Talk:Persecution of Heathens

Unnecessarily Offensive and Vague?

I'm not any form of pagan myself (agnostic, thanks), but, upon seeing the title of this page, it struck me as mildly insensitive. "Heathen" has traditionally been used as an outgroup slur by Christians to denote those who are perceived as "non-Christian", comparable to the Muslim use of the term "infidel". Moreover, it's also a fairly vaguely-defined term: Are "heathens" simply polytheists (this would include Hinduism, then, which already has its own persecution page)? Are "heathens" specifically pagan polytheists adhering to a reconstructed European pantheon and spirituality (this would exclude historical use of the term)? Are "heathens" simply non-monotheists (you could make arguments for ancient Judaism as a henotheistic faith, Zoroastrianism as a dualistic faith, and there's the ever-present Roman Catholic Trinity Issue)? Are "heathens" followers of a non-Levantine religion, spirituality, or philosophy (everyone except for Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and then there are issues of non-normative Dharmic religious sects that have incorporated certain elements of the Abrahamic religions into their own practices and beliefs)? What about non-normative elements of Abrahamic religions, like the early Christian Gnostic sects that were heavily persecuted by nascent Pauline Christianity—do they count as "heathens"? You can begin to see the problems with the word. Now, maybe enlightened pagans out there have set about reclaiming the term, but there are still issues with the application of the word "heathen". Can't we find a better title for the page? Or possibly create multiple articles for more specific application in pertinence to modern Neopagan religions and sects, differentiating from the older "heathen" faiths? SumeragiNoOnmyouji (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Move/deletes

Why was the page moved (renamed) and much information deleted without prior discussion? // Liftarn

well, I was being bold. What are your objections?

• Asatruers is a malformed term. An English coinage would maybe be Ostrusters, or the hybrid Aesirtrusters, but these likewise smack of neologism. The best way to go is "Asatru adherents".
• Asatru is not correctly applied to pre-19th century Germanic paganism, so the "persecution" of medieval Saxons by Charlemagne is quite offtopic here
• the stab at the Anti-Defamation League is really silly, and has nothing to do with "persecution". Apparently they even complied with a disclaimer after people wrote them a letter
• listing Nazi persecution of Lanz von Liebenfels as "persecution of Heathens" is border line. Under "persecution of Asatruers" it is ridiculous: Liebenfels was an occult Anti-Semitist, pure and simple, neither was he in the tradition of Germanic paganism, nor does he have a direct connection with 1972 Asatru. There are indirect connections with Odinism, of course, and organizations like the Artgemeinschaft do have their roots both in Nazi mysticism and Germanic paganism, but to cite Liebenfels as an example of "Nazi persecution of Asatruers" is either very naive, or a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation.

dab (ᛏ) 14:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The first recorded use of the term "asatru" is from 1885. [1], "Asatru adherents" or "Germanic paganism" would work too, but I think they are too clumsy. The most correct would be "Forn Sed" since that was actually used during the christianization of Northern Europe, but since it's the same religion why not use the same term for it? What the ADL did was indeed a form of persecution even if it probably was done more due to ignorance than malice, but it was only after en intensive campaign they added the disclaimer. Yes, the occult persons should probably be removed. A bit much cut-and-paste on my side there. I have edited this. // Liftarn

well, Danish Asetro dates to 1870, as explained on Asatru. It was a term of romantic nationalism, used in an opera about Vikings and such. Afaik, it was only translated into Old Norse / Icelandic in the 1960s by the Icelandic movement. Use of Asatru as synonymous with Germanic paganism and Germanic Neopaganism is very widespread in the US by now, but it is neither uncontroversial nor unambiguous, since historical Germanic paganism and Germanic Neopaganism are far from identical. The only unambiguous term summarizing *all* Germanic Neopagans, including those who say "we are not Asatru" (Northvegr) is the boring unspectacular and unromantic Germanic Neopaganism. I maintain that it is horribly anachronistic to refer to 8th century Saxons as "Asatruers". dab (ᛏ) 16:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as it's possible to tell historical Germanic paganism and Germanic Neopaganism are identical. That's the point of a reconstructionalist religion. The GGG are somewhat non-mainstream in that that they mix in some occult practices. The term "Germanic Neopaganism" is also far from uncontroversial. The "neo" (since it's a reconstruction and not new) and "pagan" (since the term "heathen" is prefered). Even the "Germanic" part can be questioned (since it's often only the northern European beleifs thar are reconstructed). // Liftarn

