Talk:Celtic reconstructionism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Original Research / Deceptive misuse of sources

The article claims that "The first appearance in print of the term "Celtic Reconstructionist", used to describe a specific religious movement and not just a style of Celtic Studies, was by Kym Lambert ní Dhoireann in the Spring, 1992 issue of Harvest Magazine." and uses that magazine as a reference. This is original research, as the magazine does not claim this is the "first appearance" of the term, only the wikipedia article makes that claim. What we need a citation for is that this really was the first appearance. Several other not-in-source citation requests are for similar reasons. Removing them without discussion is an attempt to editwar and game the system to further wp:own this page for soapboxing purposes. Davémon (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the references to the article are fine to illustrate the point, but Kym's interview could be used as a specific citation to the claim. She states: "I am one of the people who apparently got this whole CR thing started and so far as we can tell am the first to actually publish the term “Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism” back in 1992 to describe my practice." Varn, C. D. (2007). ""An Interview with Kym Lambert"". The Green Triangle. Archived from the original on 2008-01-21. Retrieved 2009-10-01. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) It's also mentioned in Lora O' Brien's Irish Witchcraft from an Irish Witch, p204 if a more impartial source is required. O' Brien, Lora (2005). Irish Witchcraft from an Irish Witch. Franklin Lakes: The Career Press. p. 204. ISBN 1-56414-759-2. Beurlach (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree Lambert asserts that he was first published source, so this part is not totally original research. The verifiability (see wp:v) of his claim is questionable. Why should Wikipedia report Lambert's version without independant verification of his claims? He is not a recognised authority on academic or religious terminology. O'Brien is another primary source, she doesn't work for the OED, or any of the usual places we go to when we want an authorative answer to when terms originated. Also O'Brien does not directly credit Lambert so even this source doesn't directly support the article text. Also neither Lambert nor O'Brien state that the term was ever used to define "a style of Celtic Studies". What we really need is a citation that states that the Harvest magazine really was the first appearance. Davémon (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Kym Lambert is quite definitely a she? I could be wrong on that, but that's by the by, I guess; it's the content that matters.

Considering we're citing her comments in an interview (assuming we add the reference in to the relevant place that's been flagged), it's not original research, since we're clearly citing a reliable source who makes the claims. This is in a journalistic interview, not something authored by the person making such claims themselves on a vanity page somewhere on the internet...According to the wp:v page you posted, the interview doesn't raise any flags as far as its being a reliable source is concerned, as far as I can see - i.e. it's an interview with a magazine, and thus editorial control is retained by the author of said interview, not the interviewee. In that sense, I don't think we need to hedge our bets here, especially considering the fact that these claims are backed up by a non-reconstructionist source (in the form of O' Brien), which notably predates Kym Lamebert's interview with Green Triangle by several years (at least three, as far as I can tell). In this respect, O' Brien is clearly not citing Lambert's interview with Green Triangle at least.

To be fair, I see no reference to the OED or anything like that in the wp:v article as being the ultimate measure of reliability as far as finding reliable sources for the origination of terms are concerned. Granted I may be missing something, being a relative newcomer here, so perhaps you could point out the specific point(s) in the article that are pertinent here? I'm sorry, I honestly just don't see it (I'm not trying to be obtuse). To clarify, as far as I can tell - from the wp:v: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." I think the quote from the Green Triangle article more than meets this criteria of wp:v, if not on its own, but in addition to O' Brien who appears to be clearly independent of Kym's Green Triangle interview. Differing viewpoints would be more than welcome. Beurlach (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You do raise some valid points. Interviews are generally regarded to be primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY and primary sources) - the "editorial control" by the interviewer is not generally seen as measure of independence or a guarantee of accuracy for what has been said, as the interviewers aren't supposed to fact-check and correct the interviewee, but just report what they say. With that in mind, if the article stated "Kym Lambert claims the first appearance in print...", I believe that would be perfectly acceptable - and would be properly descriptive of the source). We can verify what Lambert said, but we can't verify that what she(! thanks for the correction) said is correct or widely agreed, so her statements shouldn't be in the article voice.

