Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)

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

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

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

The problem is that one admin here keeps tearing down anything that has Urglaawe in it, including references to news articles from major media outlets, etc., and In-Reach began in the Urglaawe community. I am not sure how to protest to a superior about the bias of that admin, but for him to ignore a rapidly growing community is impairing people's ability to learn about the diversity of Heathen traditions. Verzannt (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If we have Reliable Sources – and ideally academic ones, although mainstream press sources will also do – that support the information that you would like to see included, then I see no reason why this information can't be added. Wikipedia relies on those reliable sources, and we absolutely cannot have un-referenced information, or information cited only to non-reliable (i.e. self-published) sources, so any addition that is either not referenced or is poorly referenced will get deleted. That's just the way that Wikipedia policy works. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you folks can help me then. Is the article at http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/life-style/local-feature/groundhog-day-more-than-a-weather-forecast-for-this-faith/article_50e6b0dc-5f4b-5fd3-b505-7540023ccc03.html considered reliable? Since a subscription is required, the entire article may be found (with permission by the newspaper) at http://www.urglaawe.com/uploads/From_Another_Realm_-_Bucks_County_Courier_Times_-_January_25_2015.pdf. Thank you! Verzannt (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Asatru or Odinism, and meaning

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

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

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

RFC pertaining to "Morality and Ethics" section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

PROPER PLACE FOR MATERIAL ON SEX AND RELIGION

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

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

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

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

Summoned by the bot. Based on Thorlives' current explanations I see no convincing reason for these sections to be removed. Is there a WP:UNDUE situation going on or something? If there's not the material should definitely stay. Brustopher (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as no support for ThorLives' controversial change has been forthcoming, I have restored the two paragraphs. If they wish to see them removed they should establish consensus for doing so on the Talk Page first, as is Wikipedia policy, otherwise they will be engaging in edit warring. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I was also summoned by a bot. I read the relevant paragraphs in the article and found them to be very informative. They are not written in an offensive manner and I see no reason to remove them. Louieoddie (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. Good call on the RFC. HGilbert (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Germanization of the article

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

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

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

Hello, Mark Ludwig Stinson (or one of his acolytes) From your edits, including your deletion of material on Valhalla (an important idea concept among all Odinists and followers of Ásatrú), you seem to be Mr. Stinson or one of his followers. If I recall correctly, Mr. Stinson maintains that the only afterlife is inside the grave.

Also, your insistence on using Heathen, as opposed to Odinism, etc. , seems to be an attempt to promote your “brand.” I also note your deletion of all links to more established groups, such as the Asatru Alliance and the Odinic Rite.

As an academic who studies all religions, I can assert that “intolerance” characterizes monotheistic traditions only. Polytheists—the pagans—respect all beliefs.

I welcome you to make edits in your tradition, but please do not delete material on the more established Odinist groups.

Regards.--ThorLives (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC) ///////

ThorLives, you are repeatedly violating a variety of Wikipedia policies with your actions, including edit warring and disruptive editing, so please stop making such sweeping unilateral changes to the article without gaining support from others on the Talk Page first. Furthermore it is a gross violation of policy to try and identify a user's identity, as you have done. In the spirit of disclosure, I am not promoting a "brand" of Heathenry, for I am not a practitioner of this religion to start with. I find the subject interesting, and thus expanded and dramatically improved this article using academic secondary sources, just as I have done for many other religious groups in the past. Using the proper procedural channels, I argued the case that "Heathenry" is the most widely used term for this new religious movement among its practitioners, and a majority of other editors were in agreement, thus explaining why the name was changed. I have actually added in academically referenced information on the Odinist and Asatru groups that you mentioned, so I'm certainly not trying to "delete material on the more established Odinist groups" as you claim. I am simply trying to create a good quality article using the secondary sources, ensuring that information on all of the diversity of the religion is properly reflected in it, without resorting to the use of 'insider' Heathen sources (usually produced by particular denominations or factions often with axes to grind), many of which are self-published and would not count as WP:Reliable Sources. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Temporary block

To ThorLives, User:Bloodofox and whomever else it may concern, I have successfully sought a temporary three-day full protection on this article, which will prevent any edits being made without a consensus being reached on the Talk Page first. If the disruptive editing and edit warring continues after this period then more severe steps will have to be adopted to ensure the stability of this article. Of course, I'd rather it didn't come to that, but the ultimate improvement of this article must come first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ON THE DELETION OF SOURCES

Presently, because of some misguided edits, proper sources and references have been removed from this article. For some inexplicable reason, one editor is laboring under the assumption that articles and books by professors on Asatru (I am writing English, so no accent marks) are the only legitimate sources. These are acceptable, but they are what scholars call secondary sources. (Trust me. I am a published academic.)

The editor in question has omitted all primary references, such as the sagas and the Eddas. These are actually more important than the professor articles and books .

The editor in question has also removed all present-day primary sources, such as the writings of Stephen McNallen, John Yeowell, Garman Lord, Osred, Kvelduflr Gundarrson, and so forth. EVEN IF THESE ARE SELF-PUBLISHED, they are still crucial primary sources. These individuals started the modern movement. The Gospel of Matthew is more important than books by Paul Johnson on the history of Christianity. Besides, Gundarrson actually is a professor!

Finally, the editor in question has also deleted all academic references dealing with the medieval Norse/Germanic period. He has deleted, for example, a reference containing Professor Hilda Roderick Ellis Davidson’s The Road to Hel, the definitive book on Old Norse afterlife beliefs. (Also, I cannot understand why he keeps deleting Valhalla from this article!)

I want to see legitimate material and legitimate material restored. --ThorLives (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The sources we are looking for are independent reliable sources. Look for academic studies rather than first-person accounts. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I would point the editor to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which should clear up some of the issues. I am merely adhering to Wikipedia policy on these issues. Using the Eddas and Sagas, as well as academic sources on pre-Christian belief systems, are just not appropriate when discussing a new religious movement. In fact, using them only serves to reinforce the Heathen religious view that theirs is a genuine revival of said ancient belief systems; while that belief is very important to said practitioners, it is not one that cannot be easily endorsed by many non-practitioners or scholars specialising in the study of the ancient belief systems in question. Moreover, the use of a wide variety of self-published books and other sources of similar quality is explicitly prohibited by policy. However, the reverts to your recent additions were not simply because they were poorly sourced, but also because patches of them weren't referenced at all, and they were generally quite messy, introducing all manner of sub-sections on fairly minor subjects; why on Earth would the words "Odinism" and "Wodenism" each get a whole sub-section to themselves ? It was clearly a controversial addition, as both myself and Bloodofox pointed out, but rather than accept that and discuss with us on the Talk Page when I invited you to, you simply started edit warring and then attempted to "out" my identity, which again is prohibited. You've repeatedly contravened policy after policy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, Bhlegkorbh. Midnightblueowl , I have NO interest in learning your identity (real name and such). I just note that you once posted here under Bhlegkorbh, and now you post under Midnightblueowl Again, the former edits of Bhlegkorbh here (and he made hundreds!) now appear under Midnightblueowl. Check the history of the article. --ThorLives (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That's total nonsense... I made every edit as "Midnightblueowl" for the simple reason that I am not, nor ever was, Bhlegkorbh... If I was sock puppeting using two separate accounts why would all the edits performed on one account all of a sudden change and register as those of another? Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of Sockpuppetry are very serious, ThorLives: either file a grievance formally or stop, because they are considered personal attacks if you are just bloviating. Ogress 00:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I really did not want it to come to this as I hoped that a three day block on editing the page would be enough, but I've had to take this situation to the Administrators' Noticeboard as it really is just getting out of control. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Now, I see some progress

Now, I see some progress

Ok, Midnightblueowl, let's try to work together, instead mutual attacks. I say this because the last version that you posted and then froze is vastly improved.

Agreed?

I want to begin by restoring some important academic references on medieval paganism. We cannot call it reconstructionism unless we indicate from where the raw material comes. --ThorLives (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In principle I don't object to the inclusion of academically-referenced information on the pre-Christian belief systems of linguistically Germanic Europe if it is done judiciously. On the one hand we must be very careful so as to differentiate between the ancient, extinct belief systems and the New religious movements which turn to them for inspiration. I do appreciate that many Heathen/Germanic Neopagan practitioners have a strong personal and even emotional belief that their religion is a revival of the original belief systems, but from etic and outsider perspectives that is often hard to share -- many outsiders, including scholarly ones, view Neopaganism of all kinds as a romanticist longing for an imagined past rather than a genuine revival of that which is extinct, and cannot by its very nature be revived. Certainly, some Heathen groups are practicing religions that seem to have rather little in common with ancient religion, beyond a few deity names. Thus, in this article we must tread a fine balance; too much discussion of Iron Age and Early Medieval belief systems and we risk propagating the idea that Heathenry is a genuine "revival". Any discussion of such pre-Christian cultic practices should therefore be kept to a minimum. For instance, I was strongly opposed to the use of Hilda Ellis Davidson as a reference because she only talked about ancient religion, not the modern NRM, and it isn't appropriate to use references on one to bolster claims made about the other.

Furthermore, it is against Wikipedia's Manual of Style to simply quote large chunks of copyrighted text in our articles, and it is very important to include page numbers; this is why I removed the previous quoted text that was used as a citation in the lede. Referencing needs to be impeccable, else this article will never reach GA or FA status. Ultimately I think that we could include a small paragraph providing a brief overview of Germanic religion as a note, rather than a footnote, but we should discuss its contents here first. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Midnightblueowl here. Primary sources are problematic for a variety of reasons—they require certain levels of source criticism in an academic context. The use of primary sources on Germanic paganism needs to be strictly limited here without any potential gray area. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been observing Odinist and Asatru groups since the 1970's, I have met all the major people, and I have lectured on the subject at the university level since the 1990's, and ALL of these groups focus on the study of ancient practices. Indeed, except for the obvious amateurs, they are experts on the subject. I therefore believe such sources are important.

Moreover, people come to wikipedia to learn. Providing such sources helps them to learn.

Although I will leave the references in place, Professors Snook and Blain have been over-used here. They are members of the left-wing side of Asatru, and that hardly makes them neutral observers. --ThorLives (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

A typical Asatru reading list. Note the number of historical sources.--ThorLives (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the above discussion about why the materials should not be included, which Midnightblueowl has laid forth in detail. Ogress 01:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly aware that most Heathen groups (of all forms) rely to a greater or lesser extent on the historical texts, archaeological material, and sometimes later folklore, of linguistically Germanic Europe, which they then use in constructing their new religious movements. Indeed, I made sure that that was made very clear in the very first paragraph of the "Definition" section, so that readers would very quickly learn of it. However, the fact that such contemporary groups utilise such material does not, I believe, legitimise the widespread quotation or citation of that material itself in this article. Any reader who wants to learn more about the Prose Edda (for example) can quite easily click on the link to a whole article on the subject; they don't need a lengthy description of it here at this page. Regarding the issue of Blain and Snook (which isn't really germane to this particular discussion), it should also be noted that Kaplan and Gardell's work is also cited here too, both scholars who have focused on the racially-oriented Odinist and Asatru movements (which, while sizeable and significant, constitutes a numerically smaller portion of the wider Heathen movement globally). Anyway, returning to the original point, I suggest that you perhaps put together a brief, thoroughly academically-sourced description of "Germanic paganism" that could perhaps be appended to this article as a Note, and show us this proposed wording so that we can suggest improvements/amendments before deciding whether to incorporate it or not. Would that work for you? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing "Modern chronology up to the 20th" section

I propose the removal of the "Modern chronology up to the 20th" section that has been added to the end of the article. Aside from being totally un-referenced, the section simply provides us with a list which contains information which has largely already appeared in the "History" section. I really don't see how this list adds anything of value for the reader, and it most certainly does not fit in with Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines for how to construct an article. Any objections if I remove it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Ogress 22:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Hopefully it won't get put back. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the high-handed edits

I see the bullying continues here. Please stop deleting the edits by others.

Midnightblueowl, this is not your article. Please be respectful.

As to academic sources, please note that modern neopaganism --generally speaking-- is a reconstruction. People leading the movement ‎

are reading the Eddas, the Sagas, and scholarship on the old Norse/Germanic traditions. I suspect that your hostility to such sources is based on a lack of familiarity. --ThorLives (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The only person I see being high-handed and self-righteous on this page is you, ThorLives. Ogress 01:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

On this occasion, User:ThorLives may be correct. Based on http://www.worldcat.org/title/religiose-welt-der-germanen-ritual-magie-kult-mythus/oclc/715786358 and https://www.worldcat.org/title/barbarian-rites-the-spiritual-world-of-the-vikings-and-the-germanic-tribes/oclc/656456143 I believe that the original German version is not a self published work, but the English translation is from a very specialised publisher. Note: I don't speak German. Either way the citation should include the German-language name of the work. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Almost no libraries in the entire United States have it; it's a lurid book described as being "obsessed with the Männerbund". I question this text very strongly. Ogress 04:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ogress--love the name--please do not post about books you have not read. We are writing English here, and the book, by a distinguished scholar, is NOT obscure. Buy it at amazon.com

It is NOT some frenzied work on male warrior brotherhoods. It is simply a discussion of the religion in question.

For the record, a great article on religion should discuss history, belief, ethics, and practice. Professor Snook, a talented young sociologist, is only useful for practice. Sociologists can use facebook pages and telephone calls as sources as she does--she is studying a subculture and how it functions--but we must use other academic disciplines for history, ethics, and belief.

To give another example: sociologists can tell us how physicists network and work, but we would not use sociologists for an article on the content of physics. --ThorLives (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Who said "frenzied"? Also, being sold by Amazon proves nothing: here's the classic Pounded In The Butt By My Book "Pounded In The Butt By My Own Butt" by Chuck Tingle at amazon.com. Also, we use German words all the time in English; in this case, we speak of a secret society of Pagans who allegedly kept traditional beliefs alive whose notoriety is so great it remains in its German form in many languages, even on Wikipedia. Ogress 07:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ogress your words: it's a lurid book described as being "obsessed with the Männerbund" Just plain ridiculous.It is a quality academic text. --ThorLives (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the heart of the matter: is Barbarian Rites: The Spiritual World of the Vikings and the Germanic Tribes about the Heathen new religious movement? As far as I can see, it isn't. Instead it is about a particular aspect of cultic behaviour in the distant past. And thus, as was specified in the above discussion on "Now, I see some progress" by myself, bloodofox, and Ogress, it doesn't belong in this particular article. Period. The two phenomena are distinct and must not be conflated in the service of a Heathen religionist agenda bent on depicting modern Heathenry as a genuine "revival" of ancient belief systems.

Furthermore, why on Earth am I being accused of "bullying" you, ThorLives? That is utter nonsense, and rather ironic given that you have repeatedly and blatantly violated our Harassment policy. I appreciate that this is a religious movement that you passionately care about, and that your intentions in editing the article about it are well meaning, but you are regularly introducing edits that are not up to Wikipedia standards and are repeatedly and deliberately violating Wikipedia policies at almost every turn (edit warring, disruptive editing, adding non-reliable sources, harassment). You have been warned about this again and again, both here on the Talk Page and at the Administrators' Noticeboard. You have been asked by a variety of editors on the Talk Page not to add in references and sources to academic studies of pre-Christian belief systems, and yet you are trying to do so again. The fact that a wide range of experienced editors are telling you off or expressing disapproval of your actions is not bullying; it is because they are trying to uphold the quality and policies of this encyclopedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete books that you have not read.

Midnightblueowl, as for "edit warring, disruptive editing, adding non-reliable sources, harassment," that is what you are doing to me. Over the last several months, has any editor made a change here not deleted by Midnightblueowl? Has any other editor tried to ban people? (That is harassment.)

As for academic scholarship on old Norse/Germanic religion, I repeat, for the seventh time or so, that Modern paganism is, by and large, reconstructionist. It is based on the old ways. One cannot properly understand the religion if one depends on American postings on facebook and private e-mails as Professor Snook does. We can learn a great deal about the practice (that was the goal of sociologist Snook), but we need more.

Now Professor Strmiska is a historian, and he wrote an excellent doctoral dissertation on Eddaic and Vedic parallels (I had the opportunity to read it), but you use only brief articles here. Historians cannot "go deep" in a brief article.

Be that as it may, I have respected your over-use of the same sources, please respect my attempt to add substance. A religion is not just about racism, sex, and mead drinking. Those are superficial aspects.

