Talk:Germanic Neopaganism

Neopaganism?

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

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

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

Massive changes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frisians are not Franks

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

Heathen/Pagan - non-Pejorative alternatives?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear ThorLives,

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Please Restore page to the NEUTRAL Heading of Germanic Neopaganism.

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

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

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

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

Amazon book search for Asatru:

Amazon book search for Odinism:

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break for editing's sake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology -> "branches"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewrite tag

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

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

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

Bloodofox, thank you for your action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dubious Sources

Once again, the questionable sources are returning.

A forum with 72 posters:

Heathen Journal Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last call for sources on potential page move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move

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

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

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

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

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

Heathen in the Oxford English Dictionary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of heathen groups?

This article was original populated with several kindreds and other various heathen groups, which have now been removed. In the UK there are many kindreds and theods that do not opperate under the OR, which have been removed. This article is clearly biased and does not accuratly represent modern heathenr or 'Germanic Neopaganism' in all its forms.Exile x2 (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

By all means add or restore any material on groups for which there is a reliable source. And I don't mean the New York Times, anything more than a one-off blog would do for me! This article is NOT clearly biased; as a non-Heathen I cannot detect any leaning towards or away from any particular group/s, on the contrary it seems pretty well balanced to me. Further material to fill it out more would be great of course, and adding material to the article is actually more important than discussions about the title which are currently going on. So don't just complain on the talk page, Exile x2 - get on the article and fix it! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Exile, I think this revision of the article is currently the best one and should be restored and mended in what is considered wrong of it. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 10:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Your work is certainly appreciated, but we've moved past using that draft. How about simply suggesting folks refer to it for possible information instead? We need to remember that information provided by any religious group about itself is a primary source, and thus is not considered reliable. That seems to be particularly contentious in this context, since the individual groups are all fiercely independent, and each one seems to feel slighted if their particular style is not mentioned. Let's aggressively stick to secondary sources so we can fairly assess what needs to be covered.--~TPW 12:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I know you prefer that version Blegkorbh, and in fact I suspect we are only disagreeing about means, not ends. You'd like some of the well-sourced information that has been removed to be restored. I'd like some of the unsourced information that was more recently added to be removed. Between us we could work to a median position that could be identical! When I made this reversion it was not intended to be back to a perfect state. Indeed, to show good faith I immediately started to go back and I restored 5k worth of text which seemed to be well sourced. To try and show continued good faith, I'll go back to my 47k deletion today and see what else is salvageable.

Between us we have spent more time on the talk page and written far more text than we have on the article itself. I think it's time we attended to the article. I'm going to carry on restoring well sourced text, and removing unsourced material, in the service of improving it. That will speak more convincingly than any amount of talk page contributions from me! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's another 5k of text restored; I have worked down to (but not started on) restoring text to the History section. If anyone else would like to look at this reversion of mine, to pick out what I removed which could defensibly be restored, that would be great. There is some good stuff which I have not restored, concerning Wyrd, Orlog, Rita and Yggdrasil. The reason I haven't restored it here is because I think it's a little too detailed, and belongs in those articles rather than here at the top level article. I know it's a judgement call, but the danger is that if you keep adding stuff here this article just gets too big to be read and understood as a whole. I think we have enough material here now to let this article be the parent of a large family, and that means some information has to "leave home" and set up it's own house elsewhere - while maintaining links both ways, of course!

Please, all of you who have posted so enthusiastically on this talk page, join me in trying to improve the article now! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please Do Not Close Debate

First of all, this entire discussion is occurring during a major holiday in the USA, and the timing is bad. I myself am traveling and cannot devote the proper time to this discussion.

Secondly, the concerns of two administrators, Dbachmann and Bloodofox, are being ignore. The first deleted material that is now being restored, and the second asked for a complete rewrite. The first also restored the article to Germanic Neopaganism.

Finally, the entire point of wikipedia is to create articles that can be found. The average person does not think of heathenism as Odinism or Asatru or Germanic paganism. Indeed, in America, a heathen is what Aunt Esther called Fred Sanford in the Sanford and Son television show. Sad, but true.

--ThorLives (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I live in Europe and don't celebrate Thanksgiving - but I'm not going to take a holiday just because it's being observed elsewhere in the world, sorry! In any case, my first set of re-additions happened days ago with no objections.

Now, nobody has closed the debate. The talk page is always open.... I am rewriting the article by taking what was well-sourced in the previous long (105k) version and restoring it. As I am not an expert in the field this is the best I can do - nobody else has come forward to rewrite it so I feel justified in doing so. I have NOT restored everything; far from it, about half of what was there is still gone. If you disagree with any instances of my rewrite, then please be specific! You've made a number of complaints in very general terms about the article but never made any specific suggestions for improvement; why not do that, so we can see what the objections actually are? Ideally, improve the article by adding well-sourced material that fills in gaps in the coverage!

If your final point was about the naming - there will be redirects so anybody searching for any of those terms would be redirected to the right place. You need to make your point in the section of this page that discusses renaming, but it would be best if you could point to a source which supports your point. --Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk)

I report that roughly two days ago Hengest, the Internet Information Officer of the Odinic Rite, intervened here with this message stating ThorLives isn't a member of Odinic Rite or any other of the organisations which belong to the Odinist lineage, and he has been exploiting the Odinic Rite name to give undue authority to his personal opinions. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 11:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Blegkorbh, there's really no need to post a diff to a contribution which is already on this page for all to see (and which I read and noted when it was first made.) I must say the original didn't add anything to the discussion here for me in any case: whether a person is or is not a member of a particular group cannot ever be proven here and therefore any claims ever made of that sort neither strengthen nor weaken editorial arguments. The only arguments that count are those which rest on one or the five pillars of Wikipdia. I have not given any extra weight to ThorLives's opinions because of any knowledge or status he claims, as I would not to you whatever your status or experience might be.

My guess is that there is some kind of inter-group conflict being played out here, and that both of you potentially have WP:COI and possibly WP:NPOV problems. That's not a problem as long as you each acknowledge your positions and try not to let them interfere with writing this encyclopaedia. But at the end of the day that is why we are here, and not to allow your or anyone else to use WP as another venue for an ongoing battle. I neither know nor care what the battle is - except that of there are WP:RS who describe it, it would be good to have it noted in the article.

Now, could we spend less time on talk-page politics and more on actually improving this article? If there are inaccuracies, correct them. If there are missing sources, insert them. If there are whole sections missing, find sources and write them. Sorry for the cross voice and stampy foot here, but eventually we have to write this encyclopaedia! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am not a member of any group, I am an independent Heathen with some affinity to Odinism (the Odinist branch of Heathenry) regarding my strongly conservative socio-political positions. The version of the article I contributed to write was utterly NPOV describing the various Heathen denominations, theological stances, political stances, thus I don't understand these continuous claims of non-neutrality of user ThorLives. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 12:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anything for ThorLives, I know nothing about him or you except that you can neither of you seem to leave the other alone on this tyalk page, and I haven't seen either of you actually contribute anything to the writing of the article. I'm not going to try any further to encourage the pair of you and won't respond further to discussions about process. If either of you wants to controbute to or discuss CONTENT that would be great! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the biggest issue; sources. If the websites and publications of individual groups is not permissible as credible then it is impossible to make it known that in the UK any Heathen, Asatru or Odinist group exists other that the OR. The information about the OR is correct, and they are a Germanic neopagan group so therefore no one can object to them being present on the page, however it would be like the neo-druidism page having S.W.O.R.D. on there but not the Cotswolds and others. The Druidism page mentions OBOD, BDO and the Druid Network demonstrating various groups exist in the UK. Anyone reading the Wiki page for "Heathenry" who did not have knowledge of the various groups in the UK would believe that only the OR exist in the UK which is completely incorrect. My suggestion is that the UK section of the page be totally removed until a consensus of what evidence is acceptable can be reach allowing a wider range of groups to be listed. Generally Heathen groups in the UK do not make news headlines or get written about by anyone outside of Heathen circles Noddyt (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at that specific section until you mentioned it, Noddyt. On looking, it stated that the Rite was one of the first pagan organisations to be granted charitable status so it seemed to me that there must be reliable sources which confirmed this. I found some and have sourced this section rather than deleting it; I suspect from the little I have found that there is a long and controversial story there!! However we cannot rely on what editors here might know of the back story and must instead go with the sources; in this case the Charity Commission, the Independent newspaper, and an academic paper delivered at an international conference.

I fully realise that this leaves the UK slot populated only by the OR and its successors, but rather than deleting this well-sourced material what we now need to do is find sources for the other branches of Heathenism in the UK. Can someone help with these? (I will look myself, but as I don't know what to look for, I start at a disadvantage!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's not make this a British discussion. Odinism and Asatru are found around the globe, so we must think globally.

I repeat my suggestion that Germanic Neopaganism is best because it offends no one. We all have our favorites (note the American spelling), and mine is Odinism. Steve Mcnallen likes Asatru. Our "heathen" friend here likes "heathen." But, Germanic Neopaganism offends no one.--ThorLives (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

ThorLives: you totally miss the point of everything I have said, I have no objection to Germanic Neopaganism as that covers all reconstructions, revivals and modern inventions based on the pre-Christian religions of the Germanic people, I agree that it is a good name for the Wiki entry. My objections and complaints about this entry is the bias placed on the OR in the UK due to the rest of the UK Heathen community keeping out of the news headlines and just getting on with being Heathen. Because Wikipedia is not allowing the groups' websites and publications as evidence that they exist they are effectively invisible to anyone reading the entry. People with no knowledge of Germanic Neopagan groups in the UK would be left believing that only the OR and OF exist which is completely incorrect. Your argument for the term "Odinism" is irrelevant to my concerns and has only made it more difficult to accurately discuss and write about the state of UK Heathenry, Asatru, Vantru and Odinism. Noddyt (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Noddyt, regarding the noteworthiness or not of the UK section... I did find some reliable sources for the stuff regarding the OR - indeed when I realised they had acquired charitable status I felt sure there must have been some independent reporting of the fact, which proved to be the case. This being so, the material on the OR must stay, because the sources demonstrate their notability. I do understand the point about other groups, but the hard line is this: if they have (perhaps deliberately) kept their profile lower than that of the OR and have escaped public notice then by definition they cannot and need not be mentioned here. This is an encyclopaedia and not a definitive list of all notable and non-notable Heathen groups.

However my line is somewhat softer. I accept (as a fellow Pagan myself) that the Guardian and the New York Times are not necessarily going to be aware of all the groups who are out there. But there are some sources which, in the context of paganism, I'd regard as equally reliable. In the UK, Pagan Dawn and The Cauldron, for example. Internationally, The Pomegranate for sure. Then there are books by Jenny Blain and other heathen authors. If we can establish a group's existence, then it is OK to use their own website or blog, per WP:SELF, simply to furnish some information about what they say about themselves. If the only evidence for a group's existence is their own material, then it is harder to mention them here. They could just be a hearth of a dozen folks and this is not the place to list every sub-group, any more than the Wicca page is one to list every coven in existence!

So if you can suggest any other groups who should be mentioned, I'll try and see what sources I can chase up to verify their existence and balance the UK discussion a bit. Of course, the same logic can be applied to all the national/regoinal sections of the article - but let's take one step at a time! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify for any editors that have come to this page via the RM (as I myself was confused at first), Kim Dent-Brown's use of OR above is short for Odinic Rite, not WP:OR. :) - SudoGhost 00:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, and thank you for pointing out me slipping into confusing jargon! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It is significant that when I GOOGLE "heathen" in the USA, the first group to come up (it is number 55 in the search) is an atheist site!

http://www.heathen-hangout.com/ --ThorLives (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

ThorLives, had you searched for 'Heathenry', you would have come across the following: http://www.englatheod.org/ (number 8 in the search) http://www.holyspring.org/Heathenry.htm (number 10 in the search) http://fyrnsidu.org/ (number 12 in the search) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ukheathenry/ (number 15 in the search) http://odinsvolk.ca/O.V.A.%20-%20SACRED%20SYMBOLS2.htm (number 16 in the search) http://www.tworavenskindred.org/asatru.html (number 30 in the search) https://www.facebook.com/pages/Berks-County-Asatru-Heathenry/154265971250533 (number 32 in the search) I think that is more significant. Elswyth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.43.9 (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Now google ASATRU. The groups, forums, and sites that pop up are far TOO NUMEROUS to list here. And ALL the hits refer to the subject under discussion. Next, google Odinism. Also impressive. --ThorLives (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A Google search is not going to distinguish between reliable sources and others; see WP:GOOGLE for some cautionary words on why this cannot be the deciding factor on the correct page name. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thor Lives, you haven't yet understood that "Odinism" and "Asatru" are names for specific denominations ("Odinism" is the doctrine of the OR and groups sprung out from the same lineage; "Asatru" is Reconstructionist Norse Heathenism, different from "Forn Sidhr" which is Folkist Norse Heathenism, a distinction which is very well remarkable in Scandinavian organisations), and they're NOT blanket terms. What is being discussed here is which blanket term to use, and the options are "Germanic Neopaganism" and "Heathenism". --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 10:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Search "Heathenism" through Google and you'll find even more groups, kindreds, information pages, papers, journals about Germanic Paganism than those linked above by Elswyth. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 10:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits here for the past several months have tried to create the illusion that “Odinism” and Asatru are separate denominations under a larger religion, but that is disinformation.

In the mid-20th century, when Rudd Mills was active, all devotees to the Gods were called Odinist. In the 1970’s, when McNallen, Yeowell, and Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson began their work, they coined a synonym, Asatru.

Since the last three were or are friends of mine, I am certain of this fact. --ThorLives (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not individuals find the term "heathen" to be offensive shouldn't be taken into consideration for multiple reasons. Thorlives, you are quite mistaken when you claim that "Germanic neoPaganism offends no one". It offends many people. Particularly in the United States it offends MOST heathens. Your championing of the word "Pagan" over "heathen" is illogical due to the fact that "pagan" was and still is used as an "insult hurled at friends of the old gods" in the same way that "heathen" is. Pagan ALSO meant country dweller. The difference between the two however in how they have developed are pretty vast. The argument FOR "heathen" variants has a lot of support both in modern groups, and in acadamia. Consider these points. A) aside from Forn Sidr, or the names of individual germanic tribes, Heathen is the only term that was a naturally germanic term that was used to refer to prechristian germanic people. It appears first in Gothic but appears in Beowulf, Anglo Saxon Law, and in the Sagas, with a good example being the Death scene of Hakon the Good "To the Heathen Gods he fared", when he was buried "by heathens". B) It is still used and understood in Academic circles, particularly among medieval historians to refer to prechristian germanic people SPECIFICALLY. C) A large portion of modern heathens refer to themselves as heathen BECAUSE they are focused on reconstructing specific cultural and religious traditions that are referred to in academic texts as well as medieval sources as "heathen". The online journal Odroerir has already been mentioned, as has the Journal for Contemporary Heathen Thought. The Troth uses the word "heathen" over "pagan", as do most independent kindreds. These exemplify the very real existence of a very large group of people who refer to themselves as "heathen". You will find more groups that Identify as "heathen" than as "pagan", so because of your own strange problem with the word, your intentionally creating a misperception that "pagan" is more appropriate than the word "heathen" when both are equally insulting, and "pagan" historically and contemporarily refers more to Mediterranean based and even more so WICCAN groups, while "heathen" historically and contemporarily refers to central and northern Euorpean polytheists. It should ALSO be noted that "heathens", particularly in America tend to NOT approve of being called or lumped into an umbrella term of "Neopaganism". A) Paganism was never a term used to refer to the religion of the Germanic tribes by any medieval source during the period that heathenism existed. So to call them "pagan" is inaccurate. B) We must take into account modern umbrella terms and groups and how they associate...heathens have big issues with being lumped in with groups that identify as "pagan", and fairly often there is open hostility BETWEEN "Pagans" and "Heathens". Because ALL of these terms being offered are nebulous, no one term will ever be fully agreed on, but between "pagan" and "heathen", heathen is used much more widely in germanic...."heathen" circles, and it is more consistent with acadamia and linguistics. There is no reason to use a latin term that is synonymous with the germanic term to refer to germanic traditions. The only reason this is a debate is because of ignorance and misconceptions pertaining to the words "Pagan" and "Heathen".

Due to the above information, the most accurate and least offensive title for the page should be- "Contemporary Germanic Heathenism". You can try and write off the word "heathen" as a juvenile attempt to make parents uncomfortable, but that only speaks volumes about your own ignorance pertaining to both the terms "heathen" and "pagan". The only reason "pagan" is remotely acceptable of a term now is due to the Wiccan movement, which, last time I checked, we were not a part of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.63.82 (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course pagan began as "country dweller," but language changed my friend. By the Romantic period in the modern west, paganism came to be seen as a form of aesthetic ideal, a kind of free-spirited person without the grim life-denying trappings of Christianity. Swinburne: "Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean; the world has grown grey from thy breath; We have drunken of things Lethean, and fed on the fullness of death." Also see Nietzsche--ThorLives (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a citation from a verifiable source of a newspaper exactly on point to this issue noting the use of the term Heathen repeatedly. http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-11-30/news/america-s-top-heathen-dan-halloran-city-council/ --dscarron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.204.58 (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my point, that pagan and heathen are not the same, it is a common error to assume that if two words from two different languages have the same meanings, that they retain these identical meanings when the words pass into English.

The English word “agnostic” is derived from Greek and means “no knowledge.” The English word “ignoramus” is derived from the Latin which also means “no knowledge.” In English, are agnostic and ignoramus the same in meaning?

Another example: the word “shit” is derived from a good Anglo-Saxon word for a certain substance. The English word feces is derived from a Latin word for the same substance. Are the words exact equivalents in educated discourse? --ThorLives (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Proceeding towards a page move

It has been pointed out to me that admins at WP:RM need to have a specific proposal for a move on which they can form an opinion (old page vs proposed page). Presenting a list of options is not helpful. I will in due course post a request at WP:RM with the old page being obvious - Germanic Neopaganism - but what to present as the proposed new page?

There have been several suggestions thus far, many of which have got lost in the walls of supporting and objecting text. Could I ask that people edit the blank list below with the name/s they would like to be considered as alternatives. I would then propose a poll (yes, accepting that WP:POLL discourages them!) to decide the challenger - exactly like the America's cup, now I come to think of it! I will close this list once 24 hours have gone by with no new additions.

Please do not add anything to this list except suggestions for a new name. Comments and arguments for and against in a new section please - preferably ones we have not heard before...

*Heathenism (modern pagan religion)*Heathenism (contemporary) *New name 3

• New name 4
• New name 5
• New name 6

(Add further bullets if needed) Many thanks, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Admins have not much to do with the RM process, except for closing. A specific suggestion is needed if you expect a consensus to form around it, by us editors. We've probably had enough proposals and random discussion already that someone who has a clear opinion could pick one and propose it as the new name, and see if it flies. Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dick, trouble is as I see it that anyone with a clear opinion would be likely to have it immediately and forcibly disagreed with by several other editors... I think the likeliest candidate for an alternative is something like "Heathenism (modern pagan religion)" so I have put that first on the list. However, I do not expect for a moment that others will agree this is the best candidate to run against the incumbent title, hence my proposal that we list the potential challengers then vote (yes, vote - not !vote...) to select one. Unfortunately I think the alternative would be a long series of alternatives lining up to be checked off one by one at WP:RM. This way I hope we'll select the best alternative to the current title, ie the one with the best chance of supplanting it. If it's unsuccessful, then that (for me) calls a halt to the process and we stick with this name. BTW, I should point out that although I've taken it on myself to devise this procedure, I'm actually OK with the existing name... but it seems to have generated a lot of debate and I think we need to close this definitively one way or the other.

Of course this procedure is entirely my own idea and others may object to it. In which case unless someone can suggest a better way, we must either stick with the existing name or leave it up to individuals to take alternatives to WP:RM. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Heathenism (contemporary)" for evenness with "Paganism (contemporary)". --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 22:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added this to the list above. Any other candidates, please feel free to add them directly to the list folks. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Leave the page as it is Germanic Neopaganism. Germanic Neopaganism is a neutral name that excites no one and offends no one. Wikipedia is based on neutrality and consensus. Heaathenism is a pejorative term. and it is used by marginal groups, such as the Temple of the Heathen Gods (eight members)--ThorLives (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As more than 24 hours have elapsed with no further suggestions, I have placed the request move template below. Please comment in the appropriate space below, as concisely as you can and ideally with reference to reliable sources and Wikipedia policies. The discussion will be concluded after 7 days and a decision reached by the good people at WP:RM. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

FYI: User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Germanic Neopaganism → Heathenism (contemporary) — There has been much discussion and at least one hasty move of this page. Recently a lengthy discussion at the talk page has arrived at two contenbders: the existing title and this proposed new one. Please note that both are disputed and the choice is not therefore straightfroward. Arguments for and against both are given at length on the article talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose No sign above that this is common usage, and since "Heathenry", now archaic, was originally formed in Anglosaxon chiefly to refer to Mediterranean paganism, it will confuse the casual reader. JCScaliger (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support As someone inside international Heathen circles "Heathenry" is now the most commonly used word to describe the collection of belief systems based on early medieval Germanic religions. As for it being used to describe Mediterranean paganism I would suggest reading Bede, for example when describing November he says "forðon ure yldran, ða hy hæðene wæron" "because our ancestors, at that time they were heathen" he is describing the English people not Mediterranean. I concede that hæðen and its cognates in other languages was used as a gloss for the Latin paganus when translating from Latin. Noddyt (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Heathenism. Article should remain Germanic Neopaganism. The Oxford English dictionary, which lists definitions in order of usage frequency, defines heathen as "chiefly derogatory." It also defines heathen as "a person regarded as lacking culture or moral principles." --ThorLives (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Reasons already discussed. @JCScalinger: what you have written is not true, "Heathenism" is the Germanic term that was used for local (Germanic) ethnic religions, not for the Mediterranean ones. You can find it in other Germanic languages too, as Heidentum, Hedendom, Heidhni, etc. I suggest you to read something about the etymology and history of the word. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 14:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The OED gives two possible etymologies for the common Germanic root of 'heathen'. Both observe that Ulfilas used the feminine of haiþnô in Mark 7;26, for the Greek of Syrophoenician descent; one has it as a translation of paganus, the other as from Armenian het῾anos from Greek ethnos. All three are Mediterranean. JCScaliger (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, but marginally so. This is a very close call and I can see the arguments against both options very clearly. I think Germanic Neopaganism is the least worst option because it requires less explanation than Heathenism. Imagine a reader seeing the two titles and trying to work out, from the title alone, what the subject might be; I think the first title is a little more unambiguous and informative. I accept completely the arguments that most practitioners of these religions would prefer Heathen. However (a) clearly this is not unanimous and (b) we have other examples - eg Quakers - where an article on a religious group uses a different name than that group does for itself. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unless there's some previous discussion I've overlooked (I'm not seeing one), nothing has established that Heathenism (contemporary) is a neutral descriptive title, nor that it is the common name (I highly suspect that, due to the nature of the article's subject, establishing a clear common name would be unlikely). As per WP:TITLECHANGES, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." That some individuals and groups use "Heathenism" to describe their faith is not reason alone to change the title, given that the title being proposed is not an uncontroversial one (the word Heathen is still a pejorative word where I live) and the fact that "Heathenism" has not been established to be anything other than one of many descriptors used for the article's subject. - SudoGhost 18:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Heathenry A phrasing like "Germanic Neopaganism," while wholly appropriate as an etic decriptor, is not generally used as an emic identifier within the community it describes. Titling this page "Germanic Neopaganism" would be like titling the page on Christianity "Greco-Hebraic Monotheism." It would be a somewhat accurate third party description of what Christianity is, but, since Christians have a preferred term used to refer to themselves, that's given in place. It's the same story with the term "Heathenry."Frater S.E.R.V.O. (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Christianity is indisputably the WP:COMMONNAME for that article's subject, and is uncontroversial in nature. "Heathenry" is neither of those things. Some groups identify themselves as Heathens, but far from all of them. But to use your example, Germanic Neopaganism is not comparable to Christianity, but is instead comparable to Abrahamic monotheism, which is to Christianity what "Germanic Neopaganism" is to the various related faiths therein. - SudoGhost 06:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Heathenism is comparable to Christianity, while is Paganism which is comparable to Abrahamic monotheism, being "Paganism" the collective label for European traditional religions. "Heathenism" is the umbrella term for religious movements with roots in Germanic culture. Heathenism, the Germanic ethnic religions, is also comparable to Hinduism, the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian ethnic religions. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 19:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Teutonic Heathenism (change to 'Teutonic,' or keep 'Germanic,' whichever other word is decided on.) Paganism/heathenism are synonyms, and though neither are fully relevant here, each word has been used similarly by non-adherents and is preferred by and alternatively offends (is used pejoritavely) various religious Teutonists/Germanists (interestingly, Hellenismos, Slavianstvo, Celtism, though perhaps a Celtic translation instead of the latter, are used by those ethnic religions without the once more pejorative 'pagan'/'heathen,' but a Teutonic one has not come into use.) The clear solution is use the more Teutonic, not Latin word. I am against using 'neo' and 'contemporary,' though 'reconstructionism' might be ok (IF you can prove none are traditional lineages.) 'Contemporary' is not used for articles on the major religions and their sects, though in several cases a strong case can be made for it, and I will be offended if it is used here.--Dchmelik (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that Heathen itself is considered an offensive pejorative, do you have any policy or reference based reasons to support the move? - SudoGhost 21:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Note that further discussion should be in this section someone made, not in people's survey answers above, which is distracting to those who will count the results.

I feel there has been enough discussion and did not really want to add more, but this was my reply to SudoGhost, revised. I like neither 'pagan' nor 'heathen,' and as I said in my survey answer, both are pejorative and offencive. I wish that Teutonic 'pagans/heathens' would use a religious term for their ethnicity, like basically all other European ethnic groups do. Both terms are in common use, as you can find references for in the articles, from 'pagans/heathens' in person, on the 'net, and in the long previous discussion. I am merely in favour of using the Germanic, rather than Latin, pejorative term, as a lesser evil. Even if anyone would argue one was more pejorative, that is not really the point. Even if 'pagan' is supposedly less pejorative, which I do not recall anyone giving a reasonable argument for, part of the point is that 'pagan' is a pejorative term for non-Abrahamists from a viewpoint of the Christian Roman empires and societies whose language they influenced, which basically excludes Scandinavia. The other part of the point is some, but not all, adherents of non-Abrahamic European religions started to use 'pagan' as a non-pejorative, but the same is true of 'heathen' (merely a translation of 'pagan' present in all Germanic languages, though 'pagan' is not) and though I feel both terms are inadequate, a more proper term for Teutonic 'paganism/heathenism' is a word common to all Teutonic cultures. Just as Hellenists do not call traditional followers of Hecate (Greek goddess of magic) 'Wiccans' (a Germanic word,) there is no reliable reason to call Germanic 'heathens' 'pagan.'--Dchmelik (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Their different origins and histories has led to different modern connotations of these terms. In my understanding, and with at least partial support from a few dictionaries I looked at, pagan is more about what kind of gods one believes in, while heathen is more about how (un)civilized one is. No doubt these connotations vary regionally, but I think my interpretation is common in most of the U.S. at least. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Towards fixing this

Since we seem to have overcome the "Heathenism" red herring now, can we please go back to actual article content, and either fix or undo the recent article deterioration? A lot of work has gone into building this article into an encyclopedic and neutral overview of the topic. While I understand that there will always be misguided additions, it should be straightforward to undo them. But I do not have much patience with editors who run rough-shod over a developed article and then start wikidrama when they are reverted.

The section "terminology and groupings" is a disaster. This is an extremely difficult topic to cover, precisely because the vast majority of sources are primary, non-neutral and poorly informed. You cannot base the article on googling neopagan websites. Anything on this page will need to be based on quotable secondary literature. It is extremely difficult to discuss terminology, because people using this terminology refuse to educate themselves. So terminology is extremely unstable. It is important to discuss "terminology" separate from "groupings". "Asatru" is not a "denomination" within Germanic neopaganism. This is complete nonsense. It may or may not be used in the sense of a "denomination" by some people, but then you will always find "some people" with extremely idiosyncratic terminology. The question is why these people and not other the idiosyncracy of others should be allowed to dictate the terminology used in Wikipedia's voice. The answer is, of course, that they should not. Another thing on Wikipedia is, of course, that if somebody turns an article into an unreferenced mess, their edits should be reverted. --dab (𒁳) 11:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you think you could be any more insulting to practising Heathens, Asatruars, Odinists and Theodist? This whole article is becoming a farce about a community written by people outside of that community who continually tell the people within that community they are wrong or don't understand their own community. To be honest Wikipedia would be better if this article was deleted. Noddyt (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Each of you has criticisms of the article; why not improve it with some well-sourced additions? This would be a good, constructive way of using everyone's time. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work; I disagree that we should delete it!

I agree with that the denominational verbiage is nonsense. May we begin by tightening up the lead material?

May I also suggest that we first remove self-published books, references that are blogs, and other inappropriate sources? --ThorLives (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What if we replace the first paragraph with this opening statement:

Germanic neopaganism (also known as Ásatrú, Odinism, Forn Siðr, Theodism, Wotanism, and Heathenism), is Germanic paganism in the modern world. Although most surviving sources for the religion originate in Iceland, the movement is found in many countries across the planet. --ThorLives (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I can actually agree with you on the first sentence, it makes perfect sense and cure most ills, I am not sure the second sentence is needed and may muddy the waters made clear by the first. I principle I support such an edit. Regarding the "well referenced" stuff, we will always hit a brick wall. Heathenry (Asatru et. al.) does not make much noise. It is not written about much by outsiders either academic or journalistic (except when dragging us into the "racist camp") so this only leaves sources authored by people within our community which then apparently means in Wikipedia's eyes this writing is "poorly informed" and by people who "refuse to educate themselves"! Noddyt (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Noddyt; I'm not as pessimistic as you. There are some good academic authors within the Heathen community (Jenny Blain to name but one) and we can certainly use them. Furthermore, I think with care we can use some self-published sources because they give information about groups' own views. As long as we carefully follow the guidelines from that blue link and exercise due editorial judgement I'm sure we can source this adequately. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The article has been destroyed

It's ridiculous how a handful of users have totally destroyed the article removing a lot of informations and sources. --95.248.79.81 (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but am willing to assume good faith and give them time to fix it. If not soon done, we can just roll back the changes, no worries. Cheers, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Without specifics to talk about, I can't agree with this rather dramatic assertion. I don't see the article having been totally destroyed. It's only a handful of users who ever contribute to articles, to be honest. It's not as if there's a huge constituency of editors whose work is being over-ridden - if there were, they'd have resisted the changes that have been made! But anyone of course can (and should) feel welcome to improve the article further by adding referenced and sourced information; if sources have been removed which could still benefit the article, then by all means let's have them in! I wouldn't suggest rolling back to a previous version as this will delete useful as well as problematic changes, but by all means reword and reinsert valuable information which has been lost. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any "useful change" since two months ago, just an enormous loss of material. --79.10.89.116 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Then quit complaining on the talk page, and rework the stuff you miss into the article! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been a week since the OP from an IP editor about the quality of this article, but I don't see any changes being discussed here or made to the main article. I know there's been a divergence of opinion about what should be included here and whether the article is currently in better or worse shape than in the past. Whichever our opinion, I'm sure it can be improved! I'm willing and able to edit from a position of semi-independence (for which read semi-ignorance). I'm pagan and therefore sympathetic, but Wiccan and therefore not knowledgable about the fine detail of this topic. I'm happy to do editorial-style contributions such as copyediting, staying NPOV, judging sources etc but I'm not in the best position to write new content. Anyone care to join me in improving this article? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

\

I have been holding back because I do not want to start another editing war.

In my opinion, the article needs to be clearer. Instead of making artificial distinctions between Asatru and Odinism and so forth, we need to address theology, ethics, eschatology, and so forth in depth. --ThorLives (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

New Source for "Heathen" Title

In the hopes of providing a more credible source for the "Heathen" designation, I present Barbara Jane Davy's Introduction to Pagan Studies, which is published by Altamira Press (2007) as part of the Pagan Studies series of books sponsored by Wendy Griffin (California State University, Long Beach) and Chas S. Clifton (University of Southern Colorado). On page 158 of the "Denominations" chapter, she writes: "Norse and Germanic reconstructionist traditions are collectively called Heathenry."Frater S.E.R.V.O. (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but - no! The title for this page has been agreed and IMO any reconsideration of this needs to wait several months at least. There's no point having a discussion and decision if whichever side loses it immediately reopens debate. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Manipulation of the poll

The survey of December 2011 was held to determine whether to use "Germanic Neopaganism" or "Heathenism" as the title of the article and the main colletive name for the religion here in Wikipedia. The contents of the article were not a matter of discussion. Despite the prevalence of "Heathenism" among Heathens themselves the poll result was for "Germanic Neopaganism" and the title of the article remained such.

Afterwards however user Dbachmann and user ThorLives exploited the result of the poll to modify the leading part of the article imposing one more time their unsourced and confused view of the Heathen Movement. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 10:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bhlegkorbh, firstly the title for this section is very misleading! When I saw it on my watchlist I reasonably assumed that you were complaining that the decision making process (poll) itself had been manipulated. I assume from what you have written above that this isn't actually the case; what I understand you to mean is that you believe others have subsequently made use of the result to (in your eyes unfairly) manipulate the article. If as you maintain their views are unsourced and confusing then the answer is very simple; improve their editing by rewriting it to remove the confusion and add the missing sources.

Secondly I'm going to make a general point that is NOT exclusively directed at you Blegkorbh - it goes out to everyone who has contributed more bytes to the talk page than to the article itself. I'm fed up of people complaining on the talk page how the article is biased, unfair, misleading, unsourced or confusing and who then have nothing to offer in terms of improvements. The next person who posts in such a fashion, I would be delighted if you either (a) follow up your criticism with some improvements to the article, or (b) suggest some improvements on the talk page or at the very least (c) be specific about the criticisms rather than waving generalities about. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not to champion our particular corner of Heathenry/Asatru/Northern Tradition/Germanic Neopaganism/whatever. The average reader cares nothing about our internal struggles and will never look at this talk page; can we keep them in mind please? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what I meant is that someone has made use of the result to further destroy the article. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 15:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Massive, undiscussed reversion

I have just noticed that this article has very recently been massively reverted in this edit by Bhlegkorbh. Unfortunately I didn't spot this, as the huge edit was followed one minute later by a tiny edit linking to a foreign language wiki, made by the same author. This had the effect that when I looked in my watchlist I saw the tiny addition of a wikilink but was unaware of the massive reversion. Now I am going to take a deep breath and a massive leap of faith in assuming (for one last time) good faith here. I'm not saying that Bhlegkorbh deliberately disguised the reversion by inserting a tiny edit seconds afterwards. But nevertheless, the effect was that the reversion was disguised.

Bhlegkorbh, you have yourself complained about the unfairness of massive, unannounced reversions but apparently when you carry them out it's OK? You made no announcement either in advance or after the fact of what you had done - the section above certainly does not constitute a clear announcement. I am going to restore the article now to how it was before your reversion. Not because I disagree necessarily with any of the content you have added but because it was such a massive, undiscussed change that had the effect of being smuggled in. Now, you have been bold; I have reverted; let's discuss, as WP:BRD suggests. If sections of what you removed have good sources (not all do) and if they add to the article then by all means put them in. But can we please ALL behave like collaborators here, not as competitors trying to get the last word in?

Reality check: there IS NO LAST WORD on Wikipedia! Nobody is going to win this argument, if by 'win' you mean get your own version in place here ahead of your opponents. Either they will spot it and revert, or neutral busybodies like me will do the same. If this poor behaviour continues (from any/all contributors here) I will have no problem escalating this outside the informality of the talk page here. But let's not do that? Can we please collaborate, openly and collegially, on this much-abused article? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The small edit for the re-addition of the Alemannic article did not "obscure" the reversion... this is just ridiculous. There has not been any improvement to the article since the latest complete version. Someone is just trying to keep the article in a bad confusionary state, maybe for ideological reasons. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 15:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but whether you intended it or not the effect of your small reverion seconds after the big one was to mask the big reversion in people's watchlists. Nor did you announce what you had done on the talk page, which would have been the way of staying above board. Nobody is trying to keep this article in a 'confusionary' state. I have made many additions to the article myself with the aim of improving it. You on the other hand have been contributing massively to the talk page but have made almost no constructive additions to the article itself. I'm sorry to sound so critical (I usually adopt a more emollient tone) but one minor typo correction in 2 months is not a great contribution. Please, if you don't like an aspect of the article as it stands, make a positive change! Ideally a well-sourced addition, and certainly not a reversion back to a weeks old version. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This kind of edits are not improvements. As you can see there has also been deletion of sources, and this is not the only case. The article had already reached a complete version (this, please read it entirely) before the current one was restored. New York-based user ThorLives has taken over this article and pretends to stand for the movement while he actually knows very little of this European religion and a representative of the OdinicRite has written in this talkpage that he has nothing to do with the organisation itself. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 10:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I see the problem. You think that Wikipedia articles achieve some kind of 'final version' status, after which no change is permitted? I'm afraid that's not the case. I'm going to stop replying to you in detail now, given the difference between you and the other editors working here. I have no personal opinions on the content here because I'm Wiccan, not Heathen. But I DO see that since November you have made approximately 45 edits to the talk page and 3 to the article itself, one of which was a typo correction and one of which was a reversion to a week's old version. So don't complain about other editors' incremental additions to the article when you're not willing to make any yourself. You can't complain about ownership by others (which I'm not seeing by the way) when you're not willing to make any contributions of your own. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not think that Wikipedia articles achieve final versions; what I meant is that this article achieved a far better version before the current one was restored. There hasn't been any "incremental addition" since November, just the deletion of a lot of information and sources as it has also been pointed out by other users. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 12:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What is this? User ThorLives has been systematically deleting informations about non-Norse Germanic Heathenism (ie Anglo-Saxon and Continental branches) since as he has written at least two times in talkpages he thinks that modern Germanic Paganism must be based only on Icelandic sources. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 12:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Four more edits to talk space, no improvement to the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The only possible improvement to the article is the restoration of this version. Since then the article has just lost material. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 14:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you've made your position clear. I can't agree that there is "only one possible improvement" and I suspect if you think for a moment you'll recognise that was not the best argument you could have made at this point! However I'm getting fed up of talk page ping-pong so I've gone back to the article itself.

I've just made a number of additions based on your "ideal version". I hope you'll be convinced that the article with them is better than without them? My criteria for re-inclusion were (a) were they reasonably well sourced and (b)did they add something back to the article without simply bloating it. I think my main argument with the "ideal version" is that it was simply too big and over-inclusive. We had something similar with the Wicca article about 3-4 years ago when the additions to the article simply made it top heavy. The answer was to cut the main article radically to make it a broad, top-level introduction and leave the detail to sub-articles. I think that family of articles is much better as a result and we could apply the same logic here.

I'm going to apply a rule to myself from now on not to post here on the talk page unless I've either made an improvement to the article, or am suggesting one for discussion. If we all did something similar I'm sure we could work together to get this article improving. PS: I'm not trumpeting my recent re-additions as perfect! I've rather hastily cut-and-pasted from the earlier version so any sub-editing for style and content would be welcome! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello all, you may like to know that an editor has posted a request for intervention here under the title "Help with Germanic Neopaganism article" which other interested editors might like to know about. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have restored most of the material that was lost over the last two months considering the deletions of unreliable sources by bloodfox and more recently by Drmies. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 22:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes you have, and no it won't stand. Read up on reliable sources, study the MOS--and next time you remove that "rewrite" tag while making it worse, I am going to report you for disruptive editing and ask for a block. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not trouble yourself, I withdraw from this website. This is far too much. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 22:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bhlegkorbh for contributing a positive edit at the article, and for letting us know what you had done. This is very helpful so we can all see how the article evolves. I understand why you have re-inserted some of the material but I think the reason Drmies removed some of this is because of the poor/non-existent sourcing. The sections on Orminism, Asatru and Rokkatru for example have no WP:RS to support them. If they are significant (and even I know that Asatru must be so...) then we can surely find the sources. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually what I did was to restore material considering (I think this is the wrong verb) the deletions made by Drmies. I did not re-added material he deleted. See the differences. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 23:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I am conflicting with you--but my comment was much less friendly. The previous edits were unacceptable, which is why I reverted. You noted a few, but I turn your attention also to the directory of non-notable organizations they added. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies, I was trying to play "good cop - bad cop" and keep Bhlegkorbh on board if s/he could only grasp our policies. But it looks like they have gone. I'm sorry, in a way, but they took the decision to take this to AN and reaped the reward of having another admin crawl all over this. Thanks for your input, I'm sure it has cleared the air helpfully. I'll work with other editors now to try and continue the improvements - all well sourced, of course! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You can delete the list of non-notable organisation links with the exception of the oldest and most notable ones which also would deserve an article, but please consider the re-addition of contents to the article. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 23:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bhleg, if you edit a contentious article, to which you have pointed the direction at a public forum, where now not one but two admins are active, by way of adding a whopping 30k of dubious information (increasing it 50%), you should not be surprised to have your edits reverted. As for lists--the rule is simple: we include groups or names if they have articles on Wikipedia. We do NOT insert URLs for the organizations, certainly not in the text, since that is exactly the kind of thing WP:NOTDIR is meant to prevent. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bhlegkorbh, I will certainly work to improve the article and where we can find well-sourced material to back it up I will certainly re-insert it. However I do think the article at its current size is about at the limit of readability, and I'd suggest any new material will need to come in at the expense of stuff that we cut. However by adding or expanding daughter articles from here I'm sure we can improve the coverage overall. If you'd reconsider your decision to leave and join us in the endeavour I'd be very pleased. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will not leave for now. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Strmiska's Modern Paganism in World Cultures - Heathenry section

I think this study which is part of Michael Strmiska's Modern Paganism in World Cultures can be considered a good source. It contains virtually all information we need, from terminology to cosmology, and I think it could replace some not reliable sources of the previous version of the article. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed a good source to draw from. We need the article to be based on more sources such as these. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I already posted them but I wonder if also the following studies could be considered reliable since they're fundamentally academic works.

• 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. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, both the above would be valid in my opinion, also any of Jenny Blain's published stuff and anything from The Pomegranate also. We should use WP:SPS as little as possible, though they can certainly be used to illustrate what groups say about themselves. Now the question is, what is missing from the article that we could use these sources to fill in? Oh, and I don't see these sources as being exclusively relevant to one particular section. As far as I'm concerned they are all discussing the wider topic of this whole article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Professor Jennifer Porter, a Canadian academic, has been mentioned THREE times on this page. I do not know her, but she is best known for lecturing on Disney films. A syllabus.

--ThorLives (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that .pdf link ThorLives - I don't think it deserves to be written off merely as a lecture series on Disney films though! Reading the titles of some of the lectures (and the supporting references) it looks like she is asking her students to be very critical of the Christian assumptions in the Disney world view, the romanticisation of the "other" in Mulan and Pocahontas and so on. Looks solid enough to me. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Michael Strmiska, whom I have met, has an interesting article in a book edited by him, but the title of the article given above is wrong. The title is Asatru: Nordic paganism in Iceland and America.

Dr Strmska's unpublished dissertation is his best work, and it details the connections between Vedic and Eddaic religions. Quite fascinating! --ThorLives (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not criticizing Professor Porter. I, for one, like Conan the Barbarian films! --ThorLives (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The title is not wrong, Asatru: Nordic paganism in Iceland and America is just another section of Strmiska's study, focussed on Nordic Neopaganism, the movement of Asatru starting in Iceland and North America, not to be confused with the greater Germanic Neopaganism/Heathenry in which it is included. Say things as they actually are, please. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Editorial priorities

Speaking as a Wikipedia editor (and not specifically as a fellow pagan) I think there are a number of improvements we can make here. Could we agree these? I've gone ahead and made the first, which is simply to move all the material on the different subgroups to lower down the article, after the material on beliefs, blot, sumbel etc which I take to be generally applicable. It didn't make sense for me to wade through the list of groupings before I got to the information of what is this subject actually about?

The second priority for me would be to reduce the detailed, sub-group specific information and hive it off to daugfhter articles, giving us more room for top-level description here of what is common across the topic. What would other people's targets be for the next editorial improvement? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. An independent article about Theodism actually existed before it was redirected, and a separate article for Urglaawe already exists. However I think a brief text introducing each group should be present in the general article too. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

However, generally speaking Heathens put a much greater emphasis on ethnic identity rather than philosophy, and this emphasis translates itself into the various ethnic religious subgroupings (with the exception of the subgroupings which differ in methodology rather than ethnic orientation). Thus, it's a good idea to create separate articles, but I think the "subgroupings" topic should be treated ahead of the other ones. We can look at the German article: it handles the subgroupings-topic sharing them in two groups: "ethnic subgroupings" and "doctrinal subgroupings". --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hiving off daughter articles is, in my opinion, not a good idea. Major organizations, such as the Asatru Alliance, Odinic Rite, and so forth, already have articles.

In reality, pretending thatm Odinism is somehow different from Asatru simply confuses matters. Wikipedia is basic encyclopedia for general users. We must keep articles focused and clear. This talk page does show that Odinists (again, in American English, heathen means an atheist or a drunken fool, so I am not "heathen") do clash over trivial points, but there is no reason to spread those debates around wikipedia.

May I suggest that we simply create an article on Bhlegkorbh's group? He clearly is representing someone, so let's do an article on his group to make him happy. --ThorLives (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop claiming I am part of any group, because as I have already written different times I am an independent Heathen and I'm not American at all. As demonstrated "Heathen" is used by many umbrella groups and even by the Asatru Alliance, The Troth, the Odinic Rite and the Asatru Folk Assembly, which members co-work for the Heathen Journal. What you're trying to do is impose your own point of view which is not based on the actual developments of the Heathen movement. Just see how many Heathens on this page have opposed to your generalisations. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Cut it out you two. Bhlegkorbh, your recent experiences at WP:AN should have indicated that you are expected to edit collaboratively; your most recent edit and summary were another example of your I-don't-like-it-so-I'm-reverting-everything style which is so unhelpful. ThorLives, this isn't the American Wikipedia it's the Engiish language Wikipedia. We have ample good sources indicating that Heathenism is internationally ther preferred designation for most of that ilk, as the references you deleted indicate. Your insinuations about Bhlegkorbh were unnecessary chain-yanking - which s/he sadly could not resist responding to.

Neither of you is behaving well here. There are now two admins with eyes on this page and believe me, as one of them I am now losing my patience and will happily begin formally warning for disruptive editing. Thor, stop poking Bhleg. Stop deleting any use of the word Heathen in the lede. Bhleg, stop reacting to Thor, and stop your wholesale reversions. Both of you, use this talk page to argue your cases rather than using shorthand edit summaries. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Kim, I've actually been going through the links to the various sub-sub groups and have worked on a number of them (don't ask me which--their names all sound a bit the same to me). There are good sources to be found for some, and others may have to go. It is entirely possible to increase the number of articles on those sub groups: since there is much interest in New Age as well as in right-wing religious and political extremism, there are plenty of publications. The problem with our article is that the term is also an umbrella term. The introduction should hint at that (I think it does now), describe general tenets and the history of the phenomenon, and then describe/link to the different organizations, briefly. This structure is there already (though I think history should precede rites), but right now, one of the things this article is is a trashcan, a repository for information on little-bitty groups that aren't notable enough for their own article, and thus we get lost in non-notable and trivial minutiae with a bunch of URLs to websites for references. There's some other structural concerns I have, but they are minor: I think "Aesthetics and symbolism" is nothing but a little appendix and should be incorporated somewhere else--wait, I looked at the sources and it's gone--and "Distribution of adherents" is a misnomer, since it also involves topical discussion such as the neo-nazi stuff.

  But the first thing we need, IMO (besides peace and love), is a list of hardcore, decently published academic and other publications to get the terminology straight and to help solidify the other sections, so we don't get a bunch of "this group likes whites and that group likes runes" all linked to their websites. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite Needs Sandbox

Looking at this article again, I'm seeing that it's no better than it was before all of this recent discussion. Some major issues that remain:

• The article needs to be grounded entirely in academic sources (WP:REF)
• The self-published sources that currently make up the majority of the citations on the article need to be restricted to groups referring to themselves (WP:SPS)
• Tiny, minor groups are listed as if they're important and more than just a couple people on the internet (WP:NOTABILITY)
• The lead section needs to be free of links and nothing more than a simple summary of the article contents (WP:LEAD)

As I've stated before, this page needs a complete rewrite from a clean slate to achieve the above goals. Now, it has been my experience that it is much easier to rewrite an article with superior sources than spend months quibbling over someone else's mistakes or fighting over apparent agendas. There's no use in trying to "fix" anything here; the core is rotten. Throw it out. Instead, what we need are editors collaborating in a user page sandbox (Go to WP:SANDBOX and click the link in "If you have registered an account you can find or create your own user sandbox here") with the idea of producing a totally new article to supplant this one. While rewriting, it has further been my experience that it's best to stick to the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. If one wants to make a lasting article, there's no other way of going about it. That said, I can duck in and help now and then, but I have several concurrent projects going on. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, feel free to use this sandbox: User:Bhlegkorbh/Germanic Neopaganism. The sources listed above (in the section "Strmiska - Heathenry") are the best ones I've found about the greater movement. Regarding subgroups: Strmiska's work Modern Paganism in World Cultures has a further section studying the Asatru (Nordic Neopaganism) movement in America and Iceland; Mattias Gardell describes very well Odinism, Wotanism and Ethnocentric Asatru in his works; I guess good academic works can be found for Forn Sed too. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bhlegkorbh, with all due respect, your sandbox is filled with the OLD article! The point is to start from scratch! To build fresh. --ThorLives (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)