Talk:St. Paul in Britain

Note to admin
From User_talk:Paul_Bedson it look like this was a run around the consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable religious movement (Neo-druidism). Also, The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Paul Bedson ❉ talk ❉ 22:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) Creating this page was a result of measured discussion about encyclopedic topics, following the deletion of a tangentially related topic. It seems like the deletionists' bloodlust will never be satisfied as long as there is still some target left for them to persecute, making themselves judge, jury and executioner to look down their noses and scoff topics that are not personally notable to THEM, but are indeed notable to other readers trying to research them or get information, and do meet project notability standards. It must feel good in some sick kind of way to get your snobbish personal opinions, perspectives and points of view endorsed by the action of doing away with valid information. --Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Günther Thomann
I am interested to know what context we can use Günther Thomann's coverage of this book in the article. His short biography of Richard Williams Morgan discusses it as an important text in the development of Neo-Celtic Christianity. Doug has suggested Thomann isn't an expert on this subject, so it has been left as a general reference for the lede. Thomann has written a large number of books and articles on the subjects of Theology, Religion, Christianity, and Church History, likely deserving of an article. The Neo-Celtic Christianity article in question was published in the The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, a Cambridge University Journal, and is one of the very few known works on the subject of the Ancient British Church. His other articles include :


 * A brief survey of the origin and development of independent Anglican churches. By G. H. Thomann. Pp. 108 incl. r 1 ills. London: Giinther Thomann, 1997
 * Thomann, Gunther., "John Ernest Grabe (1660-1711): Lutheran Syncretist and Patristic Scholar". JEH 43, (July 1992): 414-27
 * G.H. Thomann, The Western Rite in Orthodoxy : Union and Reunion Schemes of Western and Eastern Churches with Eastern Orthodoxy – A Brief Historical Outline, 3e ed., Nürnberg, private publication, 1995, pp. 51-74.
 * Uniate Movements With Eastern Orthodoxy and Their Failure [Paperback], Günther Thomann (Author)
 * Zeremoniale fur die Feier der Tagzeiten: nach dem Ritus der Kirche von Sarum by Günther Thomann (2002)
 * Uniate Movements With Eastern Orthodoxy and Their Failure [Paperback], Günther Thomann (Author)
 * Zeremoniale fur die Feier der Tagzeiten: nach dem Ritus der Kirche von Sarum by Günther Thomann (2002)
 * Uniate Movements With Eastern Orthodoxy and Their Failure [Paperback], Günther Thomann (Author)
 * Zeremoniale fur die Feier der Tagzeiten: nach dem Ritus der Kirche von Sarum by Günther Thomann (2002)

The one below particularly references that the Morgan article was not the only article he has written on revivalist religions:



I don't mean to be over-sourcing, just this stuff could come in handy for a page about his work someday. Would greatly appreciate your opinion on the choice of words we put back in and the scope that we can use this source for. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉ talk ❉ 20:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Paul, this is just confusing. You used Thomann to reference " the book was a major work in the development of the neo-druidic religious movement." - NOT anything to do with Christianity. He clearly isn't an expert in neo-Druidism, right? Now you want to use him as an expert on something you refer to as Neo-Celtic Christianity which is actually a redirect to the Ancient British Church - again, he isn't obviously an expert on this either. I can't see him as significant enough to be used to back a general claim or even an attributed one. And originally you also used a source that so far as I could see didn't even back the statement. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel further explanation is needed. Neo-Celtic Christianity was the druidic-christian hybrid form of Christianity professed by the Ancient British Church, this is technically something different to Neo-Druidism. It really needs it's own page, which I will run off and see if I can create one on your suggestion to clarify this issue. Thomann is as expert on the Ancient British Church as you can get, as he has written extensively in the field of Church history, covering lots of minor churhes and produced a scholarly paper specifically about this one and specifically on the origins of Neo-Celtic Christianity focussing on the roles of Richard Williams Morgan and Jules Ferrette. It is a professional study of them both, and the movement. He specifically mentions the important works in the development of this form of Christianity in the subtitle, I can pop back to the British Library and start quoting it at you if you want. I feel I need to make his page now to demonstrate this point. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 14:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've created a brief page about Gunther Thomann that should help explain who he is. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 16:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd mention, in case you can see any immediate objections, that I am going to create the Neo-Celtic Christianity page based primarily on the Thomann source and it's Cambridge book review as sources for that naming convention. I have other sources such as which refer to it as 'Contemporary Celtic Christianity' (not Neo-), but the concept is accurately defined as the continuation of the romantic traditions heavily influenced by this book). Not sure why I feel I have to explain this in advance, but might help clarify things so no-one jumps on the delete button too quickly. Let me know if any problems with that logic.  Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 16:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Cardwell
There is no source stating that Cardwell's book has anything to do with the subject of this article, which is Morgan's book.

The fact that there was a book ten years earlier with a similar title means nothing unless a reliable source says it does. Deciding on your own that the book has something to do with Morgan's is OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That seems like a really technical argument based on the strictest of interpretations possible, mainly intended to exclude information that WP:COMMONSENSE ought to suggest belongs here. I wonder how this can be the actual reason for wanting this interesting information excluded. If you adopted such an ultra-strict interpretation of "Original Research" consistently, much of wikipedia would have to be deleted. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No. It's our policy. And your application of commonsense on your own initiative is exactly what OR means. Revert back until you find a reliable source to back up you contention that this book has anything at all to do with the subject of this article, besides a coincidently similar-sounding title. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well looking into it further, it doesn't seem that hard to establish that it "has anything to do with" the topic. Morgan in the book that is the subject of this article, cites Cardwell 1837 himself on p. 185, with the following direct quote that I also verified is in the text of Cardwell 1837: "we can have no doubt that Christianity had taken root and was flourishing in Britain in the middle of the second century." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is still OR because it is based solely on YOUR personal reading of two primary documents. YOU are the one assigning significance to the book. Which qualified scholarly expert in the relevant field, besides you and Birdie, of course, thinks that this is a significant fact in regards to Morgan's book, and where did they publish that opinion? If no one besides you and Birdie, or any other WP editor, thinks this is important to publish about in a reliable SECONDARY source, then it doesn't belong in the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid your interpretation is once again wrong. Your definition of "primary document" seems to be "anything that I wish to exclude from consideration".  That's not what the whole deal of primary documents is. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)