Jump to content

Talk:Celtic reconstructionism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Wikification

Be kind. This is my first Wikipedia entry and I'm still learning the conventions. I've read the tutorial and everything but this entry is lacking "wikifying" and perhaps more extensive external sources or even more internal sources and connections. I'll try to work on it some more later but any tips or suggestions for improving the language or to make it more "Wiki" consistant would be extremely welcome. Pigman 06:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Alternate Terms

What do you think would be the best way to discuss the alternate terms for Celtic Reconstructionism or branches/variations of CR, such as Celtic Restorationism, Neo-Celtism, Senistrognata, Seandagnatha, Ildiachas/Iol-Diadhachas, Gaelic Traditionalism, and so on. Whateley23 19:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Additions

Added another couple of brief paragraphs on the history of CR, and the importance of balancing the scholarly and the mystical. Pigman and I worked together on clarifying some bits of his initial entry.

Added a couple more names of sub-trads. Removed GT from the CR sub-trads as, though the GT groups we're aware of initially considered themselves CR, they don't any more.

Today's initial changes are under 63.22.0.227, as I hadn't created an account yet. Kathryn NicDhàna 21:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

yeah, i understand that the GTs don't consider themselves CR, but they make use of the same general methodologies (and some still associate closely with predominately CR organizations). since CR can be considered a methodology rather than a religion in itself (though it can also be considered the latter - the term has become somewhat ambiguous), i felt that it was appropriate to include it. Whateley23 22:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Many people do consider CR a religion itself or, perhaps more accurately, an umbrella term covering a number of religions and spiritual traditions. Perhaps we will need to do more work to clarify when we are using "CR" to mean an approach, and when we are using "CR" to mean a religion. As an approach, yes, the polytheistic, split off from CR, GTs use the same methods; but as a community - very different feel and goals. And "Celtic Traditionalist" is another thing as well. Some GTs are closer to CT than CR. Other GTs (the ones with an older claim to the term) are actually Catholics. Kathryn NicDhàna 04:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

CR vs Neo-druidism

The article would benefit from a discussion of how Celtic Reconstruction differs from Neo-druidism, if in fact it does differ from it. Also "human sacrifice, slavery, and other strongly patriarchal elements" is far from NPOV, so I'm removing the "other". --Angr/tɔk tə mi 18:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

i've added a section discussing the differences between neo-druids and crs, though i am not entirely happy with it. this may be due to my dissatisfaction with attempts (including my own) to define by differentiating in the past. i did try to emphasize that there is quite a bit of similarity, but that there are differing objectives. Whateley23 22:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Gaelic Traditionalism?

since there has been no discussion beyond the two comments, i'd like to put the matter up for a vote. feel free to include a short sentence, if you like:

Include Gaelic Traditionalism

1. they use entirely CR methods, even if separating themselves as a community and their conclusions vary slightly Whateley23 23:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


Do Not Include

1. and 2. Pigman and Kathryn here. "they use entirely CR methods" - agreed wholeheartedly. The fallacious claims of a couple of GTs that they had inherited family traditions are simply not credible, and at least one of these individuals has now changed his backstory. Sorry this is not NPOV, but we don't know how else to say it. "even if separating themselves as a community" - agreed. "and their conclusions vary slightly" - we would say, at least among the GTs we've encountered, their conclusions and goals vary greatly. I know Kym and Eric agree with this, and I'm pretty sure Erynn does as well (ask them. They're just not on Wikipedia). While we are fine with people knowing that GT is a faction that split off from CR, and that some GTs once called themselves CR, we are not comfortable with being publicly associated with them in any way that would confuse the two traditions as they now exist. One clarification: when we are talking about GT in this statement, we are talking about the faction that split off from the modern, polytheistic, Celtic Reconstructionist movement in the 1990's. The term has also historically been used for a long time by Irish activists in Ireland, usually Catholics. These are a totally different group of "GT"s.

If you insist on mentioning GT in this, please only do so as an historical footnote. We are adamantly opposed to simply listing GT as a "sub-trad" of CR. Pigman and Kathryn NicDhàna

So, it would be reasonable to mention the derivation of GT commuity in the historical development of CR, indicate that they have since diverged, and give GT its own page if it does not already have one. --Nantonos 03:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


02:00, 24 January 2006(UTC)
Hi, this is Iain Mac an tSaoir. All of this was brought to my attention. Maybe I can clarify a little. Gaelic Traditionalism came up independently from CR. In the late 1890's an English woman wrote disparagingly about Irish people not giving up their indigenous ways, and these she termed "Gaelic traditionalists". The term sat fallow from about 1896 until mid-1994. In July 1994, based upon personal experiences with, and encouragement from, Native American Traditionalists, I coined the terms, "Gaelic Traditionalism" (a way of life expressed by living the Gaelic cultural traditions as the culture alone defines that), and "Gaelic Traditionalists" (those who hold steadfast to the cultural traditions as the Gaelic cultures alone define them). I also founded the Clannada na Gadelica to attempt at standing up for the historical Celtic and Gaelic traditions as the cultures alone define those, and, bringing the Gaelic Traditions to Gaelic Diasporan peoples.

I was not raised in a Gaeltacht, nor did I have the benefit of a family who had retained the cultural traditions. It was a long hard road to find them, and it was as hard to change from being a typical sassanach into a cultural Gael. In its infancy the CnG did have errant materials. However, the dedication was always to the cultural tradition as the culture alone defines that tradition. Hence, as more was learned those errors were corrected. It took a couple of years but it finely got square. I wish that so many people did not have to witness my growing up into a Gael, but they did. Some few still hold against me things from before I became culturalized. I have apologized for those things and tried to make restitution where such was needed. More yet, most of those with a grudge, hold against me my refusal to let the Clannada na Gadelica be anything other than a place for Gaelic Traditionalism. Probably not so much what I my goal was as how I went about it. But like I said, eventually things got into square.

