Talk:Ancient Celtic religion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Celtic pantheon[edit]

NPOV: Human Sacrifice[edit]

The article sounds like it was written by someone with a neo-pagan agenda. Chief among its faults is the minimization of human sacrifice in pagan Ireland, which is well established by archeology. Here are some example links turned up by a brief web search:

Requested move 14 February 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Ancient Celtic religion. I think given the agreement over the past week since it was proposed, there is now a consensus for this option. Well done to participants for finding a compromise consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Celtic polytheism → Celtic paganism – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY with similar articles such as Slavic paganism, Germanic paganism, and Gothic paganism. "Celtic paganism" gets 500,000 Google search results while "Celtic polytheism" only gets 50,000. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. В²C ☎ 21:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if you start checking on those results you will find that most of those links refer to modern day neo-paganism, which is a completely different subject area. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The word "paganism" is not disparaging, which I presume was the original rationale. Srnec (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could possibly be persuaded, but oppose. If we rename this article "Celtic paganism", it will be even harder to keep non-encyclopedic material out of it. It will be less historically focussed, and attract more contributions inspired by contemporary Wicca and similar traditions. Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposal states no reason for the change. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mediatech492: I don't understand your opposed. The proposal gives clear reasons for the change. You haven't given a reason to oppose. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller What clear reason? The proposal above says absolutely nothing other than stating the proposed name change. It gives no reason for it at all. Give a reason and it might be considered. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mediatech492: I'm even more confused by your statement no reason has been given. The reason is explicit, I'll quote what it sasy: "

Celtic polytheism → Celtic paganism – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY with similar articles such as Slavic paganism, Germanic paganism, and Gothic paganism. "Celtic paganism" gets 500,000 Google search results while "Celtic polytheism" only gets 50,000." Why do you say that's not a reason and what's your policy or guideline reason for opposing? Doug Weller talk 16:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if you'll bother to continue reading below that you will see where I refuted that misleading statement. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. No need to insult me, you're that said, incorrectly, that no reason was given. A clear reason was given and you disagreed. That should have been given as your reason when you opposed. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As their article explains, only Hallstatt C onwards, from c. 800 BC, is "Iron Age", otherwise, yes, I suppose so. In fact the little evidence we have is mostly from Romano-Celtic contexts, or later myths from the British Isles. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes the scope simple to determine - in real life, more or less everything not Christian would be included. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the reason that Johnbod points out (i.e. that much of the evidence is from Romano-Celtic contexts), "Iron Age" would be inappropriate. I'd float Religion among the ancient Celts or something similar as an alternate suggestion. Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Religion among the ancient Celts would be better - "ancient" has the right degree of (im)precision for our purpose. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I like it much - article names try to strike a note of precision (however misleading) which "among" somehow undercuts. Plus the article is all about paganism/polytheism, when plenty of ancient Celts no doubt were Christian by the end of the "ancient Celts". Sorry. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this isn't specific enough and readers would expect to read about Celtic Christianity, an important subject. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Polytheistic religion among the ancient Celts? Or Pre-Christian religion among the ancient Celts? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient Celtic religion would be a little tighter as well as losing the "among"...? And as you see, it's so close that it's already a redirect to this page  :) ——SerialNumber54129 15:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But what about Johnbod's objection above? "plenty of ancient Celts no doubt were Christian by the end of the 'ancient Celts'"? --В²C ☎ 17:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True; I was only addressing the precision aspect. Perhaps Pre-Christian celtic religion then, or someting. ——SerialNumber54129 20:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may be convenient, for this article, to define "ancient" as "pre-Christian"? Ot to use Pre-Christian religion among the ancient Celts? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but how about "of the" instead of "among the" to address Johnbod's other objection? Thus, Pre-Christian religion of the ancient Celts? Or... Pre-Christian Celtic religion? --В²C ☎ 20:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support pre-Christian Celtic religion (brevity being the soul of wit). Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pre-Christian Celtic religion per discussion above. Apologies, but this one seems to be taking several rounds... Re-pinging: @QuartierLatin1968:, @Richard Keatinge:, @Dimadick:, @Rreagan007:, @Mediatech492:, @Doug Weller:, @Johnbod:. --В²C ☎ 22:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't pinged, but I'd oppose. There is a simple, elegant way of referring to the pre-Christian Celtic religion. I'll let you guess. Srnec (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pre-Christian Celtic religion seems good. Or, per Srnec, just keep Celtic polytheism? Failing that, anything above except for "paganism"; I really think we should have an article clearly separate from the modern revival. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the original proposal: Celtic paganism. It is the Celtic form of paganism, not of Modern Paganism. I do not believe confusion is a serious problem. After all, the proposed title redirects here and nobody has even bothered to put a hatnote to Celtic neopaganism. Srnec (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And those are exactly the waters that will be muddied with a name change to Celtic paganism. If that's the title, we'll certainly need such a hatnote, and the content of this article will probably become more unfocused as well—we'll have new sections on Celtic shamanism, the Wheel of the Year, and Maiden, Mother, and Crone... And how can we argue that these aren't Celtic paganism, when they're part of the religious practice of thousands of people today who consider themselves Celtic pagans? If this article is to be historically focused, it should have a title that makes it historic focus clear: something with "ancient" or "pre-Christian" or the like in it would do nicely. (Polytheism has worked too because of its historic connotations, though it might not be the best in theory.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Change to Pre-Christian Celtic religion or retain the original title. I have reservations about both, but they are better than the other suggestions. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More "paganism" articles (or at least redirects), not mentioned at top: Anglo-Saxon paganism, Frankish paganism, Norse paganism. It certainly does seem the standard term, and these don't seem to have much difficulty avoiding revivalism taking over. I admit the Celtic one might be tougher. But the lead defines the topic clearly, and has a link to Celtic neopaganism at the end, with a small section lower down. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But most modern practitioners of Germanic paganism (including Anglo-Saxon, Norse, Frankish, and Gothic) call themselves something else, typically Heathens but also Ásatrúar, Vanatrúar, etc., as the case might be. Likewise with Slavic paganism and Rodnovery. By contrast, modern Celtic pagans often do call themselves Celtic pagans. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not an improvement. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop. Not an improvement. The current situation is terrible. This article, Celtic polytheism and Celtic mythology are forked and scrambled. Fiddling with the titling is much more likely to create more mud than clarity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to have about the correct, small, amount of overlap to me, and the right stuff is in each article. The overlap between Celtic deities and Celtic mythology is far larger. Johnbod (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I was working through my impression that this article should be retitled and rescoped as Celtic gods, as a sub-article of Celtic mythology. I didn't even notice Celtic deities. I'm currently reading this article as a mix of Celtic archaeology, Celtic deities, and Celtic culture. Maybe I haven't got my head around it, but changing to polytheism to paganism doesn't seem to be fixing a deeper problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has the right, fairly small, amount on both deities and (later) mythology as far as I'm concerned. What's good about it is that it stays focused on ancient Celts, as the lead promises, and that's why I can support reflecting this in the title. Not sure what you are looking for. You might compare it with Ancient Greek religion, bearing in mind we have vastly more certain knowledge on that. I just added the specific stuff to the archaeology, which before was too much too short and vague - that reflects Celtic art rather than Celtic archaeology, & I'm happy with the resulting balance myself. This gets nearly 3 times the views of Celtic deities btw. We don't actually have an article on ancient Celtic culture, which is a pity, but it (sh/)wouldn't resemble this at all. We have Hallstatt culture and La Tene culture, and other bits and pieces. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not opposed to "Ancient Celtic religion" if that's the compromise people want to go with, but I still prefer my original proposal. Ancient Greek religion is named that because it's the religion of Ancient Greece. But Ancient Celts does redirect to Celts, so "Ancient Celtic religion" would probably be an okay name for this article, and it's definitely better than the current title. So I guess that means I support move to Ancient Celtic religion. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Ancient Celtic religion per QuartierLatin1968 and Rreagan007 above. bd2412 T 18:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment I wouldn't normally do a third relist, but in this case there was a brand new suggestion made just a day ago, so it's probably worth giving this one more week to see if any sort of consensus can be formed. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current title focuses on the number of gods that the Celts had, which is not a focus of the article itself. I'm fine with either "Celtic paganism" or "ancient Celtic religion." FineStructure137 (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as badly failing WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME/WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. "Celtic paganism" almost exclusively refers to Celtic-themed neo-paganism, which is it's own separate topic. (If you don't believe me, go to Amazon and put in Celtic paganism as your books search term; you'll find that roughly 95% of the books on the topic are neo-pagan twaddle.) While the actual topic of this article doesn't clearly have a common name (and thus we are using a neutral, descriptive title with terms found in pertinent reliable sources, per policy), the primary-redirect target for "Celtic paganism" is obviously and provably Celtic neopaganism, and the phrase may actually be the commonnest name for it, though one we should not use because it fails PRECISE.

    Even more strongly opposed to the obtusely long-winded suggestions above; they fail all three of WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENCY. It's not like we're going to move Greek mythology or Old Norse religion to "Ancient Greek pre-Christian religion of the Iron Age", or "Paganism in Iron Age Norse cultures". People would laugh in your face if you suggested suggested such a thing.

    In short, we have disambiguation, including hatnotes, for a reason, we're already using them, and this article already branches to the neo-paganism topic per WP:SUMMARY. The present title is perfectly adequate under WP:NTITLE and almost certainly the best choice. This RM is a "solution" in search of a problem.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Just so I'm understanding your position, do you consider ancient Celtic religion (the most recent proposal) to fail WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:CONCISE, and/or WP:CONSISTENCY? (Your comments seem primarily directed at pre-Christian religion of the ancient Celts, etc., but I could be misunderstanding you.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:ERA style[edit]

This article was established, a long time ago, using "BC/AD". Completely against WP:ERA it was changed to BCE/CE in 2008, without any discussion, and with the misleading summary of "cleanup". I don't like to see such illegal changes surviving, in particular in popular non-specialist articles like this. We should follow the big museums and keep BC/AD, which we can be confident all our readers will understand. And we should normally support the choice of the main and initial editor, where there is one, rather than drive-bys. Here the article began with a 25k blast, all using BC. Unless anyone objects, I will return it to BC/AD in a few days. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that retention per WP:ERA still applies in this case. Considering that more than decade has passed with no other objection to the AD/BC to CE/BCE change, the consensus of editors clearly seems to favour the current format. However, I welcome other opinions. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing on talk, but there have been attempts to change the style by editing - I'm not suggesting it's worth analysing these. Personally I'm not much of a believer in WP:SILENCE, which suggests that our editors "favour" a vast number of spelling mistakes. We know that most of them just read what's in front of them. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod knows I object because I reverted him. I also raised the issue a couple of days ago at WT:DATE#If an era style was changed in 2012 with no discussion can it be reverted as not established? and it's part of the discussion at WP:ANI#Rapid era style changes to fast to be guideline compliant, all BCE-BC. In fact, @Johnbod: there you say "I don't quite think "no matter how long ago", but I do think for several years, depending I suppose on the busyness of the article.". Are you now saying that 11 years is the same as "several years" and that this isn't a busy article? Doug Weller talk 16:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't quite know that - I thought I was reverting to an established style. This isn't a very busy article I think. I think I asked you first how long it takes to make a illegally-changed style established, which you haven't answered. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall that, but my answer is still that it depends on a combination of activity and how long ago the style was changed, and I think that's probably always going to be a judgement call. I'd like to see something better than that and hope that wiser minds can figure something out. In any case, this article has had a lot of edits over the last 11 years, enough I think that according to your criteria above BCE is established. I also think that era styles grab people's attention more than spelling errors, particularly when the style is BCE/CE. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned one format is just as good as another, since they essentially meant exactly the same thing. If you can provide some rationale to show that the AD/BC format is better for this article then it is certainly worth consideration. As of now the CE/BCE format is established, and hold precedent until shown otherwise. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ERA applies. There is no time limit on it. The original notation should be used, unless consensus is obtained to change. In this case it hasn't been. I've changed it back to BC (but AD is not normally required, so for the most part I've not used it). If anyone would like to change from the original to BCE/CE, please open a discussion here and try for a consensus. Arcturus (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the guideline says nothing about original version. I've reverted you and you are the one that needs consensus. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does. See Retaining existing format​ in WP:ERA and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles. As I mentioned on your Talk page, the concept of a "stable Version" is not valid. Arcturus (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Currently a mess, using BCE and AD in the same sentence:

Following the Roman Empire's conquest of Gaul (58–51 BCE) and southern Britannia (43 AD), Celtic religious practices began to display elements of Romanisation, resulting in a syncretic Gallo-Roman culture with its own religious traditions with its own large set of deities, such as Cernunnos, Artio, Telesphorus, etc.

--Geofpick (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Establish new consensus[edit]

As WP:ERA allows, let's do that. Reasons optional. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support BC/AD (see above and below for reasons). Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support BC/AD. Article started as BC/AD and subsequent changes went against policy. Also, I believe BC/AD is more widely understood. Arcturus (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support BCE/CE ce - WPERA is clear, "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content. I don't understand the use of Wikipedia:Stable version which hasn't been vetted by the community so it can't override a guideline. But obviously anyone can start a new discussion. So fine, let's have that discussion. I notice that the two supports above don't have reasons specific to this article, so they should be ignored. "More widely understood" is an argument that we should never use BCE/CE, one I hear too often. So far as I'm concerned, this is a history/archaeological article on a non-Abrahamic religion, so it's more appropriate to use a non-Christian style. I'm interested in why a Christian style is preferable. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have both discussed the factors at far too much length elsewhere, & frankly Doug your claim that you are "interested" in my reasons rather stretches credulity, as there has been little evidence of this in other discussions. The specific reasons are that the "established style" is highly in doubt as it has been changed without discussion many times, so it is best to make a clean start rather than squabbling over what is "established", for which WP policy gives no clear definition, and your own interpretation seems to vary in different cases. This is a broad article on a popular "homework" subject, and therefore "More widely understood" is a highly relevant argument, though I can believe you've got fed up with hearing it. The article covers countries where Christianity was later the religion, rather over-lapping with and probably influenced by Ancient Celtic religion. These are the reasons why the British Museum and other major museums use BC, a much more appropriate guide for us than what some academics, especially American ones, do. It might be a relevant question to ask whether an editor always prefers one style; I don't, what about you Doug? Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this. No good faith from you I see. I supported AD at Talk:Pontius Pilate for reasons specific to the article. I'd never argue that BCE should be the norm, but your basic argument seems to be that BC should be the norm with some exceptions. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of "good faith" - I've explained my thinking several times, at considerable length in discussions you've participated in. Now you're "interested"! You say "I'd never argue that BCE should be the norm" - really; my memory must be playing tricks. Other than Christian subjects, and where you accept there is an established style (by somewhat personal criteria), what ones do you think should use BC? Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your memory is playing tricks. I know you've explained your thinking a number of times, I just didn't think you'd repeat the arguments about museums etc here. And if there's a proposal sometime to change WP:ERA I might discuss the general issue there, but let's let this discussion stick to this article now. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support BCE/CE. This article is not about Christianity. Q·L·1968 ☿ 00:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly reject the idea that BC/AD should only apply to "Christian subjects", which both BCE supporters have now said. This has no basis in WP:ERA or any other WP policy.Johnbod(talk) 03:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Johnbod, no way did I say that. I did evidently misread you and thought that you (not me) believed AD more appropriate for Christian subjects. It is true however that if there was a discussion about a Christian subject as to what era style should be used I'm likely to agree to AD. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You said "So far as I'm concerned, this is a history/archaeological article on a non-Abrahamic religion, so it's more appropriate to use a non-Christian style. I'm interested in why a Christian style is preferable." I do generally believe BC more appropriate for the relatively few "Christian subjects" that need an era choice, but I strongly reject the idea that BC/AD should be limited to them, and the idea that it is a "Christian style" at all (other than using the same "year 0" as BCE/CE). Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • You "do generally believe BC more appropriate for the relatively few 'Christian subjects' that need an era choice", but you will not apply the same standard to non-Christian religions? Q·L·1968 ☿ 04:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apart from "AH", which we are agreed not to use as the primary/initial era, non-Christian religions don't have their own alternatives - nobody wants to use eg the Jewish era by itself. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to that argument the articles about Hinduism should use the Hindu calendar. I cannot see any advantage in using a notation that may readers will need to look up what it means. These days, few people care what the letters stand for, but everyone understands their use. Arcturus (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps fortunately for WP talk pages, there is no Hindu era sufficiently widely used to be the standard, even (I believe) in Indian languages. Around 2,000 years ago, every new dynasty and sometimes king tended to start a new era, like the Shaka era (AD - 78), which can cause problems for historians, who don't know which "Year 23" is being referred to. Just like the Chinese system (David Vases). Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/suggestion I don't have a preference for either format - they both convey the same information, and they are both widely used both here and in RSes, but whichever one we use it will inevitably be a distraction/annoyance for some of our readers and editors. If we can come up with an objective rationale for choosing one or the other, rather than basing it on personal choice, that might allow us to move forward in a collegiate manner. I wonder whether someone who has access to the sources in the article would be prepared to skim though all of the ones published in the last 25 years (totally arbitrary number), and indicate which format they use? If there's a clear favourite, that might be the way to go? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If such a standard were applied uniformly, I might support it. But there has to be a very high bar for "establishing a new consensus". Doing so here gives editors a one-time chance to impose BC/AD arbitrarily, and for an article where the subject matter itself gives sufficient reason for not making a change. Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • ??? Why does there have to be a very high bar for "establishing a new consensus"? It's more of a problem that the sources used are unlikely to be the best or most appropriate, because they rarely are, and probably no one person has access to all or even most of them. The two easily accessible online both use BC:
  • Green, Miranda (1989), Symbol and Image in Celtic Religious Art, Routledge, google books
  • Stöllner, Thomas, "Between ruling ideology and ancestor worship: the mos maiorum of the Early Celtic Hero Graves", in: Gosden, Christopher, Crawford, Sally, Ulmschneider, Katharina, Celtic Art in Europe: Making Connections, 2014, Oxbow Books, ISBN 1782976582, 9781782976585, google books

Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure whether the above from 2020 did or didn't establish a consensus, but the article today used a messy mix of era styles. (Brought to my attention as it's today's target in "Redactle"!) I have, I hope, edited it to make it consistently BC/AD, on the grounds:
  1. Style used by creator of article
  2. Probably the majority usage in the article as was
  3. Seems to be probably the consensus above
  4. But most importantly, consistency is better than using both sorts. I don't care much if someone now carefully changes all uses to BCE/CE, but let's be consistent. It's a pity that AFAIK we don't have a template like {{Use dmy dates}} to use for era style decisions. PamD 22:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pam. I expect we'd all rather forgotten about this! Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Johnbod. I came here (for the same reason as you) and noticed you'd straightened out the mixed CE and AD references.
Before reading this chat I'd have changed them to BCE because these are not only talking about non-christian topics, but many of the primary sources would not have talked about those dates as BC or AD. But I endorse your points 1-4 above.
I've done a little bit of further work, mostly to replace a few spaces with non-breaking spaces according to the style page MOS:BCE. Tim C Harris (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

newer sources for future use[edit]

the academic sources used on this article are mostly from pre-2010, which isn't bad but i've gone looking for some newer sources that could be useful to improve the article, and it's kind of sparse. this is the best i've got:

the works of Miranda Aldhouse-Green & Ronald Hutton are probably one's best bet. the works listed in "further reading" also seem promising for anyone looking to expand the article (that may be future-me). ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Celtic_religion&oldid=1225759673"