--ThorLives (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives, the claim that I am guilty of "disruptive editing, adding non-reliable sources, [and] harassment" is frankly absurd. The fact that I took your case to the administrators' noticeboard for a potential block or ban in order to deal with your repeated violations of policy does not constitute WP:Harassment, so don't claim that it does. Conversely, your attempts at 'outing' and false accusations of sock puppetry very much do reflect a violation of that policy. You are guilty of these things; I am not. (Notice, for instance, how no one other than yourself has criticised me in any way for my edits to this particular article – User:Bloodofox was even kind enough to award me a barnstar because of my improvements to the page – while you have been told off repeatedly by quite a wide range of experienced editors now, for a wide range of offences, and seen your edits repeatedly undone by several different editors).

Regarding the main point of this section, the issue is this: you can desire to incorporate references to ancient belief systems (such as Strmiska's doctoral dissertation, or Barbarian Rites, or whatever else) into this article as much as you want, but as long as you continue to do so regardless of the opposition from other editors here on this Talk Page, your edits will keep being reverted. You cannot make sweeping and controversial changes to the article when a majority of other editors oppose them (with good reason). If you're going to edit Wikipedia, then you have to abide by Wikipedia's policies and regulations, and a massive component of that is that you are not allowed to make controversial edits without consensus being achieved first. Your continued desire to conflate the ancient belief systems with the modern new religious movement – while perhaps a central pillar of your own personal spiritual worldview – is highly controversial, and I am of the opinion that you really should accept that. You are more than welcome to argue your case here at the Talk Page, but do not act unilaterally to enforce your own controversial perspectives on the article nor launch spurious accusations against those editors who undo said edits. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, could you provide a brief list of works by Pagans that you have read on the subject? (I mean this literally) My "controversial" point of view is solidly orthodox. Except for a few marginal types, they all use ancient sources.

I have tolderated your edits. Why must you delete mine? If they are contrary to the facts, let another delete them. --ThorLives (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You have "tolerated" my edits? You mean that you have "tolerated" all of the academically referenced information that I added, and that earned me praise and a barnstar? Your edits are controversial and problematic, hence why myself and others have reverted them. Yet again I ask you to seek consensus before forcing your controversial edits onto the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

On Inner Traditions.

Hasenfratz, Hans-Peter. Barbarian Rites: The Spiritual World of the Vikings and the Germanic Tribes. Inner Traditions; Reprint edition, 2011. ISBN 9781594774218

Inner Traditions is a major press. Please do your research. --ThorLives (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ogress , you edit pages on eastern Religions and you never heard of Inner Traditions? Astonishing! --ThorLives (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

http://www.innertraditions.com/category/eastern-religion-philosophy --ThorLives (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I edit a lot of Jainism and Buddhism; the category "Eastern philosophy/religion" is an Orientalist construct that is the equivalent of thinking of Africa as a country. Ogress 00:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but we sometimes have to use conventional language. If you are interested in Buddhism, I highly recommend the works of Professor Lopez at the University of Michigan. Many great works on Jainism, but I especially love the sections on Jainism in the classic Philosophies of India by by Heinrich Robert Zimmer. Of course, there is also the work Professor Paul Dundas.--ThorLives (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have a degree in it from Harvard University. I've got the 1,304-page Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism in print next to my bed, actually. Ogress 04:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! --ThorLives (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a number of books by Inner Traditions on my bookshelves. They do publish English translations of a few academic works originally authored in other languages, and for that are (IMO) a Reliable Source in certain circumstances, however it is undeniable that there is a strong esoteric, and in particular Traditionalist, ethos behind their endeavour. Thus, the term "Inner Traditions" seems to be a reference to the Traditionalist preoccupation with a universal perennial philosophy, which is obviously something not endorsed by academic scholarship even if it is a core article of faith for many esoteric new religious movements, among them Theosophy and the New Age movement. That may complicate Inner Tradition's designation as a Reliable Source. But – and this is important – the validity of using Hasenfratz's Barbarian Rites in this article is not based entirely on the reliability of the publisher. Instead, it is based on the applicability of this book's contents to this article. It appears to me that the book is a historical study of an ancient cultic practice, not a study of the Heathen new religious movement. Thus, for reasons outlined elsewhere on this Talk Page, it isn't appropriate to incorporate it into this article, for to do so would result in a misleading conflation of Iron Age/Early Medieval cultic practices with this new religious movement, as if they were part of the same phenomenon. Doing so would serve the religious interests of the Heathen community, but not that of interested outsiders. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

On the Old Sources

From the Odinist Fellowship in the UK:

The aim of the Odinist Fellowship, according to its constitution is "to practise, promote and propagate Odinism. By Odinism is meant the original, indigenous form of Pagan, polytheistic religion and spiritual beliefs, practised by the ancestors of the English and related northern European peoples, as embodied in the Eddas and as they have found expression in the wisdom and in the historical experience of those peoples."

Asatru Alliance: "Asatru is thousands of years old. It's beginnings are lost in prehistory, but as an organized system, it is older by far than Christianity."

All other groups do the same (although there may be a few American chaps wearing Viking horns and reading Marvel comics who ignore ancient sources and the scholarship about them.) --ThorLives (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Soooo the English read the Eddas? This is getting confusing. Ogress 01:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ogress , was that a serious question? If you think the answer is no, that could explain your curious edits. --ThorLives (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah so Snorri Sturluson, a Christian, compiled the Eddas in the year 1220 and the Poetic Eddas were also 13th century collections. I find the suggestion that the English were reading the Norse-language Eddas extremely unlikely. The Norse and the English are not the same and its unlikely their religious beliefs were. Even Norse beliefs find great diversity over time, class, and geography. Ogress 05:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Odinists often believe that theirs is a revival or continuation of ancient religion, just as many Muslims believe that their faith was the belief system of the very first humans to walk the Earth. Such emic perspectives (ones which are not shared by outsiders to the tradition in question) are common among many religious movements. Antiquity conveys authenticity in many people's eyes, thus making it particularly desirable. But what's your point, ThorLives? Are you asking that we push the controversial insider beliefs of practitioners as if they were objective facts in this article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, as I have said many times, only Icelandic religion can be reconstructed. That is the reason for this reference, endlessly deleted from the article: Our most complete sources for reconstruction are from Iceland. On the alleged existence of a collective Germanic paganism in medieval times, Professor Lois Bragg makes this observation: "But we have no persuasive evidence of any common cult, belief system, or even pantheon that might ever have been recognized among speakers of various Germanic languages across geographical, cultural, political, and dialect boundaries. While there are obvious commonalities, for example in the names of some deities (Odin, Woden, Wotan), these point to common origins rather than common praxis or belief. Compare present-dy Jews, Lutherans, and Mormons who share common myths (the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the Moses cycle, the Patriarch cycle ) and who similarly name their children after the heroes of these myths (Adam, Aaron, Judith, Rebecca), but maintain distinctive cult practices and identities and even disparage and attempt to convert one another." Lois Bragg. Oedipus Borealis: The Aberrant Body in Old Icelandic Myth and Saga Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 2004. ISBN 0838640281

--ThorLives (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Second request: Midnightblueowl, could you provide a brief list of works by Pagans that you have read on the subject? (I mean this literally) My "controversial" point of view is solidly orthodox. Except for a few marginal types, they all use ancient sources.--ThorLives (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This point: "But what's your point, ThorLives? Are you asking that we push the controversial insider beliefs of practitioners as if they were objective facts in this article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My point is that the article is about BELIEFS. Readers do not want to know your personal ideas about religion; readers of wikipedia come here to learn what Norse/Germanic pagans believe.

Likewise, an article on Judaism should not dismiss Moses and the Torah. --ThorLives (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl wrote: It appears to me that the book is a historical study of an ancient cultic practice, not a study of the Heathen new religious movement. Thus, for reasons outlined elsewhere on this Talk Page, it isn't appropriate to incorporate it into this article, for to do so would result in a misleading conflation of Iron Age/Early Medieval cultic practices with this new religious movement, as if they were part of the same phenomenon. Doing so would serve the religious interests of the Heathen community, but not that of interested outsiders.

