Talk:Celtic Revival

Galicia
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)
 * --Bretema7 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsigned Talk
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)
 * This is a talk page - you don't need references. All sorts of nonsense are allowed. Johnbod (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

As far as Galicia being celtic in the past, Koch probably contains the best reference:

 Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  16:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

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)
 * Support, that is the way, and agree. Oppose, per WP:VAMOS and Johnbod below. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We capitalize loads of movements, and like many movements this was diverse. It is normally capitalized, and certainly a proper name. Any evidence McCandlish? Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Early Netherlandish painting although this is really a subset of Early Netherlandish art; Abstract expressionism, Neo-expressionism, Pop art. Messy. Ceoil (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * These are styles, not movements. Art Nouveau and Arts and Crafts are the obvious comparators. Even the obsessive McCandlish would not I think propose decapitalizing those. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's no reason to capitalize those things, and major style guides like Chicago say not to do so, as does our own DOCTCAPS. "Certainly a proper noun" indicates a lack of clarity as to what that term actually means. An umbrella term for "a variety of movements and trends" [some of which may have proper names] is not a proper name; it's a common noun .  Obvious illustration of the principle: Roman Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam (proper nouns) are all Abrahamic religions (common-noun umbrella classification, with an embedded adjectival proper name, "Abrahamic"); they are not "Abrahamic R eligions" nor collectively "Abrahamic R eligion".  I'll cover the move rationale in more detail in the  section, though this should not be necessary; this move is .  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense - See below. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think it's more appropriate and respectful of us as Wikipedians to use the form that's in the sources. I am concerned that WP policy in some of these cases can lead to historical revisionism. Already we see some groups and movements miscategorized on WP due to WP consensus defining some things differently than they are usually defined in the world at large. At the very least, changing so many naming conventions can lead to inconsistent caps throughout the article. Sometimes this then leads to well-meaning users changing historical statements to bring them in line with current trends. Consensus on WP can change; the historical sources we use do not. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 15:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
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:. 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 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., &sect;&sect;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  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 C ltures, 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 C ulture". 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 L anguages" or "Iranian P eoples". English does not work that way unless you're writing advertising copy or a book title.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact the main WP:MOSCAPS doesn't deal with art movements at all, the relevant guideline is WP:VAMOS. The whole point about movements in the arts is that they are NOT "something official, centralized, or even organized". To say that "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" is complete rubbish, and I think shows how totally unfamiliar you are with the subject area. In fact it is, like Art Nouveau, almost always capitalized by sources of all kinds. You don't like that, but it is a fact. Some examples: Metropolitan Museum, books:, , (note "Revival" by itself), [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QoFlDwi99wcC&pg=PA276, , The Cambridge Companion to Modern Irish Culture, p.7, , and so on. You have to go to page 3 of google hits before the first "Celtic revival".


 * I'm alarmed by your attitude to speedy moves, which are much abused on WP by those who think that their opinions are always right. Don't say you listed it "as a courtesy"; you were obliged to list it as you correctly predicted there would be opposition. The rules are very clear, and it is disturbing to see you imply that you routinely break them. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm alarmed by your frequent WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in RM. Here, you are berating me for predicting controversy, correctly using the longer RM process, and making it explicit that I did so for this very reason, all while agreeing with me that it was the proper course of action. This is like screaming at your neighbor to clean up after his dog after he has already cleaned up after his dog. Go find someone else to yell at, and give the WP:MASTODON act a rest, please.  As to your other points: The Celtic revival is not a visual arts movement, it's an umbrella term for a wide variety of cultural movements, so VAMOS isn't pertinent.  Your "whole point about art movements" thing is thus also off-topic, and is a straw man anyway (please re-read what I said; it was me who made the point to begin with that we're treating major art movements [which this is not] as an exception, so browbeating me about how much of an exception they are is a non-starter).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please turn your alarm off. I actually said "whole point about movements in the arts..." & VAMOS is certainly "pertinent", and the main MOSCAPS still does not cover these specifically. Yes, you did the correct thing, but then explained what a favour you were doing us in doing so, "as a courtesy". Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, then you can also dial back your Offense-o-Meter. We have a speedy rename process for a reason.  My point was that most editors familiar with it will use it, as with all other speedy processes, when they think they can use it, even if they think someone might belatedly oppose.  My implication is thus that I'm avoiding such "can I get away with it" behavior, in favor of a more robust consensus process, despite this in fact being a routine removal-of-overcapitalization move, of the same sort we process dozens of times per month. There is nothing special about this case, other than the emotional heat that Celticists tend to bring to such discussions (and I say that as one of their number).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The rules are absolutely clear - they should not "use it, even if they think someone might belatedly oppose". Your admission that they routinely do is unfortunately no surprise, but your attitude is still depressing. What is special about this case is that the nom is wrong, as CR is a proper name, and nearly always treated as such. From MOSCAPS: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." You have somehow picked up the wholly false idea that CR is not usually capitalized as a proper name - but it is, even if it does not meet your personal criteria as to what ought to be capitalized in English. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intro claim
"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)


 * Seems to me that gravestones of this type are still extremely popular.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  21:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Indeed. When is the "narrow period" supposed to have ended? Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Is the Celtic Revival Dead?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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/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)

Merge discussions
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)

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)
 * Strong Oppose to a merge. No proposal has been properly made, & it would be a bad idea. This is a much broader subject, as the article shows. Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Celtic Revival centered around the Celtic languages and culture, with the aim of preserving them. The Irish Literary Revival was essentially in English, and was directed towards creating a new Irish identity. Narky Blert (talk) 20:19, 29 May 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)
 * Closing; opposition and no support. Klbrain (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

Article is bloated
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)


 * 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. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 22:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 22:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. -  Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 20:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Sources for France
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)