Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Midnightblueowl (talk | contribs) at 13:57, 4 September 2015 (→Germanization of the article: adding space.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:57, 4 September 2015 by Midnightblueowl (talk | contribs) (→Germanization of the article: adding space.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Heathenry (new religious movement) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 2, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Neopaganism B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: New religious movements B‑class Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Untitled

Please Help with rewrite of Germanic neopaganism here

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Add In-Reach Heathen Prison Services and similar social efforts?

I think that social efforts, such as In-Reach Heathen Prison Services (which started as an Urglaawe effort called "In-Reech Heidische Gfengnisbedienunge" in 2011 but is now primarily an effort of The Troth) could be included somewhere in this article, perhaps along with similar work being done by the Odinic Rite. I am happy to write something up, but Urglaawe has regularly been removed from this page despite an increasing identity in multiple areas and having increasing media coverage in the US. Thus, perhaps someone on the inside of this Wiki would be able to write something about this aspect of Heathenry in action. Verzannt (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Go for it, Verzannt. It's a relevant topic, and one of the more publicly visible manifestations of the faith. Be sure to include at least one citation though, if possible, to bolster its inclusion. Shouldn't be overly difficult since there has been some press coverage. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of the sources for the reconstruction of the article

Michael Strmiska. Modern Paganism in World Cultures. It has a chapter dedicated to general Heathenry and another one dedicated to Nordic Neopaganism/Asatru subsets.
James R. Lewis (scholar). Handbook of Contemporary Paganism; Heathenry chapter. The Invention of Sacred Tradition; Heathen Reconstructionism chapter.
Robert J. Wallis (Richmond University). Shamans/neo-Shamans: Ecstasy, Alternative Archaeologies, and Contemporary Pagans. Heathenry and seidh chapter.
Jennifer S. Snook,University of Colorado at Boulder. Sociology. On Being Heathen: Negotiating Identity in a New Religious Movement.
Peter B. Clarke. Encyclopedia Of New Religious Movements. Heathenry chapter, very taut in its brief definition.
Margot Adler. Drawing Down the Moon. Heathenism chapter.
Graham Harvey. Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism. Heathens chapter.
Barbara Jane Davy. Introduction to Pagan Studies. Very bright in describing the distinction between Asatru and Odinist sub-gropus of Heathenism.
Mattias Gardell. Gods of the Blood. For further distinction between Asatru and Odinist movements.
Paganism: Druidry and Heathenry, written by Professor Eileen Barker as a chapter of New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction (1995), published by the INFORM and the Staffordshire University.
Introduction to Heathenism (Germanic Neo-Paganism) by Jennifer Porter, Associate Professor of Religion and Popular Culture at Memorial University of Newfoundland.

I think that now there's no need of further evidence to say that the word Heathenism/Heathenry is the umbrella term used by the academia to encompass all Germanic Neopagan movements, and that this article's title should follow the convention. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Bhlegkorbh, as already noted in our previous debate, some people do use heathenry, but not everyone does. Many prefer Asatru, Odinism, and so forth. I like Odinism. It has been in use since the 19th century, whereas, as you yourself admit, heathenry has only been used for the last ten years.

The point of using Germanic neopaganism is that it is a non-controversial umbrella term. Please stop repeating the same controversy.

--ThorLives (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I should also add that your bibliography is rather disingenuous. Dr. Michael Strmiska, the author of the first book, himself uses Asatru in his own book. Heathenism appears in his book, but it is used by Jenny Blain, who also wrote the article in your second book! --ThorLives (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The matter here is not what is "your favourite name", or what you think about the sources. You're not the owner of this article. The sources are not just "bibliography", they must be used to construct the article, which at the current state is a mess. In the last months you haven't contributed to the improvement of the article, you've just copied and pasted the current version in your sandbox. Now it's the time to start writing a good article using academic sources. If the sources say A and you think or prefer B, your personal opinion counts for nothing. And PLEASE learn how to write well-formatted posts → Misplaced Pages:Tutorial/Formatting --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that it does not matter what ThorLives likes, but this applies to you as well. It appears that you've cherry-picked sources to create some appearance that heathenry is the common name above all others, when reliable sources, previous consensus, and sources in the article all refute this. The sources above use heathenry in some form or fashion, yes. However, how does this demonstrate that all the other terms are somehow invalid, or less common? No. Does it demonstrate that heathenry is the "umbrella term" used? No. All it shows it that some reliable sources use this term, and this is something that isn't questioned and is already in the lede of the article. - Sudo Ghost 02:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

<It appears that you've cherry-picked sources to create some appearance that heathenry is the common name above all others, when reliable sources, previous consensus, and sources in the article all refute this>. Reply: The works in the list are reliable sources written by academics and not self-publications by Heathens. Previous consensus is for Heathen and not Germanic Neopagan (which isn't in use anywhere, neither by Heathens nor, commonly, by academics), just count the various posts by users (the survey was a draw). The current revision of the article is not based on reliable sources in most of its parts, including terminology, with the exception of the BBC definition of Heathenry.

<However, how does this demonstrate that all the other terms are somehow invalid, or less common? No. Does it demonstrate that heathenry is the "umbrella term" used? No.> Reply: The other terms are all valid, but they don't comprehend the whole movement, they delimit specific groups or trends within it, and some sources clearly distinguish these different "denominations" (for example see Mattias Gardell for the difference between the Asatru movement and the Odinist movement). And yes, some of the sources clearly use and define Heathenism \ -ry as the umbrella term, while none of them, or just in a minority of cases, uses "Germanic Neopaganism". --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"Surveys" don't carry any weight; articles are not determined by voting, especially when accounts are created for the sole purpose of "voting". I've seen no previous consensus for heathenry being the common name, and this is reflected in the talk page archives. The only thing you've shown above is that some reliable sources use heathenry, and again, this is reflected in the article. - Sudo Ghost 11:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You continue to misinterpret what I write. I agree with you that polls count for nothing, what I mean is that consensus here was for Heathenry regardless of the poll, just read the posts of the various users on this talkpage and Archive 3. I think that Heathenism \ -ry should be the title, and Germanic Neopaganism a secondary name cited in the lede, since it's used neither by most of the academics nor by Heathens themselves (the term Heathen has been recovered precisely to substitute the generic definition of Neopagan, as you can read in some of the books cited above). --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You say there is a consensus, but this discussion very clearly demonstrates that this is not the case, even if this alluded to prior consensus did exist (diff?). - Sudo Ghost 12:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Just read Archive 2 from that point downward and most of Archive 3. Users supporting Heathenism: Olaf.i44, .bloodfox., Liftarn, Yngvadottir, Noddyt, CaraShulz, dscarron, Frater SERVO, Dchmelik, and me Bhlegkorbh, supporting the use of the word with the scholarly works cited above. Then count users opposed to the word, they're a minority and their claims aren't supported by sources. The majority of scholars uses Heathenism \ Heathenry, only a minority Germanic Neopaganism or Paganism (referring to the modern movement), thus the article lede should be <Heathenism, or Heathenry, also called Germanic Neopaganism> and not viceversa. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see a consensus, even taking into account the drive-by single purpose accounts saying "I agree". In fact that archives show a pointed lack of consensus for heathenry being the WP:COMMONNAME. There is not and has not been a consensus for this wording. - Sudo Ghost 12:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

While you think the number of users supporting the term, including scholar Cara Shulz, is not enough, I agree with you that no-one cited many solid sources before. Now I have made a list of scholarly sources using the term. WP:COMMONNAME says < The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.>, thus in our case Heathenism \ -ry, and it's verifiable. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not the most common name used by reliable sources. Your only edits have been to advocate the use of this term, so it comes as no surprise that you believe the term should be used. The sources you've shown do not demonstrate a common name per Misplaced Pages's definition, only use of the term by some sources; this is already reflected in the article. - Sudo Ghost 13:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost, Heathenry reflects the Misplaced Pages definition of common name or article title. Those cited above are works by renown scholars, and they all use this terminology, there isn't any reliable work using Germanic Neopaganism. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I never stated that "Germanic Neopaganism" was the common name, but rather that heathenry is not, there's a key distinction there. Yes, you've selected sources that use heathenry in some form, does that demonstrate a common name? No. All that demonstrates is that certain sources use this terminology, not that sources overwhelmingly use this terminology or that everything within the scope of this article meets that terminology's scope. What the sources you've provided demonstrate is already reflected in the article's lede. - Sudo Ghost 13:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is that you won't find reliable sources published by academic scholars using other terminology than Heathenism while describing the whole movement. The only exception of academic works which don't use the term is that of Mattias Gardell's Gods of the Blot, Jeffrey Kaplan's Radical Religion in America (Odinism and Asatru chapter), and Stephen E. Atkins' Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History (Odinism and Wotanism chapters), each of which focus on the description and the distinction of two subgroups of Heathenry: Asatru (i.e. the American and Icelandic movement based on Norse Paganism and initiated by Sveinbjorn Beinteinsson and McNallen) and Odinism (i.e. the ethnic nationalist / racialist movement started by Rud Mills and Christensen and primarily embodied by the Odinic Rite), and also Wotanism, a form related to Odinism. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Type in Asatru in WorldCat and there are 87 hits, including some doctoral disserations. Odinism produces 36 hits. Heathenry produces 16 hits. 1, 2, 3. --ThorLives (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't mean anything. Those listed are not academic works but self-publications of the specific organisations of the various subgroups of Heathenry, mostly American: Asatru Folk Assembly, Asatru Alliance, Odinic Rite. The same discourse could be made for Theodism, Fyrnsidu, etc: The Way of the Heathen: A Handbook of Greater Theodism by Garman Lord isn't an academic work, it's a self-publication, and it can't be used for the description of the whole Heathen movement, at least only for the Theodish movement. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I was going slowly on the rewrite because these articles must not be the work of one person. Consensus is important here. Let's move beyond what we should call the article and work on improving it.

Remember, however, that these articles are designed for the general reader, so let's be clear. The tendency here to use ettin instead of giant and wyrd instead of fate is simple obscuration.--ThorLives (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ettin or Jotun and Wyrd describe specific concepts within Germanic cultures, which are not clearly defined by the generic terms "giant" or "fate", which have a different etymology. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost, thank you for your help! You make your points well.

Bhlegkorbh, you must let the pagan/heathen argument go. We cannot keep recycling the same points every two months. Heathen appears in the article itself, so what is the issue?

I find your reference to using archaic terms such Ettin curious. This is what wikipedia says on ettin: Ettin, an OBSOLETE English cognate to the Old Norse Jötunn from the Old English Eoten, meaning "giant"