The second issue is about the reliability of the sources see wp:rs and WP:SPS, neither "Green Triangle" nor O'Brien have the required "reputation for fact checking" or the other attributes that would make them reliable sources, unlike the OED, who are really the go-to people for the "first usage" of terms and do fullfill all the wp:rs criteria.

Further, O'Brien does not explicitly back up the article text. We have to stick to what the sources actually say, rather than presenting sources as supporting evidence for the claims being made in the article. This is quite a subtle point, but it's important with regards WP:NPOV. See wp:OR Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. This has a bearing on many of the other statements in the article - for example Currently, "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism" (CR) is an umbrella term, with a number of recognized sub-traditions or denominations is not actually what Bonewitz says at all, he uses neither the phrase "sub-tradition" nor "denominations" - both of which propose a hierarchical structure or organisation - concepts which are completely lacking in Bonewitz prose, and have been interjected by a wikipedia editor. The accurate reflection of what a source says is another reason why O'Brien can't be used to support the article text as it stands - as she makes no mention of Lambert or the terms earlier use in "celtic studies". Indeed, Lambert makes no claim for the terms previous use in celtic studies, so how do we wp:v verifying this part of the statement? However, if the article stated "O'Brien believes the term was first used in 1992, 1993", then again that would be properly descriptive of that source (then we'd only be left with the problem that the source isn't reliable!).

I hope you don't think that I'm being evasive and changing tac - Wikipedia policies are intended to all work together in unison, the editorial style on this article - using mostly primary, unreliable sources, and then not strictly sticking to what the sources specifically state has created multiple problems, that if fixed will help improve the article greatly. Davémon (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing fixes

There are a number of issues (inaccuracy, clumsy phrasing, etc.) in this article introduced over the last year. I'm going to attempt to correct them. Two items are at the top of the list:

• Instances of "According to..." and the like when there is little need for such phrasing. That is why inline citations exist. Unless you're actively discussing competing or multiple viewpoints, it just distracts the reader. I find it generally a clumsy device for attributing views. Inline citations clearly attribute the source of the information or opinion.
• Inaccurate or imprecise terminology rankles my journalistic hackles. Recent replacement of "Celtic Reconstructionists" or "CRs" with the over-reduction "reconstuctionists" is a horrorshow of imprecision in my opinion. The objection that "CR" is jargon rather than an accurate and frequently used abbreviation is solved by always tying the phrase with the abbreviation (e.g. "Celtic Reconstructionism (CR)") at the beginning of each section or pageful of text. This is a standard format, used in journalism and reference works.

End of grumpy rant for the moment. Pigman☿/talk 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Putting the opinions of self-published, primary sources in the articles authorial voice is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Attributing the authors in the text is preferable, so these views are clearly identifiable to the casual reader as opinions held by primary sources, not facts established by independent experts.
• The extended "Celtic reconstructionist" is much better. I understand journalistic style, but the over-use of an abbreviation not established in reliable sources is extremely clunky, we should aim for maximum clarity rather than creating our own terminology.

Thanks for your hard work. Davémon (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The main problem of this article is indeed {{primary}} and to some extent {{puffery}}. I mean, you are compiling something like an academic account of a number of online discussion fora. It is certainly possible to do this, and I have met with far stranger obsessions on Wikipedia, but the result is an article which is almost comically pompous wrt its subject matter. It is completely impossible to read this article and not realize beyond a shadow of doubt that you are reading an account written by proponents and insiders. This is something we want to avoid on Wikipedia. Ideally it should not be possible to tell anything of the views or allegiances of the editor collective behind the article. At present, this article is about as far removed from this ideal as is at all possible without resorting to blatant editorializing. I am not saying I am losing any sleep over this, Wikipedia has far more severe problems, but there you are. --dab (𒁳) 13:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

