Talk:Book of Kells

message: I think that the first picture should be the Chi Rho page, as that is the most famous page of all and is more widely recognized than any of the other major pages. I realize that the image of it on here has issues with background showing on the edges, but it is definitely the page most representative of the subject. --Vlmastra 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think that, even though the Chi Rho page is the most famous, it is not representative of the rest of the book.  In my opinion, it was quite intentionally set apart from the other pages. Although there are may pages of decorated text, no other page, is limited to a single word. Add the poor quality of our image, and you come up with the reason I selected a different page. Dsmdgold 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Picture 

message: An anon editor changed the image caption for :Image:KellsFol027v4Evang.jpg from "Folio 27v contains the four evangelist symbols. lion, ox, eagle, and man" to "Folio 27v contains the four evangelist symbols. (Clockwise from top left: man, lion, eagle and ox)" which is a clear improvement as the previous order had no rational explanation. It is, however, clear to me that the original artist intended for the image to be read as two line read left to right (Man, Lion, Ox, Eagle) as this reading puts the symbols in the same order as the Gospels they represent. The clockwise reading can be explained more succinctly. Given that fanciful nature of the images, it is necessary to explain what each figure represents. So which is better, the intended reading which is more difficult to explain, or the anachronistic, but easily stated clock-wise order? Dsmdgold 15:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion at the top of the page on this point. Please don't sprinkle the page with "Irish"s. Johnbod 23:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three is a light sprinkling in my book. Johnbod 02:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wooah! I smell paranoia! All the Irish county categories are being clarified and reorganised by that twinkly-eyed colleen User:BrownHairedGirl - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_6#Category:Islands_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland and about 90 other nominations. You can sign your contributions properly by putting four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. Johnbod 15:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image caption 

message: I recall reading somewhere that Cú Chuimne might be associated with the creation of the Book of Kells. I think it was an excerpt from Ó Cróinín's volume of the New History of Ireland on Google books. Does anyone have access to that book? Perhaps I'm imagining this. TIA, Angus McLellan  (Talk) 13:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since he died about 747 and scholarly consensus points to a later date for Kells (about 800), it seems doubtful to me. However, there is no firm evidence of Kells date, so it could be earlier, and it is much debated.  There is no textual evidence in Kells itself that gives any direct information about its creators. No you recall the type of evidence provided for his association? I would think that the strongest possible evidence would be paleographical, assuming we hava an autograph manuscript from Cú Chuimne.  If someone has access to this source, it might be worth mentioning in the article as yey another theory for Kell's origin. Dsmdgold 14:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid that I cannot. If I'm not imagining it, and I don't think I am, the argument was based on something he is known to have authored, but I do not recall that it was paleographical. Not to worry, Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cú Chuimne

message: Historians date the theft to 1007, e.g. , Ó Cróinín, Early Medieval Ireland 400–1200, p. 82: "...stole the Book of Kells from the sacristy of the church in AD1007, stripping of its priceless cover and burying it under a sod, where it was found again after eighty days"; Moody, Martin & Byrne, New History of Ireland, VIII: A Chronology ..., p. 48: "1007 ... Book of Kells stolen ...". Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Historians" presumably being the Annals of Ulster. Can Kafka Liz check the Henry ref? Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - changed & ref to online edition added. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch -- Henry confirms the 1007 date. I was focused on the quotation and missed it. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of theft

message: I am replacing some of the older Kells images in the Commons with higher resolution scans (shooting for file sizes that come in just under 5MB). - PKM (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Better images

message: I've made some changes, based on Dodwell, C.R.; The Pictorial arts of the West, 800-1200, 1993, Yale UP, , though actually softening his view, which is that "all Iona" is "probable". Since he is the most recent of the major refs, and cites other recent articles, especially Meyvaert 1989 in the Art Bulletin, I think a shift of emphasis is due. But of course I'm happy to discuss. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir Ed Sullivan argues for late 9th century, and supported by paleographers. Maybe should be offered. Purple Arrow (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a long time ago - Meyvaert goes for mid-8th century! Maybe we should add a range - the c.800 is not intended to be as precise as a later date would be, which may not be clear. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: As Dodwell says "Great book of Columba" very strongly implies this. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On that basis,that would imply that he wrote it too. It's not known whether it was written at the Irish Mission at Iona, or at Kells. Dodwell was often heavily criticized by his peers for drawing conclusions too readily.  Purple Arrow (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They probably did believe he wrote it too. As stated by Dodwell, and restated by me, I don't see any conclusions being jumped to.  I don't think he is alone in making this point. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: That's why it's best to go with Henry and Sullivan. Purple Arrow (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, why? Are you sure they don't make this point also?  Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Your edit is: "The description in the Annals suggests that the book was believed at that time to have been made on Iona." The Annals don't support your edit. Purple Arrow (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified, although I do not agree there was anything wrong in the first place. I'd be interested if you have an interpretation of what the Annals say that does not carry this suggestion. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  It is far from OR, as it is exactly what Dodwell says (and doubtless others before him).  As I say, if you have an alternative interpretation, it would be interesting to hear it, though as OR it could of course not be included in the article. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: How on earth does this article fall within the boundaries of "WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms"? I tried to undo this myself but it has to be done manually and I don't have the expertise to do that evidently. Maybe someone a bit more knowledgeable than myself could remove this daft thing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.12.32 (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you ask Sadads who added that project's banner on May 8, 2010? ww2censor (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms?? 

message: I Found the text oNline at a site called Questia. If it is the original text, please add the link to the article.
THANK YOU  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.255.95 (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text online 

message: This is 2010 animated movie and the ENTIRE THING is about the Book of Kells and it's creation/creators. Fictionalized, of course, but still it shoes some INCREDIBLE cg renders of the pages... Its like seeing the book when it was firt made, while the ink was still glistening. It should be mentioned somewhere, I think. I would do it, but every time I try to make an edit some jackass deletes it, so obviously I suck as editing. So, please, someone else please add that. 24.126.251.42 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Secret of Kells has its own entire Wikipedia article. Chuck (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The Secret of Kells

message: Christ Is Born!
Am new here - Hi to all! 
Just added brief paragraph to "Errors & Deviations". Is it the right section?
Happy Christmas to all! 
DacotaNash (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it the right section? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Book of Kells. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100721063204/http://www.slideshare.net:80/MarioKleff/ein-meisterwerk-a-masterpiece-book-of-kells to http://www.slideshare.net/MarioKleff/ein-meisterwerk-a-masterpiece-book-of-kells
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Book of Kells. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006110009/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/82nd-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/82nd-winners.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Book of Kells. 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/20150315013714/http://www.tcd.ie:80/Library/bookofkells/book-of-kells/ to http://www.tcd.ie/Library/bookofkells/book-of-kells/
*Added  tag to http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/english/jlincecum/jbl.bk.kells.page.html
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) 23:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have deleted the statement referenced to Dodwell that the book may have been written at Iona and the illustrations added at Kells. Below, it is stated that this is the most popular theory, referenced to Henry, but he only said that that the most widely accepted theory is that it was started at Iona and continued at Kells. Someone who has access to both sources may be able to clarify further. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've mostly reverted this - both are specialists, but Henry (a she btw) had been dead for over a decade when Dodwell published. Dodwell cites a 1989 article by Patrick Meyvaert I'll try to look at. But Dodwell doesn't mention the pics being added in Ireland. I'm pretty dubious about the Pictish bit; the longish abstract to that article contains nothing remotely relevant. This article makes it clear there is general Insular/Irish influence on Pictish art, but doesn't suggest the Picts were producing gospel books. I'm tempted to remove that bit.  Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Does my edit at  look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The preceding one & edit summary doesn't - nothing about that on TCD's page, but Pictland is mentioned, so I'll leave that here. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not make myself clear. The edit I was querying is on Kingdom of Northumbria, which I added as I thought the preceding one was badly worded and unreferenced. My query above was asking whether the Northumbria article is OK now. I did think of deleting the comment entirely as there is no suggestion that the book was written in Northumbria, and I am still not sure whether the cultural influence of Iona on Northumbria justifies its inclusion.  Dudley Miles (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not notice that you have revised the Northumbria article. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit on origin 

message: The article's Notes section lists repeated citations of a small group of important references, listed in the Sources section.  It seems to me that in a case like this, the article's citation formatting would be slightly but materially improved if wikilinks to full references were employed, using Template:Sfn and related tools.  This would replace plain text with wikilinks, or "blue links" pointing to the source/full citation.  The meaningful improvement consists in a reader having an easy link to the full citation as they scroll through the article (especially if they notice it's being cited repeatedly, oh, this one looks important, oh I can click on that).  I think that if the source is important enough to the article to be cited repeatedly and to have its own bibliographical information, then it can warrant some ease-of-use formatting, which shouldn't be controversial, notwithstanding the below guideline and the current article's FA status.
Although I made recent edits along these lines, they were undone pursuant to (I believe) WP:CITEVAR.  While I appreciate the general intent of the guideline (discourage pedantic/possibly unconstructive back-and-forth over this-or-that citation style), I maintain that the present featured article would be further improved if a citation formatting style along the above lines were implemented.  It wouldn't be "just changing/permuting a citation style for the sake of changing it".  Rather, it would be a small but manifest improvement to the article.  So how about it?  If the motion garners support, I'll do a mock-up for review. MinnesotanUser (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikilinks to full references?

message: Independently of the above section on citation formatting, I intend to make some unrelated edits using Henry and a small book by one Peter Brown (which largely buttresses Henry) as references.  I want to distinguish the two points because I made a recent burst of edits to the article on both points, so that they may be confused.  Generally, I'll proceed with edits on this latter point and refrain from changing citation formatting unless others go for it per the above section. MinnesotanUser (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of (Peter) Brown and Henry

message: There is a short story about a facsimile edition:
A Book of Kells [John Francis Cuddy], Mary Higgins Clark Mystery Magazine Summer 2000; by Healy, Jeremiah (F., III) (1948-2014) 
reprinted in Murder Most Celtic, and later in Murder Most Confederate/Celtic/Merry.
In that story it is said that there were 1000 copies made.  In the talk above it says 1480 copies. It would be nice to know what is correct.
In the story the prices paid to acquire a copy was $10,000. and up.  It would be nice to know any recent public auction prices, and how frequently such sales occur.
agb
BTW:  There are .pdf copies available on the internet [678 pages in full color].  I will not put a direct link, as doing that on wikipedia sometimes results in site explosion.  That Trinity College link on the main page does not seem to get anything beyond a general description.  Perhaps wikipedia could host a copy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.167.50 (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture