Talk:Gaelic Traditionalism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WP:NOR

Hello again. I would very much like to encourage the contributors to this article, specifically the ones involved in the movement, to examine the core Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research. The above conversation, and more importantly the article, seems to repeatedly conflate referencing the article about this religious movement with referencing the historicity of that movement's belief system. While that is great for advocacy on a personal website, it is not really what we're looking for at Wikipedia.

Proper referencing for this article is not going to consist of finding scholarly works that demonstrate that the pre-Christian Gaels had certain beliefs about death, etc. What we need here are reliable secondary sources about the movement. Has this movement, specifically as a religious movement, been described in newspaper articles, discussed in journals, had a chapter of a book devoted to it?

If this is not the case, then we may do as much as we can reasonably do from the primary sources (that list of homepages under "External links" in the article). When using this primary source information it is very important to be clear about attribution. ie "Members believe that...[CITE webpage of organization]." We cannot say "Members believe that... and they are right, because this book on Irish myth says..."; that is outside our scope. We can sympathetically present arguments about historicity that are documented in primary sources, but we cannot present new arguments for that historicity in this article (or new arguments against it, for that matter).

While I have no doubt that everyone contributing wants to see a good article as an end result, I'm concerned enough about whether that article is going to be what Wikipedia is looking for that I thought that I would try to make this point about Wikipedia:No original research as explicit as possible. Thanks for considering the above. Jkelly 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, it certainly changes how we look at this. A couple of points-

"Has this movement, specifically as a religious movement, been described in newspaper articles, discussed in journals, had a chapter of a book devoted to it?" - to my direct knowledge, no, however I do know that it has been mentioned elsewhere by third-party sources. I do not have the direct citations on this, however, and I believe it was merely a gloss overview around three or four sentences long. There are books in progress and articles that have been written about the movement, but all of them have been authored by Traditionalists and thus do not meet the NOR standards. I will see what I can do to find some, but this is a major help as it clarifies what kinds of sources Wikipedia needs, and will help us in properly sourcing the document. As I have stated before, most of us have limited time to devote to this due to extremely busy schedules, so such editing and tweaking may take a while, so please bear with us. Breandán 01:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, GT is *not* a religious movement - it is a whole culture which has embedded religiosity. The culture itself is referenced in many many third party texts which will be part of the References and Bibliography section as it gets built.

I also respectfully ask for clarification on the No original research issue. The CR article was written by the founders of the CR movement - which is a modern neo-pagan religious movement - not a culture - and their acolytes. They cite their own original research, written by the same people, under the resources listing. See specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism#References.

By this standard, if the CR article reaches the no original research criteria, which I hereby respectfully and for the record challenge, then am I correct in assuming that if the authors of the Wiki GT article, had first published articles in other media to establish their public relations presence, then posted the GT article here at Wikpedia, and then referenced their own earlier published articles in other media, that then would have reached the no original research criteria, just as it has in the case of the CR article? Clarification please?

Respectfully Submitted, Kathleen O'Brien Blair 04:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Breandán and Kathleen O'Brien Blair, it is worth mentioning that Wikipedia has many articles that don't comply with Wikipedia:No original research (just as there are many which are not following Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Every article is a work in progress, and there is no deadline; please don't feel like I was issuing an instruction to "get it right" immediately! My highlighting of Wikipedia:No original research was an attempt to encourage the article's progress to be towards what Wikipedia is looking for.

I'm leery of getting into an examination of another article in this Talk page, but it seem to me from a glance that Celtic Reconstructionism restricts itself to a discussion of that movement; its various names, the history of the usage of its name, and its relationship with a similar group, whereas our article here seems to be attempting to do a great deal more. The "No original research" issue is largely about publishing material, including a narrative or history, unique to Wikipedia; turning Wikipedia into a primary source instead of a tertiary one. As I said, every article is a work in progress; at the moment there is some attention being paid to this particular article, and I'd like to make sure that the obvious effort being put in doesn't wind up eventually edited out because anyone here was unclear about Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Jkelly 22:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Numbered questions

I agree that we should focus on the GT article only and leave other articles and their authors to their own devices, as I am not a big fan of pointing fingers back and forth as it serves no purpose. In that light, I want to focus on the issues we have here with this article-

1) Since the GT movement has never written about itself in publications (to my knowledge, I am part of one tuath out of many who are a part of this movement, so I am by no means aware of all of the things said and done by other Traditionalists), nor has anyone written anything about it except in passing, and such being gloss overviews at best, all of which is due to a combination of insular mentality among most Traditionalists and a dislike of public expositions of one's culture and faith for the sake of attention, we need to get some basic idea of what our options are here for references. The challenges to the stated beliefs and practices of our people are rather difficult to cite from external published sources, and I believe Kathleen was bringing up the CR article because it references their own published works. Would that (referencing works published by our our own people) be an acceptable form of reference? Likewise, as mentioned, would referencing the websites of the main GT organizations be a valid form of reference?

2) The neutral point of view tag has been a hotbutton issue amongst many of the contributors to this article because it is seen by them as a slap in the face. However, the core of this article was not originally written for this format, but from a Traditionalist's perspective for a general audience only loosely familiar with Gaelic culture or history. As a result, there are some areas that were not fully tweaked and modified to meet NPOV standards, and we are trying to spot them as we get the chance to go over this and correct them to be more in-line with Wikipedia's format. However, those of us still active in this (as opposed to some of the non-Traditionalist scholars who reviewed and critiqued some of the original data that went into this, since they have no stake in it at this point) are looking at it from the inside out and are likely to miss some things. Could you help us get an idea of what specific areas are still problematic?

3) To say that our people can be prideful, stubborn, and hotheaded at times would be an understatement, and because of a non-stop barrage of vitriolic attacks coming from certain factions elsewhere, some Traditionalists have a tendency to be cranky about insults and attacks (as opposed to valid criticisms), real or percieved, and thus some of the reactions that have been seen here were not in the best of minds. Some of the statements made by MacRusgail and Martin MacGrath are valid, some (mostly from the former) are seen as vitriolic and insulting, as has been mentioned in various places throughout these talk pages. There are many other entries in Wikipedia that have seen the same things happen, from Celtic Christianity to Ásatrú, and I personally believe it is all part of the growing process and will settle out in time. However, harsh things were said on all sides, so it would be best if people on all sides would keep their tempers, personal opinions, and emotions in check and try to deal with this rationally.

There are people reading these words right now who have more hatred and vitriolic views in their heart for me and many Traditionalists than I could ever understand, and I do not expect that to ever change. However, they have not been active in the editing or discussion of this article, and are therefore irrelevant except insofar as their attacks elsewhere have contributed to the heated discussions here. To those of my own people who are angry at the perception that the issues brought up here are related to that situation, I ask you, in good faith, to remember that those people have not acted in this article or it's discussion pages, and that there are valid issues of NPOV and formatting to meet Wikipedia standards that will be brought up. Questions about the validity of our way of life or beliefs are irrelevant, and will be made, no matter what, by people who have their own agendas and socio-political or religious views that do not allow for our existence. They have their opinions and are welcome to them, it does not mean we have to recognize such opinions as valid. There are a lot of legitimate issues with this article that need to be addressed, and we should recognize and focus on the legitimate issues and ignore the rhetoric and insults. Can we agree to keep this dispassionate and professional on all sides and focus on the article meeting the standards of Wikipedia and leave the personal disagreements over the subject matter out of it?

4) Regarding the issues of contention- the direct connection that GT sees to the cultural revivals in Ireland and Scotland are not a matter of black-and-white. Our claims and the counterviews are equally based in a perception of the facts and are largely opinion. As such, should it even be an issue as there will be no yes-or-no viewpoint on it, and will be argued till both sides of the issue are blue in our dogmatic faces? Likewise, nationality continues to be brought into the mix as some sort of validation or invalidation, and this begs the question as to whether such should be stricken from the argument as there are plenty of documented sources that show conclusively the existence of a living Gaelic culture in the Americas? Can we agree that the issue of nationality is completely irrelevant and leave it out of these discussions?

I am hoping to see this article grow and blossom into something we as Traditionalists can be proud of that also meets the standards of Wikipedia and academia by being as neutral and well-sourced as we can possibly get it. The material presented in this article is not largely my work, as has been stated elsewhere, but the work of MANY Traditionalists and scholars, with the works of external academics and researchers (those found in the references, for example) playing a part in it as that was the research many of us turned to to reclaim our ancestors' way of life. It is the culmination of a great many people's hard work and research, and as such we are all understandably proud of it, but at the same time we have to ensure that it meets the standards set forth in this medium. I think we can get there with a little polishing and helpful suggestions, so this is something I look at as an opportunity. Breandán 01:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Using primary sources (such as the movement's own websites) is reasonable when sourcing statements such as "Members describe Gaelic Traditionalism as "a whole culture which has embedded religiosity."[CITE to movement website]. I would nevertheless encourage editors to locate even those "gloss overviews" if only as a defense against the position that "anything that has never been written about by a secondary source does not belong in Wikipedia"; a position that has a number of proponents amongst Wikipedians.
2. I suggest that WP:NPOV is largely a red herring here; we have yet to arrive at a point where we need to examine majority vs. minority views and the emphasis the article gives to each of them. That said, if the only information presented in the article is the view of the movement's members, WP:NPOV will likely to continue to be mentioned as a concern.
3. Criticism of the movement belongs in the article, but subject to the same original research and verifiability concerns as any other information. Unsourced criticism from other editors doesn't belong on even this Talk page.
4. I am confused by this. I suspect it is a request to keep speculation about the nationality of those editors here who are also members of the movement out of the Talk page conversation. If that is the case, I agree that such a discussion is irrelevent. Jkelly 18:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

1- Gotcha, we'll see what we can dig up. 2- For the most part, the majority of the Traditionalism movement is on the same page, and generally in the same paragraph, but I see your point about needing external reviews or descriptions. We're working on that. 4- Yes, it was a request to leave nationality out of the discussion. As the Gaelic culture long ago expanded outside of the boundaries of the ancestral homelands, attacking the legitimacy of the GT movement based on the nationality of some (though not all by any means) members is a straw-man argument and irrelevant. Breandán 20:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; this clarifies several points for me. I agree that: the primary goal should be fleshing out citations, creating a bibliography, and references section, and in general tidying things up; the NPOV issue is a red herring; criticism needs to be discussed with citations in a compare and contrast sort of style. Our difficulty comes when we don't have, and are given no, citations or sources that support the criticisms, to include in the criticisms part.

"Using primary sources (such as the movement's own websites) is reasonable when sourcing statements such as "Members describe Gaelic Traditionalism as "a whole culture which has embedded religiosity."[CITE to movement website]. "

Okay, I see what you mean here.

"I would nevertheless encourage editors to locate even those "gloss overviews" if only as a defense against the position that "anything that has never been written about by a secondary source does not belong in Wikipedia"; a position that has a number of proponents amongst Wikipedians."

Well, honestly, I can see it from both sides. The problem in an information age is that so *much* new stuff is coming to the light of public consciousness all the time, that often the time lag behind the advent of that information, and a secondary source that can catch up to it, is too large.

I understand the reluctance to compare articles, particularly when they are as vastly different in range and content as the examples I cited. But it was an example that seemed to point to the no original research requirement being satisfied by outside web pages and articles by the same authors of the Wikipedia article. So that's why I was asking.

If I am apprehending correctly, it seems the legitimate problems with the article are: 1. Original research - which can be cleaned up with Citations, references, bibliography, fleshing out etc. 2. Tidiness and Wiki conforming content, structure, coding etc. 3. The complaint that GT is modern - which will be proven incorrect as the article completes its growth cycle and resolves complaint #1

Is this correct?

I still ask for clarification on one point, because I think I’m not "getting it": Is the time frame window for establishing outside sources closed? In other words, had this project or essays about it, been published first in outside journals, and then posted here, those journal articles could have been added to citations, bibliography, etc. etc. As it is, if those articles now (or in the near future) appear, can they still be cited, or is that beyond the window of verification because it is after the fact of the article having been published herein? Do you see what I mean?

Also, thanks for the clarification of time frames and etc. I wasn't getting the impression that you'd set up a time schedule for cleanup, that wasn't my intent. Rather, I think all those who are working on the article have felt a time constraint from the day it was first published because we all knew it was a work in progress, and consequently feel the time constraints of well rounded very busy lives when we'd like to be able to sit down and devote large blocks of time to this project. Hence we have to pick away at it in some kind of mutually coordinated and organized fashion in bites of time, and it gets frustrating when you're just on a roll, then have to break off to go pick up a sound system, go to work at the various businesses we own and operate, walk the dogs, care for our families, deliver a deadline to a client, etc etc. Most of us are inner-directed, self-starting, do-er sorts of folks, and so we are driven from inside, rather than outside. Makes for very full lives - and the nag of time constraint. I'm pretty sure there are lots of other Wikipedians who feel our pain, and we, theirs.

That outside agitators have called in people to attack the article in its infant stages rather than wait patiently, and politely, until it was a finished piece, is really a minor point in the grand scheme of things, given the motivations behind that. The benefit to us has been that it will simply be a better, more authentic article that meets both Wikipedia standards and our own high standards, rather than anybody else’s agendas. So in that respect, we're grateful for the motivation, if appalled at the bad manners of it.

Thank you for your level voice of reason and patient tutelage in all of this.

As to the nationalities of folks inside and outside of GT, what you are seeing there is really just a perennial sore point in Traditional Gaelic Culture, which originates in the beginnings of the Diaspora from both Scotland and Ireland.

GT in the Diaspora fully recognize, honour, and affirm that what the culture does with itself in the Homelands is its own business and it is not our place to say. Those Traditionalists left in the Homelands will either choose to preserve the culture or not, and it's their business - not ours. If they want to keep it, and affirm it, and act to integrate it as a major part of 21st century modern culture of those countries, more power to them and Gods Bless 'em. If they choose to take it into the realm of folk life ways as a curiosity to be preserved for it's own beauty, but choose to see it as largely anachronistic, Gods Bless 'em and more power to them. If they all choose as modern nations to surrender it entirely to the culture of the shiney thing and the EU - that is their *right* and business to do and *it is not our place to say*, more power to them and Gods Bless 'em. What they do with their own unique and beautiful and valuable strands of the culture is their business, it is not our place to say.

However -

What we Traditionalists in the Diaspora do with our own authentic strand of the Gaelic Cultural Tradition is *our* right, business, and place to say, and none others. How the languages develop their own unique Diasporal dialects, how the entire ancient, authentic cultural matrix (embedded religiosity included) continue to iterate in the new Land, with the new People, in this part of the mythological cycles, is *our* place to say, and no others.

We will of course look to the Gaelic Cultural Traditions of the Gaelic Homelands, as our Witness Trees and cultural Parent, as is our cultural right of heritage, and we continue to assert, and stand by and up for that right. We of course would prefer to be friends, just as adult progeny prefer to be on friendly terms with parents. I invite consideration of the possibility that the De Dannan and the Sons of Mil when they landed on what became Ireland, and the Dal Riata when they landed on what became Scotland, may have done then as we are doing now.

Moreover, GT in the United States at least, offers an ancient and authentic cultural dowery to the American experience that is, in many ways, compatible with, some, if not all, Amerindian cultures that were here first. (See Dr. Michael Newton's "We're Indians Sure Enough"). Certainly our shared post-Norman cultural experiences are similar in many ways. It also offers an ancient, authentic antidote to the fake, post-WWII, pre-packaged, "marketed", Madison-Avenue-meets-the-Dollar-A-Year-Men consumerist, suburban, scattered-family, anti-native-to-place, non-culture that was foisted upon what was just beginning to emerge from the grass-roots as, authentic heritage-based native-to-place, American culture. In so foisting, the ancient and authentic Gaelic Cultural tradition in the U.S., along with other ancient and authentic cultural traditions, came under considerable stresses of attempted subsumation.

On a personal note: It is my hope that the leadership-by-example that GT provides, may be the seed for *all* of the authentic ancient cultures both Amerindian, and those borne in the hearts and heritages of *all* the Diasporas who came to these shores (willing or no), to take back up and re-employ their own Cultural Traditions as Americans. In so doing, I hope all of us will give them the breath of renewed life and find common ground with which to engender a truly American culture that at once unites us all, and at the same time frees us all, to live out our Cultural Traditions as dowery to what may yet become an authentic, more compassionately informed, American experience.

Respectfully Submitted.

Yr. Obed. Scrvnr. Kathleen O'Brien Blair --Kathleen O'Brien Blair 22:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC) --24.20.57.41 21:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing for NPOV

I've made an attempt at rewriting the beginning of the article for NPOV. Because there is massive POV all through the piece, I have really stripped the first bit down. I've put the overview section right at the beginning rather than the one line intro. The insertion of some qualifiers were necessary to indicate that not everything contained within the piece was without challenge. This is one basis for NPOV. When disputes are known about the presented facts, this needs to be included.

While the two opening paragraphs still have some problems, I believe I've nudged them much closer to the NPOV. I hope that participants can look closely at what I've done and understand why I've edited them the way I did.

Also note that the length/size of the article is already at 34K, over the 32K size Wikipedia recommends staying below. I know that is a guidline and not a firm limit but I was also consciously going for whittling away some of the unneeded adjectives and verbage.

Please keep in mind that this is in an effort to salvage the article because it is obvious to me that it is heading down a path to deletion if it can't be brought more in line with Wikipedia standards. --Mac 06:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the editorial help Sean. :) If you were going to split this article, assuming it might be split, where would you split it? Or, would you split it at all? --Kathleen O'Brien Blair 08:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I did some copyedit behind Sean, if anyone wants to double-check my edits. I personally think much of the origin material should probably go to Gaelic Revival and possibly Irish Nationalism. Also, I see there are numerous citations and references scattered throughout this page - if someone can consolidate them and state what they are citing specifically, I will help start formatting them and integrating them into the article. WeniWidiWiki 09:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you are asking that the Origins material be moved to the apprpriate places in Gaelic Revival and Irish Nationalism, and then have links in the GT article to those additions to the aforesaid? So, we contribute to those two articles with the stuff out of the GT Origins section and then link to it? Yes? No? --Kathleen O'Brien Blair 17:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That is what I propose. In italics, it would say Main article: Gaelic Revival or some other reference note which says that there is further material at the link. Then there would just be a brief sentence or paragraph about the concepts embodied in the section, and the majority of the section would be merged into Gaelic Revival and/or Irish Nationalism or somewhere else more appropriate, so as to not make the length of the entry surpass the recommended size. WeniWidiWiki 22:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a perfect idea for the reasons mentioned below. As for sources and references from external viewpoints of GT, we are gathering those as we get the chance, but if anyone else finds something, please let us know so we can add it to the reference pool. Breandán 02:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote with WeniWidiWiki on putting much of the origin material in other articles and/or reference the pertinent info with links to other articles mentioned above. One problem with this article is it is quite wide ranging, too much so in my opinion. The interlocking nature of Wikipedia articles is part of the value of Wikipedia, of being able to follow up on terms or subjects unfamiliar to the reader, instead of trying to cram everything into every article.

I hesitate to bring it up because this talk page shows much contention on the issue, but of the four books currently referenced in the article don't seem specificly connected to Gaelic Traditionalism. My sense is that these books obviously provide basic source material and principles but the modern interpretation and practice of the material by Gaelic Traditionalists differs significantly from the sources. So the books are important and should be included but it would be nice to see some references for the current development of modern Gaelic Traditionalism. Just a suggestion.

I don't mean to be overly critical of the past efforts here but I have to note/observe that this talk page has an exceptional amount of unfocused discussion. The talk page, as I understand it, is for specific discussion of particulars of editing the article in question. There seem to be a large proportion of long essay-like additions here, digressions rather than furthering the discussion. This makes it difficult for a new person to follow the discussion and get up to speed. Reading this talk page is overwhelming and difficult to digest. Archiving some of this on a secondary talk page might be a helpful step. Again, just a suggestion. --Mac 19:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that much of the origin data can be moved to other pages and linked to. As I said earlier, this was originally written as a public release article on what Polytheistic Gaelic Traditionalism is, and thus was written originally to stand alone with few references externally. Having other pages containing the data and being able to point to them, as opposed to having said data in the article here, would significantly cut down on the size of it and keep the focus more on the modern Traditionalism movement, and thus stay on-topic for the article.

I am cobbling together a re-write of the origins section based largely off of the format laid out in similar articles such as the Ásatrú article which, hopefully, will bring us down under the 32k limit and focus the article significantly. Also, we do not mind constructive criticism at all, quite the opposite, we need it since many of us are new to this forum, so no worries there. Thank you for the suggestions and the guidance, they are much appreciated. Breandán 02:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

For a movement that started in the mid-90s, it's indeed strange that so much of the article dwells on much earlier periods. This may be understandable in a POV essay that seeks to be "self-contained", and to emphasise the movement's claims of continuity with the past, but that's exactly why it's completely inappropriate in an encyclopaedia article (rather than a forum). I think a good first approximation of how to "refactor" this background material, not on the actual topic, would be wholesale removal; if it fits appropriately in other articles, that's an entirely separate question.

The remainder needs to be checked for notability (is a given observation significant enough to appear in WP?), verifiability (how would a third party observer confirm this to be true?), and POV (what are the significant opinions about GT, other than their opinion of themselves?). I'm especially concerned about the paucity of sources, which are few, and crucially none of them are actually about the topic (they seem to actually predate the phenomenon entirely). Nothing here actually establishes how many adherents exist; whether anything's ever been written about them in a useable source; or, any objective characterisation of their relationship to/differences from Celtic Reconstructionism. Their own opinion and preferences is not in itself sufficient to justify a separate article if it's not possible to establish separate notability, and a generally recognised distinction. In short, a simpler question might be "what's salvageable?", rather than "what might need to be tweaked?". Alai 19:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Alai. Thanks for your perspective. With this in mind and in the spirit of Wikipedia, I'm going to make some bold edits. The amount of material that I cut out (and I will be cutting significant quantities of text) may seem excessive to the original authors but I think it is neccessary to "salvage" anything at all from the article. I'm not even 100% certain that, as you suggest, the article meets Wikipedia standards of inclusion but I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt and work towards shaping it appropriately. --Mac 18:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Alai and Mac. Deleting the sections already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia (which are linked to in the opening of the article), and covering only the modern movement from NPOV, seems the only way to salvage any of this. The lack of sources about the modern movement is indeed troubling, and does bring into question whether it merits a Wikipedia article at all. As to its relationship to the Celtic Reconstructionism article -- it seems clear that both modern movements share the same or similar origins, methods and source materials. But it is also clear from these talk pages and a look at their websites that these two movements now see themselves as very different, very separate, and at least some members are hostile towards one another. Therefore, incorporating any of this into the Celtic Reconstructionism article would not work. I think a brief version of this "Gaelic Traditionalism" article should be kept, but only if the suggested cuts and bold NPOV edits are made. Martin MacGrath 19:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at this article, the more I am finding it difficult to leave huge chunks of it undisturbed. I'm cutting massive amounts and leaving sentences and bits that I will go back and hopefully re-word for NPOV. --Mac 19:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have finished an intial pass through the article, leaving material I think can be used and/or re-worked. I've cut and combined a number of sections. After some thought, I've moved two paragraphs from the head section down to a "General" Section. I'm not happy with that form but thought they weren't really appropriate for the lead in to the article. --Mac 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have only a one-line mention of Christian members. Is there any verifiable information that can be used to expand upon that? Jkelly 00:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, there are no Christian members of this group. It is, by their definition as I understand it, a polytheistic group. A difficulty with the name of the group is that a google search on "Gaelic Traditionalist" will turn up many references to Gaelic Traditionalist music, dance, poetry, literature, etc., none of which seem connected to the group/movement detailed in this article. Since most of the people involved in traditional Gaelic culture are Christians, I can only assume that the mention of Christians in the intial essay was an attempt to link this small, modern group with the broader, traditional Gaelic culture. --Mac 01:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I just edited it slightly based on things that have been discussed. These primarily are to include the Scottish Gaels. However, there were a few other minor tweaks, dealing with the word "tuath", the other GT approach to community, and the a short general political and moral view statement.

Other Considerations For Inclusion

General

At the very top of the article is states that GT is about Irish ways, when it is actually about Gaelic ways in general. Those ways, language, customs, lore, beliefs, encompass those found both in Ireland, but also in Gaelic areas of Scotland and the Isles. This needs to be addressed I feel.

Politics

While Gaelic Traditionalist organizations have memberships which cover the entire political spectrum, most tend to be conservative in their political and moral values. Because Gaelic Traditionalism is steeped in culture and not race, racially motivated supremists are not tolerated. Gaelic Traditionalists view fascism, sexism, ageism, racism, and any other form of discrimination to be completely contrary to their love for freedom and equality.

Some GT, such as ACTG, say that there are pieces that have been lost that have to be brought back with some educated guess work and thus those specific parts of it are a modern cultural religious artifact. Some, such as Clannada, say that Gaelic culture and its traditions are ancient, perfectly preserved intact, in the bardic traditions and folk life ways as cultural customs that have deeply embedded religious elements, which simply need to be re-employed without further evolution or modernization than has been provided within the Gaelic speaking culture already. This can also be a major difference of opinion in the GT community, but it expresses as debate over liturgical frills rather than in-fighting.

Community

There are also differences in approach to building communities within Gaelic Traditionalism. Some seem, as typified by ACTG to be moved back toward an agrarian lifestyle with a common land holding where the majority live. Others, as typified by the Clannada na Gadelica, hold that the local communities should be a part of the broader communities and societies in which they live (much like the Jewish or Korean or any other traditional ethnic community), each with their own house on their own land, but with a common land to act as a cultural center, for religious, educational and other types of meeting purposes at the least. The commonality is that both hold within custom, have a connection to local land, and look to Brehon Law to guide them in their building of social structures that have the precedent of Gaelic Law.

Tensions Between Gaelic Traditionalists and Nationalists in Ireland and Scotland

A note for Nationalists of both the Irish and Scottish persuasions: We are not claiming to be Irish or Scottish. We are claiming to be Gaelic. And that is a matter of culture not nationality or race. To necessarily digress, "Celtic" is a term that defines a culture as being part of the family of "Celtic" cultures. "Gaelic" is one in the family of "Celtic" cultures. The primary defining thing that defines a culture as Gaelic is its language, but that is followed up with other things such as the arts (music, dance, etc)and other cultural elements. Those statements are academic fact. Also academic is that Ireland and Scotland are nations who contain within their borders other than just Gaelic speaking communities. In Scotland for example, there are the ethnicly Gaelic areas, there is Lalands culture, and more recently Korean and even Muslim ethnic communities. All of those communties are within Scotland and hence Scottish. But only the Gaelic speaking and living areas are Gaelic. Ireland, Scotland, Man and the Isles aren't the only places where Gaelic culture still lives. One of the several areas in which Gaelic culture is alive is Nova Scotia, New Scotland. As a result of the <a href="http://www.clannada.org/highland.php">Clearances</a> and other reasons for immigration, a great number of Gaelic speaking Scots immigrated to what is now Nova Scotia. Thre they created new Gaelic speaking communities. Those communities still exist. One of the Universities in Nova Scotia, St. Xavier, is world reknown for its work at preserving and teaching language and all other aspects of Gaelic culture. The <a href"http://museum.gov.ns.ca/">Nova Scotia Museum</a> keeps track of the health of the Gaelic community of Nova Scotia. One of their publications mentions <a href="http://museum.gov.ns.ca/pubs/Gaelic-Report.pdf">tensions that exist between those Gaels in Ireland and Scotland, and the Gaelic traditionalists here in the New World</a>. "Gaelic traditionalists" are in fact mentioned by name, even if they are concerning the article with those Gaelic traditionalists in Nova Scotia. From Nova Scotia is is a jump across the border into the States where Irish and Scottish, Gaelic speaking peoples also came, and established communities. These of course have diminished over the ensuing two and a half centuries. But there are still ethnically Gaelic people. We are not talking about Irish or Scottish in the sense of nationality, we are talking Gaelic in the sense of culture. This just the same as in Nova Scotia. We are part of that, even we who are polytheists who look to the lore and perform the customs. It seems to me that as a matter of pure fact it is impossible to deny us. We exist. We exist, in Nova Scotia and in other places whether or not anyone in Ireland or Scotland wants to believe it or not. Though, I can't understand why Irish and Scottish nationalists would want to deny us. It could be in their best interests to embrace us. By embracing us they not only make sure that we stay true to the culture. Furthermore, and to the benefit of the nationalists, by embracing us they could also nurture a source for all sorts of resources which we would willingly give to preserve our shared culture in the Motherlands. Now, I know that Gaels have always been a rather fractuous people. Our inability to see beyond personal disagreement has been the primary tool used by the English and others to wreck havoc and harm on our People. I think that nationalists have been seeing that in their own back yards, but they are still being divisive and fractuous when it comes to Gaels in other parts of the world. When Israel was being formed the Jews in Palestine knew there were cultural and religious Jews in other parts of the world. They recognized those other Jews, drew them close and drew upon the resources of those other Jews to gain what they needed to build Isreal. That is one example. The wheel has been created already, why does the wheel need to be created again just because of erroneous elitest ideals about Gaels in the Motherlands being the only real Gaels? That we exist is a historic academic fact. By denying us and worse, you are only shooting yourselves in the foot. We do not exist as Irishmen (though there are some of us in Ireland; we do not exist as Scotsmen (though there are some of us in Scotland; we exist, we exist as cultural Gaels. Some of us were brought up in Gaelic culture, some of us were assimilated into Gaelic culture, but we exist.

70.153.139.109 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

Notes and References

Now that the article has been edited for NPOV, I am wondering if the quotes and books listed in the reference section should be included, as none of them refer to the modern movement. I'm thinking note #2 should definitely go, as it is misleading. Perhaps the Booklist can stay, though, as those interested in Gaelic culture may want to compare those texts to the article. Martin MacGrath 23:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

After looking carefully at the book list, I'm inclined to delete it entirely. It seems to me that unless these books directly mention the modern, polytheistic, Gaelic Traditionalism movement that this article now describes, they are not applicable to the article. In essence, they appear to be source material for the original research that has now been deleted from the article. None of these books include any mention of this modern, polytheistic, Gaelic Traditionalist movement. --Mac 00:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If the listed sources weren't pertinent, how about the following? These books aren't describing what ancient peoples did, but rather what people have been doing within recent memory. While the people described in these books are labeled as Gaelic Traditionalists, that they have held to Gaelic tradition makes them so. (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines "traditionalism as 1 : adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition. Gaelic is a Celtic culture whose primary defining aspect is the Gaelic language. In the case of Gaelic Traditionalism the strict adherence is to the Gaelic cultural traditions as the Gaelic speaking cultures themselves define those.) As such these books, in part, describe what we believe and what we do, just about by rote:

A Handbook of the Scottish Gaelic World, Michael Newton, Four Courts Press. ISBN 1-85182-541-X.

Festival of Lughnasa by Máire MacNeill, Oxford University Press 1962)

The Year in Ireland, Kevin Danaher

The Silver Bough vol1-5, F. Marian McNeill

Silva Gadelica (I-XXXI), Standish Hayes O'Grady

Crossing the Circle at the Holy Wells of Ireland, Walter L. and Mary G. Brenneman

The Carmina Gadelica, Alexander Carmichael

Scottish Customs From the Cradle to the Grave, Margaret Bennett

The Folklore of the Scottish Highlands, Ann Ross

Disagreements on Editing

I find it very interesting that people who were upset about the lack of sources referring to the GT movement now seem to be making sweeping edits based on assumptions that have no basis in fact, and are not sourced at all. Is this not, in itself, biased editing identical to what we have been attempting to correct? Breandán 03:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Breandán, let me try to put this as plainly and simply as possible: You don't seem to understand the basic fundamentals of Wikipedia guidelines and conventions. Please understand: I'm not trying to insult you but it's what I've observed here. Seasoned Wikipedia editors, admins and sysops have all encouraged and directed you to read articles explaining the philosophy and methodology of Wikipedia. I will do so as well. Please read the following articles carefully: Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and No original research.

I'm sorry if edits were made based on wrong assumptions. This is one reason why citing sources is so important. Without some verifiable and checkable sources, it was/is difficult to evaluate the accuracy of the article. I cut quite a bit from the article but I felt that, in the absence of source material, it needed to be cut back to a very basic level and length. The article's strongly integrated POV made mere line editing nearly impossible. Note that after this substantial editing, the accuracy and NPOV challenges were removed from the top of the article. I count this as a positive sign.

Finally, adding sources and references is meaningless if they do not directly relate to the article. Sources are not merely for show. They are there to provide supporting documentation for the content of the article. The burden of proof and sources is the responsibility of those who post their original work on Wikipedia. The burden of proof is not on the editors and staff of Wikipedia. --Mac 06:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering the other recent editor and yourself just emerged out of nowhere and have only edited namespaces concerning GT with the proficiency of experienced wikipedia editors, (as evidenced Sean MacBride's Contributions and Martin MacGrath's Contributions) I have to question your identification with being an "editor or staff of wikipedia". Something you want to get off your chest? The entry was being edited in a civil and proper manner for a controversial subject, and the direction of the entry was being determined in discussions on this page which you and your co-editor just flat out ignored. Your behaviour has taken on a suspiciously antagonistic and heavy-handed fashion and I am formally requesting that you explain each and every edit henceforth on the talkpage, and wait for feedback. WeniWidiWiki 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind clarifying who this comment is addressed to? Jkelly 22:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I think you are doing an excellent job Jkelly, and are an example of how other editors should be conducting themselves. I don't like the lack of good faith and antagonism that is going on by User:Sean_MacBride and User:Martin_MacGrath - it seems to be really out of context, and the lack of any other edits sent my hackles up. I have no problem with paring down the entry or demanding sources - but there is no need to be malicious about it.
Edit histories:

• Sean MacBride's Contributions
• Martin MacGrath's Contributions

WeniWidiWiki 22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to imply I was a Wikipedia editor or staff; I am not. I was refering to Jkelly and Alai as well as WeniWidiWiki. I know that my cuts were very, very drastic, perhaps overly so. As I said above, what I saw as pervasive POV made small edits difficult, if not impossible. My solution, and I admit I took it upon myself to do it, was to scale the article back to basic information and form. I thought (and still think) it was better to do so and then build the article back up from a bare but NPOV base.

I invite you to re-visit the article before I made the cuts. I know I aggressively deleted a massive amount of content. But discussion seemed to revolve around "tweaking" the article or what info to add to the article. I contend that minor or cosmetic changes would not, could not bring the article remotely into NPOV territory. Did I act rashly, without proper consideration for the discussion/talk of others on the article? Yes. But I think I acted in the best interests of the article itself. My revisions weren't intended to be a final word; they were intended to provide a smaller, more manageable core to build upon.

When I addressed Breandán above, I may have been less than perfectly civil and I sincerely apologize. Perhaps my frustration showed through my words although I certainly didn't intend it. Again, my apologies for this. I know such behavior is never acceptable on Wikipedia. I apologize a third time. --Mac 00:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the edits Mac and I made were quite bold, but I do not see them as "malicious", and I did not intend mine to be such. As Alai said:"In short, a simpler question might be 'what's salvageable?', rather than 'what might need to be tweaked?'" Alai also brought into question whether there was justification for a Wikipedia article on this topic at all. It seemed to me that the article might wind up deleted if it was not drastically edited for NPOV (and we did succeed in getting the POV flag removed - I believe that is a bit of a success). Though I am a bit on the fence about how notable this topic is, I thought it was probably better to have a small article of some sort on it rather that have it deleted completely.

From my perspective, most of the discussion on the Talk page over the past weeks was not progressing the edits. Perhaps, once we agreed on the Talk page to dive in, Mac and I did go about the editing too quickly. It does seem clear now that it would have been better to edit one section and then wait a few days for feedback before tackling another. But the edits Mac did on the first section had been well-received, and once he started working on the rest of the article, I also got caught up in the process. I'd see he'd edited down another section, and I would tend to follow along checking the remaining sentences for POV and editing if they still needed help. In this way we did encourage each other. However, I genuinely believe we improved the article. While I am flattered to be told our work shows "the proficiency of experienced wikipedia editors," perhaps where our inexperience shows is that we did so many edits in one day, and that I felt a Sysop and Admin both suggesting it wasn't salvageable without drastic cuts was a reason to quit waiting for something to happen and just get to the cutting.

WWW, if you believe the article is worse now, may I ask which parts you think should be put back? --Martin MacGrath 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Mac and Martin. Over all, your edits were fine. All I'm saying is that there are numerous people involved in editing this entry, and many of them are very inexperienced editors. There have been some very protracted and nasty discussions at other related entries about this subject, and I think that has contributed to the hesitancy of whole scale edits, because some of the issues are not resolved. I understand wanting to see progress, but please give some fore-warning to those who penned the entry before you get too bold. Iain, Breandán and Kathleen, don't be intimidated and feel free to add or subtract from the article. But please cite primary sources as you go, even if they are GT websites. Also, I hvae come to realize many GT editors here are extremely verbose - let's try to keep the discussions on topic and if you need to write a long drawn out reply, please write it at your user page and then provide a link here. The dialectics are getting out of hand, and any editor who comes upon the discussion will most likely ignore the big blocks of unformatted text. WeniWidiWiki 03:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, for the most part I am pretty happy with it. As I stated above, I just edited it slightly based on things that have been discussed. These primarily are to include the Scottish Gaels. However, there were a few other minor tweaks, dealing with the word "tuath", the other GT approach to community, and the short general political and moral view statement. What was confusing me was the sheer volume of things being written here in the talk page. I completely understand the position of the editors *now* (big grin). It wasn't completely clear at the start that the GT article should just cover GT, without the added materials regarding nationalism, and other things. The need for balancing what we say about ourselves with what others think about our assertions also makes sense. Wiki is simply trying to establish what the facts are. You are absolutely correct that certain very nasty statements at other places set a certain set of filters in place through which much was read. Personally, I'd like to thank everyone involved for staying calm and rational (by and large)(big grin). Now about those sources, I'm going to go ahead and put those into the "Further Reading" section, and try to get them sourced in the Wiki format tomorrow. Iain Mac an tSaoir 04:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)