Talk:Gaelic revival

message: Why not Irish Revival, given that Irish and not Gaelic is used extensively in WIKI to denote the language in Ireland?Eog1916 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish Revival

message: The introduction identifies the term and article as about the 19th-century revival, but the text says little about this and is overwhelmingly about current status of the Irish language. The latter should be in Irish language#Current status or an article of its own, and there should be material about the 19th century revival. --JWB (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I was very disappointed not at all finding what I expected here. Gaelic League, Gaelic Journal, Eugene O'Growney, Eoin MacNeill, Douglas Hyde, An Claidheamh Soluis - there are plenty of articles with bits and pieces about the 19th Century Gaelic Revival, while this article only include a reference to a 19th Century newspaper that wasn't even written in Gaelic. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

text: As it turns out, the only on-topic paragraph in this is copyvio, being taken from Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of literature and The New Encyclopaedia Britannica Volume 4 and Volume 5.  While I'm removing the off-topic stuff I will paraphrase and cite those three sentences, but if anybody wants to rewrite or even delete them that would be fine.  Scolaire (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment, , but it is a little bit out of date. This was the state of the article in April 2010. I gutted it at the time, and completely rewrote it three years later, so there hasn't been anything about the modern language movement in it in over five years.  Scolaire (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I know; I read the whole thread.  Just pointing to where this information lives now, so no one tries to re-add it. This seemed a valid concern because there's an intermittent trend across the WP:CELTS-scope articles and anything related to them faintly, like articles on paganism, to shoehorn ancient and modern material into the same article, possibly to advance the supposed unbroken-line-of-tradition sentiment. See RM discussion at Talk:List of Pagans, for example; the article is a mish-mash of people notable as neopagans, and non-Judeo-Christians from Classical Antiquity. So, a re-dilution of Victorian Celtic Twilight historical material with modern pan-Celticist nationalist stuff, intermediated by more prosaic modern language status statistics, back into this article seems fairly likely at some point if it is not dissuaded.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. No harm in keeping the record straight.  Scolaire (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 19th century revival or modern status?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gaelic revival. 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/20080411134418/http://www.nli.ie/1916/pdf/3.4.1.pdf to http://www.nli.ie/1916/pdf/3.4.1.pdf
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) 02:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My thumb hit "Enter" while I was still typing this edit summary. It was meant to say,  was published as , not Father . See the first edition of .  Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peadar Ua Laoghaire