I am sensing a theme here. You seem to love opaque language. Also, you seem to have a hostility toward English words with a Latin/French base (pagan or giant) Are you coming from some Germanic pride angle? Is that what this is all about? --ThorLives (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fate and Wyrd are not really the same. Wyrd only applies to English concepts, for Norse/Icelandic one should use its cognate Urðr however this could be problematic as the two words may not represent identical concepts. Wyrd and fate are not identical either and this has long been a topic of debate amongst Heathens. From an English point of view, based on poetry sources, "giants" are split into two groups; Entas and Eotenas. Ent is a gloss for "gigas" and "gigant" and appears to be different to the hostile, man eating eoten. Ent and eoten both appear in Beowulf but ent only when describing ancient armour, eoten is used to describe Grendel, his mother and their kin, they are never described as ent. Eotenas/ettins are man eaters or cannibals but entas/ents are an ancient race of giant builders or masons. If "giant" is used then some form as distinction should be made as two which type the giant is. Noddyt (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's very disappointing that all the electrons that have been rearranged above, and all the time spent on rearranging them, has not improved the article itself one iota. Nor is the discussion even about the content of the article, but about its title (a discussion which is itself a rehash of a recently-concluded page move request.) Please, please, consider going to the sandbox which I established here and making some changes to a proposed redraft. Anything rather than this unproductive debate which benefits the readers of the encyclopaedia not one bit. Kim Dent-Brown 08:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Kim, frankly I think that the version in your sandbox is even worse than the current "published" one. If you note, some of the reliable sources used in the current article (BBC article on Heathenry) have been removed again from your sandbox's version. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

it has been clear from day one that user Bhlegkorbh is a single-topic editor with the obvious agenda to wreak havoc on our coverage on Neopaganism based on some far-out idiosyncratic WP:COI. The user isn't even trying to represent the neopagan point of view (as it were, pro neopagan, but respecting the differences within the movement), no, they are content to just pursue their personal views. I have no idea why some editors still seem treat this account as an editor in good standing at this point. Their behaviour falls short of what is required in order to edit here so clearly and their good will to learn about how to become a bona fide contributor is so non-existent that "discussion" is just wasted time. --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The only user here who is a single-topic editor who has taken possession of this article imposing his own view is ThorLives, as his contributions list demonstrates, but this is not a problem for you since it's functional in keeping this article a mess, which is also what you have been doing for years.--79.10.80.178 (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

National Museum of Denmark on Asatro

Note that the National Museum of Denmark has an English language article on Danish Germanic Neopaganism—Asatro—that can be read here. This may be a useful little source for Danish Germanic neopaganism. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please everybody don't make massive reverts with snarky edit summaries such as this one or the re-revert which followed it. The place to dialogue is here, not in edit summaries. Edit wars don't have to get to three reverts before blocks are in order. Kim Dent-Brown 11:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The revert feature is there for a reason. Itchy as you may be to hit someone with the block stick, these edits haven't gotten far enough for you to even consider block anyone, so put it away. The edit summary "Revert a clearly biased, left-wing and vandalistic removal of symbols used by modern Heathens" contains no snark but a lot of unfounded accusation. You might also want to get that right before trying to block anyone.

Meanwhile, the text was modified by me for several reasons. While the swastika was in fact a commonly employed symbol among the ancient Germanic peoples, it is not exactly clear what the swastika represented when employed (someone brought together a bunch of examples I've put on other articles here). Although the notion of it representing some aspect of Thor (or Thor himself) is not unlikely, this is by no means clear and cannot be presented as fact. The editorial claim that "Its symbolism is the same as that of the Swastika and the Vajra: the enlightenment of man reaching the state of "diamond" or "lightning", divine central, rational and bright thought and will. It is then the power of Irminsul or Yggdrasil on the individual level." is pulled directly out of someone's imagination; there's no Germanic source material to support any such interpretation of Thor's hammer and certainly nothing along those lines regarding either Yggdrasill or the Irminsul(s). The 19th century reference stapled on to it doesn't help it any. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the content dispute to discussion here, Bloodofox. That's the right thing to do and this is the right place to do it. Anyone entering constructive discussion here adds a strong counterweight against any itches I may have to block them. Kim Dent-Brown 12:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I know this is going to start a long problem but I hope that it will make the encyclopedia better in the long run

The section entitled True Asatru I removed due to lack of citation, promotional wording, religious dogma presented in a very poor fashion. I am Asatru so lets get that out of the way first. Does anyone have a citation from a third party source that is a reliable source that I could use to rewrite it into an actual descriptive and useful paragraph with citations? Even if someone could copy a bulk chunk of text I can use that as a starting point to draw upon to actually craft something worthy of an encyclopedia. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Is soteriology the right word?

Soteriology is the study of salvation. I'm not sure that the concept of the afterlife that exists within heathenism is properly analogous to liberation from Saṃsāra or Christian salvation or achieving Nirvana. So soteriology strikes me as out of place.

The section it introduces discusses the heathen view of the afterlife. Why not have a section called Afterlife? That's what the article on Wicca does, and it looks all right to me. Plus it's easier for most folks to understand. Lereman (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Asatru or Odinism, and meaning

Lots of edits going on that this is for reference and discussion.

Ásatrú (pronounced Template:IPA-is in Icelandic, Template:IPA-non in Old Norse) is a modern Icelandic compound derived from Áss, which refers to the Æsir, an Old Norse term for the Gods, and trú, literally "faith". Thus, Ásatrú is the "faith in the Æsir". The term is the Icelandic translation of Asetro, a neologism coined in the context of 19th century romantic nationalism, used by Edvard Grieg in his 1870 opera Olaf Trygvason . Ásatrúar, sometimes used as a plural in English, is properly the genitive of Ásatrú. Even so, Stephen A. McNallen of the Asatru Folk Assembly maintains that Asatru means "belief in the gods", “those who believe in the Aesir and Vanir”, or "those loyal to the Gods." as does Edred Wodanson (E. Max Hyatt, 1948 - January 21, 2010) of Wodan's Kindred and the Wodanesdag Press.

Some adherents will use "Odinism" as synonymous with Ásatrú, while others will reject an equivalence between the two terms.

