Talk:Reconstructionist Roman religion

Nova Roma

Nova Roma's site says "Nova Roma is an international organization dedicated to the study and restoration of ancient Roman culture." Their membership may include recons, and it may be a locus of recon activity, but as an organization it claims to be cultural in nature. They actually sponsor or promote no recon activities on an organization-wide basis that I can see. Should they be removed from the list? Whogue (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

Changing the name of this article

It was not a good move to chage the name of this article from Roman polytheistic reconstructionism to Roman Way to the Gods. Roman polytheistic reconstructionism is a scientific, neutral and general term describing the very various movements that aim to worship the Roman deities, and it connets to the larger family of other polytheistic reconstructionisms. If some use the term "Roman Way to the Gods" it's up to them, and they can be mentioned in the article. But the title of the article should be reverted to the uniform and general term Roman polytheistic reconstructionism. --Gonda Attila (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this comment when it was first made and have just seen it. But I entirely agree and feel that the previous name was more neutral and communicated the topic better. When I have time, and unless there is a serious objection here, I may well move the page back (leaving a redirect here so people will find the article either way.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I am the user who moved the page, sometimes I don't log in. "Roman Way to the Gods" is the name of the Roman Religion in modern times in all its forms, it is used by all the different groups practicing the Roman cults today in Italy and Latin Europe, and it's not the name of a specific group. "Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionism" other than being excessively long and intricate is non-neutral, since many modern Italian groups of the "Roman Way" or "Cultus Deorum" reject the definition of "reconstructionism". --79.41.251.211 (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to return this page to its original name. Roman Way to the Gods is not a term that is found in any published source that I could find, nor is it consistent with how this family of articles is named in Wikipedia. There is a nest of articles under the main article Polytheistic reconstructionism and it makes no sense for all but one to follow the construction of the parent article. I realise that two for the old name of Roman polytheistic reconstructionism versus one for the new name is hardly a ringing consensus, but at least there has been some discussion. There was none before the original move at all! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Really?

Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionism, known variously as the Roman Way to the Gods in Italian and Spanish …

Uh, "the Roman Way to the Gods" is plainly English, not Italian or Spanish. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Article protected

Addition of such links must be justified per WP:RS and WP:ELNO; at the moment they are not. Due to the appearance of at least one extra account reverting to this version, I have protected the page without these links. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Article being updated

I am in the process of updating this article so please refrain from deleting large amounts of information without reason. Also, bear in mind that this is a religion based on passed down knowledge and tradition, it's rarely documented. LatinWolf (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't add "Big text" at the start! 10metreh (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not add "Big text". LatinWolf (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You did, although I guess it was an accident. I only saw that edit on Huggle; it looked like an editing test, so I reverted it, but your other edits were reverted as well. 10metreh (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wow! I have no clue how that happened. I was not even aware that I did that. Sorry. LatinWolf (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Do not add ANYTHING unless you have a reliable source for it. Otherwise, it will be deleted on sight. Burden is on YOU to find reliable sources and get consensus BEFORE readding. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated before, it is rare to find a "reliable" source for certain information. Religio Romana is a religion based on tradition and passed down knowledge. It might take some time to find some sources. LatinWolf (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is hurrying you. You have all the time in the world. Until then, you can work on this off-line or in your sandbox. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that you are a relative new editor. Welcome aboard! Sorry that I was harsh. My bad. Before you embark on this project, it would save you a lot of time and hassle in the long run if you carefully read and understood at least the following policies and guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:HISTRS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. This is a controversial topic, so you might find that editors here may not be very forgiving. The best way to protect yourself is with reliable sources, and, when in doubt, by discussing your proposed changes here on the talk page first. If you have questions, you can always contact me, or any other experienced editor, on their talk page. Or you can ask questions at WP:TEAROOM. Again, welcome! And happy editing! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! No worries. I should have read guidelines before editing. I see that on some user talk pages they have a little welcome thing with all the policies / guidelines, but I never received one. I apologize for any inconvenience I have caused. LatinWolf (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Stubbed as the sources do not discuss the subject

This was discussed at WP:ANI here. The article violated our policies of no original research and WP:VERIFIABILITY. In a nutshell, sources must discuss the subject of the article, and the sources didn't - they were about early Roman religion. Latin Wolf has called those reverting his attempt to restore the earlier flawed version vandals and has claimed to be updating it, although updating would be adding new material sourced to reliable sources (see WP:RS) that discuss Roman polytheistic reconstructionism. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to you here. Please do not make false accusations against me. I have never claimed that those who reverted were vandals. LatinWolf (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Most new editors don't understand our sourcing requirements, no problem and hopefully you can find reliable sources discussing this movement (but it may be not be easy). But at WP:RPP you did write "Persistent vandalism – In the process of being updated but keeps getting deleted." Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In support of prod

The Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements (2011) by George D. Chryssides doesn't have any other examples of Roman polytheistic reconstructionism besides Nova Roma. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Italian version of this page gives the Ur Group (it:Gruppo di Ur) as a historical but defunct example. The extent to which this movement of Evola and Reghini was reconstructionist is unclear because English sources (including the translation of Evola's autobiography) don't quite label it as such [1] [2]. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That Italian Wikipedia page also lists some current Italian associations: Movimento Tradizionale Romano, Associazione Romània Quirites and Associazione Tradizionale Pietas. But all of those are cited to their own websites. I doubt that they have much in the way of notoriety, even in Italy. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Also Movimento Tradizionale Romano is listed in [3] as an extreme-right movement (similar to GRECE, I suspect), so the Italian Wikipedia info is pretty far from being objective, unless that movement has a namesake somehow. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Associazione Romània Quirites gets a couple of hits in Google Books [4], all of them Italian books I don't have easy access to. This one probably has some minimal notability in Italy. I wouldn't take the Italian Wikipedia at face value that this organization is reconstructionist, although it's probably more legit in their religious aspect than the previous one. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Finally Associazione Tradizionale Pietas gets no hits in Google books. It's also one of the links that gets regularly spammed to this page, so it's probably a new thing. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that this discussion is prima facie grounds for an AFD review, and not speedy deletion. If it isn't obvious that the article shouldn't exist, it needs to be evaluated formally. Is there some other article, or some other title, for the topic of Neopagan reconstructionists who attempt to base their practice on authentic traditions of ancient Roman religion? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Italian Wikipedia article is largely based on [5] written by one of the one co-founders of MTR. The Italian movements do not correspond precisely with the English notion of reconstrucionism, but to a more encompasing notion of "Roman Pagan tradition[alism]". I took a shot a more factual stub. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Name change redux

I've reverted today's undiscussed name change and mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism. This sort of change on a controversial article requires discussion first. If it hadn't been edited for a long time, perhaps a change without discussion would be reasonable, but that isn't the case there. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the article is controversial. Actually, I wrote in the edit summary the reason why the title "Italo-Roman Traditionalism" is better than "Roman polytheistic reconstructionism", which is used nowhere outside of Wikipedia. Academic research on the subject use that label, and Roman religion was not simply "polytheist". Actually, I had the intention to expand the article using the data available from the CESNUR.--Schwert von Feuer (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

1. What "research"? I can exactly zero published academic works using the label "Italo-Roman Traditionalism".
2. Don't forget WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Article titles for similar or related topics should follow a consistent pattern.

You are right that not all (though most) historical pagan traditions were strictly polytheist. However, calling any reconstructive system "traditionalism" is disingenuous. Such labelling is in line with the narrative put forward by a number of Neopagans trying to establish legitimacy. It implies a reclaiming of "the old ways", a return to X people's native tradition. While this is the aim of many modern groups, it is still never more than an approximation (that is to say a reconstruction) based on second and third-hand sources centuries after the pagan traditions of Europe were thoroughly crushed.

I don't think reconstructionism should be removed from the title of this article or the whole batch of related articles. It very succinctly describes the nature of the topics it's connected to and enjoys wide use in academia as a neutral term which accomplishes that. Perhaps all the related article titles should have polytheis[tic/m] replaced with pagan[ism] per WP:MOSAT, but that is something that should be made at the project level. —Sowlos  21:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, historical pre-Christian religions were not simply polytheist, or were polytheist only in form, especially Indo-European ones (all the gods were conceived as "forms" of one only underlying principle, see: monism); anyone studying religion or philosophy on an academic level knows this. This is also a problem of the title of the article "polytheistic reconstructionism": it should be moved to "Reconstructionism (Paganism)" or another alternative not specifying "polytheist" or anther "theological" position.

However, besides the problem regarding polytheism, "Roman polytheistic reconstructionism" is problematic also for specifying "reconstructionism". First of all, Italo-Roman Neopagans (I specify "Italo-" because the movement in Italy focuses also on local Italic cults) are not "reconstructionist" in the sense this term generally has in the English-speaking world, and this has already been pointed out by others; "reconstructionism" fails in defining them, and it's not even used in Italian. Secondly, "reconstructionism" defines the type of approach to the religion, and it's not the name of the religion itself.

Regarding "Traditionalism", in Italian academic study (the only sources of academic quality currently existing on the subject are (1) CESNUR's description, in Italian, and (2) the website on Arturo Reghini & Roman Traditionalism, in English) is used as part of the proper name of the religion itself: "(Italo-)Roman Traditionalism", the "-ism" distinguishing from "tradition". It's the most accurate term to define "Roman Neopaganism", since practitioners of the Roman Tradition are sincere continuators ("tradition", from Latin "tradere", literally means "transmission") of the religion.

As an alternative to "Italo-Roman Traditionalism", if it is considered not neutral enough, I suggest "Italo-Roman Neopaganism".--Schwert von Feuer (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually historical pre-Christian religion were not simply polytheist ...

I think you misread when I said "you are right that not all (though most) historical pagan traditions were strictly polytheist."

... all the gods were conceived as "forms" of one only underlying principle ...

This is patently false. All traditional Indo-European faiths were not monistic. Many were, especially in mid and late antiquity, but monism was not the rule.

This is also a problem of the title of the article "polytheistic reconstructionism": it should be moved to "Reconstructionism (Paganism)" or another alternative not specifying "polytheist" or anther "theological" position.

Did you not read my post. I already suggested this as a possibility.

Italo-Roman Neopagans ... are not "reconstructionist" in the sense this term generally has in the English-speaking world ... Secondly, "reconstructionism" defines the type of approach to the religion, and it's not the name of the religion itself.

Oxford Dictionaries Online's definition of reconstruction, "an impression, model, or re-enactment of a past event formed from the available evidence". They certainly appear to fit the definition. Of course this depends on who specifically you're referring to, which is why we use disambiguators like reconstructionism. There are those who attempt to rebuild lost traditions and there are those who base their practices on a mix including a specific historical tradition (thus making no historical claims). Reconstructionism may refer to the approach, but (1) that is part of who they are and (2) an established way to disambiguate them from others. —Sowlos  23:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the polytheism-monism, the Vedas and other Sanskrit literature (the oldest IE texts available) are clear in the description of this. However, I won't discuss further this topic, since it's secondary.

In order to avoid all the problems related to the use of "polytheism" vs "other-theism" and "reconstructionism" vs "tradition(alism)", "syncretism", or other approaches to the religion which can be discussed within the article, I think "Italo-Roman Neopaganism" to be the best solution.--Schwert von Feuer (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If there's no further objection, tomorrow I will move the article to "Italo-Roman Neopaganism", with the lede specifying that it is mainly a reconstructionist or traditionalist movement. --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have finally moved the page.--Schwert von Feuer (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Pardon my late response, but for some reason I wasn't receiving notifications, plus I've been really busy lately. I'm fine with the name change, however, "Pagan", "Paganism", and "Neo-Paganism" is considered derogatory by practitioners. Is there anything that could substitute that term? Afro-Eurasian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about neo-paganism, but there are plenty of people who call themselves pagans. Including some respected academics. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, a more current problem would be that the term neopagan has now been replaced here at Wikipedia with modern pagan.Reigndog (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thought I'd weigh in here. The naming is problematic, on several levels. Firstly, in that the Via Sacra Privita is specifically Italic; there are arguably some Italo-Romans who are perhaps the better studied, and the naming likely reflects this as it would be the more academically used term. Roman polytheists incorporate a wide variety of ethnic traditions (Gallo-Roman, Graeco-Roman, Aegypto-Roman, et cetera), though there is obviously an Italic undercurrent through all of these traditions, since the locus is Roman tradition. Romans, then and today, are syncretic in theology and praxis, and never have thought of themselves as "either / or".

The problem primarily lays in that these terms aren't concretely defined, even within the community itself. Neopagan is an ambiguous term, that's applied quite broadly to any pagans post-dating the rise of Christianity; in this sense, of course, they are neopagans. It also more is more specifically applied to those 'traditions' dating from the 19th century on. Most reconstructionists take umbrage with being included in this term for that reason. And, as most of you know, in every reconstructionist community, there are those traditionalist families who have ALWAYS been practising, however Christianised that practise may have become over the intervening centuries. While fewer in number than those in the Norse tradition, for example, the Roman tradition is no exception. I can personally attest to this. Families who have an unbroken tradition of practise would certainly dispute being "neo" anything. While most of those traditionalists are also reconstructionists, a tiny minority of them are not, and variously identify as both nominally Catholic and pagan.

So, how do we resolve this? I would propose dropping the moniker of "neopaganism" for the less-loaded "paganism". There's little chance of it being mistaken for ancient practise, as the latter is specifically labelled as such in the naming of other Roman religion articles. For the time being, it might be prudent to keep "Italo-Roman"; while not necessarily accurate, we can clarify this in the article itself. We also have the problem of citations from RS; this tradition is less studied than "Asatru" and "Hellenismos". There just simply isn't much in the way of sources as of yet, and so we run the risk of original research. Thoughts? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know how to make sense of the term "Italo-Roman". If it's a back-formation analogous to "Gallo-Roman", I'd suggest it's a misconceived anachronism. If it's meant to mean "pertaining to both the Romans and other Italic peoples", well, okay, but is there anything specifically Oscan or whatever in the subject of this article? It seems to me that this is simply Roman reconstructionism—or if you like, Roman reconstructionist paganism/polytheism. Or am I missing something? This article isn't meant to be about reconstructionist paganism in Italy specifically, is it? Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOLD

I boldly renamed the article, and removed a lot of the original research cruft that focused around Italian organisations that were neither notable, nor even pertinent to this article as they aren't actually reconstructionist. I'm of the opinion that the last paragraph should also be removed or rewritten, as organisations like MTR (which is more of a radical nationalist movement), and those based on Evola don't fit the scope of this article, but were just sorta wedged in there and the article renamed to accommodate them. Their notability is limited, and they're virtually unheard of outside of Italy. Another user laid out his/her objections to their inclusion in a previous talk page section, and I echo their concerns.

I renamed the article because there was only one user (possibly two) who unilaterally changed the article itself, and (presumably) renamed it to accommodate those non-notable groups who didn't fit a pagan or reconstructionist label. Secondly, there seemed to be a strong consensus against their changes, and a general consensus to return the article back to the original title. It also conforms to the rest of the articles in the topic area, and all of the inter-wiki links already use said title. Lastly, I looked through all the relevant and reliable sources I could find on the subject, and couldn't find any usage of the term Italo-Roman neopaganism.

Finally, I removed some of the non-notable external links, one of which appeared to be a blog, and added Nova Roma; for better or worse, it's the largest such organisation (and thus influences nearly all other RR groups), and it's the one mentioned in nearly every reliable source. I'm surprised it wasn't linked before.

I'd like to hear from anyone else on suggested improvements.

Quinto Simmaco (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Quinto Simmaco: I oppose the change, or, rather, I suggest changing the title to something less technical than "Roman polytheistic reconstructionism". The problems of "polytheistic reconstructionism" were already exposed in past discussions. The whole "reconstructionism" concept needs to be reformulated, together with the catch-all "neopaganism" it sounds like a technical concept. For this article I suggest "Cultus Deorum Romanorum", the Latin definition used by groups within Nova Roma, or "Roman Way of the Gods", which is the English translation of the general concept used in Italy and Spain.--95.236.118.5 (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The article's subject

The article's subject is the revival/reimagination of Roman religious practices in modern times: the original 2008 version defines the scope as "Neopagan reconstructions of Ancient Roman religion" and the current version mentions several names for this, of which "Cultus Deorum Romanorum" is one, and talks about "loosely related organizations". Lembit Staan, you're misunderstanding the article's scope when you point to the particular name "Cultus Deorum", which the article was moved to in June 2021, as a reason for removing sourced information about the overall subject. I will give you that the name "Cultus Deorum" is unsupported by sources, but that may be a reason to move the article, not to remove the information. Ffranc (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The article really should be at the previous title...the CD usuage is not the common name...I’m pretty sure there isn’t a better name than what it previously was at. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Neopagan reconstructions of Ancient Roman religion" is an ideal title, but it's certainly less confusing than "Cultus Deorum" which may be misleading folks into thinking it's the name of a cult, which it isn't. A better name is therefore highly desirable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

That's the whole problem. You have to use a title, exact or descriptive, which is used in reliable sources. Otherwise the article is original research/ WP:SYNTH. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry colleague, I am acting in good faith, bona fide, prima facie, whatever Ancient Romans say. It is not my problem that y'all neglected the article. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Neglect or anything like that is no cause for deletion, the only question is notability, and we're now sure it's not a hoax but a well-established practice in southern Europe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not a cause for deletion, but it was a valid cause for me to nominate for deletion. I know that AfD is not for cleanup. But the article looked so bizarre, and proceeded with resonable due diligence searhing google for terms in bold and finding no reliable secondary sources. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Now that the dust is settled, I propose the descriptive title, Revival of Roman paganism, which is moderately searchable. IMO is is broad enough to cover everything, ranging from the scientific/amateur efforts to cover the history of ancient Roman ways of worship, to reconstructionism, to "true" <how would one know it is not just a brain game> neopagan religion. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Opinion: This is a little-studied but nonetheless existing new religious movement. The concept of "reconstructionism" is indeed what Lembit Staan calls "a brain game", as it has been spread from American/English-language blogs which obviously don't constitute actual religious organisations (the same problem applies to articles about other "reconstructionisms" in Wikipedia). The current version of the article has one academic source (Hans Thomas Hakl, 2009) which calls the movement "Roman-Italic Tradition", thus I think that the article should be moved to the title "Roman-Italic Tradition (new religious movement)" in conformity with other well-written articles on modern Pagan religions (e.g. the WP:FA "Heathenry (new religious movement)"). At least one organisation of the movement, Pietas (it calls the religion itself "Roman Tradition"), has been recognised as a legal entity by the state of Italy ("Italy formally recognizes Religio Romana organization", The Wild Hunt); this organisation appears to have established various temples in Italy. Another organisation has established a temple in Poltava, Ukraine (Temple of Jupiter Perennus). There is an organisation in Russia, too; it calls the religion Cultus Deorum and publishes the magazine Adoratio.--Æo (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not "new religious movement". I am currently moving the article to the title I suggested, because the current title is absolutely inadmissible and opening a discussion for other suggestions. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It is a new religious movement, indeed. Note that the only academic source currently available on the subject, H. T. Halk 2009, is edited by René Gründer, a scholar of new religious movements.--Æo (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Poll for a new title

If you don't like the new title, please make suggestions below, for a mini-poll. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

1. Revival of Roman paganism (current move)
   • support – searchable neutral desciptive term, covers all aspects: Renaissance, current reconstructionism, current play in neopaganism. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
   • oppose – too generic; it fails to circumscribe the modern movement and may result into a catch-all article covering everything from Emperor Julian's revived Hellenism to Renaissance Neoplatonism to the modern Italian and Russian organisations.--Æo (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Roman-Italic Tradition (new religious movement) or Roman-Italic Traditionalism (new religious movement) – per the WP:RS available, namely H. T. Hakl (2009), Das Neuheidentum der römisch-italischen Tradition (Neopaganism of the Roman-Italic Tradition), and CESNUR's entry Roman Traditionalism.
   • Oppose. (1) We do not include "()" in titles, if not necessary for disambiguation. (2) "Traditionalism" is an extremely vague term. In the source cited the keyword is "Neopaganism", not "tradition", i.e., "tradition" is part of the adjectival phrase which narrows down the subject, i.e., the term would be "Romano-Italic neopaganism", which would be OK with me, but it does not cover reenactment without real religion. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
     • Reenactment without religion does not pertain to this article or to modern Paganism, but to "historical reenactment". I think that the subject of Hakl's paper is römisch-italischen Tradition (Roman-Italic Tradition), which he discusses as a subtype of Neuheidentum (Neopaganism). "Roman-Italic Neopaganism" would be good in my opinion, but I still think that "Roman-Italic Traditionalism" would be better (also cf. CESNUR's entry), especially given that organisations of this religion do not seem to use "Neopaganism". However, I would wait for Ffranc's opinion, given that he seems to be more knowledgeable about the topic. I hope you don't mind that I have corrected your typos.--Æo (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
       • I see nothing wrong with including reenactment, because I do not truly believe that they all believe in Zeus; many of them are just fooling around, at least the russian bunch seems are.Lembit Staan (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
   • oppose – these groups usually refuse the term "pagan", and they call themselves reconstructionist polytheists instead of neopagan. There is a difference in approach and method. Maybe "Revival of Roman religion" could qualify, but the scientifically correct name would be Roman polytheistic reconstructionism. This term is a collective term, as different groups have different tenets and doctrines under this umbrella term, therefore this collective, colorless, term should be used. I will move the article back to the name it bore for over a decadeRoman polytheistic reconstructionism) if there is no objection. It seems there was no consensus to change it anyway. --Gonda Attila (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• RESULT OF THE POLL: Three votes for the old name, one for the new, I revert to the old name: Roman polytheistic reconstructionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonda Attila (talk • contribs) 16:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The closure of this discussion is completely undue. You have taken a decision according to your own opinion ignoring the opinions expressed by me and Lembit Staan, whom agreed on "Roman-Italic Neopaganism", while the title which would best fit the only academic source provided about the topic (Hakl) is "Roman-Italic Tradition". We were, however, waiting for the opinion and contribution of another user who seemed to have an interest and expertise in the topic, Ffranc.--Æo (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• too generic - on the contrary, a very specific subject. Time frame is not necessarily included into subject delineation. If necessary, it may be done by disambiguation of the tile, such as 'History of Poland (1945-1989)'. The articles does not have to restrict to modern movement and can cover other mime periods, in separate sections per WP:Summary style. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, what relation does Hellenism have to Romano-Italian Roman paganism? Lembit Staan (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that Emperor Julian's restoration of Roman religion (thus the first "revival of Roman paganism") was another attempted systematisation of late-antiquity Hellenism, just as Christianity itself was. He called the restored religion itself "Hellenism". However, this is not the topic of this article.--Æo (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• It may be worth pinging the participants in the recent AfD here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Imperivm Romanvm?

Amongst the links of the major/relevant reconstructionist groups is a link to a random and obscure group called Imperivm Romanvm that only goes back to October of 2021. Looking further at this group shows that this seems to be part of a larger social media campaign to recruit more members . Needless to say, it has no real merit for being there outside of being vaguely related to the topic and should be removed. Nova Roma and the MTR are both significant organizations are good sources to look into Roman Reconstructionism, but this looks like a random web forum looking to recruit more members and using the Wiki to do that. Lakoniko (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• All evidences point to the direction you suggested, it seems you are right, I remove the advertisement from the page. --Gonda Attila (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  It appears someone has put the ad back up, do we know who is doing this? Lakoniko (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

References