This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2021. The result of the discussion was Rename (title TBD). |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nova Roma's site says "Nova Roma is an international organization dedicated to the study and restoration of ancient Roman culture." Their membership may include recons, and it may be a locus of recon activity, but as an organization it claims to be cultural in nature. They actually sponsor or promote no recon activities on an organization-wide basis that I can see. Should they be removed from the list? Whogue ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
It was not a good move to chage the name of this article from Roman polytheistic reconstructionism to Roman Way to the Gods. Roman polytheistic reconstructionism is a scientific, neutral and general term describing the very various movements that aim to worship the Roman deities, and it connets to the larger family of other polytheistic reconstructionisms. If some use the term "Roman Way to the Gods" it's up to them, and they can be mentioned in the article. But the title of the article should be reverted to the uniform and general term Roman polytheistic reconstructionism. -- Gonda Attila ( talk) 07:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionism, known variously as the Roman Way to the Gods in Italian and Spanish …
Uh, "the Roman Way to the Gods" is plainly English, not Italian or Spanish. Cynwolfe ( talk) 14:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Addition of such links must be justified per WP:RS and WP:ELNO; at the moment they are not. Due to the appearance of at least one extra account reverting to this version, I have protected the page without these links. Black Kite ( talk) 14:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I am in the process of updating this article so please refrain from deleting large amounts of information without reason. Also, bear in mind that this is a religion based on passed down knowledge and tradition, it's rarely documented. LatinWolf (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This was discussed at WP:ANI here. The article violated our policies of no original research and WP:VERIFIABILITY. In a nutshell, sources must discuss the subject of the article, and the sources didn't - they were about early Roman religion. Latin Wolf has called those reverting his attempt to restore the earlier flawed version vandals and has claimed to be updating it, although updating would be adding new material sourced to reliable sources (see WP:RS) that discuss Roman polytheistic reconstructionism. Dougweller ( talk) 12:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements (2011) by George D. Chryssides doesn't have any other examples of Roman polytheistic reconstructionism besides Nova Roma. 5.12.68.204 ( talk) 15:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted today's undiscussed name change and mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism. This sort of change on a controversial article requires discussion first. If it hadn't been edited for a long time, perhaps a change without discussion would be reasonable, but that isn't the case there. Dougweller ( talk) 20:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually historical pre-Christian religion were not simply polytheist ...
... all the gods were conceived as "forms" of one only underlying principle ...
This is also a problem of the title of the article " polytheistic reconstructionism": it should be moved to "Reconstructionism (Paganism)" or another alternative not specifying "polytheist" or anther "theological" position.
Italo-Roman Neopagans ... are not "reconstructionist" in the sense this term generally has in the English-speaking world ... Secondly, "reconstructionism" defines the type of approach to the religion, and it's not the name of the religion itself.
The problem primarily lays in that these terms aren't concretely defined, even within the community itself. Neopagan is an ambiguous term, that's applied quite broadly to any pagans post-dating the rise of Christianity; in this sense, of course, they are neopagans. It also more is more specifically applied to those 'traditions' dating from the 19th century on. Most reconstructionists take umbrage with being included in this term for that reason. And, as most of you know, in every reconstructionist community, there are those traditionalist families who have ALWAYS been practising, however Christianised that practise may have become over the intervening centuries. While fewer in number than those in the Norse tradition, for example, the Roman tradition is no exception. I can personally attest to this. Families who have an unbroken tradition of practise would certainly dispute being "neo" anything. While most of those traditionalists are also reconstructionists, a tiny minority of them are not, and variously identify as both nominally Catholic and pagan.
So, how do we resolve this? I would propose dropping the moniker of "neopaganism" for the less-loaded "paganism". There's little chance of it being mistaken for ancient practise, as the latter is specifically labelled as such in the naming of other Roman religion articles. For the time being, it might be prudent to keep "Italo-Roman"; while not necessarily accurate, we can clarify this in the article itself. We also have the problem of citations from RS; this tradition is less studied than "Asatru" and "Hellenismos". There just simply isn't much in the way of sources as of yet, and so we run the risk of original research. Thoughts? Quinto Simmaco ( talk) 03:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I boldly renamed the article, and removed a lot of the original research cruft that focused around Italian organisations that were neither notable, nor even pertinent to this article as they aren't actually reconstructionist. I'm of the opinion that the last paragraph should also be removed or rewritten, as organisations like MTR (which is more of a radical nationalist movement), and those based on Evola don't fit the scope of this article, but were just sorta wedged in there and the article renamed to accommodate them. Their notability is limited, and they're virtually unheard of outside of Italy. Another user laid out his/her objections to their inclusion in a previous talk page section, and I echo their concerns.
