Talk:Gaelic Traditionalism/Archive 1

Cleanup

The Gaelic Traditionalism has been tagged for cleanup, but no specifics were left, so I would like to invite those more familiar with Wikipedia coding to go through and see if they can find what tags and codes need to be overhauled. Bear in mind, this article was written by about half a dozen people initially, with several more contributing to it and editing it, so with such layering comes inevitable hiccups. Breandán 18:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at entries somewhat similar to GT on wikipedia. There needs to be a reference section and bibliography. I can tell that much of the 'history' section needs to be redacted and sourced or at least reorganized because much of it seems irrelevant at the moment unless you turned it into a section called the Historical roots of Gaelic Traditionalism or Gaelic nationalism or something. If a sentence or paragraph is being quoted or paraphrased, cite the source imediately afterward. Also, there are numerous open statements which can be construed as conjecture. Try to go through and explain what some of the neologisms are and italicize unusual terms the average user will not understand. Carefully look over Manual of Style and try to spend some time making the article adhere more closely to this standard. The impetus for this, is that readers need to be able to discern if the article is in fact based in fact, rather than something some anonymous cracktard posting from the library computer just made up. WeniWidiWiki 20:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I passed the word around to everyone who contributed to it initially, so it will be getting fixed as time goes on. Not a lot of us have a great deal of free-time to focus on article maintenence, so it may take a bit, but Iain is the one with all of the references and sources, so I will see if he can get those added in. Thanks for clarifying what needs to be done. Breandán 07:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Note on Death Ideals

Other polytheistic Gaelic Traditionalists draw upon the indigenous lore in a more literal and expanded way. These see the Morrigan chosing who will die in battle, and how. They also see her as intricately involved in the death of children. The times of death for others is determined by the Cailleach. After death, the soul is seen to roam until it is found by the Fianna after a "Great Hunt". The "Great Hunt" with Fionn at the head, and his two dogs, Bran and Scheolaing [shkeolan] leading the way. When the hounds catch up with the wandering spirit the dogs adjudge the worthiness of the soul. If the hounds bark and bay then the soul is shown to have lived an honorable life. If the dogs are silent then the the soul has been adjudged to have lived a dishonorable life. The dishonorable soul is left to its own devices, to roam the world as slough sidhe. These are amongst the spirits about whom there is concern on certain nights and other times when evil is thought to pose a peril to the living. If the soul was honorable, then it is conducted by Fionn himself to "Tech Duinn", the "House of Donn". The House of Donn is the place where Honorable Gaels go after death.

The journey to Teach Duinn is one that has the soul pass through the gate in the land itself to the watery world on the other side. While there are other islands in that watery realm, this the ultimate destination for the honorable is seen to have three basic areas. The "Voyage of Bran" tells of a dunn (dún in Irish) for the warriors who've died in battle, a dunn for others, and a separate dunn for Christians. This is a modern variation of the tale, and is based on the social structure of Gaelic culture (1st function, 2nd function, 3rd function).

Reincarnation, when it happens, is seen to occur within family lines. There is textual evidence that supports rebirth into this world after fixed times, such as a little over 350 years. On the way back to this realm, memories of the prior life are seen to be washed away as the waters are again crossed. Those memories, flow up as the bubbles and nuts of wisdom in the wells, such as the Well of Segais Conla's Well. These waters are imbibed from the Cup of Nectan (Nuadh). The heartier the drinking the more wise the person is when they are reborn. In this physical world the bubbles manifest as the traditional wisdoms and customs of the ancestors.

Sources and Notes The primary source for Gaelic traditions are the Gaelic cultures only. To say it another way, Gaelic culture is the only real primary source for Gaelic cultural materials. Gaelic traditions are Gaelic cultural materials. The sources selected are of the highest standard; each is academically peer reviewed and academically acclaimed, each is written by an academician held in the highest regard by other academicians, each author is not only respected amongst their peers but is also writting in their own fields of expertise. Lastly, each author holds their professorship at an esteemed and respected institution of higher learning. These materials are presented for two reasons. Those reasons are to validate statements using reputable sources, and to present Gaelic traditions to those who do not have access to Gaelic speaking communities. Never are the materials used as a source for deriving from, contriving anew, or altering the Gaelic traditions. To be concise, the materials are presented to show what the primary source that is the culture says about itself. The sources and notes are divided up into the sections. These divisions are designed to show the continuity of the topic through time, as well as to give academic analysis so as to deepen understanding of the topic. The divisions are:

Existing Customs and Lore This is to show current existing customs, beliefs, and lore in Gaelic speaking communities there in the Motherlands. Relationships are built by doing.

Ancient Textual Reference To show the earliest possible recorded instances of the same ideals, persons, customs, etc. Faith is sustained through stability, continuity, and persistence.

Academic Analysis and Exploration To broaden understandings of the ancient expressions based on academic study and analysis. Power comes through understanding.

Sources and Notes - Donn:

Existing Customs and Lore:

• O Hogain, Daithi (1991). Myth, Legend and Romance - An Encyclopaedia of the Irish Folk Tradition. pgs 165-168: Prentice Hall Press. ISBN 0132759594. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Dr. OhOgain records how across Gaelic lands Donn is known by variations of the same name. Examples are Donn na Duimhche in Co. Clare, Donn Cuailgne in Co. Louth, Donn Dumhach and Donn Dumhaighe Co. Kerry. He further quotes from The Death Tale of Conaire where certain characters state, "Donn, king of the dead at the red tower of the dead." Firmly positing Donn as the Lord of the Dead. He also cites folk belief that an entrance in the hill Knockfierna in Co. Limerick is an entrance to the palace of Donn, known as Teach Duinn. Teach Duinn (pronounced 'chek dune'), as the place where Gaels go is a rather common belief, and is widely known in Gaelic speaking lands, as typified by it even being referenced in the popular movie The Secret of Roan Inish. There are customs, such as offerings, that are enacted at each of the sites held to be associated with Teach Duinn.

Ancient Textual Reference:

• MacAlister, R.A.S (1991). Lebor Gabála Érenn: 'The Coming of the Milesians'. Irish Texts Society. ISBN 1-870166-418. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

At the coming of the Milesians to Ireland, Donn, referred to as Eber Donn, is blown off the mast of the ship. His body sank into the sea at Inbhear Scéine, Kenmare Bay in Co. Kerry. The text then states that the place he drown, known to this day as "Bull Rock", is Teach Duinn.

The tale "Táin Bó Cúalnge" from the Book of Leinster, as well as other versions of the "Cattle Raid of Cooley", has Donn showing up as the Brown Bull. In this tale we see the nearly continuous dialectic between Donn (dark color) and Find (light color). In this tale the white bull is named Findbennach Aí.

Academic Analysis and Exploration (for a broadening of early understandings):

• Lincoln, Bruce (1991). Death, War & Sacrifice - Studies in Ideology and Practice. chapter 3: University of Chicago. ISBN 0-226-48199-9. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Dr. Lincoln writes how the sacrifice and renewal themes surrounding Donn in various tales, including the "Táin Bó Cúalnge", help posit him as the Lord of the Dead. This was of course made even more concrete in the quote from the "Death Tale of Conaire". Furthermore, his lordship over Teach Duinn, as well as his dialectic relationship with Finn in his many variations. All of this establishes Donn as the Dispater like personage in Gaelic lore. Thus, Donn and Finn or Find become rather like the Yama and Manu personages of Hindic lore. The later being on the opposite extreme of Indo-European expansion, but showing the motifs to be found in the lore.

Sources & Notes - Finn:

Existing Customs and Lore:

• O Hogain, Daithi (1991). Myth, Legend and Romance - An Encyclopaedia of the Irish Folk Tradition. pgs 205-223: Prentice Hall Press. ISBN 0132759594. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

With too many variants of the name to list (Finn, Fion, Fionn, Fin, etc.), the most ancient form of his name amongst Gaels is Find. His name is synonomous with illumination, discovery, and the quinetessential seer. Many derivatives have later Finns as an ancestor of the original Find, a Gaelic method for establishing avatars of the first. Amongst these are Fionn mac Cumhail, whose stories still abound in Gaelic tradition. The places where Finn is said to have visited, or to visit to this day, are still held in special regard.

Ancient Textual Reference:

• MacAlister, R.A.S trans (1941). Lebor Gabála Érenn: Part 4. 'The Coming of the Milesians': Irish Texts Society. ISBN 1-870166-418. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Opposite of Eber Donn is the person Amhairghin Glungheal.

• trans. O'Rahilly, Cecile (1967). Táin Bó Cúalnge from the Book of Leinster. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. ISBN 1-85500-0733. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Strachan, J. (1944). Stories from the Táin (3rd edition). Royal Irish Academy. ISBN 1-874045-267. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Kinsella, T. (ed.) (1983). Tain Translated from the Irish Epic Táin Bó Cuailnge. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-2810901. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

The tale "Táin Bó Cúalnge" has Donn showing up as the Brown Bull. In this tale we see the nearly continuous dialectic between Donn (dark color) and Find (light color). In this tale the white bull is named Findbennach.

