I treat all sources and interpretations of sources the same. I filter them through my own critical eye and test them as much as I am able to against other sources and information. that is, after all, what I was brainwashed to do at uni- and did already ;-)

At the H-War mailing list there was just (is still in fact) a discussion on how to treat david Irvine's work as Unis in Australia directly downgrade students who quote him no matter what they quote him on. Now David irvine is a Holocaust denier and revisionist and as such I spit upon him and refuse to believe that part of his work, but some of his earlier stuff is actually good scholarship, so where it has nothing to do with revisionism and Holocaust denial, it is usable. Everything must always be reviewed by the critical eye of the scholar before he uses it. Nothing accepted at face value or taken for granted.

As for Celts, they do not hold much interest for me; they got third place in the competetion with Germans and Romans for power in N Europe. All very simplified off course. Thing is, for some reason it is Germans and Rome that interests me- perhaps because the merger of those two made Europe of today, perhaps because I am a war-liking psycho, perhaps because the Celts lost, perhaps because I am a "German", I dunno.

An in-depth analysis of Gallic history with all known evidence taken into account would be interesting though. I might read that as Celts did have a huge impact on Germans and was conquered by one of my favorite Romans.