Talk:Celtic reconstructionism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Celtoi (minor question)

Is that the ancient Celtic form, or just a transcription of Greek Κελτοι? AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Some refs for inclusion

The sources I am putting here are not intended to specifically address the "notability" issue raised by Davemon above. Rather they are intended to help broaden the range of inline citations. I'll work on integrating them at a later time. The issue of Bonewits' use as a WP:RS reference was discussed on the Reliable sources noticeboard and feedback there indicates he can be used in this context.

• Gallagher, Eugene V.; Michael Ashcraft, W. (2006). Introduction to new and alternative religions in America. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. p. 220. ISBN 0-275-98713-2.: "Perhaps the most widespread of the reconstructed traditions are various forms of Druidry and Celtic reconstructionism."

• Bonewits, Isaac; Bonewits, Philip Emmons Isaac (2006). The pagan man: priests, warriors, hunters and drummers. New York: Citadel. pp. 5, 29. ISBN 0-8065-2697-1.

Pigman☿/talk 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Rekindling an ancient faith, Las Vegas Sun Nov. 8, 2005. Not entirely about CR but mentions it in passing as one of several types of cultural/spiritual reconstructionisms.

• "A Guide to Some Pagan Faiths" Lexington Herald-Leader (KY), June 19, 2004 "Celtic reconstructionism: An umbrella term for those who follow the culture and religions of the Gaelic or Brythonic peoples."

Pigman☿/talk 02:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently the opinion at Reliable sources noticeboard is that Bonewitz is not reliable in this case. Perhaps we should let the discussion settle a bit before making a final decision. Lexington Herald-Leader has CR as 'an umberella term' not a movement per-se, and does not differentiate it from Druidry. Las Vegas Sun does not identify CR as a movement at all and uses reconstructionist (lower-case R), and claims that CR's look at other pagan cultures for their sources, which isn't what this article says at all! Davémon (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You are the only one there discrediting him. He is not a Celtic Reconstructionist Pagan and is therefore not involved with it and is an "outsider". Another person uninvolved in the argument has clearly stated that they see no problems using him as a commentator on modern paganism. CR is modern paganism. Quite frankly, I disagree with your assessment and concur with others that Bonewits can be used as a reliable source in this context - as a reliable commentator outside of the Celtic Reconstructionist movement - since he self-identifies as a Druid and other sources have clearly stated that Celtic Reconstructionism and Druidry are different by the simple fact of mentioning both of them - if they were the same thing, there would be no need for the authors of the various works described above to mention BOTH CR and Druidry. I am referring to some of the aforementioned resources. Please stop arguing this and letting personal conflicts with others get in the way. 72.94.173.25 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Davemon, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take some of your objections and dissembling seriously. Sometimes it seems as if you haven't actually read this article at all. Or not from beginning to end. To dismiss the Lexington Herald-Leader's one line description because it doesn't differentiate between CR and Druidry is rather absurdly selective. I'm also amused that you assert an "umbrella" term can't be a "movement" term as well. Note that both words are currently in the opening paragraph. I could name a couple of examples if you like. Additionally, disallowing Bonewits as a RS in the context of this article shows a lack of familiarity with his actual writing. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 17:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You were fully prepared to accept the opinion given by Fifelfoo at the Reliable sources noticeboard when you thought it supported your position, and now that it transpires that he doesn't, you seem happy to reject it. What is the point of initiating external processes if you're jsut going to dismiss them because they don't suit your position? The one line sources you were providing were very vague in their definitions, and not really providing significant coverage - the criticism is a serious one. I agree that detailed critique of completely trivial sources is rather ridiculous. Davémon (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Problems with inadequate sourcing (including the use of Bonewitz has been raised both at the GA reassessment and community-confirmed at the Reliable sources noticeboard) along with essay-like and (in my opinion) unduly self-serving article content. "Notability" and "incorrect use of primary source" tags are persistently being removed by anon editors. Despite repeated requests for better sources, the active editors on the page have not supplied more than cursory mentions in secondary sources and the article continues to rely primarily on primary sources. Am I right in thinking there are serious problems with this article? some more eyes would be helpful! Davémon (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

potential editors should read through the arguments that Davemon had with Kathryn nicDhana on Triple Goddess and compare them with the date that Davemon first placed tags on the article. He is wikilawyering and gaming the system secondary to a personal argument with Pigman and Kathryn nicDhana. He has not tried to improve the article, but has only insisted on placing tags on it. 166.137.135.154 (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would request anonymous editors to refrain from ad-hominem arguments. Please see wp:battle and wp:civil. Any opinions on the issues raised regarding the article would be much appreciated. Davémon (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would request that you look at the same references when placing tags on pages. I am assuming that you are denying that you suddenly became interested in this article only after having a few heated exchanges wit Kathryn NicDhana and Pigman over at Triple Goddess or was it coincidence that you placed the tags on an article they have worked on only after they disagreed with you at the Triple Goddess article? Such retaliatory tagging will never allow this medium to become respected. 166.137.134.140 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment as a disinterested, outside editor with no knowledge of this topic: regardless of what personal disputes may be simmering in the background, this article raises several concerns:

• Questionable notability as per WP:GNG: Online presence is limited to handful of forums and websites, none of which would be considered reliable. No hits on Google News. Just how significant is this religion to the neo-paganism in general? What number of practitioners? We have no comparative material.
• Questionable use of sources as per WP:SOURCES and WP:SPS: several key sources are self-published. How to verify claims?
• Excessive amounts of intricate detail, particularly in the latter sections.

On the bright side, I believe these problems can be addressed if editors collaborate. In terms of language use and grammar the article is very well written. My recommendation: cut it down in size to only core facts that can be reliably verified by 3rd party sources. Keep to absolute minimum the use of self-published sources and sites and flag them in the text when used. Keep the intro as it is. One paragraph on Origins, a couple on Practices and single sentences on the rest. Compact, verifiable and hopefully therefore notable. --Whoosit (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoosit, I'm perplexed by your first two points. As to notability re Google hits, there are some search term variations that should be included beyond the WP article title: Celtic Reconstructionism, Celtic Reconstructionist, Celtic Recon. Have you actually looked at the sources? Because your comments about the sources indicate that you haven't. There are reliable and verifiable sources specifically about CR in the article.

Could you please be more specific about "...several key sources are self-published?" The CR FAQ was self-published but, by my count, is used in only 6 instances out of 80 footnoted references in this article, hardly the most referenced source used. Consider also that the FAQ has 4 named authors on the cover and the final product was collectively written and approved by at least 9 people plus significant contributions from several other people. A publishing house was established to publish it in order to retain editorial control. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 03:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Some searches and results (quotes inclusive): "Celtic Reconstructionism" - 4,550 Ghits, "Celtic Reconstructionist" - 7,990 Ghits, "Celtic Recon" - 38,800 Ghits. A Google book search on "Celtic Reconstructionism" yields 20 results. These are rough results but certainly indicative of notability. Pigman☿/talk 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

While there seem to be a handful of redundancies in this book search on "Celtic Reconstructionist", there are still 47 hits. All of the hits seem connected to the subject. Pigman☿/talk 20:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to delay in responding. My concerns regarding "self-published" sources: what I mean is K. NicDhàna and K. ní Dhoireann as founders of CR are also authors of a number of referenced sources in the article, i.e. those sources are self-referential. Nothing wrong with self-commentary, but as you know, it's the weakest form of encyclopedic source/evidence. As I said above, they can be used but reliance on them should be minimised. Even without these sources, the remaining bulk of the sources seem to be commentaries by neo-pagans on neo-pagans, which again are quite self-referential. You could strengthen your sourcing with additional commentary on paganism by sociologists or anthropologists, national press & so on.

Regarding notability: agree there are many G-hits, but volume of sources doesn't necessarily make for notability (e.g. there are volumes of tabloid coverage, & hence G-Hits, on subjects that wouldn't pass WP:N). Two hits now, I see, on Google News, but that's insignificant—indicating no coverage of the movement in mainstream press. What is lacking in the article that would give a better idea of notability are actual comparative figures—how many practitioners? Or how many subscribers to CR publications? What percentage of neo-pagan practitioners in the UK are followers of CR? Some of these numbers should be possible to figure out and source. They would strengthen an argument for notability. Even if the movement is very small but influential there's still an argument for notability. I'm just not sure I see that convincingly put across now. Regards, --Whoosit (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoosit, I think you are unclear about what constitutes a self-published source or even the definition of "author" in this context. For example, the Green Triangle interviews with NicDhàna and ní Dhoireann are not authored by either of them nor are they self-published. The Green Triangle is an online magazine with articles about a variety of subjects with a variety of authors. An editor, unconnected with CR, interviewed NicDhàna and ní Dhoireann separately and published the interviews. NicDhàna and ní Dhoireann had no editorial control over the resulting published results. In other words, the publisher of the interviews is entirely separate from the subject. That means these interviews are secondary sources. NicDhàna and ní Dhoireann are not the authors despite a format which includes large quotations from them. I still assert that, while The CR FAQ is a "self-published" source, using that document as a source document for CR beliefs and practices shouldn't be controversial considering it has 4 named authors, none of who belong to the same sub-tradition of CR. Additionally, the document had eight named contributors, and was presented for feedback and consensus to a group of hundreds. This makes it an extremely atypical self-published document, and more thoroughly vetted than many conventionally published books.

Yes, I know G-hits do not prove notability. I've cited them as indicative or suggestive of notability, merely as one sign among others. I note that you use the phrase "mainstream press" which is far from Wikipedia's only standard for WP:RS and WP:V. As to how many practitioners of CR there are, this is practically impossible to gauge with any reliability. Consider that the tradition name/description is only a little more than 15 years old. Most Neopagan religions are so new very few people have had a chance to study them in depth. So what we have mostly are unreliable sources which can only provide hints rather than reliable sources for inclusion in the article. For example, on LiveJournal (a social networking site) there is a group called "Celtic Restorationist/Reconstructionist Paganism" or "cr_r" which currently has 520 members. Please note that this membership number doesn't give any indication of how many are actually practicing CRs, just a number of people who are interested in discussing CR. Another example would be The IMBAS Yahoo Group. It has 747 members and was begun 17 November 1998. "Imbas is focused on Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism & philosophy. Imbas is attempting to foster the further development of a method by which modern people can have a valid pagan path based on ancient Celtic practices while still living in the modern world. This is not a list for the discussion of paganism in general or any religion that does not directly impact on Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism." Info on the Imbas list was in this article in an earlier version but removed because it was hardly a reliable source.

There are also online fora in other languages as well as practitioners who are not online at all. All of these numbers above are circumstantial rather than hard figures from reliable sources by Wikipedia's definition. Pigman☿/talk 21:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not that we are dealing with an article soley based on self published sources, but that the majority of sources are primary sources, "neopagans on neopagans" as Whoosit says. Interviews are primary sources. Splitting hairs over whether a primary source is "self-published" or not is a pretty thin straw-man, when it's clear that whoosit's comments are addressing the problem that the sources, self-published or not, are largely primary sources and weak.

Google hits, yahoo groups, livejournal communities don't show this as being anything more than a net-religion. Notability is established by the subject being noticed outside it's members, by reliable sources. The lack of externally sourced demographics is just showing that it's not a notable cultural movement to people interested in demographics (sociologists and anthropologists, probably).

There is a distinct lack of notability being established in this article, it was raised, confirmed at a GA-review, and has been further ratified by an RfC, by independent editors. The article over-relies on primary sources and should be edited to minimise these problems and move towards neutral coverage. Davémon (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Davemon, you are, again, misrepresenting the sources. I recommend reading the definitions of primary and secondary sources again since you seem unclear on the application and usage of those standards. Pigman☿/talk 20:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly claiming that anyone who criticises your article is mistaken on policy is ludicrous. I have highlighted sourcing and notability problems with the article. Whoosit has highlighted sourcing and notability problems with the article via this RfC. Malleus Fatuorum has highlighted sourcing and notability problems with the article via theGA Review. There exists a clear consensus from editors neutral towards the subject that the article actually has sourcing and notability problems. Addressing those problems rather than pretending they don't exist would be constructive towards the project. Davémon (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) First, it is not "my" article. I've done significant work on it and have an interest in maintaining it, that's all. As to the sources in the article, I recommend actually reading them. When critical editors show they haven't actually read the sources they are critiquing, you have to forgive me if I greet such opinions with doubts of validity. This article, like most articles on Wikipedia, has room for improvement. That said, I would hardly put notability or sourcing high on a list of improvements. Again, current sources show notability; to say otherwise indicates an incomplete/cursory reading of the article and the sources.

I'm not saying anyone who criticises this article is mistaken on policy. I'm saying on this particular issue (i.e. differentiating and categorizing primary and secondary sources) the judgments seem flawed vis-a-vis the definitions of these kinds of sources in WP policy and guidelines. I'm a little bemused that you seem to think it too troublesome to read and apply these standards but I'm not surprised; I've noticed that citation/sourcing isn't your strongest skill on Wikipedia. And yet you seem earnestly set on using citation as the ground for picayune and poorly framed arguments here. Here be a pair o' ducks. Pigman☿/talk 03:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"living Celtic cultures"

The use of the term "living Celtic cultures" is problematic. Firstly, it's jargon, (it appears to be a term defined within CR and only used by its proponents) and that should be avoided just as a point of wp:tone. Secondly the idea that there exists such a thing as a living Celtic culture i.e. some form of modern culture which is objectively identifiable as "Celtic" is non-obvious, problematic and not uncontroversial (as modern celts kind of shows) so it's use is not wholly appropriate. Can I suggest "self identifying Celts" or "celtic language speakers", or "the descendants of Irish immigrants to the US" or something that makes it clearer what is actually meant in each case? Cheers! Davémon (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

None of your suggested replacements for "living Celtic cultures" are properly descriptive and one ("the descendants of Irish immigrants to the US") is completely non-inclusive of what the term is intended to cover. The areas of the Gaeltacht, Gàidhealtachd and Y Fro Gymraeg would include some aspects of the living Celtic cultures but certainly not all of them. You're welcome to question the validity of this (rather self-explanatory) concept but I could easily reference a multitude of aspects specific and rather particular to different "living Celtic cultures" today. The living cultures includes primarily the language, but also the music, customs and folklore, for a start.

If you are still unsure about the common usage of the phrase, here are some book examples and here are some Google Scholar hits.

Additionally, [1] has this: For Irish Gaels still live in Ireland where they speak Irish Gaelic; Scottish Gaels cling to survival in the Hebrides and Highlands in Scotland utilizing Scottish Gaelic; Manx still occupy the isle of Man and a few thousand learners are expanding the use of that language which was considered extinct; the Welsh still occupy Wales and over a half million Welsh speakers thrive in one of the healthier Celtic cultures; the Cornish still live in Cornwall and a few thousand people are learning and maintaining the language; and the Breton still live in what we usually call Brittany, where Breton is a dynamic Celtic language in a distinct region of France. It is to these living, evolving regions of Celtic culture (as well as to Cape Breton in Nova Scotia where many Scottish Gaels emigrated after being forced from their lands in Scotland in the 18th and 19th centuries) that one should look to understand Samhain or other Celtic holidays. In my experience, most Wiccans (as well as self-styled Anglo "neo-druids") are prone to similar misinterpretations and appropriations, for they frequently neither seek real contact with nor study within living Celtic cultures, and show little dedication to the health of these imperiled languages and peoples." letter from Kent Jewell, UW staff, educational psychology (founding member of Seirm, the Music and Performance Ensemble of Slighe nan Gaidheal, the Scottish Gaelic Society of Seattle.) (bold emphasis here and below mine)

[2] "Cape Breton has the distinction of being one of the world's only surviving living Celtic Cultures. Music, art, storytelling and traditional craft are alive and thriving in communities across Cape Breton. In addition to living Celtic traditions, Cape Breton has a strong history of multiculturalism with foundations in the historic mining industry."

[3] "Samhain is still largely regarded as the Celtic New Year in the living Celtic cultures." (concert listing at Irish Cultural Center)

[4] Nova Scotia: "The Celtic Colours International Festival is a nine-day celebration of the living Celtic cultures of Cape Breton Island and is held each year beginning on the Thanksgiving weekend. The Festival extends the tourism season on the Island by a full week." ... "The Celtic culture of music, dance and story telling lives on in these communities and provides foundation for the celebration of living culture by this Festival."

[5] "We are also home to one of the world's few living Celtic Cultures. This culture is celebrated through a strong musical tradition, and local arts and crafts. The Celtic Colours International Music Festival is an annual celebration of both local Cape Breton Celtic musicians and International Celtic musicians, bringing various styles and traditions of Celtic music together for a ten day festival that spans the entire Island."

Pigman☿/talk 01:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the term living Celtic cultures is used by those with a vested interest in creating an identity based on claims to Celticity as a way of promoting themselves to tourists and others. The absence of the term throughout the vast majority of anthropological, historical and sociological works that deal with the "The Celts" or the users of modern celtic languages or those that came between them, speaks volumes, as does the lack of any proper definition. I urge you to find a more wp:neutral expression. Davémon (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Musicians, language teachers, and others involved in cultural preservation use a phrase and you dismiss it as self-promotion. IMHO, that's really offensive, and shows a lack of familiarity on your part with cultural preservation efforts. You seem to seize on particular wordings without understanding the meanings behind them. Of course it can be reworded, but I don't see any reason to. It's self-explanatory, and further defined in the following text. I find your objections bizarre. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the term is used in documents which are clearly self-promotional in nature, and it appears to be entirely without grounds in serious literature or journalism. I'm sorry you are offended by that. The term itself is objectionable on the grounds that it assumes that there is an identifiable thing as a "living Celtic culture" which no sociologist or anthropologist actually states. There are no reasons keeping this text in its current form, and I'm not sure what the objections to changing it actually are. Davémon (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Claim for this presentation as "authentic reconstructionism" extremely contentious?

Is there any sort of objective academic consensus that this is what it claims to be, namely an authentic reconstruction of ancient polytheism? Many of the figures involved in this seem, in common with "neopagan" movements in general, hardly any different from the wicca, new agers and other syncretic counterculture pastimers. Also many self-proclaimed reconstructionists are heavily associated with various far-left political movements; anarchism (especially), global warming & other "eco" activists, feminists and in the United States the "civil rights", pro-abortion, homosexual "rights" type activists.

Rather this movement seems to come directly from concepts perpetuated in the philosophy of Liberal Romanticism, especially Rousseau, as interperated by Jacobinism. The proselytisation of humanitarian/egalitarian ideas and a dilettantish anti-Christianity as an expresson of "sticking it to The_Man" in a Woodstock sort of way. At the centre seems to be a claim that before Christianity everything was fatalistic, earth-bound naturalism, everybody was a primtive but egalitarian "noble savage" worshipping trees and streams, etc. This criticism of "neopaganism" falsely dressed up as polytheistic reconstructionism, is expressed quite well by Evola, as well as asserting the connection to Rousseau.[6]

What I would like to see presented is an extensive collection of academic peer-reviewed scholars, claiming that this earth bound neo-animism mixed in with far-left political currents, has absolutely anything authentically to do with ancient antiquity and the polytheism practised before Christianity. For some reasons amongst Americans in particular, seem to crave a counter-European antiquity as a replacement worldview for reality (similar sort of concept to things like the Ancient Order of Hibernians, founded in New York, which ironically isn't ancient at all). - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting User:Davemon's edits

I find myself in the unenviable position of having to wholesale revert Davemon's recent series of edits to the article. This is because every single one of these edits was against consensus and/or introduced errors or other issues into the article. Davemon continues to show a lack of interest in actually reading the sources/citations and this shows in his removal of pertinent and appropriate citations. Specific problems follow.

[7] Deleted Adler. Source is necessary to establish the basic context of Polytheistic Reconstructionism (which, btw, he introduced to article).

[8] [9] Removed CR FAQ as "self-published". Source is peer-reviewed and collectively authored. Relevant and WP:V for statement of group's history and beliefs from perspective of group. "Proto-CR" referred to by collective authors of the FAQ and others, not just Kathryn Price NicDhàna.

[10] Examples of further usage document further usage.

[11] Degrades usability of citations, not an improvement. I think "overtaken" is less neutral than "subsumed".

[12] Sloppy and pointless and left a poorly constructed sentence. Davemon is still riding the hobbyhorse that "living Celtic cultures" is some kind of CR cant despite multiple independent examples of usage provided further up this talk page.

[13] Removed source that provides context and differentiation between groups sometimes associated/confused.

[14] Shows Davemon is not even looking at the footnotes on this article, let alone the source material. This edit credits a quote to the wrong person, which he would know if he just looked at the footnote which reads "An Interview with Kym Lambert".

[15] A sentence that mentions Celtic history can be sourced to works on Celtic history.

All in all, I couldn't find a single thing to salvage out of these changes. So, despite the bad taste left in my mouth, I decided reverting all the edits was the best course of action. Pigman☿/talk 01:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Blanket reverting? Really. Let's take this one step at a time then. Pigman undid the legitimate edit[16] with his excuse A sentence that mentions Celtic history can be sourced to works on Celtic history. The actual disputed content is: "CR ritual structures are based on the ancient Celtic cosmology of the "Three Realms" - Land, Sea and Sky" which is sourced to an article which makes no mention of "CR" at all, let alone its supposed "ritual structure". The article is falsely representing what the source says (see:wp:or), in that it makes no reference to "CR" and further superficially sites CR to make it appear more notable than it is by misappropriating sources (see:wp:v). The content must therefore be removed from the article. Davémon (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've divided and more specifically sourced/cited the elements of the sentence. This should resolve the issue. Next? Pigman☿/talk 23:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps if you'd done that in the first place rather than gaming the system by wholesale reverting, the article might have gotten improved by now, but it seems you're more interested in defending your page than collaboration. It's a shame really. --Davémon (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Until you adequately explained the specific problem, I didn't see the problem with the sourcing. I really thought you were questioning the historical "Three Realms" part of the sentence, not the CR ritual part. Please be specific with your criticisms. Pigman☿/talk 18:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see wp:own. You're not the gatekeeper of this article, and I don't need to get edits "approved" by you. Do try to stop treating this article like a private battleground, and try to assume good faith. Doing these things might help get the article improved. --Davémon (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Isaac Bonewits as a source

Which of those books are reliable academic sources? They all look decidedly new-age to me. I agree cutting down to 3rd party sources could be a way forward. I know there will be opposition, so can we discuss starting by removing Bonewits (who has been clarified as problematic by several editors) first? Davémon (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The book list hits were not intended to be reliable sources but to show notability, an issue Whoosit addressed. As to removing Bonewits as a reference/source, I'd say no. It remains obvious to me that the editors critical of using him as a source in this article were unfamiliar with his work or reliability. He is WP:V, and WP:RS on some pop-culture topics.[17] He is widely regarded and cited as an expert on Neopaganisms. As to the books you call "new-age". Again. WP:V: they're published, and show notability. I certainly know the field well enough to not use a Newage book as WP:RS. As to demanding scholarly and peer-reviewed books... Neopagan articles, and Wikipedia, are not required to be sourced to such academic standards. If you think so, I suggest you carefully look at the policies and guidelines. Pigman☿/talk 02:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bonewitz's use here in this article is not supported, criticising other editors for their "ignorance" is not best way of convincing anyone that he should be. This Google search whcih you proveded [[18]] shows no evidence for his reliability. Bonewitz is not a reputably published historian of neopaganism nor a sociologist, unlike figures such as Ronald Hutton, Juliette Wood, Chas Clifton, Margot Adler or Wouter Hanegraaff. Bonewits is a Celticist neopagan who offers his opinions, his views lack independence from the subject and methodological vigour.

• The reliance on self-published sources, not to describe beliefs, as per wp:selfpub but to construct a historical narrative of the development of a "movement"is a wp:soapbox problem.
• Notability can not be established by a few Google searches using the phrase "celtic recon" and derivatives. I'm sure many books make small mentions in passing - however substantial and indepedenant coverage of the subject needs properly citing.
• Please point to the standards that says neopagan articles are exempt from [wp:n] and that thier subject do not have to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, I'm not sure I understand your objections.

I will remove Bonewits for now and I urge you to read the article and see if removing the things cited to him has really effected the article in a seriously detrimental way, or whether it has just helped focus it on the core topic.Davémon (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, these are not improvements. You have removed sources that explain non-controversial statements of belief, and that help clarify some of the confusion about naming that has existed online; some of these are statements that need clarification, especially for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. You even removed non-controversial content like the graphic that illustrates the article. What is it that you have against Bonewits, exactly? His work is WP:V, and for Neopagan subjects, he is WP:RS. He is widely cited as an expert in the field of Neopaganism. Doesn't mean I always agree with him, but he's a useable source. As a point of comparison, re - sourcing, I find your cutting of anything having to do with Bonewits also bizarre when over on Triple Goddess (Neopaganism) you are using sources such as D.J. Conway and Barbara Walker. Why the massive gap in standards? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Davémon, I'd appreciate it if you would NOT provide your interpretation of my words. I did not use the word "ignorance". Putting it in quotations implies I did. I disagreed with the opinion that Bonewits is not a reliable source. I stand by my statement that judging Bonewits an unreliable source in this field without some knowledge or familiarity with his published work lacks credibility in my opinion. That is a far cry from calling someone's opinion "ignorance."

You seem to misinterpret my words. I didn't say that Neopagan articles are exempt from WP:N. Note that the third-party references in this article currently include one newspaper article about CR (it was a full tabloid page when published) and multiple contiguous pages specifically about CR in a few books. These in addition to the many briefer but still substantive mentions in third-party sources.

I said "Neopagan articles, and Wikipedia, are not required to be sourced to such academic standards." Perhaps it would have been clearer if I said "...to be completely sourced to such academic standards." I again recommend a closer and thorough reading of WP:RS and WP:V because you seem to be selectively applying those policies to suit yourself. Pigman☿/talk 01:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with both Pigman and Kathryn that Isaac Bonewits is a reliable source. Besides 40 years of scholarship in the field and being the founder of one of the largest Neo-Druidic organizations in the world, he holds the only accredited degree in Magic & Thaumaturgy in the country. He is certainly a better resource than Chas Clifton, very much a comparative newcomer in the field, and Margot Adler, who is neither associated with Celtic religion nor a historian - she is a journalist who wrote one book on contemporary Neo-Paganism 30 years ago, and revised it in 2006. I find them acceptable as well for the references that have been used from them, but Bonewits is a greater authority. (Juliette Wood doesn't even seem to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but maybe she will have one at some point.)

I also wonder along with Kathryn if Davemon has some problem with Bonewits aside from his qualifications as a reliable source. I feel certain that Margot Adler, D.J. Conway, and Chas Clifton consider Bonewits an equal or greater authority in this field than themselves. I think the Bonewits references should be restored. Rosencomet (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I also have to agree that Bonewits is a reliable source for neopagan religions - for the same reasons as mentioned by Rosencomet. I am also wondering why Davémon is now suggesting that Adler is a reliable source when I was told by him a while ago, that she is "poor source for modern history/anthropology". (Davémon know writes "Bonewitz is not a reputably published historian of neopaganism nor a sociologist, unlike figures such as Ronald Hutton, Juliette Wood, Chas Clifton, Margot Adler or Wouter Hanegraaff.") Michael Meehan (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me start by saying there is no problem with using Bonewits in the right context. However, Bonewits is not WP:RS as he is being used here. See the discussion at : [[19]] for clarification. Whatever one may feel about Bonewitz, the fact remains he is not an outsider to Neopaganism, and attributing him with an objective scholarly or journalistic viewpoint is highly doubtful. An expert on "Magic & Thaumaturgy" he may be, and in reporting what Neo-druids believe or practice I have no doubt he is both wp:v and wp:rs. However, the article is using Bonewits on the classification and validity of practices and as a commentator on the acceptance within the CR community of identifying terminology and as a commentator on the history of CR - these are the domains of sociology and journalism, neither of which Bonewits is an expert in the field of. I am really surprised to see so much support is being given to a source who is being cited outside their area of expertise.Davémon (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bonewits has training as a journalist and as one of the prime movers in the Neopagan community he has been actively involved in the discussions about most Pagan traditions for decades. CR was taking shape around the same time as ADF, and though we diverged in many ways, we've always had some overlaps in membership. Isaac was involved in some of the key discussions around the time of our founding (I know. I was there.) and has continued to observe facets of the movement. He doesn't get everything right about CR, but he is fine for non-controversial statements of belief and practice, and documenting the way various terms are being used in the communities at large, and that is the way he's been cited. The other writers you cite may have a couple more degrees, and write with a more academic tone, but their work is also full of opinion; they're just less obvious about it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The personal anecdote: Isaac was involved in some of the key discussions around the time of our founding, absolutely proves that Bonewits is not independent from the subject. As for 'is being used for non-controversial', this was not considered so at the RS notice board by an independent editor, which User_talk:Kathryn NicDhàna is not. Further, consider the phrase "Feedback from scholars and experienced practitioners is sought before a new practice is accepted as a valid part of a CR tradition." - this is pure bunkum, Bonewitz might think it, CR's might assert that, but there is absolutely zero independent evidence to corroborate it. This is unencyclopaedic content and should be removed. Davémon (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Davemon, your deficit in reading the citations/sources in the article means that you are beginning to make enormously nonsensical statements/arguments such as those in the latter half of your comment above. I particularly recommend The CR FAQ and more specifically the extensive process of collaboration which generated that document. "Feedback from scholars and experienced practitioners is sought before a new practice is accepted as a valid part of a CR tradition." could be considered close to a central community credo, not a mere "assertion." As such, it is an important tenet of CR, as essential and integral as Transubstantiation for Catholics.

Although you have been persistently "working" on this article for over three months, you continue to show a consistent lack of familiarity with the subject and, more importantly, no indication of desire to become so. This wouldn't be an issue except that you persist in trying to change things you don't actually understand and seemingly have no desire to understand. This is neither a collaborative nor a cooperative approach to our work on Wikipedia. Please consider whether this is truly how you want to participate here. Pigman☿/talk 05:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Davemon, wikipedia does not require that the subject be a reliable source on the topic, just that the information to be included is properly sourced. This appears to be the case. It also appears that consensus is against you. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sephrioth - Wikipedia does require the article to be based on reliable sources, please read wp:n and wp:rs. The independant consensus on Bonewitz reliability of this case can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Isaac_Bonewits_as_a_reliable_source - see fiflefoos commentry. For some reason the owners of this page seem to ignore this. Both Pigman and Kathryn are involved in the subject of this article (pigman has canvassed here suggesting people use him as a source, and Kathryns involvement is well documented) - their views are not those of independent editors, but rather they suffer from a conflict of interest on this subject. Davémon (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Davemon, you have an odd interpretation of "consensus" in this matter. By my reckoning, two editors have voiced opinions to disallow the use of Bonewits as a source: User:Fifelfoo and yourself. On the other hand, I count at least six separate opinions in favor of using Bonewits as a source in this article. That is a fairly strong and rather different consensus than what you assert. Pigman☿/talk 02:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Conensus is not the same as casually "counting votes". The comments above which support Bonewits do not address the areas which Bonewits is being called into question for (i.e. his role as a sociologist of modern paganism). Those that support the non-use of Bonewits actually do address this, and find him non-reliable. Bonewits is clearly not independant of modern celtic paganism, his views are clearly those of an insider, not an external, reliable source reporting on them. Davémon (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem in using Bonewits as a source. MisledGhost (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have of Bonewits independance from celtic neopaganism that is required from secondary sources in order for us to treat his statements reliable and neutral? Davémon (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability

The article lacks any independant reliable sources that directly cover the subject. Significantly I was reading Marion Bowmans "Contemporary Celtic Spirituality" in New directions in Celtic studies (2000, University of Exeter Press) and it makes no mention of this movement. It appears no serious authors or academics have approached this subject - is it really notable? Can anyone help add proper sources to establish notability? --Davémon (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We've been over this. When you've actually read the sources you consider not "serious," your objections and arguments will carry a bit more weight. Pigman☿/talk 18:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is your evidence for the the notability of this subject? There certainly are none in the footnotes of this article. --Davémon (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Davémon, since we seem unable to agree whether the subject of the article meets the standard of general notability, rather than continue to butt heads on it, I suggest that you take the article to AFD. If you decline to take it to AFD after 5 days, I will conclude that you don't think your case for non-notability is strong enough for community support and I will remove the notability template. I think the evidence for notability in WP terms is abundantly laid out in the sources; you don't. Community input is generally a good step in such a situation. Mediation might be another course we could pursue but I doubt that would change our differing editorial judgments. Pigman☿/talk 19:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in taking the article to AfD in the next 5 days. wp:thereisnodeadline. I have no idea why you're suggesting such courses of action. The article has sourcing problems, as mentioned by several editors at several juntions (RfC, GA review etc.) as well you are well aware. Notability is not well established, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There are several small and passing references in RS (which are not clear if it's a defined movement or just a stance), but the bulk of the sources in this article are not secondary sources. It is right that there be a notice on the page until that specific problem is resolved. If you want to take the Notability issue to an RfC, that might prove more useful in the long run. Davémon (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

She does however refer to reconstructionism in "Cardiac Celts" in Paganism Today (1996, Thorsons), see page 244: "There are differences in and outlooks between reconstructors, whose priority is to piece together as exact a picture of the Celtic past as possible, and revivalists, whose main concern is not so much to replicate as to reinvigorate. Many pagans consider that Celtic or quasi-Celtic beliefs and practices need to be rediscovered, reactivated and revitalised to provide a spiritual path for the present and the future. They would contend that the past need not be slavishly copied - even if that were possible. Elements of Celtic tradition are now being used to produce something which is not itself 'traditional', but which seems for participants to be appropriate for the present time and in the authentic Celtic spirit of the past." Beurlach (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation. Here is more detailed info on the article: Bowman, Marion (1996) "Cardiac Celts: Images of the Celts in Paganism". And the book: Harvey, Graham; Hardman, Charlotte (1996). Paganism today. London: Thorsons. pp. 242–251. ISBN 0-7225-3233-4. Pigman☿/talk 17:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good find. However, Marion doesn't mention "celtic reconstructionism" as a movement per se (which is what this article is attempting to define), just uses the term 'reconstructors' as opposed to 'revivalist', so doesn't support Notability. Perhaps in a broader article about Celtic Neopaganism it could be used to discuss the approaches various people have taken. Davémon (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the focus of the article on Celtic neopaganism as a whole, and the context of what she was talking about, it's understandable that she didn't go into any more detail on the matter. I'd say the paragraph recognises reconstructionism in a Celtic context, though, so I think it's valid as a support, although perhaps not one to be solely relied upon.

I definitely agree with your last sentence here. And a great find. MisledGhost (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I could make some more suggestions, though. Douglas E. Cowan mentions the Moonstone Circle, "a non-Wiccan, Celtic Reconstructionist group whose members have been together in various forms for nearly 20 years, long before the popular advent of the internet and the World Wide Web." It goes on to say that this group "is not interested in recruiting hordes of new, but often entirely impersonal members, providing Paganism 101 classes, or answering a flood of electronic correspondence." Cowan, Douglas E. (2005). Cyberhenge: modern Pagans on the Internet. New York: Routledge. p. 113. ISBN 0-415-96911-5. I think this could be used in the section in origins, since it makes the point that CR's internet presence was/is not always for the purpose of fostering discussion or debate online, as the origins section seems to imply at the moment, and it arguably provides an outside perspective on the matter.

I think it might also help to provide some context as to where CR stands within neo-Paganism as a whole, since it's not made explicit in the article but appears to be an important issue within CR (and reconstructionism as a whole, from discussions I've seen, but that's by the by). Academics clearly recognise CR as neo-Pagan - as per the Green reference, I'd say, but there's also a more explicit example with: "Among traditions that recognise themselves as Neopagan or Pagans are (Neo) Druids, (Neo Shamans, Wiccans, Odinists (also called Heathenists or Asatru), Hellenic, Roman and Celtic Reconstructionists. Such complex phenomenon is characterized by the absence of normative sacred texts and a hierarchy that controls authoritative sources and by a stress on personal research and choice." 'Reading Texts, Watching Texts: Mythopoesis on Neopagan Websites' by Maria Beatrice Bittarello in Llewellyn, Dawn; Sawyer, Deborah F. (2008). Reading Spiritualities: Constructing and Representing the Sacred. Aldershot: Ashgate. p. 191. ISBN 978-0-7546-6329-4. But the published version of the FAQ qualifies this and makes it clear that CR was begun as an alternative to eclectic neo-paganism (page 64 of the FAQ), not just neo-Druidry (as the article seems to focus on as a comparison, at the moment). I would suggest tweaking the first paragraph in the Origins section, to accommodate a more balanced perspective, as well as the citation above.

This is just what I've found so far with my limited resources. Given the large chunk of the article that was recently deleted, and the quibbles some users have over the validity of some of the secondary sources, I'm loathe to add them in at the moment if it's just going to get reverted, so I thought I'd put my thoughts here first, for any comments. Beurlach (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the sources would make the article even better than it was before. They are clear and concise, and mention CR explicitly by name. MisledGhost (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MisledGhost about the references. These would improve the article. Context of where CR fits in broader spectrum of Neopagan traditions would be helpful. I'm not sure where to put them though. Pigman☿/talk 16:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is great stuff! I agree the correct place is the Origins section (which needs drastic cutting down). Davémon (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pigman Conflict of Interest

Pigman, has canvassed this talk page to encourage editors to use an article about the article topic which featured him has a source see |this edit. A "(redacted) Pigman" (who may or may not be the same person) is also credited as being one of the collective editor / contributors, to the key primary source document this article has been based on - the CR FAQ see [20] - which has 6 direct citations and numerous overcitations to documents written by his fellow contributors. Pigman is currently wholesale reverting edits which help move the article towards a NPOV rather than a wp:soapbox stance and removing the current over-reliance on the FAQ document "Pigman" was involved in creating, and the community of writers he is part of. I'm not sure if this talk-page is the correct venue to discuss this or whether there is a more formal Conflict of Interest resolution process. Davémon (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

None of this is new information to this talk page if you would bother to read it. Suggesting a pertinent secondary and reliable source is not canvassing. My identity is not a secret or unknown on WP, to other editors, admins, ArbComm, etc. Unlike, for example, your identity outside of WP. I believe my edits to this article stand on their own merits by WP standards. If you would like to start some WP process on this matter, please do so. So, to recap, because I'm not anonymous and have been transparent about my identity, I am the secret COI guy. And, despite the fact that I have a decades-long professional background in journalism, publishing, proofreading, editing, etc., I am the one mistaken in my editorial judgments on this article and usage of sources. Fascinating. Pigman☿/talk 17:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This article currently reads like a soapbox essay. I'm trying to improve this article as per feedback from the GA review, the RfC and other external WP processes, which Pigman refusing to accept. Pigman has a clear conflict of interest in promoting his religious ideas, and he is the co-author of one of the primary sources for the article. This has led to an abandoning of neutral point of view . Pigmans interest in promoting his own religion is stopping the article from being improved in terms of neutrality, sourcing and original research. That Pigman pretends not to understand the difference between "canvassing" (i.e. using the talk-page as self-promotion) and (wp:canvassing attempting to derail wp processes through !votes) speaks volumes about his wp:wikilawyering and the argumentative tactics he uses for protecting the article. There is a guide to how editors with a WP:COI should behave - WP:BESTCOI. I refer Pigman especially to point 5 : Don't push people to change their minds about issues relating to your conflict. - which is what his editwarring and agumentum adnauseum against any criticism on this talk page ultimately amounts to. Davémon (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm wikilawyering? Really. Cf. above. Pigman☿/talk 18:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes pigman: "Suggesting a pertinent secondary and reliable source is not canvassing." Nobody suggested it was. That is wikilaywering at its worst, and the fact you continue to try to discuss it after your mistake has been explained to you shows you are still not facing up to the real problem: By promoting yourself as a source to use in the article on this talk page you overstepped the mark again. Your continued advocacy of the CR FAQ is propagandistic and self-serving. Davémon (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was suggested on the talk page as being suitable for use and nobody objected to it, so it seems perfectly reasonable for it to have been added in, especially since the reference is relevant to the points it supports. Pigman was upfront about his involvement in it so I see no problem. Nor with the CR FAQ, since the source is relevant and likewise, PIgman has been clear about his part in it. Beurlach (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, pigman has been clear about that. I hope that I've been clear that there is a WP:COI which has led to an abandoning of the wp:neutral point of view and created wp:own issues which have turned this article into a soapbox to promote certain beliefs. the article needs checking, verifying and cleaning up by people outside of CR who can actually have a NPOV on the subject. Davémon (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that Pigman is bettering this article, unlike Davemon who seems to want to stir up trouble and further beat a dead horse instead of actually reading those sources he so nonchalantly contradicts. There is clearly some self-projection going on here in regards to Davemon accusing Pigman of wikilawyering. I also see no conflict of interest. MisledGhost (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than starting ad-hominem arguments based on pop-psychology "clearly some self-projection going on here" etc. how about actually providing some evidence to support your position? What "sources" do you think are are being contradicted? Davémon (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The slow tendentiousness of Davemon

Davemon, at this point your actions and arguments bear a remarkable resemblance to trolling. You have misinterpreted and misapplied WP policy on this talk page,[21] attempted to inserted POV into the article[22][23] while calling your actions NPOV[24], accused me of canvassing[25], and declared a consensus[26] unsupported by actual evidence of the opinions voiced here.[27][28][29][30] Among other things. Your "improvements" to the article have consistently included degrading the citations, inserting factually false or inaccurate statements, and creating unnecessary ambiguity where there was none.

Your current round of edits (6 June 2010) include, among other problems, the following:

• Putting a fact tag on an easily verifiable item[31]
• Persistently putting a notability tag on the article despite multiple editors over the course of months saying it's not appropriate.[32]
• Changing proper journalistic usage of abbreviations of "CR" after proper definition and degrading specific reference of "Celtic Reconstructionist" to just "reconstructionist", a very unspecific term in this context.[33]

It is abundantly clear that you first came to this article in retaliation for criticism of your actions on the talk page of the Triple Goddess article by User:Kathryn NicDhàna and myself. Although you deny wikihounding a woman from one article to another article in order to bully her, it certainly looked that way at the time and this issue was discussed on Kathryn's talk page.[34]

And, please, spare me the "assume good faith". This has been a consistent pattern of behaviour for you over the years of your tenure on WP in other instances and articles besides this one (diffs available upon request.) Such a consistent pattern of trollish behaviour eventually negates any assumption of "good faith" by other editors toward you. In my opinion, you have used up your good faith here. You generally manage to avoid violating the letter of WP policies such as 3RR and other guidelines but that doesn't mean that your behaviour is acceptable or tolerable.

At this point, I have no compunction about reverting your future edits here as, for all effects, intents and purposes, efforts to troll, bully and degrade WP content rather than a positive effort to build the encyclopedia. After over nine months, your contributions to the article consist almost entirely of poorly informed edits and tags. You show exceptionally poor editorial judgment and refusal to recognize consensus by continuing to beat the non-existent yet-still-dead horse of the "notability" of CR. You shoehorn inaccurate points and clumsy phrasing into existing sentences without, apparently, understanding what the sentence actually says and how it relates to information around it. This only confuses the casual reader (WP's target constituency) of the article. I don't know if this is casual or willful ignorance on your part, but your edits consistently show that you have not bothered to familiarize yourself with the subject matter despite your intermittently intense pushes to dominate and shape the article.

Your inability to interact in a collegial and cooperative manner with other editors is your longstanding behavioural mode on WP and has been almost from the beginning. I would characterize your ongoing attitude as hostile and antagonistic as you move from one article you focus on to the next. Tendentious editing is the kindest description I can muster for your style.

It is rather painfully obvious that you have learned how to bandy WP policy buzzwords without actually understanding or, apparently (in some cases), reading the policies you cite. Such frivolous and unnecessary usage of policy in discussion wastes the time and energy of everyone involved. This is one of the most basic definitions of gaming the system: "Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately. Gaming the system is an abuse of process and disruptive."

If you are unable to play well with others, then you don't get to play. Pigman☿/talk 02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.173.25 (talk)

Terminology

This whole section is being given undue weight, and is bordering on WP:OR. Nobody outside the "CR community" even acknowledges these schisms and attempts at identity formation. Unless there's some pressing weight of properly cited, secondary or tertiary sources brought to bare on the "terminology" debates as a whole, it does not belong in wikipedia.. Davémon (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I undid the edit because it seems to me that such distinctions of terminology are important. As the article stands at the moment it's incredibly misleading - CR is not homogenous, and this should be reflected in the article. If you feel there is undue weight given to the section, editing it down would surely have been a better option than deleting it altogether without any consideration of the context the section provided.

However, if I undo the changes again I presume you'll just do the same, so I don't think there's any constructive way of solving the matter without someone else weighing in on this. Beurlach (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope that discussion will lead to a consensus. I'm sure these detailed distinctions are important to those closely involved, but they are not important to the general reader. Certainly these distinctions aren't important enough to have warranted any attention in wp:reliable sources which are independent, and as a wikipedian that is the only measure of importance I have at my disposal. It is a wp:synthesis problem for the article to discuss this level of detail based purely on primary sources and secondary sources which do not directly mention the article topic. If the idea that "CR is not homogenous" is wp:verifiable - then the article should just state that, using reliable sources, without going into excessive detail wp:due. If the attempts at defining an identity by various CR factions has been noted by reliable sources outside the celtic-neopagan community (i.e. by mainstream scholars, anthopologists, sociologists or journalists) then what those wp:rs say should be included in the article, rather than leaving the wp:synthesis of published material that was there. Davémon (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to offer a correction to the contended definiton for Sinnsreachd ("However, Sinnsreachd and Sinsearacht actually mean "ancestry",[46][47][48] "seniority",[49] or "genealogy".[47][49]"). The definition used comes from The School Gaelic Dictionary by Malcom McFarlane (1912). This definition is: "[sinnsreachd] nf. ancestry, custom of ancestors, right of succession, genealogy" McFarlane, p. 106 (see http://www2.smo.uhi.ac.uk/gaidhlig/faclair/bb/duilleag.php?td=106). It is "custom of ancestors" that informs our use of the term to define the movement.

Also, I am not sure why Sinnsreachd is being grouped together with Senistrognata. Dkh3184 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dkh3184 - please feel free to make your corrections to the article (see our guideline WP:BOLD). We only need to discuss changes here on the talk page if anyone objects. I also agree the grouping of Sinnsreachd / Senistrognat makes little sense, so this should probably be changed too. Davémon (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)