Talk:Modern paganism

American Neopaganism

I have add a link to americanneopaganism.com, which is the only site dedicated to American Neopaganism, a historically and theologically distinct tradition, which is distinguishable from both Wicca and European reconstructionist paganism. Because of its eclectic and non-traditional nature, American Neopaganism is difficult to define and has received little attention in popular publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanneopagan (talk • contribs) 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thraco-Dacian?

I am sorry, but I have to question this paragraph. OK, I will admit that it exists, but so do hundreds or thousands of other small splinter revivals, recreations and outright fabrications. Seems to me at best this belongs on the Asatru article, or are we going to give a paragraph to every single sub-sect of every Neopagan grouping out there? I know I am not wording this correctly, and I cannot think of the correct wiki-word (significance? relevancy? sigh...) but I just don't see a reason for this subheading. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do a general paragraph along the lines of "many European countries have pagan revivalist movements based on their own pre-christian traditions" and simply list link to a few examples. Totnesmartin 21:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The word I was looking for was 'Notability". :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 00:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, has anyone actually clicked around the Thraco-Dacian website that's currently in the external links? The pages I wound up on were about Black Death Metal, with poetry about "Unholy woods of mysteries, Alone witches full of hate... Diabolical feast around the fire... There is a place where Evil lives..." and the links are called "further blasphemies". I haven't looked through the whole site but... While I love Dethklok as much as the next person, this site doesn't really seem appropriate for this particular article. Though I'm not overly attached either way, I'm removing it unlesss someone points out something more redeeming about the site. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring

What do you guys think about removing most of the forms segment of this article and just having very brief explanations on the concepts and then linking to the pertinent entries? Right now there seems to be too much overlap with all the content in the respective recon entries, as well as the Wicca entry. As it currently exists, the entry is barely redeemable in my estimation, and a total refactoring seems to be in order. - WeniWidiWiki 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? - WeniWidiWiki 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support this, as long as there's a sufficiant summary of each left here which clearly locates the form within neopaganism as a whole, i.e. how it relates to other forms, its origins, beliefs, etc. Dinoguy2 23:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on how to best go about doing this? A lot of the article seems very redundant to me, and i'm having to restrain myself from removing large swathes of material until others are able to help with a refactoring. - WeniWidiWiki 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bulk of the forms section is reconstructionist, with seperate sub-headings for each reconstructed tradition. I'd eliminate these headings, and combine all the current contents into a single prose section, which may require a lot of re-writing. Some sections, like Finnic, are extremely short and/or only list further sub-divisions. These should be listed at the end of the re-written section, as something like "Other reconstructionist traditions include Finnic, Baltic," etc. etc. The reconstructionist section should be more an overview of reconstructionism itself with some examples drawn from the ones that currently have a lot of content written. I think the Wicca section is fine at the length it is now and could even be longer, given that the parent article is very lengthy and Wicca is probably the most prominant neopagan tradition. Dinoguy2 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been more helpful with this. I'm looking at it and feeling overwhelmed, and even with your suggestions I'm not sure what the best thing is to do with this. Most of the work I've done on this article has been very piecemeal. What it needs is a strong overview and unified approach, which I've been having a hard time envisioning based on what we have now. If you have a clear vision for it, it may just be time to be bold and the rest of us can do what we can to help as it progresses. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I redacted the Forms section, but would really like to just remove a lot more material through out the article that look like they are remnants of bygone arguments, POV and bits & pieces of merged articles... Again, I think much of the material is redundant, as neopaganism is too large an umbrella term to attempt to cover everything. We should treat this more like a portal. Also, did we ever come up with a consensus on the usage of the word? Is it capitalized, hyphenated, etc. ? - WeniWidiWiki

There was surprisingly little discussion on the word usage. After a few discussions on the matter, I've been standardizing to "Pagan" or "Neopagan" when describing a Pagan religion. I sourced the capitalization of the words to Margot Adler. Small-"p" "pagan" is only relevant when using the "irreligious" meaning/connotation, afaik/imho. Adler does use the form "Neo-Pagan" in DDTM, and I see that's the form used on the cover of Trish Telesco's "Which Witch is Which". However, unless and until some decision was made to change it, I've stuck with "Neopagan" on WP, as that's the form currently in use all over Wikipedia. I'm not really attached to either form of Neopagan/Neo-Pagan/NeoPagan, only that, when referring to a religion, the word(s) be capitalized. I'll look over the changes you made and be back a bit later... ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 16:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Neopagan or Neo-Pagan

We need to standardize this usage. Could folks weigh in on which they think we should standardize to?

