![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Celtomania page were merged into Celtic Revival. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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.
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)
As far as Galicia being celtic in the past, Koch probably contains the best reference: Calvete, J (2006), Koch, J.T. (ed.), "Galicia", Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, p. 788-791 Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline ( talk) 21:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Celtic Revival →
Celtic revival – Per
WP:DOCTCAPS, we do not capitalize the names of movements, trends, campaigns, genres, etc. This isn't even a specific thing (as the lead says, it's an umbrella term for "a variety of movements and trends, mostly in the 19th and 20th centuries"), so it cannot be a
proper name, only a
common noun (except inasmuch as it contains the proper name "Celtic"). PS: This will also rename
Category:Celtic Revival (the scattershot and scarcely related contents of which further indicate that there is no proper-name "Celtic Revival" with a capital R). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
03:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The only general movements WP capitalizes as a class (due to the WP:SSF effect, one can usually find some stray capitalized ones that need to be RMed to lower case, like this one) are the trans-medium, "top-level" arts and philosophy movements of global cultural significance, as in Romanticism, Neo-Platonism (or Neoplatonism), etc. (and even that's a bad idea, since it results in linguistically silly things like "Art Nouveau", a French phrase that would never be capitalized like that in French, and a style that major style guides advise against, but that's another issue for another time). And we of course capitalize those that are trademarks, formal organizations or institutions, or the name of which consists of some other proper name (often in modified form), usually a personal or place name.
The "evidence" against capitalization of things like "Celtic revival" has already been provided: We have a guideline against it. Consequently, our articles do not do this for general movements/trends/doctrines/campaigns/genres; thousands and thousands of articles demonstrate this, from democracy, to industrial music and Gothic subculture, to method acting, to transhumanism and secular humanism, to transcendental meditation, to agile software development, and insert as many more as you'd like (all of which can be found capitalized in promotional sources written by their adherents, and various weaker journalistic sources that overcapitalize to make people happier at the expense of clarity). We routinely decapitalize these things at RM, and many of them are listed for speedy renaming or just moved manually as noncontroversial. RMs to undo PoV-pushing and promotional / advocacy overcapitalization close in favor of lower case dozens of times per month. I listed this one the slow way as a courtesy, because a few editors of Celts-related articles tend to be a bit over-sensitive about article titles in this area. I'm an avowed pan-Celticist myself, just one who knows not to abuse capital letters on WP to make a point.
This article's own lead clearly indicates it's a catch-all phrase for misc. tenuously related things, not a name for something official, centralized, or even organized; the same-named category's contents are all over the place and generally unrelated to each other. Add on to this that no mainstream style guide would capitalize in this manner (see, e.g. Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed., §§8.78, 8.60, 8.66. As with capitalization of "Neopagan" (which WP does not do) and "Pagan" (which WP does not do), virtually the only sources that capitalize "Celtic revival" (aside from the "Celtic" part) in the sense of this article are non-independent sources promoting the movement in question; this is the very reason that we have the WP:DOCTCAPS guideline against this capitalization (and why it's non-encyclopedic is covered in detail at the WP:SSF essay). Such sources are (maybe, sometimes) reliable as to what the beliefs and positions and (less often) the history of their movement are, but they are not reliable sources about how to neutrally write encyclopedic prose about the topic for a general audience. "Celtic revival" is a common noun, even if some of the things it may encompass are proper names. Another example: Navajo, Puebloan, Apache, Cherokee, etc., are Native American cultures, not Native American Cltures, and all the N.A. cultures together can perhaps be considered to represent "Native American culture" [this would be anthropologically wrong, but it's politically correct in some contexts], not "Native American Culture". Not even if you can find a source somewhere that overcapitalizes it that way. Same goes for Indo-European languages and the Iranian peoples; not "Indo-Euopean Languages" or "Iranian Peoples". English does not work that way unless you're writing advertising copy or a book title.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
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 {{
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) 00:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: 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)
Comment: If there is to be a merger then the sections and subsections need to be restructured. The ILR article would probably be a separate section in itself, as with any situation where
Gaelic revival is considered for merging.
Jonjonjohny (
talk)
08:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the templates from the pages. This merge proposal wasn't correctly formed in the first place so I haven't "closed it" as such but ultimately such a proposal would inevitably fail. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 20:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Celtomania page were merged into Celtic Revival. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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.
