![]() | Book of Kells is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 16, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | There is a request, submitted by Chameleon, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Previously requested". |
Some of the previous text was copied verbatim from http://www.tcd.ie/Library/kells.htm and http://www.tcd.ie/Library/Visitors/kells.htm and http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/english/jlincecum/jbl.bk.kells.page.html . I'll try to reformulate. AxelBoldt 12:52, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Well spotted. FearÉIREANN 20:00, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This page seems to be under regular attack by someone who, perhaps quite rightly, wants to claim it for Kells and not Iona. My own feeling is that the article should reflect the fact that modern scholarship tends to lean towards a date of around 800 ( see here and her. I especially draw attention to the tcd.ie source as they own the damn thing!) and that the location of creation is almost entirely undecidable. Filiocht 15:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes I seem to concur with your sentiment. What country wouldn't want the Book of Kells as part of it's history! All the evidence goes to Ireland, but some modern revisionists who never even saw the damn thing assert that it's made in their neck of the woods. Well spotted, [IanB]
The Abbey of Kells was founded in 554 by Columba. An improper deleation, maybe?
Actually, I've been doing a bit of research and there is an alternative view that Kells was founded in the 6th century and rebuilt in the early 9th (see Edmund Hogan's Onomasticon Goedelicum). So it's not as clear cut as I first thought. I also think that the article might expand on insular majuscule, as it is not covered in the linked majuscule article. Also, wasn't Iona effectively an Irish community abroad? Certainly generally considered a Celtic monastery and adhered to the Celtic rather than Roman law. I also found this, which might be useful. Filiocht 09:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is it only me or are there others also who would find the spelling of medieval in the text and elsewhere repeatedly with the archaic "ae" letter disturbing. After all this is an article in "English" wikipedia where such a letter no longer exists. It looks quite snobbish.
"produced by Celtic monks around AD 800."????
What exactly is a Celtic monk? What makes a monk Celtic? I understand the reluctance to use modern terminology such as "Irish" or "Scottish" as these monks did not describe themselves thus. But neither would they have described themselves as Celts or Celtic. What about the term "Gaelic"? The creators of the Book of Kells spoke the Gaelic language, regardless of whether they lived on the island of Ireland or in what is now Scotland. -- Damac 08:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
During the recent run of this article on the main page, someone added a comment about a facsimile edition on display at Boston College. I assume that this is the 1990 facsimile. I don't doubt that BC has it on display. However, there were 1480 of these facsimiles made, with half of them being reserved for "Anglo-Saxon countries". The vast majority of these were bought by universities and colleges, and many of them put it on display. I would guess that there are dozens, if not hundreds of places with a facsimile on display. For this reason, I would propose that no place other than the church in Kells be listed in this article. (Kells, being the "original" location of the manuscript, is a special case.) Unless, there seems to be a consensus for keeping it, I will remove this statement in a few days. Dsmdgold 02:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
The article refers to the 'Abbey of Kells'. I always thought Kells was a monastery, not an abbey. Did Kells have an Abbot? Is that sufficient distinction between an Abbey and a Monastery? In a related note, I'm removing the like to 'Abbey of Kells' as it seems to point to an early 20th-century Baseball player of that name... ferg2k
what was it? Watercolour? All or mostly? The article should say & I can't see that it does. I am working on watercolour (guess what, not invented by Raphael after all) & would like to reference, if it was watercolour Johnbod 15:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It most certainly would have been egg tempera, which was the dominant medium in painting, whether on parchment, vellum or wood panels until the 15th century, when oil paints began to be used. Plotdot 03:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 11:46:39 plotdot 19 may 1007
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)
Our WikiProject reflects the desire to create and improve articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. The Book of Kells has been in the hands of Trinity for hundreds of years. By including it in our project I hoped to encourage work on related articles about the ancient Christian heritage of Great Britian and Ireland, as well as encourage work on Trinity-realted articles. This article falls in our area of study and I am little miffed that someone not involved with our project would decide that it is "not relevant" to our work. I have reverted. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this further. -- SECisek 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not express any "ownership" of TCD. "Ownership" is a bad thing. I said I hoped adding the Book of Kells article to our project would encourage further project intrest in TCD.
Banner-cruft? I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy against so-called banner-cruft. If you are worried about so-called bannercruft, We should just nest the lot of them, as is done wherever several project wish to add an article. Your intrest in the integrity of a talk page strikes me as bizarre.