Neo-Pagan is the form used by Adler (Drawing Down the Moon) and Telesco (Which Witch is Which). In Bonewits's Complete Guide to Druidism, as well as on his website and in other writings, Bonewits uses Neopagan. Currently Neopagan seems to be in more common use on WP, but that can easily be changed with AWB if consensus is to change it. Comments? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Either form is fine with me. - WeniWidiWiki 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can live with either, but am leaning a bit towards leaving it as Neopagan, as I'm not sure how easy it would be to change all the page names and categories that use that form. Seems much easier to standardize to Neopagan than Neo-Pagan. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why Adler went with a hyphen in a Greek prefix. It's unnecessary. That said, if that is standard usage, I suppose we should make the switch. Jkelly 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, I don't a standard has been agreed upon. Some Pagan publications have also used "NeoPagan", and many others simply say "Pagan". And Neolithic isn't spelled Neo-Lithic... Hmmm... ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hutton used "neo-paganism" as well, didn't he? I agree that it's an odd usage compared to other latinized phrases. Dinoguy2 23:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

When Oberon Zell-Ravenheart began using the term publicly in the first issues of Green Egg in 1967, he used Neo-Pagan ("First Neo-Pagan Church of All Worlds") and has used it consistently since then. -- Davidkevin 09:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would just stick with 'Neopagan' and call it a day. :bloodofox: 03:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

An alternate term for "Neopaganism" is "Magus Novus" or "Mythic Restoration." Since the focus of neopaganism is the resurrection of mythology and polytheism, it has been known in the conventional encyclopedia lexicons as "cult worship." Modern cult worship is something we must consider, so how about it? I am a tradtional Pagan, and such Pagans are called "Magus" since tradtional Paganism was called "Magic" before the 1990's. Remember, the term was introduced in the 1980's before it was associated with the occult in the late 1990's. I will not press this against anyone, but if we consider the prefix offending, try the word itself. "Pagan" is also Gaelic for "noble." Since I speak the Manx dialect, I will respect any Irish or Scottish words for "noble" and "nobility." Gods bless you. Mew Xacata (Raven) (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Mew Xacata (Raven)

Cleanup

OK, I just did some fairly major cleanup. While there are still a few sections that could use better sourcing, I think at this point we can flag them specifically and pull the tag from the top of the article. I'm vascillating on whether to leave the brief "number of adherents" para at the top or just move it down to the Number of adherents section. I lean towards the latter, as the numbers are not definitive, and I think they need the qualifiers of the longer section for better context. Thoughts? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the data in that paragraph conflicts with the data said to be from the same source. Para from opening:

There are an estimated 1 million Neopagans worldwide, making it the 19th largest world religion. In Great Britain alone, historian Ronald Hutton estimated that in the late 90s there were 90,000 to 120,000 Pagans of non-initiatory traditions, and 17,000 to 20,000 Neopagans of initiatory traditions, including about 10,000 initiated Witches and 6,000 initiated Neodruids.

para from Adherents section:

A study by Ronald Hutton compared a number of different sources (including membership lists of major UK organizations, attendance at major events, subscriptions to magazines, etc.) and used standard models for extrapolating likely numbers. This estimate accounted for multiple membership overlaps as well as the number of adherents represented by each attendee of a Neopagan gathering. Hutton estimated that there are 250,000 Neopagan adherents in the United Kingdom, roughly equivalent to the national Hindu community.

??? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking good! I still think we should cut as much over-lapping material as possible for readability, but that's not a priority. Something weird is going on with the refs, though. As for the contradictory Hutton ref, does anyone have the book handy? Good job! - WeniWidiWiki 06:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I was inspired by your earlier work on this. I forgot to close a ref tag and it borked a whole section into the footnotes! Fixed now. Don't have that book here, or, at least not that I can find at the moment. (Hutton Hutton, who's got the Hutton?) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the Adherents.com study: Religions Ranked by Adherents - Neo-Paganism. I cannot find a link for the CoG study referenced in the article. There is also an interesting discussion on demographics on 'Wits' site called How many "Pagans" are there? we might want to reference. - WeniWidiWiki 19:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The 19th largest religion in the world? Gaia! I am a traditional Pagan and my Paganism has 1 billion souls, marking it the third-largest religion in the world other than Hinduism. This data is recent and has not been legally official, but the Parliament of World Religions have registered 1 billion traditional Pagans, mostly guys in their 20's and 30's with the oldest in the bunch being in their 40's. Nearly all of them are seraphs (or aliens) and I, Mew Xacata, am one of them. These guys are multimillionaires who invested $960 trillion in myself so as to become tradtional Pagans and they consider Neopagans to be a riot granted they are into New Age music, heavy metal and folk rock. I will try to make things better. Mew Xacata (Raven) (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Mew Xacata (Raven).

Image Identification Request

I see the image from the Wicca article has made it here. Are these Wiccans? If so, it should be noted in the caption and I would personally question the use of the image where it stands. :bloodofox: 01:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The descriptor on the image file is :"Pagan handfasting ceremony at Avebury (Beltane 2005)". What are your concerns? - WeniWidiWiki 01:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

They are just listed as "Neopagans" and it seems to me they are specifically Wiccan. I am thinking we could use an image better examplifiying the stratum of neopagan beliefs that exist, likely some sort of medium between reconstructionist and 'ecclectic' - but this does not really seem possible. I will change the caption and move it to the Wiccan section. :bloodofox: 01:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to have the image back up top, with the other caption. I don't think anything in the picture makes it more Wiccan than Genero-Pagan. They're not in robes or waving swords, they're just people holding hands in a field. The other pics we have for Reconstructionist faiths are of particular, often rather identifiable traditions. Perhaps we could put the general Neopagan one back up top, and add one of the Reconstructionist ones down in the Reconstructionist section? I don't think the fact that the pic is also used in the Wicca article makes it a solely Wiccan picture any more than using a Reconstructionist pic in this article would make that a solely Neopagan picture. Actually, given that the people are described as "Neopagans", not "Wiccans" on the image file itself, perhaps the Avebury picture should *not* be used in the Wicca article. Perhaps the Wicca article should instead have Brit-Trad robed people with swords etc. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you really dislike the Avebury pic up top, what about this one up top? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I like that image, and I like it that size or even a bit bigger. - WeniWidiWiki 00:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I made it bigger :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am still pretty curious as to what it is. There's really no such thing as "generic neopagan" - there's always some organization involved or some direct line of influence. I think the image has too little information for any real usefulness. I want to know exactly what I am looking at. :bloodofox: 22:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You sure have a stiffy about that picture, don't you :-D Contrary to popular opinion, there are "generi-pagans" who are not Wiccans, but not recons. I've met hundreds of them. - WeniWidiWiki 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate that damned picture! In all seriousness, I am usually just a stickler for picture information as they can be pretty misleading. :bloodofox: 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well look on Wiki-media or commons for a better one, but don't just change it out unilaterally - post links so we can get some consensus first. - WeniWidiWiki 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I bet they're roleplayers. :bloodofox: 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well. I contacted the photographer and he says it was a Wiccan group, and he took the pic specifically for the Wiccan page. So, I'll go change the caption :-) As long as the caption is changed, are we ok with leaving the pic where it is, or, bloodofox, do you feel strongly about only having the pic in the "Wiccan" section? My preference for leaving it where it is is largely visual: I'd rather have the pics spaced somewhat evenly through the piece, rather than have two so close to each other in the varieties of Pagans section. I also think we can have a Wiccan pic in general use as long as it's marked as such, as we've used a Reconstructionist one in a similar manner up top. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you, Kathryn. I am glad we are able to clarify this. I agree. I am not too concerned about where the image is, I think it is fine where it is now. :bloodofox: 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"And there was great rejoicing: Yay!" ;-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Were you able to find out who that guy with the green wig was for :bloodofox:? :-P - WeniWidiWiki 22:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

USER:BLOODOFOX HAS FEELINGS TOO! :*( :bloodofox: 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Old Post, but I think BloodFox was referring to the flowery headdress... no one is wearing a wig in that picture... 75.186.111.99 (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Common claim?