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)
As far as Galicia being celtic in the past, Koch probably contains the best reference: Calvete, J (2006), Koch, J.T. (ed.), "Galicia", Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, p. 788-791 Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline ( talk) 21:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Celtic Revival →
Celtic revival – Per
WP:DOCTCAPS, we do not capitalize the names of movements, trends, campaigns, genres, etc. This isn't even a specific thing (as the lead says, it's an umbrella term for "a variety of movements and trends, mostly in the 19th and 20th centuries"), so it cannot be a
proper name, only a
common noun (except inasmuch as it contains the proper name "Celtic"). PS: This will also rename
Category:Celtic Revival (the scattershot and scarcely related contents of which further indicate that there is no proper-name "Celtic Revival" with a capital R). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
03:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The only general movements WP capitalizes as a class (due to the WP:SSF effect, one can usually find some stray capitalized ones that need to be RMed to lower case, like this one) are the trans-medium, "top-level" arts and philosophy movements of global cultural significance, as in Romanticism, Neo-Platonism (or Neoplatonism), etc. (and even that's a bad idea, since it results in linguistically silly things like "Art Nouveau", a French phrase that would never be capitalized like that in French, and a style that major style guides advise against, but that's another issue for another time). And we of course capitalize those that are trademarks, formal organizations or institutions, or the name of which consists of some other proper name (often in modified form), usually a personal or place name.
The "evidence" against capitalization of things like "Celtic revival" has already been provided: We have a guideline against it. Consequently, our articles do not do this for general movements/trends/doctrines/campaigns/genres; thousands and thousands of articles demonstrate this, from democracy, to industrial music and Gothic subculture, to method acting, to transhumanism and secular humanism, to transcendental meditation, to agile software development, and insert as many more as you'd like (all of which can be found capitalized in promotional sources written by their adherents, and various weaker journalistic sources that overcapitalize to make people happier at the expense of clarity). We routinely decapitalize these things at RM, and many of them are listed for speedy renaming or just moved manually as noncontroversial. RMs to undo PoV-pushing and promotional / advocacy overcapitalization close in favor of lower case dozens of times per month. I listed this one the slow way as a courtesy, because a few editors of Celts-related articles tend to be a bit over-sensitive about article titles in this area. I'm an avowed pan-Celticist myself, just one who knows not to abuse capital letters on WP to make a point.
This article's own lead clearly indicates it's a catch-all phrase for misc. tenuously related things, not a name for something official, centralized, or even organized; the same-named category's contents are all over the place and generally unrelated to each other. Add on to this that no mainstream style guide would capitalize in this manner (see, e.g. Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed., §§8.78, 8.60, 8.66. As with capitalization of "Neopagan" (which WP does not do) and "Pagan" (which WP does not do), virtually the only sources that capitalize "Celtic revival" (aside from the "Celtic" part) in the sense of this article are non-independent sources promoting the movement in question; this is the very reason that we have the WP:DOCTCAPS guideline against this capitalization (and why it's non-encyclopedic is covered in detail at the WP:SSF essay). Such sources are (maybe, sometimes) reliable as to what the beliefs and positions and (less often) the history of their movement are, but they are not reliable sources about how to neutrally write encyclopedic prose about the topic for a general audience. "Celtic revival" is a common noun, even if some of the things it may encompass are proper names. Another example: Navajo, Puebloan, Apache, Cherokee, etc., are Native American cultures, not Native American Cltures, and all the N.A. cultures together can perhaps be considered to represent "Native American culture" [this would be anthropologically wrong, but it's politically correct in some contexts], not "Native American Culture". Not even if you can find a source somewhere that overcapitalizes it that way. Same goes for Indo-European languages and the Iranian peoples; not "Indo-Euopean Languages" or "Iranian Peoples". English does not work that way unless you're writing advertising copy or a book title.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
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 {{
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) 00:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: 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)
Comment: If there is to be a merger then the sections and subsections need to be restructured. The ILR article would probably be a separate section in itself, as with any situation where
Gaelic revival is considered for merging.
Jonjonjohny (
talk)
08:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the templates from the pages. This merge proposal wasn't correctly formed in the first place so I haven't "closed it" as such but ultimately such a proposal would inevitably fail. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 20:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)