Talk:Celtic neopaganism/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

Are there any sources for the use of "Celtism" in English, as a synonym for "Celtic Neopaganism"? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it either. I just noted that the commons category is so named. Perhaps from the Italian. The editor who created the "Celtism" category is by all appearances Italian. dab (𒁳) 23:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

While "Celtism" isn't even formed correctly, I find that Celticism is in fact applied to Celtic Neopaganism, e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. dab (𒁳) 13:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need two Neopaganism templates on this. And again, a pentacle should not be used to symbolize all of Neopaganism. 69.19.14.23 (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias

Reverting User:Davemon's edits

The recent edits by Davemon (talk · contribs) eliminated some very important categorizations between three branches of Celtic Neopaganism. This degraded the structure of the article and created ambiguity in place of specifics. Here is the before version of his changes; here is the after version. Additionally, he introduced several dates which are inaccurate, one 11 years off by sources available to me. Perhaps I could have salvaged something from his edits but, in general, the edits showed a lack of understanding of the subject and poor editorial judgment. Pigman☿/talk 14:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If the "branches" are "very important" then you can easily cite them to reliable sources. --Davémon (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I note the categories were re-established by Pigman without being cited or further discussion. I have subsequently removed them as per wp:or. --Davémon (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Literature

There appears to be no rhyme nor reason to the selection of books listed in the "literature" section, indeed several quite trivial books appear there and some important works within Druidry are missing. All in all a very biased picture of Celtic neopaganism is given by this article. Davémon (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Image of self-proclaimed "druids"

I removed it and gave reasons and have noticed that someone put it back. Is there any reason the faces of these rather garish New Agers must tar the image of all manifestations of Celtic neopaganism? It looks like they got their cringe-worthy costumes from the Halloween aisle of a supermarket. Not to be too disparaging, but it's important to have neutral images be representative of currents of religion.

I suggest we replace the image with a triskele, or some other widely-accepted symbol among Celtic neopagans. Otherwise, the page serves as a sort of self-defeating presentation of some weird old eccentrics dressing up in costumes, which is a bit of a misrepresentation of the complexity and richness of Celtic paganism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennBecksiPod (talk • contribs) 14:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added it back in, until you find a more appropriate image - you suggest a triskele - how do other editors feel about that ? A triskele is more a general Celtic symbol to my mind.Jembana (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems your suggestion is an appropriate one, GlennBecksiPod, and nobody has objected to it, so I have replaced the image you wanted removed and put it where it is more relevant.Jembana (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the triskele is more or less neutral, representative of all varieties of Celtic neopaganism. Well done.GlennBecksiPod —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

Inclusion, exclusion and sourcing

I realize the definition of "Celtic" in this article is biased towards self-identification, but I question the usefulness of including eclectic and other non-Celtic groups under "Celtic". Actually, I'm not sure how useful this article is at all, as some of the cultural groups don't identify as being part of the Neopagan community, even if by the technical definition (moderm polytheists) the category applies. In some ways the Wiki view of this topic is at odds with the views of the communities themselves. I understand dab's original intent in creating this article, and in trying to bring more organization and uniformity to the modern Pagan articles on WP, but since his original work here has been so thoroughly degraded rather than improved, I question how useful this is except as a very loose portal. If this is to be more than a portal, groups can't just be added based on self-reporting; there should be third-party sourcing, as is required on any WP article. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)