I will tell you in no uncertain terms that you are wrong to suggest that the tagging of an article by a project, such as "Saints", should preclude other groups from alerting their editors to an article by way of a Wikiproject tag. This is nothing more then WP:OWN:
An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it.
This was already discussed elsewhere and consensus was in favor of multiple tags: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject#Curious Question About Removing WikiProject Tags
"Broadly speaking, the consensus (or gentleman's agreement among WikiProjects, really) has been: Properly-placed WikiProject tags are never removed; the only time they get taken off is if the article is deleted/merged/redirected/etc., or if it's not in scope of the project in the first place. It's perfectly normal for articles to have multiple WikiProject tags."
What is properly-place and who decides? Keep in mind that each project defines its own scope. Our's is Anglicanism, which includes the Church of Ireland. By removing our banner, what you have told me is that editors intrested in the Church of Ireland are not to be alerted to, or invited to edit, an article about an historic Bible created in Ireland. I don't know why you think that is so, or why you feel you should be able to make that call.
I was going to just let this go, but now I can see other editors dropping our tag from St. Augustine of Canterbury and Henry VIII, telling us that other projects have it in hand, and that they are not within the scope of our project. I am not spoiling for an argument, but you will have to make a better case then telling me that WP books, & WP VA have it hand and that is that. I hope you will yield to consensus, because I think we would both agree that putting an NPOV tag on a talk page would be down right silly. -- SECisek 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I will assume good faith, yet the suggestion that I have not edited long enough on Wikipedia to have a valid opinion on this subject is not just a little insulting. Never the less, I have had several hours away from this "spat" and I resigned myeslf to consult the trusted Historical Dictionary of Anglicanism by Colin Buchanan. I decided if the Book of Kells wasn't listed there I would offer my apologies and reverse my position. On returning home, I found that the book IS listed and described in that work. It is therefore considered important by a secondary source and should be included in our project. The tag should stand. That said, I DO invite other editors to comment on the matter and I will respect a change in existing consensus, if one is made clear. Thank you for your understanding of my position. -- SECisek 05:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
I think clarity should rule the day. -- SECisek 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been trying to change the date of the foundation of the monastery of Kells - NOT the date of the Book of Kells. Tradition has it - backed up by references in annals that there was a monastic settlement there from around 600 AD. The town of Kells to this day claims that the tradition includes a foundation of a monastic settlement by Colmcille. So there was a relationship between Iona and Kells which resulted in the monks from Iona fleeing there during the Viking raids and then establishing a larger community there.
I am not very au fait with how to navigate my way around this talk format so I hope I have been able to explain what I am trying to do. I am a teacher and scholar of Irish history. [[[User:69.143.82.178|69.143.82.178]] 22:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)]
Can you explain what on earth you mean by "sprinkling the page with "Irish"s?[[[User:69.143.82.178|69.143.82.178]]] —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
And your problem with this is? [Catriona1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catriona1 ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something in this discussion? What is the issue with "Irish" - I see someone has gone in to the history of the page and changed "Ireland" to "County Meath" - County Meath did not exist as such in the Kells Book period. Is there some confusion here or just an issue with having to conform to some arbitrary Anglo centric position? If so, this is not scholarship. [[[User:69.143.82.178|69.143.82.178]]]
Well the county designation will lead to much confusion and has no long historical basis - county boundaries vary over time and were not even introduced until the late Elizabethan period as part of the Westminster Government's mapping of the island of Ireland. But my question remains about your previous post - I am not deferred by name calling - what is the issue with "Irish"? [[[User:69.143.82.178|69.143.82.178]] 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)]
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)
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)
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)
I've made some changes, based on Dodwell, C.R.; The Pictorial arts of the West, 800-1200, 1993, Yale UP, ISBN 0300064934, 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)
I suggest to remove this edit [1], as the Annals do not say that. Purple Arrow ( talk) 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
We're still into WP:OR here, also here is a link to the relevant Annal page [2]. The Annals do not state as to where the book was compiled, whether at Kells, or at the Irish Mission at Iona. Purple Arrow ( talk) 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This section doesn't back up its reasoning, and as such lists discrepancies, not errors. 130.209.6.41 ( talk) 01:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.69 ( talk) 19:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
What are we talking about here? Johnbod ( talk) 00:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
book of kell what was it? when was it ? how was it made? who made it? why was it so important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.113.135 ( talk) 11:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
Since added at 'See also'. BTW, when did you attempt to add it? RashersTierney ( talk) 12:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Book of Kells. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/english/jlincecum/jbl.bk.kells.page.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | Book of Kells is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 16, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | There is a request, submitted by Chameleon, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Previously requested". |
Some of the previous text was copied verbatim from http://www.tcd.ie/Library/kells.htm and http://www.tcd.ie/Library/Visitors/kells.htm and http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/english/jlincecum/jbl.bk.kells.page.html . I'll try to reformulate. AxelBoldt 12:52, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Well spotted. FearÉIREANN 20:00, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This page seems to be under regular attack by someone who, perhaps quite rightly, wants to claim it for Kells and not Iona. My own feeling is that the article should reflect the fact that modern scholarship tends to lean towards a date of around 800 ( see here and her. I especially draw attention to the tcd.ie source as they own the damn thing!) and that the location of creation is almost entirely undecidable. Filiocht 15:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes I seem to concur with your sentiment. What country wouldn't want the Book of Kells as part of it's history! All the evidence goes to Ireland, but some modern revisionists who never even saw the damn thing assert that it's made in their neck of the woods. Well spotted, [IanB]
The Abbey of Kells was founded in 554 by Columba. An improper deleation, maybe?
