Talk:The Tribe of Witches

I disagree with the critics

".....Nonetheless, Wells thought Yeates' primary argument to be unconvincing, highlighting the fact that depictions of females holding vessels were widespread across the Roman world, and not localised to the region of the Dobunni."[16]

To the extent that this is the case, it strengthens rather than weakens an argument for the ubiquity of veneration of female figures associated with cauldrons or similar vessels in late antiquity and the dark ages. Since Yeates has confined his researches to an area centred on the English West Midlands and has made no pronouncements of any kind concerning the prevalence or otherwise of similar beliefs or cult-practices elsewhere, it is hardly a valid argument to invoke such 'evidence' supposedly to undermine his thesis, which is not that any such beliefs or practices were necessarily peculiar to the area of study in question.31.185.163.246 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

...Dr Simon Rodway, Celticist at the University of Aberystwyth, is quoted as saying [see main article] '...Although remarking that he was unfit to judge Yeates' use of the archaeological material, he did note that the author's use of historical sources was "adequate at best" while his use of onomastics was "woeful"; remarking that Yeates clearly belonging to "the 'sounds a bit like' school of etymology", he states that Yeates has also failed to understand the arguments of many of the onomasticians whom he is citing and that "[a]ny novice historical linguist" could have told the author that his "tribe of witches" was a "phantom".'

A close reading of Yeates's text does not support Rodway's claim that Yeates's onomastics are casual or slapdash. They seem more cautious and tentative than otherwise. If Dr Rodway thinks differently, has he cited examples of Yeates's alleged etymological shortcomings or has he merely offered a dismissive and high-handed opinion to this effect? Arguments in favour of any 'goddess-orientated' culture are currently deeply unfashionable and likely to incur the displeasure of scholarly orthodoxy for no better reason than that they have been made at all. It is incumbent on critics to base their remarks on solid negative evidence, not mere debunkery on the spurious grounds that goddess-oriented historical arguments are invalid because they have all been ipso facto discredited.31.185.163.246 (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Your views may well be valid on this issue, but a Wikipedia talk page is not the place to air them. It is the job of this encyclopedia to document the claims made in reliable, published sources; if you can produce such sources supporting your claims, then we can include them in the article. Otherwise, they remain useless to us here I'm afraid. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)