Sources & Notes - The Hounds of Finn:

Existing Customs and Lore:

• An Encyclopedia of Fairies - Hobgoblins, Brownies, Bogies, and Other Supernatural Creatures, Kathrine Briggs, Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-394-40918-3, pps 37, 38.

In this book Briggs references the folk beliefs about the two wondrous hounds of Finn, "Bran" and "Sceolan". She cites existing lore to demonstrate some of the minute diverences between the Irish and Scottish Gaelic ideals about them. Further existing tales are mostly Fenian in nature. Bran is of course black, and Sceolan is white or gray in color. Existing folk beliefs around Glennoe in Scottland, and Co. Louth show the survival of quite ancient beliefs. These include that the black dog alone is a harbinger of death, while the white dog alone is said to bring health back to the sick or dying. Another source for tales directly translated out of the Gaelic is Waifs and Strays of Celtic Tradition Series III - Folk and Hero Tales J. Macdougall, David Nutt Publisher, 1891. They are also referenced in Gods and Fighting Men, by Lady Gregory, 1094 - the list goes on and on.

Ancient Textual Reference:

• Duanaire Finn: The Book of the Lay of Fionn, trans. by Eoin Mac Neill, Irish Texts Society, 1908 3 volumes (Series 7, 28, and 43)
• Fianaigecht, trans. by Kuno Meyer, School of Celtic Studies, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies 2nd reprint 1993
• Tales of the Elders of Ireland (Agallamh na Seanórach), trans. by Ann Dooley andd Harry Roe Oxford University Press, 1999
• Lebor na hUidre: Book of the Dun Cow, R.I Best / Osborn Bergin (ed.), Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies

Academic Analysis and Exploration (for a broadening of early understandings):

• Lincoln, Bruce (1991). Death, War & Sacrifice - : Studies in Ideology and Practice. chapter 7: University of Chicago. ISBN 0-226-48199-9. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Doctor Lincoln demonstrates the pan Indo-European existence of the hounds. These hounds sit at the border between life and death, and are the arbiters of justice in judging the soulds of the dead. The Gaelic is amongst the few where the original motif of two hounds of different colors still exist in lore.

Sources & Notes - The Hounds as Arbitors of Judgement:

Existing Customs and Lore: The hounds are known by a great many names across Celtic and ex-Celtic lands. Amongst some of the names given to them are the Devil's Dandy Dogs, Gabriel Hounds, Gabriel Ratchets, Wild Hunt, Wish Hounds, Dando and his Dogs. These and other names and beliefs are referenced by Kathrine Briggs in An Encyclopedia of Fairies - Hobgoblins, Brownies, Bogies, and Other Supernatural Creatures. While most recorded lore is Christianized to some degree, as Briggs writes, "one can see in all these varying hunts how close the connection between devils, fairies and the dead can be." As pertains to the Gaelic, she references that the hunt is conducted by members of the "Slaugh". Briggs describes the slaugh based on folk belief of Gaelic Christians, who see the slaugh as those who haven't received salvation. Neither she, nor Evan's Wentz before her (Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries), covered the more heathen view of the dogs simply judging whether or not someone lived honorably. While not covered by Briggs, the heathen ideas are still maintained amongst many who do not hold to Christianity in Co. Kerry between in the areas between Corr na Mona and Binn Gharbh. These still hold that the hounds belong to Finn and that it is he who is the the huntsman at the lead of the pack of hunters. This is further expounded upon by Dr. Lincoln in the source cited below.

Ancient Textual Reference:

Academic Analysis and Exploration:

• Lincoln, Bruce (1991). Death, War & Sacrifice - Studies in Ideology and Practice. chapter 7: University of Chicago. ISBN 0-226-48199-9. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Doctor Lincoln demonstrates the pan Indo-European existence of the hounds. These hounds sit at the border between life and death, and are the arbiters of justice in judging the soulds of the dead. The Gaelic is amongst the few where the original motif of two hounds of different colors still exist in lore.

Sources & Notes - Morrigan chosing who will die:

Existing Customs and Lore:

Ancient Textual Reference:

Academic Analysis and Exploration:

Sources & Notes - Cailleach chosing who will die:

Existing Customs and Lore:

Ancient Textual Reference:

Academic Analysis and Exploration:

Iain Mac an tSaoir , Clannada na Gadelica—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iain_Mac_an_tSaoir (talk • contribs) .

Hello! Very interesting material. Would you like it to be integrated into the main Gaelic Traditionalism entry? Please cite as many relevant sources as you can. Also, I previously commented over on your talk page. You may want to review the information and links I left for you. Thanks for your contributions, and please let me know if you want this integrated into the main article.-HroptR 16:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you think it is sourced out enough to deserve being included then please feel free to do so. Thank you! Iain Mac an tSaoir 00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

I too would be interested in the sources for this, particularly the underworld/heaven bull division and the Fianna hunt as post-death judgement process. I've read other myths about Fionn and his hounds, but hadn't seen this one before. Thanks! Damask Rose 08:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

okay, there was a start. I'll try to give more later in the week.—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|Iain Mac an tSaoir 23:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir]] comment was added by Iain_Mac_an_tSaoir (talk • contribs) .

Female Bulls?

Quoting Iain_Mac_an_tSaoir: That dead matter was enlivened by the tears of his mate, the White Bull of Heaven, she who sits in gender polarity to the Brown Bull of the Underworld. I fail to see how you can claim this is a traditional Gaelic belief. I would hope most people know that bulls are, by definition, male (a female bovine is known as a "cow"). I assume you got the idea for the brown and white bulls from the Tain Bó Cuailnge, a tale in which two men are transformed into bulls. But where in that text is there anything about a "gender polarity" between these two males? "Gender polarity" is not something focused on in Gaelic tradition. It does seem to be a part of new religions like Wiccan. You are entitled to your personal beliefs, and to make up a theology that works for you, but to then attempt to represent these personal beliefs as a part of Gaelic tradition is entirely another thing. Martin MacGrath 19:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no sources to cite on this concept as I am completely unfamiliar with it myself, and it may be some time before it can be properly sourced as the author is online only sporadically. I am sure there will be a more in-depth explanation forthcoming, but it will have to wait a bit until Iain is online to do so as he is the one who would have the sources on it. Breandán 20:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

^1 Please do excuse my typo. Haste does indeed make waste, and such rose its head here. That should have read 'That dead matter was enlivened by the tears of his mate, the White Cow of Heaven, she who sits in gender polarity to the Brown Bull of the Underworld.' You are correct in saying that gender polarity isn't focused on, but polarities in general certainly abound. In the above statements regarding Donn (dark) and finn (white) we see one set of polarities. Another polarity is between above and below, with we sitting betwixt the two here in the center, on the land. Granted the term Tuatha Dé Danann was applied to the Shining Ones till medieval times when they became known as the children of Danu. However, those who comprise that group, those born from the Waters of Heaven. certainly did. Likewise with the Fomhóraigh, born from the Waters of the Deeps, Damnu. Thus a set of polarities between those sisters. And another polarity between the "déithe", the Shining Ones who ordaine order, and the aindéithe, the powers of death and decay but also regeneration. As for the polarity between the Dark Bull and the White Cow, it is one that practically screams out. But first something about the White Cow. If there is need to expound on Danu as the Waters of Heaven that can be done, but I think we all understand Her. We all also likely understand that mechanism in the tradition by which the Heavenly feminine manifests in and on the land. Let us then address a name by which She is known in some other parts of Ireland. Especially in the name Bóinn, as in the river. Earlier spellings of Her name are Bóind and Bóand. The most primitive form of the name is Bóu-vinda. Thus the literal translation of her name as "White Cow". While much could be written here about Her, it should suffice to say that there are many tales about her. All of them dealing with matters such as mysticism, wisdom, and the free flwoing of the life giving waters. Thus, a natural polarity exists not just in gender, but also in color, and other ways. A source would be _Myth Legend & Romance - An Encyclopedia of the Irish Folk Tradition_, Dr. Daithi OhOgain, Prentice Hall Press, ISBN 0-13-275959, pg 49. Iain Mac an tSaoir 00:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

