Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Religious discrimination against Neopagans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

External links

Merge from Persecution of Asatru

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Flowchart of basic consensus decision-making process.

Object // Liftarn

Keep this. This is the most NPOV title so far. -Zara1709 12:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Note: The article have changed name a few times, current residence is Religious discrimination against Asatruers. // Liftarn

Split

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

so, {{split}} this where? Religious discrimination against Neopagans in the United States? Why? We only have USA and Greece here. We can still split things off once the article becomes too large. I wish people would work on article content rather than bicker about issues of titling. A title needs to be justified by content. A good example is the former Ancient persecution of non-Jews by Jews (of course moved there after a flurry of dispute, from Persecution by Jews), created by people arguing "if we have 'persecution by A' it is only fair to also have 'persecution by B through to Z'". It doesn't work like that. It is flawed reasoning, and a big waste of time for everyone. No actual material justifying the article's existence was forthcoming, and so it was deleted. dab (𒁳) 13:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not we have three different sections. Two based on geography (USA and Greece) and one on religion (Wicca). This makes no sense. // Liftarn

you will note that Wicca is a subsection of "USA", referring exclusively to issues of Wiccans in the US. Please don't bother to use talkpages for questions that can be answered by half a second's cogitation, and please find something constructive to do on or off Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 13:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What doesn't make sense is this focus on religious persecution. "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!". -Zara1709 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

some people are obsessed with Pokemon, others with religious persecution. Both are welcome to present their stuff, as long as they are willing to provide reliable sources docmenting their respecitve hobby-horse. The problem with Liftarn is that he is all lobbyist without an ounce of encyclopedist. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to present anything like a coherent case while he is filling talkpages with incoherent pushiness. WP:ENC applies. dab (𒁳) 13:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Some people seems to be more interested in trolling, messing up articles, kicking kittens and making ad hominem attacks on other editors, but then that's just my little view. Anyway, there is still problems with the page. 1) It is sorted by geography, not religions 2) the USA section has two subsections, one based on location (prisons) and one based on religion (Wicca). It's a mess. // Liftarn

Nonsense. Why don't you go and create persecution of neopagan kittens for an enhanced "aww" factor? I really can't be bothered to react to your tactics any longer. dab (𒁳) 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are not interested in a serious and constructive discussion I see no sense in playing along in your little game any more. // Liftarn

Actual debate on split

I advocate that the Asatru section is split out to Religious discrimination against Asatruers. It was moved here without any prior discussion and it is also dubtfull if Asatru is a neopagan religion as it's more of polytheistic reconstructionism. // Liftarn

non-sequiturs. try to focus on this: (a) polytheistic reconstructionism is neopaganism. (b) "Asatruers" is not a term (c) you have no material for the split. Just the US prison debate, which concerns Asatru just as much as Satanism or Wicca. dab (𒁳) 16:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

a) Possibly, but it's still very different from entierly new religions. b) Yes, it is. What term would you prefer instead? The Troth's homepage says "Asatruers"[1]. c) Yes, I do. It's partly the US prision debate, that is about Asatru sometimes combined with other religions. It is also about the United States Department of Veterans Affairs who don't allow Asatru symbols on headstones and markers. It should also be noted that the material was merged into this article with no consensur or even any prior discusson at all. // Liftarn

both are debates of "Neopagan in the US" in general, which is why they should be discussed in this article, on Neopaganism. I won't discuss "Asatruers" further, since that's unrelated to the split, but I note you also seem convinced of the existence of the term "litterature". dab (𒁳) 18:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The article structure is messed up. Under USA we now have Prisons, Wicca and Asatru. It shuld be religion in the first level and then (if so needed) geographic subsections. // Liftarn

(RFC Response) There isn't enough material here to merit a separate article. Nor is there evidence of notability to keep such an article from deletion. GRBerry 22:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There was before the (undiscussed) merge. // Liftarn

Hello. You asked for a third opignion. I think, the article would not be complete without the section about Asatru. To create a seperate article only makes sense, if there is additional content. Then a summary of this seize could stay here. For the moment it is quite senseless to create a separate article, which shows only the same content. Therefore I suggest that Liftarn first takes care of additional content. I don´t think that anyone will oppose the creation of a separate article, if there is enough material. --Thw1309 06:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn and Dbachmann

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

this user is persistently ignoring WP:CONSENSUS. Besides myself, his proposed edits have been rejected by Zara1709 (talk · contribs)[2] and Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs)[3]. Not a single user has expresssed support for Liftarn's approach, and he fails to present anything resembling a rationale for it, short of a thinly veiled intention to abuse Wikipedia as a lobbying platform. Nothing resembling a constructive debate has been possible. Further reverts should lead to blocks of escalating length under WP:3RR. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So now you're a mind reader too. You supported it earlier, but then you do seem to change your mind a lot. I also notice you have trouble with the difference between consensus and gang rule. // Liftarn

WP:NPOV effectively prevents "gang-rule". Present evidence for Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (zero hits all around (except for WP mirrors). "did you mean persecution of Amateurs?") and you will get to create your article. As long as you are trying to discuss the question of fringe religions in US prisons under that title, you have no case. dab (𒁳) 14:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Wikipedia is not for promoting terms or concepts. This topic seems to be exhausted by discussing Cutter v. Wilkinson which is (a) not about Asatru in particular, and (b) amply discussed both here and in its own article. No WP:ATT, no article. dab (𒁳) 14:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice strawman. I have listed several sources for that Cutter v. Wilkinson also covered religious discrimination against Asatruers. I also listed some simmilar cases as well as the issue with veteran's headstones.// Liftarn

every time I point out that you fail to make a case you reply "nice strawman". Very mature I must say. of course Cutter v. Wilkinson also concerns Asatru. It concerns every minority religion known to man. Are you suggesting we reproduce discussion of Cutter v. Wilkinson in 200 new articles on individual faiths affected by it? That's nonsense, and you know it is. I am not against linking to the case from Asatru, nor am I against linking to Asatru from Cutter v. Wilkinson. What is your problem? dab (𒁳) 14:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That is because you make a straman attack instead of dealing with the actual subject. The number of religions directly involved in the Cutter v. Wilkinson case is quite low (was it Satanism, a Christian sect and Asatru?) so it's clearly not "every minority religion known to man". My problem is that I created a valid article about the religious discrimination of modern time Asatruers and it was removed without any prior discussion. // Liftarn

But clearly the result does apply to any minority religion. Zara1709 18:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it applies to every religion. But Asatru was one of the religions mentioned specificly in the source. // Liftarn

and even according to your logic, you'd have to rehash the same material at religious discrimination of the Church of Jesus Christ–Christian and religious discrimination of Satanism, which would be patent nonsense. There is no reason whatsoever to not address the matter with a brief note on the Asatru, Church of Jesus Christ–Christian and Satanism articles. dab (𒁳) 18:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any problem with that. Altough the stuff about Church of Jesus Christ–Christian would probably go better into the Persecution of Christians article. // Liftarn

Is there anyone reasonable who wants to discuss this for Liftarn? dab (𒁳) 07:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Step forward

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dab, please refrain from personal attacks. It may be better for you to review that linked article. On this discussion page you have three personal attacks against Lift; stop it. This is a warning that if you persist you may be blocked.

The title is very broad, which is acceptable on wikipedia; however, the content of the article needs to support the title. I would suggest that the body be expanded. Here are afew ideas:

Are there any other Neopagans that suffer discrimination? Did I misunderstand the article (I only read it briefly) that the Neopagan in prison sued along with members of other religions and one was Christian? How is it discrimination against Neopagans if Christians are also involved? It would seem like the more probable reason would be prisons are a confined, restricted location where a lot of rights are denied.
It would help to define whether this is institutional discrimination or private/personal examples in society.
It may also help to not discuss things by region or location, but by type of discrimination throughout the world.
The article has a reference for how few Neopagans there are in the areas; it might be helpful to incorporate that information in the article. Minorities are easily the target of discrimination; extremem minorities are simply overlooked. Is there any information that the discrimiation is conscious or is it out of ignorance?

As far as the split goes; Lift, Asartu is a pagan religion. It would seem appropriate to mention it here where the topic is discrimination and not the peculiarities of specific pagan religions.

Focus on article content and much less on each other. This should not be such a difficult thing to accomplish here once you put ego aside. I hope these comments help you both to contribute positively to this article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree Asatru is in the pagan group of religions, but I object to that it was merged into this article with no prior discussion. I would prefer a separate article like it was earlier. In one of the prison cases (another was entierly about Asatru) it was a group lawsuit. // Liftarn

hardly, Storm Rider. You seem to be "warning" me against calling a troll a troll, or a spade a spade. That sort of PC nonsense got us into this mess in the first place. Ego has nothing to do with it. I am happy to debate anything, with anyone at all, as soon as an actual debate is presented. No WP:RS has been presented. Liftarn is trying to coin a concept here, and I am obviously trying to pervent that since it is against Wikipedia policy.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

dab (𒁳) 07:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue between Dbachmann and Liftarn, this is an issue of Liftarn alone. Previous to this there was a similar non-discussion about Persecution of Germanic Pagans. -Zara1709 08:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The article should comply with WP:SUMMARY. // Liftarn

Denominations or religions?

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Religious denomination says that a "religious denomination (also simply denomination) is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity." so that clearly does not apply here as "Paganism serves as an umbrella term for an array of modern, ancient and ancient-inspired religions"[4]. Or to be exact: there is no common name, not common tradition, no common identity. // Liftarn

for definitions, refer to OED, not Wikipedia.

A characteristic or qualifying name given to a thing or class of things; that which anything is called; an appellation, designation, title.
A class, sort, or kind (of things or persons) distinguished or distinguishable by a specific name.
A collection of individuals classed together under the same name; now almost always spec. a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization, and designated by a distinctive name.

Liftarn, your English clearly isn't up to such distinctions. I suggest you go back to debating actual issues, not phrasing. --dab (𒁳) 12:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As most readers will assume it refers to "a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization" it activley missleads them to think that it refers to that definition instead of a "class of things". As it's just an umbrella term for a group of religions (simmilar to the term "eastern religions") rather than "a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization" the word "denomination" is a bad choise of word. Not to mention that many Asatruers reject the pagan/neopagan label entierly and prefer something like "heathen" instead.[5][6][7] // Liftarn

your point being? Do you have a suggestion for an addition to neopaganism? I am sorry, you should focus on getting your spelling right in your additions, and rely on OED for meanings. I will refuse to enter any prolongued discussion with you concerning the finer points of English semantics, especially since I have learned the hard way that you are not an easy person to have a conversation with. Please try to focus on the topic at hand. I was glad to see you make three or four constructive edits. dab (𒁳) 13:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have learned that when you focus on spellings and other irrelevant stuff you effectivley admitted defeat. So, why do you think "denominations" is better than "religions"? // Liftarn