I question the statement in the Concepts of the Divine section where it states "A common claim in Neopaganism is that "a religion without a Goddess is halfway to atheism"" This is a common claim? The "feeling" may be somewhat universal amoung Neopagans, but it doesn't fit NPOV. Does anyone mind me rewording this paragraph.MCWicoff 18:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a direct Bonewits quote, and probably should just be attributed as such. - WeniWidiWiki 18:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is a quote from Dion Fortune oft-repeated in neopagan circles, particularly among eclectic Wiccans and Asatru. Vassyana 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But does that make the statement "a religion without a Goddess is halfway to atheism" a "common claim"? I'm just questioning the NPOV on this, not whether anyone has ever said it.MCWicoff 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty common LOL It's a direct quote so it's inherently the author's POV. I don't know how common it is, I'd have to bow to the expertise of others on that. - WeniWidiWiki 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've only ever read it from a few of the more radical websites--never heard it passed as a claim, except maybe in jest or derision. It seems to be more a rhetorical "slap" at monotheism than an actual theological assertion. (That's from 16 years in the Wiccan community--anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but better than no evidence.) Justin Eiler 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone has a reference for this statement being in print, maybe this can be clarified. I thought I had read everything Isaac had written, but maybe not. I've read a lot of Fortune's work too and never come across it, to my recollection. Granted I read some of it over 20 years ago! Otherwise I'm going to reword the statement, if there are no objections.MCWicoff 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any of Fortune's books readily available, but it's attributed (but not cited) to her at various places around the web. But to tell the truth, I would not be at all upset if the quote was removed entirely. Justin Eiler 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MCWicoff. Have a cookie. :) Justin Eiler 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!MCWicoff 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• The print reference is: Clifton, Chas. "A Goddess Arrives." Gnosis Fall 1988: 20-29. This was added to the article. However, the language has been changed, which should make the discussion moot. (The article still supports the current statement as well.) Vassyana 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

History and accuracy

I suggest deleting:

The process of converting indigenous Pagan cultures to Christianity, usually involves a syncretism of Pagan elements into the regional religious practices of the peoples converted. In the High Middle Ages scholars like Thomas Aquinas, began to take a marked interest in the Pagan philosophies of Graeco-Roman Classical Antiquity.[7] The result was a syncretic fusion of Pagan concepts like Aristotelianism and the infusion of some of these concepts into Christianity, which peaked during the Renaissance with a huge influx of Graeco-Roman mythology in art and thinking.

Aristotelianism is a philosophical, not religious, school of thought. This paragraph muddles the distinction, presents the matter inaccurately and should be deleted outright. The use of philosophical tools in theology significantly pre-dates Christianity, and even in Christianity is evident even during the time of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vassyana 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The stance of DeBenoist and many others - especially Catholics - disagrees with this mentality. If you can reword it to refactor the specific elements you find distasteful please do. Syncretism is important in the history of neopaganism and we can't just ignore it. - WeniWidiWiki 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of Greek philosophy is hardly syncretism. On the other hand, if Greek mythology were used, then it would be. Muddling the two is sloppy at best and intellectually dishonest in a worse light. Vassyana 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No philosophy is created in a vacuum and to ignore the integral culture from whence it derived is even more intellectually dishonest. If you can reword it to refactor the specific elements you find distasteful please do. - WeniWidiWiki 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is severely prblematic. Muddling philosophical borrowing and religious syncretism is plain wrong. They can coincide, but they are still seperate topics and Aristotelian thought is an improper example. The lead-in of the assimilation process of pagan elements in Catholic Christianity is incongruent with the remainder of the paragraph which focuses exclusively on Aristolelian philosophy. Aristotelianism is not a religious topic, though the philosophical tools thereof (notably teleology and logic) are extensively used in much philosophical and theological thought. If inclusionism and reform are the main goal, it would be far more appropriate to focus more on the integration of pagan practices in Catholicism and the influence of Neoplatonic theological and metaphysical thought on Christian theology. But this would still entail a near-complete deletion and rewrite of the current paragraph. Vassyana 03:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right. Do you want to rewrite it? - WeniWidiWiki 04:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to put some effort into that if we can generate some agreement that is the direction that should be taken. Vassyana 15:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Neopaganism" is hardly ever about Hellenistic "paganism". Indeed, Christianity itself can be seen as an outgrowth of Neoplatonism: there is no dichotomy between Christianity and Hellenistic philosophy. "Neopaganism" usually focusses on "ethnic"/"tribal" paganism, and indeed the urban culture of Hellenism is the very antithesis of paganus (I am aware the issue is complicated by Mark 7:26 and the Jewish concept of "gentile". Judaism is itself an "ethnic" religion and as such closer to "paganism" than Hellenistic culture, and Christianity has the unique trait of merging the Jewish and Hellenistic viewpoints into a new "Christan" viewpoint. The word paganus can only be used in a religious sense after the 4th century. If you try to extend it to earlier times, it just dissolves into self-contradiction. To call Aristotle a paganus is ludicrous). The whole paragraph is a confused red herring and shouldn't be so much rewritten as struck without replacement. dab (𒁳) 09:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you focus far too much on literalisms that deny the practical situation. The influence of Neoplatonic thought on early Christianity is important. The vehicle of Christianity and Christian mysticism delivered Neoplatonic thought to more current times, where it was essential in the early modern occult revival. This is certainly apropos for neopaganism, which is directly indebted to the Hermeticism and theosophy that preceded it. Vassyana 15:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that Neopaganism is really an outgrowth of Christian mysticism? I find it a bit dubious to equate Neoplatonism with occultism, although the link you point out is most interesting. Germanic mysticism may have been indebted to hermeticism and whatnot. The Viking revival was, rather, indebted to the philological discovery of Old Norse literature. While contemporary polytheistic reconstructionism isn't indebted to occultism at all, but directly based on findings of history, philology and archaeology. "Neopaganism" in general is a syncretistic hodgepodge that cannot be cleanly separated from Christian mythology or mysticism. I do find the proposition intriguing, however that "in retrospect", Christianity should have served as a means to transmit Platonic mysticism across the Middle Ages :) dab (𒁳) 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I've pulled the paragraph. I don't think neopaganism sprang from a rock independently of "pagan" thought, and if I remember correctly, the first coining of the term was actually about the philosophy, not the modern "religion". I have a book on this subject which I haven't read in years, I'll have to crack it open. As a side, there is an interesting concept forwarded by a Professor named Dennis MacDonald, in which he proves - pretty strongly in my opinion - that the bulk of the New Testament was actually cobbled literary mimesis from Homer. The usual revisionist rebuttal has been that (like Aristotle) Homer wasn't a real pagan and that philosophy is not religious. - WeniWidiWiki 15:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard that one yet. I fail to see even a remote connection between the New Testament and Homer, short of maybe Paul's shipwreck o_O dab (𒁳) 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Read some of his books - I think you'll be surprised. -WeniWidiWiki 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Prof. McDonald's research regarding Homeric influence, concentrates upon travel books, such as parts of Acts and some non-canonical works such as the Acts of Andrew. That would not be very strange after all, because Hellenistic Jews (most if not all writers of the New Testament), Greeks and Romans were quite familiar with Homer's works (they had to learn them at school) and surely were influenced by them in their own writing when they dealt with epic and travel narratives (for a masterwork which is also a perfect example of imitation of Homeric style, see the Aeneid). That is very far from affirming that the New Testament is a mimesis of Homer's work.--jofframes 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

hah, I wasn't so far off with Paul's shipwreck then :) but come on, stylistically, Homer's Greek is very lofty indeed, while the Greek of the NT is, if you'll excuse, crap. If they wanted to mimic Homer, they certainly did a lousy job of it. dab (𒁳) 08:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Having no vested interest in the ineffability of the texts in question, I humbly disagree, and encourage anyone interested in reading the material for themselves rather than making a priori assumptions. - WeniWidiWiki 22:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

looking at [1], I'll say, it's an interesting thought, and I'm glad someone looked into it, but I'm not exactly thrilled, agreeing especially with objections 1, 2 and 5. Yeah, so maybe there was some "osmotic" influence of Homeric plots, but most parallels will be due to fundamental mythemes or archetypes. And don't forget that Greek mythology is strongly influenced by the Near East in the first place. dab (𒁳) 08:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see any real influence as shown by this professor in the document provided. Of course this is only a brief rebuttal and not a scholarly work, but still, similarities seem to be only in the researcher's mind. You just cannot compare the king of Itaca and destroyer of Troy with "a wise charpenter of Nazareth", or a blind man in Jerusalem with Tiresias, or Odysseus's revelation to his son with the transfiguration scene (if only because the father-son relationship would be inverted, which completely changes the symbolic meaning of the act). Simply, the roles, status, and symbolism of these elements are quite different. And their part in the whole narrative is also different.

