Talk:Modern paganism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removal of jewish wicca

This section is really obscured, as there are no links to any surveys, article. even the wicca article doesn't include something even remotely close to "people with Jewish backgrounds are twice as likely to become Neopagans, in comparison to Gentiles (non-Jews)". this is a really stupid paragraph, which seems to have been written by either someone whom heard it somewhere and wanted to add, or someone with a hidden agenda. so i'm taking it down until someone will bring the appropriate links, info, and solid information to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.89.137 (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• I reverted (AGF) this removal, though I did stick a citation needed tag on the sentence about the survey. The rest of the section is from the Semitic Neopaganism article.--VikÞor | Talk 01:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Page protected...

... for one week because of this kind of edit warring. Removal of material like this needs justifying here on the article talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Generalization

Introduction is full of unreferenced generalisations. Could some references be provided for claims that are made in the text, or should we perhaps rewrite the introduction.Perunova straža (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)?

It does need some restructuring (which is actually part of what I was planing to do this week), but the lead does not need to be citation heavy. Everything in the lead should be supported by cited information in the body (as former only summarizes the latter). Controversial statements are one of the few cases that require redundant citations in the lead — to prevent inadvertent vandalism or censorship.
—Sowlos 17:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you'll be doing revision of the lead. The thing is some of the claims made in the lead (i.e. third and fourth paragraph of the lead) are unreferenced generalizations, unlike first two paragraphs that are both well written, avoid generalization and are referenced. Perhaps we should ditch the last two paragraphs alltogether, or heavily edit them? Perunova straža (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about it, but I avoid removing whole paragraphs without taking time to add back. Providing well cited statements that either contradicts the removed content or describes it more properly helps prevent POV-reverts.

I just pulled most of it and reworked the rest a little. However, if you still want to remove the rest, I will not object.

It will not look much better until the whole article is overhauled, as it is (should be) based on the body.
—Sowlos 22:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait until you've done with editing, so I wouldn't meddle in your work. Your revisions, so far, are just the things I would've done. As far generalizations go claims such as "Of the various days for celebration among Pagans, the most common are seasonally based festivals of the Wheel of the Year." do require at least some reference. Providing reference that proves the negative might be hard, since I don't think any author would waste time with writing a paper that proves that this or that polytheistic religion never even heard of "Wheel of the Year". Perunova straža (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not worry about meddling. My work has moved to the article body for now. I am prioritizing my tasks. (Improve the body to improve the summary.) If you think you think you can make it better, do so. :) However, whenever you are unsure, you can always make proposals and discuss them here.

As far generalizations go...
Agreed. I would normally refer to the main article for the topic (Wheel of the Year in this case), but it is light on references. I cleaned much of it up a while ago, but it still needs more attention. The problem, in part, is the sparse number of academic works focusing solely on Pagan celebrations.

—Sowlos 13:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved without discussion

On 8 December 2012, Seonookim (talk · contribs) moved Paganism (contemporary) to Contemporary Paganism. "Is right term, does not use commas"

I noticed only after realizing that the archive pages and settings for MiszaBot have been broken for months. (I fixed them.) The problem is there was no discussion. "Contemporary Paganism" may be very similar to "Paganism (contemporary)", but there are grammatical differences. The move should been put to discussion first.
—Sowlos 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the issue you've raised. However, since we are talking about terms that have no definition, we might let this slide by.Perunova straža (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it has, but that is part of why it bothers me. Slight wording shifts done while no one is looking feels like an insidious form of POV pushing.

My understanding was that the article was named Paganism (contemporary), because it is common for modern pagans to simply call themselves "Pagan". Parenthetical expansions follow in article titles as a means of disambiguating terms with multiple uses. "Contemporary Paganism" may be very similar, but it doesn't carry the exact same connotation. That can facilitate alternate terminology creep if favour of those who have moved this page to "Neopaganism" without discussion on several occasions. Based on this article's history, it meets the guidelines to be treated as controversial. This is why I think discussion should have been sought and why I am considering reverting the move.
—Sowlos 15:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I personally prefer the title of "Contemporary Paganism", I agree with your revert Sowlos. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It is done. One of the admins over looking WP:RM/TR made the necessary changes. In anyone would like to move this article, please seek consensus first.

For future reference, for those unfamiliar with the pipe trick, typing "[[page name (foobar)|]]" into an edit-area will return "[[page name (foobar)|page name]]" when you save.
—Sowlos 14:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Current state

I just finished cleaning up much of the article's citations (a very long and painstaking process). It is nice to see someone (or some-few) tried using short footnotes. They are very good for large articles, but there are templates for this. {{Sfn}} is specifically designed to be simple and self-organizing. Manually labelling each source, then tying references to them is unnecessary and error-prone (a fact exemplified by the number of the broken links).

In my working through the entire article, I found a few other issues I would like to highlight.

• A lot of the documents listed in the bibliography were not referred to by any in-line citations. They were taking up a lot of space and giving the illusion that the article was better sourced than it really was. However, many of them are good sources for the topic and should be worked back into the article, so rather than simply removing them, I have included them at the bottom if this post for everyone's benefit. A few in-line citations referred to items in the Further reading section, so they are in there too.
• A large amount of the cited content in the article is nothing more than quotes and "researcher x observes y". This is much better than the weasel words and over-generalization that abounded in the past, but now the article is slowly heading towards WP:QUOTEFARM. And, that is not better. Remember: "Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations." Many of the in-text attributions are also problematic under WP:SAY.
• There are also a few Embedded citations, something that should very much be avoided.

Extended content

Books Berger, Helen (1999). A Community of Witches: Contemporary Neo-Paganism and Witchcraft in the United States. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 978-1-57003-246-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Blain, Jenny (2002). Nine Worlds of Seid-Magic: Ecstasy and Neo-Shamanism in Northern European Paganism. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415256506. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Blain, Jenny; Wallis, Robert (2007). Sacred Sites Contested Rites/Rights: Pagan Engagements with Archaeological Monuments. Brighton and Portland, Oregon: Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-84519-130-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Chuvin, Pierre (1990). Chronique des Derniers Païns. Paris: Belles Lettres/Fayard. ISBN 978-2-251-38003-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Clifton, Chas S. (2006). Her Hidden Children: The Rise of Wicca and Paganism in America. Oxford and Lanham: AltaMira Press. ISBN 978-0-7591-0202-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Cowan, Douglas E. (2005). Cyberhenge: Modern Pagans on the Internet. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-96911-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Hutton, Ronald (2009). Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-14485-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Jones, Prudence; Pennick, Nigel (1995). A History of Pagan Europe. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-09136-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Magliocco, Sabina (2002). Neo-pagan Sacred Art and Altars: Making Things Work. University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 978-1-57806-391-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Orion, Loretta (1995). Never Again the Burning Times: Paganism Revisited. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press. ISBN 978-0-88133-835-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Pearson, Joanne (2007). Wicca and the Christian Heritage: Ritual, Sex and Magic. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415254144. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Pike, Sarah M. (2004). New Age and Neopagan Religions in America. New York City, New York, US: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-12402-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Seznec, Jean (1953). The Survival of the Pagan Gods: The Mythological Tradition and Its Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02988-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Strmiska, Michael F. (2005). Modern Paganism in World Cultures: Comparative Perspectives. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1-85109-613-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Tully, Caroline (2009). "Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers and Isis". In Evans, Dave; Green, Dave (eds.). Ten Years of Triumph of the Moon: A Collection of Essays. Hutton, Ronald (Afterword). United Kingdom: Hidden Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9555237-5-5. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Wallis, Robert J. (2003). Shamans/Neo-Shamans: Ecstasy, alternative archaeologies and contemporary Pagans. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-30203-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Wise, Constance (2008). Hidden Circles in the Web: Feminist Wicca, Occult Knowledge and Process Thought. Oxford and Lanham: AltaMira Press. ISBN 978-0-7591-1007-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) York, Michael (2003). Pagan Theology: Paganism as a World Religion. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-9702-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Anthologies Bernhardt-House, Philip A. (2009). "Pagan Celtic Studies (Or, Throwing the Druidic Baby Out from the Still-Drinkable Sacred Spring Water...?!)". In Evans, Dave; Green, Dave (eds.). Ten Years of Triumph of the Moon: A Collection of Essays. United Kingdom: Hidden Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9555237-5-5. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Magliocco, Sabina (1996). "Ritual is My Chosen Art Form: The Creation of Ritual as Folk Art among Contemporary Pagans". In Lewis, James R. (ed.). Magical Religion and Modern Witchcraft. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-2890-0. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Rabinovitch, Shelley TSivia; Lewis, James R. (2004). The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism. Kensington Publishing Corporation. ISBN 978-0-8065-2407-8. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Journal articles Crockford, Susannah (2010). "Shamanisms and the Authenticity of Religious Experience". The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies. 12.2. London: Equinox. Contemporary littérateur Bonewits, Isaac (2003). Rites of Worship: A Neopagan Approach. Miami, Florida: Earth Religions Press. ISBN 1-59405-501-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Gardner, Gerald (1954). Witchcraft Today. New York: Rider and Company. ISBN 0-8065-2593-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowlos (talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Modern Paganism. (non-admin closure) Apteva (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Paganism (contemporary) → Neopaganism – There is no reason to have a disambiguator when there is a common and perfectly acceptable term for this.--Relisted. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: The term "neopaganism" seems to imply that the article is describing something different than ordinary paganism as it exists in contemporary society, so it may be somewhat POV. If a rename is needed, the previously suggested "Contemporary Paganism" might be better, although I am not necessarily saying that any renaming is really needed. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying neopagan practices don't differ from classical pagan ones? Isn't the situation analogous with (pardon me) Nazism and Neo-Nazism, for example? --BDD (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As an alternative example (to try to steer away from Godwin's law), we don't refer to contemporary Christians as "Neo-Christians". From most adherents' perspective, contemporary Christians are continuing to practice a religion founded thousands of years ago – although some might acknowledge that there are significant differences between the beliefs of most modern Christians and the beliefs of most Christians from centuries or millennia ago. Most or at least some contemporary adherents of Paganism probably think the same way, and would interpret being called "Neo-Pagans" as pejorative terminology. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Christians can fairly claim an unbroken line of worshipers for the last 2000ish years. Here we seem to be talking about a revival of a tradition that had effectively been dead. As I mentioned below, I'm really starting to think Contemporary Paganism is the best way to go, but I'm not convinced "neopaganism" violates WP:N. --BDD (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:NATURAL, parenthetical disambiguation should not be done if a commonly-used alternative name would not require disambiguation. We have several naturally-disambiguating alternatives available. A case-sensitive Google Books Ngram Viewer search shows that "Neopaganism" has, in recent decades, been significantly more popular in written English than "Contemporary Paganism" or "Modern Paganism"[1]. Hence, that would be my preference. Knight of Truth (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NATURAL. To most people, "paganism" is still going to be used as we use it. --BDD (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: within the academic field of Pagan studies, the term "contemporary Paganism" is widely used, because many members of the religious movement find the term "Neopagan" to be offensive. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and so should follow academic consensus. I would however support a move to Contemporary Paganism'. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't necessarily prefer academic terminology, and may eschew it when it differs from a WP:COMMONNAME. But I would also support Contemporary Paganism. This seems like it could be a good consensus choice. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Ngram[2] shows that "Contemporary Paganism" is the least common term among "Neopaganism", "modern Paganism" and "Contemporary Paganism". I am open to the idea of using a less common alternative but A) I would prefer "modern Paganism" in that case and B) can you substantiate the claim that "Neopaganism" is offensive? I don't think what's the most common title in academia is relevant; a common name is preferable even if it's not widely used academically unless the name is unencyclopedic. Knight of Truth (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Neopaganism" is indeed considered derogatory by certain sectors of the contemporary Pagan community, and for this reason is almost always rejected in the academic field of Pagan studies. If you need a reference for the fact that it is considered offensive by some, check out Michael Strmiska, "Introduction", Modern Paganism in World Cultures, 2005. Page 9. As the title of that anthology shows, "Modern Paganism" is indeed used at times within academia, but I really must stress that "Contemporary Paganism" is the standard term, so I would certainly vote for that. In delicate issues like this, I think that academic sources should take priority over non-academic sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A non-case-sensitive Google Scholar search for "Neopaganism", "Modern Paganism", and "Contemporary Paganism", excluding patents and citations, gives 1610 results, 1240 results, and 632 results, respectively. Now I'm sure not each of those results is of equal academic standing, but again we see that "Contemporary Paganism" is least common. If we strike Neopaganism, I'd still be hesitant to adopt a title that's apparently nearly half as common as the alternative in academics, let alone outside of it. Wikipedia does not use "academic consensus", but rather, reliable sources--which aren't necessarily academic. And especially in the case of common names, academia is not a good place to look for finding common usage. A while ago, someone wanted to move Ra to "Re" because that is supposedly a better transliteration from the Egyptian, and was common in academia, but that's surely not the common name among the general populace. The same approach applies here, I think. Knight of Truth (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, and I think my problem rests primarily with Wikipedia policy on this issue rather than your interpretation of it. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopaedia, so to my mind should always follow academic consensus over what might happen to be popular in the mainstream media or other such sources. While here at Wikipedia we recognise many of these as "reliable sources", academics would choke at the idea that many of these sources are in any way "reliable." But, admittedly, I digress... Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I can understand your position, too. However, I think that we can agree that local talk pages aren't the place to try and revise Wikipedia policy. A central discussion on the policies' talk page is a better forum for that. Could you settle for the title "Modern Paganism", until such time that policy (or common usage) changes? Knight of Truth (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd certainly prefer "Modern Paganism" over "Neopaganism". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Administrator's comment It appears we have a solid consensus to move away from the parentheses in favor of natural disambiguation. The question appears to be whether to go with Neopaganism as proposed, Contemporary Paganism, or another alternative. It would be good to review the trends in the top reliable sources for the subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that when writing an article about a religion (or group of religions or religious phenomenon or religious characteristic), it is usually a good idea to strive to find a way refer to the religion in a way that its adherents would be unlikely to find insulting. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The "top reliable sources" would probable be the literature produced within the field of Pagan studies; there, they use "contemporary Paganism" as the norm. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have two issues with your approach. Firstly, academic articles are not the only sources we should consider. Non-academic reliable sources, such as major news publications, can also be used to gauge common usage--in fact, they may show that common usage differs from academic usage. More importantly, what evidence do you have that "Contemporary Paganism"? I'd find it an acceptable choice if it really was the standard in academia, but the Google Scholar and Google Books searches I linked both seem to favor "Modern Paganism". The work you linked has no qualm with using all three options. No offense, but we can't just take your word for it. Knight of Truth (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's fine, I would never expect anyone to simply take my word for it – I know it to be true, but I can't prove that with any statistics right now. I'm also okay with "Modern Paganism", although I do think "Contemporary" is preferable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems to me that we've more or less reached consensus. It would be expedient to make the move Paganism (contemporary) → Modern Paganism now, as all participants seem to find this option acceptable and preferable to the current title, leaving open the possibility of a move to "Contemporary Paganism" if future discussion finds that option to be superior. Knight of Truth (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• FWIW: As an uninvolved editor here, I would support moving to Modern Paganism as a naturally unambiguous, neutral, common name for this topic. I did a google books search and found a strong preference for modern paganism (316k hits) over contemporary paganism (96k hits) and neopaganism (45k hits). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Capitalization