You have indicated Myth Legend & Romance - An Encyclopedia of the Irish Folk Tradition by Daithi OhOgain as a source for the statement: "That dead matter was enlivened by the tears of his mate, the White Cow of Heaven, she who sits in gender polarity to the Brown Bull of the Underworld." Please cite the page number so this can be verified. Martin MacGrath 23:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He stated page 49 ("...Encyclopedia of the Irish Folk Tradition_, Dr. Daithi OhOgain, Prentice Hall Press, ISBN 0-13-275959, pg 49."), which I am assuming is the page where the reference is from. Breandán 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Page 49 is on Boann. While Boann is known to be connected with wisdom, and with white cows, there is no mention of "That dead matter was enlivened by the tears of his mate, the White Cow of Heaven, she who sits in gender polarity to the Brown Bull of the Underworld." Nor is there such a mention on the other pages mentioned above, 165-168 (on Donn). What is mentioned on 165-8 is Donn of Teach Duinn, the Donn of Cuailnge, and the white bull, Finnbheannach. Again, these are both males, as is the mythological figure, Find. Martin MacGrath 05:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I will email Iain and let him know. As I said above, I cannot provide any sources as I am ignorant on this particular concept (it may be a theological difference, there are several minor ones, or it could be a misinterpretation of the point being made, which I will be the first to admit I have had before), so it may be a day or two before he gets to it. Breandán 06:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

About that particular dialectic, what I said is that "Thus, a natural polarity exists not just in gender, but also in color, and other ways." Donn, the dark bull of the underworld on one hand, Boann the white cow of heaven on the otherhand. White above, dark below, feminine above, masculine below - you do the math, even a blind man can see that. I never intimated that there was a marital or sexual union between those two individuals. In fact, the lore states that Boann is the wife of Nuada/Nectan. Though, before that union it seems that Boann was the mate of Find, which again brings us to the dialectic between Donn and Find. This isn't supposed to be a place for original research, and the source cited, which is original, gives ample examples, which is exactly what I noted. Male-female, hot-cold, black-white, fire-water - the dialectics, the polarities, exist throughout lore. That was the point. However, thank you for contradicting some of your others statements and agreeing by proxy that ancient cultural materials still exist. As for the tears thing, source is coming for that as well as for the Hunt in lore pertaining to judgement of souls. 70.153.128.124 22:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Iain mac an tSaoir

Your response to the request for proper citations is to reply, "even a blind man can see that," yet, you provide no sources. The sources you listed do not contain the material in question. A Google test on your statements about this theology turns up one source: this Talk page. Therefore, it is original research, and not appropriate to include on Wikipedia. No one has suggested traditional Gaelic lore does not exist. Quite the opposite. A number of the participants in this discussion are quite familiar with the traditional lore, and the sources you claim to be using. Therefore, there is concern when you present your personal opinions, or things you made up, as "traditional Gaelic culture". Martin MacGrath 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, it is original research, and not appropriate to include on Wikipedia. - Point of fact, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is on Wikipedia, it is not exactly a sacred bastion of erudite purity nor a peer-reviewed journal. If you feel this way, then you will need to review every single website that claims to be Celtic anything if you are being neutral and fair, as a great many other articles out there are even more OR than this one. It has been contributed to by members of the Traditionalism movement as well as scholars and editors who have nothing to do with our beliefs. Many of those who have edited it are not Traditionalists at all. As mentioned below, if you feel this strongly about it, then I would say you follow through and do what has been requested multiple times, and what is appropriate for Wikipedia, and start a Criticism section which contains documentation and sources that refute our claims. If you cannot, then your arguments are opinion and nothing more. Breandán 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure at this point what has drawn your ire. And as I didn't see any of this referenced in the actual article itself I'm not sure this point should be a source for NPOV. Not to mention that since it isn't in the article there wouldn't be anything to strike, even if I hadn't been providing citations. It seems though that you are wanting secondary sources which record referenced elements of the primary source (Gaelic lore). These secondary sources should address whether there is a white cow of heaven and a dark bull of the world below? Or are you looking for something that specifically says "look there is a white cow of heaven and a dark bull below"? Or is it the creation aspects of what I stated? In case you are looking for other sources dealing with Celtic (general) and Gaelic (specific) ideas on craetion the following: Is there a coherent, all in one place creation myth from pre-Christian days? no. However, Bruce Lincoln writes in _Death, war and Sacrifice_: "To establish full certainty, however, only Celtic evidence will suffice, and several important texts do preserve the theme of creation... . Among Celts we find not only survivals of myth of creation through sacrifice.." (pg. 181,182) In _Primal Myths, Creating the World_ (pp. 172-173), Barbara C. Sproul traced out a generalized creation theme. That theme shows a divine pairing from which many children are born. Because the space between the pairing is so close children rise up, slay the Primordial Father, and cut him into pieces. Lincoln, in _Death, War and Sacrifice_ (chapters 1,2,3 13, 14 particularly) picks up from generalizations to become more pointed and valuable for those of a Gaelic persuasion. The Primordial Father wasn't just slain, but was sacrificed and dismembered. Those dismembered parts went to create the physical cosmos. The dead matter was enlivened by waters from heaven, which then collect and flow in the rivers. Thus as Lincoln further points out in chapter 18, water and rivers are feminine, in a pan-Indo-European sense. That being why all the rivers have feminine names. As regards the relationship of the waters of/from heaven to the father figure, Peter Berresford Ellis in his book _Chronicles of the Celts_ compiled existing lore into another story form. His story does not cover the sacrifice and dismemberment themes, but does cover the nurturing waters from heaven aspect. He writes, "... First one drop, then another and another, until finally there gushed a mighty torrent down upon the earth. The divine waters from flooded downwards and soaked into the arid dirt, cooled the volcanoes which turned into grey, granite mountains, and life began to spring forth across the earth."(pg. 21) We could of course debate about the name Danu, but we are likely on the same page about the history of the name. Still, obviously even Danu has an association with rivers, divine motherhood, the geographical differences in the names of divine persons not withstanding. If all you were looking for was a reference to there being the dark bull of the underworld - that was given; likewise, reference was given for Boann as the mystical white cow of heaven. You now have sources for most everything I have stated on Wiki. I have given sources for lore where such is published. I have given where in either Ireland or Scotland lore and custom can be found. If those are unacceptable to you then you probably need to build your own relationships with some of the older generation in Gaelic speaking areas of Ireland or Scotland. I could publish those heard by myself and others from the lips of tradition bearers, but that would be original, as yet unpublished, research. The long and the short of it Mr. McGrath, is that the lore is our Testament. To explain, I have heard many Celtic Christians say that "the Gaelic lore is the Old Testament of the Gael". In that way, to them they have the Biblical Old testament, the Gaelic Old testament (the lore), and the New Testament. To we traditional Gaelic polytheists, the lore is our Testament, period. It stands alone. None of us have heard every tale, or read every text, but I have made it one of my personal missions to read or hear every tale I can. Perhaps you should as well, that is after all part of the only true authority on Gaelic cultures - the cultures themselves. There are hundreds of ancient texts that have never been translated out of Old Irish. There are hundreds and hundreds of tales that have never been published, though that gets better by the year. If you want access to the unpublished tales then you need to build your own relationships with some of the older generation in Gaelic speaking areas of Ireland or Scotland. Mar sin leat. 68.212.238.131 02:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Iain Mac an tSaoir

Well Breandan, this talk section certainly does have the makings for a nice piece or original research doesn't it? *laughing* I think he is having a problem with the white cow of heaven issuing waters that give life, renew life. Though, isn't that precisely what the spring rains do? Isn't that what the river insure? I was unaware that this was supposed to be an original "research", but it does seem as though that is what is expected. I showed using Donn how traits were compiled from the various tales to be able to view Donn in a more broad way. Now granted, the Goddess of Sovereignty of one area of a place is different than the Goddess of Sovereignty in another, but they sit on similar thrones so to speak. Thus compiling traits for the broader view, the more complete understanding. Then again, I saw you get pestered about your Irish. Are they forgetting that there are dialects? And are they forgetting that here amongst the diaspora it has been common for the Gaelic spoken to be a snapshot of when the speakers ancestors were originally removed from the Motherland? As an example Nova Scotia where the Gaidhlig spoken is what was spoken in the Highlands in the 18th century. It is a naturally occuring cultural anachronism. And they seem to be concerned about anachronisms. I've seen our looking to Brehon Law touched upon. Yet within the last couple of years the official lawful Irish government has been looking at legal reforms based on bringing back tenets and values of Brehon Law. Is it anachronistic when the government of Ireland is doing the same thing we are? I saw where one person stated that a Scottish tuatha is a fallacy. But is it, when the word is part of the lexicon of the Gaidhlig language? Granted the usage is different, but at some point the usage was likely the same. Personally, as a Gaelic Traditionalist, I don't have a problem with a "snapshots in time approach" to building a local community, tribe, or whatever one wishes to term it - just so that snapshot is accurate as defined by the culture. The Clannadian approach has been that the local communities should be a part of the broader communities and societies (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. If people want to live communally, then they could and should. That segues us to the approach taken by other organizations such as yours. I have a knee jerk reaction to modern uses of chieftains and such, but that is mostly born out my own experiences with some wacky packs who wanted me to proclaim myself one - and the insanity that insued when I said "no". I'll never forget my ex-wife's utter shock and our shared horror when a certain women offered to function as the horse! **laughing** My original view was that it was a dangerous anachronism that did not have the veracity of law, i.e. the Lord Lyon (Scotland) or the High Seanachie (Ireland). But my views have mellowed, and though I don't personally, necessarily agree with the approach myself, I can respect these other approaches to developing civil structures because they do have a legal veracity in the precedents of ancient Gaelic law. Was it an anachronism when not so many years ago the Council of Chiefs was finally reconvened after so long being non-existent? The point I'm trying to make is that there are a couple of different approaches within Gaelic Traditionalism. Much of that is due to developing civil structures as a diasporan Peoples. The rest is due to aspects of traditional religious ideas themselves. But the commonality is our adherence to the culture as the culture alone defines itself. It is our right to have our differences between us and to respectfully keep working toward the better good of our Peoples. In fact, having difference is likely to be one of the things that saves us in the long run. Diversity is a good thing. Those who are not Gaelic Traditionalists do not have any right to question why we have followed certain courses.

Having slept on it I think there is something I wasn't bearing in mind. A presumption that we were all on the same page caused me to overlook a possibility. Your umbridge is with the statement positing the white cow opposite the brown bull. As I have stated, for we who are Gaelic Traditionalists, the lore stands as our Testament, so to speak. When we look at the lore we see that there are real and distinct relationships that exist. A great deal of Gaelic Traditionalism pertains to relationships. These are personal, familial, and community wide relationships. The lore, typified by the colloquy between Amhairghin Glungheal and the Goddesses of Ireland, shows us that when Gaels first arrive in a new place they establish a relationship with the land. trans. MacAlister, R.A.S. Lebor Gabála Érenn: 'The Coming of the Milesians'. Irish Texts Society. ISBN 1-870166-418. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Dr Michael Newton, in his book _A Handbook of the Scottish Gaelic World_ states that the concept is still alive in Scotland.Newton, Michael (2000). A Handbook of the Scottish Gaelic World. Four Courts Press. ISBN 1-85182-541-X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Furthermore, Newton states that tradition holds that it requires 3 generations for the relationship to become permanent. While Newton doesn't state the reason for the importance of that relationship, Donal Begley, the Chief Herald of Ireland does in the forward to Grenhams book _Clans and Families of Ireland_. Grenham, John (1993). Clans and Families of Ireland - The Heritage and Heraldry of Irish Clans and Families. CLB Publishing. ISBN 1-55521-887-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) There Begley touches upon how Irish families spring forth from unions between divine persons and the land itself. Now by and large we here amongst the diaspoara have not had the benefit of our ancestors establishing the relationships. So we look to the lore as our Testament. Our geneologies often times tells us who the progenitor of our families is, who the male is. But because we aren't in Ireland or Scotland, the feminine, the mother, is not known. So we look to the lore to find out about her so we can go looking and finding here. The Boann river isn't here, neither is the Shannon, nor the Danube for that matter. But we can get to know our Mother here by looking at the lore and finding out about Gaelic mothers, and their relationships to our Fathers. The people here for instance have been working to keep building a relationship with the Tennessee River, though She isn't known by that name to us. Some of the Gaelic peoples of old looked to Donn as the father of the tribe (not to be confused with father of a particular family in the tribe). Others looked to Mannanan, and others still to Finn, and others of the Shining Ones. But still, their relationships to their People were very similar. Different rivers have different personalities, they are not the same. But the relationships between the Mother land Goddesses and the Father Gods, and Theirs to their children, are pretty similar. When a Christian wants to know about Abraham, they read all the various tales in the Bible about Abraham. By doing so they come up with an understanding about Abraham. When we want to understand our Gods and Goddesses we read or hear every tale we can so that we gain a traditional understanding about them. We then accept what the lore says, as it says it. Because it is oral tradition materials, sometimes there is no inner consistency, and so we dig deeper so that the inconsistency is organically alleviated in the local land. I'll add the citation for the father god relationships probably tomorrow. This is however looking like original research. But does this address your concern?

The issue is not whether I, or anyone else on Wikipedia, agree with your theories. The issue is that you are presenting original research. I have addressed some of the original research you have presented here on the talk page because it was being considered for inclusion in the article. Others had already asked for sources on some of the other problems, so I addressed this one. There are many problems with the article as it stands. When asked for cites, you continue to list general sources, but not verifiable sources that support your specific assertions. Wikipedia is not the place for essays about your personal beliefs. Breandán wrote: "[The article] has been contributed to by members of the Traditionalism movement as well as scholars and editors who have nothing to do with our beliefs." Who are these "scholars...who have nothing to do with [your] beliefs"? The only indication I can see of others writing about this movement are the books that mention of the Irish political movement, and these mentions are not about your modern group which has been inspired by that movement. Martin MacGrath 17:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Material on Polytheistic Gaeldom

I think we state that the polytheistic branch is not some long term continuation of a 2000year old tradition. There should be emphasis on the fact that much of the lore is being rediscovered and re-adapted both to return it to a polytheistic means and to bring some aspects into the modern world.

• Some of the general raw cultural aspects have survived, and most of the rest easily researchable and found within the Fénechas, the Triads, and lore, legal poems, and other errata recorded within the Lebar na Núachongbála (The Book of Leinster), Lebor na nUidre (The Book of the Dun Cow), Leabhar Baile an Mhota (The Book of Ballymote), Leabhar Mór Mhic Fhir Bhisigh (The Great Book of Lecan), Leabhar Buidhe Lecain (The Yellow Book of Lecan), Leabhar Feirmoithe (The Book of Fermoy), as well as the research done by Dr. Fergus Kelly. No one in their right mind would EVER claim that the polytheistic beliefs have survived unbroken over the centuries, though the claim to unbroken culture has, in the past, been misinterpreted as such a claim. Just to be clear, and re-affirm what both Pádraig and Iain are saying, the Polytheist movement of Gaelic Traditionalism is very recent, not some unbroken religious belief.

--Breandán 07:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If as you say, it has not "survived unbroken", it would be better termed "revivalism" than "traditionalism". It smells more of Americans etc trying to rediscover the roots of their Irish ancestry after it's been wiped out for at least several generations. --MacRusgail 17:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rather than resort to ad-hominems and generalized caustic and extremely non-NPOV attacks that do not present specific issues of contention, but merely attack the nationality of some (not all, the Traditionalism movement has members in Ireland, Scotland, Australia, Canada, Israel, mainland Europe, and South Africa as well) of the adherents to the religion, might I suggest that you either attempt some measure of objectivity and present valid criticisms of the specifics of the movement itself (as opposed to spelling and grammar issues) or, if you cannot do so, remove yourself from the editing of this article. Breandán 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not an ad hominem, as you put it. The fact is that what's written here isn't very traditional at all, when it comes to the 20th century and after. The writers can't even come out with basic Gaelic phrases and spellings properly. --MacRusgail 15:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Point one- http://www.crannog.ie/sss.htm scroll down and you will see that Albanach is, in fact, spelled with one n. This seems to be a significant point of contention for you, so there you go. Point two, I do not see anything legitimate in your contentions, merely your disagreement with our religion and your obsession over grammar and spelling. You have not presented a legitimate challenge to any of our statements, merely condemned them as not being traditional based on spelling, and proven yourself to be blatantly biased and, in my opinion, attacking a religion you do not agree with. I request this article and all of the statements and edits made by this user be reviewed and a truly neutral editor make an unbiased decision as to whether the NPOV tag is legitimate. Breandán 16:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Point one - Click here. Point two, wikipedia is not a place for religious propaganda of any stripe, particularly when promoting claims to authenticity, which cannot be properly backed up elsewhere. This "traditionalism" has little to do with real Gaelic traditions. --MacRusgail 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Irish dictionaries, not Gàidhlig, it is Albanach. I have Irish, albeit limited, and thus use the spelling from that perspective. However, this is such a trivial and peurile point that I am through arguing it. Thus far you have made accusations of false claims to authenticity repeatedly in spite of the fact that we state quite clearly that the religion was founded in the 20th century (by people who, while getting on in years, are still alive and were among the authors of this article, I might add) and have given substantial sourcing for the cultural aspects. You have neither provided any proof to the contrary, nor acted in a manner that is befitting Wikipedia by adding a criticism section providing sourced material and references to authors and scholars who dispute these claims. Your inability to remain neutral and your repeated attacks against a religion that you disagree with are speaking far more loudly than any protests that I or any other author or editor of this article could lodge. To use your logic, an atheist could make the same accusations of falsehoods and religious propaganda against the Catholic, Protestant, Islam, and Judeaism entries, yet such would be considered ridiculous and dismissed. A member of a protestant religion could easily drop an NPOV tag into the Catholicism entry by claiming that Catholics are not true Christians and use the exact same arguments you have here, and a Catholic could do vice-versa. I do not see how your actions here are any different, and your continued hostility towards our beliefs and this article are neither based in any presented facts, and smack of religious biggotry. At every turn, we have provided references that have been requested by neutral editors. At every turn, we have repeatedly stated that the religious beliefs are a modern revival. At every turn, we have maintained a professional demeanor and done our best to remain within the bounds of Wikiquette. You have continued to attack, using straw-man arguments and ad-hominems (I consider attacking the nationality of some of the members of our faith as an ad-hominem), and have not provided a single legitimate argument against our faith. If you claim the culture is not traditional, we will be happy to provide you with many resources, ancient and modern, that dispute that. If you claim our religion is not Traditional, we have simply to point out that it is the closest to ancestral belief as any can get without travelling back in time, and that it is a modern revival of such belief. If you claim that we cannot in any way claim to be Traditionalists because of our spelling and grammar, I will point out that, in spite of compulsory Gaeilge education, only 4.4% of the Irish people have Irish fluently and use it regularly as opposed to almost half that in the United States alone, despite the lack of available schools to teach it. If you state that our claim to the term Traditionalist is not valid as we are not Irish nationals, we would point out that the culture is not bound to nationality, and that it long ago expanded outside of the borders of Éireann, and the way we live quite closely resembles that of our pre-Anglo ancestors. In the end, we are what we are, and no amount of disagreement from you will change that. Breandán 17:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

One can only presume from what you've written, that you don't believe that traditionalism can be real because you believe that nothing exists of the original. Yet, if that were the case then the oral lore would not contain within it the same names of deities from those ancient times. The persons mentioned in the lore would not be, to varying degrees, fulfilling functions they fulfilled in those ancient times. The Kirk records would not be filled with those who in the 18th and 19th were brought up on charges for erecting stones and sacrificing bovine livestock. If the old customs did not still exist, then when Maire MacNeill went about collecting existing, living, customs, she would not have collected such incredible numbers of surviving customs that she ended up having to focus on one festival (Festival of Lughnasa by Máire MacNeill, Oxford University Press 1962). If the old customs did not still exist nor would Kevin Danaher been able to write The Year in Ireland, niether would F. Marian McNeill have written the volumes that comprise The Silver Bough, nor Standish Hayes O'Grady have recorded another tome of surving customs in Silva Gadelica (I-XXXI), nor Walter L. and Mary G. Brenneman record customs surrounding the sacred wells in Crossing the Circle at the Holy Wells of Ireland. The tales and customs from the Gaelic speaking culture, all alive and well, are the materials of Gaelic Traditionalism. There is nothing gone and nothing to make up. We don't make up - we take up. We don't assimilate cultural materials, we work to become assimilated into the culture itself. 70.153.128.124 23:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Iain Mac an tsaoir

A Bhreandain choir, you have just ranted about ad hominem, and gone onto say I'm a religious bigot. My gripe is not with the religious aspect but with the pseudo-Gaelic, modern traditions (an oxymoron!) etc. It is clear that even with some autodidactic book learning that the "traditionalists" in question, neither properly understand, nor know their way around the older traditions. You are indeed what you are, but as Burns said "Oh wad some power the giftie gie us/To see oorsels as others see us!/It wad frae monie a blunder free us, And foolish notion". --MacRusgail 11:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC) p.s. I don't care about religion - I don't actually follow any. If you actually read entries about other religions, you will find that there are often criticisms of those organisations' founding stories, and even atrocities perpetuated by them, although I am sure you haven't held an inquisition just yet.

My appologies for implying you were a religious biggot, was not intending to do so, merely point out that the methodology of the criticisms levied thus far are the same as would be used between contesting religions. I am beginning to see that a key problem here is that you are coming from a Scottish point of view whereas I am coming from an Irish point of view, culturally and linguistically. This may be the root of a great deal of misunderstanding here. Breandán 05:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Example folklore

I suspect we should explore into the idea of publishing some of the folklore and folk practices here.

Alliances

We should be talking about our (at least within the ACTG) view on tribalism and that our concept of community causes friction with others although it is not our intent and so forth.

Purpose

This Wikipedia article summarizes for the general public, a neutral, verifiable, and balanced overview of what Gaelic Traditionalism is, from many different viewpoints across the diverse spectrum of the cultural phenomenon of Gaelic Traditionalism. As such, it is a long-standing collaborative and cooperative group effort, originating both outside and inside the cultural phenomena, as well as from interested neutral parties, including but not limited to members of cultural confederations such as An Cónaidhm na Tuatha na nGael (ACTG), Clannada na Gadelica (CnG), many diverse and independent tuatha, neutral academic sources, and others.

Gaelic Traditionalism, looks directly to, and simply takes up, the extant living culture, folk life ways, literature, and other living traditional cultural artifacts, both in the Gaelic Homelands and the Diaspora, much as long-standing upper-echelon academic forensic cultural anthropologists, folklorists, and sociologists do. It is fair to say GT takes a multi-disciplinary approach, which has long been a scholastic standard in credentialed doctoral academia. This is to be found particularly in long-standing Celtic Studies university degree programs at such institutions as The University of Edinburgh, School of Celtic Studies @ The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, University College Dublin, University College Cork, National University of Ireland, Galway, University of Aberdeen, University of Glasgow, University of Strathclyde, Universities of Aberdeen and Strathclyde and Trinity College, Dublin, St. Francis Xavier University Nova Scotia (Celtic Studies Dept. started in 1891 there) and University of Bradford at Yorkshire Irish Diaspora Studies.

Gaelic Traditionalism is a verifiably living, long-standing traditional cultural practice, both in the Homelands and the Diasporae. It is rooted deeply in both the Gaelic tribalistic revival brought on by 18th & 19th century upheavals in Ireland and Scotland, and the remnants of the Diasporal Gaelic Cultural Tradition that translated across the globe, preserved by Tradition Bearers and individual families, as folk life. It is demonstrably descending from nothing other than the indigenous Gaelic cultural traditions as the culture defines itself from within it's own authentic ancient matrix. Therefore, it is of necessity a diverse and traditional cultural phenomenon on it's own merit, and necessarily represents what at times may be widely differing, and even contradictory, views and philosophies. These co-exist within the commonality of the authentic Gaelic Cultural Tradition as expressed in daily living-out of the sacrament of cultural lifestyle. These forces keep this a dynamic and growing cultural phenomenon.

Yr. Obed. Srvnr.,

Kathleen O'Brien Blair --Kathleen O'Brien Blair 00:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Clannada na Gadelica

How can "An Cónaidhm na Tuatha na nGael (ACTG)" be a traditionalist organisation when its name itself contains at least one blatant grammatical howler? You can translate a name using a dictionary, but that doesn't make it part of "tradition bearing". --MacRusgail 17:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The official name was An Cónaidhm Thuatha na nGael, the double indefinate article being a clerical error, but has been in the process of changing as we are re-filing articles of incorporation due to an expansion of scope of the organization. Breandán 05:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling etc

The piece is obviously written by people with little knowledge of the Gaelic languages, and there is also a lot of misinformation on here. It sounds like a post-modernist construct of those in the so called Diaspora who have little connection with authentic Gaelic culture. --MacRusgail 21:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Martin MacGrath 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• • You have your opinions, I respectfully disagree. Anyone is welcome to form opinions, however, and thus they are subjective at best. The question becomes- who is the judge of what is authentic Gaelic culture? Wearing a kilt and playing bagpipes, drinking Guinness, following Brehon Law? This is not something a handfull of nationalists or scholars will answer, but something that will be answered by who calls themselves Gael centuries from now. Breandán

I have not edited this article, but it would be helpful if you were more constructive rather than placing a hit&run NPOV tag. What specifically are you citing as violating NPOV? There is another template which states that an entry does not express a world-wide view: {{limitedgeographicscope}} WeniWidiWiki 22:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hit and run? There are several issues here, including bad sourcing and misspelt Gaelic etc. It seems to be connecting some post-modern fancy with historical traditions, whereas it is highly debatable as to how "traditional" some of these polytheistic "traditions" are. Just because you've read Rolleston's Celtic Myths and Legends (if that's the right title and author I'm thinking of), doesn't mean you are following in the footsteps of a more or less dead religion. --MacRusgail 17:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Leithscéal de rud "Ad Hominem" le mailís réamcheapaithe, cé'n aidhm atá leis?Breandán 18:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ma tha Gaeilge agad, carson a tha mearachdan gu leor san artagail seo? Cha dean mi "ad hominem" sam bith. --MacRusgail 15:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What you have described as your issues with the entry are not NPOV issues, they are issues with whether they should be practicing a religion which you personally find no merit in. That is not NPOV. Look at the World Congress of Ethnic Religions or Reconstructionism. Look at Ásatrú or Theodism. Gaelic Traditionalists are one of perhaps hundreds of disparate religious groups who are attempting to recreate pre-Christian religions to one extent or another. So please better explain yourself, or I'm going to pull the tag. Questioning the historical veracity of their claims has nothing to do with neutrality. Create a sub-heading called 'criticism' and cite authors or people who are critical of the reconstructionist phenomenon. I know there are plenty of Catholics who feel that Celtic Christianity never even existed. However, the Gaelic Traditionalists are saying that they are a modern development in the section called Emergence of Polytheistic Traditionalism, which would make them a new religious movement and/or reconstructionist. Thanks for taking the time to further explain yourself. WeniWidiWiki 19:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think there are two issues here: 1. Whether there is merit in a reconstructed religion, and 2. The validity and verifiability of the claims made in this article. Issue number one is not relevant. However, MacRusgail is making a number of valid and important points about issue number two. In Gaelic culture, language is the central conveyor of culture. If one has not been immersed in Gaelic language, one is not a "Gael". To point out the numerous language mistakes is valid - it demonstrates that this group (who as far as I can tell is writing about themselves, with no outside perspective) - is probably not a part of the tradition they claim to be inheriting. That calls into question the entire premise of the article. It doesn't matter what opinion one holds on the value of taking up Gaelic Polytheist Religion in a revivalist fashion. What matters is the validity of claims like: Modern Gaelic Traditionalism is a movement that is around two centuries old... (from the opening paragraph). I would like to see sources that support this claim. What the authors of this article have so far provided are statements about the Gaelic Revival in Ireland, but nothing that convincingly shows that their modern, non-Irish revival is in any way connected to this other movement that is two centuries old. Martin MacGrath 22:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I will take these point by point-

Issue number one is not relevant. - Agreed, yet it is the basis of a large percentage (not all, to be sure, but a significant amount) of the commentary made by MacRusgail.

In Gaelic culture, language is the central conveyor of culture. If one has not been immersed in Gaelic language, one is not a "Gael". - By this standard, the majority of the populations of Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man cannot call themselves Gael as they do not know their own native tongue, even with the Gaelscoileanna in Ireland. If you are saying that only a Gaeilgeoir or the Scottish equivalent of such are allowed to call themselves Gael, then the Gael are a dying breed. If having Irish or Gàidhlig is the measure of a Gael, than there are many Wiccans out there who have learned to speak either language with varying degrees of fluency who have more of a right to call themselves Gael than most. It is about a great deal more than language.

To point out the numerous language mistakes is valid - it demonstrates that this group (who as far as I can tell is writing about themselves, with no outside perspective) - is probably not a part of the tradition they claim to be inheriting - You assume much, far too much for the anonymity of the internet. You do not know us, ANY of us, nor do you have any idea as to our backgrounds. Would it surprise you to know that two of the people who contributed to this article were born and raised in Ireland and Scotland respectively, and one is a Gaeilgeoir? Or that several of the people who contributed to this article are NOT members of our faith, but doctorate-level scholars of everything from Celtic law to Gaelic culture? The language used in the article is largely Gaeilge, a related but very different language than Gàidhlig, which MacRusgail speaks, and thus the proper spelling and grammar of the post cannot be judged accurately except by one fluent in Irish. Likewise, the rather trivial point of contention over the spelling of Albanach would have easily been resolved if anyone had bothered to pick up a dictionary and discover, as I attempted to point out repeatedly, that in Irish it is spelled with one "n", not two, and in Scots-Gaelic it is the other way around. Likewise, the issues with the ACTG name were from a clerical error on my part, and the actual name is grammatically correct, and was confirmed by native-speakers after this whole fracas occured in order to prove a point.

What matters is the validity of claims like: Modern Gaelic Traditionalism is a movement that is around two centuries old... (from the opening paragraph). I would like to see sources that support this claim. - such was provided but ignored. As I and others have pointed out so many times it is getting repetitive, the Gaelic Traditionalism movement is a cultural movement with religious aspects. It draws directly from the cultural revival of two centuries ago, and integrated the pre-Patrician-based religion in later. Sources have been requested, and they were not enough to satisfy you and MacRusgail. There are likewise people out there who dismiss the evidence provided that man landed on the moon, this does not change the fact that they are in the vast minority. If you cannot accept the sources that have been given, fine, state as much and leave it at that, or better yet, do what is proper for this format (and requested by us and several neutral parties) and start a criticism section and post references and citations that refute our claims. Simply saying "You haven't proven it to me" or the like is irrelevant. We have provided sources we feel back our claims, if you disagree, provide sources that refute them. Breandán 00:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

While having an opinion is fine, this was an article written by the Traditionalism community from its own perspective and contributed to by those familiar with the movement as well. Constructive criticism such as that given above in the Cleanup section is appreciated, blatantly non-NPOV criticisms from an aparant anti-Traditionalist standpoint, on the other hand, do not help matters at all. This article is about the Polytheistic Gaelic Traditionalist movement written by two of the founders of the modern movement as well as many scholars within that movement, it is NOT about contemporary Irish politics or culture. Breandán 07:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an anti-traditionalist, since I'm actually familiar with real Gaelic traditions. This has little to do with continuing traditions, and much more to do with revivalism, misunderstanding etc. It is quite obvious that you are one of the people behind this, and would prefer a one sided article that doesn't include the other side of the matter. Polytheism in the Gaelic countries was fragmented at best, if not moribund, by the time the industrial revolution came along. It is difficult to see, what if anything, this "tradition" has to do with real folk practices. The books that are quoted above such as the Book of Ballymote, were usually written by Christian monks, and so there is barely way in which they can be interpreted as good sources for pre-Christian religion. --MacRusgail 17:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Polytheism in Ireland was dead by the 12th century at the latest, and even then it was largely Viking settlers that were non-Christian from the 9th to 12th centuries. No one here is claiming otherwise, nor is there any evidence that has been presented by us to the contrary. We state quite clearly that the modern polytheism movement started in the 20th century. The books that are quoted are the sources from which we draw our research which is then used to rebuild a more indigenous form of culture, and the beliefs come from extant folk traditions that, if you are truly in Ireland, you can step out to the west and still find quite prevelant in the rurual communities and Gaeltachta. I would advise that you actually read the source material of our scholars (http://clannada.org) as well as the articles written based on them before being so critical. I do not know if you are reading more into what we wrote than is there, but I would suggest you re-read it with an open mind, especially with the clarifications I have just made and references added (more will be coming as our sholars get to this to add the references to their own end of the work), and look over the corresponding material. Breandán 18:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I read it with a perfectly open mind. Phrases like "Albanach tuatha" are blatant pseudo-Gaelic. I note you completely ignore the fact that many of the sources you mention were written in monasteries and/or by churchmen. --MacRusgail 15:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:MacRusgail, again, your dispute is with content which you personally disagree with. Did you even read my lengthy reply to you above? Who documented what is a non-sequitur. That is a technical aspect they have to reconcile in their beliefs. It has nothing to do with NPOV. They are not saying that their beliefs are somehow relevant to you or universally applicable. (Unlike certain other religions do, who have predicated their foundations on just as shaky foundations.) Please explain why this entry is not NPOV. WeniWidiWiki 15:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My dispute is with content which is factually incorrect (not to mention horrendous spelling and grammar). You take this as being some kind of personal attack. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for religions to proselytise, but should be an impartial source.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MacRusgail (talk • contribs) .

So there isn't a NPOV issue? You have cited thus far:

1. Your personal resentment or moral offense toward what you term "revivalists" and the "so called Diaspora"
2. Poor grammar and spelling
3. Factual dispute

Specifically, where is the NPOV issue as defined by Wikipedia standards here? WeniWidiWiki 17:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is very much a POV problem here, namely in that this article only gives the point of view of Gaelic "Traditionalists" themselves, without real critique by neutral parties, non-members etc. "Factual dispute" is very much POV in nature, particularly when such "facts" are used to underpin something. I don't take "moral offence" at anything, what I am saying is that from the context itself, it seems apparent that many GTs are not exactly rooted in Gaelic culture to the extent that they self-define themselves to be. Or at least whoever wrote this article isn't. --MacRusgail 17:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OK - well I guess we are at loggerheads. How is what you just described not covered by the {{limitedgeographicscope}} template? Please continue to go through and list what your factual disputes are and if you feel that there needs to be a neutral or negative criticism section, by all means hunt down sources and create one - but just saying the article is POV without specifics does not help whatsoever. WeniWidiWiki 17:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have listed a number of the factual disputes and specifics. I don't believe that most of the stuff here would stand up to modern academic scrutiny. As for the limited geographical scope thing, I didn't put that on, and I'm not sure it's appropriate here - if you remove that, take it up with whoever did. --MacRusgail 11:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems and criticism -- suggesting a merge

Hello. It seems to me that there is a lot to discuss about the direction of this article. It also seems that there has been some blurring of the line between "critiquing the article" and "criticising the subject of the article"; we should avoid that, and any speculating as to the character of the article's authors or Talk page contributors. That said, I'd like to raise some of my own concerns with the article as it now stands.

• It is confusingly referenced. Examine, for instance, the article's first footnote. I doubt that my namesake is being used to reference the existence of the religious movement. The footnote is apparantly directing the reader to more information on Brehon Law. While that might be helpful if Wikipedia lacks an article about Brehon law, we are not fulfilling our verifiability policy.
• The above claim to expertise suggests that some part of this article is original research. That's a concern. For example, the article seems to largely be an argument that this religious movement has its roots in eighteenth and nineteenth century social movements. Even if this is not the intent, the very large amount of background information on those movements may suggest that to a reader. Creating novel interpretations or historical narratives is definitely in WP:NOR territory and we need to address that.
• This article is titled "Gaelic Traditionalism". We also have an article at Celtic Reconstructionism. My understanding is that these two articles are both about the same religious movement (Google suggests that this article's title is the more widely-used descriptor). Is there an explanation for why we have two very different articles about what appears to be the same subject? I note that article suffers from many of the same problems I perceive in this one. That article's "Further reading" section does give plenty of sources for referencing the actual religious movement, however.

I suggest merging Celtic Reconstructionism into this article as a first step to solve the "two different articles / same subject" problem. I'd further suggest that the next step would be to start carefully referencing the resulting article, being very specific about what practitioners of the religious movement say about themselves (and their origins) and what secondary sources say about them. Template:Fact can be useful in flagging things that need referencing. Feedback? Jkelly 00:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. After *much* discussion elsewhere, I have to disagree on a merge, as these groups are slightly inter-related but distinctly different much like Ásatrú and Theodism are distinct sub-groups. Furthermore, these groups do not get along whatsoever. I discovered this after confusing these two denominations over at Talk:Polytheistic Recon. However, I guess that it is up to the adherents to decide more than anyone, as I have an aversion about identifying religions by terminology they resent. As far as the 'Kelly' footnote, that is referring to the book by Fergus Kelly further down in the reference section. From what I understand, that is the correct way to use footnotes in this instance, but if I'm mistaken I'd be glad to fix it. I was actually wikifying someone else's footnotes so could have botched it... I think you are correct about the historical narrative /no original research issues, and this is probably the main contention with the article I think. Thanks for taking the time to comment. WeniWidiWiki 01:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not the same

CR or Celtic Reconstructionism and GT - Gaelic Traditionalism are *not* and never were the same religious movement or cultural phenomena. They originated separately in time and space and have evolved separately.

CR is a created modern neo-pagan ritual-based religious movement with strong leftist leaning political agendas built into the neo-religion.

Gaelic Traditionalism is a legitimate very old living extant cultural artifact of the Gaelic Cultural Tradition, both in the Christian and Polytheistic branches, in the Gaelic Homelands and the Diaspora.

Celtic Reconstructionism tries to "reconstruct" what might have been.

Gaelic Traditionalism simply re-employs the living cultural practices in which are deeply embedded religiosity and cultural customs that express that religiosity. GT ably demonstrates through folk life ways, cultural values, and a specific world view shaped by 3,000 years of living culture, that there is nothing to make up or reconstruct. The living cultural tradition, with its deeply embedded religiosity, is simply taken back up and re-employed. Arsenberg, one of the leading scholars in the field and not himself a member of the GT community, states this very clearly.

Important Note - 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 GT is 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. 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.

This is why CR is a modern political religion, and GT is a much older living cultural artifact.

Since both ACTG and Clannada contributed to this article in the first place, and will over time add the requested references, it is demonstrably a neutral independent article that stands on its own, since it expresses both in the article and in these talk pages, these differences of opinion. I am happy to add this to the main page as an edit of the main article if that will clarify matters and help to tidy things up. Please just let me know. We apologize for the tardiness of the added references, but we all, as I'm sure many other Wiki-folk do to, have day jobs, and some of us have night jobs and children and families and elderly relatives to care for too. We promise to make this a priority and ask for patience, as we seek to clarify, notate, reference, footnote, bibliographise, and collaborate.

The Admin may or may not be aware that there have been rumblings on the CR group lists and blogs of threats to cause this article to be edited to say that CR and GT are the same movement, for simply political reasons compounded by trauma-ridden personal animosity and prejudice against only one member of the GT community, none of which have to do with scholarly accuracy or forthright issues of NPOV. To merge the two articles would only create more opportunities for abuse of the system such as have already occurred and been documented in this talk section.

As one member of Clannada, I respectfully and strenuously reiterate that a merging of articles is simply not feasible as CR is a modern neo-pagan politicized reconstructed religious movement, while Gaelic Traditionalism is demonstrably an extant living cultural phenomenon with embedded religiosity, which has persisted in the form of folk life ways in both the Gaelic Homelands and the Diaspora. Gaelic Traditionalism fits "on all fours" the UNESCO definition of an indigenous native cultural religion. http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=20362&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Celtic Reconstructionism does not.

Respectfully Submitted.

Yr. Obed. Scrvnr., Kathleen O'Brien Blair, Clannada

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I assume that you were addressing me as "The Admin", and I thought that I would mention that I am entirely unaware of any discussion about this article outside of Wikipedia. You mention "scholarly accuracy". I'd like to encourage you to help us locate secondary sources on this movement (meaning material not written by practitioners) to help us ensure that we are not presenting original research. Thanks in advance. Jkelly 18:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes (nodding and smiling) I was referring to you as Admin. What I was trying to say about the scholarly accuracy part was that the vitriolic attacks on GT by the CR community are fueled not by any scholarly arguments or sources. The CR community has never been able to mount any scholarly references to support their attacks.

The living, extant Gaelic cultural tradition, both in the Gaelic Homelands and the Diaspora, itself, *is* the original research done by the living culture itself and encoded in various forms - the *primary* sources - such as:

a. The Source tales, (written down the monastics and also carried orally all the way into the 20th century)

b. The oral traditions of music, poetry, and storytelling, as well as the forms and structures they take, even unto the teaching methods of the 19th century Hedge Masters and their Hedge schools which fueled the Irish Rebellion

c. The language and all its dialectical iterations Old, Middle, Modern and, Diasporan - including Scots Gaelic which is a dialect of the Irish settlers who moved to Scotland - many times

d. The various other writings and cultural observations of the monastics (many of which *still* aren't translated from the Old Gaelic), many still being written down by modern priests in the 20th century

e. living folk life ways such as the Tarb Feis, Lughnassa observations (a whole book about which is The Festival of Lughnassa by F. Marian Mac Neil), ballad forms, chord structures, poetic forms and structures, corn dollies, Brighid's Girdles, limberjacks, cross-roads dances, stone sweat houses, Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh, circumambulation of healing wells, etc. - that are still extant, intact, in the 20th century,

f. cultural values that were written down in encoded form (by the monastics first, then again by later scholars - Kelly the most recent) such as the Brehon Law - which anticipated tort law and the laws of damages at least 1200 years before they were "rediscovered" in the 19th & 20th century America - mostly by Irish lawyers fighting railroad companies and later consumer advocates.

g. Place names, and customs of everyday life such as smooring the fire and the ranns and charms that go with them and have been collected along the way by monastics at first, then later by the likes of Alasdair Carmichael in the Carmina Gadelica and O'Grady in the Silva Gadelica

These are to only name a few

The *primary* sources of the Gaelic cultural tradition are numerous, and those are all what are cited by GT scholars. *None* of the sources, and *neither* the entirety of the Gaelic cultural tradition, are original work for *us* modern GT folk. What makes GT unique is that GT knows how to view all these primary sources and the originality of the culture itself. When these primary sources are viewed as an organic whole, in their entirety, and approached from a multi-disciplinary approach, the entirety of the living Gaelic cultural tradition comes into refined view as a whole, intact, extant, living, viable (in the truest biological sense) authentic, legitimate, *fully-functioning* cultural artifact in the modern world. It was there all along, in plain sight.

It's much as the effect you get if you stand too close to a mosaic (I'm talking classical Byzantine style here) - or a painting by Monet. You can't see the whole picture in its wholeness - all you see are different coloured tiles or maddeningly numerous dots of paint. But if you step back and look at it as a whole, then you see that it was really in fact, a whole picture depicting a subject or a scene, or telling a story, right there literally in front of your face all along.

To use a second analogy, GT says - "it's not a tree or a snake or a wall. Guys, it's an elephant! All we have to do is climb on and ride!"

To use a third analogy, Gaelic Traditionalism says "Hey look! The Gaelic Cultural tradition is a palimpsest! It's been written over but it's still there underneath - all you have to do is scrape off the top paint!" (Or in the case of a letter palimpsest - the original letter is there right along and under the letters written in between the lines and in the margins and over top of the original)

The *reason* that the CR community, and misguided Scottish (and Irish) nationalists think that GT is original work is because they take the same post-Norman conquest Cartesian mechanistic view of GT as they take to approach their modern religion (in the case of CR) or society(in the case of Homelanders). In the case of CR their modern religion of politics is itself a reactive response to the post-Norman conquest Cartesian mechanistic view of their perceived Christian oppressors, which essentially makes it up the same way they perceive that Christianity has made itself up. In both complaining populations, it is in effect a form of Stockholm syndrome.