Are you suggesting that modern pagans just made up or "invented" Odinism and Asatru in the 1970's? Although that is a ridiculous notion (they based the religion on old sources), at least it would explain your logic.--ThorLives (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Various forms of Heathenry were indeed invented from the late nineteenth-century onward, with a particular flourish of development in the 1970s. They did draw on older material (often synthesizing it in a highly inaccurate manner, as with Guido von List's Wotanism, for example), and we actually state that, very clearly, in the article. However, the fact that Heathens typically utilise such material does not mean that we should be adding a wide variety of references on archaeological and historical studies of these ancient belief systems into the article. Doing so would be problematic for reasons that have been repeatedly outlined. So far you've received no support for this position here at the Talk Page; if you feel the need, why not take this to RFC to gain the perspectives of other editors? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, we do not take the position of the true believer that paganism is a long-maintained ancient tradition; we follow what the scholarship clearly says, which is that it is revivalist. That also means we don't cite the Eddas as sources, because they aren't sources. Ogress 17:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The choices are two: Pagans either invented the material, or they got it from somewhere. In fact, the Norse/Germanic pagans used the Eddas, etc.

As for "taking it to RFC," I am an academic who writes books and lectures on the subjects we are discussing here, but I have no idea what "RFC" is. Wikipedia jargon does not interest me. --ThorLives (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Statements like "In fact, the Norse/Germanic pagans used the Eddas, etc." don't give me a lot of faith in that you're telling the truth about your supposed formal background on this topic, to be honest. Fortunately for you, none of our backgrounds matter here. And the same goes with whatever affiliations we may or may not have here, as well as whatever belief system we may or may not have.

The other editors are right that neutrality is not optional here, and therefore the approach is non-negotiably etic. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I also think it odd that a supposed academic with a specialism in this area appeared unaware that "Norse paganism" was a subset of "Germanic paganism", instead arguing that they were different things and expressing the view that "Germanic" pertained only to the area of modern Germany. For anyone studying the ancient societies of linguistically Germanic Europe, understanding the terminology of what constitutes "Germanic" is something that you learn on day one, and for an alleged academic specialist to not be aware of this fact seems astonishing. Frankly, anyone can claim to have any manner of credentials here on Wikipedia, but if they don't provide evidence of that (and, to be fair, they are not required to), then there is really no reason why anyone should believe them. I could say "I have a PhD", and it may well be true, but I'm producing no evidence to bolster that claim and for that very reason I don't make the claim to start with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and if, as you state, "Wikipedia jargon does not interest" you, then why are you here editing Wikipedia in the first place? Wikipedia operates according to Wikipedia policies, and is replete with 'insider' jargon. If you want to be a Wikipedia editor, you have to play by the website's rules and learn how it works. If you're not happy doing that then you're more than welcome to go off and create your own website or write your own book about Heathenry, where you can play by your own rules and write things in a way that is pleasing to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

:bloodofox: , as an alleged pagan, you would agree with the argument made by others here that Germanic neopaganism, which is reconstructionist, is no way based on the Eddas, sagas, and historical research? That is what thety are saying, and I find that astonishing!

I repeat this point made above:

The aim of the Odinist Fellowship, according to its constitution is "to practise, promote and propagate Odinism. By Odinism is meant the original, indigenous form of Pagan, polytheistic religion and spiritual beliefs, practised by the ancestors of the English and related northern European peoples, as embodied in the Eddas and as they have found expression in the wisdom and in the historical experience of those peoples."

As for your skepticism about my credentials, I should not parade them. Here, sadly, secondary-school students have as much power as academics. --ThorLives (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No one – I repeat, no one – is claiming that Heathenry is "in no way based on the Eddas, sagas, and historical research". In fact I used academically-referenced information to state, very clearly in the "Definitions" section of the article, that Heathens used such sources in the construction of their new religious movements. I don't know whether you are deliberately trying to misrepresent our arguments or whether you simply haven't understood that which you have been repeatedly told, but please cease from attacking our positions in such a flagrantly straw man manner. That's just not on. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Biased and Incomplete Article

Problems:

The lede is flawed. Contains no references.

Attempts to introduce material on South American Norse pagans repeatedly deleted.

Distorts ideas on race. Asserts that most Odinists are racist.

Ignores Ragnarok as a fundamental religious concept and depicts it as a simple race war.

Makes no reference to the eternal return, an Odinist concept. (Earlier reverences were deleted)

Superficial discussion of afterlife concepts.

Uses sources extensively that are of questionable neutrality. Blain and Snook are themselves pagans with a leftist perspective.

--ThorLives (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEDE states that cites should only be used in the lede in unusual circumstances, so I'm not sure what you are on about that part. Ogress 07:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

As Ogress pointed out to you, WP:LEDE states that references aren't necessary within the lede, because the lede serves to summarise the content of the rest of the article. Information on South American Heathens would be welcome if it is referenced; you were adding un-referenced claims about their existence into the article. The information on Odinists and racial issues is squarely based on academic sources such as those of Jeffrey Kaplan and Matthias Gardell; note that the word used is "racialist", not "racist", so ThorLives' statement is actually factually incorrect. If you have academic, peer-reviewed sources discussing the place of Ragnarok as a concept within modern Heathenry then it would be most welcome, but we need those academic references first. Again, if you have academic references discussing the concept of the eternal return and other afterlife concepts in the modern Heathen NRM then they would definitely be welcome, but you cannot make claims about them using non-reliable or dubiously reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). As academics who have published some of the largest studies of the Heathen movement, Blain and Snook are quite clearly reliable sources under Wikipedia's policies (the "neutrality" of reliable sources isn't really an issue; read Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources), and we certainly counterbalance their usage using other academic sources (such as Gardell, Harvey, Goodrick-Clarke, and Strmiska - the latter, I should note, is also a leftist Heathen, but ThorLives has yet to complain about the use of their work in this article). If no one else endorses ThorLives' views here, then I suggest that we remove the unsightly tag that they have placed upon the article. Anyone else agree with me on that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't need agreement here unless the person who places it provides some evidence. A set of assertions without references does not satisfy that so I have removed it. I'm not getting involved in the content debate, I'm just monitoring for "due process" ----Snowded ^TALK 10:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag unless the issues are addressed. For evidence, check the deficiencies I list and note that they are inherent in the article.

The word is "racism." I am an American. By the way, any American who uses "heathen" is not informed. Here, the word mainly means lazy, ignorant, non-religious.

Check ledes in other articles. They have notes.

For your information, "lede" is an advertising term . The function the lede is to hook the public to read or buy more, not bore them to death, as the current lede does.

--ThorLives (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC) On neutral sources, Ph.D.'s do not invest a person with neutrality. Blain and Snook represent the leftest (Norse/Wiccan) side of the movement. Kaplan (a friend of mine and a nice man) studies Neo-nazi movements, but he is NOT a religious scholar. He is a sociologist who studies right wing movements.

It is NOT apparent from the article, but the main division in Germanic paganism is between those who emphasize the warrior ethos and those who represent the magical tradition. Odinic Rite is in the first. Troth is in the second.

--ThorLives (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There are no issues to address until you provide some evidence to support your assertions. Your opinion and/or your background or expertise have no relevance here. I suggest you learn how to edit or you will end up with a topic ban ----Snowded ^TALK 17:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, these are the issues. They cannot be addressed by ignoring them or threatening me:

Problems:

The lede is flawed. Contains no references.

Attempts to introduce material on South American Norse pagans repeatedly deleted.

Distorts ideas on race. Asserts that most Odinists are racist.

Ignores Ragnarok as a fundamental religious concept and depicts it as a simple race war.

Makes no reference to the eternal return, an Odinist concept. (Earlier reverences were deleted)

'Superficial discussion of afterlife concepts.

Uses sources extensively that are of questionable neutrality. Blain and Snook are themselves pagans with a leftist perspective.

''''

As the article now stands, we learn about planting trees, racism, and cross-dressing, but the article is devoid of real content. I would repair it, but Midnightblueowl deletes everything that I add. To test the waters, I even tried to insert academic and Eddaic references, and these were deleted.

Be respectful. Do not threaten. Do not vandalize. --ThorLives (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Snowded most certainly did not engage in WP:Vandalism, ThorLives, so please don't accuse them (or me) of doing so. (Note how no-one has accused you of vandalism, because they appreciate that your edits are well-meaning, if WP:Disruptive). Pay attention to what these terms actually mean within the context of Wikipedia - and yes I'm afraid that that means learning a lot of jargon! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives - look this is very simple. (i) the lede does not contain references it summarises the article (ii) you can't say that the article must cover something without proving sources. (ii) accusing other editors of vandalism when they are simply following wikipedia rules fails to follow WP:CIVIL. Now you can choose to follow normal process here, work with other editors and keep a civil tongue in your head or you will end up with a topic ban. I think Midnightblue took this to ANI too soon (and should stop posting there) but if you carry on like this then a case will be made for a topic ban. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ragnarok

Although I disagreed with ThorLives' repeated insistence on including the controversial Tag into the article (without sufficient evidence), it is apparent that a number of their comments do have some validity. For instance, their claim that the article failed to properly reflect Heathen beliefs regarding Ragnarok was quite apt. Seeking to rectify this problem, I had a look through the academic literature on the Heathen NRM, and while I am not aware of any research articles devoted to the subject of Ragnarok in modern Heathenry, I did find some reference to such beliefs in Strmiska and Siguvinsson's chapter on the religion in Iceland and the United States. I have added some additional information into the article accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional problems with the Present Article

Additional Problems which must be addressed:

1) Checking Midnightblueowl’s edits against the Snook book, it is clear that virtually ALL of his edits on this article are taken from Snook ONLY. When Midnightblueowl cites Kaplan, Strmiska, etc., the passages are lifted from the Snook book without credit. (Writing 101: when citing a source found in another source, the book actually being used must be cited.)

2) Since the massive rewriting of the article now is based almost exclusively on one book, this violates Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. Dr. Snook, a former witch, notes in her book that she was expelled from the Asatru Folk Assembly for her leftist opinions.

3) Since Dr. Snook’s book is not about a religion, it is about the “politics” of a religious subculture, the massive use of her text explains why the article now scarcely addresses religious beliefs.

4) Since Dr. Snook writes about American Norse pagans only, this explains why the present article is effectively provincialized.

5) Since Midnightblueowl’s massive edits are based on one book, and the present article is essentially Germanic Neopaganism according to Snook, this creates an additional problem. Dr. Snook’s book, which was originally written as a doctoral dissertation, is a work of original research. There are restrictions regarding original research at Wikipedia.

• Note that my points above are not intended as criticisms of Dr. Snook or her work. Her book is excellent, and I recommend it to anyone interested in the politics of a Norse pagan subculture. To understand the religion and its beliefs, however, one must use other sources. --ThorLives (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is all total and utter rubbish and once again reflects ThorLives' unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy. The claim that my "massive edits" are "based on one book" is 100% untrue. The claim that "the passages are lifted from the Snook book without credit" is 100% untrue. The claim that "the article now scarcely addresses religious beliefs" is 100% untrue (as anyone reading it should be able to readily attest). In fact, if you look at the revision history of this article, you will observe that a great deal of the material that I added to the article was actually added prior to the publication of Snook's 2015 book to start with. Moreover, the claim that Snook's academic study is "original research" and thus is problematic for the article reflects a total and utter misunderstanding of what "Original Research" means in Wikipedia jargon. Frankly, I suspect that this criticism is nothing but a tit-for-tat attempt to lash out at myself for playing a key role in preventing and undoing ThorLives' persistent disruptive editing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I can find virtually all of your material from the Snook book. If I have the time, I could do it page by page.

--ThorLives (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I reiterate: every one of the academic sources which I used in constructing this article was consulted first hand. If you care to check the revision history of the article, you will see that many of them were added in February to April 2014, long before the publication of Snook's book in 2015. Now, Snook did include references to many of the same sources in her study (as would of course be expected) but that does not for a moment mean that I have used her book and her book alone in improving the article. Claims to the contrary are nothing but an attempt to undermine my work (for which I have been praised and awarded a barnstar, I might add) in order to lay the groundwork for ThorLives' own attempt to fill this article with their own non-reliable primary sources and original research, which altogether fits within their wider framework of Disruptive Editing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggested removal of "Notable organizations" group

At present we end this article with a section titled "Notable organizations" in which we then a series of Heathen groups. Unfortunately, this section lacks references and many of these groups are already referred to elsewhere in the article, making this perhaps a little superfluous. Moreover, lists like this are not standard in high-quality Wikipedia articles, and thus I believe that it may well constitute a barrier to this article advancing on to GA and FA quality. Given that this is the case, I would like to suggest that we remove this particular section, and wondered if there was sufficient support for such a course of action? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Do not remove this section. The article, as it exists, provides too little useful information. --ThorLives (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not an argument for keeping the section. It's just a statement of opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Any other views? How about User:Bloodofox? User:Ogress? Will we need to take this question to RFC? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that we remove the list and merge what is notable about it into the body. Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a platform for promotion. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The list in question is providing links to other wikipedia articles. To be consistent, should we also not remove all links from those groups to the Germanic Neopagan page? Also, to be consistent, should we not remove all links from the Methodist page to all the articles on Methodist denominations? --ThorLives (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my argument. Most of these links already exist elsewhere within the article (and where they don't, we could follow Bloodofox's suggestion and try to ensure that they are incorporated into it). My suggestion is that we simply remove this list, not the links themselves. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thor Lives' parallel article

User Thor Lives has been writing a parallel article to this one under the definition of "Odinism", with wrong syntheses of concepts, the inclusion of organizations such as the Ásatrúarfélagið which don't identify as Odinist, perhaps with the purpose to merge all the article into "Odinism" in the future. Recently he has also changed the definition of Asatru in the United States to expunge links to the main article.--151.43.94.67 (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

How frustrating. Still, at least they are not disruptive editing on this particular article anymore. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Ásatrúarfélagið removed from the Odinism article. The Icelandic chaps are left-wing.

Who is writing a parallel article? It is a quality work on Odinism, clear and without errors.

One mistake here: "Heathenry" is not similar to Christianity in terms in ethics. That is a mistake Snook made in her book because she notes that Christianity and Germanic paganism have the same opinion on gay marriage. Ethics is not about sexuality only. --ThorLives (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In its present state, the Odinism article is hardly "a quality work... clear and without errors". It's a mess that flagrantly infringes on Wikipedia's standards for reliable referencing and repeatedly pushes an insider, religionist agenda in its presentation of that particular new religious movement. Moreover, Snook is being totally misrepresented here: her point was that in the United States, Heathen ethical systems tend to place an emphasis on "traditional", conservative attitudes toward family structures and personal morality. In doing so they do share a great deal with traditional American Protestantism in a way that other Neo-Pagan religions, such as Wicca and Druidry, do not. Snook never claimed that the similarity was simply as a result of a shared attitude to "gay marriage". (And in the name of accuracy, it should be pointed out that there are plenty of Heathens – and Christians too for that matter – who are favourable toward the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.) Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, you do hurl insults. If you find issues with the Odinism article, such as alleged bias, kindly list them on my talk page. If you make any valid points, I will make corrections.

On ethics: Odinism denounces "penance" as an act of cowardice. Penance is fundamental to Christianity. --ThorLives (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

At no point above did I actively insult you, ThorLives. I merely pointed out that your self-aggrandizing claims regarding the quality of your recent additions to the Odinism article were patently and demonstrably false. Nowhere did I resort to name calling or besmirching your character. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It does look like a coatrack article - designed to overcome objections here. You could PROD it .... ----Snowded ^TALK 14:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I would not want to resort to PROD because I do think that there is a very valid case for having an "Odinism" article on Wikipedia. "Odinism" is a term preferred by many racialists involved in the Heathen movement, and I think that an article outlining the etymology of the term and describing these racialist Heathens using reliable secondary and tertiary sources would be a good thing. To some extent, "Odinism" is a denomination or group of denominations within Heathenry, and thus warrants a separate article as much as Protestantism or Sunni Islam does. The problems lie with the state of the Odinism article as it exists at present, rather than the existence of an article on Odinism itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Then again, thinking it over, it might be worth PRODing the Odinism article and moving what is valid within it over to an article titled Etymology of Odinism or something of that nature... Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got a problematic user who is creating a coat rack - I'd prod it, or wipe a lot of the material down to a shell article. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Snowded, it's appreciated. Certainly the Odinism article needs to be wiped down, but I fear being caught up in edit wars and further disruptive editing which I'm just not in the mood to deal with at present. It was exhausting enough undoing the damage inflicted onto this page over the last few months. Right now I just want to polish off this article and get it up to GA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Question on Sources

This article, in its present form, avoids books by pagan leaders, such as Stephen McNallen, Stephan Grundy, and Stephen Flowers, but extensively uses books and articles by pagan followers, such as Snook, Strmiska, and Jenny Blain. I know the latter three have Ph.D.s, but so do Grundy and Flowers. Indeed, anyone reading the books all of all six people would find the books by the pagan leaders far richer in material. (Strmiska, however, is working on a new book that will be an excdellent source.) --ThorLives (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The reasons why such sources are excluded has all been explained to you before, Thor Lives, and I should point out that "Refusing to Get the Point" is considered to be a form of Disruptive Editing. Nevertheless, I will explain it once again. Wikipedia relies upon what it calls Reliable Sources (RS). As could be expected, the best form of RS are "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks", and it is those which have been used in this article thus far. The writings of McNallen, Grundy, and Flowers – each one of them a prominent figure in the Heathen community – do not fall into this category. Instead, they constitute "Primary Sources", sources that are written by Heathens, published by esoteric and New Age companies, and which outline how they believe Heathenry should be practiced. As our policy on Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources makes clear, Primary Sources can only be used in very select circumstances, with many caveats affecting and restricting that usage. In the context of this article, there seems to be no reason to use any of these Primary Sources when we have so many good Secondary and Tertiary sources available to us.

