![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
{{
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)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:
End of grumpy rant for the moment. Pigman ☿/talk 02:08, 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)
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)
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)
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]
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)
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)
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)
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 ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk)
06:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism be
renamed and moved to
Celtic reconstructionism.
result: Move logs:
source title ·
target title
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
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, mello hi! ( 投稿) 16:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
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.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
{{
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)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:
End of grumpy rant for the moment. Pigman ☿/talk 02:08, 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)
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)
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)
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]
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)
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)
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)
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 ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk)
06:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism be
renamed and moved to
Celtic reconstructionism.
result: Move logs:
source title ·
target title
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
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, mello hi! ( 投稿) 16:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
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.