|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Modern paganism article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4|
|This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|If you have a general comment, question, or announcement about Neopaganism-related articles on Wikipedia, you may want to post it to the WikiProject Neopaganism talk page. That is the quickest way to reach a broad audience of editors interested in Neopaganism.|
|This article has been mentioned or used by a media organization. The reference is in:|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
Definitions of Neopaganism
I missed most of the discussion around "Neopaganism" vs "Modern Paganism" vs "Paganism (contemporary)," and had no significant attachment to the outcome. However, this was brought to my attention, and I think it is relevant to how we are naming various articles in the project:
Definition of neopaganism in English: neopaganism - noun - 'A modern religious movement that seeks to incorporate beliefs or ritual practices from traditions outside the main world religions, especially those of pre-Christian Europe and North America. Neopaganism is a highly varied mixture of ancient and modern elements, in which nature worship (influenced by modern environmentalism) often plays a major role. Other influences include shamanism, magical and occult traditions, and radical feminist critiques of Christianity.'" - oxforddictionaries.com
I think this has a bearing on ethnic and reconstructionist traditions that are opposed to "incorporat[ing] beliefs or ritual practices from...North America." While it's common knowledge that many Neopagans do this, there are traditions that are opposed to it, so are now excluded from this definition. (crossposted to Wikiproject Neopaganism) - CorbieV☊ 21:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Very rarely (read as never) have I encountered North American beliefs referred to as "Paganism". They are mostly incorporated into New Age beliefs which bleed over into some of the more liberal Wiccan groups. For my experience within the Pagan Community, (Contemporary) Paganism is a group of modern beliefs built upon pre-Christian cultural beliefs and practices of Europe. Which is why I also have some issue with Kemeticism and Semitic beliefs being included as "Modern Paganism." The only Kemeticists I know of who call themselves Pagans are more accurately described as Wiccan, and I've only ever known Semitics to call themselves either Semitic or Canaanite polytheists.184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Does neopaganism exist?
The opinions above have raised the relevant problems that the use of the term "neopaganism" as a catch-all category generates. Does "neopaganism", as a unified phenomenon, exist? Actually no: "neopaganism" is a virtual category that has been constructed through a series of publications from the Anglophone world. It originally referred strictly to Wicca and the modern syntheses that have emerged in America (ex. Church of All Worlds, Feri). Then the term was forced on all the so-called "reconstructionist" movements of the Old World, which rarely or in no case name themselves "neopagan".
Well, I think this article should be reduced to a list, or disambiguation page, of the different things to which the name "neopaganism" has been attached.
- other modern syntheses
- European native religions (this article discussing the so-called "reconstructions") --220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added a very sketchy section on pagan music, whic seems an important enough topic to mention. There are in fact a number of WP pages relating to pagan music,, but apparently no single page on the whole topic. If there eventually is, maybe it could just be linked to. Littlewindow (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Please don't take over article to insist one POV dominates the subject
I've reverted all the "Cleanup needed" tags inserted by anonymous user 18.104.22.168 for two reasons. First, this user clearly has a personal view of the subject which insists that any presentation of it emphasize differences among various pagan groups over what they have in common. Anonymous user 22.214.171.124 has a right to their opinion, but I don't think they have a right to insist that their opinion dominate the article by plastering cleanup needed tags all over it. If anonymous user 126.96.36.199 thinks that the differences in these groups should be given emphasis over their similarities, then what anonymous user 188.8.131.52 should do is argue on this Talk page that respected mainstream scholars of the subject take this approach to it, so the Wikipedia article should too. Second, anonymous user 184.108.40.206's repeated claims that most of the sources cited are "hardly reliable" is wrong. Most the the sources cited are from respectable, mainstream commercial and academic publishers such as Penguin, Routlege, Oxford University Press, Brill, etc. This is not to say of course that the views in these sources must be accepted as correct, but it certainly means that these sources are reliable mainstream academic opinion. If anonymous user 220.127.116.11 thinks the article's general approach needs revising, please discuss that proposal on this talk page, instead of covering the page with their own POV in the form of cleanup needed tags. Littlewindow (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have reverted the tags. The problems highlighted are not my personal view. The article is a totally unscientific analysis, and lumps together Wicca, new age movements and revival of indigenous religions as if they are the same phenomenon. This is not true: Wicca and European indigenous religions have different origins and aims. The main problem is not constituted by the type of sources used, but by the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR nature of this article. It should be deconstructed entirely, and the topics synthesised here should be re-analysed, independently, in a scientific and factual way.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- "I have reverted the tags. The problems highlighted are not my personal view..." followed by a restatement of the anonymous user's personal views, which have also been replastered all over the article. I'm not going to get in a war over this, I'll merely point out that this article as it now stands is about two things: 1) contemporary paganism, and 2) anonymous user 22.214.171.124/126.96.36.199 's personal opinions as embodied in the ubiquitous tags. If others interested in the subject are satisfied that this is what a Wikipedia article on it should look like, fine with me. Littlewindow (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Missing Cited Source
The "Terminology and Definitions" section says
The American scholar of religious studies Michael F. Strmiska in 2005 argued that the modern adoption of the term "Pagan" was "a deliberate act of defiance" against "traditional, Christian-dominated society", and that, on the other hand, "Neopagan" is often deemed offensive and not used by many contemporary Pagans, who claim that the inclusion of the term "neo" disconnects them from their ancient polytheistic ancestors.[γ]
Unfortunately, the footnote associated with that only says "^ Strmiska (2005) p. 9" The book or article from which it draws is entirely absent. Anyone have a reference?
Dbachmann added a COI tag to this article. I'm not going to remove it, but I think a little explanation would be good. It's true that many of the editors here are Pagan, but that doesn't necessarily rise to a conflict of interest.
- As I've noted above, the article is littered with unjustified tags by one anonymous user, and now there's another intrusive unjustified tag. In effect, the personal opinions of these two users about what the article should be like have taken over the article. I reverted some of these tags before and called for discussion, but the anonymous user simply undid the reversion without waiting for others to discuss it. To repeat, I'm not going to get into a war on this, but because of all these personally biased tags I think the article at present is unreadable. If others agree, then they should make their views known here. Littlewindow (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)