as "Celtic", he'll probably be using the word Galli, or say that they speak gallice, "in Celtic manner, using a Celtic language". The Romans seem to have identified Galli primarily on the basis of language, but they don't for instance call Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian peninsula Galli (they're Celtiberi), so if they omit to label a people Galli, it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't speak a Celtic language. If they do call them Galli, it doesn't mean they thought they were "Gauls" in the sense of "from the geographical region Gallia" (which includes even northern Italy), though most of the time it does. Modern Transylvania is a particularly vexing area for ancient ethnography because it involves the Bastarnae and Scordisci, two of the more debatable peoples. The main point is while the English term "Gauls" is narrow, the Latin Galli is not, and some older sources in particular translate Galli as "Gauls" when it means "Celts". The relation of the Latin or Greek designation Galli/Keltoi to La Tène culture is, as I recall, more tenuous than we would like, and though it's been a while since I've looked at this, I seem to recall some scholars questioning how useful it is to call it "Celtic". Cynwolfe (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very good points!! Indeed, it was never clear from the Roman writings the difference between Gauls and Celts. Like you said, they never called the Celtiberi, Gauls. And they kept the same distinction when referring the Brythons. The same way, the Romans rarely made a connection among Dacians, Getae, Moesi and Thracians (with the exception of a few writers). And then there is the topic of Galatians who are arguably Gauls (at the origin). The ancestors of Galatians possibly crossed though Transylvania on the way to Anatolia. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, the scholars mention Celts in Transylvania. -- Saturnian (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the same reasons mentioned by Cynwolfe. If there's some doubt as to "how useful it is to call [La Tène culture] 'Celtic'," then I don't see how changing "Gauls" to "Celts" improves things.  Just as the term "Gauls" has certain connotations in English, so does "Celts."  The Romans generally used "Galli," and that's what appears in the original sources (at least those written in Latin), and up to modern times, so changing it now would cause even more confusion.  And if we're going to redesignate the Gauls in Transylvania as "Celts," then shouldn't we also change the Gauls who invaded Italy around 390, and the ones who invaded Galatia (or should we change that to "Celtia")?  I don't think that would be wise, and I think changing just this one title would make all of the entries in this area inconsistent, one more thing that would have to be explained repeatedly.  Please correct me if I misunderstand the situation.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Celts in Transylvania. 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/20110126195901/http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro:80/invaziile/celtii/celtii.htm to http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/invaziile/celtii/celtii.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121009192622/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/blog/the_osprey_advent_calendar_december_8/ to http://www.ospreypublishing.com/blog/the_osprey_advent_calendar_december_8/

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) 00:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)