I renamed the article because there was only one user (possibly two) who unilaterally changed the article itself, and (presumably) renamed it to accommodate those non-notable groups who didn't fit a pagan or reconstructionist label. Secondly, there seemed to be a strong consensus against their changes, and a general consensus to return the article back to the original title. It also conforms to the rest of the articles in the topic area, and all of the inter-wiki links already use said title. Lastly, I looked through all the relevant and reliable sources I could find on the subject, and couldn't find any usage of the term Italo-Roman neopaganism.
Finally, I removed some of the non-notable external links, one of which appeared to be a blog, and added Nova Roma; for better or worse, it's the largest such organisation (and thus influences nearly all other RR groups), and it's the one mentioned in nearly every reliable source. I'm surprised it wasn't linked before.
I'd like to hear from anyone else on suggested improvements.
Quinto Simmaco ( talk) 14:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The article's subject is the revival/reimagination of Roman religious practices in modern times: the original 2008 version defines the scope as "Neopagan reconstructions of Ancient Roman religion" and the current version mentions several names for this, of which "Cultus Deorum Romanorum" is one, and talks about "loosely related organizations". Lembit Staan, you're misunderstanding the article's scope when you point to the particular name "Cultus Deorum", which the article was moved to in June 2021, as a reason for removing sourced information about the overall subject. I will give you that the name "Cultus Deorum" is unsupported by sources, but that may be a reason to move the article, not to remove the information. Ffranc ( talk) 11:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Neglect or anything like that is no cause for deletion, the only question is notability, and we're now sure it's not a hoax but a well-established practice in southern Europe. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 20:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Now that the dust is settled, I propose the descriptive title, Revival of Roman paganism, which is moderately searchable. IMO is is broad enough to cover everything, ranging from the scientific/amateur efforts to cover the history of ancient Roman ways of worship, to reconstructionism, to "true" <how would one know it is not just a brain game> neopagan religion. Lembit Staan ( talk) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
If you don't like the new title, please make suggestions below, for a mini-poll. Lembit Staan ( talk) 22:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
too generic- on the contrary, a very specific subject. Time frame is not necessarily included into subject delineation. If necessary, it may be done by disambiguation of the tile, such as ' History of Poland (1945-1989)'. The articles does not have to restrict to modern movement and can cover other mime periods, in separate sections per WP:Summary style. Lembit Staan ( talk) 16:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Amongst the links of the major/relevant reconstructionist groups is a link to a random and obscure group called Imperivm Romanvm that only goes back to October of 2021. Looking further at this group shows that this seems to be part of a larger social media campaign to recruit more members [1]. Needless to say, it has no real merit for being there outside of being vaguely related to the topic and should be removed. Nova Roma and the MTR are both significant organizations are good sources to look into Roman Reconstructionism, but this looks like a random web forum looking to recruit more members and using the Wiki to do that. Lakoniko ( talk) 20:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Hello everyone, having read the discussions on this article I would like to propose a new name drawing inspiration for this name from the article itself. Three quarters of the article relate to attempts at recreating this religion from the 1900s, the people in that time period used terms like "Roman Tradition". Look at Evola's book of the same name, but also modern exponents of this religion like Guido de Giorgio's book, again, of the same name. Another influential character in the pursuit of this religion was Arturo Reghini who also wrote about the Tradizione Romana (Again, Roman Tradition). Finally we can look at the modern associations who are the only evidence of the existence of this religion in the first place: Associazione Tradizionale Pietas, ARQ (Associazione Romana Quirites), Movimento Tradizionale Romano and Ad Maiora Vertite, all have used the term Roman Tradition or Roman Traditionalism in publications or feature it in their names.
If you guys would like me to provide specific evidence for the claims aforementioned I'll be happy to provide, otherwise I would like to propose a poll for a name change to Roman Traditionalism or Roman Tradition. Pincermitosis ( talk) 22:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2021. The result of the discussion was Rename (title TBD). |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nova Roma's site says "Nova Roma is an international organization dedicated to the study and restoration of ancient Roman culture." Their membership may include recons, and it may be a locus of recon activity, but as an organization it claims to be cultural in nature. They actually sponsor or promote no recon activities on an organization-wide basis that I can see. Should they be removed from the list? Whogue ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
It was not a good move to chage the name of this article from Roman polytheistic reconstructionism to Roman Way to the Gods. Roman polytheistic reconstructionism is a scientific, neutral and general term describing the very various movements that aim to worship the Roman deities, and it connets to the larger family of other polytheistic reconstructionisms. If some use the term "Roman Way to the Gods" it's up to them, and they can be mentioned in the article. But the title of the article should be reverted to the uniform and general term Roman polytheistic reconstructionism. -- Gonda Attila ( talk) 07:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionism, known variously as the Roman Way to the Gods in Italian and Spanish …
Uh, "the Roman Way to the Gods" is plainly English, not Italian or Spanish. Cynwolfe ( talk) 14:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Addition of such links must be justified per WP:RS and WP:ELNO; at the moment they are not. Due to the appearance of at least one extra account reverting to this version, I have protected the page without these links. Black Kite ( talk) 14:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I am in the process of updating this article so please refrain from deleting large amounts of information without reason. Also, bear in mind that this is a religion based on passed down knowledge and tradition, it's rarely documented. LatinWolf (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This was discussed at WP:ANI here. The article violated our policies of no original research and WP:VERIFIABILITY. In a nutshell, sources must discuss the subject of the article, and the sources didn't - they were about early Roman religion. Latin Wolf has called those reverting his attempt to restore the earlier flawed version vandals and has claimed to be updating it, although updating would be adding new material sourced to reliable sources (see WP:RS) that discuss Roman polytheistic reconstructionism. Dougweller ( talk) 12:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements (2011) by George D. Chryssides doesn't have any other examples of Roman polytheistic reconstructionism besides Nova Roma. 5.12.68.204 ( talk) 15:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted today's undiscussed name change and mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism. This sort of change on a controversial article requires discussion first. If it hadn't been edited for a long time, perhaps a change without discussion would be reasonable, but that isn't the case there. Dougweller ( talk) 20:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually historical pre-Christian religion were not simply polytheist ...
... all the gods were conceived as "forms" of one only underlying principle ...
This is also a problem of the title of the article " polytheistic reconstructionism": it should be moved to "Reconstructionism (Paganism)" or another alternative not specifying "polytheist" or anther "theological" position.
Italo-Roman Neopagans ... are not "reconstructionist" in the sense this term generally has in the English-speaking world ... Secondly, "reconstructionism" defines the type of approach to the religion, and it's not the name of the religion itself.
The problem primarily lays in that these terms aren't concretely defined, even within the community itself. Neopagan is an ambiguous term, that's applied quite broadly to any pagans post-dating the rise of Christianity; in this sense, of course, they are neopagans. It also more is more specifically applied to those 'traditions' dating from the 19th century on. Most reconstructionists take umbrage with being included in this term for that reason. And, as most of you know, in every reconstructionist community, there are those traditionalist families who have ALWAYS been practising, however Christianised that practise may have become over the intervening centuries. While fewer in number than those in the Norse tradition, for example, the Roman tradition is no exception. I can personally attest to this. Families who have an unbroken tradition of practise would certainly dispute being "neo" anything. While most of those traditionalists are also reconstructionists, a tiny minority of them are not, and variously identify as both nominally Catholic and pagan.
So, how do we resolve this? I would propose dropping the moniker of "neopaganism" for the less-loaded "paganism". There's little chance of it being mistaken for ancient practise, as the latter is specifically labelled as such in the naming of other Roman religion articles. For the time being, it might be prudent to keep "Italo-Roman"; while not necessarily accurate, we can clarify this in the article itself. We also have the problem of citations from RS; this tradition is less studied than "Asatru" and "Hellenismos". There just simply isn't much in the way of sources as of yet, and so we run the risk of original research. Thoughts? Quinto Simmaco ( talk) 03:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I boldly renamed the article, and removed a lot of the original research cruft that focused around Italian organisations that were neither notable, nor even pertinent to this article as they aren't actually reconstructionist. I'm of the opinion that the last paragraph should also be removed or rewritten, as organisations like MTR (which is more of a radical nationalist movement), and those based on Evola don't fit the scope of this article, but were just sorta wedged in there and the article renamed to accommodate them. Their notability is limited, and they're virtually unheard of outside of Italy. Another user laid out his/her objections to their inclusion in a previous talk page section, and I echo their concerns.
I renamed the article because there was only one user (possibly two) who unilaterally changed the article itself, and (presumably) renamed it to accommodate those non-notable groups who didn't fit a pagan or reconstructionist label. Secondly, there seemed to be a strong consensus against their changes, and a general consensus to return the article back to the original title. It also conforms to the rest of the articles in the topic area, and all of the inter-wiki links already use said title. Lastly, I looked through all the relevant and reliable sources I could find on the subject, and couldn't find any usage of the term Italo-Roman neopaganism.
Finally, I removed some of the non-notable external links, one of which appeared to be a blog, and added Nova Roma; for better or worse, it's the largest such organisation (and thus influences nearly all other RR groups), and it's the one mentioned in nearly every reliable source. I'm surprised it wasn't linked before.
I'd like to hear from anyone else on suggested improvements.
Quinto Simmaco ( talk) 14:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The article's subject is the revival/reimagination of Roman religious practices in modern times: the original 2008 version defines the scope as "Neopagan reconstructions of Ancient Roman religion" and the current version mentions several names for this, of which "Cultus Deorum Romanorum" is one, and talks about "loosely related organizations". Lembit Staan, you're misunderstanding the article's scope when you point to the particular name "Cultus Deorum", which the article was moved to in June 2021, as a reason for removing sourced information about the overall subject. I will give you that the name "Cultus Deorum" is unsupported by sources, but that may be a reason to move the article, not to remove the information. Ffranc ( talk) 11:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Neglect or anything like that is no cause for deletion, the only question is notability, and we're now sure it's not a hoax but a well-established practice in southern Europe. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 20:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Now that the dust is settled, I propose the descriptive title, Revival of Roman paganism, which is moderately searchable. IMO is is broad enough to cover everything, ranging from the scientific/amateur efforts to cover the history of ancient Roman ways of worship, to reconstructionism, to "true" <how would one know it is not just a brain game> neopagan religion. Lembit Staan ( talk) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
If you don't like the new title, please make suggestions below, for a mini-poll. Lembit Staan ( talk) 22:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
too generic- on the contrary, a very specific subject. Time frame is not necessarily included into subject delineation. If necessary, it may be done by disambiguation of the tile, such as ' History of Poland (1945-1989)'. The articles does not have to restrict to modern movement and can cover other mime periods, in separate sections per WP:Summary style. Lembit Staan ( talk) 16:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Amongst the links of the major/relevant reconstructionist groups is a link to a random and obscure group called Imperivm Romanvm that only goes back to October of 2021. Looking further at this group shows that this seems to be part of a larger social media campaign to recruit more members [1]. Needless to say, it has no real merit for being there outside of being vaguely related to the topic and should be removed. Nova Roma and the MTR are both significant organizations are good sources to look into Roman Reconstructionism, but this looks like a random web forum looking to recruit more members and using the Wiki to do that. Lakoniko ( talk) 20:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Hello everyone, having read the discussions on this article I would like to propose a new name drawing inspiration for this name from the article itself. Three quarters of the article relate to attempts at recreating this religion from the 1900s, the people in that time period used terms like "Roman Tradition". Look at Evola's book of the same name, but also modern exponents of this religion like Guido de Giorgio's book, again, of the same name. Another influential character in the pursuit of this religion was Arturo Reghini who also wrote about the Tradizione Romana (Again, Roman Tradition). Finally we can look at the modern associations who are the only evidence of the existence of this religion in the first place: Associazione Tradizionale Pietas, ARQ (Associazione Romana Quirites), Movimento Tradizionale Romano and Ad Maiora Vertite, all have used the term Roman Tradition or Roman Traditionalism in publications or feature it in their names.
If you guys would like me to provide specific evidence for the claims aforementioned I'll be happy to provide, otherwise I would like to propose a poll for a name change to Roman Traditionalism or Roman Tradition. Pincermitosis ( talk) 22:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)