To be concise, Gaelic Traditionalism is about the Gaelic cultural traditions as the Gaelic cultures define them. There are some who have other ways of addresseing the implementation in daily living, particularly to how to form and maintain communities. Yes, early on there were some CR people involved in the Clannada. But they didn't stick around. It was a difficult time then. As pertains to your entry, no GT is not a subset of CR, because while it came public around the same time, it did so independently, and with a focus on bringing the cultural traditions, as the cultures defines them, to people who want to live them.
I hope this helps. Iain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iain_Mac_an_tSaoir (talk • contribs) .

  • Thanks for this; it is helpful for those wanting another POV on GT, if perhaps a bit more detailed/lengthy than needed on a CR Talk page. Why did you remove the longer version of this from the GT Talk page? [note--it's still there in the history of the talk page, for those who want to read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGaelic_Traditionalism&diff=36439879&oldid=36438362 .] Would you mind if we revert the GT talk page to include your comments? Though what you wrote there really belongs in the GT article itself, not the talk section. Your version is a different and far more accurate history than is in the current GT Wiki article. This piece here, if edited for NPOV and merged with your piece on the GT talk page, would make a better foundation for a GT article than what is currently there. Kathryn NicDhàna 06:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, to be quite frank, I stopped doing anything with it because I *cough* could not figure out how to work the system <sheepish grin>. To be frank again, I had never been to the Wiki site before I was drafted, and didn't even have a clue what they were talking about when they said they need sources. I started listing books. I did get some of it down when I was yanked out of slumber to start helping in the corrective actions on the GT article. I believe it is done, and as accurate as circumstances will allow. The most blaring problems with the article are handled. I've also been learning about problems to which I was oblivious. Sure would love to see olive branches exchanged. Now back to my regularly scheduled motorcycle ride. Mar sin leat Iain Mac an tSaoir 05:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

"Method" vs "Tradition"

Pigman and I have been discussing this. He should have titled this Wikipedia article, like the linked CR Essay, "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism (CR)". The disagreements we are starting to have in this entry seem to me to stem from some of the participants in this process seeing CR as primarily a spiritual tradition, and others as simply a methodology - a type of Celtic Studies with some sort of action coming out of that study. The former is a much more focused, and smaller entity, which a group of us have been working to define for the past fifteen to twenty years. The latter is something much huger than the spiritual movement we are describing in the early versions of this entry, and which seems to encompass anyone doing any sort of reconstruction work, whether or not they share any of the same religious/spiritual values. I don't think these two visions are harmonious enough to coexist indefinitely, and maybe we should split the categories in two in some way. If not, we must tackle these somewhat conflicting (and somewhat overlapping) views soon or I suspect this will be rather confusing for people. Kathryn NicDhàna 05:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm seriously thinking of changing the heading of the entry. What I envisioned this article to represent is much closer to the specificity of "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism" rather than the issues of a broader and more general use of the term "Celtic Reconstruction". I think it would be an excellent idea to split these apart. This would alleviate the confusion obviously inherent between people attempting to merge these differing strains. --Pigman 05:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

i think that it would be best to try to explain that there are two primary concepts which are referred to by the name "Celtic Reconstructionism". i'd like to think that i've already made some effort to disambiguate the two usages a bit in the article as it stands, but i don't think i've been slighting either usage, either. Whateley23 06:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved and Renamed the Entry

Well, I've gone ahead and moved the entry, renaming it "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism". I think this solves some of the problems. If there is a desire to create a different entry attempting to encompass a much broader perspective, please do so. By specifying the Paganism component, I think it is more strongly oriented toward the religious and spiritual aspects in addition to the purely methodological approach. This was my original intent in starting this entry. Note that I used only the "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism Essay" as an external source for this entry. This is because I was attempting to describe this particular NeoPagan tradition, not the general use of the term CR.

Because of this new title and more specific focus, I'm going to start revising the entry to more accurately reflect this shift. --Pigman 06:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

General structure

This is a good article (as it stands on 11 Sept 2005) but could do with a little more structuring. General Wikipedia practice is to have a short introduction that defines the term and sets it in a context (the first couple of paras do that well) and then headings for the other sections. The remainder of what currently looks like the introcuction moves between historical development and methodology. perhaps these could be pulled into two sections, with headings, History and Methodology? First historical mention, on the other hand, would make more sense as a subhead of history. Other sections which should be added are References (where would CR be without references!) and Bibliography. The typical Wikipedia order is References, Bibliography, External Links. There is already one reference , "Spring, 1992 issue of Harvest Magazine" which should be added in the references section (ideally with a page number). Wikipedia:Manual of Style and in particular Wikipedia:Cite sources may be useful. --Nantonos 04:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks for taking care of this. The annotations are helpful. --Nantonos 15:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't locate my '79 edition of Drawing Down the Moon. If any of you find yours before I do, could you check something: I'm pretty sure the quote from Isaac is also in the original version. I credited it to the revised edition because it's all I could find at the time, but if we can confirm its place in the original edition, that's the one that should be cited. Kathryn NicDhàna 06:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The original edition has been located. My suspicion was right: The "Eclectic Reconstructionist" quote (referring to NRDNA, New Reformed Druids of North America) is in the original edition, in chapter 11, Religions of Paradox and Play, page 303. Kathryn NicDhàna 20:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for References

I added a couple of items to the Bibliography, but maybe it would be better to mention them in the context of historical development of CR as well (and thus, move them to References). The 1994 What We Don't Know About the Ancient Celts by Rowan Fairgrove is a much cited work that I believe had an impact on the development of CR, and Alexei's Apple Branch is also much cited (although I don't consider it his best work, by a long way, it undoubtedly had an impact on developments). --Nantonos 04:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to re-read Rowan's article (btw, typo on the article page - you called her "Robin"), as it's been a long time and I don't remember what I thought of it at the time. Also, though Alexei has become a strong influence in some branches of CR, a number CRs do not consider "Apple Branch" a CR book, per se. Kathryn NicDhàna 06:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