As I mentioned, McDonald's research may be worth studying as far as travel narratives are concerned, as in Christianizing Homer: "The Odyssey," Plato, and "The Acts of Andrew." But comparisons as those listed in the document provided are just a way to stretch the texts a bit too much. --jofframes 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The proverbial "judging a book by it's cover", eh? Again, a priori assumptions are hard to shake off. Ultimately, the merit of his ideas will (or will not) be bourne out with time. - WeniWidiWiki 16:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Meanwhile, just don't hold your breath and keep waiting. --jofframes 11:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no vested interest in the texts in question being holy writ, so it doesn't matter either way. - WeniWidiWiki 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A different issue of historical accuracy is this sentence: "The early Celtic church was an excellent example of syncretism at work, and it wasn't until the end of the 8th century A.D. that Rome had managed to get its half-pagan Irish child properly Christianized." If I recall correctly (not having the book to hand) Hutton (I think in Pagan religions of the ancient British Isles) questions this interpretation, but it is presented here as undeniable fact.

^ Letcher (2001)?

This is currently footnote #20 in the article. Does anyone know what book this is referring to? Did we lose it in an edit? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Google is my friend: Letcher, Andy. "The Scouring of the Shire: Fairies, Trolls and Pixies in Eco-Protest Culture" in Folklore (2001). I'm reading it now. If it supports the text I'll cite it. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Syncretism

I don't think that the Yoruban/dahomey diasporic religions should be mentioned in the neopagan article. there's nothing "neo" about them - all other neopagan faiths are conscious *revivals* that have occured in the last century or so. santeria, candomble, voodoo, and thier sister religions all have survived, albiet in somewhat modified form, monotheistic incursions. the priesthoods of these religions can trace thier lineage of initiation back into prehistory. none of the yoruban disaporic religions consider "solitary" practitioners to be members of thier religion at all - and most of them resent and resist modern new-age encroachment into thier traditional practices. most of the santeros/candomblieros I know would be rather offended at the suggestion that they were "pagans" at all.

the syncretism section is informative and accurate, but santeria, voodoo, and candomble are *not* neo-pagan faiths, and as such I suggest the dicussion of them be removed from this article. they are initiatic, oral traditions. both Santeros and Candomblieros will occasionally seek initiation into the priesthood from Ifa priests or priestesses in Nigeria. Voodoo is practiced in very much the same form in Benin that it is in Haiti and the US, and consequentially these religion should be considered far-flung, stylistically different *branches* of the old african traditions - NOT NEOPAGAN REVIVALS. Ifa arguably pre-dates Hinduism...and can hardly be considered "neo" anything.

they are, of course, syncretic - but so are the Druze, the Yazidis, the Mandaes, and various sub-religious folk traditions like curanderismo and hoodoo. this sort of syncretism deserves a seperate article, and should not be confused with neopagan syncretism. tell a daughter of Yemaya who was crowned in Ile Ife that she is a "neo-pagan" and see if she doesn't tell you off...Feralnostalgia 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in your general complaint, but some variations of the Afro-Carribean religions are indeed part of neo-paganism. I think there needs to be a better distinction in the article. There are numerous "new age" books on the religions and many "neopagan" stores sell some Santeria and Vodou supplies. We should be clear in this topic, but not omit the information for fear of offending someone who is part of the (majority) traditional diaspora faiths. Vassyana 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Vassyana, just because some Neopagans and Newagers want to incorporate elements of African religions into their practices does not make the source religions Neopagan or Newage. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree--some Neopagans incorporate elements of Christianity and Judaism as well. Does that make Christianity and Judaism Neopagan religions? Of course not. Dinoguy2 02:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that for a religious movement to be considered Neopagan, it needs to fulfill three criteria: 1) be essentially outside the Abrahamic tree of religions; 2) have recent origins (e.g. less than one century); and 3) include some conscious effort of reconstructing a previously existing religion with which it pretends to claim continuity or resurgence. The "pagan" label (which is quite questionable because it is a Christian term) refers to the non-Abrahamic aspect, and the "neo" refers to its novelty and to its aspiration to reconstruct a lost and better past. I think that these criteria pretty much encompass most if not all religions included in this article. --jofframes 08:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Alafia, Feral - I have to agree with you here. The African/Afro-Diasporic religions are not Neopagan, and I've always been a bit unclear on why they're in this article. In the diaspora, in my experience various houses either lean towards Christianity or towards re-Africanisation, and while here and there you will find some members of the Religion who are comfortable with having some degree of interaction with the Neopagan community, in general most are not eager to be associated with it. If we are going with Bonewits's classifications to any extent, I believe he categorizes the Afro-Diasporic faiths as Meso-Pagan. I think it would be appropriate to move the material and link to it in some manner. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Article Meso-Paganism now exists, as well as Paleo-Paganism. -- Davidkevin 14:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps work it into a mention of neopagans drawing on older surviving pagan traditions, sometimes taking those traditions as a central focus. This would account for Afro-Caribbean neopagans and neopagan borrowings, while clearly distinguishing them from the main body of such religions. Links can be handled by wikilinks. Thoughts? Vassyana 11:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiPagan A free content wiki-based website for Neopagans is not Dead