But Gaelic Traditionalists don't have that world-view. Everything in the Gaelic cultural tradition is, and has always been, right here in front of everyone’s faces hiding in plain sight, intact. We can see it, and call it for what it is, because we have the traditional Gaelic cultural wholistic spherical view of our own culture, precisely because we live it out as an internalised culture; that is what gives us the eyes to see and the hearts to understand.

All GT does is compile the original work - the culture itself - and it's primary sources, and also includes the secondary scholarly analytical sources in a multi-disciplinary approach, to show the *whole* picture as it really has always existed. GT gives the lens through which it is possible to see the cultural tradition intact, living, and whole.

• That* is why we say we don't reconstruct; we don't make original research - *We Simply Re-Employ*. Or, if you will, "We Simply Re-Deploy."

And the original work - the living extant viable (in the truest biological sense) culture itself - as well as the primary, and secondary sources, when taken together in their entirety - when viewed globally in toto - bear that out.

• This* is why GT is *not* original research. It is simply a reiteration, in a coherent voice, of that which has preserved itself all along. It is not original work to perform the entirety of the Messiah or the Brandenburg concerti - but anyone who had only heard the Halleluiah chorus or only one part of the Brandenburg - might *think* the thing performed in its entirety was original because the whole thing is so complex, so long, and they'd not heard it before in its wholeness.

GT is actually a secondary or even *tertiary* scholarly source/approach to the original research/source materials -which are the living extant Gaelic Cultural Tradition artifact itself.

I think, if I understand your request, that you are asking for us to cite the primary and secondary sources? Is this correct? I *think* - but need to check - that the reason Kelly's work on Brehon Law was offered was because it is the encodement of the Gaelic Cultural Tradition's moral values as law - hence it is an example of one of the primary sources.

Do I understand your request correctly? Yes? No? Maybe? Sorta?

It is these primary and secondary sources that we are working to compile into a coherent whole (which will then be a tertiary neutral source - which is what the article is offered as) and it is these sources that we can cite in bibliographical and footnoted forms. We're working on it - please have patience and we'll chip away at it.

Respectfully Submitted.

Yr. Obed. Scrvnr. Kathleen O'Brien Blair, Clannada

Merge, other issues

I note that the merge suggestion seems to be regarded as inappropriate by those in the know, and defer to their expertise. The fact that I, as a reader, came away from my reading of both articles with the idea that they were about the same thing, however, does tell us something useful; we are not presenting information about these groups in a manner that makes clear that there are multiple groups doing different things. I suggest that is another item to add to our list of suggestions on how to improve the article.

Dispute tags: I removed two; limited geographic scope and tone. I do not understand either of these to be significant problems with this article. The article does strike more of a "personal essay" tone than an encyclopedic one in some places, but this will doubtlessly get smoothed out without a great deal of effort. The scope complaint simply confuses me.

Organization: I reformatted the article to fit Wikipedia's standards. Note: we avoid having an "Overview" section -- we prefer to accomplish an overview of the subject in the article's lead. I trust that the overview section will eventually be trimmed to a couple of paragraphs and become a proper lead. For now I moved the first sentence of the overview to the lead in anticipation of such a restructuring.

Footnoting: WeniWidiWiki, it wasn't the format of the note I was concerned about. Look at that sentence I moved. It reads "Gaelic Traditionalism (Traidisiúnachas Gaelach) is a cultural and religious movement dedicated to preserving the core of the indigenous culture and languages of Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man as presented in the Fénechas[CITATION to Kelly's book]." We state that this movement exists, and describe its goals. Our citation, however, does not verify this information at all. It is instead a pointer to further reading about Brehon law. We should instead accomplish that through a wikilink to our article about Brehon law, where Kelly's book could be either a reference or further reading. There's nothing wrong with sparingly using footnotes to mention additional information; but their primary use in Wikipedia is for referencing facts. I was attempting to communicate that the current use of footnotes will confuse Wikipedia editors who are used to seeing seeing such a footnote as a reference -- if we want to recommend Kelly's book, we need to do it in a different fashion. Jkelly 18:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Differences between CR and GT

Re-"we are not presenting information about these groups in a manner that makes clear that there are multiple groups doing different things." Probably one of the single biggest differences is that Celtic Reconstructionism is a religion whereas Gaelic Traditionalism is a culture with religious elements, much like Judeaism is a religion AND a culture intertwined. Another difference is the focus on "tribalism" by the Traditionalist community whereas it plays a much less frontal role within Reconstructionism. As for the criticisms, they are levied by a small number of people in the Reconstructionist movement towards a small number of people in the Traditionalist movement (namely me), and are irrelevant to the greater whole of either movement except where such movements are used as a platform from which to launch attacks. The two movements are very valid, but seperate, on different roads to different goals. The similarities between the two could be likened to the similarities between Islam and Judeaism- both look to the same basic source material (Celtic history and lore), but have vastly different interpretations of them, and veer off radically in their approach and views of more contemporary material and cultural paradigms. Just as Judeaism and Islam both look to the same root material and history (and by Christians in the form of Old Testament) that is the basis of their holy scriptures, the end results as presented in the Quran and Talmud, as well as the theology, society, interpretation of history, ethics, morals, customs, laws, etc. as practiced, are very, very different. The same applies here between Traditionalism and Reconstructionism, and we shall endeavor to make those differences clearer. Breandán 06:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Gotchya - Looking at the diffs, I just wikified what was referenced - Breandan will have to clarify that because I don't know what he was refering to. Thanks again for taking the time to comment. WeniWidiWiki 18:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Kelly reference is cultural, not religious, as his treatise on Irish Law lays out the foundation of the social structure and socio-political organization of the pre-Anglo Gaelic culture, which is the culture we, through modernization, adhere to. Breandán 05:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering if some of the Origin material should be used to flesh out Gaelic Revival and Irish Nationalism so the article is not overly long. Then there could be a brief description stating how it is related with a see also Gaelic Revivalism and see also Irish Nationalism. Thoughts? WeniWidiWiki 19:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is verifiable information here that would improve either of those two articles, that would be very useful. Question: do we have a model article on this kind of movement to compare this one with? Jkelly 22:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be split in two. It's fine for them to say they were inspired by the Irish movement of the same name, but it is disingenous to continue to imply their modern creation is a direct continuation of that older movement. It's pretty clear that their version of "Traditionalism" started sometime in the 1990's, in America, not two hundred years ago in Ireland. Though that is somewhat stated further into the article, the opening is still misleading. The question is whether this article should be made a two-parter, or whether any of the information about the older movement can be integrated elsewhere. I will have to give a another look at Gaelic Revival and Irish Nationalism to see if any of this can be salvaged for those articles. Martin MacGrath 18:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, please provide documentation and citations that refute the claims and citations we have made rather than repeating an opinion. It is made quite clear that the cultural part of the movement is tied to the cultural revivals and that the religious part of the movement is fairly recent. Sources have been provided, now it is time for you to counter those with sources of your own if any exist. You state "it is disingenous to continue to imply their modern creation is a direct continuation of that older movement" yet provide no sources or documentation to back this. We have provided sources that may be reviewed for validity by the majority of readers and editors, and thus far it has been only yourself and MacRusgail who have voiced issues with them after they were provided and clarifications made. You do bring up many valid points on references and formatting, and such is being worked on, however just as our claims must be backed by documentation where such is feasible, so to must accusations and refutations that seek to dismiss those claims.

This article has been sent to many, many cultural organizations and Wikipedia-specific watchgroups such as the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. It is not exactly hidden from public view, nor has anyone representing an acredited cultural organization or university dealing with Gaelic culture posted any disagreements or edited the article. I have no problem editing the article to remove the references to the cultural revivals and instead link to appropriate pages within Wikipedia- it would shorten the article somewhat and smooth it out, which is definately needed, while at the same time continuing to reference to the movements- and I invite any who read this to provide a list of points that need to be referenced so that we know where the gaps lie as well as suggestions to bring the article more in line with Wikipedia's format. However, personal opinion is irrelevant. Breandán 22:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have this bum backwards... where are Gaelic traditionalists' own academic validators? Contemporary ones, I mean. That's the big point. --MacRusgail 20:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. This was a fallow area on wikipedia up until recently, and that is why I created the Recon entry because at the time there was no distinction from all of these groups and Neopaganism (which is in horrible shape incidentally). Germanic Neopaganism has *some* similarities, but even then the article had to be divided up because it was just too much material. A few of these sub-entries are: Ásatrú, Odinic Rite, Heathenry and Theodism, the latter two entries probably being good models to compare GT to...WeniWidiWiki 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)