But why the caps? As the article says, these are umbrella terms, not proper names. Paganism is usually lowercase in sources; "modern paganism" is more often capitalized, but not enough to meet the threshold in MOS:CAPS. When it is used as the name of a specific religion, I could see it being capitalized, but that is not the case in the current article. The previous mover introduced this error when moving from Paganism (contemporary) to Contemporary Paganism, and I'm sorry I didn't notice sooner. Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it either, but I think you're right. We're not referring to an organized religion here, but a group of religions. I don't think this will be controversial, so I suggest you tag Modern paganism with template:db-move; I'd do it myself but I think it would be inappropriate given my heavy involvement in the earlier discussion. Knight of Truth (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure enough, that worked. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I still think capitalized Paganism should be included in the lede: "Modern paganism, also known as contemporary paganism, neopaganism and Paganism", especially as the capitalized word Pagan is used later (modern/contemporary pagan or Pagan). Helen (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What would be the rationale for treating Paganism as a proper noun? I'm not so sure about Pagan, either, but didn't change that yet; let's not use that as the reason. Dicklyon (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I and all the other Pagans I know capitalize Pagan and Paganism and don't use any other terms for the concept. We don't call ourselves pagans, neopagans or modern/contemporary pagans. I will look for RS when I have time if you want me to. Helen (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Margot Adler, who is cited in the lede says in a footnote in the same source (pp3–4): "'Pagan' and 'Neo-Pagan' are capitalized since the words are used here to describe members of a religion, in the same way as one would describe a 'Christian' or a 'Jew'. 'Witch' will be capitalized when it is used to refer to members of the modern Witchcraft religion, Wicca or the Craft." Helen (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is pretty common practice to capitalize such terms; in general, writers and publishers typically adopt a style of capitalizing the important words in their domain; see WP:SSF. In WP, though, we only capitalize proper nouns; see MOS:CAPS; since paganism and pagan are not consistently capitalized in sources, we don't here. The specific named versions of paganism I left capitalized; yet to fix are the various uses of pagan, most of which are probably generic. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that the page has been moved again very quickly to decapitalize "Paganism", and I don't think I agree with the sudden decapitalization. That wasn't suggested or discussed in the move request discussion that just ended with a consensus result. Protestantism isn't a single unified religion either, but it is consistently capitalized in the Protestantism article. I suspect that the decapitalizing reflects a lack of respect. Other religion-related -isms seem generally capitalized. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Like others who commented above, I wasn't thinking too much about WP:NCCAPS in the RM discussion, thinking of Paganism like Buddhism, Christianity or Islam, but as Dick pointed out it's not really a specific organized religion so much as an umbrella term including several religions, like monotheism, thus not always capitalized. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. I checked monotheism and pantheism, and I see that they're not capitalized in their articles, so I guess it's OK. I'll withdraw my startled objection. (But I'm sure some people would say that Protestantism isn't a single specific organized religion either – the Protestantism article defines it in the lead section as "any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and ...".) —BarrelProof (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I just did a style/copy edit of Protestantism and I see that article has suffered from a Great Deal of Random Capitalization. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In the context of the contemporary phenomenon, the "p" in "Paganism" is almost universally capitalized. This should undoubtedly be reflected in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The noun "Paganism" should be capitalised, as it is used this way in contemporary academic literature referring to a defined group of religions (just like "Hinduism"); it shouldn't be capitalised in the case it is used in the Late Antiquity and Medieval meaning of "paganism" as "non-Christian".--79.20.79.45 (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

To clarify why the lower-case spelling is wrong here, I will highlight three points; 1) the upper-case is almost universally used among Pagans themselves and academics studying Pagan studies, 2) many Pagans find the lower case spelling offensive, because it does not accord them the same respect as Christians, Buddhists etc (many Pagans identify purely as "Pagans" rather than "Wiccan", "Druid" etc.), 3) Contemporary Paganism operates like a family group of religions, such as the Abrahamic religions, rather than being a belief common to various religious groups, like monotheism or polytheism. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm late, but I would like to echo Midnightblueowl's comment (for future reference).  —Sowlos  08:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed off-topic rant per WP:NOTAFORUM

many people apparently choose to be "Pagans" just so they can enjoy the thrill of being a "minority" and act all "offended". Apparently, you cannot get anywhere in US society these days unless you are some sort of minority with a grievance, so if you are from a WASP background, what are you going to do? Become a "pagan", and you get all the concerned attention due to "minorities" everyone else is enjoying. Needless to say, Wikipedia shouldn't be interested in any of this (other than reporting on the phenomenon via secondary sources). It may sound incredible, but some people are actually into neopaganism because of their world-view and not to make offended noises on the internet. --dab (𒁳) 13:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Can we please focus on the article? I cannot discern any clear link between that comment and the content of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Agreed. I personally vote that the above spiteful rant gets removed from the talk page. Comments like this one contribute absolutely nothing and only serve to heat an argument. This isn't how how to edit an encyclopedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC) We don't remove content from talk pages by vote. Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC) No, and I wasn't calling for it. It was my opinion that the hateful rant isn't helping, and I say it should be removed. We frequently remove items per WP:NOTAFORUM. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Neopaganism, I'm too late

Oh dear I missed the boat, I wish I got here sooner, and I'll make no difference probably. What is modern paganism? never heard the term, neopaganism is a much more used term. Searching for Google books? Who ever was doing that wasn't doing it very well, If you search Google books for "modern paganism" in speech marks like you should [[3]] it returns 19K hits, neopaganism returns 47K hits [[4]]. If you search without speech marks it returns matches like "The Practical Pagan: Common Sense Guidelines for Modern Practitioners" that contain both words but not always together. That's why you got 300K+ matches. Something like house paganism has 145K matches[[5]] whilst "House Paganism" on the other hand has just 7 not 7K just 7. [[6]]. Or to look at the chart someone else posted again which shows how popular the terms are [[7]], I know I probably won't make a difference and I'm late but I've said my pice now I'll get my coat. Carlwev (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the mere frequency of use of a term is not the only criterion for decision-making here. Another, for example, is WP:POVTITLE. The title should avoid subtle expressions of opinion about the topic. See prior discussions above – "neopaganism" does not seem neutral (at least to me).

I looked at that "Ngram" chart. It is interesting, but it's a case-sensitive search! The capitalization has a significant effect on the results. Is there a way to do a non-case-sensitive chart like that? (Or to export the numbers in CSV format for alternative analysis?) In addition to "modern Paganism" (becoming popular in the last decade), there are "modern paganism" (steadily popular, peaking around 1942), "Modern Paganism" (rising in the '60s as "modern paganism" declines, and peaking around 1972), and "Modern paganism" (rising since 1995). The body of the current article uses "modern paganism", which has quite prevalent long-term use. Then there's "neopaganism", "contemporary paganism", "contemporary Paganism", etc. The two-word terms suffer in the comparison because they have four capitalization variants instead of just two.

—BarrelProof (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As this article's title seems to have no long term stability (changing every few months), I'm sure it will change again. This issue seems to be a recurring one because people not familiar with the subject come across the article and become confused. Remember, article titles are based in no small part on nomenclature used by reliable academic sources and (in the case of social groups) the community being covered. While the term Neopaganism did enjoy greater usage a few decades ago by those within the community, many today object to the term and simply identify as Pagan. They see themselves as a modern continuation of paganism, not a new paganism. (I've even heard Pagans differentiate between modern Pagans and Neopagans on occasion.) Sensitive to this issue, contemporary academics avoid Neopaganism in favour of Contemporary Paganism.

This is also why the article was previously called "Paganism (contemporary)". If there are two groups conventionally called pagans (irrespective of capitalization), then parenthetical differentiation is the conventional way to differentiate their titles in Wikipedia. This is also why I disagree with the recent title change. There is no identification or statistical group of modern Pagan; they simply are known as Pagans. But, I will not belabour this point if the majority prefer to call them modern Pagans. The majority is a majority.

It is also a worth noting, that the variable terminology over the years may skew the results of Google tests.

 —Sowlos  11:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

you are not too late, the article simply fell victim to an orchestrated WP:COI campaign. It is, of course, broken now, and the sooner we get back to encyclopedic coverage the better. If the article has no long-term stability, it is because nobody bothers to protect it. Sure, there are more important topics for housekeepers to look after, just imagine what the Middle East conflict articles would look like otherwise, but this is still Wikipedia, and somebody will need to bite the bullet here.

Sowlos, I am afraid I completely disagree with your approach. It is beside the point what "those in the community" identify as: if you are going to listen to that, you are inevitably only going to catch those people who (a) communicate in English to begin with, and (b) spend their lives in front of the screen ("internet paganism").

--dab (𒁳) 13:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we can't always listen to what people prefer calling themselves, however I don't think that issue applies here. We already agree to call them Pagan, so we have no issue with what they call themselves. My contention was with attempting to devise a natural disambiguation to replace the parenthetical disambiguation.  —Sowlos  16:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's never too late to review a move and I'd like to suggest we review this move as the current name doesn't meet Wikipedia's Article titles guidelines and is not the terminology usually used in the academic literature. Not the least of the problems with the current name is usage of the term 'Modern'. We are no longer in the Modern era and contemporary paganism is in fact an explicit reflection of postmodernism. I'd like to undo this move and go back to Paganism (contemporary). Any interest in this review? Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Move reviews are for hashing out failures of process, not just to extend the same discussion to a new venue. At any rate nearly a month is pushing it time-wise, especially when no one appears to have brought their concerns to the closer. From a policy standpoint, all of the titles discussed in the last RM are superior to "Paganism (contemporary)", as they offer well-established natural titles rather than a parenthetical. I would have closed it exactly the same way given the discussion at the time. If editors want a different name, the proper way is starting a new RM and presenting evidence that the proposed title is superior according to Wikipedia policy and practice.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW I'm not fond of the new title and was perfectly happy with the old one. But I'm not suo unhappy that I want to spend another few weeks rehashing the same issues, regardless of outcome. All that time and energy would be better spent on improving the article. Given that all plausible titles are covered by redirects anyway, the matter is hardly urgent. I'd prefer an improved article under the current name to an unimproved article reverted back or changed to yet another new title, however appropriate. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Magic and witchcraft section

Leaving aside the self-definitions vs WP categories discussion for a moment... One of the ways some of the ethnic traditions are uncomfortable with the Wicca-centric Neopagan community is attitudes towards "witchcraft." Most Wicca-centric & other eclectic Neopagans accept the modern re-definition (that "witchcraft" includes positive magic), while ethnic traditions who practice folk traditions are more likely to stick to the older definition of witchcraft as harmful magic. I made an edit to this effect in that section. I can source the traditional definition to many sources (which are in the bibliography of the linked article), but for a contemporary statement about how witchcraft is seen among Gaelic Polytheists (who see them/ourselves as only technically Neopagan, as we fit the literal definition, but don't share most of the assumptions of the broader Neopagan community), my suggested cite is to a heavily-footnoted article of which I am a co-author. So rather than just add it, I'll suggest it here on the talk page: Rowan and Red Thread: Magic and Witchcraft in Gaelic Cultures. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The assertion that witchcraft as non-negative is a re-definition is contradicted by the majority of the more reputable sources on the subject (Pagan and secular alike). I've removed the word traditional from "the traditional view that "witchcraft" describes only harmful magic", in your edit, pending further discussion on the topic.
On a side note, be careful with what you mean by "traditional". Most ethnic traditions traditionally spoke languages other than English and may use the word witch as a translation for the actual traditional terminology in their native languages.  —Sowlos  06:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As a witch (traditional Gardnerian) myself I have to go along more with Kathryn on this. I'm keenly aware that the way I and fellow pagan witches use the term is quite different from how it's ever been used before (and indeed different from how the majority of the non-pagan population uses it.) I think it's part of the countercultural aspects of Wicca (including other elements such as the ritual nudity) - a kind of thumbing one's nose at norms and conventions, a deliberately transgressive act if you like. The majority of reputable sources on witchcraft will I am sure describe traditional views (whether from Western countries or the Third World) of witches as essentially malevolent. The majority of reputable sources on modern neopagan witchcraft will of course do the opposite. But I think that's what Kathryn is saying here.

Kethryn, thanks for your caution in not citing your own work! It's not clear where this has been published, can you enlighten us? I'd be happy to take responsibility for the edit that inserts it, if I know what the source is. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think traditional is appropriate considering the context of the sources given in the citation and the article posted upthread. The article even discusses the terminology used in Gaelic languages (some of which have been borrowed from the English word, apparently) in relation to witchcraft. Ririgidi (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Kim, we haven't submitted it for publication anywhere. We started it as just something for the website, not realizing it would wind up being so long and detailed. We probably should publish it elsewhere, though. We'll give it some thought. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 17:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think "traditional" is the correct word here. Sowlos, your edit made sentence fragments. Semantics among Neopagans gets messy... "Traditional" to most of the world winds up meaning something different to many Neopagan ears. But this article is not for the Neopagans only, it's for the general population. Therefore the terminology should fit general, non-subcultural, definitions. The only other word that would fit is "older," but that's not as fitting. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It is right to point out that witch is used by contemporary Pagans quite different from how it's ever been used before. I don't believe that's in dispute. However, Oxford appears to disagree with the meaning of witch being "traditionally" negative.
Before continuing, I must point out there are multiple ideas of what traditional means (depending on the time-scales an individual is inclined towards). Given Wicca's focus on re-appropriating "traditional" religious elements from at least as far back as pre-Christian Britain, I assume "traditional" to be on a scale that stretch back well before Old English's death.This highlights three issues for me:

1. Modern English witch has always (until recently) been negative, but this wasn't true for Old English wicca/wicce.
2. Discussing other "ethnic traditions" imply traditions that traditionally don't speak English. I find equating the "traditional" meaning of English witch with German Hexe or Gaelic buidseach (to name a few) problematic. When words are translated between languages, words with similar connotations are selected. These selections need not have the same etymology nor be tied to the same historical concepts.
3. Unqualified descriptors in this type of scenario (witch in this case) tend to be used and understood in the most generic ways, as a stand-in for all terminology that would have been used to describe the focal concept. For example, this was an issue I encountered with the Paganism article, where pagan was functionally used as a synonym for paganus, hellene, ethnos, etc. I find this is common in English conversation. In other words, using witch in a conversationally is to use it in a sweeping manner referring to centuries of terminology (not even necessarily from one language). This is a problem when making etymological points.

 —Sowlos  19:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC) ...sorry for the TL;DR  —Sowlos 

Slàn:

1. You are correcting sentence fragments that do not exist. For example, "The rituals of whom are at least partially based upon ..." is a grammatically complete sentence. What is the subject? "Whom." It does not matter that it must be read within the context of the paragraph to be understood. It grammatically contains everything it needs to be separated from the preceding sentence with more than a comma.
2. Why are you quoting magic? What statement are you quoting? Are you just using scarequotes?
3. You restored "Some ethnic traditions ... reject the term witchcraft as they adhere to the traditional view in their cultures that witchcraft describes only harmful magic ..." Which ethnic traditions (WP:WEASEL) reject using the English word witchcraft as a label for their magical practices?
4. I notice that you are actively replacing "Pagan" with "Neopagan". Is there any particular reason for this? The term Neopagan has been the subject of several controversies for this article.

 —Sowlos  23:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The various European and Gaelic cultures are in the sources cited, so it's not weasely. Basically, as Kim has said, it's only modern Pagans and those influenced by them that consider "witchcraft" neutral or positive. If you would familiarize yourself with sources outside the Neopagan milieu, you would see this is not shocking, new information to most people. In most cases the quotes are because we are discussing the word, "magic." I did not intend them to be scare quotes, though I think some previous authors of that section may have. I think whether or not quotes or italics are needed in most places the word is used in this section is more a M.O.S. issue than a P.O.V. one. The sentence fragment you introduced was: "The rituals of whom are at least partially based upon those of ceremonial magic and freemasonry." This is not Simple English WP, it's WP. Most people can understand sentences with multiple clauses. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the ad hominem, rather than addressing the etymological issue I've repeatedly raised. It's an oversimplification, and I think it's misleading.  —Sowlos  10:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

lnfobox

lf there is a symbol of Ossetian neopaganism, in other words, "Etseg Din", it should be added to the infobox too. Lamedumal (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Pagan music

I've added a very sketchy section on pagan music, whic seems an important enough topic to mention. There are in fact a number of WP pages relating to pagan music,, but apparently no single page on the whole topic. If there eventually is, maybe it could just be linked to. Littlewindow (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing Cited Source

The "Terminology and Definitions" section says

The American scholar of religious studies Michael F. Strmiska in 2005 argued 
that the modern adoption of the term "Pagan" was "a deliberate act of defiance" 
against "traditional, Christian-dominated society", and that, on the other hand, 
"Neopagan" is often deemed offensive and not used by many contemporary Pagans, 
who claim that the inclusion of the term "neo" disconnects them from their ancient 
polytheistic ancestors.[γ]

Unfortunately, the footnote associated with that only says "^ Strmiska (2005) p. 9" The book or article from which it draws is entirely absent. Anyone have a reference?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added the reference; if the format isn't exactly right someone please correct it. Littlewindow (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Lovely! Thanks :)

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 03:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitions of Neopaganism

I missed most of the discussion around "Neopaganism" vs "Modern Paganism" vs "Paganism (contemporary)," and had no significant attachment to the outcome. However, this was brought to my attention, and I think it is relevant to how we are naming various articles in the project:

Definition of neopaganism in English: neopaganism - noun - 'A modern religious movement that seeks to incorporate beliefs or ritual practices from traditions outside the main world religions, especially those of pre-Christian Europe and North America. Neopaganism is a highly varied mixture of ancient and modern elements, in which nature worship (influenced by modern environmentalism) often plays a major role. Other influences include shamanism, magical and occult traditions, and radical feminist critiques of Christianity.'" - oxforddictionaries.com

I think this has a bearing on ethnic and reconstructionist traditions that are opposed to "incorporat[ing] beliefs or ritual practices from...North America." While it's common knowledge that many Neopagans do this, there are traditions that are opposed to it, so are now excluded from this definition. (crossposted to Wikiproject Neopaganism) - CorbieV^☊ 21:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Very rarely (read as never) have I encountered North American beliefs referred to as "Paganism". They are mostly incorporated into New Age beliefs which bleed over into some of the more liberal Wiccan groups. For my experience within the Pagan Community, (Contemporary) Paganism is a group of modern beliefs built upon pre-Christian cultural beliefs and practices of Europe. Which is why I also have some issue with Kemeticism and Semitic beliefs being included as "Modern Paganism." The only Kemeticists I know of who call themselves Pagans are more accurately described as Wiccan, and I've only ever known Semitics to call themselves either Semitic or Canaanite polytheists.68.39.168.9 (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Does neopaganism exist?

The opinions above have raised the relevant problems that the use of the term "neopaganism" as a catch-all category generates. Does "neopaganism", as a unified phenomenon, exist? Actually no: "neopaganism" is a virtual category that has been constructed through a series of publications from the Anglophone world. It originally referred strictly to Wicca and the modern syntheses that have emerged in America (ex. Church of All Worlds, Feri). Then the term was forced on all the so-called "reconstructionist" movements of the Old World, which rarely or in no case name themselves "neopagan".

Well, I think this article should be reduced to a list, or disambiguation page, of the different things to which the name "neopaganism" has been attached.

