Talk:High cross

Untitled
The image on this page should be changed, this is a 19th/20th c tombstone in the shape of a high cross. It's most misleading Blorgina 19:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Which image are you referring to? The 4 images that are currently on this page are real Irish High Crosses. I'm assuming that this must be in reference to a picture that is no longer on the page. grok00 15nov06

Orientation
The article Muiredach's High Cross seems to imply that high crosses are conventionally oriented East-West. If this is true, it might be an interesting addition to this article. Oliphaunt (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Galician crosses
Please, consider the stone crosses of Galicia and North Portugal. There are around 10.000, some of them from Middle Age period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachonion (talk • contribs) 12:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion of terms 'high cross', 'Celtic cross'
The term 'high cross' is attested in medieval Irish, English, Scottish, and Welsh sources and so it the correct term to describe the crosses created in the medieval era. As the article Celtic cross makes plain on its very first line, "Celtic cross is a term, invented in the 19th century" and led to the creation of the so-called 'Celtic crosses' during the 19th century. Thus references to Celtic crosses should only be used for those created from the 19th century, not high crosses. There have been instances of incorrect application of the term Celtic (and 'the British Isles') in this article which I will continue to remove until someone can explain why it should be used in said contexts. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A high cross is a type of object, which may or may not use the Celtic cross shape, though most do, especially in Ireland. That the latter term was only invented in the 19th century certainly does not mean "references to Celtic crosses should only be used for those created from the 19th century" at all! The academic literature certainly does not do this. Replacing "Celtic" with "Irish" is only sometimes correct. This seems to be editing in a blatently nationalistic fashion. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you think that I am editing in "blatently nationalistic fashion" when all I am doing is trying to use the correct terms in their correct contexts. The ringed high cross was in use under well-attested names in medieval Ireland and Britain before anyone started calling them 'Celtic' in the 19th century (1850s seems to be the exact decade). If you read the original article and my revisions, you will see I have been careful in use of the term 'Irish' instead of 'Celtic' - the latter makes no sense at all in the original. I would be obliged if you explained carefully where and why Celtic is (and is not) useful in this article. Otherwise I won't understand your point of view. Cheers, Fergananim (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You can call high crosses with rings "ringed", "nimbate", "with nimbus" etc, but "Celtic" is a perfectly well-established descriptive term for this shape, and much the best for a general audience. The majority of terms in art history are invented retrospectively: no-one thought they were building "Romanesque" or "Gothic" buildings, and nobody knew they were making Insular art. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So if Celtic means 'ringed', 'nimbate', 'with nimbus', why not just say that? And its not clear either why the same term should be applied to an ethnic group (the Irish), religion (Celtic Christianity), and the high cross - all in the one article. Anyone? Fergananim (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I too find many of your changes here to be misguided. For one thing, changing "Celtic Christianity" to "Irish Christians" may be confusing to readers considering that we're talking about Iona in Scotland. Additionally, removing Celtic cross is uncalled for: whether or not the term is historical or even accurate, it's a widely used conventional term for what the article is talking about - a specific type of circular cross. Your edit removed all mention of one of the most important features of high crosses, the fact that most feature this type of cross. Please be more careful making edits of this kind.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Iona was settled by the Irish, and remained an Irish establishment - Celts don't come into it, and 'Celtic' Christianity never existed. The Celtic Cross only came into existence in the 1850s; all I did was denote the medieval high crosses on the one hand and the Celtic cross on the other. What exactly is the point of Wikipedia if inaccurate conventional terms are given parity with accurate historical ones? And neither of you answered my question. Fergananim (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

recent edits
This copied from my talk. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "It's inaccurate, that's what." What is?
 * Changing "Celtic" to "Irish" in every context. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please cite 'every' context - no, just pick a few examples, and I can explain why. Fergananim (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with it now, after another editor has edited it. Please note what Great Britain means. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm back taking them out again. Great Britain was a state between 1707 and 1801. Britain is a geographic entity. Fergananim (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As is Great Bruitain. Numerous editors have now asked you to stop making these edits, but you persist. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Great Bruitain'? Nevertheless; the political term Great Britain cannot be applied before 1707 or after 1800 - it was replaced by the UK (first version) and like that infamous ex-parrot, it ceased to be. Geography and politics don't alway align. And you still have not given good reason why Celtic should so often be used instead of Irish, et al. So I see no reason to stop. Fergananim (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because you keep introducing mistakes (and careless grammatical errors). Your replacements of Celtic with Insular in Insular art just show you didn't understand what was being said, to give one example. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Then do as I ask, and explain yourself. Fergananim (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If I may,, the problem is that a lot of what you change doesn't need to be changed. In some cases, you actually introduce errors - for instance at Celtic cross, the terms is not interchangeable with high cross, which is a specific type of monument. As I've said to you before, the term "Celtic" is problematic, but even if it's not strictly accurate, in this case "Celtic cross" is the conventional term for this form of cross. You really need to be more careful in what you change. Others can't be expected to explain the problem with every one of your very many changes.
 * There's also no issue using the term "Great Britain" for the island. The term predates the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain by hundreds of years. If you're going to change it to Britain, make sure you pipe the link as Britain, as Britain is a dab page and not an acceptable link.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Britain/Great Britain will be so linked - even though it is wrong even in that context. Allowing parity because its 'conventional' is baffling. The term Celtic is only problematic when used incorrectly, so the revisions replaced incorrect popular uses with correct ones - Irish, Gaelic, ringed, high cross, etc, depending on context. Too many use Celtic too freely and think necessary revisions unnecessary. So incorrect conventional uses - generally Anglocentric - are held to be correct! It seems no amount of discussion or revision changes this. Fergananim (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We follow the sources. If the sources use "Celtic" then we must too. We aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or other such problems. If the sources for an article use "Celtic" then the usage in our article isn't problematic. You need to take up your campaign with the sources using the term. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and per WP:ERA - AD can go before or after the year. There isn't a rule that it must go before. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , again, nothing "wrong" in using "Great Britain" for the island. I usually use "Britain" in these contexts as it's what the sources typically use, but of course proper linking is necessary. Otherwise, not a big deal.
 * Please do heed what says re the conventions on the term "Celtic". Where sources use "Celtic" in such terms as Celtic cross, we do too. Full stop. In this case there's not even another term to substitute; as we've already said, Celtic cross and high cross are related but not interchangeable. High crosses are specific monuments that usually, but not always, take the shape of the Celtic cross. Additionally, there are many uses of the Celtic cross shape outside the context of high crosses. You can't just swap the terms.
 * And yeah, per WP:ERA, we usually don't even need to include "AD" at all, but when we do it doesn't matter if it's before or after the year.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The implications of all this make me wonder if there is any point to Wikipedia, or continuing on it. Even if good scholarly sources are used, are they going to be trumped by conventional ones? One external link for the Celtic cross article is a craftsman and jewelry designer - is his article to be given parity with a scholar? Sources or links are either American or English so their knowledge  of anything Irish is at best Anglocentric (hence free use of the term Celtic in the first place). Even when Irish, American, or English scholars are used, they are decades or more out of date. Why should bad sources/links have primacy and good ones so little? 20:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fergananim (talk • contribs)
 * Not to keep using Jon's talk page for this, but I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. When we say that the word "Celtic" is the convention used in the sources, we're not talking about pop history sources, we're talking about the high caliber sources most relevant to the topic. These are not "Anglocentric" or out of date. "Celtic" in the sense of Celtic Christianity, Celtic Easter dating, etc., is still used by the best available sources for the topic. That was part of the trouble with your edits to Celtic Christianity, Wilfrid, and some others - the best, most up-to-date sources for those articles do use the word "Celtic". It's simply a case where no better alternative has emerged for these elements of Christianity in Britain and Ireland. Similarly, I've now added better sourcing to Celtic cross, and those use "Celtic" as well. Again, it's not something that can easily be replaced, least of all by the term high cross, which is a related but distinct subject. The edits you've made that have been reverted rarely if ever include sources, and in some cases contradict what the existing sources say. Moving forward, it will probably be more productive to explain what you'd like to change up front.--Cúchullain t/ c  04:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Likewise apologies to Jon I'll try and keep this as short as possible: Up to the 1960s, romantic and political uses of the terms Celts and Celtic infected even scholarly work - people said Celt when they really meant Gael, or Briton; Celtic when they really meant Manx, Gàidhlig, or Cymraeg. All this implied that they were all 'one people' directly descended from the actual Celts of Gaul, Italia, and Iberia; that the various languages only in modern times classified as Celtic were really one (baffling to anyone who has tried to make themselves understood to each other in them). This unhistoric belief - not shared by any of the medieval or early modern peoples concerned - was an English concept directly related to their political rule of Britain and Ireland, and the creation of Great Britain and its subsequent successor states, the two United Kingdoms. All such uses were based in a racial stereotype of the 'Celt' as a subordinate human; passionate, uncivil, fit only to be ruled (by the English of course). You only have to look at 19th century cartoons and caricatures of the Irish, Scots, Welsh (and in France, the Bretons) to see this. The opposite of the 'Celt' was the 'Teuton', or 'Anglo-Saxon', a rational Protestant creature bred by God to rule. Well, two world wars put paid to that idea among the English but by that stage the Anglo-Irish (Davis, Hyde, Pearse, et al) had all adopted the stereotypes so it became embedded into popular English-language Irish ideas which, after independence, became embedded into the Irish educational system where the 'Celt' became the Catholic counter-point to the Protestant 'Anglo-Saxon'. Thankfully, from the 1960s all these daft ideas have been understood on their own terms, and dismissed, so much so that most Irish and British scholars use the terms rarely (TV presenters of popular history are another story). But they linger in common use - and as neither the Irish nor the British majorities use Goidelic or Brittonic languages, all that is left to describe these heritages are inaccurate English concepts and terms.


 * In short, the only correct application of the term Celtic today is as a linguistic classification, which has no modern application to ethnicity, nationality, art, genes, religion, medieval high crosses, et al - quite a limited one even for Iron Age groups and none at all for medieval ones. Any use other than linguistic is just pop-nonsence, a commerical fad ('Celtic music', 'Celtic brooches'), and Anglocentric as it does not use the terms or senses of the cultures concerned. The terms never appear in any of their languages or literatures (except during the 19th and 20th centuries as English imports); their own terms should be applied. Thank you for your patience, Fergananim (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a very simplistic summary - in some ways the situation is worse than you think, because your easy assumption that there were "actual Celts of Gaul, Italia, and Iberia" is wrong - if anything the application of the term to continental "Celts" is more problemmatic than to the "Insular Celts". Every academic work on ancient Celts begins with a hand-wringing introduction pointing out the unsatisfactory nature of the term, but academics continue to use it, properly qualified, for lack of any adequate alternative, and because it has a high degree of public recognition. The British Museum & National Museum of Scotland had a major exhibition in 2015/16 called "Celts, art and identity" starting with the Hallstatt culture and ending with Glasgow Celtic and Belfast painted walls. The large catalogue, by specialists, is full of qualifications over the use of the term, but they still use it.  You obviously don't like this, but your personal opinion will not prevail over the sources. The relevant WP articles address the difficulties with the term adequately, but still use it, just like academia.  Your summary of the beginning of the modern use of Celts is complete rubbish - the term was first used by the Welsh Celticist Edward Lhuyd, and for example promoted in France by Jacques Le Brigant (1720-1804) and Théophile Corret de la Tour d'Auvergne, passionate advocates of their native Brittany. Contrary to your nonsense, it was Lhuyd who first set out the P and Q language groups as still recognised by linguists, though the ethnic conclusions he drew from that were certainly over the top.  Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm copying this all to Talk:High cross. Please continue there, if we must. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh? Why not at Celtic cross, given that it contains the contentious term? Fergananim (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your contentious edits are in many places; the discussion should only be at one. Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My response to the above went astray; it was as follows -
 * Well because its a summery, it was written as simply as possible. And a summary based upon years of research into the many subjects concerned - history, languages, archaeology, genetics, politics, fashion, literature, et al. There were huge issues with the British Museum exhibition (which differed from the exhibition later held in Scotland) - as many scholars pointed out; one Irish reviewer went to far as to state that "To me, the underlying message is that Celtic Art is at its best when used as a political tool by the British state." . Populist modern uses of the terms (Glasgow Celtic ?!?) cannot be taken seriously as the Exhibition did - remember, most of the reviewers were not historians but art critics! No I do not like it yet that dislike is not a personal opinion but a professional conclusion, like that of English archaeolgist Rachel Pope, derived from years of work. Fergananim (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just read the Chapple blog, which is interesting, but seems to think the dismissal of "Modern Celtic" heritage has gone too far - surely the opposite of your view? And Rachel Pope thinks the BM exhibition was "Well researched and with a strong narrative thread – and presenting the latest thinking on the Celts" - so I'm not sure what your point was there. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Lhuyd and other linguists were quite right in their linguistic enquiries - it was other applications that were at fault and they were the ones I outlined. Simply because you are not aware of this side of the Celtic story does not mean it is 'complete rubbish', only a further example of how little people understand. Fergananim (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "the P and Q language groups as still recognised by linguists" - I presume you really mean the Goidelic and Brittonic languages? Fergananim (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think Celtic F.C. should change their name I suggest you write & tell them! I think you've already been told that Wikipedia is not the place for Righting Great Wrongs. Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is starting to get far off topic, but the line to draw is that reliable sources do still use the term "Celtic" in some circumstances, often with qualification, regardless of the problematic nature of the term. I think it's also clear that in a number of cases Fergananim's edits altering or removing the term "Celtic" from various articles have been determined problematic by a number of knowledgeable editors, with the result that they cause more trouble than they fix. This can be resolved simply by Fergananim bringing up what changes they'd like to make beforehand, with sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the best course, so I will. Possibly not this side of Christmas though! Fergananim (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High cross. 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/20090819054426/http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=11102 to http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=11102

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) 17:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ethiopian-Eritrean cross 1.png