Talk:Celtic neopaganism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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. (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Reverting User:Davemon's edits[edit]

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)


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"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)

also called Celtism or Celticism, also Neo-Celtism, Senistrognata, Seandagnatha, or in Goidelic languages: Irish Ár nDóigh Bheatha Ildiach is Gaelach, Scottish Ar Dòigh-Beatha Ioma-Dhiadhach Ghàidhealach[edit]

Well, a substantial percentage of any Neopagan movement consists of people sitting in front of their computers cobbling together websites and blogs. They are trying to start a movement, and they end up creating the impression of a movement. These are mostly terms made up by people on the internet. This is not good enough for Wikipedia. Kindly provide quality references from academic literature which is reporting on the phenomenon. In an internet-heavy phenomenon such as this, you cannot just use google results as evidence of existence, let alone notability. The worst thing that can happen to Wikipedia (and which keeps happening, unfortunately, in Neopaganism topics) is that the same people who made up the terms in the first place come to write articles about them. Then they get angry and defensive when they are told about WP:RS. The whole topic is neck-deep in WP:COI. I am just saying, don't shoot the messenger. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Neo-Celtism, Senistrognata and Seandagnatha are the terms listed by Isaac Bonewits in his Essential Guide to Druidism, and he has been cited as an authoritative source in other articles about Paganism. I just moved here the most considerable content from this article. You can find the whole quote about the terms in source 6.-- (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
IP user, you have borked this article. We don't need an unsourced Celtic Neopaganism article that largely duplicates the CR article, while losing the entire point dab had in his initial organization of these topics: to show these groups and traditions are not the same, and that there is a great deal of variation between the groups, as large or small as they may be. I support wide scale reversion and then only sourced improvements. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna 21:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, the terms in use by Gaol Naofa, Ár nDóigh Bheatha Ildiach is Gaelach, agus Ar Dòigh-Beatha Ioma-Dhiadhach Ghàidhealach are particular to the members of that organization. They are not intended for general usage, nor are they synonymous with "Celtic Paganism." And some of the other "organizations" listed here appear to be nothing more than someone's blog. These blogs were removed from the CR article by Doug Weller, as they should have been. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna 21:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No one of the organisations I have cited in the article are "someone's blog", they are the most relevant groups in Europe, two of them (the Spanish Druidic groups) even officially registered... only you Americans are able to create a blog and claim it's a religious organisation. Gaol Naofa sems to be the only existing credible American group. It seems you have a WP:COI, since you are the main author (or one of the main authors) of Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, an original research describing somewhat that clearly doesn't exist.-- (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow. This article is a hot mess now. I agree with dab about the inclusion of all those terms, most of which have little actual currency in the world. In particular, I also think it was a horrible idea to import much of the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism as a basis for this article. This muddles what was relatively clear before the current round of edits and conflates things on a few levels. My first thought is to recommend reverting back to the older version and then working on developing from there. That version was not great but at least it was brief enough to be relatively accurate. Ugh. Let me think about this. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 22:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Reading through the sections that have an illusion of sourcing... the content is not sourced by the fake citations. The anon IP took the sourced text from the CR article, including direct quotes, then altered and added in text that is not in those sources. For instance, I am now attributed as making various statements about "Celtism," a word I don't use, and statements I never made. This is serious misrepresentation and must be reverted. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna 23:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
As I have written two posts above, I moved here only the most credible parts of the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article, only altering terminology, since "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism" is a technical construction of words used just on Wikipedia. You have written that article using your own self-published material.-- (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, IP, but if you looked at the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism edit history, you would see that Kathryn NicDhàna hasn't edited the article for a very long time (technically since Nov. 2008, but not substantially since Dec. 2007, and even then only with talk page discussion.) You should also remember that Google is your friend [7]; try "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism" OR "Celtic Reconstructionism". Of course such a search isn't remotely proper source material for WP but it does give a sense that the terms are used elsewhere, quite often before the WP article existed. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've taken the bold step of reverting the entire article to an earlier version but also expanded a bit in places. I haven't reordered the groups or sections from how they were in the base version. The advantage of this version is that the citations actually match/relate to the text. If there is editing from this point, I think this is a much better base article to work from. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 23:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
"Celtic Wicca" doesn't belong here, and "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism" should be merged entirely here, since it's nonsense as a standalone article.-- (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you elaborate as to why you think Celtic Wicca doesn't belong in this article? I'm also curious as to whether you have looked at the citations/sourcing in the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article? Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Celtic Wicca is a type of Wicca, which is a different religion, not strictly Celtic Neopaganism.
  • What I can see on Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article is an original research copyrighted "Kathryn NicDhana": a misuse of sources, most of which are directly or indirectly related to Kathryn NicDhana (one of them is even an interview to her). That page is clearly a description of "Kathryn NicDhanian Paganism", an internet movement that does not exist in reality.-- (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
While not agreeing with you on all of your points regarding this article, I strongly support this specific observation. As Katheryn NicDhana is a significant figure in CR circles, there is a MASSIVE WP:COI issue with her editing ANY articles relating to paganism and Celts. That issue needs to be addressed before we can ever hope to obtain quality and WP:NPOV in these articles. We might as well have the Pope editing on these topics. ~Autumnal Monk~ talk 12:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This page is about Celtic Neopaganism, which is an umbrella term for a number of different pagan religions or traditions. It seems clear from the now reverted version that Celtic Reconstructionism is just one of those religious subsets that falls under the Celtic Neopaganism label so I don't understand why it was being used as a basis for this article. It's inaccurate and inappropriate to cobble bits of that article over here and the lede paragraph before the reversion was taking several citations out of context. The Bonewits quote was referring specifically to CRP, as far as I can tell, but here it implied that words like Senistrognata (which seems to have only been used by a particular CR group) is synonymous with Celtic Neopaganism over all. The current reversion could maybe use a bit of work but it's at least more right than wrong right now and I think it should stay. Ririgidi (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
(1) What I did was a merger of the most reliable parts of "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism" into the "Celtic Neopaganism" article. The reason is very simple: most of what is described in "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism" does not exist in reality, it's just an American internet phenomenon of the 1980s, and the article is an original research.
(2) Real groups reviving traditional Celtic religion exist mostly in Europe, and they are not covered at all in that article.
(3) From 1 and 2 we infer that "Celtic Reconstructionism" is the same as "Celtic Neopaganism", and Neo-Druidism is a distinct subset of Celtic Neiopaganism/Reconstructionism only ispired by Celtic models but not reconstructiuonist in scope (as I wrote in the paragraph dedicated to Druidry in the former version of the article, copying the lede from the Neo-Druidism article).
By the way, (4) Celtic Shamanism is mostly non-real too, and it's not really a subset of Celtic Neopaganism but a set o practices mostly used by some groups of Neo-Druids.-- (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
(1) If you look at the CRP page it's clearly not an American internet phenomenon, though. It clearly has its origins there but there are websites listed on the page that are European or international and currently active. Regardless of that, cobbling of bits and pieces of the article together into this one ended up with citations from the original article being taken out of context and misrepresenting the sources cited. The introduction of inaccuracies can hardly be seen as improvements.
(2) If they qualify as Celtic and Neopagan and you can give references for them, add them to the article? Otherwise, that's nice but I don't see how it's relevant to subject here.
(3) No we don't. Neo-druidism clearly predates Celtic Reconstructionism, since many druid orgs have roots in the druid revival or are a reaction against the druid revivalists from the mid-twentieth century. So Neo-druidism can't be considered to be a subset of CR in any way since - dating aside - not all of them consider themselves to even be reconstructionist in the first place. If you look at the List of Neopagan movements that's linked at the bottom of the article it's clearly laid out.
(4) I'm not sure what you mean by "mostly non-real" seeing as there are citations in the article itself that show otherwise. Ririgidi (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
IP, (it would be helpful if you registered a named account for consistency of communication and attribution) you seem mistaken on a few points. The CRP article does not contain or cite any pieces solely copyrighted by Kathryn NicDhàna. She is co-author of three cited works and is the subject of an interview. 11 of the 50 citations include her name but the bulk of those cites are for The CR FAQ. The CR FAQ has four named cover authors (all real people, look them up) as well as about eight additional authors/participants in its creation.
As Ririgidi said, if you know of reliable sources for other European groups, please add them. I had more to say but I must run for an appointment. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 18:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Anon, this is apparently just a question of terminology now. You elect to use "Celtic Neopaganism" for what we have called "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism". The article you want to edit is the "CR" one. If you can make a compelling case that "CR" is also known simply as "Celtic Neopaganism", we can add disambiguation. If you can even make a compelling case that "Celtic Neopaganism" is overwhelmingly used for what we have called "CR" (base your case on the principles in WP:UCN) then you can make a move request. Until you do that, just limit yourself to editing the existing article, which happens to be the one called "CR".

Also, your distinction of "real" vs. "non-real" is subjective. I happen to know a little bit about the shape of the "Celtic" pagans in continental Europe. Yes, it would be relevant to add information on them. But no, they aren't any more "real" than their American counterparts. And they also spend a lot of time arguing on the internet, this is an integral aspect of "Neopaganism" anywhere. Some of them reconstructed "Celtic villages", which is certainly cool, but which simply means there is overlap between "reconstructionist archaeology", "historical reenactment" and "reconstructionist paganism". In European paganism, it is often difficutl to tell if people are just into historical reenactment as a hobby, or if they are "serious" about embracing a historical religion. The thing is that you can be extremely serious about a hobby, and at some point, a hobby becomes indistinguishable from a religion (also, Jedi census phenomenon). In fact, many people are much more enthusiastic about their hobbies than their religion even if they are church-goers, so enthusiasm certainly isn't a reliable marker of whether a stated religious adherence is "real". --dab (𒁳) 11:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"Continental" Celtic Neopaganism[edit]

Here is what I could find in Europe,

So, there doesn't seem to be very much after all beyond the usual ad-hoc and "internet" paganism. The only "serious" (long-term, organised) item would be --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celtic neopaganism. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)