Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alison (talk | contribs) at 00:11, 6 March 2007 (Request for a little dialogue, please). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

So far this template is organized very much by text (or textual cycle), which makes sense as mythology has to do with the written word. Other users may want to include sections on individual characters, places, gods, and creatures; but I didn't want to get into that, because for me, brevity is essential for this kind of template. On the other hand, Nantonos will probably reproach me for having over-extended the term 'mythology' into other fields of religion (priesthood, lists of gods, etc). Of course, we can always rename this template if need be. QuartierLatin1968 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

An accurate prediction. Insular religious material is indeed largely attested by mythology; continental religious material largely by archaeology, epigraphy, and occasional mentions in contemporary writings. I would have preferred 'Celtic religion' therefore. --Nantonos 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. But the problem I feared with a 'Celtic religion' template was that it would mushroom into this vast list of every known name of gods and mythological figures. Choosing a mythology theme, and a textual focus, with a bit of related but non-mythological stuff thrown in, seemed like a defensible compromise. QuartierLatin1968 23:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

== Name of template ==,

Ermm, Satanael has just changed the theme of the template to 'Celtic religion' rather than 'Celtic mythology'. It may not be a bad idea, but the template was really written with a mythological focus – the main preoccupation is not with gods, fanums, totems, sacred sites, or sacrificial rites, but on mythological texts. If this is to be a Celtic religion template, other sections should be added to reflect this broader scope. QuartierLatin1968 17:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If this template is about Celtic religion now, and we have a category for *ancient* Celtic religion, might it make sense to include a *brief* section on modern Celtic religion? I'd suggest listing Celtic Reconstructionism and possibly modern versions of Celtic Christianity. However I think it would only work to include modern religion if it can be kept limited and not include any of the non-Celtic traditions that mistakenly get called "Celtic". --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My main preoccupation is keeping this template brief, because one template that tries to do everything may end up doing nothing very well ... however, we could maybe start a division of labour along the lines that they have for ancient Roman religion. So, we might have a series of Celtic religion templates with specializations for ancient religious material, mythology stricto sensu, and modern revival (to give but one potential schema). Come to think of it, we could have a number of footer templates for the deities as well, like they do in the Greek, Roman, and Norse series. Q·L·1968 ☿ 00:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that unless and until we do that, the name of this template should be changed back to "Celtic Mythology". --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been a while and no one has said this *needs* to be called "Celtic Religion", so, I'm going to return it to it's original title. I think that is preferable to trying to increase the scope of the template. I don't have the time or energy to start a whole new round of sub-templates at this point, but think that would be a fine thing to do down the road if others are also interested. Slàinte Mhath, ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Other tables and templates

I thought the massive table down under "See also" in the Celtic mythology article was a template but it's not. Might be too overwhelming to turn into a template, yet it does cover a lot. The Celtic Mythology article needs help, too. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Misconceived Template

I see a user has made some bizarre changes in the template. The editor has added Breton mythology to the Welsh mythology section, see here . From my reading of Welsh mythology, it is not the same as Breton Mythology, and should not be grouped in the same section. I tried to undo the erroneous changes but my efforts were scuttled by several editors. All very bizarre.
Also the same editor has added Scottish mythology into the Irish mythology section, see here , another very bizarre edit. Scottish mythology never included Irish mythology, until recently that is, in Misplaced Pages. Yes there were a few pieces from Irish mythology, but only a small section. The James MacPherson's deceit, about his supposed discovery of Ossian, uncovered by Dr. Samuel Johnson, well that's about the one major similarity. A totally misconceived edit. Manopingo 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumably they've done this because of the language groupings? Deb 12:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As an Irish interest editor, I can see clearly that lumping together Scottish mythology and Irish mythology into one section and doing likewise with Breton mythology and Welsh mythology is confusing to any reader because the implication is that EVERY topic listed underneath each (now) combination section heading belongs to each of those (double) section heading titles. This is totally not the case. If the reason was for language groupings that too is a misconceived view. Having read each of the sub-topics listed, as far as I can see, none of them have ANY Scottish mythology or Breton mythology connection so why are they listed as headings for topics that are not covered by the heading above them. Templates are supposed to allow clarity of navigation and content hierarchy, so the solution for total clarity is to have separate sections for Scottish mythology or Breton mythology with any sub-topics as appropriate (though non are listed at present). I have to agree with Manopingo that the additions are a misconceived edit but hope he can express his views better, and calmer, than he has recently. ww2censor 15:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But, that's the thing, these things are part of Scottish mythology; claiming they're not is simply false. The only way you can claim they're not Scottish is by arguing that anything in Irish mythology is by definition not Scottish, which is of course preposterous. Is Schiehallion now in Ireland because Sídhe also play a role in the myths of Ireland? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Fenian Cycle and Tuatha Dé Danann are both part of Scottish mythology, but using national groupings rather than cultural groupings fosters more confusion than it avoids, even if it satisfies the modern tendency to see culture, history and myth through the lens of sovereign states. I actually only added these grouped in this manner because I couldn't see any where else to put them on the template; but now that I've been made to think about it, I realise one is gonna have the same topics doubled up under different headings, so that the same topics will appear - perhaps eventually - variously under Manx, Scottish and Irish mythology. That's the way it'd surely go. BTW, user Manopingo has clearly no knowledge of Scottish myth, James McPherson or Samuel Johnston - McPherson did not invent Ossian, but embellshed some Scottish tales about Ossian and the Fenian cycle more generally, the uncovering of which had virtually nothing to do with Samuel Johnson. I think he's trying to imply that the Fenian cycle was introduced into Scotland by the evil machinations of McPherson. Of course, McPherson's "fraud" was not about the Fenian cycle - which is documented throughout Scottish history and extensively in modern oral tradition, and has never been disputed by any scholar - but rather about making out that he had found a "Scottish Homer", a great epic poem, when in reality it was a 18th century romantic series of tales drawn from the Scottish Fenian cycle, but cobbled together and portrayed as a antiquarian discovery. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And how aboutWelsh mythology v Breton mythology? The preceeding analysis seems to be in error. Depends on reading material, I'll get some refs later on. Manopingo 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll be wasting your time trying to find references that show I'm "in error", as this stuff is as basic as it comes. As for Breton versus Welsh, a quick glance over the Breton mythology content and the entry in the ODCM showed correlation that I'd have expected anyway from related languages, though I don't know enough (or in fact anything) about Breton mythology to make a comment on the relationship between Breton folklore and the arbitrary subjects under Welsh mythology listed in the template. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why none of you seem to get it, but none of the topic articles mentioned under the two Scottish mythology and Irish mythology heading, and Breton mythology and Welsh mythology heading mention either Scottish or Breton mythology in the articles. Maybe the real problem here is that the actual articles you list don't tell you they refer to Scottish or Breton mythology. They only and specifically mention Irish and Welsh NOT Scottish or Breton. Changing that, if it is accurate, would also solve the problem being created by lumping them together. ww2censor 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? Like, a third of the article on Scottish mythology is about the Fenian cycle, and another bit is about the Tuatha De Danann. I can't comment on the Breton-Weslh stuff, but the problem with the Irish-Scottish stuff is that people just use the term "Irish" to mean "Gaelic". If you go about changing Irish to Gaelic - well, may the Lord be with you. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Scottish heading article is not what I am talking about. If you use Scottish mythology as a heading then the assumption is that ALL the sub-topics are about Scottish mythology but as I stated before they are not and don't say anything about it. Likewise the Breton, but, yes you are correct that the Scottish mythology article itself does refer to Irish and Gaelic topics. BUT you are using the Scottish mythology as a heading so all sub-topics listed SHOULD have some connection with the heading and they don't. Do you see my point? As it is, the "Scottish mythology" and Breton mythology should either be independent headings with no sub-topics or be articles listed in their own right not under another heading that does not apply to it. On the otherhand a solution would be to create a "Scottish mythology" heading and break out the different topic in that article into separate that would correctly be listed as sub-topics of the Scottish heading in the template. ww2censor 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are all related to Scottish mythology (that the articles don't say is merely a problem with those articles), but surely the heading "Irish mythology and Scottish mythology" means that all the following are related one or the other, not necessarily both. That I think is a more likely interpretation than the one you are forwarding. The problem you've not addressed is doubling up topics ... such as Tuatha De Danaan and Fenian Cycle under both Irish and Scottish mythology ... you don't think that's a problem? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed the template from national to cultural headings .. that any better? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Whois is dictating this template? Is it Calgasus? Well, it just wont do, you POV pusher! Manopingo 22:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues with this template

Can Manopingo please express clearly and concisely exactly what he feels is wrong with the template as it currently stands before this revert war / article war continues any longer. Before the template gets hard-protected by an admin. I'll admit to not being au fait with mythology and ethnicity to the extent that some of the editors on here are. So please ... dialogue first and can the other editors hear the guy out and comment accordingly - Alison 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)