typo fixed (blush) - this is Wikipedia, you can fix typos as you spot them. I'm one of the people that does not particularly rate Apple Branch - in fact it put me off Alexei until I got to know him better on some mailing lists. To me its 'Green-tinged Wicca' though he claims that wicca was not an influence. I can't deny that it is widely recommended and had a big influence, however. What other books would people suggest for refs and bib? --Nantonos 00:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your "Green-tinged Wicca" opinion. Alexei himself has become a valuable contributor to the Imbas list, and has a lot of influence in that branch of CR, but I think too many CRs are not comfortable calling the book CR (or, at least not without a long list of books besides it). However, do we really want to haggle about what does and doesn't belong in this biblio? We have an extensive biblio with the CR Essay, which was worked out by consensus. We could do a shorter biblio for this entry, but there are only a few of us participating in this Wikipedia entry right now, while the CR Essay was written collectively by representatives of a number of longstanding CR sub-trads. I've been tending to see this entry as a shorter version of that essay, but with room to cover some of the things we didn't go into there for space reasons. Right now any biblio has to be rather long and diverse, as I think Erynn's book is the only one really written about CR practice so far. Others will hopefully be published soon, but aren't in print yet. Kathryn NicDhàna 19:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"do we really want to haggle" - my apologies for making apparently unwarranted assumptions. I was trying to get this article to be appropriately referenced; my way of prompting such a dialog was to suggest a couple in the hope that other, perhaps better ones, would be suggested also. Since the main contributors seem to be CR practitioners, I did not think that the virtues of backing up statements with references (or the differences between references and bibliography) needed to be spelled out. So, to be more direct, this article has zero references and needs to have some, to conform to a higher standard of quality. --Nantonos 22:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gaelic Traditionalism

There is a current discussion at Talk:Gaelic Traditionalism that touches upon this article and that the regular editors of this article may be able to provide helpful input about. Jkelly 20:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Fascinating. I can certainly agree that the articles should not be merged. The extreme POV mischaracterizations of CR by one of the posters on the GT Talk Page are unfortunate, but I don't care to fight about it over on their page as I don't think it would accomplish anything. I do support the calls for review of the GT Article, as a number of long-term participants in the Celtic communities have noted the blatant POV and misrepresentations in the GT article. Some of these have been corrected (such as the earlier version that implied the movement was 100 years old or somesuch), but that article is still mostly original research and I have to agree that it reads like a personal essay (which is what the piece started as, IIRC). The two movements, CR and GT, sound similar because the modern, polytheistic GT is a spinoff from CR [edit--see comment further down -KPN]. But currently there are major divides around issues both ethical and political. I see some of the posters on the talk pages are claiming independent origins, but those who've been around for a while remember what happened. Again, it would not work to merge the articles, and I oppose it. - Kathryn NicDhàna 22:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, the only person who I know of who ever referred to themselves as a Reconstructionist was me, years back when I refered to myself as a Gaelic Reconstructionist for a time, and AFAIK no one else of the ACTG or CnG ever considered themselves CR. Gaelic Traditionalism evolved seperately and distinctly from CR as it was not me who first started using that term. I do happen to agree that the statements regarding CR were distinctly non-NPOV and would like to see both movements go on about their business without attacking one another, as to do so is foolish, pointless, and just detracts from the good works BOTH movements have done, so I would like to officially bury the hatchet here and now. We are all adults, I would think it is high time people on ALL sides began acting as such. Celtic Reconstructionism and Gaelic Traditionalism are two very different roads to very different goals, and do not and should not be at loggerheads as they take differing approaches and are not in competition. The character assassination, mischaracterization, vitriolic attacks, ad-hominems, flagrant insults, etc. going back and forth between members of both movements only serves to debase those people and the movements they are a part of. I say we ALL stop it, bury the hatchet, and move on with our lives. Breandán 20:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • CnG originally called themselves CR, though they may have phrased it "Celtic Reconstructionalist" [edit--see new post further down -KPN]. This was during the time when they asked Erynn Laurie to be their Ard-Fili (mid-nineties, IIRC, before they had a web-presence). In 2000 your "Tuatha MacTire" website said "Celtic Reconstructionist", and the metatext and keywords at the bottom of your website (visible by highlighting) here: http://ciarraide.org/index2.html still contain the "Celtic Reconstructionist Pagan Celtic Reconstructionalist Celt Celts Pagans Celtic Paganism" text you swiped from my website when you used mine as a "template". The Cáirdean Ceilteach Ameireaga site, which is in your GT resources section, which also lists at least one ACTG member tribe, also includes "Celtic Reconstructionst" in the keywords (they are also based on the swiped text). ACTG member Pàdraig MacIain called himself CR up until fairly recently, and still has this article http://users.indigo.net.au/darke/treubh/art_whatiscr.html on his site. Agreed, two totally separate groups now. The two groups probably always had separate goals so it is good the two names are now established as representing different groups. However, you, MacIain and Cáirdean Ceilteach Ameireaga may want to update your websites to reflect this. Kathryn NicDhàna 04:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


        • I was unaware of the CnG ever calling themselves CR or having any relation or contact with Erynn, so this was surprising news to me. I will have to look into that. Breandán 05:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Hi, Iain Mac an tSaoir here. As founder of the CnG, and the guy who did most of the web design, maybe I can shed some light on these things. Luckily, I've kept archives of most things ever surrounding the CnG. It should be known that at no time did the CnG refer to itself as CR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iain_Mac_an_tSaoir (talk • contribs) .

(Additional text removed and put on Iain's User page in the interests of condensing discussion. --Pigman 04:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Hi, Iain. I think one of the things that has been confusing is that our movements have always had significant overlap. There were at the beginning, and still are, many people who see the goals, methods and priorities of our movements as identical, and there are also people who personally identify as both CR and GT. In our recent discussions a number of things have become clear to me:

1. The founders of CR and the founders of GT seem to me to have had the same vision, the same goals. I believe the old guard of both movements still share this common ground. However,
2. This commonality was shattered by the popularization of our traditions on the internet. We have never been able to control who calls themselves CR or GT. As many people who had only read about us on the internet began also calling themselves by these names, it was easy for those outside the movement to think that recent adherents, who often shared none of our priorities, ethics or goals, were representative of the traditions. Therefore,
3. Misconceptions about both our movements spread, and a great deal of animosity was generated.

My impression that Modern, Polytheistic, Diasporic GT (DGT) was a "spinoff" of CR is due to the fact that I only heard about Clannada (the first DGT group) in the late nineties. Clannada was described to me by both former members and outside observers as a Celtic Reconstructionist group. It hadn't occured to me that those who told me this were only speaking for themselves, and not for the official CNG position. I apologize for this confusion.
I hope that as our recent dialogue continues, and we both become aware of the ways in which recent, temporary participants in our communities have skewed our public images, we will both do a better job at clarifying what our traditions are about. I am hopeful that we can help people realize that CR is not a bunch of eclectic Neopagans, pillaging Celtic cultures for exotic bling to spice up their eclectic practices, and that Diasporic GTs are not creepy racist re-enactors and gun nuts, living in their own fantasies and spewing hatred at those they perceive as "outsiders".
Assuming things continue to improve, I am also hopeful that eventually the GT (or DGT) article can be salvaged in some form, and perhaps include some small section in both that article and the CR article briefly discussing the commonalities and differences between the movements. However, I must say (with some amusement) that the more you and I and our other colleagues talk, the more I am having trouble seeing how we actually differ :-)
Beannachdan, --Kathryn NicDhàna 17:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Thank you Kathryn. Overall I am in complete agreement with your assessments. Based on what we've been discussing, whatever divergences exist does so primarily in that CR would be more of an umbrella term wherein the traditions of the several Celtic cultures are found, whereas Diasporic Gaelic Traditionalism focuses on the Gaelic cultures. The secondary area of divergence seems to be that while both eschew ecclecticism completely, from what I've gleened from our dialogues, CR gives more latitude for syncretism. Though we both seem to hold dear the idea that the only syncretisms that are valid are those that occured naturally within the cultures themselves. As for apologies, none are necessary, none in the least. In the early years the confusion was likely as much our own fault (lack of clearly written definitions), as it was the fault of those who understood and tried to make us something other than we were meant to be. Luckily the by-laws always had the statement about having to become ever the more culturally accurate as more information came to us. As for the GT article, well, I haven't even looked at it since I bowed out of the dialogue. Unfortunately, and from what I understand, those who started that entry evidently no longer consider themselves GT or DGT. So who knows where it will go. What an abysmal mess it was the last time I peeked. I don't even have the heart to go look at it to see what is there. If I had my way there would be an entry on Diasporic Gaelic Traditionalism, and the definitions laid out in it. Anywho, thank you Kathryn.

Iain Mac an tSaoir 22:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

Neopaganism and how it does and doesn't apply to CR

After consulting with two of the other main authors of this Wikipedia article, User:Whateley23 and User:Pigman, we have decided to drop "Neopagan" from our description of CR. While the term "Neopagan" is still technically, linguistically correct for what we are (as the Pagan/Polytheistic part of our tradition is reconstructed, not unbroken), we have come to realize that "Neopagan" has come to carry many, related meanings that are in direct conflict with our beliefs. While many CRs do consider ourselves Pagans, and either participate in the broader Pagan community or at least see some members of that community as our allies, "Neopaganism" has, for most, come to imply Wiccan-based eclectic traditions, and modern creations that are based on fantasy and/or cultural appropriation. As CR does not include eclecticism, or Wicca, and we are adamantly opposed to ripping off other cultures, we regrettably are coming to see that it is misleading, at least in a colloquial sense, to refer to ourselves as Neopagan. This move is not meant to insult those in the Neopagan community who are not engaging in cultural appropriation, but rather out of our need to not carry the baggage that has come to be intertwined with that term in the popular lexicon. --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions concerning historical Celts, Caesar etc

WaynaQhapaq, the Celts did practice slavery. I'm not happy about it, but it's the historical record. Could you discuss these changes you've made here on the talk page? I think this info about Caesar is a tangent, and mostly outside the scope of this article. Perhaps it would be better to keep the mention shorter, if included at all, and then link to some of the other places on Wikipedia where those controversies are discussed? --Kathryn NicDhàna 00:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article carefully. You should notice that my edit did not claim that the celts did not

practice slavery, only that the only source that claims that they did engage in the practices in question is that of the Romans, which may or may not be biased, and that so far, archaeologists have not found significant evidence supporting the idea that the celts practiced human sacrifice. It is necessary and proper that such information shall be included in this article, as it reflects the current understanding of both historians and archaeologists, as well as other scholars. I am as dismayed as I am sure you are, that the historical record of Celtic civilisation is so scetchy, but the known facts must be represented fairly and equally. I suggest you read Celtic Polytheism and post on the discussion page before making further reverts. Thank you. WaynaQhapaq 22:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The point of that paragraph is to say that we don't practice things that are inappropriate or illegal in contemporary society, not to go on a tangent about the history of the Celts. This is a brief article about a modern tradition, not something on Celtic history. It is very apprropriate to LINK to that information, but plunking in a paragraph about it as the article stands now is a tangent and disrupts the focus. BTW, I did post on the talk page about this, look right above your response. --Kathryn NicDhàna 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
While I concurr that the paragragh should not be tengental in discussion, it should however be broad and complete in scope. This would include a relevant discussion of the historical and (possibly more accurate) archeaological records regarding the practices of various Celtic societies, including areas in which those records may come in to conflict. As scholarly research is a fundemental part of modern Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, I believe this article should include the relevant discussion thereof. I hope we can work out a way in which this is possible. Thank you. WaynaQhapaq 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Move and Redirect

OK, this subtle renaming/caps issue is actually a rather large problem. Since 1992 at the latest, "Celtic Reconstructionism" and "Celtic Reconstructionist" have been established as tradition names. This is different from "Celtic reconstructionism", and brings up a lot of the "method and/or tradition" issues we juggled at the beginning of this process. I think it is inappropriate to subltly refocus the article this way, and without any discussion on the talk page. Therefore I am returning this to the name we agreed on. I would also note these changes have just been made to all Reconstructionist traditions over on the Polytheistic Reconstructionism (now Polytheistic reconstructionism) page. Interested editors may want to go look at that, too. --Kathryn NicDhàna 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You should decap "paganism", however. —Ashley Y 19:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. In contemporary usage, "pagan" is often synonymous with having no religion at all. Capital P "Pagan" is more often used to denote a variety of specific religions. And either way, capital P "Pagan" is also an established part of this version of the tradition name as seen here (other versions being simply "Celtic Reconstructionist" or "Celtic Reconstructionism", but as you'll see further up the Talk page, we went with the "CR Paganism" version to help distinguish the religion from the methodology). --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
From the comments above it looks like using "CRP" rather than "CR" was a Wikipedia-specific decision. How is it named in the CR(P) community in general? —Ashley Y 04:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As you can see from the above Google link, or here, "CR" is used for all three variations: "Celtic Reconstructionist," "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism," and "Celtic Reconstructionism". The variations in name are used pretty much interchangeably, with "CR" standing for any or all of them. A couple more specific links: The CR Essay and The CR FAQ --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. —Ashley Y 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you put a note about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism? There was quite a bit of discussion going on about capitalization, mostly regarding the word "P/pagan", but the issue never did get resolved. It's actually at the very top of the project task list, and it would be nice to just settle on a convention and use it. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Where on the project would you like me to mention this? Perhaps you could start the section and I could add to it? Feel free to quote any of this if it helps. I'll participate, but I am still a bit unclear about where things are located over at WP:Neopaganism. For instance, where is the P/p discussion? Thanks! --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made substantial headway on the footnotes. More needs to be done, but I think the headway is sufficient to now only flag particular statements, if needed, and not the entire article. I plan on adding more footnotes tomorrow, and hopefully refining the formatting, but I am new to incorporating footnotes so please bear with me as I work on this.

If you look through the CR FAQ citations, you might notice that there are a few paragraphs in this article that are substantially the same as some in the FAQ. These are not copyright violations. What happened, to the best of my knowledge, is that a few of the same people worked on both this article and the FAQ. The FAQ was written on a private Wiki, and some of the co-authors have said they were working on both documents at once. As the web version of the FAQ is open to limited electronic reproduction, I am pretty sure this qualifies as dual licensing. I will do some more research into this, but I think the overlaps are within the bounds of dual licensing. What I am certain of is that none of the authors of the FAQ see this article as a copyright violation. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the copyright notice from the CR FAQ, agreed upon by the copyright holders and additional contributors (nine on the CeltiWiki, and no objections from the 360 who previewed and gave feedback on the work in progress):


I didn't realize there were as many similarities as there were, but as it's only a few instances, and all the FAQ participants agreed on the liberal electronic use, I think it's fine. If anyone thinks that the some instances cross the line - such as where a short paragraph is the same in both texts - we always have the option of marking it as a quote (though in truth, as both texts were created at about the same time, and via the progressive small changes that happen on a Wiki, it's not always clear which one should be regarded as the original and which as the quote). The community process involved in the creation of the document is also briefly described here. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Aurrad"

Aurrad is not Irish, and does not even look like an Irish word. Whatever language it is, it is at the very least not modern Irish. - Panu Höglund from the Irish language wikipedia.

Good catch! Thanks for pointing that out. It's supposed to be Old Irish and, iirc, the person using that for his trad has said as such. The DIL/RIA says the word appears in some very old mss, but even they are not sure of the meaning. Their best conjecture gives "aurrad" as 'person who is native within the bounds of a "fine", "túath" etc. as oppd. to "deorad"; native freeman, landowner, person of standing: indigena'. Not sure who typed it in as Mod.Ir., but I've changed it to "probably OI" --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
the modern Irish equivalent is urra. the word originally referred to someone who was capable of acting as a guarantor. 71.35.126.198 23:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC) - sorry, that was me. Whateley23 23:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
heh, i can't spell. it's urraí, mirroring deoraí. Whateley23 06:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Um, I don't think it is acceptable for a WP editor to reference their own original research as a source for this article, is it? I refer to the many uses of reference to the work of User:Kathryn NicDhàna. Has any of this been published by a third party? Or is it all web-based? Who owns the site from which it is sourced? Does anybody know? Frater Xyzzy 17:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy moly, it's worse than I thought. Apparently the editor in question claims (shared) responsibility for coining the term which forms the basis for the title of this article! Are there any third party reputable sources which use this term? Or is this simply promotion of original research by this editor on Wikipedia? I respectfully recommend that User:Kathryn NicDhàna stop editing the article while these issues are sorted out. If this is not an accepted academic category, then at least parts of this article may not be suitable for Wikipedia, and the rest may need to be merged into other articles. Frater Xyzzy 18:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Among the third party sources for the term "Celtic Reconstructionism" (or "CR") mentioned in the article are: Patricia Telsco's Which Witch is Which?, Carl McColman's Complete Idiot's Guide to Celtic Wisdom, and Isaac Bonewits's Bonewits's Essential Guide to Druidism. Origins of the term are also sourced to Harvest magazine in the early nineties. The CR FAQ, despite being a web-only document at the moment, was written primarily by nine people from six different CR subtraditions. Since input was solicited from the LiveJournal cr_r community of 360 people and that input incorporated, it forms more than just a matter of opinion of one or two people but a defining document as well. This is one reason it was used to source beliefs and practices.
I'm going to remove the "original research" tag because I believe the most of the information is sourced to verifiable texts. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you've just confirmed that some of the sources are essentially self-published original research, done by one of the editors of this article. That's really not kosher. All information based on this non-academic private research project which informally solicited contributions from the Internet will have to be removed. Frater Xyzzy 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


