Talk:Hiberno-Scottish mission

Merge

• Oppose - merger with Anglo-Saxon mission. --MacRusgail 20:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not so convinced. There is a case for a merge. The Anglo-Saxon mission began in Northumbria, organised by Ecghberht ("Christ's Knight" say the Irish annals), educated in Ireland and sufficiently Hibernian in sympathies to be Abbot of Iona. Saint Kilian and Saint Colman seem linked to Ecgberht's efforts. Turning what could be one big shiny featured-quality article into two patchy ones is not so great. On the whole, I think I'd prefer an article on "Insular missions", if that wouldn't be original research. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Related but not the same. England, Scotland & Ireland remain seperate provinces of the Catholic church to this day. Johnbod 03:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as they were distinct, are are distinct, missions and provinces. 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC) (here) as distinct missions, persons, purposes, and provinces. Bearian (there)15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• This should not be discussed at two or three places, I suggest keeping it here (and I did put a note on the other article). On Wikipedia:Proposed mergers (Aug '06) is some support to merge (1 or 2 against only the hereabove Bearian, who like myself wants to keep this discussion open; I do not recognize any value at all in the on Anglo-Saxon mission talk page unargumented utterly anonymous IP-user's exclamation, in particular since that user has only 3 edits on WP. On this Hiberno-Scottish mission talk page there are two further 'Oppose' (MacRusgail without any argumentation, and Johnbod with a short argumentation) and one 'Support' (Angus McLellan stating not to be so convinced about opposing while making a case to support the merger and a suggestion to that respect). The removal of the merge-tags is entirely unacceptable as long as this merger did not take place, as there are 2 or 3 contributors in favour for a merger and 3 opposing such. The comment about Saint Rumbold in Anglo-Saxon mission talk page section 'Earliest monastery founded by Anglo-Saxons on the continent' strongly undermines the argument of opposers: if it cannot be determined whether a saint is a Hiberno-Scottish or an Anglo-Saxon missionary, there ostentatively is no clear distinction between the persons or their missions. I do not grasp the argument about different 'provinces': at the historical time of Hiberno-Scottish missionaries, which 'distinct' Church provinces would that have been? — SomeHuman 07 Jul2007 10:48-11:05 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - these are two big fields which both could grow into large articles. Combining them will not help that. But they could cross-reference more fully and support one another better. No merge, though. The missions may have been parallel, but Celtic and Catholic Christianity were entirely different things at this time. --Doric Loon 13:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In case the article would grow too large, one might consider a split; for now both articles contain hardly enough material for one decent article. I am not at all convinced that Celtic and Catholic missionaries at there time considered themselves "entirely different": this is more likely a distinction one has emphasized afterwards (in 'The Thruth' versus 'false prophets' discussions). That argument is also contraditionary with the distinction being made based upon their specific time settings. Both topics' similarities and continuity appear stronger than the distinctions (the Anglo-Saxon missions have several distinctions between themselves as well) and might better lead to an article name that covers both subtopics. — SomeHuman 07 Jul2007 16:04 (UTC)

• Support Merge SomeHuman is right, at this point we have to look at first consolidating what we have. As pointed out above, if the article gets too big, we can easily split it. At this time we should look at turning these two pages into something more tied in. To me, Anglo-Saxon mission appears to be more useful within Hiberno-Scottish mission - retains context and is more informative. After resolving the contradictions (if any), I think the articles would do better as one. xC | ☎ 10:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose If we merge these, we may as well merge each and every article on the various Christian Missions we have. The Celtic Church and that of the Anglo-Saxons were two seperate organizations, and the peoples entirely distinct. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 07:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Scottish and Irish missions shouldn't even be merged into one article never mind the Scottish, Irish and English one's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.202.88 (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Title?

"Hiberno-Scottish" strikes me as being quite an odd and confused qualifier here?

"Irish-Scottish" would seem more consistent if the intent is to describe the geographical extent of culture behind the mission with modern terms.

Or just "Hibernian" if the idea is to use one of the Latin terms for Ireland during the period. Or "Scottish" if the idea is to use the Latin expression (until 14th century?) for the Irish/Gaelic culture.

Mixing two Latin adjectives for Irish - one of which has evolved to mean something else (the country in Great Britain) - seems very muddled. Anyone else have an opinion? Does this term have long standing academic usage?

Jimg (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hiberno-Scottish mission/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I see it has been suggested that the Iro--Scottish mission entry be " merged " with the one on the Anglo-Saxon " mission " ....This is a quite outrageous piece of cultural imperialism, as this would involve a grossly misleading confusion of the two cultures - ESPECIALLY as the culture performing the " mission " ( the Celts ) would be in danger of being conflated with the culture in receipt of the mission ( the Anglo-Saxons ) - and would be an example of the historical distortion and conceptual violence that was to attend the imperialist project of the British State( of cultural assimilation of the Celts ) that of course was to take place forcibly over succeeding centuries ( I cannot think it a coincidence, therefore, that this piece of neo-imperialist historical revisionism is suggested in the context of something called the " Northern Ireland " project, itself the latest example of this imperialism, the name of which is a poltical fiction based upon a geographic/cultural myth, and a denial of the self-determination of the Irish people as a nation, and also a failed unit of sovereignty as is now increasingly obvious to everyone except the Unionists...culturally rejected now even by those " Anglo-Saxons " upon whom they have absurdly modelled themselves ( i.e. the ACTUAL British...)

Last edited at 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Change "Hiberno-Scottish mission" to "Gaeil mission"?

As the term Gaeil was the common term used for those concerned, both of Ireland and Scotland (then and long after), would it not be more appropriate to change the name of the article to reflect this? Interested to hear what editors think. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably not. You need to show this is used by the best sources - one problem is that a lot of sources just talk of "Irish missions". Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I'm a little concerned that this article relies so heavily on sources from the early 19th century. Scholarship has moved on a very long way since then. The few cited sources that are more recent are light-weight. It would be good if someone could look into recent serious historical studies and cite where appropriate from there. Doric Loon (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)