Notes and references

http://www.runestone.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83&Itemid=487
McNallen, Stephen A., What Is Asatru, published by the Asatru Folk Assembly, 1985
McNallen, Stephen A., ‘Asatru: What Does It Mean?’
McNallen, Stephen A., Asatru… The Way of Our Ancestors… Calling Us Home
http://www.runestone.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83&Itemid=487
Asatru: The Hidden Fortress, first published in 1995 as The World Tree, revised in 2006 and published as Asatru: The Hidden Fortress, with a second edition in 2008.
My Father’s Story - Courage, Wisdom, and Kindness by Freya Hyatt
Obituary
How do you say good-bye? by Ingela F. Hyatt
http://odin.org/faq.html
http://odin.org/intro.html
http://www.odinbrotherhood.com/history-of-odinism.html
Asatru' - The Hidden Fortress by E. Max Hyatt (Edred Wodanson) - updated 2009 edition, Wodanesdag Press ISBN 0973842326 and Mark Mirabello. The Odin Brotherhood. Mandrake of Oxford.ISBN 1869928717
Odinism: The Religion of Our Germanic Ancestors in the Modern Worldby Wyatt Kaldenberg
Folkish Odinism by Wyatt Kaldenberg
Odinism vs. Ásatrú” (A Clarification) by Dr. Casper Odinson Cröwell
Ten Differences Between Odinism and Asatru by Wyatt Kaldenberg
Dr. Casper Odinson Crowell and Mrs. Linda Crowell, Vor Forn Sidr: (Our Ancient Religion) Vinland Kindred Publishing. 2012. ISBN: 0985476001
Interview with Wyatt Kaldenberg, 2008

Ethics Section

There are four paragraphs in the ethics section, and the last two deal with current social issues rather than traditional ethics. Is that misleading?--ThorLives (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As the editor responsible for the edits, I will naturally champion the inclusion of this particular material. Views on social issues (I'm not sure that I would necessarily refer to them as "current", given that they have been highly visible issues in western society since at least the 1960s, and show no sign of disappearing) are closely linked to morality and ethics. Thus, views on environmentalism and LGBT issues step from Germanic Pagan moral views, i.e. is same-sex sexual activity ethical? Such material is dealt with in academic studies of this particular religious movement (i.e. Blain, Harvey), and thus I do believe that it is clearly worthy of inclusion in this article. However, I am certainly willing to discuss the possibility of there being a better place to put this information than in an "Ethics" section. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am indeed becoming antiquated, since anything discussed only since the 1960's is, in my mind, a "current event."

In my opinion, the article should discuss general ethics in general terms, because "social issues" change. In 1890, in England, gay male sex was a felony, lesbianism was technically legal, abortion was a felony, and ecology was not really discussed. In 2014, the first three are legal, and almost no one, even criminals, take issue with ecology. But where will we be in 2090? --ThorLives (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I fear that we should not deal in counterfactuals; for instance, it could be that Germanic Neopaganism is itself extinct in 2090! (I don't actually think that particularly likely, but it is possible). However, I would reiterate my point that there are academic sources that deem the discussion of ecological activism and LGBT rights issues relevant to the discussion of Germanic Neopaganism, and as an encylopedia, Misplaced Pages should follow their example. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the material to a content footnote. Since the section on ethics deals in generalities, it is jarring to suddenly switch a specific lifestyle.

For the record, matriarchies fear and despise incest and tolerate homosexuality. Patriarchies, in contrast, fear and despise homosexuality but actually tend to tolerate incest.

Note that Saudi Arabia is a patriarchy and they usually marry their first cousins. They also are harsh on Gays!

In a sense, the modern Western tolerance for GLB lifestyles simply indicates that we are living in an increasingly matriarchal society.--ThorLives (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, a discussion of patriarchies and matriarchies is opening a huge can of anthropological worms; for the record, I'm highly dubious regarding whether any matriarchies have actually ever existed in human society beyond the fantasies of Marija Gimbutas. In this, I'm pretty much in agreement with what is (generally speaking) the current anthropological and archaeological consensus on the issue. However, it is of course off topic, and I'm not really sure that it is something that I wish to get into a debate about... I'd also take issue with the idea that LGBT people adhere to a "specific lifestyle" (there is an element of lifestyle and subculture attached to the LGBT community, granted), because being LGBT is rooted in a firm, biological reality, but again, that's a debate which is not terribly relevant right here. But, bringing myself back on topic, I'd like to hear what other editors think about where the information on LGBT issues in the Germanic Neopagan community should be placed in this article ? I'm really not sure that a footnote is the best place, but I can nevertheless appreciate ThorLives' concerns that "Ethics" is not the best place either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, Midnightblueowl. You've said it far more concisely than I could have. Such ideas have largely been discarded as romantic fantasy within the anthropological community, as they have not been bourne out by archaeological evidence. For the record, ThorLives, I'd daresay that those cultural practises you mentioned have little to nothing to do with a dichotomy, invented or otherwise, of "partriarchy" and "matriarchy". Marrying one's first cousin is quite common in all Middle Eastern societies, especially within certain religious communities, as well as in expat communities in the west; statistically, over half of Pakistani Britons, for example, are married to their first cousins. But that's neither here nor there. As far as the LGBT issues... In my experience, it isn't a part of religious practise or identification within the Germanic neopagan community- it's essentially a non-issue for most, as are ethics in general. There are few absolutes. Ethics are thus usually dealt with in non-specific terms, and are more seen as the purview of the individual, rather than the community. I don't necessarily see why we need to include anything on the sort, unless a specific group makes a statement of collective opinion on such an issue. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Move to Asatru

I propose to move the page to "Ásatrú", "Asatru" or any English translation, including "Ases faith" ("Asetroth" or "-truth" would be the philological compound word). "Germanic neopaganism" is an abstract construction, as all the other "neopaganism" labels in Misplaced Pages.--95.232.86.104 (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ásatrú is more specifically a variant, or denomination, of contemporary Germanic Paganism. The term is used by those who emphasise the use of Scandinavian, Viking Age sources, and tends to be rejected quite vehemently by those who link themselves to other linguistically Germanic societies from the Iron Age and Early Medieval. Thus, while I am not entirely happy with the title of the article as it currently stands (I'd go with "Heathenry"), I would oppose moving it to "Asatru", for doing so would be like moving "Christianity" to "Catholicism". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Asatru" means "faith in the spirits/gods", and is the general term for Germanic religion, it's not a branch of the concept of "Germanic neopaganism". "Odinism" and "Theodism", by contrast, are specific interpretations of "Asatru". German language uses "Asentreue" as the German variant of "Asatru".--80.116.13.241 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, "Asatru" translates as "Faith in the Aesir". Given that the Aesir are only one group of deities within Norse mythological sources, and don't appear at all in Anglo-Saxon and certain other linguistically Germanic sources, it is problematic to assume that the term is used generally for contemporary Germanic Neopaganism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

English Asatro

We need to talk about this addition of content. English Asatro is not a notable group, and adding links to their site is a violation of WP:LINKSPAM. Please do not add the text back in until there are reliable secondary sources that talk about it. — HelloAnnyong 15:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree Since I'm a bit of a delusionist and like to cheer for the underdog I have spent much of the last half hour trying to refute your assertion by using several search engines looking for secondary and tertiary sources. Lots of stuff on blogs, mirrors for the primary source, minor mentions, nothing that would really support notability. You're right. This is not notable. Trilobitealive (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Heathenry vs. "Germanic Neopaganism"

Yes, I'm aware this topic has been broached here before. Repeatedly. But as someone who is VERY active in the Heathen community, I find I have to bring it up again. It appears, to me at least, that a number of editors here are insisting that something is true that is not true. Either these individuals are not personally familiar with Heathenry or are not widely familiar with it. I am, to say the least, a little annoyed that this is still an issue that has not yet come to consensus.

The overwhelming majority of adherents to what is being described here as "Germanic Neopaganism" refer to their faith, in general, as Heathenry. Others have submitted evidence to this fact before but have been "pooh-pooh'd" or otherwise dismissed as having an agenda. This, despite the fact that none of the three major American organizations for Heathenry (The Troth, the Asatru Folk Assembly, and the Asatru Alliance) use the words "pagan" or "neopagan" in the descriptions of their faith. In fact, The Troth exclusively uses the term "Heathenry" when discussing the faith.

In 2013, Dr. Karl E. Seigfried conducted a "Worldwide Heathen Census" online, and specifically addressed the use of the term "Heathen." As quoted:

"This survey was originally called Worldwide Ásatrú Census 2013. When I contacted practitioners from different communities around the world for their input, they all agreed that "heathen" was the most general term – and that it is the term with which most adherents would identify.

There are very real differences between different forms of this religion. Some practitioners are opposed to the word "heathen" itself. I respect these differences and realize how important they are. However, this census seeks to – for just this one brief moment in time – move beyond these differences in order to get a sense of the worldwide community.

For the purpose of this census, all of the following are considered part of the "heathen" world: Anglo-Saxon Heathenry, Ásatrú, Asatro, Firne Sitte, Forn Sed, Forn Siðr, Germanic Heathenry, Germanic Neopaganism, Germanic Paganism, Heathenism, Heathenry, Norse Paganism, Norse Religion, Northern Tradition, Odinism, Old Way, Theodism, Urglaawe, Vanatru If your preferred term is not included, I apologize. It was simply an oversight. The point is that this census is meant to include as broad a range of heathens as possible. As long as you self-identify as someone who belongs to any of these paths, please participate and help us create a true representation of worldwide heathenry."

Even ReligiousTolerance.org, a page that is notable for discussing religion in as neutral a context as possible, has changed their terminology, opting to use "Heathenism" rather than "Paganism."

Searching for communities on Facebook, you can find dozens upon dozens of groups that use the terms "heathen," "heathenry," or "heathenism." The number of those using "Germanic neopaganism"? Zero. Not one single community on Facebook uses the term that other editors insist in the most widely-used term for the faith.

I cannot imagine what evidence is being put forth to justify this. It needs to be corrected.Stormkith (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I support the change of the article's title to "Germanic Heathenism".--151.19.103.39 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As do I. There are academic sources testifying to the fact that "Heathenry" is the most widely used term for this new religious movement, even if some members of the movement eschew it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Shall I take this to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Requested move 25 August 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Germanic neopaganism → Heathenry (new religious movement) – I would like to propose that this article, which is currently titled "Germanic neopaganism", be renamed to "Heathenry", or perhaps "Heathenry (new religious movement)". First off it must be noted that this is an issue that has been raised before here on the talk page: back in January 2012 the question was raised by User: Kim Dent-Brown, who suggested a move to "Heathenism (contemporary)". At that time the motion was defeated due to a lack of consensus: there were four declarations of support to four declarations of opposition. Nevertheless, I think that this is an important issue and requires a return visit, and would also like to invite other editors with no connection to the subject to offer their judgement on the basis of the evidence presented.

My argument for the change is threefold. First, I would argue that the term "Germanic neopaganism" is inappropriate for usage here at Misplaced Pages because it is a term that is used very rarely outside of this actual Misplaced Pages article itself. Having recently spent a fair bit of time expanding this article using almost all of the academic studies yet published on the subject, it became apparent to me that "Germanic neopaganism" simply isn't used to describe this new religious movement in any of them. Typing the term into Google basically brings up this Misplaced Pages article and very little else that we could deem to be reliable. Basically, it doesn't appear in any significant way in the reliable, third-party academic literature. Furthermore it does not seem that it is a term that is at all widely used within this religious community itself, with many practitioners actually expressing their dislike of the word "pagan" (and thus "neopaganism") due to its Latin origins. As User:Stormkith pointed out above, none of the three major U.S. organisations for this religious movement use the term "neo/pagan" on their websites. So if this term isn't being used either by practitioners or scholars studying the movement, why is it being used here ? Without trawling through the lengthy history of this article, I think that there must be a suspicion that it is a name that has been devised (or at least chosen) by a Misplaced Pages editor themselves without recourse to reliable sources, and thus may come under our restrictions surrounding the use of Original Research. All in all, it's a totally inappropriate term for us to be using.

My second point is that "Heathenry" remains the most widely used term for this religious movement within the community itself. While it is clear that different sections of the movement favour different terms (Odinism, Theodism, Asatru etc, each of which conveys information about a group's specific regional affiliation and socio-political bent), it is nonetheless apparent that "Heathenry" is a rapidly growing term, having become the dominant word within the United Kingdom and seeing its usage rapidly expand elsewhere. It is, for instance, the term generally used by the U.S.-based website The Wild Hunt, which is the foremost news service for the wider Neopagan movement, and when an insider-led statistical study of the Germanic-oriented Neopagan movement was made in 2013, it was called The Heathen Census because its creators recognised that "Heathen" "is the term with which most adherents would identify.". So while not every practitioner of this broad and diverse religion is using "Heathenry", a greater number of practitioners are using it as an over-arching catch-all term than any other. It's the closest thing that this religion has to a label like "Christianity" or "Hinduism".

My third, and perhaps the most important point here, is that "Heathenry" remains the most widely used term for this religious movement among those academics who have published studies on the movement. To cite just one example, in her recent study of the religion in the U.S., American Heathens (Temple University Press, 2015), the sociologist Jennifer Snook states that she uses that term over any others "because it is inclusive of all varieties" of this religion in a way that no other word is. (Clearly, she didn't even think of using "Germanic Neopaganism", a designation that she doesn't even mention). Fundamentally, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and thus should follow academic conventions (rather than adopt fringe terms or engage in original research) – there's a reason why academic, peer-reviewed sources are described as the best form of sources in our Reliable Sources policy! Related to this is the fact that many non-academic reliable sources also refer to "Heathenry" when discussing this religious movement: see for instance this BBC Religion page (where, it should be noted, "Germanic Neopaganism" isn't listed as a synonym at all).

I appreciate that there are some valid arguments against the use of "Heathenry" as a title for this article. On the one hand, some practitioners – particularly those who self-designate as Odinist – simply don't like it, and they might not be happy with the change. On the other, there is the fact that the term heathen (which has been used in the English language for over a millennium) has long been used in a pejorative sense, initially to apply to those who continued practicing pre-Christian belief systems in the Early Medieval, and more recently in application to irreligious people. There is thus the potential for a little bit of confusion to arise between "heathenism" as a pejorative term and "Heathenry" the new religious movement. However, it will be abundantly clear to any reader who gets as far as the first few sentences of this article that it is not referring to heathenism as a pejorative but is discussing a new religious movement. Let's give our readers some credit for having a little basic intelligence and being able to differentiate between two very different things.

Ultimately, I do think it fairly apparent (in my opinion at least) that the positive aspects of an alteration to "Heathenry" far outweigh the comparatively minor negatives of using it. At the same time, I think that we lack any firm ground to stand on in using "Germanic neopaganism" in the way that we currently are, due to a chronic lack of support from academic sources, reliable third-party sources more widely, and even the religious community itself. Admittedly, I don't think that we are going to get total consensus on this issue as there will probably continue to be some editors – particularly some of those with a deep personal and emotionally powerful connection to this religious movement – who simply don't like "Heathenry", but I do believe in putting this argument forth anyway and trying to ensure that enough editors (including practitioners, interested outsiders, and those with no connection to the subject whatsoever) recognise the logic and the benefits behind the proposed change and offer their Support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

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

nb, I took the liberty of adding the above 'AfD type' source-search aid. Pincrete (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Pincrete. I think the AfD searches show pretty clearly that of the two, "Heathenry" is the more widely used term. Where "Germanic neopaganism" seems to pop up most is on U.S.-based mainstream media sites, and given that that's the case I think it shows that a great many journalists have been relying on this Misplaced Pages article when writing their articles! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Support as nominator of the change, for the three reasons outlined above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Support for the reasons listed above. Stormkith (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment, while the argument for a change is made very clearly, and ignoring the 'negative' meanings, bare "Heathenry" does not tell me that this is a modern revival of a N. European belief system. "Heathenry (new religious movement)" or somesuch, locates in time, is there some way of locating place ? Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- The Heathen movement is distributed across the Western world; there are communities of practitioners in various parts of Europe, North America, and Australasia. I couldn't say for sure but I think it likely that there at least some isolated practitioners in places like Russia, South Africa, and Latin America too. Thus I think that pinning a location on the movement in the article title might prove problematic. I think that "new religious movement", which is how Heathenry is academically classified, probably offers the best way of making the content of this article clearest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Reading back your comment now, I believe that I misunderstood you; you are asking if there is a way of making reference to Heathenry's "Germanic" orientation in the lede, no ? It would be possible to perhaps change the title to "Heathenry (Germanic-oriented new religious movement)" or something of that nature but frankly I find that a little unwieldy. I do think that "Heathenry (new religious movement)" alone should be enough to do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your second reading was correct, I meant is there some other legitimate way of referring to 'Germanic' origins, the answer is probably not, but "(new religious movement)" or similar takes us 'out of the void'.Pincrete (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Support as this is the generally used term. Pincrete (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. No evidence is presented that this is a common term in general use in English for the subject of the article - because it is not. The nominator also says, without evidence, that this term is used by some practitioners, but that others hate it - so it cannot be used as a self-description either. The current article title might have problems, but Google showed me plenty of examples of use as a self-description. Changing the title would make it worse. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The various search criteria used at AfD (above), suggest the opposite.Pincrete (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree with the anonymous IP's statements. First, I did present evidence that "Heathenry" is a common term in general use in English (that's what the references are there for). Second, just because some practitioners don't like the term doesn't disqualify it from being used as a "self-description" (surely it would just be "description" in this context, no?) of the movement on this Misplaced Pages article. Nowhere in Misplaced Pages policy does it state that we have to use terms that won't possibly cause offence. There are members of almost every religious group, and certainly political and social groups too, who don't like the designation that they are most commonly known under (for instance, many Neo-Nazis insist on being termed "National Socialists" but we still have an article on Neo-Nazism). This doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages has to devise new terms, or fish out very obscure ones, in an attempt to make sure that everyone is happy. Of course, in an ideal scenario there would be a term that all practitioners embraced and that all academics used, but given that that isn't the case i'm just presenting an argument for the most logical option available to us given the constraints of the situation and of Misplaced Pages policy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Strmiska & Sigurvinsson 2005, p. 128 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFStrmiskaSigurvinsson2005 (help); Harvey 2007, p. 53 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFHarvey2007 (help).
Blain 2002, p. 6 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFBlain2002 (help); Gardell 2003, p. 31 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFGardell2003 (help); Blain 2005, p. 181 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFBlain2005 (help); Davy 2007, p. 158 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFDavy2007 (help).
To quote from this website: "This survey was originally called Worldwide Ásatrú Census 2013. When I contacted practitioners from different communities around the world for their input, they all agreed that "heathen" was the most general term – and that it is the term with which most adherents would identify."
Snook 2015, p. 9. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSnook2015 (help)

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

Update

On 2 September User:Sovereign Sentinel – who is otherwise uninvolved in this article – from "Germanic neopaganism" to "Heathenry (new religious movement)" as was the conclusion of the Requested Move discussion, which had been open for a week. Several hours later, User:ThorLives – a longtime contributor to the article – attempted to unilaterally undo this change, by adding a redirect from "Heathenry (new religious movement)" to "Germanic neopaganism", in accordance with their own personal preference. Attempting to undo this act, I then reverted the page so that "Heathenry (new religious movement)" remains its name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives, you can't go against consensus and create a content fork like you've attempted at Germanic neopaganism. If you've got a major problem with the current article title you've got to hash it out here on the talkpage. Edit-warring is not the solution.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@ThorLives: if you want to move the article back to its original location, please start a new move request to determine consensus. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 01:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Social conservatism overstated?

The multiple mentions of Heathenry as socially conservative struck me as an oversimplification, given the Heathen community's diversity of political opinions. While Heathenry does have a larger contingent of conservatives than most pagan religions, there are also a lot of libertarian and left-leaning voices in the Troth, the Asatruarfelagið and other universalist groups. To reflect this, I changed the link to social conservatism in the in the morals & ethics section to instead mention a "focus on family ties and honest living".

The use of "social conservatism" here was following the source material – Jennifer Snook's American Heathens – which has been authored based on the sociologist-come-practitioner's extensive research among Heathens in the United States. Of course there is a great diversity within the Heathen community: as you point out, the Ring of Troth is a lot more centrist or left-leaning than many of the folkish or outright Neo-Nazi Heathen groups who are situated firmly on the right. Nevertheless, the basic emphasis on honor and group loyalty which underlie pretty much all Heathen groups are "socially conservative" in the Western context, even if many of those Heathens also embrace "socially liberal" ideas like feminism, anti-racism, or LGBT rights. I've tried to amend the prose so that it both retains the "social conservatism" term (following Snook's example) while at the same time taking your very valid point under consideration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that we need to be very clear that this is specifically referring to American Heathens. Mainstream American values are considerably different than what one would find in, say, Scandinavia, and would be viewed pretty far to the left among typical Americans. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ethics?

An excellent discussion of ethics should deal with general principles, such as concepts of honor/shame, rather than tangents on current social issues, such as tree planting and nontraditional sexual functions. ThorLives (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't just delete academically-referenced material as you did here, ThorLives, because that can lead us into the nasty and unproductive realms of edit warring. I appreciate your basic point that Heathen responses to LGBT, environmentalist, and heritage issues do not constitute ethical principles in and of themselves, but rather represent prominent social issues which confront the Heathen movement, forcing practitioners to take a stand based upon their moral framework. However, the reliable sources provided by academics studying the Heathen/Germanic Neopagan movement all think that these are issues worthy of discussion, and it is Misplaced Pages policy that we follow their lead. These might not be issues that are of particular concern to your own Odinic ethics (which is fine), but clearly they are issues that have had greater concern for the community more widely, thus warranting their academic discussion and therefore their inclusion here. I think that dismissing them both as "tangents" and as "current social issues" is also deeply misleading given that both the environmentalist and LGBT rights movements are actually older than the modern revival of Heathenry to start with, and both are clearly exerting a fairly significant impact within the movement. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, as I mentioned on your talk page, I respect your lifestyle choices, but there is no place in a small article to discuss sexual issues. Do we also talk about necrophilia, heterosexuality, bestiality, masturbation?

Also, do not think that referencing material somehow makes it valuable. Scientists alone publish 6,000 peer-reviewed journal articles EACH day on earth, but that does not make all of their productions valuable. Cheers --ThorLives (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. --ThorLives (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that you have unilaterally removed these two fully academically referenced paragraphs for a second time (here), and then offered what I personally think is a slightly odd comment at my talk page (here) making it clear that your main issue is with the mention of LGBT issues and Heathenry, I think that the best thing to do is to bring other, un-involved editors in on this one. I think that that is going to be the only productive way forward, and I certainly don't want to get caught up in an edit war. That being the case, I'm taking this to RfC. I hope that that's alright with you? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This section shouldn't have been removed in the first place. Of course, topics such as the environment and sexuality should certainly be handled here. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC pertaining to "Morality and Ethics" section

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Religion and philosophy
History and geography

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Over the past year I have been dramatically expanding and re-writing this article using the range of academic, peer-reviewed studies that have been published on the subject, in the hope of ultimately bringing it up to GA status. As part of this I expanded the sub-section on "Morality and ethics". As I constructed it, this section consisted of four, completely academically-referenced paragraphs. The former two dealt with such issues as ethical guidelines and gender norms within the community. The latter two looked at issues of serious ethical debate within the Heathen community, focusing on such subjects as appropriate sexual behaviour (with particular relevance to the place of LGB Heathens within the community), environmentalism, and attitudes toward archaeology and heritage. All of these issues have been raised as being significant by academic commentators in their study of the Heathen new religious movement and thus I certainly thought them worthy of mention within this Misplaced Pages article too.

Earlier today, User:ThorLives removed those latter two paragraphs with the statement that in doing so they were "keeping it simple". I was concerned that this was simply sweeping pertinent ethical issues under the rug because of one editors' personal opinion on the relevance of those issues - an opinion that wasn't in accordance with the academic studies of the subject. Thus, I restored those paragraphs (and thus initiating the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), arguing that it was not appropriate to delete such academically-referenced information unilaterally. However, they then simply removed the information for a second time, posting a rather odd message onto both my talk page and this talk page stating that while they "respect lifestyle choices" (and therefore assuming that because I am interested in LGBT issues I must be LGBT?), they still believe that information on the LGB-themed ethical issues that the Heathen community faces were not important enough to be discussed in the article, regardless of what academics have written on the subject. Clearly ThorLives – a self-described Odinist who clearly and understandably cares a great deal about this religion and the way that it is being presented on Misplaced Pages – is well intentioned but I do disagree with their point of view and the way that they have repeatedly deleted these paragraphs without any support from other editors. Fearing that there would simply be an endless edit war that emerged from the situation, I thought it best to take this issue to RFC, so that un-involved editors can have their say on this issue and we can hopefully come up with a compromise. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

PROPER PLACE FOR MATERIAL ON SEX AND RELIGION

For editors wishing to discuss sexual issues and religion, please post here:

Religion and sexuality Misplaced Pages is massive. There is room for everyone. --ThorLives (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As I've said before, these paragraphs regarding environmentalism and sexuality should be restored. We're producing an article here via secondary sources. This should not in any way be influenced by whatever beliefs a user may personally have on the matter. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we have any other editors' views on the issue ? And ThorLives, please stop adding both un-referenced information and information from first-hand, Heathen sources. If this article is to get anywhere in the GA-to-FA scale we have to focus almost exclusively on the use of academic, secondary sources. If you feel that there is important information about Heathenry not being reflected in these academic sources, why not write a paper on the subject yourself and publish it in an academic, peer-reviewed outlet like The Pomegranate ? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Snook Source

Snook's 2015 American Heathens: The Politics of Identity in a Pagan Religious Movement is cited throughout the article in a general manner. Correct me if I am wrong, but Snook's monograph seems to refer solely to American Heathenry. If so, we need to be very explicit that only US Heathenry is being referred to. Statements such as "Among male Heathens there is a trend toward hypermasculanized behavior, while a gendered division of labor – in which men are viewed as providers and women seen as being responsible for home and children – is also widespread among Heathens." are particularly problematic outside of the US. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I was responsible for adding the Snook information, and yes you are quite right, the book is devoted to the U.S. scene specifically. Thus, I agree with your general point that on this article we should be clear when referring to the U.S. Heathens specifically, and will try and make some prose edits accordingly. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Germanization of the article

This article is progressively becoming "Germanized." The use of "heathen," as opposed to the more proper "pagan" (no doubt rejected because it has Latin and French roots), and also constant references to "Germanic religion," even though most of our material comes from Scandinavia, or, more properly, Iceland.--ThorLives (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

In the archaeological and historical literature, Iron Age and Early Medieval Scandinavia (and the Scandinavian settlements in places like Iceland) are categorised as "Germanic" for they speak Germanic languages, exhibit a "Germanic" material culture, and thus are termed "Germanic peoples". Hence, within this context, Scandinavia is as Germanic as Germany itself. Introducing wording such as "Germanic paganism and/or Norse Paganism" simply confuses things because it presents the two as being distinct phenomenon, whereas in reality one is simply a sub-set of the other. With regard to the question of "Heathen", it is important to distinguish between heathen the Early Medieval term for pagan, and "Heathen" as a term that has come to be very widely used for Germanic-oriented contemporary Pagan religions, whether Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, or continental-oriented in nature. Thus I would disagree with the idea that using terms like "Germanic" and "Heathen" within this article skew it away from any focus on Scandinavian-based and Nordic-based traditions. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

And ThorLives, if you're going to make sweeping changes to parts of the article, as you did earlier today, that entail both the removal of academically-referenced information and its replacement with poorly referenced text, please just ask us here at the Talk Page first so that it can be discussed. Otherwise edit wars ensue. If you want to make small additions, using academic sources devoted to this new religious movement (not about pre-Christian belief systems themselves) then that's great, but if you have something in mind that it is clearly going to be controversial, please just talk to myself, Bloodofox, and others first. Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories: