Talk:List of the Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula

Arevaci?
Which section of the list do the Arevaci belong in? Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They were a tribe of the Celtiberian group, as such they belong to the Indo-European/Celtic group. The Ogre (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The map is wrong: at 300BC there aren't basques at south Pyrinees. More: there aren't basques at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.157.186.243 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula. 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
 * 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) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of the Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula. 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

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) 19:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

El Argar
What about El Argar? Jason Quinn (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

OUt-of-date material
This article suffers from the the development of the subject in the late 20th and 21 centuries. It has changed a lot. The current term is not pre-Roman but paleohispanic. That started about the turn of the century. The problem with pre-Roman is that it is not really pre-Roman. All these names come from Roman times. Don't forget, the Romans were there since they beat the Carthaginians in the Roman Republic. There is a more-or-less up-to-date database maintained by a number of universities and paid for by the government, Hesperia. I'm currently working on the topic but I can't get to every article simultaneously. The database also is a work in progress. The current sources are a kind of goulash from different stages of development. This one will take a little more study I am afraid, to know what to say. For example, the non-IE languages are not pre-IE, they are non-IE. Oh well, the whole thing is not going to be brought up to speed overnight. We'll have to chip away at it.Botteville (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal
I decided to do more on this. I propose that we rename this article to use paleohispanic rather than pre-Roman. We can do that by creating a new article, moving this material to it, and speedy deleting the old article. I would like to get your views on this.Botteville (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Status late May 2024
I and 2 other users have been having a go-around on 2 or 3 of these paleohispanic articles including this one. There are basically two problems, not counting the minor errors.

First of all, these articles were never finished or never finished properly. Consequently they are to a large degree incomprehensible, lacking sufficient detail to clarify the linguistic concepts. As a result they have collected tags at the top asking for specific references. These have been on there for years. No effort has been made to do the additional work.

The second problem is that while we were waiting for the first problem to be solved the field changed by quite a bit. "Pre-Roman" is being dropped in favor "Paleohispanic," as Pre-Roman does not fit the mold. What is known is mainly not pre-Roman. The failure to concede to that is systematic in many articles.

So, it is a big job. I hardly knew where to start. I made some progress up to a point. Then I was assailed by the two above-mentioned editors, who have reverted almost everything I did. Now, I can oppose reversion with referenced material. I guess they are not interested. One was very insulting making attacks ad hominem. If you've been around for a while you know the story. It is an old one. There have been many troubled articles and troubled areas on WP, most of which trouble eventually dies out, years later.

After a number of reversions and re-reversions they arrived at a consensus of 2 on an issue they call "stability." They are looking for stable articles in this area. I don't think that applies here. They are only seemingly stable because no one is addressing the problems. They are, so to speak, stably wrong. However there is a consensus of 2 I admit. I am not going to fight a consensus that deletes everything I do because it is unstable. Consensuses are hard to fight on WP even though I have the power to unrevert. I have to have some support.

My effort on this has been far-flung. There is just so much work to be done to fix it. I can't continue at that level in the face of consensual opposition. So, I'm not going to try. This is just another area where improvement is blocked by a cabal. Such an event does not mean WP is not a good encyclopedia and is not useful in a number of surprising ways. In other words, I can't make the upgrade on my own. I have confidence that sooner or later the realization of the necessity for one will become clear and a new generation will take care of it. Sooner or later everything gets addressed. I no longer have the later. What I can probably do is address small bits at time; i.e., articles of limited scope that are more easily improved. I think I will go there. There are a lot of ethnic names in this area and monuments of all sorts, also a lot of formatting to do. But, I don't have time for an effort beyond my resources. Ciao.