Paganism and Neopaganism are far from synonymous! *Neo*paganism is a subset of paganism; you might as well claim that, say "English" and "Ebonics" are synonymous :) The difference between historical Germanic paganism, and reconstructionist Germanic Neopaganism is precisely that the former was not reconstructionist. Needless to say, "Germanic Neopaganism" is also an umbrella term; subsets of that get their own articles, like Odinism, Ring of Troth etc. "Norse Neopaganism", "Anglo-Saxon Neopaganism" would be other subsets to discuss in detail, either here, or, if we do it in really great detail, in specialized articles. That said, I don't propose to move this article to Persecution of Germanic Neopagans. For one thing, the "contemporary" section here is really spurious. It more or less amounts to "some people called us Neonazis; oh, and the FBI said runes were used as secret codes in prisons. Perrsecushiun!!". I would rather propose to move this article to Persecution of Neopagans in general, to include Wicca and what not, because the persecutioners (if any) of Neopagans will hardly make the finer distinction between the individual factions, and anybody who persecutes Germanic Neopagans will be likely to also persecute Celtic Neopagans :) dab (ᛏ) 17:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware that Paganism and Neopaganism are far from synonymous, but what I'm saying is that reconstructionalist religions aim at being so close to the historic version as possible. Thus they are (as far as can be told) identical. There may be diffrences because not everything is known, but that's impossible to tell (even if it's very likley). The Saxon heathenism is indeed a bit of an oddity. I can drop that if that's your problem. I would not reccomend lumping together Asatru with Wicca and there already is articles based on persecutioners. As for the contemporary part, calling the members of an entire religion for nazis is indeed a form of persecution, especially if it's done by an organisation trusted by many (like FBI and ADL, the ADL case is especially ironic since they aim to "put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens"). The issue about runes weren't so much about what they said (even if that is serious, or to use the words of ADL "To make such a comparison is an act of blatant hostility"), but what they did. They banned all litterature about one specific religion. If that isn't persecution what is? // Liftarn

fine, it's persecution, let's keep it here. As far as I can tell, the serious "reconstructionists" are a small minority even inside Asatru, and there is a lot of syncretisms and romanticisms (such as people using the Armanen Runes for divination). Not as ludicrously syncretist as Wicca, to be sure, but still quite motley. Also there is no central authority. There is simply no society depending on a priestly caste, or royal houses believed to be of divine descent etc.; this makes for post-Christian "Neopaganism". Imho, contemporary rural Christianity in remote areas of Europe is closer to historical paganism than urban Neopaganism with all its esoteric, romantic and mystic influence. I do not object to grouping Neopaganism under "true" Paganism, but its relation to historical Viking Age Paganism is rather remote (in spite of reconstructionism; historical reenactment is also about reconstruction, and nobody would mistake a renaissance fair for a medieval township) -- say about as far as 4th century Christianity is from 16th century Protestantism. dab (ᛏ) 10:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even know people used Armanen runes nowdays. As far as I can tell the reconstructionists are by far the majority. There are even jokes about that Asatruers would change their beleifs is new archeological evidence would be found. As for no central authority et.c. Why does that matter for this article? There are ofcourse Asatruers who are interested in living history and experimental archaeology and some see it as related, others are less interested in recreating it exactly and instead try to find something that works today, but as you note all religions change over time. // Liftarn

it matters in resulting in a sharp distinction from historical paganism, in that in Neopaganism, any appoach is "equally valid", from "hard" polytheism bordering on schizophrenia, to a leisurely hobby related to historical reenactment or live roleplaying, to urban postmodern or New Age mysticism, to fanatical white power or Neo-Nazism of "blood and honour", and even to confused occult black metal practitioners who self-describe as pagans. This may all qualify as "Germanic paganism", but worlds separate it all from the illiterate rural population of medieval Scandinavia steeped in superstition who would probably have had a laughing fit if somebody tried to explain the concept of "historical reconstruction" to them. This is not to value either sphere over the other, I am just noting that the chasm between Germanic paganism and Germanic Neopaganism, and that there are two separate articles for a good reason. A look at Else Christensen and Germanische Glaubens-Gemeinschaft will show that even the contemporary societies stemming from the 1970s "second revival" are direct descendants of List-style early 20th century occultism / racialism influenced Neopaganism. I know that some contemporary societies do serious work and confront this heritage, but this is a minority. The majority of Neopagan societies glosses over these disparate origins, much like Hinduism implying that they "paganism" is eternally unchanging and without history, thereby allowing these "unhistorical", partly innocently syncretistic, partly less-than innocently suprematistic, currents to persist. dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

And this matters in the context of this article? While it's an interesting subject to debate, it's not why I'm here. // Liftarn

well (sigh) you challenged my edits, so I'm explaining why I think this article should be moved to Persecution of Neopagans and focus on modern times, or be moved to something like Historical persecution of Heathens (paralleling Historical persecution by Jews which has similar problems to present much substance, btw), and focus more on Charlemagne's exploits. "Persecution of Asatruers" is simply not a title I consider acceptable, per my reasons given above. dab (ᛏ) 14:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree since there already is a series of articles based on persecutors. I also don't see the point of splitting the article depending on iteration or time period, possible if it grew larger, but currently I don't think the article is large enough to motivate a split. I find the title "Persecution of Neopagans" unacceptable since that would lumping together religions that have very little in common (not to mention that many find the "neopagan" label offensive). // Liftarn

My whole point is that the affinity of Wicca and Asatru, as summarized in Neopaganism is far greater than the affinity of 8th century Saxon pagans and 21st century New York "Asatruers". If you think "Neopagan" summarizes disparate concepts, we must separate the persecution-by-the-FBI from the persecution-by-Charlemagne. Sorry, but I insist that neither the GGG nor the Saxons were "Asatruers" by any stretch of terminology. dab (ᛏ) 15:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't vandalise the article just to prove a point. WP:POINT The inclusion of Ango-Saxon heatenry is a bit of a stretch, but it could fir under the label "asatru".[2] // Liftarn

first of all, most of what I've "vandalized" was written by myself. Second, I sugested a move to Persecution of Heathens before. "Heathen" is a well-accepted synonym for both historical and reconstructed Germanic paganism. Your insistence of grouping of historically disparate events in a single storyline is arbitrary, as you agree yourself. To save ourselves further disputes, let's call that move a compromise. You get to list your idiosyncratic collection of events under a single title, I get to be rid of the (to me) jarring and inaccurate "Asatruers". This will include adaptation of the "persecution" template. Your alternative is a full-blown Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Do we have a deal? I am sorry, but I am slightly allergic to this "we were persecuted too, you know" street-cred. All that's missing is a bodycount here: Charlemagne: ca. 400. The Nazis!!: 1 (possibly 2). The FBI: None, but they steal our mail :P dab (ᛏ) 16:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

And I rejected the suggestion to move. "Heathen" is just a redirect to "Paganism" so it's not specific enough. "Asatru" may be a bit too specific (as you've noted that may leave out the Anglo-Saxon heathens, but as shown [3] that may not necessary be the case. "Germanic paganism" is also a bit unspecific since that would also include for instance Romuva and Dievturība. "Norse heathenism" would work, but that would leave out the Anglo-Saxons (which may be a good thing). But then there is the word "Norse" that you probably would consider anachronistic anyway. Unless you can come up with an acceptable compromise I would welcome a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. // Liftarn

Liftarn, I believe that you are wrong here. Germanic paganism excludes Romuva and Dievturība, but includes Anglo-Saxons.--Wiglaf 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I know it excludes them, but it's not clear why it does. Oh, well. No problem. // Liftarn

The reason is the easiest way of all to group cultures and autochtonous religions - language. The Germanic tribes could all understand each other pretty well and exchanged traditions, gods and myths more easily with each other than they did with Finns, Balts and Slavs.--Wiglaf 11:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Grouping by persecuting group?

here is another point: if you look at Persecution of Ancient Greek religion, the persecutors usually don't care too much which pagan denomination exactly they are persecuting; so most persecution experienced by one denomination will be exactly identical to that experienced by the next (Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka)). After all, we don't disambiguate Persecution of Roman Catholics by Protestants, Persecution of Arian Christians by Catholics, Persecution of Celtic Christian missionaries by Germanic chieftains, Persecution of Mormons by Unitarians etcetera, if you get my point. dab (ᛏ) 17:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we do make a difference between Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Jews and Persecution of Muslims when we could just lump them together and call it "Persecution of Abrahamists". And we already have a series of articles based on persecutors (in the case of Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka) that would be Historical persecution by Christians). Your logic is flawed since you don't make a difference between religion (Hunduism, Shinto, Islam...) and a domination within a religion (Protestants, Catholics...). // Liftarn

see the explanation of terminology on Germanic Neopaganism. "heathen" is simply a translation of "pagan", and yet it is used in the restricted "Germanic" sense. My logic isn't flawed at all; if you take a minute to look at Hunduism, you will note that it is an umbrella term, not a single religion. There is no meaningful way to clearly separate "religion" and "denomination". I am putting this on RfC then. In the meantime, I ask you to provide reference that "Asatruers" is the correct term to refer to what this article describes, or even a term of any notability outside Neopagan blogs at all. The move was an attempt at a compromise. I argue that it is flawed anyway. Most of the material here is repeated almost verbatim on either Germanic Neopaganism or Germanic paganism. The only stuff original to this article is Persecution of Neopagans in the USA, which could as well be moved to Human rights in the USA. There doesn't have to be a separate persecution article about every faction imaginable, especially if there is hardly any material. The FBI/prison cases can easily be incorporated in the main article on Germanic Neopaganism. dab (ᛏ) 09:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand Liftarn's point. In Scandinavia, there is a strong feeling of continuity. The gods were never forgotten, not even by commoners. When the old folks finished talking about Odin and Thor, the young generation was already reading about the gods in school. The Norse gods may look exotic to non-Scandinavians, but to Scandinavians they are part and parcel of the culture. Both traditions and attitudes survived from the old beliefs into the modern Scandinavian mind, and to modern adherents to Forn Sed. AFAIK, asatruar (asatroende) find it offensive to be bundled together with neopagans because of this continuity and because of the access to relatively reliable information.

However, Dab is right. Modern Asatruar are quite varied ideologically and include a wide range of different people and ideologies (from Nazis to environmentalists, and from the right to the left). The most NPOV way of treating this problem is to have separate articles for the old heathens and the new ones.--Wiglaf 18:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I recognize your point about Scandinavia (see [4]). However, from that view, it should be argued that we should do an article all about Christianization of Scandinavia, and Scandinavians should argue that 'Asatru' should not be applied to all these universalist/syncretist/white-power/esoteric movements who all self-describe as Asatruar. We have to decide, either we include anyone who self-describes as Asatru, and end up with a clearly Neopagan hodge-podge. Or we strictly confine the term to Scandinavian folklore and extremely narrow reconstrutivist societies, facing the wrath of all would-be Asatruar. At the moment, this article also treats Saxons (West Germanic) and Texan 'Asatruers'. Odinism (sic, not 'Wodenism') includes Anglo-Saxon religion. This cannot be anything else than reconstruction, since AS England was entirely Christianized by the 7th century. I am not familiar with 'mainland' Scandinavian Asetro. From what I've been able to find out, there is quite a gap between the 1972 Asatruarfelagidh in Iceland, and similar Asetro movements in Sweden/Norway/Denmark (1990s). It may really be inappropriate to identify folklore-based Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson as Neopagan together with intellectual/folkish Else Christensen. Neopagan is still defined as post-Christian, and even in Iceland, the Asatruarfelagidh soon enough took on esoteric and occult tones, at times with only Sveinbjörn's coolness keeping members from forming all sorts of factions. US/UK/German Neopaganism is not a revival of rural customs. Romantic and occult influence is very obvious. I daresay that even in Scandinavia, Asatru is an urban phenomenon (or am I mistaken?). In any case, I would like to separate two issues:

• "Asatruers" vs. "Heathens" in the title: I insist that under the "Asatruer" title, this article should not treat pre-1972 events.
• Under the title "persecution of Heathens", I see no reason not to merge this with the Ancient Greek "persecution" article, since the topic treated is identical. I can live with a "persecution of Heathens" article spanning Christianization and modern stuff, especially since "persecution of Neopagans" simply does not make for an independent article for lack of actual persecution.

dab (ᛏ) 12:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no easy solution, Dab. The Asatruar I am acquainted with, consider their beliefs to be founded in both surviving folklore and Old Norse sources, and they are not specifically urban. In my experience, nature, folklore and beliefs are very important to them and virtually the same concept. I am only trying to explain from where Liftarn's opinions come from.--Wiglaf 12:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

nor am I trying to ignore that opinion. I am suggesting, at the moment, that this article remains at "Persecution of Heathens", or is moved to "Persecution of Pagans", and material on other flavours of heathenry is added. The alternative would be a separate article on "Christianization of the Germanic peoples" and a separate "Persecution of Neopagans". Nobody is disputing that Asatru Neopagans base their beliefs on surviving folklore and medieval sources. dab (ᛏ) 14:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Haukur's view

As far as I know Ásatrúarfélagið it has a more scholarly than occult focus. It's not strictly reconstructionist, though. I don't think they've ever performed animal sacrifices, for instance. As neo-heathen organizations go I suppose it's reasonably respectable. One of the members of the Alþingi is a member and no-one seems to have a problem with that.

As for the survival of pagan traditions through the Christian ages it is best not to say much. The heathen gods certainly remained known to the common people in Iceland throughout the ages. The heathen myths formed the basis of the system of kennings which never fell out of use. The heathen gods were called upon in spells and sometimes in poetry, though perhaps not very seriously. Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson was certainly a man deeply immersed in traditional culture and to some extent formed a link to the past. But the case for continuous survival of heathenry through the Christian ages is often and easily overstated.

But to the topic here. I'd personally prefer to treat persecution of Scandinavian heathens during the period of christianization in an article such as Christianization of Scandinavia. Persecution of neo-heathens, such as it is, is probably better treated in separate articles or as a part of general articles on the history of neo-heathenism. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. However, that would leave almost no significant material in this article. It pretty much boils down to "they don't like Christians, and Christians don't like them. They complained with the FBI (but they didn't win a case or anything). Some people confuse them with Neonazis (oh, and some Neopagans even are Neonazis, adding to the confusion). They were not allowed to receive Asatru publications in Texas prisons". Hello? How is any of this "persecution"? "Discrimination" seems like a better term here, and even this would mean stretching things. dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

seriously, if no substance is brought forward, I will proceed by removing the statements tagged as unsourced, and split the material among Christianization and Neopaganism articles. dab (ᛏ) 12:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My preference is for that action rather than keeping this article. But I will work with either outcome.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

ah, sorry, I had only seen your final minor edit, and thought the {{fact}} templates had been here for two months. You have certainly done a good job cleaning up so far, and we can let the fact templates in place before we undertake to merge the article elsewhere. cheers, dab (ᛏ) 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Heathens is a proper noun and capitalized word?

Just wondering. PHF 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In this contex it should be capitalized just as in Persecution of Christians. // Liftarn

I was wondering because, in the same context, Persecution of Atheists redirects to Persecution of atheists. Are we being inconsistent here? PHF 23:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. // Liftarn

I just changed the redirects on the Atheism article to conform to this standard. PHF 16:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the change to the Persecution of atheists article - "atheist" is not a proper noun, and should not be capitalised. Heathens shouldn't be either as far as I know, in which case any change should be to move this article to Persecution of heathens. "Christian" on the other hand is a proper noun - it's a name of a religion - which is why that article has it capitalised. Mdwh 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the name of the religion is Christianism, and adepts are christians? Maybe instead there should be capitalized Atheism, Heathenism, Christianism, etc then? I've never seen anyone refer to christians in capitalized form in the middle of a sentence. I was just looking for consistency, so far it seems better than before in that respect, but Im open to other changes if we can clear this up. PHF 01:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always seen Christian as a proper noun (as seen in the Christian article). But either way, atheist (and heathen) are not proper nouns. As for consistency, we should surely be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, where words in article names are not capitalised, unless the word requires a capital letter. Mdwh 03:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To be consistent all the way then it should be "Persecution of christians" and not "Persecution of Christians". You can't have different standards for different religions. // Liftarn

Atheism is not a religion(!), so there is no inconsistency. Having said that, I don't know about "heathen" - despite what I said above, it may well be a proper noun, if Heathenism is referring to a religion. I'll leave the issue of what this article should be called, but I'm reverting the change for Persecution of atheists for the reasons I give - this issue should be discussed at Talk:Persecution of atheists, not here, as the arguments for "heathen" do not necessarily apply to "atheist" (if the Heathenism is a religion, because atheism is not a religion). Mdwh 13:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In the context of this article "Heathens" refer to what I would call "Asatruers" and Asatru is a religion. // Liftarn

The word heathen may refer to people with certain religions, but that doesn't make the word "heathen" itself a religion, anymore than "religious" or "theist" is a religion. That sort of equivocating doesn't work in language. And "Christian" is always capitalized in formal writing: the names of religions and political parties and so on are capitalized, whereas more general philosophies and beliefs (like atheism and liberalism) often aren't. -Silence 17:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Heaten" isn't a religion, but an adherent to a religion (at least in this context). Asatru is a religion, the adherents are Asatruers or Heathens. // Liftarn

Proposed page-move

Heathen redirects to Paganism, and we have no page for persecution of Pagans, and "heathen" is a much more pejorative and vague word than "Pagan", and can actually apply to any non-Abrahamic religion, not just to Germanic ones. So, a better title for this page would be persecution of Pagans or persecution of Germanic Pagans -Silence 17:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Originally it was called "Persecution of Asatruers" and "Heathens" was a bit of a compromise. See above. // Liftarn

It doesn't seem like enough of a compromise to me. We should pick the ideal title, not the one that's halfway between the ideal ("Pagans" or "Germanic Pagans", depending on the level of specificity required) and the revisionistic problem ("Asatru"). 10/10 is better than 5/10. Are there any objections to the page-move on article-related, rather than political or diplomatic, grounds? -Silence 03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that we have a page for persecution of Germanic pagans, can we please, please move this page, or at least remove either "persecution of Heathens" or "persecution of Pagans" from the sidebar? "Persecution of Heathens," when applied to anyone but the Germanic revivalists who accept the name, is highly pejorative. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do so. Pagan is a more common word for that type of religions. // Liftarn

"It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Persecution of Pagans."-- 201.50.123.251 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a bad idea since that would make the article be about a very mixed bunch of religions. // Liftarn

Page content

A lot of material that shouldn't be included on this page has appeared. For instance a section on Bwiti religion and one about New age travellers. They should be moved out as they are outside the scope of this article. // Liftarn

To-do list?

I note that the article is tagged for clean-up but it is not clear what needs to be done. Would it be appropriate to put a to-do list at the top instead? Then casual visitors to the page might be able to lend a hand. Itsmejudith 17:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be written as suggested by Wikipedia:Summary style. // Liftarn

Citation?

This article contains many 'statements of fact' but no citations or references. As such, most of the content could be removed by any passing editor.Abtract 20:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I took care of the last one just now. // Liftarn

Cleanup?

What should be cleaned up and how? // Liftarn

Split?

In a way this article is already splitted and serves as a disambig page for Persecution of Roman religion, Persecution of Ancient Greek religion and Persecution of Germanic paganism. However, it also acts as a holding place for persecution of some minor religions that so far don't have their own pages. // Liftarn

we can link to Bwiti (but the statement was unsourced anyway): not every subtopic needs its own page, this can easily be discussed in the article on the respective religions. dab (𒁳) 09:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am against splitting for the moment, mainly because there are articles on Persecution of Christians and other major religions and I don't see why there shouldn't be this article too. The fact that the circumstances were very different in different places and times will become evident as the article is expanded. Since after AfD the page is to remain, we should concentrate on improving and expanding the different sections. Appropriate references to sub-articles should be given at each point. We should return later to the question of whether this article has any coherence in itself.Itsmejudith 14:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambig

I think the article should be a disambig page. currently all of this material exists elsewhere at Wikipedia. Also, after looking at the AfD, this entry *barely* escaped deletion. The break down is 4 deletes, 2 keeps and 1 keep which cannot be tallied per WP:SPA. WeniWidiWiki 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

splitting an article doesn't amount to deletion. The Afd correctly noted that there is some material of value that may conceivable figure under this title, but as it happens, this material is only tenuously connected and better treated in separate articles. "persecution of pagans" amounts to "persecution of non-Christians". That's nonsensical as the scope for an article, we might as well do "persecution of non-French" or "economy of non-Brazil", "list of non-Presidents of the USA" or "non-football sports" articles. dab (𒁳) 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So we are in agreement at least, and I think disambig /splitting the article is the correct thing to do. - WeniWidiWiki 19:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a grouping of religions that are labelled as either "Heathen" or (more commonly) "Pagan". Examples of other labels are "abrahamic religions" and "eastern religions". // Liftarn

well, yes? there are "Abrahamic" and "Dharmic" religions, and then we have "Paganism", which is anything else (ethnic, non-Abrahamic, non-Dharmic). It would already be silly to have Persecution of Abrahamic religions, and Persecution of Paganism is even more silly. dab (𒁳) 09:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That depends on your definition. One definition I've read (and used for the scope of this article) is based on the the old roman empire so you get central and northern Europe, ancient roman and greek religion and the old egyptian religion. Asian, the Americas and Africa south of Sahara is thus excluded from this definition. If you want I can add that defintion to the article to make it clearer. // Liftarn

this should be discussed on paganism; the term "paganism" is inherently from the Christian pov (and, by analogy, from an Islamic one). For example "persecution of Heathens" would be persecution of non-Abrahamic non-Christians by Christians, and "persecution of Kuffar" would be persecution of non-Abrahamic non-Muslims by Muslims. All I am saying that there is no reason to lump all this together just because such a wide term exists. I fail to see the slightest connection that would justify discussing a couple of New Age travellers beaten up by police in 1985 together with the lynching of Hypatia in 415. It's a classic case for a disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 11:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the new age stuff. It's stretching it a bit too far, but then some modern new age stuff like Wicca is often included under the Pagan umbrella. // Liftarn

of course; that's why the disambig page could feature a Persecution of Wiccans link (only that's a redirect to Wicca now, mostly because there isn't any actual persecution, no matter how much people would like that there had been so they could denounce it). dab (𒁳) 13:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the redirect so it points to the relevant section. Wiccans do have a tendency to paint a bullseye on themselves, but there have been some notable issues. // Liftarn

yes, well, "persecution" usually isn't taken to include "mild dislike". You have a right to insist on rule of law, but you are not protected against people thinking you are soft in the head or generally being a jerk, so that I am reluctant to include "Christians have sneered at us" under "persecution". Anyway, that would be a debate about re-splitting Persecution of Wiccans, which would not concern this page. dab (𒁳) 13:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's some branch of the government (for instance the police or army) or an non-govermental group that beats you up it's both forms of persecution. Also a rule of law requitres legal egalitarianism and not being granted that can be seen as a form of persecution. Anyway, as you pointed out it's irrelevant for this page. // Liftarn