Actually, I've been doing a bit of research and there is an alternative view that Kells was founded in the 6th century and rebuilt in the early 9th (see Edmund Hogan's Onomasticon Goedelicum). So it's not as clear cut as I first thought. I also think that the article might expand on insular majuscule, as it is not covered in the linked majuscule article. Also, wasn't Iona effectively an Irish community abroad? Certainly generally considered a Celtic monastery and adhered to the Celtic rather than Roman law. I also found this, which might be useful. Filiocht 09:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is it only me or are there others also who would find the spelling of medieval in the text and elsewhere repeatedly with the archaic "ae" letter disturbing. After all this is an article in "English" wikipedia where such a letter no longer exists. It looks quite snobbish.
"produced by Celtic monks around AD 800."????
What exactly is a Celtic monk? What makes a monk Celtic? I understand the reluctance to use modern terminology such as "Irish" or "Scottish" as these monks did not describe themselves thus. But neither would they have described themselves as Celts or Celtic. What about the term "Gaelic"? The creators of the Book of Kells spoke the Gaelic language, regardless of whether they lived on the island of Ireland or in what is now Scotland. -- Damac 08:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
During the recent run of this article on the main page, someone added a comment about a facsimile edition on display at Boston College. I assume that this is the 1990 facsimile. I don't doubt that BC has it on display. However, there were 1480 of these facsimiles made, with half of them being reserved for "Anglo-Saxon countries". The vast majority of these were bought by universities and colleges, and many of them put it on display. I would guess that there are dozens, if not hundreds of places with a facsimile on display. For this reason, I would propose that no place other than the church in Kells be listed in this article. (Kells, being the "original" location of the manuscript, is a special case.) Unless, there seems to be a consensus for keeping it, I will remove this statement in a few days. Dsmdgold 02:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
The article refers to the 'Abbey of Kells'. I always thought Kells was a monastery, not an abbey. Did Kells have an Abbot? Is that sufficient distinction between an Abbey and a Monastery? In a related note, I'm removing the like to 'Abbey of Kells' as it seems to point to an early 20th-century Baseball player of that name... ferg2k
what was it? Watercolour? All or mostly? The article should say & I can't see that it does. I am working on watercolour (guess what, not invented by Raphael after all) & would like to reference, if it was watercolour Johnbod 15:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It most certainly would have been egg tempera, which was the dominant medium in painting, whether on parchment, vellum or wood panels until the 15th century, when oil paints began to be used. Plotdot 03:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 11:46:39 plotdot 19 may 1007
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)
Our WikiProject reflects the desire to create and improve articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. The Book of Kells has been in the hands of Trinity for hundreds of years. By including it in our project I hoped to encourage work on related articles about the ancient Christian heritage of Great Britian and Ireland, as well as encourage work on Trinity-realted articles. This article falls in our area of study and I am little miffed that someone not involved with our project would decide that it is "not relevant" to our work. I have reverted. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this further. -- SECisek 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not express any "ownership" of TCD. "Ownership" is a bad thing. I said I hoped adding the Book of Kells article to our project would encourage further project intrest in TCD.
Banner-cruft? I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy against so-called banner-cruft. If you are worried about so-called bannercruft, We should just nest the lot of them, as is done wherever several project wish to add an article. Your intrest in the integrity of a talk page strikes me as bizarre.
I will tell you in no uncertain terms that you are wrong to suggest that the tagging of an article by a project, such as "Saints", should preclude other groups from alerting their editors to an article by way of a Wikiproject tag. This is nothing more then WP:OWN:
An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it.
This was already discussed elsewhere and consensus was in favor of multiple tags: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject#Curious Question About Removing WikiProject Tags
"Broadly speaking, the consensus (or gentleman's agreement among WikiProjects, really) has been: Properly-placed WikiProject tags are never removed; the only time they get taken off is if the article is deleted/merged/redirected/etc., or if it's not in scope of the project in the first place. It's perfectly normal for articles to have multiple WikiProject tags."
What is properly-place and who decides? Keep in mind that each project defines its own scope. Our's is Anglicanism, which includes the Church of Ireland. By removing our banner, what you have told me is that editors intrested in the Church of Ireland are not to be alerted to, or invited to edit, an article about an historic Bible created in Ireland. I don't know why you think that is so, or why you feel you should be able to make that call.
I was going to just let this go, but now I can see other editors dropping our tag from St. Augustine of Canterbury and Henry VIII, telling us that other projects have it in hand, and that they are not within the scope of our project. I am not spoiling for an argument, but you will have to make a better case then telling me that WP books, & WP VA have it hand and that is that. I hope you will yield to consensus, because I think we would both agree that putting an NPOV tag on a talk page would be down right silly. -- SECisek 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I will assume good faith, yet the suggestion that I have not edited long enough on Wikipedia to have a valid opinion on this subject is not just a little insulting. Never the less, I have had several hours away from this "spat" and I resigned myeslf to consult the trusted Historical Dictionary of Anglicanism by Colin Buchanan. I decided if the Book of Kells wasn't listed there I would offer my apologies and reverse my position. On returning home, I found that the book IS listed and described in that work. It is therefore considered important by a secondary source and should be included in our project. The tag should stand. That said, I DO invite other editors to comment on the matter and I will respect a change in existing consensus, if one is made clear. Thank you for your understanding of my position. -- SECisek 05:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
I think clarity should rule the day. -- SECisek 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been trying to change the date of the foundation of the monastery of Kells - NOT the date of the Book of Kells. Tradition has it - backed up by references in annals that there was a monastic settlement there from around 600 AD. The town of Kells to this day claims that the tradition includes a foundation of a monastic settlement by Colmcille. So there was a relationship between Iona and Kells which resulted in the monks from Iona fleeing there during the Viking raids and then establishing a larger community there.
I am not very au fait with how to navigate my way around this talk format so I hope I have been able to explain what I am trying to do. I am a teacher and scholar of Irish history. [[[User:69.143.82.178|69.143.82.178]] 22:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)]
Can you explain what on earth you mean by "sprinkling the page with "Irish"s?[[[User:69.143.82.178|69.143.82.178]]] —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
And your problem with this is? [Catriona1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catriona1 ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something in this discussion? What is the issue with "Irish" - I see someone has gone in to the history of the page and changed "Ireland" to "County Meath" - County Meath did not exist as such in the Kells Book period. Is there some confusion here or just an issue with having to conform to some arbitrary Anglo centric position? If so, this is not scholarship. [[[User:69.143.82.178|69.143.82.178]]]
Well the county designation will lead to much confusion and has no long historical basis - county boundaries vary over time and were not even introduced until the late Elizabethan period as part of the Westminster Government's mapping of the island of Ireland. But my question remains about your previous post - I am not deferred by name calling - what is the issue with "Irish"? [[[User:69.143.82.178|69.143.82.178]] 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)]
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)
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)
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)
I've made some changes, based on Dodwell, C.R.; The Pictorial arts of the West, 800-1200, 1993, Yale UP, ISBN 0300064934, 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)
I suggest to remove this edit [1], as the Annals do not say that. Purple Arrow ( talk) 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
We're still into WP:OR here, also here is a link to the relevant Annal page [2]. The Annals do not state as to where the book was compiled, whether at Kells, or at the Irish Mission at Iona. Purple Arrow ( talk) 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This section doesn't back up its reasoning, and as such lists discrepancies, not errors. 130.209.6.41 ( talk) 01:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.69 ( talk) 19:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
What are we talking about here? Johnbod ( talk) 00:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
book of kell what was it? when was it ? how was it made? who made it? why was it so important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.113.135 ( talk) 11:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
Since added at 'See also'. BTW, when did you attempt to add it? RashersTierney ( talk) 12:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Book of Kells. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/english/jlincecum/jbl.bk.kells.page.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)