Talk:Celtic reconstructionism

Long-term COI concern
This article was created in 2005 by who changed his user name to  in 2017. He and, who was until she changed her username in 2014 are the top 2 editors of this article. There are two mentions of Kathryn NicDhàna in the body of the article plus 5 works which she authored or co-authored cited in the article. There are 25 citations to those works. In addition there is an "interview" with Kathryn NicDhàna cited 4 times. In User:Kathryn NicDhàna's RfA here, she said At the time I began working on it, I was not mentioned in [this] article, and it had not occurred to me that I ever would be. But as the article expanded I wound up being briefly mentioned, and some of my work in the field is now cited in the sources. The COI has been discussed on the talk page (see archive) but Pigman ensured that no action was taken as a result.

There is now an AN thread which has highlighted significant WP:MEAT and WP:INVOLVED concerns regarding Pigman/Mark Ironie and Kathryn NicDhàna/CorbieVreccan tag teaming. Having looked at the history of this article, I've identified that every citation and every reference to Kathryn NicDhàna has been added by either Pigman/Mark Ironie or Kathryn NicDhàna/CorbieVreccan. Details are as follows (with a diff where the ref/citation was first added):

DeCausa (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Kathryn NicDhàna/CorbieVreccan first adds her name to the article here, on 25.7.2005
 * Kathryn NicDhàna/CorbieVreccan adds 2nd mention of her name on 28.12.2005
 * NicDhàna, Kathryn Price; Erynn Rowan Laurie, C. Lee Vermeers, Kym Lambert ní Dhoireann, et al. (2007) The CR FAQ — An Introduction to Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. River House Publishing. ISBN 978-0-615-15800-6. This was first added by Pigman/Mark Ironie on 26.10.2007. (Earlier website versions were added by Kathryn NicDhàna/CorbieVreccan on 25.6.2005 and 18.10.2006)
 * added by Pigman/Mark Ironie 9.12.2006
 * Theatana, Kathryn [K.P. NicDhàna] (1992) "More on Names", Harvest, Southboro, MA, Vol. 12, No. 3, Imbolc 1992, pp. 11-12. added by Kathryn NicDhàna/CorbieVreccan28.12.2005
 * (Note: as referred to above, Theatana is a name used by NicDhàna) added by Kathryn NicDhàna/CorbieVreccan 9.3.2006
 * added by Pigman/Mark Ironie 27.10.2007


 * By the way, a lot of this looks WP:SELFPUB. Certainly River House seems to have only published the much cited CR FAQ. DeCausa (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. It's a Lulu.com book. See the bottom of the publisher page where it says "Available from major online retailers or direct from: www.lulu.com/content/1038004 ". Skyerise (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And I've now removed it and all citations to it, along with some material sourced entirely to it. Had to put in a few citation requests where it was more complicated. Skyerise (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost all of it is SELFPUB. The interview is a clear fringe group blog; New Page Books/The Career Press are decidedly not academic publishers, and New Page is most likely just FRINGE non-RS; paganachd.com is a group blog seemingly run by CorbieVreccan. The movement as a whole has been described by Pigman as Currently a minor religion, barely capable of sustaining a Wikipedia article and beloved only by a handful of scholarly wannabes without advanced degrees, which surely invalidates any claim of recognized subject-matter expertise. The interview in Harvest is the only item actually published by an independent org, but as it's entirely an interview it's primary and non-independent.Honestly, the rest of the sources on this page don't look much better. JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: there seems to be a similar problem at Celtic neopaganism. Skyerise (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This was all disclosed from the very beginning, when I was editing under that name, and at our RfAs. We did the name changes because we were being stalked, which Skyerise knows. It was for safety reasons. All of this is in the history. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The sometimes-shared-IP has been on record with Arbcom since before our RfAs. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't say I do. But my memory is not so great these days.... Skyerise (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that was it. I got early COVID and have the long-COVID brain fog problem, which seems to have wiped out my memory of most Wikipedia drama anything earlier than the last few years. Sorry if I was supposed to know something... I just don't. Skyerise (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * CorbieVreccan, I've read the Talk page archive. Yes, it ultimately came out in the talk pages but you and Pigman faced years of opposition on the COI from different editors which, principally, Pigman, fought off. (And I've just noticed Lee Vermeers came in to help at one point.) It's interesting you mention your RfA. In 2009, Pigman makes a comment that all was disclosed in your RfA and that you did not add your name to the article. What you said in your RfA was At the time I began working on it, I was not mentioned in [this] article, and it had not occurred to me that I ever would be. But as the article expanded I wound up being briefly mentioned, and some of my work in the field is now cited in the sources.. But you did add your name, you did it a few weeks after Pigman created the article and 4 days after you started editing the article. DeCausa (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

COI resolved
I believe the COI is resolved so I removed the COI tag I added when this all started. No need to draw attention to the matter and if the article should survive the AfD, I have no problem with just deleting and restarting this talk page once the move discussion is archived. Skyerise (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think two sources still remaining need further consideration:
 * The background to the publisher of the first source is explained in the talk page archive here. In consequence, it could be either considered COI or WP:SELFPUB. Either way not sure that source should be included. On the second one, that was added via a COI edit. The article still has 7 citations to it - it's WP:PRIMARY, being an interview with a self-claimed leading proponent of the subject matter of this article. I don't intend to substantively edit this article so I'm happy to leave it to you and as the (now) main editors of this article and others to decide what should happen with them. DeCausa (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The background to the publisher of the first source is explained in the talk page archive here. In consequence, it could be either considered COI or WP:SELFPUB. Either way not sure that source should be included. On the second one, that was added via a COI edit. The article still has 7 citations to it - it's WP:PRIMARY, being an interview with a self-claimed leading proponent of the subject matter of this article. I don't intend to substantively edit this article so I'm happy to leave it to you and as the (now) main editors of this article and others to decide what should happen with them. DeCausa (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The background to the publisher of the first source is explained in the talk page archive here. In consequence, it could be either considered COI or WP:SELFPUB. Either way not sure that source should be included. On the second one, that was added via a COI edit. The article still has 7 citations to it - it's WP:PRIMARY, being an interview with a self-claimed leading proponent of the subject matter of this article. I don't intend to substantively edit this article so I'm happy to leave it to you and as the (now) main editors of this article and others to decide what should happen with them. DeCausa (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * True enough. I'll wait to see if it still needs to be done when the AfD closes. Skyerise (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping and the detailed note, both. I am on my first coffee. It took a long time to make a first pass through the article and I had to go to bed; I intend to make further changes with more source work, including addition of a few more scholarly sources. I'll note those 2 existing sources for particular attention, but at least the first is useful for referencing terminology. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ,, There seems to be a disagreement whether the CR FAQ should go in the Further Reading or not. let's discuss and agree here rather than debate via edit summaries. From my perspective, if Yngvadottir wants to add it, by definition it's no longer a COI issue. However, there remains the WP:SELFPUB issue - although we are usually a bit more lax on that for Further Reading purposes. Does it constitute a sufficient WP:PRIMARY source to warrant it? Over to you subject specialists! DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe in the external links section, but not the further reading. Skyerise (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and sorry for the dummy edit. I wanted to place the summary on the record. On the one hand, it's a useful source (though I would never consider adding material from my own site to Wikipedia, however informative). But the home page is bare and mostly serves (at the moment) as a landing page from which visitors will click on their only publication, the CR FAQ, and then hopefully buy the book.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   21:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's true. Another issue is that small pagan sites can be BLP exposures, since such groups frequently get into they-said/we-said territory, so a direct link to the FAQ rather than the main page is preferable. It's one of the reasons for avoiding WP:SELFPUB websites in general. I wish the book had a proper publisher, as that would resolve that issue, but we can't promote a self-pub book. Skyerise (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Noting that I have re-reinstated the CR FAQ (which I see Skyerise has re-removed); it's all over the internet and mentioned as part of the history by a source I have cited, so we should offer the reader a place to locate it for further information. At least 2 of the other 3 works in the cut back Further reading are now by practitioners, one or both affiliated at some level with the same group (I endeavored to dilute references to this group). I think Further reading as a book is the best way to list it, because, as Skyerise says in their edit summary, the online version is hosted on the group's site, and because it is held in some university libraries. Would a footnote to the book be preferable? That is what I would normally do with a publication mentioned by a cited source, but I considered Further reading gave less prominence and made clear this is a practitioners' publication. One advantage to listing the online version rather than the book is that it is then not a listing under authors. UPDATED: Skyerise, I hadn't even thought of External links, in fact I considered removing that section: it now lists something that so far as I can see from our article, leads to some frozen database? I still think Further reading suggests less scholarly authority than does a footnote (now that I have removed all the books on Celtic mythology and Celtic paganism from the section), and note that the article in that section is hosted at the same site or a similar one. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, Curlie is useful when there are more than one small group. If we put one group's link in EL, then every other group wants to add their own, including probably some we wouldn't want added. Curlie is a good solution in that case, along with a NO MORE LINKS note. Skyerise (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I've no strong feelings, either way, but I do note my own reticence and should probably in that case say: go ahead, and keep the links pruned from time to time.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   21:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I won't remove the FAQ from external links if it is added, though I also would not add it myself. I think keeping the Curlie link and adding NO MORE LINKS will maybe keep additional links from being added. Skyerise (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As I said, I won't remove it if it is in external link. I WILL remove self-published sources from further reading, though. Skyerise (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)