Talk:High cross

message: The image on this page should be changed, this is a 19th/20th c tombstone in the shape of a high cross.  It's most misleading
Blorgina 19:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article Muiredach's High Cross seems to imply that high crosses are conventionally oriented East-West.  If this is true, it might be an interesting addition to this article. Oliphaunt (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orientation 

message: Please, consider the stone crosses of Galicia and North Portugal. There are around 10.000, some of them from Middle Age period.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachonion (talk • contribs) 12:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galician crosses 

message: The term 'high cross' is attested in medieval Irish, English, Scottish, and Welsh sources and so it the correct term to describe the crosses created in the medieval era. As the article Celtic cross makes plain on its very first line, "Celtic cross is a term, invented in the 19th century" and led to the creation of the so-called 'Celtic crosses' during the 19th century. Thus references to Celtic crosses should only be used for those created from the 19th century, not high crosses. There have been instances of incorrect application of the term Celtic (and 'the British Isles') in this article which I will continue to remove until someone can explain why it should be used in said contexts. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A high cross is a type of object, which may or may not use the Celtic cross shape, though most do, especially in Ireland. That the latter term was only invented in the 19th century certainly does not mean "references to Celtic crosses should only be used for those created from the 19th century" at all! The academic literature certainly does not do this. Replacing "Celtic" with "Irish" is only sometimes correct. This seems to be editing in a blatently nationalistic fashion.  Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry that you think that I am editing in "blatently nationalistic fashion" when all I am doing is trying to use the correct terms in their correct contexts. The ringed high cross was in use under well-attested names in medieval Ireland and Britain before anyone started calling them 'Celtic' in the 19th century (1850s seems to be the exact decade). If you read the original article and my revisions, you will see I have been careful in use of the term 'Irish' instead of 'Celtic' - the latter makes no sense at all in the original. I would be obliged if you explained carefully where and why Celtic is (and is not) useful in this article. Otherwise I won't understand your point of view. Cheers, Fergananim (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You can call high crosses with rings "ringed", "nimbate", "with nimbus" etc, but "Celtic" is a perfectly well-established descriptive term for this shape, and much the best for a general audience. The majority of terms in art history are invented retrospectively: no-one thought they were building "Romanesque" or "Gothic" buildings, and nobody knew they were making Insular art. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So if Celtic means 'ringed', 'nimbate', 'with nimbus', why not just say that? And its not clear either why the same term should be applied to an ethnic group (the Irish), religion (Celtic Christianity), and the high cross - all in the one article. Anyone? Fergananim (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , I too find many of your changes here to be misguided. For one thing, changing "Celtic Christianity" to "Irish Christians" may be confusing to readers considering that we're talking about Iona in Scotland. Additionally, removing Celtic cross is uncalled for: whether or not the term is historical or even accurate, it's a widely used conventional term for what the article is talking about - a specific type of circular cross. Your edit removed all mention of one of the most important features of high crosses, the fact that most feature this type of cross. Please be more careful making edits of this kind.--Cúchullain t/c 00:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

text:  Iona was settled by the Irish, and remained an Irish establishment - Celts don't come into it, and 'Celtic' Christianity never existed. The Celtic Cross only came into existence in the 1850s; all I did was denote the medieval high crosses on the one hand and the Celtic cross on the other. What exactly is the point of Wikipedia if inaccurate conventional terms are given parity with accurate historical ones? And neither of you answered my question. Fergananim (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion of terms 'high cross', 'Celtic cross'

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on High cross. 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/20090819054426/http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=11102 to http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=11102
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) 17:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion