Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fair use rationale for Image:Gothic.fibula.jpg

Image:Gothic.fibula.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Heathenism"

i think "heathen" more falls into an insult category than a proper term; i think its offensive to the actual believers of Germanic Neopaganism. what i'm getting to is this: is "heathenism" a proper term or just a term used by regilious nuts who think theyre always right? its just that the use of those kinds of words could maybe be offensive to neopagans, and points-of-view arent supposed to be included in articles(i think) 69.229.8.83 (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Heathen" is a common self-designation, referring to the apparent original meaning of the term (generally figured to mean "dweller on the heath"). This preference is partially due to the fact that "heathen" is Germanic, whereas "pagan" is Latin, and partially due to the associations that now come with the word "pagan" - particularly when the prefix "neo" is applied. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

aaaaahh. i didnt know that. thanks for clearing that up. i thought it could be offensive because, in every case ive heard "heathen" used in the past, it basically means "infidel". again, thanks for clearing that up for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.72.30 (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Attestation of "ásatrú"

Now that a lot of 19th century Icelandic texts have been digitized it's become a lot easier to search for early uses of words. Here's the earliest I can find for Ásatrú:

"Hèr með er samt öldúngis ekki sagt, að tröll og jötnar ekki líka hafi verið til í ímyndan manna; þvert á móti var þessi trú ein af undirstöðum Ásatrúarinnar, því eptir henni var allur heimurinn kominn af jötnum og tröllkendur; en það voru allt önnur tröll." - Gefn, I 1871, p. 59 [1]

In this case we have the genitive with the suffixed article, Ásatrúarinnar ("of the Ásatrú"). Haukur (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Animism

It is to this day common in Iceland, parts of Germany, England, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, to worship land-spirits and elves. It is relevant to modern day Asatru, because it i an unbroken, but evolved, tradition.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsjarl (talk • contribs)

Please provide a reference discussing animism in Asatru explicitly. If Asatru is an, "unbroken, but evolved, tradition", so is any other neopagan nrm. Please stop citing random eddaic stories in support of your claims regarding Asatru. Asatru is a product of 1970s counterculture in Iceland and the Anglosphere. You need to provide evidence of the practices of these circles of 1970s counter-culture people, not of the Vikings. We have a dedicated Norse paganism article for the historical religion. Of course it is a truism that reconstructionists will try to do whatever they conclude has been done in the historical religion. The point is that you need to cite evidence on what they conclude and how they implement it in a modern setting.

Fwiiw, I know about Icelandic Elf folklore. I have even visited the Icelandic Elf School once. The Icelanders are being facetious about their alleged belief in elves. Either way this is irrelevant to Asatru, since if the Icelandic population in general believes in elves, it isn't significant if the 0.4% Icelandic neopagans believe in elves. Your claim is that animism is more widespread in Asatru than in other neopagan tradtions. You have failed to present any sort of reference for that. I have also grave doubts as to your claim that "It is to this day common in Iceland, parts of Germany, England, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, to worship land-spirits and elves." You pick the Germanic-speaking countries of Europe. What is your evidence that the "worship land-spirits" is in any way more pronounced in these countries than in, say, rural Pakistan, rural Poland or rural Rwanda? --dab (𒁳) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of offerings to the land-spirits is recorded into the 14th century in Iceland but I'm not aware of any later evidence. I don't think there is any evidence of an unbroken tradition of such offerings stretching from pre-Christian paganism into post-Christian paganism. I don't remember any Icelandic neo-pagan making such a claim. There may be some such continuity somewhere in Scandinavia but I haven't studied it and don't want to make any claims. I'm sure there are people in Pakistan making offerings to the land-spirits. The Kalash, perhaps?

As for Icelandic belief in elves, that's a very difficult subject. It's certainly often exaggerated. There's a very informative article on it here: [2] but unfortunately only in Icelandic. The basic conclusion is that any firm belief in elves has been confined to a small minority as far back as our sources go. Widespread agnosticism about such things, however, has often been misconstrued as indicating belief. An opinion poll showing that 70% of Icelanders are not willing to completely rule out the possibility that there may be elves is spiced up and misrepresented as meaning that 70% hold a belief in elves. (Side note: There are some things in that article I disagree with. His timeline for the use of certain words is badly off. I also think he's somewhat misunderstood the animist instinct and the nature of religious and sub-religious systems.)

The great exception for belief in the supernatural is the witch hunts of the 17th century. See Galdrabók for a representative example. Haukur (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this depends on terminology. Before the urbanization of the 20th century, mainland Scandinavia certainly had a widespread belief in beings like elves, trolls, nixes, huldras and so on, which IMO could translate as a kind of animism. These beings also received gifts so that they could help out with things. However, it was probably not more widespread than corresponding beliefs in any rural society in the world.--Berig (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"I don't remember any Icelandic neo-pagan making such a claim." I dont know about any icelandic neopagans but i know swedish and german neopagans who like to claim surviving traditions but this is probly standard oneupmenship that seems to common in the neopagan community in general every source they have given for this seems to be as simple as "stupid american dont question me" so if anyone can find a good source for it i will be surprised and ill have some apologies to hand out--Ofrolvi (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify what I was saying a bit: I'm entirely willing to believe that the mainland Scandinavians have all sorts of continuous old traditions but that's not something I know much about. My only claim was about offerings to land-wights in Iceland, which I do not think is a continuous tradition. Haukur (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

famously, there is Trollkyrka, which "may have been used as late as the 19th century". That's it. It's not verifiable, but at least with some goodwill there is a genuine chance that pagan worship had an unbroken tradition into the 19th century in one spot in Scandinavia. That is much if you consider the full length of eight centuries, but it is of course comparatively little if you consider the pie-in-the-sky claims of some (sadly, many) Neopagans. --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This depends on whether we conceive of paganism in absolute terms, like black and white. There was plenty of residual paganism in Scandinavian folklore in the 19th century, like there was in most of Europe. Elves, trolls, etc. were not introduced with Christianity. Likewise, Thor, Freyja and Odin still existed as supernatural beings in the public mind, although they were hardly worshiped. 19th century rural Scandinavians thought of themselves as Christians, but a lot of things that they believed in did not originate in the Bible. The folklorist Ebbe Schön doesn't hesitate to trace beliefs and customs back to Norse paganism (e.g. in Asa-Tors hammare: gudar och jättar i tro och tradition (2004)), and neither should we until a reliable source can be provided that denies any connection between Norse paganism and Scandinavian folklore.--Berig (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

sure, but in if you look at it this way, the concept of "paganism" just dissolves, because everyone is pagan and has always been pagan. The term becomes meaningless. At best you can say that some people are "more pagan" than others. This will usually be the rural population (the literal pagani), not the Neopagans. In fact, many ideologized urban Neopagan Ayatollahs ("never again the burning") are closer to Calvin or Saint Ignatius than to the "simple folk" they pretend to emulate. --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we won't get very far without some common definition or understanding of what paganism is. What's your definition, Dab? Was Plethon a pagan? Was he a neopagan? Haukur (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

that's probably best discussed at Talk:Paganism. "Paganism" is a very difficult term. You go to the heart of the matter by bringing up the Neoplatonists. In the original sense of the word, "pagani" more or less refers to "backward rural yokels". In the early 6th century, when the Academy was shut down, everyone who wasn't yet Christian was "backward" and hence "paganus", even if they were the very opposite of "rural" and indeed the inventors of monotheism, as was the case with the Neoplatonists. If already in the Roman Empire period, "paganus" could refer to a barbarian idolater chanting disturbing hymns in the swamps of Germania as well as a learnéd member of the Academy of Athens, it shouldn't surprise us that the term is rather fuzzy today. --dab (𒁳) 14:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I am not disputing that belief in elves etc. may be connected to animism, nor that there is animism in European folklore. There certainly is, as in any other folklore, or indeed in any of the world's cultures. I would clearly count animism in this broad sense as a human cultural universal. You may count yourself as an animist if you have ever caught yourself swearing at a computer or talking in pleading tones to a car that refused to start.

Precisely since "animism" is so universal, it would need excellent references to back up a claim that Germanic Neopagans are somehow more animistic than other neopagans, or indeed than Christians or atheists. --dab (𒁳) 07:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Asatru is not an “unbroken tradition” (hence the name germanic NEO-paganism) the belief in Elves and or land-spirits IS. There is no evidence to the contrary. I am not citing random Eddaic stories, due to the fact that I have not cited either of the Eddas. I cited the “Heimskringla” , not the Eddas. You are not properly checking my work and citations. The references are not “random”, since they are dealing with the subject at hand. The first reference IS of a modern day book, which is used in the United States (by “the Troth”), England (by Ring of Troth) and Germany (by the Eldaring) as a book of beliefs, customs and rituals. The chapter on “Alfs, Dwarves, Land-wights, and Huldfolk” quite clearly deal with what the beliefs are and how to make offering to these beings, based on past information. That is why I referenced it first. It would be ludacris to quote the entire chapter. Be it reconstructed or not, the fact is, modern day Asatru are worshipping these beings. The second reference deals with the historic background of the modern custom. A reference to the past answers the questions; where did they get it from and why is it more important to a Heathen as opposed to a Norse-Wiccan? Heathens are simply, more worried about “getting it right.” As to your question on why I only deal with the Germanic countries, pertaining to worship of elves etc., because this page is about “Germanic-Neopaganism”. The Kalash you mentioned are "pagan", not “Neopagan” and therefore not relevant. Neither are the Mursi of Africa, or the Onondaga, in New York. Wicca IS relevant, because it belongs to the “Neopangan” family of religions. If I want to prove Asatru is more animist than other Neopagan traditions, why should I involve religions that don't fall into that category? This makes no sense at all! To get back to the countries I mentioned, in the 19th and early 20th century people, “certainly had a widespread belief in beings like elves, trolls, nixes, huldras and so on, which IMO could translate as a kind of animism.” as "Berig" stated above. This is why the Brothers Grimm, more specifically Jacob Grimm could collect vast amounts of information (putting aside his interpretation of that information) in the 19th. Century, from people in rural areas that practised a folkloreistic worship of Elves, Kobolde, Dwarfs, etc., proving that the worship of Elves and therefore “animism” survived (to some extent) in Europe. The rural populations of these countries would not have had the resources to research “folkcustom” and revive it. This would be a ludacris assumtion. So therefore these customs must have survived but in an altered (evolved) form. Specifically the modern day Icelanders are more aware of these old customs, be it a facetious manner or not, the fact that they build their roads around places that are believed to be homes of Elves, proves that they are, at the very least, superstitious. The Thai people build houses for spirits they have displaced, the so called “ghost houses”. These are two approaches to the same problem. The Thais are not “Neopagan” so it is not relevant that they have a belief in these spirits. Compared to heathens, Wiccans take a more “Junginan” and mix and match approach to their gods. They are “just” archetypes, or aspects of the same god/goddess and not separate beings, as in Asatru. Wiccans are usually duotheistic, or pantheistic. These gods are present in everything, including nature. This is not my understanding of animism. By that definition Christianity would be animistic, because god is omnipresent. To quote the animism article you edited: "Religions which emphasize animism are mostly ethnic religions or folk religions, such as the various forms of Shamanism, Shinto, or certain currents of Hinduism." ( animism ) . As I have stated before Wicca is an immanent religion, meaning they can find god wherever they look. So if they wish to worship an elf, they can, but it is not essential and not a part of their “theology”. The horned god and mother goddess are the focal point and every god/goddess or being can be substituted into that position.( wicca ) Germanic Neopaganism is polytheistic and therefore pluralistic. All beings are separate form one another and therefore an elf is an elf and a god a god. They are not "archetypes", or interchangeable. (http://www.heathengods.com/library/wicca_comparison/pentagram_and_the_hammer.pdf). Every modern Asatru book I have read, always has at least one chapter on the elves, because it is a essential part of the religion. Wiccan books do not. Giving offerings to the house-ghost is a part of the Asatru religion, much like it is to do so in Thailand. Again, it is NOT an essential part of Wicca, but it is an OPTION. This is why modern Asatru is “more” animistic than Wicca or other Neopagan religions.Odinsjarl (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are not paying attention. You present a book by The Troth discussing "Alfs, Dwarves, Land-Wights, and Huldfolk". So, feel free to state that The Troth, or if you like, Germanic Neopagans, believe in these beings. Do not jump to conclusions and present claims regarding Germanic Neopaganism compared with other religions, or claims regarding "animism". This is a fallacy we call WP:SYNTH. You start off by presenting one source, and then go on to make random claims not backed up by your source at all.

While I accept there is a relation between "animism" and the belief in nature-spirits such as elves, I do not think the two concepts may be equated. Elves are anthropomorphic. Animism is the belief in souls inherent in nature itself, e.g. trees or rocks. Now in cases where the claim goes that such and such a rock is inhabited by elves, I can see the connection to animism. The point remains that if you want to discuss animism in Germanic Neopaganism, you need to PRESENT A REFERENCE discussing, explicitly, animism in Germanic Neopaganism. Not a Troth book mentioning elves, not a story from the Icelandic sagas, but an explicit reference. This isn't asking too much, since by now there are a number of academic studies on Neopaganism. Consult one of those. If they don't mention animism, I do not think Wikipedia should. --dab (𒁳) 15:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

to start you off, it is a good idea to go to google books and search for "animism" and "Neopaganism". You will get some 300 hits, including this and this. Both go to show animism has some significance in Neopaganism. Neither mentions Germanic Neopaganism in particular. In fact, searching for Asatru and animism gives just about 50 hits, of which none seem to use the terms in topical relation to one another. But I don't want to do your job for you. If you are interested in covering this topic, and I invite you to, go and do some research, and then come back with what you found. We are a community of encyclopedists here, not of essayists. --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not every non-Christian religious or proto-religious custom or belief in 19th century Germany or elsewhere is necessarily a survival from before the Christianization. They can just as well be new proto-pagan customs or beliefs.

As for the roads and elves in Iceland I again recommend the article by Árni Björnsson.[3] Where I part company with Árni is that he tends to assume that no custom or belief somehow counts unless it goes back multiple generations. But, again, new animistic/pagan ideas can always arise and they're not necessarily fundamentally different from the old ones. Haukur (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are biased on this topic. I have proven that independently organised "germanic neopagans" in three different countries use a ritual book that deals specifically with the WORSHIP of elves (and not just the "belief in" elves) AND land-spirits (which are are NOT "anthropomorphic" and usually have animal-shape). This is defined as animism and there is nothing you can change about that. The book "Our Troth" deals with the practice of the Asatru and links it directly to animism. This is a "good source". The book does not just "mention" elves as you stated, your choice of words proving your bias on this topic.

Furthermore I have cited sources for the relationship of Wicca to their gods and nature, that clearly states that they see god in "everything", NOT as an independent soul/spirit (which would make it an animistic religion). You criticise elves as being "anthropomorphic", but you do not see, that land-spirits are also mentioned?

To sum things up: Asatru is animist, this animism is inspired by old sources (which you added, and I agree, even though the article clearly states that Asatru is reconstructionist), Wicca has animistic TENDENCIES, but is by self definition i.e. they are an "immanent religion" and therefore not an "animistic religion". I do not need a scientific study if both groups, by "self definition" agree with this. This is not: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources." It is stating a fact, with sources, that both groups agree to. There is even a comparison of Wicca and "polytheists" in the animism article. It clearly states how Wiccans use the term "animism". These "polytheist" (and Asatru are polytheists) see these spirits as separate "individuals", which is closer to the definition of animism given at the top of the article. Please read the section "Currently" 2nd. paragraph animism .Please do not change the facts to suit your own assumptions, which is, what I feel, you are doing.

I do need to apologize for citing the wrong paragraph as a source on the website (http://www.eldaring.de/readarticle.php?article_id=6#III3). It was III. part 3.that states they have an "animistic world view". Odinsjarl (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I never denied Asaru has "an animistic worldview". That's fine. If you have a source saying "immanent religion and therefore not an animistic religion", or even just "not an animistic religion" on Wicca, let's see it.

Understand this: WP:SYNTH says, if you're going to claim "X is animistic", you'll need a source stating "X is animistic", not a source discussing land-spirits, another source saying land-spirits tend to be theriomorphic, and a third source mentioning animism and theriomorphic spirits in the same paragraph or chapter. Ok? Your Eldaring reference is saying (from the German),

According to pagan conviction, all beings and things are joined in a natural way in the Circle of Life. In the view of Eldaring, this spiritual-animistic view and the scientific view are not mutually exclusive.

This goes for a statement that

"According to Eldaring, paganism means seeing all things joined in a great Circle of Life." (especially note how "Germanic" vs. "non-Germanic" isn't as much as mentioned here. Also note how they do not say "animistic" but go out of their way to form a compound "spiritual-animistic" to gesture at a view that has animistic aspects but cannot be called animistic without qualification)

It does not go for a claim that

"Asatru is more animist than Wicca"

or indeed

"Asatru is more animistic than any other Neopagan religion", which a fortiori implies that Asatru is more animistic than say, Baltic Neopaganism, which I would venture to doubt.

Is this really so difficult to understand? If you cannot follow this explanation, I would ask you to please write in a blog instead of editing encyclopedic articles.

Well, you'll not be able to complain that I didn't take the time to explain WP:SYNTH to you, or what is expected from you when you edit articles. You are welcome to continue editing, but you will note that you will tend to be reverted if your argument is pieced together or goes beyond what your sources state. --dab (𒁳) 17:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The source was for an earlier discusson, when you stated I need a source, that states Asatru is animist. It was not in reference to Wicca and which is "more" animistic. I just re-checked some of the things I wrote and noticed it. When I make a mistake, I say it.

I understand what you are saying and I think it is because you don't agree (or find elves "silly"), so you want a source for every statement. Pertaining to Wicca and animism, yes they do use the word, but as it states in the animism article they use a broader definition of the term. Asatru is more conservative in the use of the word. I think we can agree to that. Odinsjarl (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

no, I am being very reasonable, I charitably accept your "references" that are in fact just random websites, not WP:RS and (for the fifth time), I do not disagree with your point that Neopaganism has animistic tendencies. "Use of the word" within Wicca or Asatru is irrelevant, the important thing is how these groups are classified in academic literature.

If I just wanted to shoot you down, I would't invest all this effort in coaching you into producing acceptable content, I would just revert your edits no grounds of violating policy and be done. I find it preposterous that you should attempt to second-guess my motivation, such as my finding elves "silly". Because, perhaps to the very contrary, I take belief in elves seriously enough to wish to see it discussed properly, as the topic of comparative religion that it is, instead of reading brainstorming based on assorted neopagan websites. --dab (𒁳) 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, you have spent a lot of time with this, it was unfair of me to question your motivation, and I apologize for that. It was not right of me and I thank you for your patience.

In the article I wrote I never stated that Asatru is "more" animistic than Wicca. It is something you requested, to be allowed to add "Germanic Neopagnaism" to the animism article, despite Wicca explicitly being a part of that article. To quote you from the animism disussion: "Of course, all neopagan flavours attempt to revive historical animism, but there is nothing to suggest that Germanic neopaganism does this more than others." Historical animism? How do eclectic Wiccans try to revive "historical animism"? I would like your source for this.

To end this I will change the animism page, so that germanic neopagnaism is merely used as an example of neopagans that DO practice a form of animism based on historic paganism. Is this okay?Odinsjarl (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks. Here's to fruitful collaboration in the future. --dab (𒁳) 13:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Slight correction, and slighter grammatical fix

Qualified the section on "Blót" under Rites, to prevent some misunderstanding. The blót is performed outside of the homestead, and "garb" isn't required.

Also corrected "is are" to "are."

GeminiDomino 14:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Berserkr

I am a bit hesitant to agree with the addition of the berserkrgang being linked with seidh. The 'how' of a berserkr being what he/she is in past centuries is still a hot topic for speculation and debate between scholars of Scandinavian history. Do you have some lore texts you can cite for that reference in the article in order to support it, Dieter? I can pull out my notes on the subject and do so myself, but if you have them handy and get to it before I can, please feel free. You might have some I do not have, and vice-versa. P.MacUidhir 20:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

no, I just wanted to mention it as a sort of religious experience; feel free to rephrase. Since it involves altered states of consciousness, I decided to list it with seid rather than as a separate item, but I am not claiming it is identical with, or a subset of seid. I am not even sure it qualifies as a "rite", but that seemed the most appropriate section for mentioning it. I am sure you will find a better way of incorporating it. dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Berserkr is the state of mind that is very probable after hearing a political debate. Rather. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thor and religion

Gnostic Lore: Thor and many other (G)gods (no GotterDammering!) were quite concerned with the development of the nuclear age. They witnessed the effects first hand and became very vigil. I was aware of the Thor Missile Program at that Time (precursor to the Atlas Program and at one Time, there was a stray Thor Missile that entered a foreign land). It came to a point that Thor had stood in one place so long that he had become a Mountain, yet he could leave this position at any Time (either large or small). I suggested to Him to go take a bath in the Creek and go yonder to the West to a Church and get new clothes; I never asked Him what Church, but He did return with White Linen. He had gained a new outlook. He would still Vanquish the Earth.

Gnostics 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What. D Boland (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thau??

Huh, kind of! In the section Ethics a certain thau is mentioned:

... Thau is defined as the customs and beliefs of a specific tribe, and each theodish tribe has their own thau which may or may not be mirrored in other theodish (and indeed some non-theodish) circles.

What are those "tribes"? (Clarification needed). It is possible to conclude from the paragraph that those "Theodish groups" are organized into "tribes", which are factually not "tribes" in the ordinary sense, since westerners aren't organized in tribes proper. The last paragraph of section Ethics might reflect some truth, but it is confused by introducing terms without proper explanation. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes... I think this is Theodism vocabulary, a rather less than notable subset of US Asatru, which nevertheless has a bunch of self-published books to quote from. They have thew, a word that the OED labels obsolete, giving the defintion " A custom, usage, general practice (e.g. of a people, community, or class)." I don't know why thew should be spelled thau here. As a rule, garbled passages should be deleted from neopaganism articles on sight unless they are clearly attributed to some source. --dab (𒁳) 17:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis VS "far right"

The paragraph is about Neo-Nazis. Not only is "far right" not mentioned, but the page that the subheader links to assigns both "far right" and "far left" to the idea of racialism. To meet some kind of compromise, instead of the misleading "far right" (which generally implies conservative, at which point the discussion becomes "what is conservative neopaganism"), it's much clearer to call it "racialism" or "neo nazis". This is what the discussion is about in this paragraph. If we don't want to discuss Neo-Nazis, fine, lets call it racialism.

Sounds like a plan. Haukur (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

well, I do not feel strongly about this, but I would like to point out that you can certainly be on the far-right without being a Neo-Nazi. Neo-Nazis are generally losers who like to decorate their rooms with Third Reich paraphernalia. The far-right has moved beyond that, you do not recognize a member of the Nouvelle Droite from their collection of SS daggers. And yes, the Nouvelle Droite has everything to do with neopaganism, see GRECE. There is also the wider topic of Neofascism which also does not necessarily ally itself with Neo-Nazism, "88" graffiti and swastika tattoos. Neofascism has completely shed the Nazi iconography and terminology. It now calls itself things like "radical traditionalism. --dab (𒁳) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Odinism in US prisons

Although I won't be editing this article, I've found this which looks useful. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

since this US-specific, the Asatru in the United States article may be a better venue for the topic. --dab (𒁳) 18:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Odin Brotherhood (redux)

Regarding this, I suggest mention along these lines. There is, of course, no merit to the "founded in 1421" claim, but as with Gardner it is impossible to tell whether Mirabello made it up himself, or whether he genuinely believed the story told to him by somebody who made it up. Not that it really matters. This is part of the 1990s history of the "second revival of Germanic neopaganism", and I suggest it deserves a brief mention here. I know of no indication that any Odin Brotherhood exists in any real sense. Anybody and their grandmothers can of course create facebook groups, wordpress blogs and the like with the title, but that doesn't qualify as "reference" in our sense. --dab (𒁳) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Asatru and racism

This section of the article is headed as 'Asatru and Racism' but only discusses Odinist extremism.

This is a significantly misleading title. Asatru as a term is used to describe a follower of the Aesir Gods, whilst Odinism is its own category. This section should be retitled as 'Odinism and Racism', as there is not evidence cited of such racism in any Asatru organisation. This is a small change but will reflect the content of this section 100%.

I would also propose the moving of the quote from the White Order of Thule 'Felton and Chase' prosecution in the US. I had not heard of this, but having reviewed the White Order of Thule wiki page they do not meet the classification of Germanic Neopagan. According to the this page they 'followed pre-Christian beliefs as represented by the ancient Celts, Norse, Greeks, Slavs, Romans and other ancient Indo-European peoples'. This is not the definition of Germanic Neopaganism as it includes Greek and Roman beliefs, and is unfairly tarring the germanic neopagan page (there is now no separate page for Asatru in its own right) with the brush of US domestic extremism and racism. As the linked page does not meet the definition of Asatru, it should not be included here. It belongs on the neovolkish page, not Asatru or germanic neopaganism. Indeed, the White Order of Thule page itself refers readers onto the neo fascism page, not here.

Furthermore, the FBI report is into domestic threats in the year 2000. This report does not concern itself with groups who do not attach a special significance to the year 2000, and that caveat is clearly written in the executive summary of the report. Why then is it the permanent tag line to the section on racism in Asatru? The year 2000 has been and gone. Intelligence has a shelf life, and that report was specific to 1999. It is now 2011. I will add the much more strongly worded caveat that the report itself provides that states it does not refer to organisations without a Y2K issue . This is critical, as it is not listed anywhere on this article as an issue for any neopagans, and the year 2000 is/was not a significant date for any of the groups on the page.

And the section mentions Robert Jay Mathews - upon consulting his wiki page he is both deceased as of 1984 (hence pre-dating most of the organisations listed on this page) but also was a mormon and then a white supremacist. It makes no mention of any Odinist or otherwise neopagan beliefs. Again, the inclusion of this fact is not corroborated elsewhere, but adds a massive taint to the germanic neopaganism page.

These are basic categorisation errors that are giving this page a heavy slant towards extremist views.

Erghiez1985 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now made these changes as discussed. I have also added a section to state that the Asatru Alliance and The Troth are not Odinist organisations, as the current article implies that they are. I've also added the sections from these organisations' charters in which they explicitly state they reject racism, to give the article more balance.

Erghiez1985 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Beliefs

This section claims to set out the beliefs of Germanic Neopaganism, however it lists a quote from an Odinist organisation calling it 'the first creedal statement of Germanic heathen beliefs'. This claim is not referenced, and by making the statement it implies that this creed is somehow a good summary of the whole. It is not - it is a summary of Odinist beliefs.

This particular section does not do justice to any of the other religious groups who fall under this wiki category of germanic neopaganism. Asatru organisations have their own belief statements for example, and the Troth, Asatru Folk Assembly and Asatru Alliance all have more modern and moderate mission statements, statements of ethics and so on. These are significantly more moderate than the language used in this Melbourne creed (which mentions 'holy nations of Odin', sacred blood, blasphemers and traitors being renounced etc etc). If you are trying to capture a belief statement of the germanic religions and give an objective view on the beliefs of these religious groups, then using the international organisations such as the three mentioned above makes more sense and is more balanced. If not exclusively, then they need to have their own beliefs stated for balance, otherwise this section is just 'Odinist beliefs' and further to my above post will suggest that all Germanic Neopagans subscribe to this Odinist creed. To stress again, they do not.

This article is combining 4 or 5 strands of germanic neopaganism into one page, and then trying to impose commonalities where they do not exist. There is a significant volume of information on the actual beliefs and practices of these religious groups out there, and if this page is going to try and lump these branches of heathenry together it needs to do it properly and accurately, or not at all and separate them out into distinct articles in their own right.

Erghiez1985 (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Racism section

I'm a little concerned that some elements of this article appear to tip over the POV line a little. One section that caught my eye read:

"Such connections between northern heathenism and racism are tenuous at best. The double-standard of racism seems only to apply to "White" people, as nearly every ethnic group has organizations celebrating their heritage (e.g., MEChA)."

I've removed this, though I've tried to tune the section above it so that the point is preserved (that no act of terrorism has ever been attributed to an Odinist group).

I'm aware that Asatru/Odinism/Norse Heathenism does have an issue with its unwarranted association with racism and white supremacism; however the above comment ("double-standard") was a personal assertion and not something that adds to the article. It may or may not be true, but it's still POV. Obviously if we can find a quotation from someone relevant and notable, there'd be nothing to stop this going back in as a quote. - Silvensis (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Neopaganism?

I think it might be good to take the "neo" out of this article. The main "Neopaganism" article has been changed to Paganism (contemporary religions), so related articles probably should reflect that. Also, in my experience at least, the majority of people practicing Germanic religions (as well as other culturally specific European religions; Celtic, Roman, Hellenic, etc.) do not refer to themselves as "Neopagans." I think changing it to "Germanic Paganism (contemporary religions)" would reflect the population better, while still being broad enough to include Reconstructionists and Germanic-focused eclectics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorPrincessDanu (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I think the best name is "Heathenism (contemporary religion)" rather than "Germanic Paganism (contemporary religion)", since the first one is the most commonly used umbrella term for the movement. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Bhlegkorbh that Heathenism would be a more appropriate term for this page. Heathen is being used primarily by those that this article defines, with Asatru and other such names coming in as a close second. Germanic Neopaganism is incorrect for many reasons, not all Heathens feel they are Germanic, Pagan is a term used less and less frequently by those that follow these faiths, and the Neo part wouldn't apply in any case.Olaf.i44 (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Massive changes?

Why have the massive changes taken place? They appear to be removing references and replacing them with questionable references, and unexplained reorganizing that doesn't appear to have the same flow that the article had. - SudoGhost 20:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have just reorganised the text trying to make order on the terminology issue. I have added some paragraph about minor Heathen movements, with their proper sources. I've not removed any sources (just one, because the site is down), on the contrary I've added new sources. I am a Heathen myself, I have been studying the subject for years. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_Neopaganism&action=historysubmit&diff=442254236&oldid=442253004 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_Neopaganism&oldid=442254236

--188.10.31.174 (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The new sources are not reliable, third-party sources, and reorganizing the entire article does not "make order on the terminology issue." (I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but the terminology section was far from the only thing moved) - SudoGhost 21:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for errors, I'm European, English is not my mother tongue. The guideline about sources says "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."; thus the sources I used can be considered reliable. However I could add other third part sources If you let me continue my work and don't revert every edit I make. For example regarding Rokkatru well-known Pagan author Galina Krasskova has mentioned it in an article about Loki. And I recommend you to read agan the article: I modified and expanded just the terminology section. --188.10.31.174 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The new images seem like a reasonable addition but the focus on very minor phenomena such as "Rökkatrú" seems misplaced. Haukur (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

'Firno Situ and Firne Sitte' Section - Edit for Consistency

I mention this just because I've edited a link from this article: the above section described Firne Sitte as "Upper German, Austria and Switzerland-based". I've changed this to "Germany, Austria and Switzerland-based" because as I can see, Upper German only links to a language dialect whereas the others are countries. So this now points to Germany rather than Upper German. - Silvensis (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Frisians are not Franks

Frisians are not in any way, shape or form "modern descendants" of the Franks, as this article stated before I changed it. Please do not make this mistake again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.230.65 (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Heathen/Pagan - non-Pejorative alternatives?

I'm not really familiar with the religions of Europe, but it seems to me that the terms Heathen and Pagan are both a description of what they aren't (Abrahamic) rather than what they are, which is understandable in the sense that the idea of separating religious belief from cultural belief was something that only large empires such as the Persians and Romans had to contend with. Being named for something that you aren't, to me, appears either reactive or pejorative, depending upon who it was that coined the term.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathen#Heathen Both "pagan" and "heathen" have historically been used as a pejorative by adherents of monotheistic religions (such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam) to indicate a disbeliever in their religion.

I guess that my contention is that by accepting these terms, one is taking a reactive stance to another set of beliefs, and by doing so, one is creating a strong relationship - a bond - with those other beliefs. It appears obvious that some religious beliefs are inherently bonded to Abrahamic religions - especially those who share the same theology (e.g. Satanism), but for others there is no such inherent bond, and it sits uncomfortably with me to address those people of faith using a negative connotation.

My personal beliefs are Buddhist, and even the term 'Buddhist' is pretty much a neologism - the self-designated term for a Buddhist is 'insider', but within the context of the world, 'insider' isn't going to work, and at least 'Buddhism' is an assertive name indicating a correlating relationship with Buddha. I feel a sense of brethrenship with those who follow the old religious beliefs of Europe, but I do not wish to base that relationship on the grounds that we are both not Abrahamic. Also, for me to say 'my friend Knut is a heathen' - is not descriptive; as, by definition, I also am a pagan. Following the negative inclusion construction, I would need to say something like 'my friend Knut is a heathen outsider' - but he could still be a Hindu, a Sikh, a Taoist, Shinto... (20040302 (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC))

I'm a Heathen. Semantics have changed. Heathenism and Heathen (with capital initials) are both in use among virtually all Germanic Pagans as self-descriptive labels, as you can read in the many sources used in the article, without any pejorative meaning. Heathen has overtaken other definitions (for example Germanic Pagan) because it has a Germanic etymology and the positive semantics of "religion (or person) of the heath, one's own land", or "ethnic religion" (if we accept the idea of Heathen being a Germanization of ethnos). --95.232.87.132 (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Title: "Germanic Neopaganism" or "Heathenism (contemporary religion)"?

This page was renamed on 21 September 2011 and some time after that the following two posts were placed on my talk page. I'm reposting them here as I think this is where the discussion belongs. I will add my response below.

The largest Norse Pagan groups in the English-speaking world use the rubric Odinism (such as the Odinic Rite) or Asatru (such as the Asatru Alliance). For years the wiki articles on these movements have appeared here under "Germanic Neopaganism"

In the last few years, small groups have organized under the name Heathen. These groups have about twenty members or so. To increase Internet traffic to their sites, they have redirected all relevant pages to Heathenism (contemporary religion) The editor is Bhlegkorbh

As an administrator, could you restore the Germanic Neopaganism rubric as the title of the page?

Thank you ThorLives (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear ThorLives,

I am Bhlegkorbh, and I'm not a member of any of the groups who promote the term "Heathenism". I've always been a solitary Heathen, and I have just observed and accepted the fact that "Heathen" and "Heathenism" have become the most used labels in the Heathen communities to define the movement as a whole.

The name of the article is not a matter of how the Odinic Rite or the Asatru Alliance call their specific brand of Germanic Heathenry. It's a matter of sources. "Germanic Neopaganism" or "Paganism" can be barely found in publications about the revival of the Germanic ethnic religion. Contrarywise there are tons of publications (even by renowned scholars) which use "(Germanic) Heathenism/-ry/-dom", and the term is commonly used among Germanic Neopagans themselves, with many organisations, both American and English, using it in their name. Lastly, "Odinism" and "Asatru" are not umbrella terms for the whole movement. --79.41.251.211 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no view right now on the right title for the page (I'll do some researching and try and form one!) However I do think the page move was hasty and not done with any kind of consensus. The edit summary of the page move on 21 Sept says "per talk page" but the brief entry above for that date doesn't constitute a clear proposal for a move, still less a consensus. I'm not going to revert the move at this stage but Blegkorbh can you be a bit less hasty with moves in future? (Also, please could you edit logged in? It's hard to keep track of who contributes what if you don't - apologies if this is problematic for you.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

With "per talk page" I meant this discussion which determined the substitution of "Neopaganism" with "Paganism (contemporary religion)". Furthermore, the prevalence of the term "Heathenism" over "Germanic Neopaganism" (thus the blanket term of the movement) was discussed many times in previous years on this talkpage, and at any rate the use of "Heathenism" and variants is supported by many authoritative sources, even BBC articles.

(I try to edit mainly through my account, but this isn't possible when I use computers which are public or not mine.)

Lastly, I notice that user ThorLives (who is the same as user OdinicRite) continues to support his views substituting relevant sources with inaccurate ones (see here) or deleting entire paragraphs (see here). --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Please Restore page to the NEUTRAL Heading of Germanic Neopaganism.

The editor Bhlegkorbh represents a small group in America with eight members. They are here

The primary definition of heathen is an irreligious or bad person See defintion here.

Bhlegkorbh has gone across wikipedia changing pagan references to "heathen" in order to direct Internet traffic to his small group. I respect his zeal, but wikipedia needs articles under "neutral" terms.

He also reverses my edits on referring to the movement as Odinism or Asatru in the introductory paragraph. The largest groups, such as Odinic Rite, Asatru Alliance, and the Asatru Folk Assembly use those names.

Amazon book search for Asatru:

Amazon book search for Odinism:

Amazon Book search for Heathenism (mainly used in the sense of atheist or primitive people)

Germanic Neopaganism is a neutral term and does not support any particular group. Please return this page to a neutral heading.

Note. DBachman, as an administrator who has posted under Germanic Neopaganism, could you help here?

Also, a note, I did indeed post under OdinicRite, but I was asked to stop.

Thank you.

--ThorLives (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

An additional point, Bhlegkorbh says the name change was discussed here, but the discussion has nothing to do with calling the movement heathenism.

Generally speaking, Americans prefer Asatru, the British prefer Odinism, and people who wanted to emphasize Anglo-Saxon traditions refer to Theodism, and Americans who wanted to emphasize German traditions, as opposed to Scandinavian ones, call it Heathenism.

Since all these names have a focus, the Generic word Paganism works best, in my opinion.

Again, we need a neutral and comprehensive term to reflect all movements.

--ThorLives (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Another example of systematic changes--they are all over in the recent period.

--ThorLives (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

---

I have already written that I am NOT a member of the Jotun Bane Kindred, the Heathen Nation, the Heathen Alliance, Heathen House, Heathens For Progress, Heathens Against Hate, or the other TENS of groups that use the term Heathenism, and besides I am NOT American at all (and my IPs witness this). Your statements are inane bias.

Then, the Odinic Rite, the Asatru Alliance and the Asatru Folk Assembly represent different organizations of BRANCHES of Heathenism, they're not Heathenry per se. American Asatru is a totally different thing from Scandinavian Heathenism, it's different from Urglaawe, it's different from Fyrnsidu, etc.

Regarding the preference of the term "Heathenism" over "Germanic Neopaganism" I repeat for the umpteenth time that the first has penetrated the Heathen populations and is used by Heathens THEMSELVES both in America (you can even find an article about Heathenry in Canada) and Europe, it's not representative of a single organization. Moreover its used is supported by TENS of authoritative sources and academical studies, and even by Heathen organizations themselves (and not just one as you say). --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Examples of academic works and authoritative sources using the term "Heathenry":

• Deity and Humanity in Modern Heathenism by Arlie Stephens (where he/she even writes "Other names for our religion include Asatru, Forn Sed, Norse Paganism, and Heithni. The various names reflect both organizational boundaries and differences of emphasis; I use “heathenism” in this paper because it’s generally seen as including the broadest range".)

With all due respect to Ms Stephens, her paper appears to a simple post on a blog.

Is this a good source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLives (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

--ThorLives (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• What is Heathenism? by T. Sheil & A. Sheil ("There have been several names coined for various Heathen groups: Hedenskap, Asatru, Odinism, Thorism, Theod, Troth, Urglaawe, etc. Most of these terms relate to specific branches of

Heathenism. The term, that covers all of them is Heathenism.")

• Reconstructionism's Role in Modern Heathenry by Bil Linzie, who uses "Heathenism" in all of his works, such as Germanic Spirituality, Investigating the Afterlife Concepts of the Norse Heathen.
• Modern Germanic Heathenry and the Radical Traditionaliasts by Lauren Bernauer.
• Even the American The Troth uses the term "Heathen" referring to the broad Germanic Pagan movement: Heathen Ethics and Values.
• The BBC: Heathenry Portal of the BBC Religions Portal. "Heathenry is a reconstruction of pre-Christian North European religion.".
• The Pagan Federation (an international Pagan organization): Heathenry.

PS. I notice that the page you've linked above for the Amazon Book Search of "Heathenism" is the SECOND one. If you look the first one you find: Perceived Heathenism & Odinic Prayer: A Book of Heathen Prayer and Direct Contact with Our Living Gods and Odinism: Inside the Belly of the Beast: Essays on Heathenism by Wyatt Kaldenberg, Germanic Heathenry: A Practical Guide by James Coulter, Hanging From the Tree: Living with the Runes by Scott Allen Mohnkern and Emily McDonell. If you look for Heathenry you find tens of books on Germanic Paganism, and even publications of The Journal of Contemporary Heathen Thought. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how that talk page discussion is justification for renaming the article, and it adds an unnecessary disambiguation per WP:PRECISION, and it hasn't been established in any way that "Heathenism" is the common name for the article's subject. - SudoGhost 15:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Heathenism" is the most common umbrella term used by Heathens to define the movement, and it is established by authoritative websites (BBC, Pagan Federation) and academical works on the subject which use it. By contrast "Germanic Neopaganism" is far less used in academical writings and is not used at all among Heathens. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Established by authoritative websites? The "established name" and the common name are not always the same. However, if you're trying to say that heathenism is the common name, then prove it, but just saying something without showing it means just about nothing. - SudoGhost 19:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what's the difference between an "established name" and a "common name". However I think that "Heathenism/-ry/-dom" represents both of them since it is A) the most used name in academical works on the subject and B) the umbrella name used by most of Heathens themselves, and this is the reason why it is used by scholars in their works, by the BBC and PF websites, and by many "non-denominational" Germanic Pagan organizations and kindred-unions (Heathen Alliance, Heathen Nation, Heathen Freehold Society of BC, Free Folk, etc.) and activities (ex. The Journal of Contemporary Heathen Thought). --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Break for editing's sake

I support the name Germanic Neopaganism. The internal name used by the community is not the name commonly used to refer to it overall.--~TPW 19:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the internal name, since it's used by academical works and the websites of the BBC and the Pagan Federation. It has been used various times also by The Wild Hunt, a well-known Pagan (not bound to any specific Pagan religion) news website: ex. Guest Post: (Another) Heathen Candidate Picks up Tea Party Endorsement. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Now this is what I call a talk page discussion and is what should have happened before the original page move away from this title. Please, until a consensus emerges nobody now make a unilateral further page move. Let's take the time to make the arguments and gather the evidence (some of the links above from Blegkorbh are very helpful) and if we can do all that without falling out that would be great too! There's no rush, let's see the evidence and once it's presented either the decision will be obvious or if it's not we can ask an uninvolved admin to make a judgement. I have no view right now which title is right, but I'm going to form one so I will recuse myself now from being the final arbiter of this. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am glad this could be resolved. I would still like to add that in a discussion on an article title, it makes sense to consider our policy on article titles, WP:NAME, as early as possible. Many people, even veteran editors, get side-tracked very easily and they start to discuss semantics instead of simply sticking to the page name guidelines.

Obviously, there are some groups that use terms like "Heathenism". But if there is one thing that characterizes the neopagan movement, it is its extreme fragmentation into countless short-lived grouplets, so it is really pointless to ask what terms are currently in use by which grouplet. At least for the purposes of the page titles.

I would ask you to consider that this page is dedicated to Germanic Neopaganism as a general phenomenon, not to any specific flavour. This includes many groups from non-English speaking countries (Scandinavia, German-speaking Europe) who obviously use neither "Heathenism" nor "Paganism" nor "Neopaganism" but some equivalent in their own language.

This page's title should be whatever the relevant English-language academic, third-party literature uses for the phenomenon in general. Which happens to be "Germanic Neopaganism". --dab (𒁳) 06:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd echo and reinforce the call for people to read WP:NAME; I hadn't until just now and any arguments about the name here should definitely refer to this policy. FWIW, there are five key elements to the policy: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. Thinking about the page title as a fairly knowledgable outsider (pagan, but Wiccan) the term I and others I know commonly use is neither of the candidates so far: instead how about considering Northern tradition. A Google search (I know, they're all but worthless but I couldn't help myself) has about 2.3 million hits for this as opposed to fewer than 10% of that for any of the current rivals. It is the generic term I hear used by friends who are Asatruar, Odinists or Heathens and it's also the title of some key books by people such as Nigel Pennick. Jenny Blain, another prominent author in this tradition (and a respected academic) actually prefers the term Heathenry - but acknowledges in her work that it is not as widely used as alternatives such as Asatru, Northern Tradition or Norse Paganism. (See: Researching Paganisms, Jenny Blain, Douglas Ezzy, Graham Harvey, Alta Mira Press, 2004, page 218.) Sorry to throw another candidate into the ring but this does seem the front runner to me, particularly when looking at WP:NAME. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article from Pagan Dawn which has its own definite POV but nevertheless gives a good overview of the terms available. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "Northern Tradition"; I think it needs to pointed out that the Germanic peoples weren't (and aren't) the only group in Northern Europe; Uralic peoples are also well represented. "Northern Tradition" is therefore inappropriate for what this article is about. My vote is still with "Germanic Neopaganism". :bloodofox: (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

True. The point of view behind terms like "Northern Tradition" is that geographic macroregions generate groups of related ethnic cultures with similar mentalities etc. This is a perfectly plausible view, and there is a lot of evidence to support it, but of course it is also a generalizing view and exceptions can be found. Just like we can speak of "Eastern Religions" to subsume a wide range of ethnic cultures, from Japan to Tibet to Sri Lanka, the term "Northern Tradition" might gesture at a cultural group that goes beyond but includes ethnic "Germanic" tradition. But bloodofox is perfectly right that this article isn't dedicated to a concept of "Northern Tradition", and this certainly isn't going to be the page name. The concept could at best be discussed in the body of this page, provided we can collect the required quotable sources to build on. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with bloodfox and dab about "Northern tradition", it's too generic, and not all Gemanic peoples were Nordic or remained in the North of Europe (the Goths contributed to the development of the modern populations of Spain and particularly Italy, the Lombards have contributed significantly to the identity of North-Italians). --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

dab, Heathenism is not the name of a sub-group of GN, it's widely used as the name of the movement itself. I'ts an umbrella term. For example, I am a Heathen, but I am neither an Asatruar nor an Odinist, but I recognise these religions as Heathen religions. It's like saying "Catholicism and Protestantism are branches of Christianity". This is the way "Heathenism" and "Heathen" are used, by both Heathens (even members of the AFA and the Asatru Alliance have adopted the term for the greater movement) and scholars. You can find a good example of this usage in this publication of The Journal of Contemporary Heathen Thought. At one point it even says "many of our contributors do belong to large Heathen groups such as the Odinic Rite or Ásatrú Folk Assembly". --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DBachmann that Germanic Neopaganism is the best name. I have been involved in Odinism for decades, and I would prefer that name for this article, but I understand that wikipedia has to use neutral terms and it must promote consensus terms.

There are groups who use Odinist in their titles. Their are groups who use Asatru in their titles. Their are groups who use Heathen in their titles. Their are groups that use Theodism in their titles. But no one uses "Germanic Neopaganism" in their titles, so that makes it a neutral term

--ThorLives (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What I am trying to explain is that no one uses the term "Germanic Neopaganism" but ALL of these groups and most of their members use the term "Heathenism/-ry" when speaking about the whole movement without a focus on the specific organisations. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I am in support of the neutral term Germanic Neopaganism. It is an ideal umbrella term which adequately describes the subject without bias towards any denomination. Hengest (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "Germanic Neopaganism" is not perfect as it has several problems. Many Asatruers reject the term "pagan" and prefer "heathen" instead. Then there is the question of the "neo" prefix that is also contested. // Liftarn (talk)

By that same token, however, many reject the term "heathen" as an insult. I cannot speak for the entire world, but in the Southeastern United States, heathen still has a negative meaning, something akin to "hoodlum". Although both were pejoratives at one point, heathen still used as such is in parts of the world. I'm not aware of pagan being used as such, except as used by Christians to mean "non-Christian". - SudoGhost 09:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Bhlegkorbh, can you provide a reliable source that supports your assertion that "ALL of these groups and most of their members use the term "Heathenism/-ry" when speaking about the whole movement without a focus on the specific organisations?" If you could I would support it, but clearly there are groups and individuals which do not use the term in the way you describe. If we could get away from describing the naming practices in absolute terms where none exist, a suitable name would be much easier to determine.--~TPW 13:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Paganism: Druidry and Heathenry, written by Professor Eileen Barker as a chapter of New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction (1995), published by the INFORM and the Staffordshire University. <Heathenry is a branch of Paganism which seeks to revive the pre-Christian traditions of Northern Europe. It draws upon Anglo-Saxon and Norse mythology as recorded in such texts as the 13th century Icelandic Eddas. Heathenry is sometimes known as Odinism, Asatru and, less commonly, Vanatru, depending on which group of deities are worshipped.>
• Introduction to Heathenism (Germanic Neo-Paganism) by Jennifer Porter, Associate Professor of Religion and Popular Culture at Memorial University of Newfoundland.

--Bhlegkorbh (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I may be reading it wrong, but the only thing this verifies is that some groups and/or people refer to it as Heathenry, which I don't think was ever contested. In fact, the first thing you quoted seems to suggest the opposite, that "Heathenry is sometimes known as..." as opposed to "ALL of these groups and most of their members use the term Heathenism/-ry..." - SudoGhost 12:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What I read is that yet in 1995 "Heathenism/-ry" was quite popular, and that "Heathenry (the broad movement) takes different denominations depending on which group of deities are worshipped (which is actually not the only distinguishing factor)". --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sudo. The sources just don't support your contention that Heathenry is the common name for the entire movement, although it is indisputable that it is an extremely prevalent one. --~TPW 20:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Two sources presently in the article, Hammer of the Gods and Hjuka, prefer using the term for strict polytheism. Even if you don't agree with my assessment of your sources, you must agree that not all sources agree with your assertion. That is reason enough not to rename it Heathenism. What we need instead is a good reason for a particular title, be it Germanic Neopaganism or something else. There's no clear agreement in the community as to what it should be called, nor are the academics unanimous, so I believe the present title has a lot going for it, being that it's descriptive and neutral. --~TPW 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ahem. I'm going to try very hard to weigh in here without outing myself, and would appreciate it if no one who knows me or has figured it out outed me. I have an affiliation with one of the major pan-heathen pages/organizations with an online presence that use the term "heathen": here's its page on the term. I also know Arlie Stephens, and can attest that although that paper was written in an academic setting, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source; it's a student paper, self-published online. However, it reflects good knowledge of the current situation. The contention that the BBC page on the modern reconstructionist religion as a whole uses heathenry/heathenism is perfectly correct. It's also important to note that that page was written by a committee of British heathens and therefore reflects what a representative cross-section of British members of the religion wanted said about it, including the terminology. Some branches of modern heathenry in English-speaking countries do not like the term, for a number of reasons that include wishing to distance themselves from others who use it, being aware of the pejorative connotations among outsiders . . . and the argument that the word is as much a Christian coinage as "pagan" and therefore inherently pejorative. Similarly, reasons for preferring it vary: they include wishing to distinguish oneself from the Scandinavian connotations of "Asatru"; the fact that "Asatru" is a 19th-century coinage and "heathen" is old; and historically most strongly, the desire to distinguish heathenry from paganism, a term that is used most frequently by Wiccan-derived groups. Many Germanic pagans do not accept that heathenry is part of paganism because of the widespread assumption in paganism that all neo-paganism is earth-based and to some extent Gardnerian. To this maelstrom of internal politics it's important to add the fact that other Germanic languages either have only a word cognate with "heathen" or have a word cognate with "pagan" only as a borrowing, generally from English. Thus many heathens feel "heathen" is an opportunity plopped into our laps by English and its linguistic history that it would be daft not to make use of to distinguish Germanic paganism. However - outside heathenry and heathen scholarship, there's little use of the word. "Germanic paganism" is the search term most newbies use; "Asatru" would net them the most results (being the preferred term of The Troth, which has a huge net presence, as well as the AFA and AA; however note this statement on the front page of The Troth's website: "Historically, we were called heathens, and we use that name, too.") I don't think "Germanic Neopaganism" is inherently more neutral than "Heathenry"; many heathens feel the opposite. It's a more likely search target but less and less commonly used. "Asatru" would be better. I think best would be "Heathenry (modern)" with both those two redirecting to it; and I think the BBC page should weigh very heavily here, as one of very few sources about heathenry based on both knowledge and the sponsorship of a reliable source. But there is disagreement among heathens/Germanic pagans and a strong discontinuity between inside and outside usages. No title is going to be ideal. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. What we need is the name that is going to set the least number of teeth on edge while being recognizable to the widest assortment of people. That seems to rule out the current name as well as the "heathen" variations. Suggestions?--~TPW 16:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd still prefer "Heathenry (modern)" but put forward "Germanic religion (modern)" as a compromise suggestion. That should work for all but those heathens who have it in for the term "religion" '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Political or Religious Bias? I am concerned that this page believes that in the UK people prefer the term "Odinism" over "Heathenry", this is not the case as in the UK "Odinism" refers only to the beliefs of the Odinic Rite. Such on-line groups as UKHeathenry and real world events such as Heathenfest only identify as Heathen with many members actively distancing themselves from Odinism and the OR. I am also concerned that this page in it's reflection of the current state of Heathenry in the UK is biased and untrue in that it previous had links to groups that were not affiliated to the Odinic Rite and these have all been removed. Is this page being used as a promotional tool for the OR in the UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noddyt (talk • contribs) 08:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As the OR's Internet Information Officer I can say with authority that as an organisation The Odinic Rite, UK or otherwise, has no interest at all in this page or the outcome of this debate and anyone misusing the name of the OR to suggest otherwise is either misguided or creating mischief. I have stated above that in the Germanic Neopaganism vs. Heathenry debate I am in favour of the former, but I did so in my own name for the reason stated and without any reference to the OR. The person who was posting here under the name OdinicRite and now posts as ThorLives is not a member of the OR (as he has stated on my talk page)and his use of the name OdinicRite here was neither approved nor sanctioned by the Court of Gothar of Odinic Rite. For the record, the Odinic Rite officially uses the terms Odinism and Odinist when describing our faith but our members are free to use whichever term suits them. Hengest (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion continues here. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I support Yngvadottir idea for the title to be "Heathenry (Modern)" with the two redirects. I'm member of the Pagan press, PNC, with a degree in journalism, membership in a journalistic association, and have worked in mainstream news (ABC affiliate) for most of my adult life. I'm currently writing the stylebook for Pagan media and "Heathen" is the term used when a non-denominational term for Contemporary Nordic Pagans is needed. Contemporary Nordic Paganism is the term used by scholars, but no one outside of academia uses that term. As an aside, the term Neo-Paganism is falling out of academic use and is replaced with the term Contemporary Paganism, although Pagan is the term used within the community. Wikipedia has noted this and the page on Neo-Paganism is now "Paganism (contemporary)" so at the very least, this page's title should drop the "Neo". When we write about our community as a whole, we use the phrase "Pagans, Heathens, and polytheists" as it is inclusive while not offensive. There have been many sources listed which note Heathen is the generally inclusive used term. Disclosures: I was asked to take a look at this discussion as I am in the Pagan media, but was not lobbied for any specific position. I am not a Heathen, but a Hellenian (Hellenic Pagan). CaraSchulz (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz

Hello Cara - Bhlegkorbh has suggested we move this discussion to the bottom of the page, but I didn't want to unilaterally shift your comments - hence replying here. Thank you for the helpful comments and calm tone in which they were delivered! There's always a danger of these discussions generating more heat than light, as the old cliche has it. In response I just wanted to make one comment and I hope you won't take it amiss: your credentials (or mine, or anyone else's...) don't really add any weight here, it's reliable sources we need to rely on. Where your experience can and will help is in identifying some of these sources in eg academic papers, newspapers of record, authoritative websites etc. I have no axe to grind here myself; I'm Wiccan and I honestly don't know which title is best, I'd just like the one we decide upon to be defensible, stable, inclusive and well-sourced!

We did originally set up this discussion with a view to an experienced, uninvolved editor ultimately reviewing the arguments and making a decision about which title to adopt. This is going to be a difficult discussion for them to follow, but are we nearly there? Or do we need some more time for Cara and others to find and cite some more sources upon which to base a decision? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving these comments where they would make the most sense. - it is a bit difficult to follow all of this and I don't envy the editor chosen to sort this out. No, I understand what you are saying about credentials, just wanted to let people know where I'm coming from on this discussion. I could dig more sources up if they are needed, but there are quite a few out there already. One of the difficulties on any article for Wikipedia on Paganism, Heathenry, and polytheism is finding reliable sources that people can agree are reliable sources. Our scholars are just emerging, this field of peer-reviewed religious study is in its early stages, and our professional news organizations are very new as well. Add to that, it's difficult for our experts to be regarded as experts on Wikipedia. The American Academy of Religions Conference just ended for this year and I believe there was information there on Heathenry. I can also look at back issues of The Pomegrante, which is peer reviewed. If more sources are needed, I can begin a search. (And will begin dong so) However, there are several sources already given that fit the reliable sources criteria in previous posts that point to changing "Germanic NeoPaganism" to "Heathenry (contemporary)" and would also comply with the previous Wikipedia decision to change "NeoPaganism" to "Paganism (contempory)" . A round up of those sources in one place would clarify this issue greatly. Just let me know how I can help. CaraSchulz (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz

Terminology -> "branches"

I see the article has deteriorated in other respects. There used to be a discussion of synonyms of "Germanic Neopaganism" as used within the movement.

This has now been conflated with an attempt at discussing "branches" of the movement. The result is a mess. The current article suggests that "Forn Siðr" has the sub-branches "Ásatrú, Vanatrú, Rökkatrú", while there are separate branches of "Fyrnsidu" and "Firno Situ and Firne Sitte". This is utter nonsense. Can you please either fix it, or restore it the way it was before this gallery of obscure terms became presented as a "list of branches"?

The fact of the matter is that Forn Siðr, Fyrnsidu and Firno Situ are exact and conscious translations of one another, and represent one single "branch", or rather approach within Germanic Neopaganism. It is bizarre to present these separately. --dab (𒁳) 07:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

also, before this goes any further, can we please address the glaring {{primary}} issues? The article currently uses primary sources (neopagan websites and publications) as "references" throughout and unapologetically. Any claims within the article, especially concerning alleged "facts", may not be attributed to such sources. Ideally, the primary sources should disappear from the "References" section entirely, and be confined to a "Bibliography" and "External links" section.

You cannot base the calaim that "Firno Situ is the Alaman German cognate of Forn Sidhr" on the "reference" of "firnositu.ch". This is unacceptable. All you are establishing is that "there is a website called firnositu.ch, purportedly the website of a Swiss voluntary association called 'Firno Situ' which is dedicated to reviving 'Alemannic paganism'". We have evidence of the existence of this website. Without a third-party source you cannot assume that it is anything other than a website, you cannot even verify the existence of this group, let alone can you base claims about "Alaman cognates of Old Norse" on this url, as the website doesn't even make any such statement. You just made that up, "referenced" it to some url, and posted it on Wikipedia. This isn't how things work at all. WP:RS is not negotiable, and it applies to "neopagan" topics just as to any other. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the article has not deteriorated and it's not a mess. It has been expanded. Forn Sidhr, Fyrnsidu and Firno Situ are cognate terms but they represent different traditions within Heathenry/Germanic Neopaganism. And the sources used in the article are not primary, the vast majority of them are academical works.

Deity and Humanity in Modern Heathenism by Arlie Stephens (where he/she even writes "Other names for our religion include Asatru, Forn Sed, Norse Paganism, and Heithni. The various names reflect both organizational boundaries and differences of emphasis; I use “heathenism” in this paper because it’s generally seen as including the broadest range".)

What is Heathenism? by T. Sheil & A. Sheil ("There have been several names coined for various Heathen groups: Hedenskap, Asatru, Odinism, Thorism, Theod, Troth, Urglaawe, etc. Most of these terms relate to specific branches of Heathenism. The term, that covers all of them is Heathenism.") --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

PS. I have tried to fix the "Firno Situ - Alemannic" issue using the OHG "Firner Situ" as the name of the section and not specifying whether "Firno Situ" is an Alemannic term or not. I have just added the Swiss association to the list. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Without trying to offend anyone, I agree that the article is now a bit of a mess. Instead of being a clear description of a religious movement, with its history, theology, ethics, eschatology, rituals, and so forth, it has been refashioned to make a rhetotical point, that somehow everything is a subset of heathenry.

--ThorLives (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Somehow everything is a subset of Heathenry" because the term "Heathenry" has established this way, both among Germanic Neopagans and in academical usage. Other terms characterise special denominations (if this is better than "branches") of it. This is the reason why it is used as an umbrella term by kindred-unions or generic Germanic Neopagan groups such as the Heathen Alliance and the Heathen Nation. It's not difficult to understand. Even Michael Strmiska, who is not a Heathen and so is not a primary-source, uses the term "Heathenry" to discuss Germanic Neopaganism in his works. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Modern Paganism in World Cultures: Comparative Perspectives by Dr. Michael Strmiska. Chapter Five - Heathenry, the Past, and Sacred Sites in Today's Britain (the author of the chapter is actually Jenny Blain) - quote: after explaining the etymology of the term <"Heathen" and "Heathenry" are being reclaimed by Heathens to simply describe themselves and their community>, and then <Heathens use a variety of names for their religious practices and community, among them Asatru, Odinism, Northern Tradition, Norse and Saxon Paganism. But increasingly they use simply Heathenry. Although most will agree that they themselves are Pagan, many do not use the term as a description. The term "Neo-Pagan" is not much used within Britain,, though some Heathens use the term to refer to "eclectic" Pagans who draw indescriminately on practices and indeed deities from around the world. I will not use the term "Neo-Pagan" in this chapter to describe Heathen groups of practice, as doing so might result in too great a confusion of meaning and indeed would tend to discourage Heathens from reading the chapter.>. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thus far your sources have convinced me only that heathens call themselves heathens. Have you found any sources that indicate that all practitioners of these traditions agree upon the usage of the word heathen? Or sources that show that all researchers agree with the term "heathen" being the appropriate overarching one? This last source shows that one author in particular had a personal preference. What you need is a source that studies that usage of the term, rather than one which just explains why the researchers themselves prefer the term.--~TPW 01:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Haven't you read some of my previous posts? --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have. Apparently you're the only one is is interpreting the sources the way you'd like them to be interpreted.

I don't think so. I respect your preference for "Germanic Neopaganism" but sources are not questionable where they say "Heathenism is an umbrella term" or "Asatru, Odinism, etc., are branches of Heathenry".

However, If you need more sources I'll add more sources. You can find sources of any kind discussing "Heathenry" as the umbrella term for the Germanic Pagan movements.

• From the Huginn Journal of Yule 2010, p. 22: <It is difficult to speak of any one Heathen community. The Northern Tradition, for which the umbrella term ‘Heathenry’ is the chosen identity of choice for the majority of adherents, is comprised of many different denominations and ideological approaches. It is far more accurate to refer to the Northern Tradition as being comprised of multiple communities that simply happen to share a common core cosmology. Approach and belief surrounding that cosmology may be dramatically and often radically different between denominations, particularly within the United States.>.
• From a publication of the Pagan Council of South Africa: <Northern religions and their followers generally prefer to be called Heathen rather than Pagan.>
• Author Galina Krasskova uses "Heathenism/-ry" in all of her publications, such as Exploring the Northern Tradition, and she often explains that it is the umbrella term for the Germanic denominations. For example in this article of the Patheos portal: Future of Midgard: Heathenry Reaching Out for a Dynamic Future. <We're seeing multiple denominations, methodologies of devotion, and approaches to orthodoxy evolving out of what once was a very rigid, insular faith.> ... <For those of you who may not be familiar with what the term "Heathen" means in a religious context, let me take a moment to clarify [...] Heathenry is an umbrella term for a body of denominations that seek to reconstruct and restore the religious practices once indigenous to Northern Europe [...] It is true that the term "heathen" was originally pejorative, used by converts to Christianity during the period of conversion to dismiss and vilify those who still clung to their ancestral faiths. Today, however, as a religion, we've chosen to reclaim this word in proud remembrance of those same forebears, in much the same spirit as Wicca chose to reclaim the word "witch.">

Pagan publications have been used also for the renaming of the article "Neopaganism" to "Paganism (contemporary religions)", so I don't see why Heathenism is so problematic. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I have been involved with Odinism for decades, and I would NEVER use the word heathen to describe my religion.

Now, it may be my socio-economic class ( I have silver hair and I wear suits in my profession), but if I went to a party in lower Manhattan I would feel foolish calling myself a "heathen." "Heathen" is not a name of a religion; it was an insult hurled at the friends of the old gods by the Christians. It simply means "country dweller," but in a negative way ("hick" or "redneck").

I know teenagers trying to torment their parents or prisoners trying to irritate the Christian chaplain may like "heathen" for the "shock effect," but I think my religion should have respectability.

"Odinism" is in the Oxford dictionary and has been in use since the 19th century. Asatru is a name developed in the 1970's, but at least it means something honorable, which is "trust in the Aesir."

--ThorLives (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Asatru Alliance is the large Germanic neopagan group in North America, and I do not see any reference to heathen on their web site.

--ThorLives (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's great if it's true - do you have a source to prove the size of the group in relation to others? My concern with Bhlegkorbh's sources is that they seem tautological; i.e., heathens call themselves heathens therefore heathen is the "correct" term to use for the broader movement.--~TPW 13:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

True Pagan Warrior, I do not have exact numbers, but the Odinic Rite, the Asatru Alliance, and the Asatru Folk Assebly are the largest groups, at least in the English-speaking world. Groups such as the Heathen Temple and the Heathen Alliance have 4-8 members each

--ThorLives (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite tag

For reasons that I've included in my recent edit summaries, it seems pretty evident to me that this article needs nothing less than a rewrite from the ground up. For anyone with the time for the task, please see Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style for handy guides for standards to rewrite an article with. I understand that there's an issue with academia on this subject; academic works mentioning Germanic Neopaganism frequently either misrepresent the subject matter or are bizarrely silent on the subject (Orchard's recent Poetic Edda translation comes to mind), but this article simply cannot exist on the foundation that it is currently propped up on. For an example of a Germanic Neopaganism-related article done right, see our article on the Ásatrúarfélagið. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the deletion of the sections about Fundamentalistic Traditionalism. It had already been discussed by Dbachmann here. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

All information on Wikipedia requires solid references; see WP:PROVEIT. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, thank you for your action.

May I suggest that we take the front of the article from 22 July 2010 (the material up through "Theology and Cosmology") and place it on this article? It would clean out a great deal of the rhetoric and would eliminate many self-published references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_Neopaganism&diff=374920743&oldid=374920711 (Article from 22 July 2010)

--ThorLives (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you really trying to delete one year of contributions by different users to replaced a well organized and sourced version of the article with an unsourced and confusing old version just because you don't like the use of the term "Heathenism"? --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a reference work and it needs clear and concise articles. The Germanic Neopaganism page was once nominated for a "good article" award, but now there is a call for a complete re-write. Conclusion: the latest edits have degraded the article. --ThorLives (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The version that you are suggesting has similar issues, albeit not nearly as pronounced. The only real solution here is a total rewrite to the standards I've outlined above. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox,I now see the problem that you are identifying: using web sites and self-published books as "sources" violates wikipedia policy. But, to help the new article, could YOU (since you have expertise here) delete all bad material in this old version so that we could use it to rebuild? |old article (Article from 22 July 2010) --ThorLives (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello ThorLives, I thank you for the invitation, but I think that it is pointless to simply edit an article when a rewrite is necessary. Basically someone needs to put together a sandbox article, perhaps as a temporary user page extension, and work on it there, perhaps with others (like I am doing at User:Bloodofox/Odin_rewrite). I can duck in and help out where needed, but I am unfortunately booked on several concurrent projects at this time. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article needs a rewrite now. Now it has been turned into a sad mess, I mean. I am happy to be informed that User:Bhlegkorbh does not think it is a mess, but frankly this doesn't say as much about the article as about this particular editor. A lot of thought went into the toc of the article. It was never finished, and improvement was always welcome and necessary. But to simply destroy a carefully balanced toc structure is a sure way to take a good article down the drain entirely. So, instead of calling for a "complete rewrite", which may or may not happen by 2015 or 2020, meanwhile leaving the current state as the "consensus version"(!), how about simply reverting to the last good (though incomplete) revision and take it from there? There can still be a rewrite as soon as somebody (qualified) gets round to doing that, but in the meantime I see no reason to simply accept article deterioration as a fact of life when it's as simple as reverting to before things started to go downhill. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose the last stable version was that of 18 July. Because after that, the article was taken to town by a massive flurry of anonymous edits, needless to say all of it without consensus. I am not saying there were no good edits after 18 July. I am saying the article has lost all stability since then, and if we want to get it back on track we need to go back to the last stable version. Individual edits that actually improved the article can obviously be inserted back in.

I invoke WP:BRD here: People were Bold, now I have Reverted. Now, based on the stable version Reverted to, there needs to be Discussion. --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

DBachmann, thanks for reverting the article. I see Bloodofox's point, about a rewrite, but it is easier to improve something that exists (like the Soyuz spacecraft) than junking something and building new (the space shuttle and its replacement). --ThorLives (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

With this edit, User:Bhlegkorbh restored a much larger (>100k) article that is now a week old and has had several further edits to it - which were overweritten by the reversion. I concur with dab that the radical decision to cut about 40k of text was the right one; what's left is, to my mind, a better article for being more concise. So I disagree with Bhlegkorbh's view that the last year has seen a net improvement in the article. On the contrary, I see a lot of unreferenced material of questionable value added - the list of groups and subgroups in particular does not belong here. Such a long, detailed account of small groups detracts from the base material about heathenry/Germanic neopaganism/whatever we are to call it (which is a separate argument...)

I'm not saying this material has no place in Wikipedia. Abbreviated parts of it may belong here; groups which are individually notable need their own article with a blue link from here, and groups which are not individually notable could go into an article focussing on groups and subgroups.

Whole paragraphs of the text I have just re-deleted again can be copied and pasted freely and easily into new article/s, if the material is encyclopaedic and well referenced. Just because it has been deleted does not mean it has gone forever; the work has been started and the diffs are available at the touch of a button to copy and paste. Let's improve this article from this pruned state, using some of the old material perhaps but with a view to making this the definitive top-level article on the topic, rather than a lengthy mini-encyclopaedia of Heathenry by itself. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Not wanting to simply be seen as a slash-and-burn type, I've re-added one of the images and also the lede from the article as it was a week ago; I think the lede is better than a year ago and certainly nicely referenced. I'll carry on as I am able, reviewing the additions of the last year and reinserting those bits which seem to add value to this article.Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I've restored all those sections about subgroups which had decent references. I have left them in alphabetical order which may or may not be the best choice: at least it saves arguments, but it might conceivably be better to list them in terms of size/importance. However that's probably a discussion too far! I hope this will be seen for what it is - an attempt in good faith to keep what was good from the additions of the last year, while improving the article by removing unreferenced stuff. I will move on to other sections but of course would welcome others joining me to recycle the best of the new material added over the last year. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kim, I still don't understand what was so bad with this version of the article to replace it with a totally unsourced years-old version (which wasn't deleted but expanded, so it is actually integrated into the newest version). Yes, it uses some primary sources, but it's a problem found in many other Wikipedia articles. It has been criticised for using Heathen and other Pagan authors as sources, but meanwhile the Neopaganism article is based entirely on Adler, a Wiccan. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well it wasn't totally unsourced, and it's not years old! It's one year old, and it goes back to a state before lots of unsourced or poorly sourced additions - especially to the unwieldy list of groups and traditions. It didn't take me long to pick the good stuff out of the additions that have been made over the last year, to the one section I've brought up to date. It surely won't take long to add in the best of the rest? As far as the Neopaganism article goes, I don't think it is entirely based on Adler - who is for certain an excellent and authoritative source. But even if she were not, WP:OSE suggests this has no bearing here. Why not follow my lead and add in some of the best of the revisions over the last year? I did it by using the diff from my latest back-reversion from 100k. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As I already said, the new article completely incorporated the old one enriching it, and sourcing many statements or replacing dead links with new ones. For example take the "Asatru" paragraph and compare the old version to the new one. The restoration of the old version results in a huge loss of material and was made by Dbachmann without any consensus. The best choice to me is to take the newest version as the basis and rectify it deleting bad material (as bloodfox already did) and integrating new one. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Title: "Germanic Neopaganism" or "Heathenism (contemporary religion)" #2

I continue the discussion here and copy some previous messages since ThorLives / OdinicRite has recently reverted the article to a one-year old incomplete version with his new sockpuppet ignoring such discussion.--Bhlegkorbh (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Bhlegkorbh, can you provide a reliable source that supports your assertion that "ALL of these groups and most of their members use the term "Heathenism/-ry" when speaking about the whole movement without a focus on the specific organisations?" If you could I would support it, but clearly there are groups and individuals which do not use the term in the way you describe. If we could get away from describing the naming practices in absolute terms where none exist, a suitable name would be much easier to determine.--~TPW 13:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Paganism: Druidry and Heathenry, written by Professor Eileen Barker as a chapter of New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction (1995), published by the INFORM and the Staffordshire University. <Heathenry is a branch of Paganism which seeks to revive the pre-Christian traditions of Northern Europe. It draws upon Anglo-Saxon and Norse mythology as recorded in such texts as the 13th century Icelandic Eddas. Heathenry is sometimes known as Odinism, Asatru and, less commonly, Vanatru, depending on which group of deities are worshipped.>
• Introduction to Heathenism (Germanic Neo-Paganism) by Jennifer Porter, Associate Professor of Religion and Popular Culture at Memorial University of Newfoundland.

--Bhlegkorbh (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I may be reading it wrong, but the only thing this verifies is that some groups and/or people refer to it as Heathenry, which I don't think was ever contested. In fact, the first thing you quoted seems to suggest the opposite, that "Heathenry is sometimes known as..." as opposed to "ALL of these groups and most of their members use the term Heathenism/-ry..." - SudoGhost 12:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What I read is that yet in 1995 "Heathenism/-ry" was quite popular, and that "Heathenry (the broad movement) takes different denominations depending on which group of deities are worshipped (which is actually not the only distinguishing factor)". --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sudo. The sources just don't support your contention that Heathenry is the common name for the entire movement, although it is indisputable that it is an extremely prevalent one. --~TPW 20:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Two sources presently in the article, Hammer of the Gods and Hjuka, prefer using the term for strict polytheism. Even if you don't agree with my assessment of your sources, you must agree that not all sources agree with your assertion. That is reason enough not to rename it Heathenism. What we need instead is a good reason for a particular title, be it Germanic Neopaganism or something else. There's no clear agreement in the community as to what it should be called, nor are the academics unanimous, so I believe the present title has a lot going for it, being that it's descriptive and neutral. --~TPW 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ahem. I'm going to try very hard to weigh in here without outing myself, and would appreciate it if no one who knows me or has figured it out outed me. I have an affiliation with one of the major pan-heathen pages/organizations with an online presence that use the term "heathen": here's its page on the term. I also know Arlie Stephens, and can attest that although that paper was written in an academic setting, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source; it's a student paper, self-published online. However, it reflects good knowledge of the current situation. The contention that the BBC page on the modern reconstructionist religion as a whole uses heathenry/heathenism is perfectly correct. It's also important to note that that page was written by a committee of British heathens and therefore reflects what a representative cross-section of British members of the religion wanted said about it, including the terminology. Some branches of modern heathenry in English-speaking countries do not like the term, for a number of reasons that include wishing to distance themselves from others who use it, being aware of the pejorative connotations among outsiders . . . and the argument that the word is as much a Christian coinage as "pagan" and therefore inherently pejorative. Similarly, reasons for preferring it vary: they include wishing to distinguish oneself from the Scandinavian connotations of "Asatru"; the fact that "Asatru" is a 19th-century coinage and "heathen" is old; and historically most strongly, the desire to distinguish heathenry from paganism, a term that is used most frequently by Wiccan-derived groups. Many Germanic pagans do not accept that heathenry is part of paganism because of the widespread assumption in paganism that all neo-paganism is earth-based and to some extent Gardnerian. To this maelstrom of internal politics it's important to add the fact that other Germanic languages either have only a word cognate with "heathen" or have a word cognate with "pagan" only as a borrowing, generally from English. Thus many heathens feel "heathen" is an opportunity plopped into our laps by English and its linguistic history that it would be daft not to make use of to distinguish Germanic paganism. However - outside heathenry and heathen scholarship, there's little use of the word. "Germanic paganism" is the search term most newbies use; "Asatru" would net them the most results (being the preferred term of The Troth, which has a huge net presence, as well as the AFA and AA; however note this statement on the front page of The Troth's website: "Historically, we were called heathens, and we use that name, too.") I don't think "Germanic Neopaganism" is inherently more neutral than "Heathenry"; many heathens feel the opposite. It's a more likely search target but less and less commonly used. "Asatru" would be better. I think best would be "Heathenry (modern)" with both those two redirecting to it; and I think the BBC page should weigh very heavily here, as one of very few sources about heathenry based on both knowledge and the sponsorship of a reliable source. But there is disagreement among heathens/Germanic pagans and a strong discontinuity between inside and outside usages. No title is going to be ideal. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. What we need is the name that is going to set the least number of teeth on edge while being recognizable to the widest assortment of people. That seems to rule out the current name as well as the "heathen" variations. Suggestions?--~TPW 16:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd still prefer "Heathenry (modern)" but put forward "Germanic religion (modern)" as a compromise suggestion. That should work for all but those heathens who have it in for the term "religion" '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Political or Religious Bias? I am concerned that this page believes that in the UK people prefer the term "Odinism" over "Heathenry", this is not the case as in the UK "Odinism" refers only to the beliefs of the Odinic Rite. Such on-line groups as UKHeathenry and real world events such as Heathenfest only identify as Heathen with many members actively distancing themselves from Odinism and the OR. I am also concerned that this page in it's reflection of the current state of Heathenry in the UK is biased and untrue in that it previous had links to groups that were not affiliated to the Odinic Rite and these have all been removed. Is this page being used as a promotional tool for the OR in the UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noddyt (talk • contribs) 08:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that too. The Odinic Rite (through ThorLives and his other accounts) is trying to take over the article. On 3rd November 2011 ThorLives wrote these words on my talkpage: "In my opinion, attempts to reconstruct Anglo-Saxon or Germanic paganism are wrong headed because we have only Icelandic sources". Now he has reverted the article eliminating any reference to organisations and subgroups. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is what I consider the "last stable version" of the article, since gives a thorough description of the entire movement without bias of single organisations. Improvements can always be made. —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

Okay, that's twice three times you've accused ThorLives of using sockpuppets. File a checkuser request or otherwise report the user, but on this talk page you should be focusing on content. Please consider this a gentle reminder which will be followed by formal action if you persist derailing this conversation with unsubstantiated claims about another editor. If you have evidence, this is not the place to discuss it regardless. Are we clear?--~TPW 18:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. However, the deletion and substitution of one year of well-done material with a confused version of the article without sources and full of dead links has been decided just by a pair of users, and this is not acceptable. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed use the user name OdinicRite, but was informed that this is a violation of wiki-policy, so I began to post under ThorLives. I have stopped posting under OdinicRite. --ThorLives (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I see no problems with using the title "Germanic Neopaganism" or "Heathenry" for this page, what is important as far as this goes is that both these search terms will result in this page being displayed as Heathenry is much wider used word than Germanic Neopaganism. I am very concerned however that this page gives a completely unbalanced, in fact untruthful, picture of the state of Heathenry in the UK by making it appear that only the Odinic Rite exist in the UK. One has to ask if the recent edits of this page are to promote one person's political or religious ideas by hiding other groups and ideas. Noddyt (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Noddyt, if this is a problem, the solution is delightfully simple! Go ahead and delete any controversial material which is unsourced, and add well-sourced new material to put the picture straight! I don't know the topic well enough to know whether the article as it stands is well balanced or not, but I must say as a well-informed outsider it does not give me the impression of being a party political broadcast for any particular group... If you know the field better, then please improve the article! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This version was much more balanced also in the description of non-Odinist groups active in the UK. The real problem here is that the reversion and restoration of the 2010 old and poor version has been taken without any consensus by Dbachmann (who has restored one of his latest revisions) called forth by ThorLives who claimed a "hijacking" of the article. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Germanic NeoPaganism is problematic as a title for the following reasons: 1. "NeoPaganism" as a title isn't used on Wikipedia anymore and was changed to "Paganism(contemporary)" so NeoPaganism shouldn't be used in this title, either. 2. Germanic is a limiting, less inclusive term as there are more branches of this religion than purely German. For example, there is Gaelic or Celtic Heathenry which has roots in pre-Christian Scotland. There is also Slavic Heathenry, which has roots in Russia, Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Serb-Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Bulgaria. I include those links not as reliable sources, but to show there are religious adherents that are outside of the strict Germanic boundaries that the title "Germanic NeoPaganism" would limit us to. They have real differences, such a primary deities worshiped, but have similar customs, practices, and all have a strong foundation of ancestor veneration which makes them a branch of the same religion rather than a separate religion. CaraSchulz (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz

Germanic refers to the Germans, Scandinavians and English; ie those Europeans that are not Celtic, Latin or Slave; it does not mean "German". Within the international Heathen community we only consider Germanic pre-Christian religions to be our Heathen heritage, Celtic and other pre-Christian religions are not regarded as part of contemporary Heathenry. Heathenry as a specific worldview and group of gods and ancestors which are present in all Germanic languages but absent in non-Germanic such as "Woden, Wotan, Odin, Oðinn" and "Þunor, Donar, Þor, Þorr". The inclusion of non-Germanic reconstruction or revival would be incorrect and not do justice to the non-Germanic modern pagans or the Germanics; somewhat like have a page for monotheism saying "well their all the same really", which they obviously are not Noddyt (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Noddyt. However Schulz has explained the issue differently in the #1 of the discussion. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 09:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Germanic does only refer to Germans, Scandinavians (Excluding Fins) and the non-Celtic English. However, there are groups outside of those heritage areas that self-identify as Heathen, which I've pointed out a just a few. In a religion group which has no overall governing body or person (example - the Catholic Pope) it difficult to arbitrarily exclude groups or persons who self-identify as part of your religious family or a branch of your religion. I doubt Wikipedia wants to get involved in a dispute over who is a real member of this group of religions, so it has to go by who self-identifies. Example of how this works. If a group self-identifies as Christian, they are. If a group self-identifies as Catholic, but the Pope has specifically said they are not, they aren't. That's why I find "Germanic" as problematic.

My suggestion - "Heathenry(contemporary)" with redirects. When talking about our connected communities a standard phrase is emerging "Pagans, Heathens, and polytheists" or "Pagans and Heathens." Here is a Washington Post On Faith Column - a column devoted to talking about matters of religion - "Reason and temperance were championed throughout the ancient pagan societies, and are still valued today by Pagans, Heathens, and polytheists who claim inspiration and lineage from these great civilizations." I believe that, combined with the BBC source, shows Heathen is trending as a term that people inside and outside the religion are using as an umbrella term. Also note: The Wild Hunt, which is a blog for the related religious communities, has been using "Pagans and Heathens" as a standard phrase. Although it is a blog and not a reliable source, it is a very influential blog that is widely read by nonPagans and nonHeathans and is often cited and quoted by the mainstream media and used as a source. In a Google search of just The Wild Hunt using "Pagan and Heathen" it returns 3740 hits. And he uses the phrase, "My semi-regular round-up of articles, essays, and opinions of note for discerning Pagans and Heathens" as standard for his news round-ups. 97.92.17.94 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz

I posted this below but I'll post it here as well with an additional note..To the above comment of "If I see evidence that all of these (in reference to heathen groups) refer to themselves as heahten then i will support it)." The problem with this is that the term itself is nebulous, and anyone and his brother can form a group and either say he is or isn't heathen. By that same token I guarantee you we can find more support in the "heathen" communities for the term "heathen" than the "Neopagan" that is currently up there. To be blunt, very few heathens refer to themself as "neopagan". Now-

Whether or not individuals find the term "heathen" to be offensive, or if they personally want to use it shouldn't be taken into consideration for multiple reasons. The argument FOR "heathen" variants has a lot of support both in modern groups, and in acadamia, and we find more support for the use of the term "heathen" in big groups (This is seriously faulty thinking by the way-if you think the so called "Major/National Organizations" represent the majority of heathenism your wrong.) than we do for the word "neopagan". Consider these points. A) aside from Forn Sidr, or the names of individual germanic tribes, Heathen is the only term that was a naturally germanic term that was used to refer to prechristian germanic people. It appears first in Gothic but appears in Beowulf, Anglo Saxon Law, and in the Sagas, with a good example being the Death scene of Hakon the Good "To the Heathen Gods he fared", when he was buried "by heathens". B) It is still used and understood in Academic circles, particularly among medieval historians to refer to prechristian germanic people SPECIFICALLY. C) A large portion of modern heathens refer to themselves as heathen BECAUSE they are focused on reconstructing specific cultural and religious traditions that are referred to in academic texts as well as medieval sources as "heathen". The online journal Odroerir has already been mentioned, as has the Journal for Contemporary Heathen Thought. Both of these exemplify the very real existence of a very large group of people who refer to themselves as "heathen". It should ALSO be noted that these people tend to NOT approve of being called or lumped into an umbrella term of "Neopaganism". A) Paganism was never a term used to refer to the religion of the Germanic tribes by any medieval source during the period that heathenism existed. So to call them "pagan" is inaccurate. B) We must take into account modern umbrella terms and groups and how they associate...heathens have big issues with being lumped in with groups that identify as "pagan". Lastly-most heathens have an issue with being called "neo" anything. Because ALL of these terms being offered are nebulous, no one term will ever be fully agreed on, but between "pagan" and "heathen", heathen is used much more widely in germanic...."heathen" circles, and it is more consistent with acadamia and linguistics. There is no reason to use a latin term to refer to germanic traditions.

Also adding to the above argument-The Troth, both in their released books, their periodicals and at their website refer to themselves and those who practice the same religion as "heathen" and NOT pagan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.63.82 (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to the above information, the most accurate and least offensive title for the page should be- "Contemporary Germanic Heathenism" -So I agree with the above opinion that it should be called Heathenism (Contemporary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.63.82 (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Sources

Once again, the questionable sources are returning.

A forum with 72 posters:

Heathen Journal Forum

The Journal of Contemporary Heathen Thought which has one issue and is self-published (CreateSpace)

--ThorLives (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to post here in advance; questionable sources and the text they support can be removed on sight, although an explanation here afterwards is always useful. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

These links weren't used as sources. They were listed in the external links section. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 14:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, only the Heathen Journal was listed among the external links, the forum was not, and they've not made a return at all. What's the point of this new discussion? --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 14:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Blegkorbh, as of 23 November when [User:ThorLives|ThorLives]] made the post above about these links, they were not in fact present and so could not be said to have 'returned' - I'm puzzled! I did however remove an EL to a wiki which from its own statistics page had one registered user and which gave no evidence of being an authoritative source. I've left the one remaining EL, to the BBC site which of course is very credible and welcome! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The BBC page is most certainly a credible external link, it was written by Jenny Blain and the members of the APT and UKHeathenry Yahoo! Group which has 411 members representing most of the kindreds, hearths and other Heathen groups in the UK including the Troth UK. These people refer to their faith as Heathenry not Odinism which I must continue to hammer home is actually a modern subset of Heathenry not vice-versa. Noddyt (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Blegkorbh's reasons for removing it are of mixed relevance. If the group is defunct, that has zero impact on the value of the link. If it's a Wikipedia mirror and that can be proved, it's a pointless link. More to the point, can we use it as a reference instead?--~TPW 13:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Last call for sources on potential page move

We've been discussing the best name for this page for more than a week now and I'm going to suggest that we draw it to a close and ask for a decision from an uninvolved editor at WP:RM. In 24 hours or so from this timestamp, I will place a template at the bottom of this page which will place such a request. It's usual for people to suggest what the preferred new name should be, but in this case I'm not going to do that; instead I will ask the reviewing editor to look through this whole page and review the alternatives before coming to a decision.

So there are 24 hours for (a) people to object to this procedure, if they think it's the wrong way of deciding and (b) to add any final arguments (or even better - new sources) that have not so far been mentioned.

In respect of (a): please object to this procedure now if you know you are likely to be unwilling to abide by the result - whatever it is. There's no point getting someone to trawl through our discussions if we are simply going to ignore them if they choose the "wrong" title.

In respect of (b): please could I ask people NOT to simply restate arguments that have already been made; the reviewing editor will have enough to read and will not be impressed by people repeating arguments that have already been made. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Accurate and correct content is much more important than the title of the page, although as this page is about a modern religion then it should reflect the name that the followers of that religion choose not what is "PC" to outsiders. This may need to be returned to every six months or so. Noddyt (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If there was a clear and unambiguous name that all members of the religion used, I might buy it (although the Quakers article didn't go that way after a similar discussion, opting for the clear common name). I have seen no evidence that all members of the religion are in agreement on the name, so I believe it's far more appropriate to use a descriptive name, such as the current one, which tells the reader what the article is about without raising hackles of some portion of the community itself. There is just no name that all members of the community use, and there's never going to be a source which proves otherwise. Let's move on and find a name that is descriptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Pagan Warrior (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it really a religion? Sounds more like a collection of religious ideas and groups. As such, the title is a generic term, not the proper name of a religion. Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Germanic Neopaganism → ? – A range of alternative names for this article have been suggested throughout this talk page. They include:

• Germanic Neopaganism
• Germanic Paganism (contemporary religions)
• Heathenism (contemporary religion)
• Heathenry (modern)
• Heathenry (contemporary)
• Germanic religion (modern)
• Asatru
• Odinism
• Northern tradition

The last few have been least strongly suggested. There has been a certain amount of strong feeling here about this and in my view a consensus has not emerged. Hence this request to WP:RM. Any independent editor reviewing this will need to do a certain amount of link-following from the various wikilinks and external links above, for which effort we apologise and thank you in advance! If the reviewing editor/s is/are unfamiliar with the topic, it might be worth reviewing the family of articles linked from Paganism (contemporary) to get some context and look at how naming has been handled elsewhere in this topic area. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the "Heathen" variants I suggest to propose one only option, since the suffixes "ism" and "ry" are both quite common and they're used interchangeably. I also think that the title should be kept in line with the one used for the "Paganism (contemporary)" article, thence "Heathenism (contemporary)" if the other article is "Paganism (contemporary)", "Heathenism (contemporary religion)" if the other article is "Paganism (contemporary religions)". I would discourage the use of the term "modern" for its ideological implications. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 01:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – without a concrete proposal, there's not much to say, except that the current title shouldn't have Neopaganism capitalized. Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Heathen in the Oxford English Dictionary:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/heathen?region=us#m_en_us1254086.012

Note that the word is primarily a pejorativeItalic text term used by Christians, Jews, and Muslims for non-believers.

--ThorLives (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point, it is a "reclaimed" word, much like the black use of "the N word" or the terms "gay" and "queer". It is also a word that is shared across all Germanic languages used by the early Christians to describe the pre-Christian faith of the Germanic people. Pagan is from Latin and therefore rejected by many Heathens as a foreign word, Odinism implies monolatrism which for most Heathens is not the case (ironically including Odinists). Maybe you should look at http://odroerirjournal.com/ a journal written by Heathens expressing their own views, you will note that all the articles refer to Heathenry as the modern religion. Noddyt (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Where I live in the Southeastern United States, heathen is still very much a pejorative word, meaning something similar to hoodlum. The term describing this article's subject in this part of the country seems to be paganism, or less commonly neopaganism. I've never come across anyone describing themselves as following heathenism here. However, this is my experience, so take that with a grain of salt, but heathen is not a term accepted or used by everyone falling under the definition of the article's subject. If you do have a reliable source showing that the word pagan is rejected by "most" Heathens as a foreign word, that would help, because while I don't doubt that some people would say as such, I think that would be a minority view. - SudoGhost 07:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The journal mentioned above, http://odroerirjournal.com/?page_id=52, has one issue and appears to be self-published and on-line only. **add** Unlike the following journals, Odroerir journal is peer reviewed, and the information contained within it appears to be consistent with academia, and not new age speculation.

More reputable journals are Vor Tru ("Vor Tru( Our Faith ) is the vanguard journal of the Old Norse and Germanic religion of Asatru and have been publishing since the 1980's, and are published by the Asatru Alliance. Check out also the OR Briefing, published since 1987, by the Odinic Rite. Check out Runestone, published by the Asatru Folk Assembly. These are venerable Asatru/Odinist publications and organizations and not personal blogs or one-shot "magazines."

The above statement regarding "more reputable journals" is misleading to downright wrong. Just because a collective has been pushing their own brand of "heathenism" for years doesn't make their journal "reputable", nor does pushing it on a discussion forum on wikipedia. Charging money for a journal doesn't make it reputable either. The information contained in Odroerir is much more fact based, and more adherent to academia than the previously mentioned journals. Odroerir's issue, at the moment is simply that it is new. It has however, received sponsorship from bigger groups including The Troth.

--ThorLives (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose heathen variants because the evidence is insufficient. Reliable sources which have been introduced clearly show that some practitioners strongly prefer the term, and that some academics consider the terms to be a blanket for the entire movement. Evidence is clear that "heathen" has been used as a pejorative; some practitioners steer clear of it for this reason, and others are actively engaged in reclaiming it as a positive term. I've seen no reliable sources which make it clear that this reclamation process has been accepted fully, either within the community or among those studying it. "Heathen" is a very important word in this movement and should be given due weight, but neither this term nor any other that I have seen proposed is accepted by all practitioners as an umbrella term. There may be a term which is appropriately descriptive and sufficiently neutral to name the article; "heathen" is not that term.--~TPW 13:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support the Heathen variants because in addition to the studies and papers already reported above, is used by the BBC, Patheos, The Wild Hunt and various other media, including The New York Observer and The Village Voice, which have used it in describing the religion of the Theodsman Dan Halloran: GRAND OL' PAGAN: What Does the Republican 'Heathen' Running for New York's City Council Actually Believe?, ‘Heathen’ Halloran Captures Council Seat. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 13:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely Oppose Heathen since is is a pejorative term that is offensive. Although it is true that some subcultures, such as the Gay Community, have individuals that have adopted pejorative terms such as "Queer" as a badge of distinction, most have recognized it for what it is, a simple insult. The same applies to heathen. --ThorLives (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not individuals find the term "heathen" to be offensive shouldn't be taken into consideration for multiple reasons. The argument FOR "heathen" variants has a lot of support both in modern groups, and in acadamia. Consider these points. A) aside from Forn Sidr, or the names of individual germanic tribes, Heathen is the only term that was a naturally germanic term that was used to refer to prechristian germanic people. It appears first in Gothic but appears in Beowulf, Anglo Saxon Law, and in the Sagas, with a good example being the Death scene of Hakon the Good "To the Heathen Gods he fared", when he was buried "by heathens". B) It is still used and understood in Academic circles, particularly among medieval historians to refer to prechristian germanic people SPECIFICALLY. C) A large portion of modern heathens refer to themselves as heathen BECAUSE they are focused on reconstructing specific cultural and religious traditions that are referred to in academic texts as well as medieval sources as "heathen". The online journal Odroerir has already been mentioned, as has the Journal for Contemporary Heathen Thought. Both of these exemplify the very real existence of a very large group of people who refer to themselves as "heathen". It should ALSO be noted that these people tend to NOT approve of being called or lumped into an umbrella term of "Neopaganism". A) Paganism was never a term used to refer to the religion of the Germanic tribes by any medieval source during the period that heathenism existed. So to call them "pagan" is inaccurate. B) We must take into account modern umbrella terms and groups and how they associate...heathens have big issues with being lumped in with groups that identify as "pagan". Lastly-most heathens have an issue with being called "neo" anything. Because ALL of these terms being offered are nebulous, no one term will ever be fully agreed on, but between "pagan" and "heathen", heathen is used much more widely in germanic...."heathen" circles, and it is more consistent with acadamia and linguistics. There is no reason to use a latin term to refer to germanic traditions.

Also adding to the above argument-The Troth, both in their released books, their periodicals and at their website refer to themselves and those who practice the same religion as "heathen" and NOT pagan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.63.82 (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to the above information, the most accurate and least offensive title for the page should be- "Contemporary Germanic Heathenism"

• Admin Comment - I have suggested to User:Kim Dent-Brown that this RM nomination be withdrawn and a more specific new title requested in a new WP:RM so the move can be properly discussed to determine consensus. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Heathen" is too general here: some Christians call any other religion "heathen". The word "heathen" started as Anglo-Saxon "hǣðen" = "of the heath" as an (inaccurate) translation of Latin "paganus" = "of the countryside (pagus)", which originally meant the old Roman religion, because it likely survived in the countryside longer than in towns and cities. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)