I was invited to opine on this sourcing question. Frater Xyzzy can you be more specific about what is in the article that you are particularly concerned with? It is not at all unusual for us to be sourcing uncontroversial information about an organisation to that organisation's website. Looking at the conversation on this talk page above, there seems to be some, um, parallel evolution going on, which is a little unusual, but I'm not sure that it is actually problematic unless there's some reason to believe that our article is misleading. For instance, we're currently reporting "CRs [sic] strive to find ethical ways of integrating their historical findings and research with their daily lives." and the citation for this is now flagged is needing a credibility check. Is this statement in dispute? Do we need a better source than the organisation's website in order to make such a claim? It's not obvious to me that the answer to either question is "yes".
That said, a lot of this article is sourced to an FAQ, which actually isn't ideal. Websites are transitory, and we're not well equipped to investigate their credibility (as we seem to be being asked to do, above). I'd recommend, as best practice, sourcing statements like "It is an effort to reconstruct, in a modern Celtic cultural context, an ancient Celtic religious tradition." to one of the many books listed in (what is now called) "Further reading". Surely Kondratiev says this, for instance. Also, the "Celtic Reconstructionism and Neo-druidism" section does seem to be verging on original research territory. Further, who is "Laurie" and why are we on a first name basis with her? There are places where the main editors' familiarity with the subject is obvious and the reliance on the FAQ may be leading us to present material in a way that is targetted to potential converts instead of encyclopedically ("While it is seen as somewhat gauche to trademark these things, it is considered bad form to use a name that has been established by a particular tradition unless one is a member of that specific tradition" seems like we're giving unasked-for ettiquette advice, for instance -- how many of our readers are likely to make this mistake?).
I hope the above is helpful. Jkelly 22:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Laurie is the last name. Her full name is Erynn Rowan Laurie. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, who would've guessed? Thanks for clarifying. Jkelly 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to note that Frater Xyzzy says "999 asked me to look into a couple of things on Wikipedia." Since 999 was very involved with the recent dispute over Starwood links, it seems possible that the exceptionally high quality of sources Frater Xyzzy is calling for here may be connected to that issue. I say exceptionally because the standard being applied by him is so far beyond normal Wikipedia policy for sources or even conflict of interest, I have little other explanation. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also note that Frater Xyzzy has flagged third-party sources (such as the CR tradition Essay published on WitchVox, the interview in Green Triangle, and even Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today) with the "credibility" tag, but only in the cases where the footnote explicitly mentions me. I suspect that if he'd actually read the other books and publications cited, and "discovered" that some of the other third-party sources also mention me by name, that he would have flagged those, as well. I guess the fact that I am pictured in Drawing Down the Moon also rules that out as a source. I think it's clear what's happening here. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
That reminds me: There is a clearly identifiable picture of me in Adler's Drawing Down the Moon and it's not one of the huge ritual pictures. (I'm not named so don't bother looking for my name.) Does this mean I shouldn't use DDtM as a source? Am I overly prone to reference it because I'm in it? Or is it just that the book documents huge swaths of the Neopagan communities? --Pigman (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments

Can the amateur original research conducted by one of the editors of this article (Kathryn NicDhàna) and published on the web (by a group of her associates) be considered a reliable source?

Discussion

  • Comment I recommend actually looking at the sources. I believe the characterization of the sources is inaccurate. Creation of the term was in a published source, Harvest magazine. And while [User:Kathryn NicDhàna|Kathryn NicDhàna]] has indeed worked on this article, I provided the references that have been added. I believe the proper test is whether the references are valid ones within Wikipedia standards, and whether the references actually specifically support the content of this WP article. My opinion is yes. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Harvest magazine was a completely amateur production. I know, I was there. :-) Frater Xyzzy 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Harvest was, by it's 12th year of publication, a community project. In the early years, Morven pretty much did it all herself with some help. In its last years, there were at least 5 or 6 permanent volunteer editors responsible for various departments and columns. Its mailing list was international and a significant percentage of the print run went to stores in the USA and Canada. Perhaps it wasn't as well known as, say, Green Egg but I don't think it could be called a "completely amateur production". It was one of the top Neopagan zines of its time. Margot Adler was very complimentary to Harvest in Drawing Down the Moon. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Frater, you said on my Talk Page that you dropped by Morven's house in '80 or '81. Harvest Magazine changed a great deal in the ensuing twelve years. It grew to be a professionally-printed publication of 40 pages, with international distribution and advertising revenue. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Pigman, it appears that there is still a conflict of interest here, since one of the phone numbers in the domain registration appears to be yours. Do you or do you not host the site? Jefferson Anderson 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am one of the people who registered the domain. A group of us bought the domain specifically to host the CR FAQ and be a permanent site for it. Kathryn NicDhàna has been the primary webcrafter of the site. However the CR FAQ and its written contents as it appears on the site was agreed to in all particulars by the group of eight who wrote it. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, the group of eight main co-authors represent about six different traditions of CR. It wasn't easy, but somehow this diverse group was able to reach consensus. So the FAQ, and the CR Essay before it, are of a different order than a statement from just one sub-tradition. So this is not the view of one person, or even of a group of people who belong to the same tradition in the way "tradition" is used in, say, the Wiccan sense. It's more like if elders and founders of Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Dianic, Reclaiming, Minoan and Blue Star Wicca all managed to write a consensus document explaining Wicca. Though CR is smaller than Wicca, I think this is an apt comparison. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If it turns out that we need more attention here, we may want to post a pointer to the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism. I would like to give the local editors some time to respond to your concerns and my comments above. Jkelly 23:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I am one of the owners of the paganachd.com domain. I am the primary webcrafter for the site, and had the largest edit-count on the collectively-authored, consensus document, "The CR FAQ". However, if you check the credits page of the FAQ and the Introduction (linked twice on every page of the document) you will see that I am not the sole author, nor did I have, nor do I have, editorial control over the contents of the document - it was done by consensus, using a private Wiki, and all eight main co-authors signed off on it, as did over 360 members of the CR community who provided feedback.Contributors to the document are listed roughly in order of edit-count, and you may contact other co-authors if you desire to confirm this.

While as a member of the CR community and one of the founders of the tradition, I have contributed to the CR article as an "expert", I am not the creator nor sole author of the Wiki article. Nor is the article about me, though I am mentioned. I can't really get around the fact that I co-coined the term CR, however there are published sources that confirm this, and the article has a variety of third-party sources. Perhaps Pigman was over-zealous in his quoting of the FAQ, but it is a mischaracterization to the call the FAQ "mine" or "my research". Perhaps I have contributed to the article over-much, but after others named me in the article I have scaled back my participation in it, mostly adding a few clarifiers and footnotes. (PS - hotlinked the "expert" bit above, although Pigman is the one who put in the FAQ footnotes) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Also, I have been open, candid and transparent about my identity, background, and role in CR since my very first contributions to Wikipedia (in July of 2005). To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time anyone has made an issue of it. I believe my edits speak for themselves in terms of NPOV. Like all Wikipedians, I have learned as I have gone along. The times I have made edits that I have later realized may not have completely conformed to WP standards, I have gone back and changed them. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So, essentially, this is original research self-published by one (or more, if there are co-owners who are also authors of the FAQ) of its authors., right? Frater Xyzzy 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the comment above by Jefferson Anderson, so adding... and the links were placed by the person who hosts the site, right? Is that right? Frater Xyzzy 23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
See the responses above. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You should pipe down a little bit, Frater -- skepticism is good, yes, but there is nothing wrong with Kathryn's approach. WP:RS is relative to the nature of the subject. Random websites are not "RS" for academic subjects, but since CRP is a topic of popular culture and new religious movements, it is perfectly fair to report the self-description of groups, as self-descriptions, reserving due weight considerations of the notability of the group/site/author within the article's subject. dab (𒁳) 11:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the material is self-published. To quote WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper):
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
So, the question boils down to, are the authors of the FAQ "well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field", i.e. do they hold degrees in relevant fields and do they have other professionally published research? Frater Xyzzy 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
i observed and participated in the creation of that FAQ (in fact, my name is one of those listed as owning the copyright due largely to my contributions in the area of martial history), so i saw how the process worked. the problem with your summary question is that the FAQ in question wasn't just written by a few people - it was drafted, submitted for public comment, and revised based on those comments in several iterations. after it was nominally finished, i even saw it revised further due to the commentary of people who were not specifically self-identified as Celtic Reconstructionist Pagans. with such a wide base of influence on the FAQ, it would be difficult to pin it down to just one or a few people. dab's comments still apply, even if a narrowly legalistic interpretation of a generally-stated principle might be interpreted by a hostile party as damning, because there are few documents written with such a wide consensual base so there is little reason to make a general-principle statement including them. Whateley23 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the policy is clear about it and for good reason. Really, if the community is so small, I question the need for an article on the topic at all. The OR should be removed and the rest merged into Pagan reconstructionism. Jefferson Anderson 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Whateley23 -- I saw the extensive review and revision process that the FAQ went through, including the perusal and commentary from Celtic Studies scholars from academia, which should address your "professional researcher" concern. --Damask Rose 16:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
For those who would like to see more about the process we used to write The CR FAQ, I've gathered up these links. The CR FAQ began on the livejournal community, cr_r, which, before Frater Xyzzy deleted it, was mentioned in this article as being one of the two most popular online CR fora. Here are some of the initial brainstorms and rough drafts: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
After working together on LJ for a while, the main group of us doing the writing moved to the Celti-Wiki to make writing in collaboration easier. After eight (at times nine) of us reached consensus on the Celti-Wiki, we beta-posted the drafts to cr_r for larger community feedback. Here are the Beta-posts: So What is Celtic Reconstructionism (CR)?: [9][10] Basic Questions: [11][12] Intermediate Questions: [13] Misconceptions: [14][15] [16] Theology: [17] Ritual: [18] Ethics: [19] Druids and Druidry: [20] How are you different from Wicca, Celtic Shamanism, etc?: [21] So you want to be CR... [22] There were other posts here and there that discussed the process, on cr_r and elsewhere, but these seem to be the main ones. :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

undent. Well, that's interesting, but I don't think knowing the process helps us. If you could get it published by a reputable publisher, that would help. Or if you could explain how you are qualified by degree and previous published research, that would help also. I find it hard to take Livejournal as the basis for anything serious. Jefferson Anderson 21:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The qualifications for sources on popular culture articles are looser. See dab's comments above. And the process actually is important because it shows the resulting document is not the work of one person as alleged by Frater Xyzzy. Should all Pagan and Neopagan articles, such as articles on the various aspects and sub-traditions of Wicca, be held to academic standards? --Pigman (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The qualifications for sources on popular culture articles are looser.
That's how you'd like it to be, but I don't think the standards are loose enough to permit this. It's clearly original research that could not be used directly on Wikipedia. Self-publishing on a web site adn then using it is simply evading Wikipedia policy on original research. Jefferson Anderson 21:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple: (a) if it is material that has not been published by a reputable source, don't use it; (b) the assessment about if that website is a reputable source or not is quite simple: is that website is a personal website it cannpt be used as a source, unless that person is a recognized authority in the field; and (c) the user himself/herself cannont cite his own work as per WP:AUTO and/or WP:COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Per the above opinion of admin Jossi, I intend to start removing the information supported only by the FAQ. It is hosted on the personal website of the authors of the FAQ and per WP:V and WP:RS, cannot be considered a reliable source as the authors are not creditable academic or otherwise published authorities in the field. It's self-published amateur research. Anyone care to collaborate with me in the removal so I don't remove too much? Should I expect an edit war? That is, should I start by simply editing boldly or should a open a meditation request? Jefferson Anderson 17:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request duly noted. These and the other articles you have stripped sources from today are advanced articles and the addition or removal of sources needs discussion. Quit being hysterical. Admins Jkelly and dab both commented at the RFC - your statement here is false. You are editing without consensus. - WeniWidiWiki 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson, you are ignoring consensus here. Read the above discussion. Two other admins, Dab and JKelly, already weighed in above and said there is no problem with people citing the FAQ. (And again, as outlined above, neither the FAQ, nor the Dun Sgathan website, are my "original research", and the FAQ cites were added by other editors.) Jossi is only one voice in this discussion, and said "if" the site is original research. He made no declaration on any of the websites in question. Additionally, the webcrafters of the sites you are so belligerent about, Kym and myself, are cited by Bonewits as "...good writers to look on the Internet for in the general field of Celtic Reconstructionism." (p. 137, Bonewits's Essential Guide to Druidism). I think that's as close as you're going to find to being "recognized authorities in the field."
In Neopagan articles on WP it is common practice to cite websites that represent that Neopagan tradition. The cites are also backed up by unarguably third-party cites from outsiders. I see from your edit history you have now done minor edits on a number of Neopagan articles, most of which have zero citations. You have not flagged any of those. Yet you are incredibly focused on this article and ones that link to it. You even did a Whois lookup on one of the sites and, against Whois Terms of Service, discussed that information on this talk page. Why the intense and excessive focus on this article and on me? What's up with that? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
WHOIS terms of service? What are you on about? There is no prohibition on using WHOIS information for the purpose it was intended for: identifying the owner(s) of a site. The terms are intended to prevent automated harvesting of data for marketing purposes. I'm not doing that, nor have I posted the WHOIS data directly. I know, I'm in the industry. Grasping at straws, eh? Jefferson Anderson 20:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Connections between Reconstructionists

