Jump to content

Talk:Celtic Christianity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PrimeBOT (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 15 January 2017 (→Gildas: template merger per TFD consensus (BRFA)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gildas

Per Johnbod's recent edits:

I.
Possible≠probable, but remains a true statement. We don't want to give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE theories, I know. At the same time, for historic reasons, it's important to mention Bede & co's legends about Lucius and later legends about Joey A: people really did believe those legends for many centuries. For WP:LIE reasons, we have to make clear that those stories in their full development are undoubtably untrue (no 28 bishops, 3 archbishops, or united kingdom of Lucius) and may have been (Lucius) or probably were (Joey) entirely invented. Gildas is something different from that. He's very important as an early local source with access to (unlike Geoffrey, real) records that no longer exist. He says someone showed up by the end of the reign of Tiberius: we should mention it. There's no impossibility involved and we shouldn't remove it or pretend there is: there are specific NT statements of Christ sending out apostles during his lifetime (i.e., c. 30 – c. 33), there's a specific text (provided) saying by name that one of them was sent to Britain, and it doesn't take 4 years to walk there.

Now, that said, obviously the mission wasn't terribly successful. I thought that would be obvious from context: the first bishops aren't known for another 3 centuries. We can also add sourcing calling it highly unlikely or a confusion (Claudius's first name was 'Tiberius') and that's probably right. — LlywelynII 06:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

II.
Also, cf. WP:SOCALLED. Short version is don't use it. Not only is the Great Conspiracy known by that name, it is the primary topic for that name, which provides it without sneer quotes. If there are legitimate problems with the name raised by the scholarship, kindly provide it to both pages and possibly start a move request. Otherwise, realize it's just what that event is known as, similar to the Norman conquest of England (not the "Norman immigration to England around 1066") or the Crusades (not the "European invasions of Palestine during the Pre-modern period"). — LlywelynII 06:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be bothered, even to tag it - keep the article full of unreferenced/primary source Romantic fantasy if you like. Johnbod (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Celtic Christianity. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SS Saints

I noticed a half dozen or so instances where, when discussing a Saint, or possibly two Saints at once, the Saints were noted as "SS X and Y", rather than "Saints X and Y" or, more properly, "Saint X and Saint Y". Obviously I eventually figured it out, and determined it was a form of shorthand considered appropriate in a particular field of research, but I do not think such shorthand is appropriate for a wiki article.

I consider myself to be rather broadly read (although not of wikis), yet have never encountered this before.

Thank you for your consideration. 173.77.169.30 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.169.30 (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. It is confusing. I've removed as many as I found, but please feel free to fix any others you may see.--Cúchullain t/c 14:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is the normal abbreviation for, in particular, churches and feastdays with double dedications, and for churches in particular is not easily replaced (paying any respect to WP:COMMONNAME anyway). Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very recognizable to readers who don't already know all that stuff intimately. It's easily enough replaced by changing "SS" to "Saints" or just saying "Saint X and Saint Y".--Cúchullain t/c 15:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cuchullain that in general it is better to spell out saints. Some wiki articles on churches use SS (often with a redirect from Saints), others "saints" as the Italian Church of Saints Paul and Bartholomew. In this case is would be odd to translate "Santi" in "Chiesa dei Santi Paolo e Bartolomeo" as SS. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Celtic Christianity. 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, 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celtic_Christianity&oldid=760261910"