neoDruids

I added information to this part of the article to identify that the Henge of Keltria was actually formed at about the same time as the CR movement (circa 1986-1987) to address many of the same needs in research accuracy and uniformity for rituals and traditions. — comment added by Odubhain (talk • contribs) 17:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The article already refers to the fact that several organisations existed that had adopted similar methodologies and aims in one form or another, and there's no need to go into too much detail here - I think too much and the section will have undue weight and imbalances the focus of the article. On that basis I've removed a sentence or two relating to the Henge of Keltria here; I think it's ultimately a more relevant subject for the ADF and druidry articles, and it's already noted in the ADF article that readers are pointed to in that section anyway. Beurlach (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some clarity placed on just who follows the practice of calling anyone a Druid who practices or follows some form of Celtic spirituality. Most major neoDruid groups to my knowledge have a study program to confer levels or rings of attainment in Druidry to separate or acknowledge actual Druidic study or practice. The paragraph at the conclusion of the section on CR and Neo-druids gives one the impression that neoDruids are somehow less rigorous in how they define or recognize a person to be a Druid. This seems to be just the opposite of what actually occurs. The organized neoDruidic organizations are in reality the best sources available by definition and practice on defining what it takes to be a Druid (or neoDruid) in the modern world. It still takes many years of study to be a Druid and it also requires that a person be recognized and acknowledged by Druid peers. Sadly, almost anyone can claim to be a Druid or CR without any substance to back up the claim. The article should not single out neoDruids alone for this practice.

I have not further edited the section to reflect the above understanding as this is an article on CR and not on NeoDruids, but I do hope that those of the CR movement who care about accuracy in presentation and fact will try to clarify the paragraph so as to not imply that neoDruids of the organized groups are flakes.Odubhain (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Senistrognata

So I found a 2000 newsgroup post stating that this is supposed to be "Old Celtic" for "ancestral customs". I am still unclear on how the word is made up. Is the istro supposed to be a superlative? Who came up with this? This "Proto-Celtic wordlist" has two terms for "custom", nomso and beisso(?). There is also su-gnatso, glossed as "good manners"; gnata according to this may mean two things, "daughter" and "known, famous" (feminine). seno- of course means "old"; seniso- may mean "older"; if we accept senistro as "oldest" (although I would suspect superlatives in -mo-[1][2]), I cannot see how senistro-gnata may mean anything other than "eldest daughter". --dab (𒁳) 13:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

From a 2007 post, [3]

"Senistrognatâ is a Proto-Celtic term that was coined by Alexei Kondratiev. [...] The term I use, an Rian Sinnsearach, is essentially identical in (literal) meaning to the term Senistrognatâ, though I gather that the latter term is primarily (if not exclusively) used by Imbas, and I don't know enough about that group to speak to any differences which might exist between them and our Tuath and related Tuatha."

for better or worse, "Senistrognata" is just the term used by IMBAS, and has notability dependent on the notability (or non-) of IMBAS. Attribution to Alexei Kondratiev is apocryphal, of course, but not too implausible, seeing as this person seems to have been a Wiccan with special interest in Celtic languages. It still doesn't follow just how this word was formed and whether it can somehow be defended as reasonable Proto-Celtic reconstruction. --dab (𒁳) 14:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think from the above, I can more or less reconstruct how this word came to be. It is an "Old Celtic" reconstruction by somebody familiar with Irish. There is Irish gnáth "custom". The superlative of Irish sen is sinium, so I still don't see where the "istro" came from. If somebody just looked up "ancestral" in an Irish dictionary, it may somehow come from sinserda, but I still don't see how they got from, say, seniterto to senistro.

The meaning "custom" of Irish gnáth is secondary, the word simply means "what is well-known", and "Old Celtic" would have used nomso (nomos), which apparently survives as Irish nós. Not that this matters in any way, but if IMBAS already uses Wikipedia to popularize their term, perhaps they can also use Wikipedia talkpage comments to critically review their own Proto-Celtic reconstructions. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As IMBAS has been defunct for several years now, it appears that the term "Senistrognata" now only lives on Wikipedia. Their website began stating IMBAS was "undergoing major restructuring" in 2002[4] , and this notice remained unchanged until 2012[5], for close to a decade, when they finally changed it to "IMBAS as an organization has not been active for several years now" [6]. "Senistrognata" was thus apparently a term for "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism" used by an active organization during all of approximately two years, now more than 10 years ago. We need to be careful with this kind of thing, Wikipedia perpetuating short-lived online phenomena. This happens all the time. --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Beyond terminology I think this article has another big problem: it has been written entirely by "Kathryn NicDhana" using self-published works by "Kathryn NicDhana" herself! I am the same anonymous who overhauled the "Celtic paganism" template yesterday, and I had intention to redirect this article to "Celtic Neopaganism".--95.248.81.131 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. OK, if you think I wrote this "entire article" myself, you haven't looked at the history. I'm going to mostly respond over at Talk:Celtic Neopaganism as most of the problems are there. I strongly concur that "Senistrognata" was never widely used, not even by members of Imbas. It's only on related Wikis that people seem to think it's significant. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor, you will have to learn that while indeed "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, anyone can also revert your edits. If you want to make such sweeping changes to long-standing content, you should first get an account. Then you can start learning on how to contribute under the WP:BRD principle. I realize that Katryn may not be entirely free of involvement in these topics, but she has always been the perfect gentlewoman in the face of criticism, quite unlike the ideologized nitwits that dominate the "Heathenism" or generic "Paganism" topics. Senistrognata was handed around in internet-paganism in the early 2000s, and it was cited by Bonewits, who produced ISBNed sources we can now use, even though in my opinion his works are still "primary" sources inasmuch as he is a Neopagan writing about Neopaganism. At least he shows some evidence of self-reflection, but this still isn't the same as having the subculture described by neutral scholars of religious studies. Bonewits cited "Senistrognata" in 2006 because it had just become a fad, but it apparently died even before he could take it to print. "Senistrognata" is also, as I have pointed out, a highly dubious reconstruction to my mind (although I am willing to accept a well argued refutation on this point). As such it may be symptomatic of the whole "CR" movement, at least it is a reconstruction, even if flawed, which sets it apart from the "make it up on the go" mentality which is prevalent in "traditional" Neopaganism. But for better or worse, it is just a term that was in use by a small fraction of a small fraction of Neopagans for a few years, and it certainly isn't notable enough for anything more than a historical footnote now. --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how is commentary like "she has always been the perfect gentlewoman in the face of criticism, quite unlike the ideologized nitwits that dominate the 'Heathenism' or generic 'Paganism' topics" acceptable? You want to specify who these "ideologized nitwits" are, Dbachmann? No?

This, along with a hateful rant you recently posted on a related article (subsequently collapsed per WP:NOTAFORUM), needs to be checked. Are we no longer considering Wikipedia:Civility a policy, or is Dbachmann getting a pass on this for some reason?

Calling other, (unsurprisingly) unidentified editors schoolyard names is not the way to edit articles with others. It only leads to further talk page drama. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Page Move

The discussion around capitalization of "Celtic Reconstructionst Paganism" and "Celtic Reconstructionism" happened quite a while ago, and it was agreed that the sources that refer to CR almost always capitalize both words. So, the recent page move (to "Celtic reconstructionist paganism") was not uncontroversial, and I suggest it be reverted. IMHO, I'd prefer to go with "Polytheism" over "Paganism" in the title, but I think most of the cited sources still use "Paganism." This will probably eventually change as terminology is evolving in the field, but as not a crystal ball and all that, I think it's best to just revert the page move. YMMV. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've moved it back. I'm curious about the uncontroversial request on Requested Moves page, how it was phrased and who requested it. Since the listing has been deleted, I don't have a way to look at it. As Kathryn noted above, this issue was hashed out in 2006 or so. I believe almost all of the sources/citations in the article use the capitalization when referring to CR. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 19:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. This page has been moved from capitals to lower case and back again several times. There seems a degree of uncertainty of how to regard CR and related pagan issues. Our in house style regarding this article's name is MOS:CAPS#Religion, and there is some uncertainty and disagreement of how exactly the article relates to the advice in that section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism → Celtic reconstructionist paganism – Per MOS:DOCTCAPS; see also Polytheistic reconstructionism (not capitalized). These are common nouns, not proper names. The article even explicitly states that Celtic reconstructionism "is an umbrella term". The overcapitalization (not just of this term) needs also to be corrected in the article text. The fact that adherents to CR like to capitalize it as a self-identification doesn't mean that we should capitalize it encyclopedically; the entire point of MOS:DOCTCAPS is that adherents to any school of thought habitually tend to capitalize it when a general-audience publication would not. This sort of overcapitalization is especially the case, in this context, with Isaac Bonewits, an advocate of a particular brand of neo-druidry and of neopaganism generally, who is being over-cited in these articles; he capitalizes virtually everything to do with spirituality, as do many other specialized and non-neutral sources that represent neopagan advocacy. They may be reliable sources on what neopagans of various sorts believe spiritually, but they are not reliable sources on how to properly use English to encyclopedically write about them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The capitalisation of the whole name does seem standard and accepted, though, even if it may not be "correct?" It's how it's referred to in The CR FAQ itself, and I've found reference to it in several other sources, academic and non-academic, such as the Handbook of Contemporary Paganism, The Everything Celtic Wisdom Book, and Pop Pagans: Paganism and Popular Music, for example. So if that's how it's spelled in general, beyond just Bonewits, it seems a little arbitrary to ignore that. In that respect I don't see anything wrong in keeping things as they are, but at the same time I don't feel strongly enough to get particularly het up about it if the consensus goes with changing it. Ririgidi (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Already addressed that: "The fact that adherents to CR like to capitalize it as a self-identification doesn't mean that we should capitalize it encyclopedically; the entire point of MOS:DOCTCAPS is that adherents to any school of thought habitually tend to capitalize it when a general-audience publication would not.". The CR FAQ is by definition going to be one of the sources that insists on the promotional capitalization, but least likely to be a reliable source for how to write about the topic, because its authors believe they are the subject and that it belongs to them. It's not just a WP:SSF problem but a WP:COI one; these neopagan groups have a strong tendency toward competition and legitimacy stake-claiming, and with it comes a lot of neologism and alleged Proper Naming, etc., redefinition of old ideas in new wording, etc. It's a game that WP floats above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I do see what you're saying, but I did point to more than just the CR FAQ and the capitalisation does seem standard and accepted across the board. I'd note that according to MOS:DOCTCAPS captilisation should be followed unless we're dealing "Unofficial movements, ideologies or philosophies within religions." CR as a whole is hardly an "unofficial" movement, ideology, or philosophy, is it? It's a specific subset of reconstructionism (just as the Catholic Church is a subset of Christianity, right?), and it's treated as such in academic sources as well as non-academic (and, specifically, non-CR) ones. From that point alone, shouldn't the capitalisation stand? (Though I do take Pigman's point about the capitalisation of "paganism," I guess). Ririgidi (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts on this. I'm basically indifferent to the capitalization of "paganism". Lower case would better suit WP conventions and so that would be fine with me. The "Reconstructionist" capitalization is a little more specific than, say, the Polytheistic reconstructionism example cited above. By the very MOS:DOCTCAPS standard cited, I'd say Celtic Reconstructionism more specific and a bit closer to Republican Party than Polytheistic reconstructionism, which is more amorphous and non-specific. I can see arguments both ways. I'm mindful of the overcapitalization bias of some of the sources but I still lean toward the capitalization of reconstructionist as being part of the name of the tradition rather than, as argued above, a common noun. Similar to, say, Catholic Church where "church" is both a noun and a part of the proper name. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 21:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not more specific like a political party, though, just topically one notch narrower (and it gets narrower still, with druidry camps, and the Matthews's Arthurian sect, and Celto-Shamanic splitoffs, etc., etc.). I've been following this stuff (idly as a non-practitioner) for 25 years or so, and there's nothing centralized or organized about this; it's just a gradual shift in approach as the Celtic side of reconstructionist paganism, or neopagan reconstructionism, or polytheistic reconstruction, or whatever you want to call it, factionalizes and reinvents itself (rather cyclically – it's something that was going on all the way back into the 1800's "Celtic Twilight" with the early neo-druidism groups like that of Iolo Morganwg; approaches have always veered wildly from between a practical but sloppy and inauthentic novelty and synchretism at one extreme, and a reverentially historical and research-focused but impractical documentary and archaeological approach). And WP:COMMONNAME arguments, which is what much of the above seems to resolve to, do not generally apply to style matters; the exception is when independent, mainstream sources very consistently apply a style that WP would not by default, but that's not the case where. We have little but neopagans writing about their own ideas, and bloggy and newsy sources that capitalized anything vaguely religious by default so they don't get hatemail from offended devotees.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://imbas.org/imbas/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091102012547/http://www.limerickleader.ie:80/features/A-to-Z-of-Halloween.5779425.jp to http://www.limerickleader.ie/features/A-to-Z-of-Halloween.5779425.jp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Where?

What do Celtic Reconstructionists define as the Celtic nations when deciding what or not to reconstruct? Do they include Brittany, Galicia, etc? Or is it limited to the British Isles? The article isn't particularly clear on the actual practices of the religion. Also, is there any indication of a demographics breakdown? Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 20:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No original research and synthesis tags

Two different IP editors have put original research and synthesis tags on this article during November, 2017. The specific diffs are here and here. The edit summaries are general and unspecific. It seems obvious to me that these editors (the same person I think) did not look at the sources except cursorily. The article uses a variety of sources and has extensive inline citations. Properly, these concerns should also be discussed here on the talk page, not just drive-by tagging by IPs with no edit history to speak of. I removed the tags once before and I'm going to remove them again. Just saying "Utter OR" as an edit summary just isn't helpful. If you would like to engage in discussion to improve the article, I'm 100% in support of that process. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

result:
Moved per consensus garnered below. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 03:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism → Celtic reconstructionism – This is described as "an umbrella term" and as an "approach" to religion rather than a specific organized religion. Many of the sources do not append "Paganism" to the name. Per the RM that was just closed at Talk:Modern paganism#Requested move 23 August 2022, we have a consensus that "paganism" should not be capitalized per MOS:ISMCAPS. Note that there was a back-and-forth move between uppercase and lowercase for this article in 2013. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support: As described above. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per OP. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Descriptive umbrella term. Primergrey (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I just went over most of the sources here. No problem with dropping "Paganism". However, the sources usually use caps on "Reconstructionism", both in the term "Celtic Reconstructionism" and in the common abbreviation, "CR". Choosing to rename it "Celtic reconstructionism" is veering into WP:OR - instituting a name change rather than documenting it. As Wikipedians, we are only supposed to do the latter. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 02:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Noting that today I went over the recent IP changes more fully. The IP altered direct quotes, including titles in the source materials, to swap in lowercase where the sources have caps. I think this series of IP edits was a push to misrepresent the sources re this caps issue. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking over those changes, I don't see very many caps changes. Most of that was left alone. All of those edits had edit summaries that gave some explanation of the edits, although there were a lot of changes. I do see caps changes for citations to chapters in ISBN 0-8065-2710-2 and 1-56414-754-1, but those are offline sources so I can't easily check their chapter titles. There was also a caps change for the book title of ISBN 0-8070-3253-0 (Drawing Down the Moon (book)); the prior capitalization for that was implausible (with only "Druids" and "Amercia" capped in the subtitle), and that change looks irrelevant to the caps question at hand. I also see a caps change for a quoted phrase from one of those books in one place. It doesn't look like there was a wholesale conversion of the capitalization. I'll put a note on that IP's User talk page to invite them to this conversation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have the hardcopy books here for those. I checked. There wasn't an overhaul of the article text. Changing the sources is more subtle. If that had gone unnoticed... - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support in principle. Not a proper name. Although I think Celtic reconstructionist paganism would be better. More descriptive. "Celtic reconstructionism" sounds more like a cultural or political movement than a religious one. And both terms are clearly used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Not a proper name. I'm also okay with "Celtic reconstructionist paganism", whichever seems to better suit the content. My loose feeling is that that title is more WP:PRECISE but less WP:CONCISE with "paganism" at the end. I fear that "Celtic reconstructionism" is easily misinterpreted to imply other things like language reconstruction (Cornish, Manx), Celtic nationalism, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Relisted again due to it still being debated on whether "paganism" should be in the title. Would also like for the sources' capitalisation to be verified due to the discovery of an IP's interference. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• As the nom here, I'm also OK with "Celtic reconstructionist paganism" for improved precision, per SMcCandlish. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• This is not about opinion it's about sourcing - again, the sources, all along, have been for caps. CR. Celtic Reconstructionism, or Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. It doesn't matter what our opinions about caps are. While there has been a shift in naming "pagan" articles on the 'pedia, against caps, we aren't supposed to do this based on opinion, but on the sources. Additionally, the move request statement is misleading, making this malformed: "This is described as "an umbrella term" and as an "approach" to religion rather than a specific organized religion". Sources clearly describe this as a tradition with "a number of recognized sub-traditions". Which is how non-Abrahamic "religions" are often described. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Those quotes are from the article itself, and I believe are evidence for lowercasing per MOS:ISMCAPS, which I believe supports lowercasing of terms for traditions. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but those have to be taken in context. The full quote, with emphasis added:

Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism (also Celtic Reconstructionism or CR) is a polytheistic reconstructionist approach to Ancient Celtic religion, emphasising historical accuracy over eclecticism such as is found in most forms of Celtic neopaganism such as Neo-druidism. It is an effort to reconstruct and revive, in a modern Celtic cultural context, pre-Christian Celtic religions.

Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism originated in discussions among amateur scholars and Neopagans in the mid-1980s, and evolved into an independent tradition by the early 1990s. "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism" (CR) is an umbrella term, with a number of recognized sub-traditions or denominations.

It's a religion in as much as all Polytheistic and Pagan traditions are religions. Whether it's capitalized depends on the author and when they've been writing, and for what audience. In the seventies and eighties, there was more of a trend among the Neopagan, hippie-leaning community to assert they were not like organized religions, seeing organized religion as oppressive. The Reconstructionist, Polytheist groups have been more structured and, in general, more comfortable with the term "religion". - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Not a !vote Capitalization for Reconstructionist and Paganism is one of meaning. Lower case pagan(ism) is very often defined as lacking religious belief or worshiping evil beings. This is in accord with pagan's association with non-Christian or non-Abrahamic beliefs. In Margo Adler's book Drawing Down the Moon (1979), she defines the reasons for capitalization of Pagan to separate that older meaning of godlessness from modern Paganism. On page one, she writes "They have a common name for themselves: Pagans or Neopagans." Footnote to that sentence "'Pagan' and 'Neo-Pagan' are capitalized since the words are used here to describe members of a religion, in the same way as one would describe a 'Christian' or a 'Jew'." Capitalization of "Pagan" is a semantic and linguistic adaption to signify more specifically defined group of modern religious paganism. Modern here refers from the present day back at least 70 years (probably earlier still but I don't have references to hand.) Capitalizing "Reconstructionist" stems from usage and delineated as the formal name of a religious denomination. For example, see Christian Science. A lower case reconstructionist might apply to someone in Celtic studies, archeology, and any historical research in the field of Celticism. As to the inclusion of "Paganism" in the title, I don't have a strong feeling either way. Leave it or drop it, it's not an essential descriptive component for the title. Since I started this article in 2005, including the name/title, I thought a little background would be helpful. The move to standardize all titles to adhere to WP:MOS is good and I fully support it. Rigid and strict conformity in every instance, however, does not always serve the article or the 'pedia; it may actually change the meaning entirely. That is a concern. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in many texts, lowercase "pagan" still means an irreligious person, or anti-religious person, hence the caps. CR, both capped, would probably be my preference here, as the tradition has always attempted to distance itself from the eclectic Neopagan community. As Neopagan on WP is now "Modern Pagan", "Celtic Reconstructionism", which has always been in equal usage, would be fine. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction: Neopagan on Wikipedia is now "Modern paganism" (with lowercase 'p'). As far as I know, Christian Science is a single organized religion, the Church of Christ, Scientist, which has a headquarters facility and a board of directors. According to this article itself, the topic of this article is not like that. As far as I know, this term does not refer to a specific hierarchically structured organization or a specific clearly identified list of doctrinal beliefs or sacred texts. I think any necessary clarification of what is meant by the terms can be more clearly expressed within the article rather than trying to signal some kind of special significance by using capital letters. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support – Since the Handbook of Contemporary Paganism uses "Celtic reconstructionism", it seems to have the intended meaning even when lowercased. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.