Talk:Celtic reconstructionism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

On Hold for Good Article status

I've looked over the article and I'd like to suggest that a few minor changes be made before it is elevated to GA status. First, you'll have noticed that I've added "Notable Wikipedian" templates for Kathryn NicDhàna and Pigman. As for the text of the article itself, I have a few quibbles, mostly stylistic:

1. Lead section - "Pagan reconstructionists have been around since the 1970s but little of it had been specifically Celtic." Could use a comma; subject and verb don't agree.
2. Origins - "Though there is ongoing debate about the accuracy of some of the historical records which were left by outsiders such as the Greeks and Romans, it is clear that some of those early Celtic societies may have practiced human sacrifice, slavery, and had strong patriarchal elements. However, the bulk of this information can be traced to a few prominent Roman politicians and historians, such as Julius Caesar and Pliny the Elder, who had their own political agendas and therefore may not be entirely reliable." I am unsure what this passage is trying to communicate. It says that despite the possible unreliability of some historical sources, it's clear that early Celtic socieities may have done xyz, but then it questions the reliability of the sources again. Some kind of historical source should be cited for this. Also, I'm not sure what it means to say that it is clear that someone may have done something; that's sort of like saying that we're absolutely certain that we're not really sure.
3. Sub-traditions - "...seeing the term as describing a methodology rather than a system of belief, or seeing the term as being incorrectly descriptive." This needs to be briefly explained for readers unfamiliar with the topic. What does "incorrectly descriptive" mean?
4. First modern appearance of the term - "An early, key event in laying the groundwork for much Proto-CR and CR practice was the Celtic workshops, discussions and rituals..." "Event" and "was" are singular, while "workshops", etc are all plural; they need to match.
5. First modern appearance of the term - "...some of them would re-meet online..." "Re-meet" is not a word.
6. First modern appearance of the term - "Though Adler devotes space to a handful of Reconstructionist traditions, none of those mentioned are specifically Celtic. In chapter eleven, while describing his Neo-druidic group, NRDNA, Isaac Bonewits used the phrase "Eclectic Reconstructionist." "Devotes" and "used" should be the same tense, probably present.
7. Celtic Reconstructionism and Neo-druidism - "...resulting in such oddities as Vedic druids and Roman druids." Describing them as "oddities" isn't encyclopedic in tone.
8. Celtic Reconstructionism and Neo-druidism - "Other differences between CR groups and Neo-druid groups can include such elements as differing ideas on hierarchical structures and acceptance of Enlightenment-era druidic revivals." Unnecessarily wordy. This is also not very informative to readers who aren't very familiar with the two movements, because the article does not say what the differing opinions are on these topics or which opinions can be attributed to which group. Should be either expanded (with referencing) or dropped for the time being.

I hope this review has been helpful. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 03:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think I've addressed all of the points AdelaMae has brought up. I'm not sure everything I did was perfect but I think all instances are better now. My removal of stuff mentioned in AdelaMae's point #2 may be slightly contentious. There was a discussion further up this talk page about the veracity and accuracy of the Roman sources but my feeling is that it's not central to a CR article. This was one person's view. Though there may be some questioning of the sources, I think this is a minor quibble in regards to CR development. In a CR context, I'm not even sure there is a good verifiable source for this info and I'd be surprised if one was put forward. Anyway, thanks again AdelaMae for your input. These were all excellent points of criticism. Pig^man 02:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I think this sentence: "Other differences between CR groups and Neo-druid groups can include such elements as differing ideas on hierarchical structures and acceptance of Enlightenment-era druidic revivals." Needs to be put back in, sourced, and rewritten to expand content but make it more pithy. I have an idea how to do it, but can't get to it right now. Maybe next week. I think the weasel bit about "some people" consider CR to be "a method not a religious tradition" needs to be sourced promptly or cut, as I really don't want this flagged as an unsourced article. I know some people in the online community feel that way (method more than religion), but I'm not actually aware of any third-party, published source that mentions this. Kym and I, and up until recently, everyone we've worked with over the years, have always intended it to mean a religious tradition; so I was kind of surprised to discover not everyone saw it this way. I think the first I heard of it was when it was added to this article. Whateley23? IIRC, you added it. Can you source it? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

nope, can't source it offhand. cut it. Whateley23 05:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Passing as a Good Article

I went ahead and tweaked a few final things so that the article could be listed as a GA. I removed the sentence "Some people see the term as describing a methodology rather than a system of belief" because it was tagged as unsourced, and I believe one of the GA criteria is that GAs can't include unsourced statements; make a note of this and put it back when you can find a reference for it. Also, I changed the line about ADF to read, "...their pan-Indo-European focus, which may result in unusual combinations such as..." "Unusual" might not be the best word, but I think the previous wording was slipping between the perspective of the NPOV article and the perspective of the critics of ADF - the critics would see the combinations as "dissonant and jarring", to say the list, but the article has to withhold judgment. Good work everyone. Ready to shoot for an A? - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you. would it be best to start with a peer-review? Whateley23 01:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, what should we do next? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:What is a good article?: Articles that appear to meet the featured article criteria should be listed at peer review and featured article candidates... However, I can't find as much on A-Class articles, which, in Wikiprojects, appears to be the level between GA and FA, but I'm not sure how much that ranking holds true across the whole 'Pedia. Some projects and charts don't mention GA status at all. this table includes brief summations on rankings, but I'd like to see something more detailed about A-Class, much as we have for the GA and FA pages. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Location of adherants

This is an excellant article but what it lacks is any information about the location of its adherants. Is this largely an American movement or is it found in the Celtic countries themselves? Some info on that would complete the articleNeelmack 11:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The movement was founded by Americans. It now also includes people in the Celtic Nations (I know of folks in Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Cornwall) and other parts of the world (Canada, Germany, Brazil, Portugal, Australia, France) but as far as I know Americans are still in the majority. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any published sources that include specific numbers or locations of adherents. I'll keep my eyes out, though! One place to look would be in broad-based religious surveys. Periodically there are surveys done of the general Neopagan community, however those would probably only record the CRs who participate in that community. Slàn, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

W.Y.Evans Wentz

in editions from England of The Fairy-Faith in Celtic Countries, we find his name spelled without the hyphen. in the facsimile of the original printing, he signs the introduction without the hyphen. it is, as far as i can tell, only hyphenated starting with the drug-culture edition sporting an introduction by Terrence McKenna. Whateley23 02:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, not so fast. Regardless of whether it is hyphenated or not, it's a double-barrelled name. Aren't you familiar with those? IPSOS (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't matter. as the article you link points out: Many double-barrelled names are written without a hyphen…. since Wentz, himself, chose to spell the name without the hyphen in the book in question, since the source you link notes that it is acceptable and common to spell such names without a hyphen, and since the facsimile edition gives the cataloguing information as "Wentz, W.Y. Evans", that seems preferable. Whateley23 01:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When they are spelled without a hyphen, both words are still the whole of the last name. IPSOS (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read the article and sources? W. Y. Evans-Wentz endowed a lectureship at Stanford in his name. You think Stanford misspelled it? IPSOS (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And here is the Library of Congress catalog entry for the book in question. If you revert me again, I will report it. IPSOS (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

well, thanks for the threatening tone. however, until now, you haven't provided any citations for this version (and i'm not really sure why you are so invested in it, but there you go), while i've noted here and elsewhere that the book in question gives the information in the "Wentz, W.Y. Evans" format. with few citations (and those bad) provided for the hyphenated version, and the book itself advocating the other version, i would have reverted such original research for years. i still think that the hyphenated version is less correct, but since it is so very important to you and you've finally found a legitimate source using that form, go for it. Whateley23 02:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the man's name! His books were ones I studied in college. Every f'ing anthropologist knows what his last name is. What the hell is the problem? Having the wrong last name in the article looks bloody ignorant!!! IPSOS (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

you seem to be very worked up over this issue of a hyphen, resorting to profanity and multiple exclamation points. i've explained the situation, my reasoning, the situation regarding original research, and so forth. what more information would you like to aid in your understanding? Whateley23 03:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you so narrowly stick to a single misprinted source with a catalog entry written by someone just as ignorant of the man's last name as you are. It's people like you that are the reason he started hyphenating it. I'm his grandson. Damn your bloody ignorance. IPSOS (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

you should probably calm down. the issue is resolved. i merely indicated why, without any references, your changes were reverted. your use of threatening, accusatory, and generally vulgar language is completely unnecessary. you may want to consider your actions here carefully, as you are acting rather irrationally over an issue which is relatively minor, which is resolved in your favor, and which has you escalating your claims (from nothing to college student and now to grandson? you'll pardon me if i find that escalating claim hard to believe, or to care about. appeals to authority, especially unsupported ones, are not the best arguments). Whateley23 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we are confusing two separate issues here: the issue of whether or not the name should be hyphenated, and the issue of whether the last name is "Wentz" or "Evans(-)Wentz" (with or without hyphen). Regardless of whether or not "Evans(-)Wentz" should be hyphenated, ample evidence has been provided that it is, in fact, a double-barrelled name; therefore, the citation should be "Evans(-)Wentz, W.Y.", not "Wentz, W.Y. Evans". Similarly, Ralph Vaughan Williams is cited as "Vaughan Williams, Ralph" rather than "Williams, Ralph Vaughan". Ok? - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

as far as i'm concerned, the issue was basically resolved in regard to this article when the LOC cite was given. Whateley23 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The CR FAQ book as a source?

The CR FAQ is now available in a printed, bound, dead tree book form. Because of this, I'd like to tentatively suggest that this information might deserve to be included in this article. I'm extremely sensitive to accusations of self-promotion or attempting to insert an improper or unsuitable source so I'm going to defer to other's judgment on this matter. I'm not not going to detail the publishing facts (ISBN, etc.) here unless I'm asked to do so. Well, I guess I can give the full title without impropriety: The CR FAQ - An Introduction to Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. So, is including it as a source a good idea or no? Pig^man 01:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean: There's nothing in the article now that needs sourcing, so I wouldn't suggest adding the book to the footnotes. But perhaps it would be appropriate to add it to the books in the "Further reading" section. --Pig^man 02:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with what you propose. Arbcom pretty much waved COI issues off anyway in the Starwood case, and COI continued unabated after the Arbcon ruling, albeit diminished by the independent blocking of the six or so sock puppets that were adding and abetting (but not clearly addressed by Arbcon). In the Starwood ruling where the COI was massive, the ruling of pretty much "no problem" which indicates to me that you have no cause to worry as you have been more than conscientious on the matter. --Mattisse 03:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how others treat the WP:COI issue, I can't in good conscience act as if it doesn't matter. I'm involved in the print publication of the CR FAQ so any mention of it here (in this article and on WP) isn't my call to make. Thanks for your input on this. --Pig^man 03:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Sub-traditions and Groups

I'm really not sure about this addition at all. The way the article has been structured previously is to put all external links to such groups at the end of the article. Plus of the six groups included, at least four would never call themselves CR and I doubt sources could be found to say otherwise. This is really seeming like original research on Dbachmann's part. I've removed the four groups I'm certain of not wanting association with CR, leaving a paltry list of two, one of which (IMBAS) is in the external links section and the other also doesn't consider themselves CR either. I'm thinking of removing even those two because their placement is counter to discussion on this matter in the archives of this talk page. Pig^man 04:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to Gaelic Traditionalism and the external link to Clannada. This is a copyrighted definitional phraseology and term of art which we did not, and do not, authorize any of the authors of this CR article, nor Wikipedia to use, and, Clannada are not, and have never been CR, and do not want to be associated with CR, nor to participate in this article, nor to be party to willful misinformation that would tend to mislead the readers of Wikipedia and/or the general public. Please respect this removal. Please Cease and Desist. - Kathleen O'Brien Blair, Taoiseach, Clannada na Gadelica Ktho64152 (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

the notability of the entire article depends on this. The question is: who advocates this "CRP". The article talks a lot about "some people", "not all people", "people involved in CR-style religion", etc., with not a tiny bit of evidence as to who and where these people actually are. As in Kemetism#History_and_demographics, this article needs to address, in the article body, the size and distribution of the movement. How notable is it, where are these groups, what is their literature. If you remove the listing of such groups as there are to the external links as irrelevant, you are essentially saying this entire article lacks notability. I would like to know, is there, or is there not, an actual CRP movement. Either these groups are notable, and can be discussed in the article body, or they aren't, in which this entire topics should probably be merged into polytheistic reconstructionism. --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

looking through the article, I find that its tone is completely inappropriate. It is far too chatty and noncommittal. I am afraid I think it will need to be tagged with {{tone}}. dab (𒁳) 14:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The number of adherents was addressed in an earlier version of the article (diff of one version, page down to see section). Because of intense retaliatory attacks by sock puppets on the article because of Kathryn NicDhàna and my involvement in the Starwood Arbitration, almost anything that couldn't be thoroughly and unquestionably sourced ended up being jettisoned. (The socks thought using online forum membership was not a reliable source despite the qualifications made around these estimates.) This is also the reason why a major multi-author document, The CR FAQ, isn't used as a source anywhere in this article despite it being arguably one of the most pertinent sources available. Just so you know that the shape of the article was drastically changed because of this. Generally, the changes were for the better but it affected what remains in the article. Pig^man 22:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me also note in passing that the entire section you chose as an example, Kemetism#History_and_demographics, has only one source for its info. At the time the CR Paganism article was under scrutiny, this lack of multiple sourcing would not have passed without criticism. Pig^man 22:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

wow... if this article is under attack by sockpuppeteers, you should request semiprotection. Once source is better than none. The Kemetism thing was cobbled together by myself because the article as it stood was useless. The "CR FAQ" should certainly be referred to, although it needs to be made clear that this isn't a neutral source, and by the nature of these things prone to exaggeration of the movement's impact or importance. Is there anything on adherents.com? They tend to report on absolutely anything resembling religion, and if a religion isn't listed there, I would argue it is at least suspect notability-wise. dab (𒁳) 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't clear from my statement but these attacks were some time ago, around Dec 2006 to Feb 2007. Most of the socks were banned eventually. But the affect on some of the maintainers of this article remains: an aversion to put info in that's not very well attested and referenced.

Re: adherents.com as a source: while some people are very impressed with it and it certainly gathers together a remarkable amount of information from many sources, I'm less impressed with its treatment of Neopagan religions. For example, of its Wicca sources, none are more recent than 1999. One source claims 10 million Wiccan/Witches in the USA, a number I can't very seriously believe since it's probably off by at least a factor of 10. Another example would be Asatru, which only has sources showing 50 adherents in Utah and no info on any adherents anywhere else. Again, this hardly credible from my personal experience and observation. In particular, I note a real lack of updated sources for Neopagan religions. A major source for this info was: Berger, Helen A. A Community of Witches: Contemporary Neo-Paganism and Witchcraft in the United States (1999) which apparently relied on data from a 1992 survey. So the base info is 15 years old, a very long time in recent Neopagan history. (Wry disclosure: I think I participated in this survey). When you realize that "Celtic Reconstructionism" was only acquiring an applied name in print in 1992 and thus wasn't even addressed in the survey, you can see why it's not showing up on adherents.com's radar.