Now, while the situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that Grundy and Flowers possess PhDs, as far as I understand it, neither of their doctoral projects actually focused on the Heathen new religious movement itself, but rather on the evidence that we have for ancient belief systems in Germanic Europe (Flowers received his PhD in "Germanic Languages and Medieval Studies" while Grundy wrote his on "The Cult of Óðinn: God of Death?"). If and when Grundy or Flowers publish studies of the Heathen new religious movement in an academic context (whether that be a research article in a peer-reviewed journal, in an academic edited-volume, or as a lengthier monograph) then I would be more than happy to incorporate said sources into this article. But until they do so, there is nothing that we can do. Simply having a PhD does not transform their Primary Sources into a Secondary or Tertiary Source. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, my friend. Both Grundy and Flowers have written on modern Norse paganism as well as medieval Norse pganism. Also, you must move beyond the notion that religion is "time sensitive."

Be that as it may, I have to stop wasting time on this page. --ThorLives (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you can list works written by Grundy or Flowers on the subject of modern Heathenry that have appeared in academic publications then I would be more than happy to look into incorporating them into this article. From what I gather, however, all of Grundy and Flowers' writings on Heathenry have been published by New Age and esoteric publishing companies like Llewellyn and thus constitute Primary Sources rather than academic, Secondary ones. If I am incorrect on this issue then I am happy to be corrected; however if you are going to proclaim me "incorrect" then it would be appreciated if you could demonstrate why that is the case, which thus far you have not done.

As for the "time sensitive" comment, this is something that we have talked about before. I appreciate that you are an Odinist and that a key part of your own religious world-view is the belief that modern Heathenry really represents a revival of pre-Christian belief systems, and that you personally may feel a great emotional and spiritual connection to those ancient belief systems and those who practiced them. However, as I have said before and others have endorsed here at this Talk Page, that is an intrinsically 'insider', emic and religionist viewpoint. It is not one that can be easily endorsed by non-Heathens, in particular archaeologists and historians who have specialised in the study of the pre-Christian belief systems of Europe (a great many of whom are privately quite critical of Heathenry and other Neo-Pagan faiths, seeing it as nothing but romanticist play-acting and flim-flam). Accordingly, while I respect your personal beliefs, it is just not appropriate for you to unilaterally force your religionist opinions into Wikipedia articles, as you previously did on this page and have recently done over at Odinism, by adding references to studies of pre-Christian religion to articles about modern new religious movements. The two are distinct phenomena existing in distinct socio-cultural and historical contexts, hence why no scholars academically writing on the subject have treated them as a singular religion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Snook's sources, if you read her book, are mainly facebook posts, e-mails, and personal conversations. Hence, her book includes such observations as pagan women are "overweight" and Valhalla is "crap." (She is quoting others.)

I am glad you are not a student writing a paper for me! --ThorLives (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

[Note: Thor Lives later included the last, insulting, part of his comment in his initial post. Having read it, I decided not to take the bait (don't feed the troll etc). He subsequently removed it, but I have re-added it (with the additional) strike out, thus reflecting that the comment was originally made (hence my decision not to respond) but that they then retracted that statement, quietly and privately. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ThorLives (talk · contribs) 01:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have made many complaints on the talk page, but the main problem is neutrality. The article, as presently constituted, draws almost exclusively from the work of left-wing Norse pagans, many (like Dr. Snook) have been expelled from mainline groups such as the Asatru Folk Assembly. I attached a tag challenging the neutrality of the article, but it was deleted by the same person who rewrote the entire article.

The present article also contains many errors of fact. I would correct them, but my edits on this article have all been deleted by the person who rewrote it. Example: the word for one of the souls is typically hugr--not hugh. (Norse pagans use Old Norse terms) --ThorLives (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

With respect, User:ThorLives, you probably wouldn't be eligible to be the GA reviewer for this article. Under the Instructions for GANs, it states that a reviewer must not "have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review", whereas of course you have been a longstanding and regular contributor to it. Further, the fact that you and I have had various disagreements regarding the content of the article over the past few months (to the extent that I have had to initiate RFCs and call in other editors as arbitrators) means that you are far from being un-involved. You very clearly have a strong opinion on what you want this article to look like and how you want Heathenry to be represented within it, and perhaps you see the GAN process as another platform in which to push for your desired changes (which have otherwise been repeatedly rejected by other editors, for reasons that have been explained to you on multiple occasions). In truth, the fact that you have also repeatedly shown a conscious disregard for Wikipedia policies and engaged in disruptive editing, to the extent that you attempted to "out" my identity on the talk page, also does not fill me with confidence that I can a get fair and balanced review of this article from you. Moreover, from what I can see, you have never before conducted a GA review and on that point too I would prefer it if it were dealt with by an experienced editor who really is up to scratch on the encyclopedia's policies and criteria. Thus, I have decided to terminate this particular nomination and renominate this article in order to wait for an un-involved and experienced editor to carry out the review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ThorLives (talk · contribs) 07:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I have made many complaints on the talk page, but the main problem is neutrality. The article, as presently constituted, draws almost exclusively from the work of left-wing Norse pagans, many (like Dr. Snook) have been expelled from mainline groups such as the Asatru Folk Assembly. I attached a tag challenging the neutrality of the article, but it was deleted by the same person who rewrote the entire article and then nominated the piece as a "good article."

The present article also contains many errors of fact. I would correct them, but my edits on this article have all been deleted by the person who rewrote it. Example: the word for one of the souls is typically hugr--not hugh. (Norse pagans use Old Norse terms)

--ThorLives (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

As has already been said at GAN1, you are simply unsuitable to conduct this review. By commenting on the GAN2 page you have initiated yourself as the reviewer. In frustration, I will re-nominate the article for a third time. Do not comment on it, thus initiating the review, this time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Community Discussion regarding Disruptive Editing on Heathenry-themed Articles

Editors interested in the presentation of Heathenry and related articles here at Wikipedia may wish to view and contribute to a community discussion that has been inaugurated to debate how best to deal with the problem of repeated disruptive editing on these articles. See here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No Neutrality in this Article

The references to Odinism in THIS article are all hate-filled. They follow:

Many racialist-oriented Heathens prefer the terms Odinism or Wotanism to describe their religion.

There is thus a general view that all those who use Odinism adopt an explicitly political, right-wing and racialist interpretation of the religion

Some folkish Heathens are white supremacists and explicit racists,[177] representing a "radical racist" faction that favours the terms "Odinism" and "Wotanism".

Kaplan stated that the "borderline separating racialist Odinism and National Socialism is exceedingly thin"

A variant of "Odinism" was developed by the Australian Alexander Rud Mills, who published The Odinist Religion (1930) and established the Anglican Church of Odin. Politically racialist, Mills viewed Odinism as a religion for the English race which was in a cosmic battle with Judeo-Christian religion.

profoundly different opinions concerning what Asatrú/Odinism is all about. The key divisive issues are centered on race and for whom the Nordic path is intended."