It's relevant in an encyclopedia. Would you like to se na encyuclopedia full of spellng errors becaus you think tye are "irrelavnt stuff"? ugen64 13:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's that important on talk pages. And certainly not important enough to distract from working on the article. // Liftarn

First of all, he said "you should focus on getting your spelling right in your additions" - I could care less about spelling on talk pages. Second, this edit is completely unproductive and violates WP:POINT because you don't need to cite a source for the meaning of a word. The difference between "denomination" and "religion" is esoteric enough that either word can be used here without confusing the reader to any great extent. No need to get in a revert war about this. ugen64 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, on talk pages I write rather sloppy and sometimes stumble on tke keyboard. I don't think a few missplaced letters is basis for dismissing the views of that person. As for the choise of words I find "religions" better since it clearly says it is different religions. "Denominations" may be interpreted as "denominations within a single religion". // Liftarn

Btw, Neopaganism says "Neopaganism or Neo-Paganism is an umbrella term used to identify a wide variety of new religious movements". Also notice the neopaganism article states "most Reconstructionists avoid usage of the term "Neopagan" and even "Pagan", instead preferring terms like "polytheist", or traditional terms from the languages of their specific cultures. Some Reconstructionists do not identify as part of the Neopagan community". // Liftarn

Well, it turns out that according to the Random House dictionary ed. 2006, the definition of "denomination" is actually "a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect". So "denomination" is just as valid in this context as "religion". ugen64 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that is gives the wrong idea (compare with calling Hinduism and Shinto two different denominations within eastern religions or Islam and Christianity as two denominations within Abrahamism). Why not use a more exact word and avoid the risk for missinterpretation? // Liftarn

And I still maintain that this edit has nothing to do with word choice. I actually don't have a problem with you re-adding the word "religions", because it's a minor issue and doesn't matter, but at least have the mind to not add the "source" to justify the change. ugen64 14:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so we have a majority (albeit not consensus) for "religions". // Liftarn

Don't fool yourself. When 1 user says "denominations works better", 1 user says "religions works better", and 1 user says "I don't care", there isn't a majority or a consensus on anything. It's a minor issue anyway. ugen64 14:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against disputes. I am not bashing editors who aren't native speakers of English. dab (𒁳) 15:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so it's a tie (or should i say "draw" to avoid confusion with the piece of cloth hanging around the neck for fashion?). // Liftarn

drawers. we can say "where such communities exist" if it makes you feel better. But you could also trust me on questions of stylistics. You may not have noted this, but I am actually trying to fairly represent the (informed) neopagan point of view here. It speaks volumes on the topic of "discrimination of pagans" that the people objecting to presentation of an informed pagan viewpoint are not as a rule detractors of paganism, but rather the superficially informed unlettered "pagan pride" pop-culture pagans. dab (𒁳) 15:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for your claims (especially since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)? // Liftarn

did you see me make the claim in article namespace? or is this one of your rhetorical questions? dab (𒁳) 10:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything more to say about the subject or are we OK with "religions"? // Liftarn

"adherents of various Neopagan religions are a religious minority" is crap stylistically, but I don't expect you to be susceptible to such things. But I suppose this is Wikipedia, and we're forced to try and collaborate with absolutely everyone that happens to stumble in. dab (𒁳) 11:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What about "adherents of the various Neopagan religions are a minority"? Better? // Liftarn

(RFC response) Given that the article title uses "Neopagans", why not the even more succinct "Neopagans are a minority". That solves it for this usage in this article. More generally, there are probably both different religions and different denominations within neopaganism, and best practice will be to seek wordings that reflect that reality. GRBerry 22:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point (and there are also "paths" and "traditions" and many other words used). // Liftarn

I'd like to toss out a book recommendation, although, to be honest, it's a slog. That is Pagan Theology by Michael York. Michael is now retired, but he created the first contemporary graduate program in Pagan Studies, at York Spa University in the United Kingdom. He is Pagan himself, and is sort of the "honored grandfather" of Pagan academics.

He proposes that there are four main clusters of religions operating in the world today. 1. The Abrahamic group: Judaism, Christianity, Islam and smaller offshoots like Bahai. I think Michael may have introduced the term "Abrahamic" for these; it's now in common scholarly use. 2. The Dharmic group: Buddhism, Hinduism, and smaller offshoots like Sikhism. 3. The "secular" group, which is mostly political movements, but also other kinds of movements that become the central organizing principle of followers' lives, in the same way religions do for the religious. 4. The Pagan group: which includes not just neo-Paganism as we know it, but also surviving indigenous, polytheist and Earth-based paths such as Santeria, Shinto, BonPo, and a range of indigenous shamanic practices. There are basic commonalities, and wide differences within each group, but the commonalities are more basic and the differences between the four groups way larger than the differences within each.