I'd also note that I've seen a number of sources used on adherents.com which, to be frank, suck. Some are newspaper articles where a "High Priestess" gives an estimate of national adherent numbers without any sense of her accuracy or qualifications to make it. Also, the 1999 date often seems to be the last time sources were updated on Neopagan religions. Again, eight years is a long time among so-called "new religions". Pig^man 22:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Sub-traditions and Groups, pt. 2

I've substantially rewritten this section and renamed it "Sub-traditions, groups and alternate names" Per Dbachmann's critique and example, I've included a number of different groups and attempted to show some of the interrelationships between terms. These are all sourced. I think this shows that this isn't just a few people using the name CR but a broad range of groups in disparate geographical locations. If there's some interest in re-adding the estimates of how many people call themselves CR, I'm willing to do so. However, it should be known that such figures will, of necessity, be oblique rather than a direct census. The number of people belonging to the two largest online CR forums has gone up significantly since the last time that info was in the article (last January, I think.)

Disclosure 1: I did a little of the setup and HTML code on one of the sites referenced in the revamped section: http://www.paganachd.com/tara. However I didn't write the ritual/article itself.

Disclosure 2: I worked on the online version of The CR FAQ in various capacities. I believe The CR FAQ is a salient secondary source document. I am also co-editor and co-publisher of the the print version of the document, titled The CR FAQ - An Introduction to Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. If there are objections to my including these sources because of my involvement, please comment here about it. Pig^man 02:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note about current figures on membership of the two main online forums: Imbas has 674 members and cr_r (a livejournal community) has 445 members. Probably a fair amount of overlap and some deadwood in there but these are both active forums and certainly don't contain all CRs by a long shot. Pig^man 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, the article looks much better. I realize that neopaganism is notoriously difficult to gauge demographically, and that a significant amount of communication takes place via the internet, but still, forum accounts do not equal adherents. As a pure internet phenomenon, a forum with 700 members probably wouldn't pass WP:NOTE. For this reason, it is important to establish that this religion is actually practiced by people in the flesh, and not just a neopagan internet forum discussion topic. thanks, dab (𒁳) 17:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your work, Pigman. I agree, the demographics can be hard to gauge. We've had to rely on people's self-reporting, and that doesn't always line up with what we know about a group, or the number of members of a tradition. In the footnotes of this article, we have hard-copy sources for CR before the creation of the WWW, and during a time before most people had access to the Internet. Due to the sometimes ephemeral nature of the net (though less so now that we have the Internet Archive), we've tried to use hard-copy, WP:V sources in this.

Something that I'll put out for consideration, but doubt it could be included, is the upcoming worldwide Tara ritual. I am one of the organizers, so this is my OR, though it is posted on the web in a number of places (it's been picked up by Irish Indymedia and some news feeds): So far we've heard from groups and individuals in nine countries and fourteen US states, all committed to participating in this Celtic Reconstructionist ritual. website newsfeed anchor As one of the people fielding the emails and phone calls, most contacts are saying they'll be doing the ritual with a group, and in almost every area we've heard from we have multiple groups and individuals. So, that's a lot of people doing CR ritual. Most of these people found out about it on CR message boards. Also OR, but I'll share it anyway, is the fact I know a significant number of these people in person, but few of them have websites. Seven years ago there was more incentive to put up a personal webpage, but nowadays more people take the easier route of having a MySpace page, LiveJournal and/or blog on blogspot or a similar service. And those are not WP:V acceptable sources. So I'd love to include Irish, Scottish and Cornish CRs on here, but as they don't have WP:V sources we can cite, we'll just have to wait a bit on that.

Anyway, demographics and motivations of netizens aside, I think we have an abundance of hardcopy sources and this is exceedingly well footnoted, especially compared to the articles on similar religious movements.

Oh, about the proposed fork on the reading list: There is already an established Celtic polytheism article. It covers historical Celtic polytheism; this article here is the fork for the modern stuff. So unless we want to create a new Gaelic folklore sources article, I suggest we leave the list here, as these are sources relevant to modern Celtic polytheism (if not all about *modern* Celtic polytheism). If we were to create a Gaelic folklore article, I wouldn't want to start that without conferring with the folks I work with on Gaelic folklore articles. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

regarding the literature: this is what I mean: these sources seem to address historical Celtic mythology and folklore, which have their own articles, and not CRP at all. Obviously CRP is based on historical Celtic mythology, but this doesn't mean that the content of the historical articles should be rehashed: we can just refer to them by wikilink. Gaelic folklore should be duly discussed at Irish folklore and Scottish folklore. dab (𒁳) 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the intro and terminology section to the effect that PRC is essentially an online phenomenon with one known group (Imbas). It would be nice to be able to cite some source stating that there are an estimated several hundred adherents scattered over the USA or something along these lines. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

dab's recent changes

dab, I'm beginning to get annoyed at the changes you've been introducing into this article. I don't think I'm being WP:OWN about it because my reasons seem (to me) to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines. Among other things:

• You're often ignoring or discounting the information in the references and sources, particularly hardcopy sources.
• Because you're ignoring these sources, you're introducing what I consider your original research or your personal beliefs. I have no idea where you're getting some of it from because you're not adding sources.
• You seem to be imposing or overlaying your own vision of structure and priorities over an established article and, in the process, often introducing inconsistencies and inaccuracies which do not line up with the current sources and references.
• It seems obvious you're relatively unfamiliar with the subject since you have several times referred to Celtic Reconstructionism (CR) by initials I've never seen used anywhere besides your writing here (CRP and PRC).

I'd like to note that before your current round of "improving" the article, it had achieved "Good Article" status. Generally, sourcing for the information in the article was excellent and well distributed.

I'm particularly annoyed that you've taken to discounting the information in actual hardcopy sources because you haven't read them or don't have access to them to verify the info. On one hand you'll say CR is "essentially an online phenomenon" despite references to the contrary because the only sources you seem able to check are the online ones. I'd suggest your opinion on this is shaped by you only being able to check the online references and not the hardcopy sources. And on the other hand, you'll say online presence and communication indicates that there are no "real world" offline groups.

Perhaps the word "annoy" is provocative and uncivil but I think it's an apt description of my feelings. Your changes are introducing elements that I'm having to clean up and breaking things that weren't broken before. WP is all about collaboration and improving articles. For the most part, your recent work is neither. It is degrading the structure and the supporting framework of references for the article. I have been able to incorporate some of your changes but, because you lack familiarity with the subject, some of your additions seem absolutely nonsensical.

I'm getting the feeling that you are manipulating and deliberately imposing your will on the article with little regard for the consequences of your actions. I'm actually perceiving it as bullying and without any semblance of collegial attitude. I'm sorry if this seems unduly harsh but this is what I'm seeing and feeling about your actions here. Pigman^what?/trail 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag on the Sources used by Celtic Reconstructionists section. The splitting of the Literature section into sources about CR and sources CRs use seems to solve some issues. The splitting off of the latter section seems contraindicated at the moment. The articles dab suggested shifting them to above don't really exist, they are just redirects. Plus I have problems understanding how having a relatively short set of mostly scholarly or source literature, which provide a direct basis for CR beliefs and practices, is not pertinent and an asset to the article. Pigman^what?/trail 23:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

no problem, thanks for being blunt, I do believe in a WP:SPADE approach to things. My edits are informed by a conviction that this cannot and should not be an article discussing the actual reconstruction of Gaelic folklore or Celtic polytheism: these topics belong on Gaelic folklore (yes, it's a disambiguation page: if you want to expand it into a full article, you are most welcome) and Celtic polytheism. Discussing these topics here in any amount of detail would constitute a WP:CFORK. This article should be about the reconstructionist movement. Reading this article, I want to know, what is this movement, what is its history, what size is it, and where are these people. If I want to know about Gaelic folklore, I'll go read Gaelic folklore. I am not aware that I have been discounting printed sources. I am as a rule most glad to have any. But I must insist that you cannot use a generic footnote saying "Bonewits (2006)" as a reference for each and every statement here. At least take the trouble to create individual footnotes giving the relevant page number. To put it bluntly, my skepticism is based on the appearances that there are lots of "netizens" that seem to care a lot about CRP, but beyond a dilapidated website by a Washington group, no evidence of actual demographics. Is this an internet religion living entirely on bulletin boards? My background is a survey of neopaganism articles on Wikipedia in general: I do not claim any familiarity with CRP in particular. You will perhaps understand my approach better if you look to the history of similar articles. Take Kemetism. I found the article in this state, and the shape of Kemetism in the real world as it transpired after some research was this. Again, I do not want to read about Ancient Egyptian religion itself on "Kemetism". If I want information on that, I go to Ancient Egyptian religion. What I want from this article is information about the real-life neopagan Kemetism movement. In general, our neopaganism articles want less blather about the ancients and more prosaic discussion of the movements themselves. Reconstructionists of all people I would expect to agree with me on this. If you're taking pains to model your religion on actual historical practicies, you should be into building the article on the historical religion itself, in this case Celtic polytheism. A Wiccan trying to discuss "historical" witchcraft will bump into policy issues (WP:RS) all the time, but a reconstructionist by definition will be using the most reliable academic sources available, and as such operate on the same principles as anyone else working on historical articles. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

similar examples include this article which turned out to be essentially an ad for this (now deleted) author, or this one which turned out to be about this author. I think you are getting the picture. dab (𒁳) 17:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

dab, I'm finding it difficult to believe you're looking carefully at the article. There are NO generic footnotes saying "Bonewits (2006)" Every one of those footnotes includes a page number of the source material. Unless you're suggesting actual direct quotes from the source should be used in all cases? This seems a rather high standard to me. Personally, I tend to use direct quotes in footnotes only when the information is controversial or, more likely, the footnote quote will illuminate the context in a more thorough manner. Sourcing is all well and good but I don't think footnotes should outweigh the article content itself, not in a non-technical cultural article like this one.

I'm also trying to understand exactly what you mean by "less blather about the ancients and more prosaic discussion of the movements themselves" in relation to this article. The closest in this article to that is the "Practices" section which details some of the ways CR is different from the ancient Celts' practices as we understand them today through the best scholarship available. I contend even that section balances info about the ancient Celts with the modern CR practice well, without delving overmuch into the historic record. It seems ludicrous to me to excise such detail and merely use some wikilinks such as "...they look to Irish folklore for their beliefs." as a some form of condensed reference. No, the CR article shouldn't replicate large amounts of info found in other articles but I don't think it does. The info is well integrated (and gracefully so, I think.)

I certainly understand your view of neopaganism articles on WP. Many are woefully undersourced and include all sorts of claims without substantial backing. However, the CR article has been sourced extensively and thoroughly to this point. I actually consider it one of the best neopagan articles from that perspective. Is there room for improvement? Sure, there's always room to improve the article but your changes have been picking apart what has been carefully constructed and talked about on the talk pages. You're introducing language inaccuracies, unsourced assertions, and original research/beliefs. You're inserting groups who would not consider themselves CR and no secondary source would call CR and you're removing groups which indoubtably are CR. You're imposing some categorizations on the content which are artificial and ill-suited to the material. This is really the basis for my objection to many of your changes. Essentially, I and others are having to clean up after your careless changes. "Careless" because you apparently can't be bothered to read the article carefully before making major changes to format and content. I'm particularly angry at your changes to information you obviously do not have the expertise or knowledge to accurately judge. I'm speaking specifically of changing language translations and exact quotes. This is not helpful and I'm beginning to resent the unnecessary work you're creating for me and others because you are just charging ahead. It's unnecessary because the article was not in poor shape before you began this undiscussed series of major revisions. Again, your comments on this page indicate you're really not paying attention to the article before changing so much of it. Pigman^what?/trail 22:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dab, I have to concur with Pigman here. Looking over the sweeping changes you've attempted to make - without consensus - to what was a stable, extremely well-sourced, GA-class article, and your comments here on the talk page, it seems quite clear to me that you are simply not looking at the footnotes. Or for some reason you have decided to ignore them. You also do not seem familiar with the history of either the article subject or the article itself. As Pigman noted, you are introducing blatant inaccuracies and OR that others are having to clean up. You are mischaracterising the multiple, third-party, WP:V published sources, and the inclusion of page numbers and quotes on the sources that are used multiple times (as seen in your inaccurate statement above about "Bonewits (2006)"). You seem very intent on adding various websites, even those of individuals who do not self-identify as CR, which makes your calling them such OR. It is your opinion that this is somehow an "Internet Religion". The article has multiple, WP:V, published sources that indicate this is not the case. It seems very odd and disconcerting to me that you are still proceeding with pushing your agenda here. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you said you prefer WP:SPADE, as do I, so there it is. Regards, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I was completely wrong about the Bonewits footnotes, sorry. I'll say again that my concern is phrasings like "Many CRs view each act of daily life as a form of ritual" or "The founders and elders of CR believe", when the article isn't (wasn't) able to point out a single known group of CRP adherents. The article's standard is of course classes above the average "neopaganism" writeup I mentioned. I am not impressed by this article being of "GA standard". That's just another confirmation that the GA people these days simply look at proper footnote formatting and don't even bother to read the prose. The article as it stood had severe tone and npov issues, and immediately betrayed its origin with CRP proponents. Sorry if my editing was erratic. We are making progress though. The article now at least names eight grouplets with their actual location, so that it is reasonable to assume that CRP has at least a dozen or so adherents. Kathryn, it is perfectly fine for you to be building this article, but seeing that you are personally named in it as the very "originator" of the term and a key proponent, you'll have to accept that questions of WP:COI arise, especially in light of accusations of bias on your part to the effect that you deleted every "Celtic" group but your own. Now, let me list the remaining phrasings that I find problematic:

• "Though some CRs do have cultural survivals in their families of origin" ("cultural survivals"? such as what? polytheism? or just eating with knife and fork?)
• "CRs believe there is much to be found in the living Celtic cultures" (CRs believe "much" can be found? As opposed to your average man in the street who believes living Celtic cultures are actually non-cultures with nothing to be found in them?)
• "all that is needed in some areas, such as community celebrations, is a bit of dusting off and 'back-engineering'" (the intended meaning is apparently "in order to arrive at the historical pre-Christian custom", but the phrasing is needlessly disparaging of living culture as merely a degraded version of an earlier "pure" culture).
• "The founders and elders of CR believe" -- who are these people? 3rd person opinion-piece by User:Kathryn_NicDhàna?
• "Many CRs view each act of daily life as a form of ritual", ditto, as much of the remainder of "Practices".
• "Mystical practices are usually reconstructions based on accounts in the older manuscripts" what older manuscripts? The Würzburg glosses?
• "There are some CR philosophies which downplay the role of the druidic office specifically in preference to a more general view of Indo-European priesthood (making the argument that the druids may simply have been a very successful school of priest-craft, and possibly not even completely pan-Celtic)" I'm sorry, but that's so much gibberish. What "Indo-European priesthood"? What does "Pan-Celtic" have to do with anything? Are we talking about "reconstructions" of Proto-Celtic (Hallstatt) culture now? We were given the impression that this is about pre-Christian Gaelic culture (Ogham, "dusting off" of Irish festivals), and now suddenly we dive into "Pan-Celtic" and even Indo-European matters? CRs cannot practice "druidism" because they have to recognize that there is simply no shred of evidence that would allow "reconstruction" of any sort, as much as they would like to.