--Holtj (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no basis to these accusations. All of the claims made in this article are factually true, and attested to in reliable, peer-reviewed sources authored by academics who have studied the movement. A number of them are direct quotes from said academics; in other examples, Holtj has quoted passages from the text out of context. In no way, shape, or form can the inclusion of said information in the article be considered "hate", even if some self-described Odinists would like to white-wash these claims. As for a little context to these allegations, I will point out that Holtj is currently under investigation for being a sock puppet which has been activated to avoid the Topic Ban discussion regarding one of their other accounts. It is one such account, that of ThorLives, who previously made very similar allegations regarding the neutrality of this article, which were refuted by myself and User:Snowded here. This is just part of their pattern of disruptive editing, a complaint they are making because other Wikipedia editors aren't letting them write the article exactly as they see fit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, our friend is missing the point. To be neutral, she must not simply post statements from a single point of view. Anyone who actually reads some of the books she is quoting would find this:

According to Professor Mattias Gardell, some see "Odinism as revolving around the primacy of race and Asatrú serving as its nonracial counterpart," but "in reality" there "seems to be no such neat division," and many "self-defined Asatrúers" are "centered on race."

Second POINT, even if her claims about Odinism and racialism were true, there is more to a religion than its position on race! Islam accepts all races, but there is more to that religion!

--Holtj (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You quite clearly have neither read or comprehended Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, "Neutrality" means fairly presenting the views presented in reliable sources. It doesn't mean piling the opinions of a) yourself, or b) those to have published in non-reliable sources, into the article. But of course, this has all been explained to you several times before, particularly when you were using the ThorLives account. You're deliberately "failing to get the point", a classic example of Wikipedia:Disruptive Editing. Perhaps you are hoping that you will just wear myself and other constructive editors down so that we shall all go away and then you can rewrite all of the Heathenry-themed articles in exactly the manner of your own choosing, promoting these religions to the world in a highly religionist manner which would flagrantly violate all of the encyclopedia's policies on Wikipedia:Advocacy and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review, but it may take a little while. For reasons which will hopefully be clear, I'm going to aim to keep an eye out for potential NPOV concerns.

• I'm a little worried about the third paragraph of the definition section. You say that "Some adherents are deeply knowledgeable as to the specifics of Northern European society in the Iron Age and Early Medieval periods,[14] but others often express a romanticized view of Nordic culture[.]" This is interesting and relevant, and seems fair. But you then go on to twist the knife a little with two quotes about lack of historical knowledge. Perhaps you could remove those quotes (but the references would still be useful to add to the second half of the above-quoted sentence [or perhaps a slightly expanded version of it]) and maybe expand a little on the "reconstruction"/continuity issue you mention immediately following, if there's anything more to say.

• I've messed around with these sentences a little. I took out the Doyle White quote altogether and simply paraphrased it, also moving it slightly higher in the paragraph. However I've left the Snook quote and merged it into the sentence about the romanticized view of the past. Do these changes work for you? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think there has been an improvement, so I'll strike this for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "which pre-Christian Germanic society they seek to imitate" How about "from which pre-Christian Germanic belief system they draw inspiration"? I take it that Heathens aren't typically interested in emulating whole societies, and "imitate" strikes me as potentially a little disparaging- more appropriate for reenactment than sincere religious practices.

• Good alternative. I have changed the wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

*"structure of their faith" Ambiguous; I'm not fully clear on the claim.

• • The term "structure" here is taken from Snook's book, although she doesn't elaborate on what she means. We could simply excise this word? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I've had a hack at that paragraph myself; it looks like an improvement to my eyes, but I haven't looked at the source. Please double-check! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if "nature of the faith" really reflects "structure of the faith", while at the same time I fear that it may be equally ambiguous. I've decided to remove this part of the sentence, which works okay I think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Apologies- I confess I wasn't quite clear on what was meant. I'm happy with how it looks right now. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Academics studying the religion have typically favoured the terms Heathenry and Heathenism to describe it" Is that specifically said in the source, or is that just an example of someone favouring these terms? If the latter, I think the claim would be OR.

• From Gregorius: "'Heathenism' (or 'Heathenry')... has been typically used in academic studies on the phenomenon". I think that my wording fairly reflects that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, fair- I've struck the comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Early Medieval word heathen" Early Medieval is not a language?

• The issue here is that the word heathen, as well as its cognates, emerges in slightly different forms of Germanic language during the Early Middle Ages. I'll rewrite the article wording here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Also, do you know if there is a way of putting in a link to Wiktionary here? I think that it would be good to send the reader to this entry on heathen there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• You can add a Wiktionary link by using [[wikt:heathen|heathen]]. There's also Template:Wiktionary. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Josh, I have added that in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

*"those practitioners imitating the belief systems of Northeastern Europe's linguistically Finnic and Slavic societies" Again with "imitating"; also, could we have a link to a Wikipedia article about these movements?

• I've replaced "imitating" here with "inspired by". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• We seem to have articles on Finnish neopaganism and Slavic neopaganism; are these worth linking? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm open to adding the links, but not sure at which point in the text this would be appropriate... After all, we already have links attacked to "Finnic" and "Slavic". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• If you're attached to them, then yes, I agree. I'll strike this comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Although initially a popular term of self-designation, usage of Ásatrú has declined as the religion has aged, particularly in Scandinavia." Could I ask you to double-check the wording of your source here? There are three claims here- Initially popular for self-designation, declined generally as religion has aged and has particularly declined in Scandinavia. (Also, I assume you're aware of the distinction between Scandinavia and the Nordic countries? I got it wrong for years.)

• We could perhaps make some changes here. The source is talking specifically of Sweden, so my use of Scandinavia may not be ideal (and neither might Nordic countries for that matter). The source, from Gregorius, states "Their sense of being part of an authentic form of Paganism which is more integrated in Swedish culture is illustrated by their rejection of the term Asatru and adoption of the term Ford Sed". A few paragraphs later, Gregorius adds that "'Asatru' was for a long time the most commonly used term by both practitioners and scholars, but fewer and fewer now use it; instead practitioners prefer the term 'Forn Sed'", before adding that 'Ford Sed' has "for obvious reasons gained little use outside Sweden and Scandinavia". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've trimmed out the bit about Scandanavia. I think Gregorius is making quite a specific claim which is not easy to summarise; you already note that Forn Sed has some dominance in Scandinavia, so perhaps it's not essential to specify that Ásatrú isn't super popular. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• "term their religion Vanatrú, meaning "those who honor the Vanir", or Dísitrú, meaning "those who honor the goddesses"" What language is this?

• Well, clearly these words are making use of Old Norse terms, but I don't think that "Vanatrú" or "Dísitrú" actually exist in any Old Norse texts, making them modern (English?) words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, no problem; you're right that this is not as simple a question as I made out. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• "is Forn Siðr or Forn Sed ("the old way");" Again, what language are we looking at here? Old Norse?

• Yes. The sentence discussing this word already mentions that the term was appropriated from an Old Norse source, but do you think that it needs to be made clearer? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• You're inconsistent between Balder and Baldur

• I've standardised them both to "Baldr", which we use in the article on that particular deity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Heathens view their connection with their deities as not being that of a master and supplicant servant but rather an interdependent relationship akin to that of a family,[54] while for practitioners, these deities serve as both examples and role models whose behavior is to be imitated.[55]" First, "supplicant" is not a term I'd use; is it a standard one in the anthropology of religion? Second, it comes across that you're contrasting "Heathens" and "practitioners", which you surely are not

• Agreed. I've removed "supplicant" and divided the sentence into two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "with practitioners believing in sentient non-human entities commonly" You don't mean sentient; you mean something more than that. "Intelligent"?

• Hunt-Anschutz, who is one of the sources used at this juncture, uses the word "sentient", but I agree that you have a good point that this is not perhaps the most appropriate term. I've made the change to "non-human spirit persons", which sounds more like something from the anthropology of religion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Heathenry is animistic,[49] with practitioners believing in sentient non-human entities commonly known as wights that inhabit the world,[60] each of whom is believed to have its own personality." You're very firm about this, despite the apparent wide disparity of beliefs on other matters.

• That's true. As it is, I'm mostly just following the sources. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if there were Heathens who don't believe in wights yet I haven't the academic sources to support that at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Stopping there for now; a really interesting read so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Some more bits:

• "Each of these worlds is believed to be inhabited by another type of being; humans live on Midgard, while dwarves live on another realm, elves on another, giants on another, and the divinities live on two further realms" Only a little thing, but I only count 6.

• I know that the original Old Norse sources dealing with Yggrasil are often quite vague, so it wouldn't surprise me if different Heathen groups approach this cosmological worldview differently. I've altered the prose to "Different types of being are believed to inhabit these different realms". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Some Heathens, such as Brian Bates," Maybe it'd be worth specifying that he's a psychologist?

• Agreed, and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Freya or Freyja?

• Both are acceptable spellings but it seems that our article on the goddess uses "Freyja" so I'll standardise it to that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Should "Poetic Edda" be italicised? You're inconsistent.

• It should be italicised throughout (I'd have thought); I've made the correction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Ring of Troth" is apparently the old name of the organisation

• The sources cited were written when the organisation was still named the Ring of Troth (I think), but I've made the change throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "with strict screening procedures as to whom they allow to join them" This doesn't quite work grammatically

• I've changed this to "with strict screening procedures regulating the admittance of new members". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• " In 2014, the Ásaheimur Temple was opened in Efri Ás, Skagafjörður, Iceland,[117] while in 2015 British Odinists opened a temple in converted a 16th-century chapel in Newark, Nottinghamshire." Is this recentism?

• I'm not sure if it is recentism because I believe that these are fairly pioneering developments in the religion's history. For instance, I believe that the Newark chapel is the first public Heathen temple in the United Kingdom (although I could be wrong about that). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• No problem (struck). Maybe something to think on before FAC- I think that history section could probably be buffed a little? Josh Milburn (talk)

• Agreed; the History section does need to be improved, although the problem is that no academic has yet to publish a historical study of the modern Heathen movement. Hopefully that will change at some point in the future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Germanic Neopagans have also adopted archaeological sites as places of worship; for instance, British practitioners have assembled for rituals at the Nine Ladies stone circle in Derbyshire,[119] and the Rollright Stones in Warwickshire.[120]" Interesting, but why do you specify that these are "Germanic neopagans" rather than "Heathens"?

• There's no particular reason here. "Germanic Neopagans" was just a synonym. I'll change it to "Heathens", however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "rites devoted for a specific deity" to, surely?

• Well spotted. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Ásatrú rituals consciously" Surely the rituals don't consciously do anything?

• I've gone with "Ásatrú rituals had been deliberately constructed in an attempt to recreate" Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Mjölnir or Mjöllnir?

• I've standardied to the one-l spelling throughout. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blót or blót? You also seem to be inconsistent with italicisation?

• I've rendered it lower-case and non-italicised throughout most of the article; I've kept the upper-case where it is grammatically necessary and left the word italicised when first introducing the word and when discussing the word itself as it was used in the Old Norse language. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Not all Heathens practice seiðr, and many on the movement's right-wing disapprove of it, particularly given its association with the ambiguity of sexuality and gender and the form of Odin or Loki in their inimitable or unreliable, trickster forms." This isn't as smooth as it could be.

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "is largely associated with – and most often performed by" Is this made absolutely explicit in your source? It strikes me as a rather surprising claim.

• Blain goes with "many practitioners of spae and seiðr today are women, or gay men - marginalised by today's society - and for some few this is sufficient to render the practice... doubtful at best, evil at worst." In her source, Snook goes with "Modern Heathens extrapolate the meanings and methods of seidr from historical accounts and the Icelandic sagas, interpreting it as "women's magic", appropriate only for women or gay men, despite the fact that there are straight male practitioners". Thus, I think that the addition of "most often performed by" should be removed from the article, although the "largely associated with" claim could still stand. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, agreed. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• "It is common for Germanic Neopagans to utilize" Again, why use that term in particular?

• There is no particular reason. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "anti-racist approach believes" Just a little thing, but can an "approach" really "believe" anything?

• True. I've changed this to "Exponents of the universalist, anti-racist approach believe" Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Is "KveldúlfR Gundarsson" the right name? It doesn't quite match the pen name given in the article on the subject

• Yes, it is the (rather odd) spelling of the name that appears in both Kaplan and Gardell. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "bowlderised" is apparently a mispelling, but I must confess that it strikes me as too obscure a term to be used.

• I've rewritten this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "the Ragnarok Circle and Hans S. Jacobsen's Tidsskriftet Ragnarok journal" These haven't been introduced?

• I've amended the prose so that hopefully it provides a little more information here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• What's meant by "English race"?

• This should actually be "British race", and I have amended it accordingly. I have also put it in quotation marks in the article, to reflect the fact that this was a (rather idiosyncratic) concept of Mills'. Certainly, we don't appear to have any corresponding Wikipedia article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "In the early 1970s, Heathen organisations emerged in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, and in Iceland, largely independently of each other." The suggestion seems to be that there weren't organisations prior to this, but you explain that they were being established in the 1960s in the next paragraph
  • Well, we have one group appearing in the U.S. in 1969, but generally speaking all of the other groups appear to emerge in the 1970s. Again, I'm following the source material here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• "Hilmar Orn Hilmarsson" should perhaps be "Hilmar Örn Hilmarsson"?

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "published The Odin Brotherhood" Your link is to an article on the supposed brotherhood, not the book

• Personally I feel that the link is fine as it is, because the supposed brotherhood and the book are closely intertwined. A big part of the problem is that the Brotherhood article was almost completely written by the Holtj/ThorLives sock and very much reflects their personal opinion on the issue. It will need a rewrite at some point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• We can pin this on stylistic differences; I'm certainly not going to make a fuss! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm a bit worried about some redirects in the "Modern development" section. Asatru Free Assembly just redirects to Asatru Folk Assembly, so the former link should probably be removed (also- do you need the accents [or whatever they're called] in the latter name?). Similarly, Valgard Murray redirects to Asatru Alliance (which apparently does need the accents) so the former link should probably be removed, and John Yeowell redirects to Odinic Rite. Åsatrufellesskapet Bifrost and Foreningen Forn Sed redirect to Neopaganism in Scandinavia (is this appropriate?) and perhaps most oddly of all, Forn Siðr links to this article.

• I've removed the superfluous links; I've left those that redirect to Neopaganism in Scandinavia, however. I've also tried to allocate the accents where appropriate, however it seems a little confusing; for instance, looking at the AA's website I can see instances of them using the accents and instances where they haven't... Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "direct revelation through the forms of dreams" strikes me as an odd construction

• Would "direct revelation through dreams" work? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes- done and struck. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Although practitioners typically live within Christian majority societies, they typically express the view that Christianity has little to offer them." Repetition of "typically".

• Very good point. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "according to McNallen" Could you specify a date?

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Any further information on Australia? You mention a couple of times that there are Heathen populations in Australia, but never really expand on it.
  • I've not been able to find any academic sources dealing with Heathenry in Australia (aside from that one, brief paper discussing Mills). There doesn't seem to be anything about it in Lynne Hume's Witchcraft and Paganism in Australia, or at least there isn't any mention of it in that book's index. We may just have to wait until academic material on this particular subject is published before incorporating it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Agreed- that there's nothing in Hume's book does seem to indicate that this may be a gap in the literature rather than a gap in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Can I ask what makes The Norse Mythology Blog a reliable source?
  • I'm not totally convinced that it is, to be honest. It was a source that an editor other than myself had incorporated into the article, and while I was unconvinced that the blog itself was an RS, I thought that the findings of the Heathen Census were probably of value in some form. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • A bit of Googling reveals that the blog is run by Karl E. H. Seigfried, who could not unreasonably be described as an academic (though it's a long way from a peer reviewed study). It's mentioned as minimally authoritative here and here, neither of which are awful sources. I think it can be used, but very judiciously. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Your sources all seem great- academic publishers or journals (though some of your journals look very obscure!). I'm not completely done yet... I'll keep picking away... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, please check my edits. Some of them were pretty big. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Your edits look great Josh, thank you. I particularly like your contributions to the "Further academic reading" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A quick note- does this belong on Template:Paganism? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• It could be added, although I'm really not a fan of that template. I actually created it back in 2007, but looking at it now I can see that it is severely flawed in its approach of bringing together Neo-Paganisms with historical pre-Christian religion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Was there anything else Josh? Your comments thus far have been very constructive and the article has certainly been improved because of them, so for that I must offer my thanks! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, super, I'm going to go ahead and promote at this time. This is a very readable, perfectly referenced article which will be a very valuable resource for people wanting to learn about the subject. If you are looking towards FAC, I think my three comments are as follows: First, do what you can to incorporate material from the sources in the further reading section, second, perhaps have another look at the definition section with an eye to NPOV, and, third, have another look at the history section. Anyway- this is a great article, and I commend you for taking it on. A pleasure working with you, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The title of the article should be changed.

The article is about germanic heathenry, not modenr heathenry in general. HEathenism is a name for all modent heathen movements, so the title is misleading.

83.13.239.255 (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)