Talk:Celtic Revival

message: Galicia and Asturias are not "celtic" because it does not have celtic language, and theories on a supposed celtic footprint in its past, larger than in other territories, they are pure romantic fantasy (also fuelled by nationalist claims against spanish cultural centralism).
In fact, the entire celtist movement is a myth: almost everything that is considered "Celtic" is invention. The misnamed "celtic music styles" (Scottish and Irish folk, Galician folk, Breton folk, etc. ) are, in fact, very different and the modern similarities are due to mimicking the "celtic" patterns of Ireland and Scotland, their sounds, instrumentation, etc. The same with history, deformed by romanticism. Currently it can only be called "Celtic" someone who spoke a Celtic language. And even this is incorrect, because a language does not make anyone celtic in the same way that speak spanish or french does not make you a roman.
: Rebirth Of The Gallaic-Goidelic Q-celtic Language from Galicia
:http://celticmythpodshow.com/blog/rebirth-of-the-gallaic-goidelic-language/
::Galicia is Celtic, but not asturias
::what is considered Celtic in Asturias is influenced by galicia, including deposits found in Asturias  because a small part of Asturias was part of Galicia before , even that part speaks Galician and are identified as such, plus regardless if galicia reclaim that part of asturias by independence.  The celtic region of Asturias was part of Galicia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.48.23 (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: --Bretema7 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

text: This is a talk page - you don't need references. All sorts of nonsense are allowed. Johnbod (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A misunderstanding - I was referring to the Galicia section on the Celtic Revival page (not to the talk page section of the same name) which didn't have any citations. My bad communication. I've added some references and will enhance this section a bit more.Jembana (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galicia 

message: The talk section "Galicia" above was unsigned - was made by IP editor 80.25.180.170. It contains personal opinions but without any attempt to substantiate them with backing references. There are numerous reliable references that are contra to the opinion expressed. However, it has exposed a deficiency in the referred to section of the Celtic Revival page that the opinion is targetted towards as far as backing references. Can editors please assist by providing such references ? I will myself but a diversity of sources would be better :)Jembana (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a talk page - you don't need references. All sorts of nonsense are allowed. Johnbod (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A misunderstanding - I was referring to the Galicia section on the Celtic Revival page (not to the talk page section of the same name) which didn't have any citations. My bad communication. I've added some references and will enhance this section a bit more.Jembana (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsigned Talk 

message: "Perhaps the most widespread and lasting contribution of the revival was the re-introduction of the Celtic cross shape used in the medieval high crosses, which now forms a familiar part of monumental and funerary art over most of the Western world." That is just a laughable claim. And all we have is a single source that is claiming it (a source that is dedicated to those particular objects). If it were a "lasting contribution" such objects would still be being produced. These monuments were produced in small numbers during a narrow time period as a side-effect of the wider Celtic Revival, they were fashion statements and are no more culturally important than reproduction Tara Brooches (and arguably rather less lasting, since those brooches are still being reproduced). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that gravestones of this type are still extremely popular. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Where are new ones being produced? The most widespread and lasting contribution of the revival is surely in literature (would the likes of Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones be possible without it), and of course in current politics and identity. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones draw on the Celtic Revival at all, nor on earlier Celtic cultures.  Tolkein was an academic Anglo-Saxon specialist, where the influence is clear, and drew on other historic cultures, but not the Celts. Likewise Games of Thrones.  Where do you get these ideas? Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say what you are claiming I said. I meant that those works exist as popularist cultural icons because of the pre-existing cultural ethos created by the Celtic Revival (and its related movements, such as Nordic Revival). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Indeed. When is the "narrow period" supposed to have ended? Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a flurry of them used as war memorials post WW1, and a few more post WW2, that's about it as far as I am aware. I am also aware that this is as unsourced an opinion as the unsourced claim in the article! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a few books on the subject, just had a brief glance at "The Celtic Cross" by Nigel Pennick - it has info on their renewed use in the 1920s. Will read it properly asap. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense, they are still being produced, though people generally use less elaborate grave memorials. Order yours now! Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I tried modifying this claim, and looking for a "proper" citation (I don't regard the citation provided as being valid), but my suggestions were continually reverted/edited by what I would call "tendentious" editing by a single-minded individual who will just not give up. Hohenloh  +   00:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is this edit  I think that your "A notable contribution" wording is a lot better that the current "Perhaps the most widespread and lasting contribution". The rest of the edit, I'm not so sure of. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro claim

message: The phrase "was a variety of movements and trends in the 19th and 20th centuries that saw…" (emphasis mine) implies that the Celtic Revival is a something that died at least 15 years ago. Is that true? If so, a section denoting what happened to it is pretty important. If we don't have RS definitively saying that it's a dead issue, the lede should be reworked. Kevin.159.53 without login -- 159.53.78.142 (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As a capitalized thing, it's been regarded as a historical phase, or thing of the past, for several decades I'd say, which doesn't mean that various forms of modern Celticism aren't still around.  Do you have any RS definitively saying that it's NOT a dead issue? Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, and it's really not that important. I just came to the article and was looking for anything about the end of this "movement". Frankly, any time I see past tense on a cultural phenomenon, I wonder why it died out. If there is academic or cultural consensus that it's a dead issue, I'm just surprised there is no RS floating around to say why. "Folks just got tired of it" might be a perfectly acceptable explanation (e.g. polyester pantsuits), as would "locally-specific Scottish/Irish/Briton nationalism slowly replaced the broader Celtic Revival." I just wondered, really. Kevin.159.53 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Celtic Revival Dead?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Celtic 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/20110609042602/http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/egallery/object.asp?searchText=brooch&x=10&y=7&pagesize=20&object=12457&row=15&detail=about to http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/egallery/object.asp?searchText=brooch&x=10&y=7&pagesize=20&object=12457&row=15&detail=about
*Added  tag to http://www.gallaicrevivalmovement.spruz.com/,
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) 00:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If there is a merge of the pages, please ensure that the Wikidata items are merged first. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing; opposition and no support. Klbrain (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Celtic 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/20121104101146/http://www.oldcelticdictionary.com/ to http://oldcelticdictionary.com/
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) 20:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article originated with a description of the Celtic Revival around the late 19th/early 20th century. This was fine. It has now, due to the efforts of a single contributor, IMHO, grown out of all proportion. It needs to get back to its original form. Hohenloh  +   17:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How about being more specific and/or bold? Either name names or, better yet, if it's been damaged, just revert and repair it. See if others support. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I see what you mean. This article is no longer about the Celtic Revival. It now covers the entire preservation and revival efforts, up to the present day, in the Celtic Nations, the diaspora, and in areas that may have once had some sort of Celtic language and culture but do not any longer. I'm not attached to what we should do about this, but you are right. Either the article needs sections split off, cut, or it should have sections renamed. I really don't know what the best course is and am open to suggestions. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I don't entirely agree. The article is not that long, and proceeeds in chronological order. When people get beyond what they are interested in, they can and will stop reading. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I would tend to agree with Johnbod... the article does not feel excessively long in comparison to other wikipedia articles. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 06:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the article isn't overly-long. Hmmmm.... I think in layman's terms, most people who use the term "Celtic Revival" are actually talking about the Irish Literary Revival and any visual art and theatre that came with it. But there does need to be some kind of overview for the other cultural revivalist efforts and I suppose this article may be the place for it. Language activism efforts vary, with terms in the individual languages prioritised, but "Celtic" is certainly used as a unifier, as with the Celtic League. May be best to just keep improving this article for now as that overview, unless and until a better solution emerges.  - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies to those who are more knowledgeable in the subject, I had noticed this article a few months ago and thought from what I had seen in the news it was lacking modern information, as well as older info being unsourced. The concentration of language revival efforts was more the direction I figured it went. In my last edit I realised how much I had added that specifically focused on language. Perhaps if the history were to be focused more on cultural/political figures the educational development could be separated, or moved elsewhere? Any feedback for what I've done would be appreciated, it would be useful to future editors. Jonjonjohny (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

text: A related issue that I don't have the knowledge or energy to address is that this page does not link at all to Pan-Celticism; it might be worth considering moving / merging some of the "modern information" from this page to that one. Akriasas (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is bloated 

message: Hello,
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to comment, but I'm wondering where the information about Auvergne, France came from in the article as there are no citations or external links related to that specific text. This information would be of great use to me in my research (comparative studies of Auvergne and Brittany), and I was also a just bit confused as to why there was no source. AphFeanor (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for France