• Wicca
• other modern syntheses
• European native religions (this article discussing the so-called "reconstructions") --87.4.80.162 (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the website of the late Isaac Bonewits. It is maintained by his widow now. He spent his entire life as a scholar defining the term that this is issue is talked about in and writing about it. http://www.neopagan.net/ Kannath Raymaker 21:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannathraymaker (talk • contribs)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Modern paganism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article has a lot of information, but it seems that it is generally agreed to be a bit of a mess. Needs more source citations and cleanup. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 20:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't take over article to insist one POV dominates the subject

I've reverted all the "Cleanup needed" tags inserted by anonymous user 87.2.83.122 for two reasons. First, this user clearly has a personal view of the subject which insists that any presentation of it emphasize differences among various pagan groups over what they have in common. Anonymous user 87.2.83.122 has a right to their opinion, but I don't think they have a right to insist that their opinion dominate the article by plastering cleanup needed tags all over it. If anonymous user 87.2.83.122 thinks that the differences in these groups should be given emphasis over their similarities, then what anonymous user 87.2.83.122 should do is argue on this Talk page that respected mainstream scholars of the subject take this approach to it, so the Wikipedia article should too. Second, anonymous user 87.2.83.122's repeated claims that most of the sources cited are "hardly reliable" is wrong. Most the the sources cited are from respectable, mainstream commercial and academic publishers such as Penguin, Routlege, Oxford University Press, Brill, etc. This is not to say of course that the views in these sources must be accepted as correct, but it certainly means that these sources are reliable mainstream academic opinion. If anonymous user 87.2.83.122 thinks the article's general approach needs revising, please discuss that proposal on this talk page, instead of covering the page with their own POV in the form of cleanup needed tags. Littlewindow (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the tags. The problems highlighted are not my personal view. The article is a totally unscientific analysis, and lumps together Wicca, new age movements and revival of indigenous religions as if they are the same phenomenon. This is not true: Wicca and European indigenous religions have different origins and aims. The main problem is not constituted by the type of sources used, but by the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR nature of this article. It should be deconstructed entirely, and the topics synthesised here should be re-analysed, independently, in a scientific and factual way.--79.11.90.243 (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"I have reverted the tags. The problems highlighted are not my personal view..." followed by a restatement of the anonymous user's personal views, which have also been replastered all over the article. I'm not going to get in a war over this, I'll merely point out that this article as it now stands is about two things: 1) contemporary paganism, and 2) anonymous user 87.2.83.122/79.11.90.24 's personal opinions as embodied in the ubiquitous tags. If others interested in the subject are satisfied that this is what a Wikipedia article on it should look like, fine with me. Littlewindow (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

My personal experience from what the few neo-pagans I have spoken with and the little I've read from various neo-pagan grouls is that they do emphasise two things, which may be controversial for some other people.

1. They tend to claim that their faith is not just a revival of old ideas, but a continuation in other forms of some kind of `undercurrent' which has gone on for a long time, in spite of the pagan faiths having been prohibited and persecuted.
2. They tend to emphasize that different neo-pagan movements in different locations actually more or less are parts of the same movement.

As I said, I do not know to what extent this really is true for a majority of the groups and adherents. However, if it is true, then it should be possible to document this. This would not then be a question of OR, but of finding sufficiently clear such "synthesis" statements among these groups themselves.

To the extent that especially the second point is true, this page is a good place for exhibiting this perceived widespread movement.

Note, that the question about how objectively true the statements are, is a different one. Personally, I suspect both that the unity with the respective older local faiths, and theclaims of a continuity in time, may be exaggerated. As to the claims about the present common movement, I think that there may a bit more truth in this. First, there may be fairly modern impulses (like new age) having influenced many of them. (E.g., theosophists were involved in the revival of Ásatrú on Iceland, which in its turn was a large inspiration for similar movements in the other Nordic countries.) Second, those I've heard, and the texts I've read seem to stress a general attitude, which they share with most of what we know about ancient pagan religions: They are rather tolerant, as regards faiths.

This may be a bit hart to grasp for people who are mainly acquaintainced with Abrahamitic faiths; but the old pagans in general did not believe that belief itself was of a particular value. Their deities might reward their followers for their sacrifices, and for their observance of proper rites and (sometimes) moral rules; but not for belief itself. Therefore, it would be no great matter, if your neighbours, or people you met on travels, partly worshipped other gods, or believed other myths about them. Even the idea of "a religion" or "a denomination of faith" seems to have been foreign. Antique travellers may report on which gods foreign people worship, and how they do it, and a little about their myths; but without treating them as belonging to "another relogion". Instead, Romans or Greek narrators often substitute the names of their own deities for the foreign ones; considering the foreigners as worshipping mainly the same gods, an perhaps a few gods unknown in the narrator's home.

Actually, some of the Nordic neo-pagans seem to have had some trouble of being officially recognised as "denominations", precisely since they are not interested in the kind of dogmas, which traditionally are so central for most Abrahamitic denominations. Our legislations are much better adapted for traditional groups of e.g. Christians, with very sharp dogmatic differences between them. (However, at least in my part of Europe, most contemporary Christians seem not to take the dogmatic differences very seriously. An active minority does.) JoergenB (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the unwarranted tags applied to this article by a single user. Neopaganism is a well established field of study and this article has a fair number of citations which establish that. Rather than just dropping tags into the article I suggest that it is more constructive to engage in depth with the article and try to improve any perceived shortcomings. It is easy to dump a tag on a section but it is much harder to do actual editing to improve the article. Simply nay saying other's opinions is not a constructive way to proceed.

editor 79.11.90.243 makes claims that are unsubstantiated and contradictory, for example, "Wicca and European indigenous religions have different origins and aims". This is confusing as Wicca is a European indigenous religion. But the editor says nothing more to this point so it is impossible to discern the intended meaning. Perhaps more talk and less tagging would be more productive. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Morgan Leigh for deleting those unnecessary, inappropriate and intrusive tags. That simple edit makes the article look vastly better. Other editors please note that since we now have at least two editors who have deleted the tags and strongly object to their presence, WP good practice would be not to re-insert them without further discussion here. Littlewindow (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

COI

Dbachmann added a COI tag to this article. I'm not going to remove it, but I think a little explanation would be good. It's true that many of the editors here are Pagan, but that doesn't necessarily rise to a conflict of interest.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As I've noted above, the article is littered with unjustified tags by one anonymous user, and now there's another intrusive unjustified tag. In effect, the personal opinions of these two users about what the article should be like have taken over the article. I reverted some of these tags before and called for discussion, but the anonymous user simply undid the reversion without waiting for others to discuss it. To repeat, I'm not going to get into a war on this, but because of all these personally biased tags I think the article at present is unreadable. If others agree, then they should make their views known here. Littlewindow (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that user Morgan Leigh has deleted these tags, which I fully support. Since we now have at least two editors, myself and ML, who think these tags are inappropriate, WP good practice would be not to reinsert them without discussion here first to reach a consensus. Littlewindow (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Does anyone have any idea why some of the references are numbered and others have Greek letters? Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization

Whether to capitalize pagan and paganism is a controversial issue. My impression is that books written by and for practicing pagans tend to capitalize, while those considered objective scholarly or journalistic treatments don't, though there are exceptions, and at least one book published by a mainstream university press argues for capitalization. The deciding factor I think is that currently the University of Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook don't capitalize pagan (though both state without qualification that Wicca/Wiccan should always be capitalized, and the UofC manual says that Druid/Druidism should usually be capitalized.) If the current lobbying efforts result in these standard authorities saying to capitalize Pagan, then the WP article should; but though I'm sympathetic to the capitalization personally, I have to admit that so long as the standard reference books don't capitalize, neither should the WP article. (Though of course any capitalization in quoted material should be kept.) Littlewindow (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I mismanaged the edit; it will have to be changed on a word-by-word basis, which I may do if I get time. Littlewindow (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Littlewindow I'm not sure about the correctness or not of the general argument but yes a simple search-replace of these types of things generally can cause more problems than the general point. Unfortunately a lot of things like wiki-links, category and template names, image names, urls, etc are case sensitive. Also things such as quotes and book/article names should also match the source. So such things are never as quick and easy as we would like. I noticed your first part of the three edits was probably correct (as per your ex above) so I just re-reverted that part. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks KylieTastic for your efforts and information. As I said above, personally I think Pagan/Paganism should be capitalized -- there is a petition to ask UofC and other standard reference works to specify this, being managed through various web sites which can be found by an internet search on something like capitalize pagan petition. But so long as publishing industry standard is that pagan isn't capitalized, I think the article to look professional should follow the standard. Littlewindow (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the reasoning for capitalisation is very clear. First, the capitalised form is that which is commonly employed within the Pagan community itself, and (as is noted in Strmiska's book I believe) many Pagans actually find being referred to as "pagan" quite offensive. Second, the capitalised form is that most commonly employed in the academic, reliable sources on the subject. The Pomegranate, which is the only peer-reviewed journal devoted to the subject, for instance insists on the use of "Paganism" in its editorial policy, while almost all academic studies published over the last decade have also employed this upper-case usage (for instance Pizza's Paganistan, Aitamurto and Simpson's Modern Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Central and Eastern Europe, Rountree's Contemporary Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Europe, Doyle White's Wicca). A few of the earlier studies, such as Hutton's 1999 work The Triumph of the Moon, do use the lower-case term but that no longer appears to be the case; Hutton himself has always used the upper-case "Pagan" in more recent publications. Problems of course arise through the fact that "paganism", as a term, is also used in ways totally unrelated to the modern new religious movement. It is often applied to pre-Christian religious beliefs, for instance, and is sometimes used in reference to the irreligious too. As I understand it, that is why various academics sources that do not specialise in this topic are hesitant about introducing "Paganism". Nevertheless, here at Wikipedia we have more than enough reliable evidence supporting a move to the capitalised "Paganism" when dealing with this new religious movement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

First sentence

I've changed the first sentence from "Modern paganism, also known as contemporary paganism, and neopaganism," to "Modern paganism, also known as Neo-Paganism" because the only source given for that statement, Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon, 1) nowhere uses the phrase "contemporary paganism," and 2) always capitalizes "Neo-Paganism." Since that is the only reliable source given, the statements in the sentence ought to conform to it. If other phrases or forms of punctuation are used here, their sources ought to be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlewindow (talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

We certainly have reliable references that we can cite to bolster "contemporary Paganism". I shall add them to the article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Religion vs. folklore

Do we know anything about how many of those who engage in heathen practices, have faith in the respective cults? Or in other words: For how many is it religion, and for how many is it folklore? Or in yet other words: Is there anybody who actually believes in this nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.149.188 (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

By "heathen", are you referring to modern Pagans more generally or to the specific Pagan religion commonly known as Heathenry? In either case, then yes this is quite clearly a religion for those who practice it. That isn't to say that they necessarily take the theologies and myths literally; some certainly do, but others prefer to see it as a poetic or metaphorical way of viewing the world, which might be what you were trying to convey with your use of the term "folklore". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Many people who consider themselves Christian don't believe the Bible depicts real-time events, but rather mythological "folklore", to use your term. So, is Christianity not a religion for them? If your question is a to whether or not Pagans believe that certain deities actually exist, well, some do, some don't, and some say that the deities are personifications of natural forces. It isn't a "folklore" vs. "religion" issue at all.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Probable self-promotion / conflict of interest in this article

I noticed this article repeatedly refers to the name Ethan Doyle White and find it rather suspicious. A quick internet search will tell you that this is a PhD student based in the archaeology department at UCL. He obviously has an interest in Paganism, but is not a specialist scholar in the fields of either Religious Studies or History. In one of the sections, he is listed alongside Professor Ronald Hutton (a well-known, long-tenured historian from the University of Bristol) and Professor Sabina Magliocco (Anthropology professor at Northridge). I suspect someone's using Wikipedia as an advertising platform:) Either the guy himself or a friend. Will someone fix this? There are more accurate & more significant scholarly sources out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalassa391 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Expanse of "Europe"

I don't want to remove it without consensus, because it's cited, but the lead explicitly states the practices which fall under the umbrella of "Modern paganism" have their origins (or claim to) in Europe. However, the article goes on to include Kemetic reconstructionism. This is inconsistent, any thoughts? Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 09:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 09:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that this could be removed. We have an RS cited in the article itself that defines modern Paganism as "a collection of modern religious, spiritual, and magical traditions that are self-consciously inspired by the pre-Judaic, pre-Christian, and pre-Islamic belief systems of Europe, North Africa, and the Near East." That suggests that we are not dealing purely with Europe itself, but also neighbouring regions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Wasechun tashunka: It is not completely wrong, though, if Europe is not intended as a mere geographic expression. Egypt and Near Eastern countries were wholly part of the late Roman Empire (European classical civilisation) and participated in its cultural melting pot prior that Christianity was codified as the new official synthesis. Forms of Egyptian religion were widespread as far north as Britain, and they were classified as "pagan" when Christianity became official. Hermetism and later the philosopher Giordano Bruno were influenced by Egyptian thought.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the subset of Kemeticism that Kemetic Reconstructionists typically focus on is the pre-Roman, pre-Greek period of Egypt, when the civilisation was in every way African. The syncretic beliefs that arose during the 4th century Hellenistic influx are generally overlooked by reconstructionists, who claim to inherit their spirituality from the Ancient Egyptian religion, which had more or less died out by the end of the new kingdom and the corresponding increase of trade with Europe. The later adoption of deities into European religions was more a deliberate choice by classicist Europeans than a sign of the religion's spread, and certainly didn't change the status of ancient Egypt itself. Regardless, the page is about a modern take of paganism, so modern definitions are assumed by most readers.

For that reason, I'm in favour of Midnightblueowl's suggestion to match that sentence with that quote from the body.Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 17:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Modern Paganism → Modern paganism – MOS:ISMCAPS, and WP:CONSISTENCY with Germanic paganism, etc. This is not a religion, but a blanket term for a class of them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. EvertonFC13^(talk2me) 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 21:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

While it may be claimed that Paganism is not a single religion, the way it is used by those who fall under its umbrella tend to see it as a formal or proper name. See how it is used by the Pagan Federation or Patheos, both highly used and reputable sources. If anything, in the English-speaking world by those who consider themselves as Modern Pagans, the term Modern is not commonly used, in favor of the more accepted term Pagan itself. Wikipedia sees pagan as a broader term than how it is used by adherents. FULBERT (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl may provide convincing arguments in favour of capitalisation. Besides, from a quick reading of the article I would say that the uppercase letter is of lesser importance compared to other problems that the article has. I take this opportunity to explain some of them. — 1) First of all, the term "Paganism" itself is problematic when applied to Eastern Europe where the strongest of these movements apparently have sprung up. This is already elucidated in the first sections but I think it should be given more prominence; for example by adding the names that are used by these eastern movements (Native Faith, Gentile) to the lede together with "Paganism". — 2) The "beliefs" section presents rather stereotypical notions and, again, Eastern European visions are underrepresented. — 3) "Encompassed religions and movements" is a chaos, giving prominence to fringe and esoteric movements while leaving out others, major ones like Slavic Native Faith. I think that a good idea would be to create one subsection for each one of the movements that are listed in this template. — 3) "Demographics" and "Paganism in society" more or less present the same problems, i.e. they focus on the Western side of this movement, often providing excessive detail such as in the case of the "Socio-economic breakdown of U.S. Pagans". In sum, I think that the article needs a thorough rewriting. At the same time, I think that "List of Neopagan movements" and "Polytheistic reconstructionism" are rather meaningless as standalone articles and they should be merged into the general article.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Midnightblueowl may provide convincing arguments in favour of capitalisation." Not really. The same people overcapitalize everything else related to paganism. I've been surrounded by these people my entire adult life, and am quite familiar with the books they read and write, which are typically in a style like "The Ritual must be conducted at Midnight, under a Full Moon, and must involve a Chalice and a Sword which the Shaman or Priestess must ...", yadda yadda. While this is fine as a style in insiders-to-insiders writing (you'll find this "Capitalization to Signify" used in business memos, in gamer blogs, even in ornithology journals), it is not encyclopedic style and it is not WP style. We've been over this literally hundreds of times in the past, and the answer is always the same: If mainstream, independent sources (hint: Pagan Federation, etc., do not qualify) written for a general audience do not overwhelmingly consistently use a capitalization (or other stylization), then Wikipedia doesn't either. This is a rule in MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, MOS:TEXT, etc., and a version of it is also at the core of WP:COMMONNAME. Also, a tremendous number of these people do not see paganism as a religion at all but a generalized and ill-defined spiritual path, range of traditions, folkloric lifestyle, whathaveyou. We do not apply capitalization like this to anything else this general. It's only being overcapitalized here for PoV-pushing reasons, since the article is dominated by pagan editors, and American ones from particular organizations in particular (and it shows; this is the source of most of the problems identified by Eckardt, above).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not see anyone here suggesting that we capitalise "Magic", "Ritual", "Chalice" or anything of that nature, SMcCandlish. The argument is purely that this article refer to modern Paganism with a capital letter because a) that is the academic convention within the study of religion, b) a widely used convention within the Pagan community itself, and c) it is a proper noun. If those conventions change, then so should the article. Until then, the capital letter must remain. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: To quote from the article itself: "Several academics operating in Pagan studies, such as Ronald Hutton and Sabina Magliocco, have emphasized the use of the upper-case "Paganism" to distinguish the modern movement from the lower-case "paganism", a term which is commonly used for pre-Christian belief systems.[30] In 2015, Rountree stated that this lower case/upper case division was "now [the] convention" in Pagan studies.[20]". Basically, the academic convention (as well as the convention within the Pagan community itself) is to capitalise the term, and this article should follow that convention. As for Eckhardt's view that the article presently privileges forms of Paganism dominant in Western countries, I would have to agree; the article certainly needs greater expansion when it comes to forms of Paganism in Eastern Europe and Russia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a fantastic reason to not capitalize here. This is not HuttonAndMaglioccoPedia, and we are not here to advocate the language hypotheses of anyone, much less the linguistic activism of those they are studying! FFS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I really don't follow... The academics actually studying this phenomenon use the capital-P as a convention. The practitioners following this group of religions tend to use the capital-P as a convention. Why do you therefore suggest that we ignore both the academics and the practitioners themselves? And why the need for expletives like "FFS"? Where's all this anger coming from? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The capitalization is consistent with the Voices from the Pagan Census research and even an acknowledgement in the U.S. Census statistics on religion. Further to the issue Midnightblueowl is raising, it could be argued that not only should Paganism be capitalized, but at least in Western usage, the term Modern itself could be dropped, as the notion of Paganism is used by adherents as the name itself. Modern is a term that seems used by those who do not follow any of those paths. FULBERT (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

References

I think that we need some way of distinguishing this article from that on Paganism (i.e. the older and broader concept) - using "modern" in some form achieves that. We could always use something like "Paganism (modern)" or "Paganism (new religious movement)" as opposed to "Modern Paganism", however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Paganism (new religious movement) is most accurate, as it used the term as found in the literature and the () can be useful for reader disambiguation. FULBERT (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I support Paganism (new religious movements) as a good solution, with the "s"-plural.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Do we have RS's that actually refer to Paganism as a series of "new religious movements", however? I think that we would need to establish RS usage first before moving to such a term. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think so. See for example books such as The New Religious Movements Experience in America, Encyclopedia of New Religious Movement, and The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, Volume 2. All have entries of Paganism, Neo-Paganism, Wicca, etc. --Editor B (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons given by others above. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Midnightblueowl and others, and favor Paganism (modern) rather than 'new' (a descriptor which seems to connote it's 'brand new'). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Consider that we have the article entitled Heathenry (new religious movement), so the renaming Paganism (new religious movements) would be consistent with an already well-written good article and with the established study field of new religious movements.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Either of those suggestions are fine by me; the issue is the Overcapitalization For Emphasis; I'm quite amenable to a parenthetical disambiguation. This, however, will not resolve the in-text overcapitalization, which would then have to go to an RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
      • "Overcapitalization For Emphasis"? No, it is simply the capitalization of a proper noun because that is the convention within the academic literature on the subject and within the community who use that term as a self-description. Capital P Paganism is the WP:COMMONNAME. Where is the over-capitalisation in that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
        • This is circular. It's already been explained why this is a common noun not a proper noun, and that those capitalizing it are primarily its adherents not general-audience, independent reliable sources. And COMMONNAME is not a style policy; it's the policy that tells use to use some variant of [p|P]aganism, not some other disused or unsourceable term like "non-Abrahamic polytheism" or "paggannism" or "snurlorglblop".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
          • Independent reliable sources, namely the work of academic specialists in the study of religion, do almost always capitalise the term. Why on earth do you think otherwise? Why dismiss the very experts whose research and publications provide the bedrock on which this article's content should rest? From your earlier comments I can appreciate that you are frustrated with certain tendencies towards over-capitalisation in the modern Pagan community and I would certainly stand with you in any attempt to stop the capitalisation of words like "ritual" or "magic", but "Paganism" itself is a separate case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Evidence from the literature and scholarly activity has been presented for why Modern Paganism is capitalized in academia and practice, though I have not seen much to support its being lower case. Given that Reliable Sources posit that both terms should be capitalized, I oppose making this "Modern paganism" from the current "Modern Paganism." FULBERT (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modern Paganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113182416/http://www.scottishpf.org/census.html to http://www.scottishpf.org/census.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)