Now there's a new book, not even yet finished being written, but watch for it, by Bron Taylor (whose great specialty is the connection between spiritual orientation and ecological consciousness), that zooms in on the Pagan group and explicates some of the core theological differences between various Pagan approaches. I was recently at a conference of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, where Michael York gave a report on Bron's work in progress. Bron could not make it to the conference himself, because he is too close to deadline with this manuscript. It was really fascinating, and exciting to hear about these ideas just being formulated. Runeman11 00:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments1 person in discussion

desperately searching for more sources I found (discounting some spurious charges of anti-white discrimination by the usual crowd of supremacists):

Starhawk (who else), [8]
there's http://www.milpagan.org/, with an informative page "respond to discrimination"
a 2004 [{petitiononline}/12212004/petition.html petition] to AOL (697 signatures)
Witches Against Religious Discrimination, PO Box 5967, Providence RI 02903.[9]
other anti-discrimination groups: http://www.witchvox.com/xwrensnest.html
"Circle Sanctuary [...] is the largest Neo-Pagan organization in the U.S. (Melton 1992:327). Its newsletter, Circle Network News, has fifteen thousand subscribers (Kelly 1992:141). [...] Circle also holds seminars, maintains a Neo-Pagan network, and actively helps Neo-Pagan individuals and groups in the U.S. and Canada who believe they have suffered from discrimination due to their religious beliefs and practices."[10]
best of all, Voices from the Pagan Census: A National Survey of Witches and Neo-Pagans in the United States (Studies in Comparative Religion) Helen A. Berger, Evan A. Leach, Leigh S. Shaffer (2003) ISBN 978-1570034886 [11] p. 231ff. is on discrimination, stating how many USian neopagans fear discrimination and harassment. Jerry Falwell is quoted as bashing "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and gays and lesbians".

The issue really seems to be restricted to the US. At least I wasn't able to find any reference to "discrimination of neopagans" for the UK, Germany or Scandinavia. dab (𒁳) 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

ah yes, to the extent that you count the Stonehenge Free Festival as a neopagan event, there was the Battle of the Beanfield in 1985. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some things to look into:

Great Falls Reporter: Committee rejects Wynne's complaint about police Darla Wynne (a googling gives a lot more info)
Portions of the Asatru Complaint (yes, it's one that got merged into the Cutter v. Wilkinson case)
Georgacarakos v. Watts - "interference with the free exercise of his Asatru religion" and "discrimination on the basis of his being Asatru"
Reuters: S.Africa witches fight for rights (some international flavour for a change)
Yahoo news: Coffee grounds brewed trouble for Israeli fortuneteller (more international issue, may not be relevant, but quite interesting)
The Arizona Republic: Ray of light for state inmates (not really relevant for the article, but it may explain why we see so many prison cases pop up)
Danish Govt Refuses To Officially Recognize Asatru (full article) (more international stuff, the Danish government failed to recognize Asatru as a official religion)
"There exists an erroneous assumption that "Pagan" describes one religion. Paganism serves as an umbrella term for an array of modern, ancient and ancient-inspired religions" (something to keep in mind)

With only one case in Scandinavia it looks like Scandinavia is better suited to deal with religious minorities than the US of A. Perhaps because the stict division between pubic and private. // Liftarn

great. We definitely need to cover Georgacarakos v. Watts. The S. African thing is finally something for the ailing Persecution of African traditional religions section. The Danish case is not reported correctly. See here, they were recognized in 2003. At least that's how I understand the entry Ministeriet fremsender udvalgets anbefaling om godkendelse og erklæring om godkendelse til Forn Siðr. dab (𒁳) 11:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it sounded a bit strange, but then Denmark is strange. It only took them four years to get it. The South Afrian case mentions The South African Pagan Rights Alliance (SAPRA) so it may be relevant. It looks like a law that hit an innocent bystander, but it's also opposed by Traditional Healers Organisation (THO) that may fall under the "African traditional" umbrella. I don't know about Georgacarakos v. Watts as it seems to have been dismissed on a technicality and didn't go further. // Liftarn

"discrimination against" means "treated worse than others". Some countries (like France) treat all religions alike on principle (no official recognition for any religious community). Others have a special status for 'recognized' religions, while yet others have an official state religion, possibly still 'recognizing' others (Denmark, Greece, Iran). Obviously, any such recognition is positive discrimination of the community in question. In this sense, any 'recognized' neopagan community (as in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland) enjoys positive discrimination. Now if there is a defined process of acquiring such recognition, it may conceivably be perceived as negative discrimination if one community fails to get recognition. If this is alleged, it should be documented that the process evaluating that community was somehow biased, by comparison with the evaluation of other communities. In the Danish case, it could be conceived as negative discrimination if the process of recognition usually takes less than four years. For example, Forn Sidhr could be compared to the status of Islam: How long has Islam been present in organized form in Denmark, and how long has it taken to reach 'recognized' status. e.g., The Dansk Islamisk Begravelsefond (Danish Islamic Cemetery Fund) purchased property in the greater Copenhagen area to use for a Muslim cemetery in December 2004. The purchase was the culmination of a several-year effort by members of the Muslim community to establish the first Muslim cemetery in the country.[12]: the source doesn't specify if "several years" is more or less than four years, but it would appear that four years is not an unusual period for the Danish authorities to take for dealing with new religious organizations. The Danish group does not seem to allege any discrimination. On their page, they dryly point out why Danish bureaucracy has taken four years for the process. witchvox.com reporting otherwise obviously doesn't qualify as a source. dab (𒁳) 11:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit uncertain about it. The long time may have been because they were inexperienced in dealing with the bureaucracy. Btw, in your edit you use the term "religious communities with official status", but it's never defined. For instance Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið have the right to perform marriages, while for Sveriges asatrosamfund it's just a different form of organisation and doen't give any more rights than any other non-profit organisation. // Liftarn

yes, we need to specify this, and find sources, but this whole paragraph probably belongs in the main Germanic neopaganism article, since it is not about 'discrimination' in particular. dab (𒁳) 11:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I also found

S.D. officials rebut inmate's religious-liberty claims

but that sounds too silly to bother mention (or it may be the reporting). // Liftarn

Marin Independent Journal: Outrage in Marin after 'sacred space' is leveled and Linconshire Echo: Pagans' Battle Wow over Circle of Faith and Linconshire Echo: Pagan's Eviction Threat over Park Stone Circle is a dubtfull case. May be, may be not. // Liftarn

I also found The Extraordinary Case Of The Pagan And The Multicultural Prayer Room, but I don't know what to say about that. // Liftarn

nice :) White Horse Stone Incidents alongside the Battle of the Beanfield gives the flavour of UK style 'discrimination'. The Hoadley case may be used as an illustration of the bizarre lengths these US prison debates sometimes go to. Royal Mail group PLC versus Donald Holden has more to do with Islam in the UK, but shows that the UK is beginning to emulate the US in terms of neurotical multiculturalism. But the upshot is, in a country that knows the rule of law, anyone is free to sue anyone else, for anything at all. This isn't discrimination, as long as judicial integrity is upheld. And, in the Royal Mail case,

The Tribunal heard this tale with incredulity ... Another outcome of this extraordinary case is that Odinism is now a legally recognised religion – and, by extension, so are all pagan religions.

dab (𒁳) 13:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't understand what the Royal Mail case was about anyway. Was the main issue that a supposedly multireligious room was exclusivley used by Muslims? A more humorous incident was the Tory MP that complained about a link on a website and said that those money could have been better spent elsewhere (yeah, adding a link costs sooo much money). // Liftarn

More non-US stuff

~~The Argus: Teaching assistant claims she was sacked for being a witch~~ (done)
~~Dorset Echo: Pagans suffer ritual abuse~~ (done)
~~The Sun: Pagans are a-salt-ed (probably more of religious harassment)~~ (done)
~~The Guardian: Catholic marchers turn on Glastonbury pagans (same as above)~~ (done)
Canada.org (mirror): Christian zealots destroy ancient Arctic petroglyphs (not really relevant)
MosNews (mirror): Russia bans indigenous tribe's religious rites (is the Marla faith of the Mari people to be covered here?)
BBC: School worship rule to be relaxed (now this is something, but it's too general for this article)
~~The Times: University allows pagans to hold rituals (both good an bad, it's allowed, but they may not do something that "might be viewed as harmful to followers of other faiths")~~ (done)
Devon Echo (mirror): Religious Rebuff to Pagans (denies a seat at the Westcountry's council's religious education committee, may be for a good reason (to few of them))
~~Pentacle Magazine: The councillor, the witch, and the tribunal (may need a more reliable source)~~ (done)
~~Pentacle Magazine: I Want Pagan Holidays (ditto)~~ (done)

// Liftarn

hilarious stuff. I just love the salt-throwing Catholics. and this is just mind-boggling:

"Incantations or spells that might be viewed as harmful to followers of other faiths have been outlawed from university premises."

Did these people live in a cave, for, like, 1,300 years (missing both the Council of Paderborn and the Age of Reason)? dab (𒁳) 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Then you should check out the Olivia Watts case. I never thought such persons existed in reality. // Liftarn

The Sommer De La Rosa case

um, can we please not report random tabloid journalism? WP:RS would seem to suggest that you can document a case as soon as it is put before a court of law, or once allegations are reviewed in a scholarly publication (such as the Pagan Census cited above). But random gripes from random people are not encyclopedic. dab (𒁳) 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Argus (Brighton) doesn't seem to be a tabloid (at least not in that sense) and the article mentions a "four-day tribunal". Is the BBC[13] less of a tabloid? The Sun[14] is more of a tabloid. Googling I also found more sources[15][16], but I haven't figure out if there has been an outcome of the tribunal. Ah, according to two sources[17][18] they settled out of court. // Liftarn

Other things to look into

A member of the Church of the SubGenius loose her child in a child custody case due to her religion[19]
judge orders a couple not to expose their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."[20]

// Liftarn

Sorting

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments1 person in discussion

Should the article be sorted by geography, religion or location (prison, school et.c.)? I woud prefer by religion as Wicca already has it's own article and it makes it easier to split off section as the article grows. // Liftarn

how is it easier to split off "persecution of Wicca" than "discrimination against neopagans in the US"? I appreciate your efforts here, but what begins to transpire is that the "Wicca" article really belongs moved to "neopaganism in the US", since the main topics, prisons and military service, are not Wicca-specific but US-specific. Also, things like "The police warned two women and arrested one youth on suspicion of harassment" blatantly fail Wikipedia:Notability. I agree that we can mention "occasional harassment in the UK", and we can well cite two or three cases as illustration, but I hope you don't intend piling up every minor incident you can find. Remember WP:ENC. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It made news in at least two national newspapers so it's not that minor. The Wicca section already in in it's own article (Religious discrimination against Wiccans) so this article can spin out the other religions as well as reccomended in Wikipedia:Summary style. Oh, and I hope you at least try to reach consensus before being bold. // Liftarn

Liftarn, we do not report on every incident that makes it into national newspapers. This is why Wikinews was created. If you compare the state of the "persecution" articles before I became involved, I hope you will admit that intervention was badly necessary. We finally have something like reasonable coverage of the topic. If you would please avoid further disruption. dab (𒁳) 11:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevant information that meets WP:V may be included. I never said every signgle nespaper article ever published muct be included in Wikipedia. Coverage has indeed increased (not directly helped by you), but you have also made it more difficult to get anything done with you constant splits, merges, deletions and so on. // Liftarn

(a) Liftarn's version: [21]; (b) dab's version: [22]. You had to be beaten with blunt sticks to move from (a) to (b). Enough said. Try to be constructive and work on Neopaganism in the United States. The US prison and US army topic belongs treated there. On your "persecution of Asatruers" you could do nothing except rehash material already covered elsewhere. dab (𒁳) 12:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(a) Liftarn's version: [23]; (b) dab's version: [24] (notice how my version complies with WP:SUMMARY. The article on Religious discrimination against Asatruers had enough good content before you decided to trash it. // Liftarn

here's a suggestion: You get two days to create a decent Religious discrimination against Asatru (without gutting this article in the process). If I don't like it, I'll put up a merge/split suggestion, and we let other people decide whether your article should remain separate. Deal? dab (𒁳) 12:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Over the weekend. Could be done. OK. Do you agree to let other people decide instead of you doing it as police, judge and executioner? // Liftarn

yep, my only edits to your Religious discrimination against Asatru will consist of adding {{split}} or {{mergeto}}. We'll put the article on RfC, and we will both shut up during the discussion and let others decide. dab (𒁳) 12:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok with me. The problem will ofcourse be if nobody cares. // Liftarn

ahem, our armistice does not extend to the {{religious persecution}} template. The Wicca and Asatru articles should be treated as sub-articles of this one. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I suspected you had some tricks to try. // Liftarn

I just made a show of good faith, and you can think of nothing better than calling it a "trick" that I will not let you push your agenda on other articles?? Your behaviour has been most unwikilike all along, Liftarn. dab (𒁳) 14:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

religious discrimination

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

we are struggling to justify the existence of this article, since no government discriminates against "Neopaganism". At best, they discriminate against fringe religious groups in general. All flavours of neopaganism fall under this heading. Saying that religious discrimination may take place in states where there is no complete separation of church and state isn't biased in any direction, it is strictly a tautology intended to elucidate the nature of 'religious discrimination'. dab (𒁳) 08:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article most of the discrimination seems to be from the US of A where there is a separation of church and state so your statement is original research at best. If you want to have it in the article you need a source for it. // Liftarn

if there was separation of church and state, there could be no discrimination in of fringe religions in the US. You'd consequently need to call for deletion of this article. I am surprised that you should want to argue in this direction. Are you now saying US authorities do not discriminate against minority religions? Where did you get the idea that church and state were fully separated in the US?? The idea can be traced to the US, but it was never fully implemented there.

dab (𒁳) 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying US authorities (more than in most other countries) do discriminate against adherents of the neopagan religions. If there was a separation of church and state there might still be religious discrimination. Unless you find a source the statement has to go. // Liftarn

You want me to find a source that in order to discriminate, you have to discriminate? How silly is that? Let me ask you, conversely, for a reliable source for the much less trivial claim that there is discrimination against Neopagans. Cutter v. Wilkinson doesn't count: that's about fringe religions in general, including Satanism and weird Christian sects, which hardly qualify as "neopagan". The statement you now want gone was in support of your claim. Now you question it, you question the validity of this entire article, well done. dab (𒁳) 09:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I want you to find a source for your claim that religious discrimination in some magic way just disappear if you separate church and state. Take for instance Sweden that until only recently (1999) had a state church, but at the same time very little religious discrimination. Cutter v. Wilkinson was several cases merged into one so it's not really a good example. Also, religious discrimination doesn't have to be intentionally against one specific religion (or a set of reigions). For instance forcing atheists to acknowledge the existance of God or be jailed is an example of religious discrimination even if atheists wasn't intentionally targeted. // Liftarn

I am not your private teacher. Read Laïcité (and wikt:existence while you're at it). dab (𒁳) 11:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As it's not longer included in the article it's a moot point. // Liftarn

Merge suggestion

Latest comment: 17 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

Oppose as the articles are long enough to stand on their own. Theya re also very different. // Liftarn

let's not go in circles. The articles are valid, but redundant as they stand. The issues of discrimination are identical since they are not directed against Asatru or Wicca in particular, but against neopagan and New Age new religious movements in general. I have given you ample time to build a case that it isn't so, but it turns out that this is simply how the facts stand. dab (𒁳) 13:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

They are very much different, first because there are different religions. Second because they differ in the way they manifest themselves. Also, your only real argument is that we should basicly create "Religious discrimination against minority religions". // Liftarn

Please go ahead with the merge. Liftarn, you really had enough time, and I don't think that it will be any use to repeat the discussion. Zara1709 14:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since they are different religions I see no point in merging them. The articles stand on their own so there is really no point in merging them either. // Liftarn

I did reply to you argument "they are different religions" over a month ago, and I have better things to do than to repeat this. Zara1709 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

even if they were "different religion", this would be inconsequential, because they are not discriminated as different religions. Just like Racial segregation in the United States does not distinguish between discrimination of Bantu, Niger-Congo, and Khoi-San "African Americans", even though these can well be argued to be distinct races. It would be utterly pointless to create an article about Racial segregation of Khoi-San in the United States, because no African was ever segregated as a Khoi-San: the discriminating parties literally did not discriminate between them, just as the discriminating parties do not distinguish between Asatru, Wicca, Odinic Rite, individual Druidic orders and what have you. I hope this settles the question once and for all. Once there are new laws discriminating followers of the Asatru Alliance, to the exclusion of followers of Odinic Rite, we can revisit the question. Since there is no reason to keep the articles separate for reasons of length, since my position is no at least supported by one editor, while Liftarn is showing increasingly erratic idiosyncracy, I do propose I go ahead with the move, unless Liftarn can present a single editor supporting whatever goes for his line of argument. --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1) they are different religions, 2) there are obvious differences in what way they are dicriminated, 3) the articles are good enough to stand on their own 4) there is no valid reason to merge them // Liftarn

I know this is your opinion. But then you also think Asatru is "not neopagan as such". If you could cite reliable sources (such as academic studies) to back up your opinion, the case would be different. As it is, these articles are just cobbled together from online news outlets. --dab (𒁳) 14:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not needed. You haven't presented a valid reason for why they should be merged. In what way does a merge of two different subjects make Wikipedia better? I don't see you suggesting we should merge antisemitism and islamophobia and they are more related as they are branches of the same tree rather then two trees in the same forest. // Liftarn

Liftarn, if you seriously still want suggest that the Neopagan religions are on the same level of importance as the Abrahamic religions, one should break of the discussion right now. I wrote a cynical commentary on that like 2 months ago. Even the Mormons had more historical impact than all Neopagan groups together (unless of course one wants to count Nazism as a neopagan movement - if you want to do something usefull help with that topic at Nazi occultism).Zara1709 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No nazism was largley based on Christian traditions, but in itself it was not religious. Historical impact is a strawman argument. It is irrelevant. // Liftarn

I have been sarcastic here. Seriously, there just isn't a specific Neopagan group that is important enough to be discrimated against. The greater public just does not care about your religion. (I think I can assume that you are a Neopagan.) The only way for Neopagans to get attention is to set some churches on fire, like Varg Vikernes did in Norway. (Now I'm being sarcastic again.) Zara1709 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly do hope Liftarn is not a neopagan, because I do consider his behaviour as doing a disservice to the credibility of neopaganism. Be that as it may, the case is clear. None of the sub-articles cite any reliable sources that would establish the alleged phenomenon. The only RS quoted here is "Gardell (2003)" (we are to assume, Gods of the Blood). Apart from Gardell, this is a collection of newspaper snippets. Since this isn't wikinews, I maintain that simply no argument has been presented that would allow splitting the topic into several sub-articles. A realise that a 2 to 1 "consensus" is shaky, but I simply cannot consider Liftarn a serious contributor at this point, and the topic failed to attract further attention. I expect Liftarn to contest the merger along the lines of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and not by revert-warring, since at this point the burden of establishing the case for a split really lies on him. I expect him to use {{splitsection}}, and argue the case for a split wrt Wikipedia:Content forking. If he wants to cover individual cases of "I want pagan holidays" I do recommend he contribute articles to wikinews:. dab (𒁳) 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

it turns out the fully merged article weighs 29k, even though it reads like a confused list of newspaper clippings. If reduced to an encyclopedic discusison, it would probably be down to below 20k. What this article sorely needs are credible references (studies of sociologists), not more newspaper headlines, and not fragmentation of cases along denominational lines. dab (𒁳) 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I too support a merge, as the individual articles simply have no reason to stand on their own, and may still retain individualism within the overarching Neopagan article. That said, I take two issues with the above discussion. 1) While Liftarn does not make convincing arguments, there is no reason to attack him for stating an opinion on the matter. 2) Dbachmann may wish to check his idea as to what a reliable source is, as per WP:RS newspaper and journal articles are considered as such, so long as the publication has a leg of reliability/verifiability to stand on. It may also have been a good idea to let the discussion roam a few more days before instituting the merges. Just a couple of thoughts. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I recognize newspaper reports as "RS", for the event they cover. It is WP:SYN to cobble together a dozen isolated newspaper reports into a case for "religious persecution". My aggressive approach is informed by a long history, going on since 2005, you may want to look at Talk:Persecution of Heathens. Liftarn has been repeating his non-arguments for full two years, without making any progress in actual encyclopedic coverage. After two years, I do feel we need to finally get this in order. dab (𒁳) 08:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I undid the merge as it was done before attempting to reach consensus. If a merge should be done it would be better to merge Religious discrimination against Wiccans into Wicca, Religious discrimination against Asatru into Asatru and Discrimination against Hellenic neopaganism into Hellenic polytheism. That would at least make sense. // Liftarn

That was absolutely the wrong way to proceed Liftarn. Yes, perhaps the merge was performed a bit early, but to simply undo it isn't right either, considering that you are the only person opposed at this point. I should point out that, at least for Wicca, merging back into the main article is incorrect as the article was originally split off from that article because of the length. Also, please sign your replies and comments with four tildes (~~~~) rather than simply linking to your name. Cheers. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. I agree that merging Religious discrimination against Wiccans into Wicca would be a bad idea, but if it must be merged (and it looks like Dbachmann wants to merge no matter what) it is the best place to merge it to. Religious discrimination against Asatru could ofcourse be merged into Persecution of Germanic Pagans also. // Liftarn

"a bit early"? This has been going in circles for weeks. Liftarn, you need to recognize that your position has found no support, from no-one. I have asked you to find another editor supporting your position. If you do that, I will agree to reconsider immediately. Now please focus your energies on turning this into a respectable article. Once it is that, we can consider splitting off new articles. Just multiplying one shoddy article into four shoddy articles isn't constructive. --dab (𒁳) 08:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't even bother to try to reach consensus. And you haven't even bothered to come up with any valid arguments for a merge. It's just that you want to merge it and damn anybody who stands in your way. Notice the flowchart of basic consensus decision-making process above. Study it, learn it, use it. Consensus and mob rule are two very different things. We have been doing this already at Talk:Religious discrimination against Asatru#Request for Comments: merge? and you failed to get supports for a merge. // Liftarn

Liftarn, Dbachmann's reason for the merge a valid. I personally would even say that there isn't any discrimination against Neopagans at all. Some laws or rules might appaer discriminating, but that is because Neopaganism was not taken into account when they were made. Who would have guessed that people would want to have a Thor's Hammer on their tombstone? You might personally believe that Asatru/Wicco/Odinism/Wotanism/Odalism is a religion that goes back 4000 years (or 400000, I have read about people who believe that) and was persecuted throughtout history, but then please, you could have provided better sources for that. Zara1709 11:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the cases mentioned was that an inmate in a US prison was denied a Thor's hammer while Christians were allowed to wear a cross. That is clealy not a case of "not taken into account". All I written has been sourced. Dbachmann has both failed to get consensus for a merge and he has also failed to even provide a reason for a merge. As you can tell I am not opposed to a merge per se, but trying to merge together articles that are only remotley related is just wrong. // Liftarn

Strongly support the merge suggestion. I feel there are sufficient strong connections between all these articles to make separate articles redundant. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Dent-Brown (talk • contribs)

Liftarn, I don't know if you have any experience with the police or prison personal, but from what I have heard they just sometimes like to push people around. If you would have a law somewhere that says "the public display of Thor's Hammer is not allowed", while crosses would be allowed, now that would discrimination against Neopagans. Zara1709 11:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the article. And no, that would not be discrimination against Neopagans. That would be discrimination against Asatruers. You see, we are talking about religions that have their own history, their own traditions and that have been discriminated against in different ways. Trying to group them togheter "just because" is a disservice to Wikipedia and to the users of Wikipedia. It makes things harder to find and more difficult to maintain. Quite frankly I see no reason for this merge. // Liftarn

Liftarn, Dbachmann's point was that they are not discriminated against as Asatruers etc... but as Neopagans. That prison guard did not care if a Thor's Hammer was an Asatru symbol or an Odinist symbol. My point is that he most likely did not care whether that was a religious symbol at all. If he would take away a cross, he would get into trouble because the general public knows that the cross is a Christian symbol. But the general public does not know the differences between Wicca, Asatru, etc... and I'd say they don't even know Neopagans at all. Zara1709 11:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wiew it in that way it's actually discrimination against non-Christian religions (or perhaps non-Abrahamic religions), but why should the Wikipedia article be based on the viewpoint of the person who does the discrimination rather then the discriminated? // Liftarn

Yes, actually I would prefer to deal with this issue in an article about the incomplete secularization of the western world. People just are intolerant and often have a problem with the notion of pluralism. This is nothing specifically aimed at neopagans. (But I get the impression that Neopagans complain more about it.) Zara1709 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's no big wonder that it is minority religions that get discriminated against and the smaller the religion, the easier is it to discriminate and get away with it. // Liftarn

Agree with merge .. Seeing as the happyfun debate at Talk:Persecution of Germanic Pagans somehow metamorphed over here, I figured I would add my POV. The differential here, as I see it, is only relative in the symbols being used as anti-semitic/redneckish white power fiends symbols. Growing up in Sweden I did get many hard stares at the thors hammer around my neck, and the tattoo on my arm, even though my interest in the hammer did not involve church burnings nor muslim bashing. But this discrimination differs perhaps not much from when I observed people in the United States who reacted to the swastika being used in its pre-nazi context, where they were not aware it had an origin before Mr Hilter.

Then also being involved in Neopagan movements in Texas, I observed discrimination against those groups on a widescale. From teachers making children take off necklaces with pentagrams in school to Pentacostal church members slashing tires on cars with pagan stickers on them. I do not believe the perpetrators differentiated between Dianics, Wiccans, Asatruer or Fairies.

Of course, all this rambling is pure OR. But I guess my one valid point is; the discrimination against Neopagan/pagan revisionist groups is rampant in some parts of the world. But the discrimination is broad and usually based on the same discriminatory base thus making a merge suitable, and individual articles unsuitable. eh? mceder (u t c) 18:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the discrimination is basicly done against "anyone not like us" so that argument would for instance make antisemitism and islamophobia a suitable choise for a merger. // Liftarn

I understand your argument, but I do not agree. I think there are major differences in discrimination practices, history and mindset when it comes to discrimination of semites and followers of Islam. mceder (u t c) 16:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with mceder on this. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with mceder as well. Furthermore, I support the merge. Jorgath 00:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

it is a question of perception among those doing the discrimination. It is impossible to discriminate between things you do not recognize as different. It may be arguable that Wicca is subject to a somewhat different flavour of discrimination because they are perceived as "witches", while Asatru, Theodism, Neo-Druidism and what have you are merely perceived as "pagans". But the merger does not preclude the articles on a specific neopagan movement (Wicca#Discrimination_charges, Asatru#Discrimination_charges, etc.) from having a "Discrimination" section per WP:SS. dab (𒁳) 10:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Religious discrimination against Neopagans. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freecongress.org/press/releases/990609.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Religious discrimination against Neopagans. 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:

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) 01:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)