Talk:Celtic Christianity

'Celtic'/"Celtic" Christianity?

""Celtic Christianity" has been conceived of with differing levels of specificity: some writers have described a distinct "Celtic Church" uniting the Celtic peoples and distinguishing them from the "Roman" Catholic Church, while others classify it as simply a set of distinctive practices occurring in those areas.[2] Scholars now reject the former notion" - on that basis perhaps use of or "" should be used in the title, as indicated? Fergananim (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2018

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Consensus against move. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Celtic Christianity → Christianity in the Celtic nations – Scope, WP:PRECISION per Celtic nations. Compare Celtic Christianity#Definitions, e.g.: "[M]odern scholars have identified problems with all of these claims, and find the term 'Celtic Christianity' problematic in and of itself. Modern scholarship roundly rejects the idea of a 'Celtic Church' due to the lack of substantiating evidence." WP:CONSISTENCY with Christianity in Roman Britain, Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England, Christianity in Medieval Scotland. A second option would be something like Christianisation of the Celtic nations in equivalence Christianization of Kievan Rus', Christianization of the Slavs, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

When you say "modern scholarship roundly rejects' would you provide some links please. -----Snowded ^TALK 11:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

As listed after the sentences in Celtic Christianity#Definitions, ultimately listed at Celtic Christianity#References. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Modern scholars regard 'Celtic Christianity' as problematic, but the notion of 'Celtic nations' is also problematic. The chapter on the subject in the Cambridge History of Christianity is headed 'Christianities of the Celtic peoples', but this is also unsatisfactory both because term Celtic is considered suspect, except linguistically, and because a key confrontation between the two forms took place in Northumbria at the Synod of Whitby. There was a separate related set of traditions in Britain and Ireland and no satisfactory name for it. We need a better name but I cannot think of one. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd support Christianity of the Celtic peoples, but perhaps also someting like "of the British peoples"/"British isles". Anyway, see also Celtic_Christianity#Celtic_Christian_revivalism: "In the 18th and 19th centuries, antiquarianism, the Romantic movement, and growing nationalism influenced ideas about what was becoming known as "Celtic Christianity". Beginning in the early 20th century, a full-fledged revival movement began, centred on the island of Iona and influenced by the Irish literary revival and more general Christian revivals. By the end of the 20th century, another wave of enthusiasm began, this time influenced by New Age ideals." We already have Neo-Celtic Christianity to describe what seems to be promoted here both above and below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed title is too broad. The page can deal with concept of "Celtic Christianity" without presenting it as unequivocally real. Srnec (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per opposers, and because there is no stop date obvious for "Christianity in the Celtic nations", which could be mostly about the 19th century in Ireland and Wales for all the reader knows. Like Celtic art etc, the term has all sorts of problems, but there is no preferable alternative, and at least it wins in WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I read some of the references and I don't think they justify moving away from a common search term. Also the Synod of Whitby creates an identity -----Snowded ^TALK 16:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Current article is already large enough and covers a specific term and topic. No need to confuse it with other, broader issues. Other, related topics already cover what can be reliably sourced. Maybe look to those articles for places to make improvements. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:43, 16 November 2018 (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.

Reverts by User:Snowded

User:Snowded, you removed reliably sourced information from the article and replaced it with an uncited sentence. What was removed from the article was cited to publications printed by academic presses (such as Oxford University Press), as well as scholars including Ian Bradley. If you have suggestions on where this content can be better placed, I am open to hearing them; however, this cannot be removed in full. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I should note that Ian Bradely is heavily cited throughout the rest of the article; therefore an edit summary of "too much opinion in those changes" is not an adequate reason for removing the information. I have added the content elsewhere to the article so as a compromise, I am willing to remove the information from the lede, though I think that something should be said there about the influence of Insular Christianity on the faith as practiced in the British Isles. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 20:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You might want to check out WP:BRD, you were bold and you were reverted so next step is to discuss, the onus is on you to justify the changes. The changes read like synthesis to me but its late at night so I will review in the morning -----Snowded ^TALK 20:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Snowded, I appreciate your willingness to have a second look at the changes. Given that I've substantially trimmed the sentences in the lede as I suggested in the compromise above, I don't think that there should be any issue now. If there are, I'd be happy to work with you to hammer them out. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)