Regarding sources, while I am happy to recognize Bonewits as a valid source, a good deal of content is sourced to

• "An Interview with Kathryn Price NicDhàna: Celtic Reconstructionism" (10 footnotes)
• "Telesco, Patricia [editor] (2005) Which Witch is Which? p. 85-9." (9 footnotes) -- which, it turns out, is the "CR" article by Erynn Rowan Laurie, Aedh Rua O'Morrighu, John Machate, Kathryn Price Theatana, Kym Lambert ní Dhoireann.
• lots of other NicDhàna references

My concern is, then, that this article is essentially K. NicDhàna replicating material published by K. NicDhàna elsewhere. This rises WP:NOTE's "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Again, I have no problem with people writing Wikipedia articles about themselves. After all, we can assume they have the expertise. But in such cases, we have to be extra careful to establish some framework for the topic based on independent sources. The closest to that we have to show so far appears to be Isaac Bonewits, founder of ADF, apparently coined the term "Pagan Reconstructionism", perhaps not himself a hardboiled Reconstructionist, but hardly an outside observer. Another concern was that Celtic neopaganism used to redirect here. I have turned it into a disambiguation page for now. dab (𒁳) 09:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

dab, I'm slightly pressed for time but I will respond thoroughly to your post later today. One slight correction: although Telesco's book uses a version of what is typically referred to as "The CR Essay" as a section, even a casual comparison of the original {posted online at Witchvox) will show the Telesco version is significantly edited. It is not merely a printed reproduction of the original online document. In that sense, while not strictly an independent source, it was certainly edited and adapted by Telesco for the book, making choices out of the hands of the authors.

Relatedly, I'd note that almost all sources and footnotes are independent of Kathryn in publication, the only really non-independent one being the original CR Essay, used four times in the footnotes.

Secondly, if you examine the history of this article, I think you'll find that Kathryn did not add the info about herself. She wasn't even mentioned in early versions of the article. It was only as things were talked about on the talk page that suggestions were made on how to flesh out the article and details to add. I'd also note that as issues of COI became more apparent, Kathryn scaled back her contributions to the article, generally tending to floating ideas on the talk page rather than implementing them herself. More later. Pigman^what?/trail 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

dab's critique

dab, I think your most recent critique of this article is an excellent and detailed list of some of the problems and I agree with many of them. I'm more comfortable with correcting or addressing specific items than completely re-visioning the article from top to bottom, particular after it had achieved good article status. (This despite your apparent low opinion of that particular standard.) I'm going to spend some time working on a number of items from this list but there are a few points I'd like to respond to where I think you're off a little.

Please note that all sources that are directly about or co-written by Kathryn NicDhàna (the Green Triangle interview and the "CR Essay") were not added to this article by her. If you look through the talk pages, I think you'll find that she has always been conscious and sensitive to COI concerns on this article. Note also that she edits WP under this name and has never attempted to disguise her identity in this matter. (I'm certainly not suggesting or saying her honesty should allow her leeway or extra lenient consideration regarding COI issues, only that the COI issues are in the open and not covert in the least.) If you look at her contribs, I also think you'll find this article is nowhere near the sole focus of her Wikipedia work.

I've already addressed Telesco as a source above. The Green Triangle interview was an interview with Kathryn by a non-CR interviewer and published in a webzine unconnected to her so I believe it's an independent source even though much of it is in Kathryn's words. If you look at, say, the home page of the webzine, it's obviously not just a standalone article thrown up on some website but a part of an ongoing online publication that covers a variety of social and religious issues.

Argh! Stuff keeps happening! I've got to go so I'll return to this in a while. Pigman^what?/trail 00:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

it's ok:

• there is no deadline. We can take our time with this.
• I don't want to come across as hostile. I am usually more skeptical of articles where I actually feel attracted to the topic (from the desire to have a watertight, informative and truly unbiased representation. also known as "writing for the enemy")

Kathryn's material is published, and I wouldn't dream of trying to hustle it out of the article. It is perfectly valid as a proponent's self-description. This automatically raises the questions of (a) are there conflicting positions taken by other proponents (are there disputes within the movement), and (b) what is the take of outside (if possible, academic) descriptions. My involvement is due to the fact that this article, while admiringly referenced to proponents, is grievously short of outside views. Not even to adherents.com or the cog.org census (which is 'insider', but published academically). Bonewits and Adler can be taken as "outside" CR proper, but they are still "insiders" in terms of neopaganism. using google books, I find mention in three arguably "outsider" publications:

• The New Encyclopedia of the Occult (2003), ISBN 1567183360: "a product of the 1980s and 1990s, the CR movement is a is among the smaller branches of neopaganism, but has had a significant impact on the broader tradition; appears to consist mostly of scattered groups and individuals with widely varying views and agendas; communication is largely via the internet".

this is what I gathered, and this brief "outsider" description is worth hundreds of pages of self-description in terms of encyclopedicity!

• Introduction to Pagan Studies (2006), ISBN 0759108196, p.156 gets it all wrong and equates "Celtic reconstuctionism" with Celtic neopaganism in general, including all of Neo-Druidism in the term.
• Cyberhenge: Modern Pagans on the Internet (2004), ISBN 0415969115, p. 113 mentions Kathryn's "Moonstone Circle"[1] as a "non-Wiccan Celtic reconstructionist group".

Based on the "New Encyclopedia of the Occult" above, I believe we should come clear of attempting to make CR look like more of a "movement" than it is, and do it justice for its role as a comparatively influential intellectual discourse within neopaganism instead. I propose we base the introduction on the "Encyclopedia of the Occult" summary, as it were to establish notability outside a small ring of websites, and then embark on a summary of self-depiction as contained in the present article. dab (𒁳) 15:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've just completely reverted all of your most recent edits dab. There are a number of reasons why I didn't just edit the resulting version from the edits.

First, MoS does NOT say that footnotes shouldn't be in the lead/opening section, only that because of the general nature of restating info from the body, it probably won't need footnotes. However, older discussion indicated that even the lead needed to be sourced on this article. You may not think so but this was specifically decided earlier.

Another point was removing the wikilinks to the Celtic festivals in the "see also" section which seems remarkably limiting of arguably some of the more pertinent and related articles.

Yet another was the renaming of "Sources used by Celtic Reconstructionists" to "Pre-Christian Celtic traditions" which is entirely inaccurate. Many of these sources are folkloric and gathered within the last 200 years. By no stretch could they be termed Pre-Christian.

There were other problems but in general the removal of sourced material disturbs me quite a bit. I'm still finding many of these changes to be degrading the quality of the article and not improving it. I know I threw out at least a couple of good changes with the bathwater and I'll try to put them back in. However, I am still finding that your changes are generally not as sourced and verifiable as the current text. Pigman^what?/trail 02:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that Greer's The New Encyclopedia of the Occult (2003) is already used in a footnote, currently no 39, although not quoted. Pigman^what?/trail 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize these sources are "folkloric". They are "Pre-Christian" in the sense of "Pre-Christian Alpine traditions". I admit the section title wasn't perfect, but the "Sources used by" is simply unacceptable. I repeat that this bibliography section strictly has no place here, but belongs on Celtic polytheism and/or Gaelic folklore. dab (𒁳) 12:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Answering a few of dab's earlier points

"Though some CRs do have cultural survivals in their families of origin" ("cultural survivals"? such as what? polytheism? or just eating with knife and fork?)

This has been changed to "some CRs do have survivals of Irish or Scottish folkloric customs in their families of origin." The source at the end is specific.

"CRs believe there is much to be found in the living Celtic cultures" (CRs believe "much" can be found? As opposed to your average man in the street who believes living Celtic cultures are actually non-cultures with nothing to be found in them?)

"all that is needed in some areas, such as community celebrations, is a bit of dusting off and 'back-engineering'" (the intended meaning is apparently "in order to arrive at the historical pre-Christian custom", but the phrasing is needlessly disparaging of living culture as merely a degraded version of an earlier "pure" culture).

Context for these is found in the sentence before them, indicating polytheistic religion. There's no indication this refers to some idealized or "pure" culture, only the attempt to find the polytheistic elements overlaid by Christianity. I certainly think the phrasing on these can be made better and less informal but I also believe you're finding issues which aren't there for the reader.

"The founders and elders of CR believe" -- who are these people? 3rd person opinion-piece by User:Kathryn_NicDhàna?

The note at the end of this sentence clearly sources it to the Telesco version of the CR Essay which was co-authored by five CR elders, all from separate CR traditions. Kathryn was only one of those five.

"Many CRs view each act of daily life as a form of ritual", ditto, as much of the remainder of "Practices".

Ditto as well. You seem to be ignoring that Kathryn was one of five authors of the CR Essay which covered a spectrum of CR practices and beliefs. It was not solely her work. Nor are the other sources used in the section.

My concern is, then, that this article is essentially K. NicDhàna replicating material published by K. NicDhàna elsewhere. This rises WP:NOTE's "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

Please note that the only source which could come under that heading would be the The CR FAQ which is cited a total of once out of 39 footnotes, and at your request. The next closest would be the actual CR Essay on Witchvox with 4 cites. However, Witchvox does vet those tradition essays when they are submitted, and they must pass through a site admin and editors before being posted. Someone can't just post a tradition essay without it being approved by the site managers. The only source that could be called self-published is the CR FAQ and, like the earlier CR Essay, that book/website is the product of four named authors with a great deal of input and work by numerous other individuals.

And, although Kathryn did not add the citations I believe you are complaining about, I'd also like to direct your attention to the section on citing oneself in the WP:NOR policy which I think is a counterpoint to your note above. I have added most of these sources, IIRC, though as they are WP:V, it would have been within her rights to do so. Instead, she has backed off on working on this article, due to now being named in it. Yet when OR and misinformation is added, I remind you it is as much her right, as any Wikipedian's to remove it. This is not a bio of Kathryn, and I think it is out of line, and somewhat baffling to me, for you to suggest it is.

I'm still getting the impression that you're not carefully looking at the footnotes. They are not decorative or just for show. "Looky, looky! Its gots lots of footnotes!" is not why they are there. If there is a footnote, it's because it supports the information it appears on in the body of the article. If you're dissatisfied with them, prove they're not WP:V.

If I sound a tad peeved, it's because I am. I'm really quite willing to improve the article and I plan to spend some time doing so. And I'm really a very cooperative fellow who plays well with others most of the time. What I'm not feeling very tolerant of is the gutting of sections and valid references which have been rather painstakingly gathered and applied.

I'm feeling like you're creating problems in the article but you don't really much care about it or the resulting work of cleaning up after you. You have strong ideas about what you want to do but when you finish a round of editing, I inevitably find the article less focused and shuffled around in ways that make little sense to me structurally. The deletion of blocks of text all over the place makes the article jagged because the paragraphs often depend on information presented earlier. You post on the talk page but I get a feeling of a lack of real engagement in the collaborative process from you. Your approach feels more autocratic than cooperative and that's my main complaint about your actions. Umph. I'm obviously getting my grumpy on now. Best I leave this for tonight. Pigman^what?/trail 07:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Splitting off the non-CR book lists

This seems an extraordinarily poor idea to me. To not include a basic selection of the texts which are the foundation for the modern beliefs of CR would make the article incomplete in important ways. It supports the idea that CR involves scholarship and using as accurate a picture of the ancient Celtic beliefs as possible. Merely referring people to the folklore articles puts central concepts and historical sources (which are well within the scope of the article) beyond easy reference for readers.

I also note that I'm uncomfortable with such general articles on folklore because the sources cited in them will vary in quality and pertinence to CR. Some include fiction, some don't include central texts. Yes, I could help bring the quality of the refs on those folklore articles up but they still would not be CR-focused. The books currently on the list in this article were agreed on by a range of CRs to be central to CR. My opinion. Pigman^what?/trail 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, let's see if I can clarify my point. Most of this is copied off a reading list[2]. Your concern that we should illustrate the connection of CR to scholarship is perfectly valid, but this needs to be done in the article body, not by suggestive listing of titles in the literature section. I do encourage you to create a dedicated "CR and scholarship" paragraph, where you can discuss points of who recommended which books etc. But the point of the bibliography section is not to list arbitrary title. It should list literature directly pertinent to the topic (CR), or literature that happens to be referred to in the article body for some reason (the point being that there needs to be a reason evident from the article prose). There are entire libraries worth of literature on the general topic of "Celtic mythology". Which titles do we list here, which do we list at Celtic mythology and why? I should be able to ask you, why do we specifically list The Vanishing People: Fairy Lore and Legends (1978)? What is its relevance to CR beyond being about a vaguely Celtic topic? And you should be able to provide a convincing explanation showing that this book in particular has influenced the movement. Otherwise, we are just listing random "Celtic" literature.

Your point about the general shape of our folklore articles is taken only too well. I wish we had more neopagan editors who would put some effort into building quality articles on the actual folklore and mythologies involved instead of paying loving and often excessive attention to the various "neopaganism" articles. dab (𒁳) 13:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have trimmed the book lists. The mythology and folklore books were largely added in one large edit by an editor who has not worked on this article much since then. This list pre-dates the writing of the FAQ, though a cite of the FAQ would note that these are sources considered important in CR. I have cut a number of books that are not as universally accepted as among the most important. If any more of these books are cut, which I don't believe is necessary, they will have to be added to the general footnotes, as they are referred to in the body of the article. Pigman^what?/trail 00:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

looking good now. Together with the "see also" pointers, there is nothing speaking against a brief list of ostensibly relevant books. dab (𒁳) 16:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of Sinnsreachd changes/revert

The reason why I reverted the changes by User:Breandan u c is because I have three sources here that contradict the "custom(s) of the ancestors" definition of Sinnsreachd. In particular, it is contradicted by the source being currently used as a citation for this information in the article. I found a source he might be using but it's a secondary definition from a 1912 dictionary online. IOW, it is not current usage. As I say, I have three separate Gaelic dictionaries which do not show this definition and I'd be happy to source the definition to all of them.

Actually, the information in this paragraph lacks WP:V third party sourcing for the info. The only source is to the group's own website. If better WP:RS sources can't be found, it may be better to cut the paragraph. Cheers, Pigman☿ 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now added two additional sources to the text showing the actual translation of the word sinnsreachd. Cheers, Pigman☿ 06:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional news story as possible source

There is a recently published article which could be used as a source here. "Reconstructing Ireland at Home" by Andrew Nusca appeared in the Irish Voice, possibly the largest circulation Irish newspaper in the USA. Since I am rather over-prominently featured in the story however, I'm not eager to add it or integrate it as a source myself. I humbly offer it up in case others think there is information that could be used here. There is a pdf of it here showing how it appeared in print. It is also on the site for "Covering Religion" here but that's difficult to reference because you then have to click through story "2" in the main window to get to it. Flash coding means there's no direct URL to the story that I can find. Cheers, Pigman☿ 03:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ord na Darach Gile--CR?

Does the organisation 'Ord na Darach Gile' rightly belong under the list of CR organizations? Though they describe themselves as a Celtic Reconstructionist organisation, they also describe themselves as a Druidic order that promotes 'Celtic Druidism'; the title of 'druid' is used among CRs in a community or tribal context and it is bestowed upon those who demonstrate great knowledge of history, lore, ritual, and language, and who actively fulfill a 'priestly' role in their communities--it's an honorable and sacred office, and CRs do not describe their practices as 'druidism.' After reviewing the organisation's website, I get the impression that they are a Neodruid group who have a high regard for scholarship and cultural authenticity, but that is not the same thing as reconstructionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.181.177 (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability Problem - Secondary Sources?

It appears that the entire article is based on the writings of proponents of the movement, showing no secondary or tertiary sources. The lack of serious criticism or viewpoints from outside the celtic-reconstructionist ghetto make the article very poor by encyclopedic standards. I'm saddened to see it passed a GA. Also, from a brief glance at the talk page, it would appear that there might be conflict of interest issues with a number of editors. Come on guys, get this article cited properly! Davémon (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave, if you were familiar with the sources or the subject matter you would know this is not true. The issues you raised have been already discussed and dealt with. Your sudden interest in this article, and flagging it as nn, is a clear retaliation for my bringing up the POV issues with the Triple Goddess article, where you changed an article about goddesses in many cultures to an article solely about the Wiccan view of the subject, and did so against policy and in absence of consensus. I'll leave it to someone else to remove the nn flag, though. Other editors may like to see the discussion that's going on over at Talk:Triple Goddess for more insight into this. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Davémon's concern over secondary sources is patently without foundation as even a cursory review of the inline citations will show. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 23:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Kathy, Pigman. The sources used are clearly all primary sources, Bonewits, is a neopagan, Harvest magazine, a 'small press' neopagan magazine etc. etc. There isn't a single serious reliable source (i.e. a serious academic, journalistic source) in there. Please don't remove notifications until the concerns have actually been addressed. Accusing editors of 'retaliatory' editing is unconstructive - please attempt to stay on topic, which on this talk page is this article. I have worked on several neopaganism related articles and my actions here are no different to the others - that is an attempt to improve the standards of sourcing and their encyclopedic nature. I also note that Pigman was encouraging editors to use himself as a source on this talk-page, and that Kathy is not only one of the sources, but also credited with coining the term. There are some serious CoI issues surrounding this article. Please, if either of you can add some reliable sources that talk about Celtic Reconstructionism from someone other than Celtic Reconstructionists and neopagan authors, we can remove the notice. I'm sure at least Ronald Hutton will have mentioned the movement in his histories of the modern pagan movement. Thanks. Davémon (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hutton turned up zip. I'm begining to have serious doubts about the over-use of "Which Witch is Which?" as a Reliable Source, the "editor" appears to have written over 60 pulp new-age self-help/how-to books, including several pagan recipe books, see [3] and is in no way a serious academic or journalist on this subject. Also it would appear that the author(s) of the CR section she "edited" are largely the same 4 or 5 writers who created the "witchvox" article. The Witchvox article itself seems to be published by a website with no editorial criteria, and is certainly not a serious academic or journalistic source.

The picture that is emerging is one of editorial dependence on a collective of a handful of non-academic writers (at least one of whome is an active editor of this article) who have not been published in reliable sources being used to give more substance to the subject than it warrants. Propose a merge with Pagan Reconstructionism if not enough substantial wp:rs can be found. Davémon (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Davemon, you seem to misunderstand what constitutes a secondary source. Please read the secondary and tertiary section in NOR. And while primary documents such as the "CR Essay" on Witchvox and the CR FAQ should not be used as a source for too large a percentage of the article, such statements of belief and collective purpose are allowable.

I would like you to carefully read previous discussion on COI and primary sources on this article in the talk page archive, particularly the sections Original research, Request for comments, and Sources, Controversy and/or lack thereof. These issues are not new and have been examined by several admins and experienced editors. Note that Kathryn NicDhàna has been entirely transparent about her identity on WP, including her RfA. She has not substantially edited this article for quite a while. And she did not add her own name to the article.

As to your insistence on an academic level of sourcing for the article, this is rather peculiarly strict for an article of this type. Popular culture articles have never been held to such a standard in my experience. WP:RS and WP:V sources, yes, but not a peer-reviewed academic level for all their sources. The article is well-sourced by verifiable and reliable sources. If you have questions about the validity of the sources, I recommend bringing your concerns about particular sources (Bonewits, Telesco) to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The burden of proving Bonewits and Telesco don't meet WP:RS and WP:V standards is on you. I'd be exceptionally surprised if your concerns gain any traction in a community discussion. Until consensus shows otherwise, I'm removing the tags on those books as "unreliable sources". Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This a WP:WPPC article? I thought it was an article on a religious movement. Never mind. To invoke the law of "Pokecruft", yes, popular culture articles are expected to have multiple independant secondary/tertiary sources to establish notability for an independant article. That's why Picachu has his own article, and Bulbasaur doesn't. There are no problems with the article attributing beliefs to primary sources. However, primary sources do not help establish notability of a subject, see Wikipedia:Notability. I have read the previous debates and as far as I can see, the notability problem has not been raised. My issue is not that the information is totally untrustworthy, but that the subject is not notable in it's own right.Certainly Polytheistic Reconstructionism appears to be notable. That's why I'm talking about merging, not deletion.

I am not asking that only academic /journalistic sources be used. The article currently fails WP:N, and to establish notability of the subject outside a handful of self-publishing neopagans and pulp new-age authors the article needs to have multiple, reliable, independant sources on this subject. As far as I can see this is simply not possible for "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism". Davémon (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the article rather clearly meets WP:N standards per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence: "Substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject constitutes verifiable evidence of notability, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines." It meets other notability standards as well. If you are concerned about notability, I recommend getting input from the community through one of the available processes. As to the sources, I again recommend taking individual sources or the article as a whole to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 18:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, point to these multiple independant, reliable sources that gives substantial coverage of this so-called "movement". There certainly aren't any in the references, which consist 50% of Bonewitz, 40% of the CR community and 10% of defining things that are not central to the topic. As far as I can see the only non-celto-neopaganist source is the "New Occult Encyclopedia" - which is published by Llewelyn Worldwide, A New Age Book Publisher which publishes books on "Ayurvedic Balancing", "Practical Magic for Beginners" and provides personal Horosopes [[4]]. Hardly a reputation for fact checking. This book defines Celtic Reconsturctionism as being 'one of the smaller movements of neopaganism'. Hardly a glowing advert for the notability of the topic in the real world. This entire article looks like it's been intentionally written to give more credence to a minor group of neopagan authors than they actually deserve. Davémon (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is your personal opinion. Especially the idea that the article is "intentionally written to give more credence to a minor group of neopagan authors". I would argue that such opinions do not deal with the use of secondary sources but personal disagreements between Davemom and some of the individuals who have been cited in this article. Therefore, I am going to remove the tag.

There appears to be several citations that qualify as secondary sources. Not sure what this argument is about. I would remove the tag. It does not seem to be warranted and seems to have been placed for no reason. The following can be considered secondary sources as none of these authors identifies as CR specifically: Gallagher, Eugene V.; Ashcraft, W. Michael (2006). Introduction to new and alternative religions in America. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. pp. 220. ISBN 0-275-98714-0.; ^ Adler, Margot (1979) Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today. Boston, Beacon Press ISBN 0-8070-3237-9. Chapter 9: Religions from the Past--The Pagan Reconstructionists. ; Mac Mathúna, Liam (1999) "Irish Perceptions of the Cosmos" Celtica vol. 23 (1999), pp.174-187; ^ a b MacLennan, Malcolm (1985) [1991]. A Pronouncing and Etymological Dictionary of the Gaelic Language. Edinburgh: Acair/Aberdeen University Press. p. 300. ISBN 0-08-025712-7.; MacBain, Alexander (1998) [1998].; Etymological Dictionary of Scottish-Gaelic. Hippocrene Books, Inc. New York, NY. p. 323. ISBN 0-7818-0632-1.; Ó Dónaill, Niall (1992) [1992]. Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla. Éireann: Mount Salus Press. p. 1096. ISBN 1-85791-037-0.  ; Kelly, Fergus (1988) A Guide to Early Irish Law. Dublin, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies ISBN 0-901282-95-2. p.304. All of these sources qualify as secondary sources. Whether or not the individual who placed the tag considers these to be "unacademic" is obviously a personal opinion. Michael Meehan (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) These would be the 10% defining things that aren't central to the topic. The following do not provide any evidence of the notablity of the subject as the do not discuss it:

• Gallagher, Eugene V.; Ashcraft, W. Michael (2006). Introduction to new and alternative religions in America. Does not Identify Celtic Reconstructionism (it uses a lower case R) as being any different to Druidry and is talking about a general phenomenon, not a specific movement as this article claims.

• Adler, Margot (1979) Drawing Down the Moon. Does not mention "Celtic Reconstructionism" at all (is also a poor source for modern history/anthropology).

• Mac Mathúna, Liam (1999) "Irish Perceptions of the Cosmos" Celtica vol. 23 (1999), pp.174-187; Does not mention Celtic Reconstuctionism at all.

• a b MacLennan, Malcolm (1985) [1991]. A Pronouncing and Etymological Dictionary of the Gaelic Language. Edinburgh: Acair/Aberdeen University Press. p. 300. ISBN 0-08-025712-7. Does not mention Celtic Reconstructionism at all.

• MacBain, Alexander (1998) [1998].; Etymological Dictionary of Scottish-Gaelic. Hippocrene Books, Inc. New York, NY. p. 323. ISBN 0-7818-0632-1. Does not mention Celtic Reconstuctionism.

• Ó Dónaill, Niall (1992) [1992] Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla. Éireann: Mount Salus Press. p. 1096. Does not mention Celtic Reconstructionism.

• Kelly, Fergus (1988) A Guide to Early Irish Law. Dublin, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies ISBN 0-901282-95-2. p.304. Does not mention Celtic Reconstructionism.

My point is not that the article isn't sourced, it is that the sources provided do not establish notability of the subject of the article. This is not a 'personal opinion' but a statement of fact based on the complete lack of textual evidence provided by the sources. The only sources that actually do mention CR are those produced by it's proponents. If there are any reliable secondary sources that actually discuss CR, then please do add them to the article. Davémon (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming you have read each of these sources since you state that CR is mentioned in none of them or is this an assumption on your part? CR may not be mentioned - I don't know as I haven't read each of these sources. I am assuming that you have? Michael Meehan (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Then other similar articles do not meet such guidelines either. This entry is no different than various other entries regarding reconstructionist paganism. I am curious as to why you have not placed tags on the Asatru or the Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism entry. I again assert that this is a personal conflict with some of the people who have worked on the article. It was started after an argument regarding the triple goddess on another entry and was brought here. This is clearly demonstrated via the timeline as to when you placed this tag. Such retaliatory acts are not really permissible. I am again removing the tag. Michael Meehan (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Asserting that "this is a personal conflict with some of the people who have worked on the article" is an ad-hominem argument which ignores the bare facts of the case I am presenting. Whatever my motives may be (and you are wide of the mark) your actions here have not established the notability of CR. If you feel the Germanic Paganism or the Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism articles are poorly sourced, or a non-notable subject or that they are written in an unduly self-serving manner, the most constructive thing you can do is to raise these issues with other editors so they can improve the articles! Drop me a note on my talk page once you've built your case against them and I'll lend my support if I agree with your assessment. Thanks. Davémon (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not assert that any of the above mention articles are poorly sources, a non notable subject or are written in an unduly self-servicing manner. I am stating that they all have similar sources as those listed on the CR article. I suppose I am curious, if you are so concerned about editing and such, why you have not placed tags on these articles as well and have only chosen to place an article on CR especially now that I have drawn your attention to them? I am curious as to why you are not concerned about these articles as well? I will not place a tag on them because I think they are fine, but if you are judging this article by certain standards that those standards must also apply to other articles it would seem and it would seem almost like you were singling out CR from the standards for related articles for no apparent reason. This is my concern. I would also rather discuss this situation here than on your talk page as I believe such discussions are relevant to the article and it is important to know you motives for editing an article and especially in singling one article out when there are many others which are very similar in sources. Michael Meehan (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest "Reading Spiritualities: Constructing and Representing the Sacred By Dawn Llewellyn, Deborah F. Sawyer" page 191 as a secondary source for stating that Celtic Reconstructionism (with a capital "R") as a separate tradtion that considers itself pagan as well as "Her hidden children: the rise of Wicca and paganism in America By Chas Clifton" which also mentions it as a modern reconstructionist movement.

"The invention of sacred tradition By James R. Lewis, Olav Hammer", "Religion and Canadian society: traditions, transitions, and innovations By Lori G. Beaman" and others also mention Celtic Reconstructionism as a separate pagan religion/movement and could be used to signify this within the article. However, I don't know how to do this so perhaps the individuals who are critical of this article and believe that it does not have secondary sources could enter these to improve the article as I am sure that is what Davémon wants - to make the article better especially since there do seem to be additional secondary sources out there - rather than just criticizing it and placing tags that are unwarranted. Michael Meehan (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tags are placed precisely so editors can fix the problem raised. A tag is not a condemnation of the subject at all. Good work on finding some sources. Give editing the page a go, it's just like editing the talk-page, and there are already some references so just copy their formatting. Half the fun of wiki is that other people can fix it if you broke it. Cheers! Davémon (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lewis, James P.; Hammer, Olav (2007). The invention of sacred tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-86479-8. doesn't seem like it could be used substantially in this article. CR is mentioned but there is little substance to the mention. It basically just verifies that there is movement/tradition called CR.

Sawyer, Dawn; Llewellyn, Dawn; Sawyer, Deborah F. (2008). Reading Spiritualities. Ashgate. p. 191. ISBN 0-7546-6329-9. provides a little more info, asserting that CRs, among other specific types of Reconstructionists, generally have an "absence of normative sacred texts and a hierarchy that controls authoritative sources and by a stress on personal research and choice." That could certainly support one or two points in the article.

I'll look at the other sources a little later but I've formatted these two so they can be dropped in as refs at some point. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 04:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Invention of Sacred Tradition and Religion and Canadian society just mentions Celtic Norse, Egyptian and Teen Witchcraft as some flavour of neopagan network. Neither actually discuss Celtic Reconstructionism as a movement or provide any illumination on the subject. It would appear that the "significant coverage", i.e. directly addressing the subject in detail, aspect of wp:notability is still not satisifed even if material from these additional sources were added. Davémon (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)