It might be useful at some point to also provide some text on the connections between CR and other Reconstructionists. The new edition (2006) of Drawing Down the Moon has this on p.299: "Today, Heathens are forging ties with many other traditions: Native American tribes and Hellenic, Celtic, and Kemetic (Ancient Egyptian) Reconstructionists." Just a thought. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources, Controversy and/or lack thereof

Though two admins dab, and Jkelly, have said there was nothing wrong with citing the FAQ (respectively, "...there is nothing wrong with Kathryn's approach." and "It is not at all unusual for us to be sourcing uncontroversial information about an organisation to that organisation's website."), it did at least visually appear that the FAQ was over-cited in this article, and that did seem to cause distress to some. From what he has said, I think Pigman initially cited a number of the specific FAQ pages to make it easier for readers to more easily locate the relevant sections. So in order to lessen the number of individual links to the FAQ, I have reduced the mentions to a single link (to the index page). If other editors preferred it the other way, feel free to put specific page and bookmark links back in, however, I did more than that so a simple revert would not be ideal. I also went through and added more of the obviously third-party sources, sometimes replacing the FAQ cite, but in other cases keeping it as a dual or triple citation.

I would appreciate it if one of our admins or other editors would look it over now, and, if you see fit, please go through and remove the [unreliable source?] flags that Frater Xyzzy zealously placed throughout the piece. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, [unreliable source?] flags were also placed on any third party sources that mentioned Kathryn NicDhàna, apparently merely because they did mention Kathryn. This is puzzling to me since I'm quite certain they are all legitimate sources. I'd appreciate those tags being taken off as well but I'm certainly not going to do it if others are going to edit war over it. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading through all the "poisoning the well" and "strawman" argumentum ad hominem being bandied about concerning sourcing this article, as well as concurring with dab's statement: "WP:RS is relative to the nature of the subject. Random websites are not "RS" for academic subjects, but since CRP is a topic of popular culture and new religious movements, it is perfectly fair to report the self-description of groups, as self-descriptions, reserving due weight considerations of the notability of the group/site/author within the article's subject." I have looked at the sourcing for the tagged material and think that it is reasonable to remove the {{vc}} tags at this point because the C&R faq is not the only subject cited in numerous tagged instances, and because a bit of research shows that, indeed, like many other articles which have been spuriously tagged by drive-by editors recently, most of this information is verifiable. - WeniWidiWiki 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and original research

I found this issue, ironically enough, while reading through the Starwood arbitration, where amusingly Kathryn and Pigman are accusing another user Rosencomet of both conflict of interest and link spamming in a situation which is incredibly similar to this one (i.e. using links to his site as citations). Needless to say, I support Jefferson Anderson here. I think that:

  1. Both Pigman and Kathryn should voluntarily cease editing this article unless and until all inappropriate links to theur site are removed. It's suitable for inclusion under External links, but not suuitable as a reference.
  2. Tags identifying the problems should be left on the article. As I've been told many times, removal of tags without resolution of the issue is vandalism.

Sincerely, 999 (Talk) 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

999, please read the RfC above. Thanks. --Pigmantalk • contribs 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I did. I believe that you are in the wrong, and that more (non-pagan) admin eyes will agree with Jossi. I'm signing on to the mediation. 999 (Talk) 01:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What does paganism have to do with this? You do realize that's a pretty huge field with little solidarity, right? :bloodofox: 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of CR FAQ Citations

When I originally inserted the "CR FAQ" citation, I thought it would be useful to indicate the exact page and bookmark for people to be able to read more on the specific topics. The RfC (above on this talk page), while not definitive, indicated that there was nothing wrong with using the FAQ as a source. However, since some editors seem concerned about this, I've removed all use of the FAQ as a reference source. The rest of the third party references provide thorough support for every instance the FAQ was used so I don't think there should be a problem with the sourcing now. --Pigmantalk • contribs 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the one unsourced statement

is anyone aware of a published interview or article (such as her article in The Druid Renaissance) with Erynn Laurie in which she discusses when she began using the term? if not, should we just remove the statement? Whateley23 05:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking through Erynn Laurie's contribution to The Druid Renaissance (1996), she does not used the term Celtic Reconstructionist in describing herself in her bio blurb or (just skimming here) in the body of her article. There is a mention in her "Druids on the Net" resources section in the back of the book. Writing about the Nemeton-L internet mailing list, she says "...Celtic reconstructionist Pagan and Druid discussions." Note lower case for reconstructionist. I'm not aware of any other writings by her from the period which includes "Celtic Reconstructionism" as a tradition name but admit I'm not absolutely positive I've read everything. Your call if you think it should be removed. --PigmanTalk to me 06:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
well, i don't see why it should particularly go, except that it puts the article into the category "articles with unsourced statements". i'll just let it stand, and maybe someone can find some documentation more solid than the little note (which, by the way, shouldn't be dismissed over a subtlety of style) in the resources section of that book. Whateley23 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this exchange until now, but why don't we just move the sentence to the talk page and re-add it if sources turn up? "Some time in the '90s" is pretty vague.- WeniWidiWiki 00:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I just went ahead and pulled it: "Erynn Rowan Laurie also began using the name "Celtic Reconstructionist" some time in the '90s, though "NeoCeltic" was her initial term of choice." Diff - WeniWidiWiki 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. i'm sure someone will find a way to source it and improve it, then it can go back in. Whateley23 10:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for "Good Article" Status

as a result, i'm doing some last-minute, as it were, cleanup. Whateley23 02:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celtic_reconstructionism/Archive_1&oldid=1136332166"