Hello, all. WikiPagan, a free content wiki-based web site for neopagans, is not closed. I corrected the eror on the page and added the link.

BTW, please help us edit there! It is a wikipedia site!

• WikiPagan A free content wiki-based website for Neopagans

--Mig-17 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanctuary Circle, Mount Horeb, Wisconsin-

The article about the Sanctuary Circle in Mount Horeb, Wisconsin was deleted yesterday. And the deletion was speedily done. This is sad. I thought the article was well written and very educational. I thought you people should know about it. There was no discussion although I had asked the article not be deleted. Thank you-RFD 15:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you use the {{hangon}} template? Or where/who did you ask? I saw that the page had been tagged for speedy but I didn't see your comments. I think you could probably make a case for Circle Sanctuary being notable, but the article as it stood really didn't, so I let it go. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 23:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

this is starting to get annoying. there's plenty of space on wikipedia, so why are articles which have value being removed? the current editors seem to be far too delete-happy. "notability" should be given a much lower bar than it currently seems to have. Whateley23 03:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about deleting articles that should not be deleted in the first place. Thanks-RFD 15:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article to be able to comment. I know I tend to 'shoot on sight' when I'm patrolling new articles and see something half formed: was this a fully drafted article with references, in-line citations, links etc? Maybe you could draft an article on your user space (say at User:RFD/Mount Horeb) and the rest of us could help make it look good before it's posted to mainspace? That way it would look like a solid article as soon as it hits the 'New pages' list. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It should not be all that difficult to create enough of a stub about Circle Sanctuary that won't be speedily deleted. If you start one, as suggested, on your user page, just let me know about it on my talk page and I will be happy to add my two cents. --otherlleft 00:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll put a note on the talk pages of RFD, AdelaMae and otherlleft, inviting them to contribute to a draft article. I've placed a drafting page here for people to work on the article. I myself (UK based) have no knowledge of the organisation, but perhaps this will be helpful in that I can act as a friendly critic to improve the article's survivability? Please, anyone who wants to contribute to the article, do come along and add to it. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Circle Sanctuary article is now back in mainspace, thanks to Nae'blis and Majorly. Please help to keep it there by adding the best citations of good secondary sources that you can find! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of the word "Pagan"

I see that this perpetuates the common view that "Pagan" derives from a root meaning "rural". Can some one please read Fox, R. "Pagans and Christians", which says that this word actually derives from "Pagani" meaning "civilian" rather than "Paganus"? ACEOREVIVED 19:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm no etymologist and have no references one way or the other! But if you do, then go right ahead and make the edit. It would be very good to have an authoritative, sourced addition to the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Pagani" is not different from "paganus", it is just the plural vs. singular. And Fox does not say that "civilian" is the correct origin, he simply says that it is "likelier" (p. 30) than "rustic". He admits nevertheless that it is a Christian term to refer to those who did not metaphorically enlist as "soldiers of Christ", and quotes Löfstedt, Late Latin (1959). Hard to know if this etymology is more reliable than the usual one, but we could quote both.--jofframes 22:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph and General Cleanup

OK, what is up with this:

These movements are extremely diverse. The de facto main divisions between approaches can be drawn as follows (see also List of Neopagan movements):[3]

• eclectic New Age spirituality
• reconstructionism or Neo-Tribalism
• folkish or ethnic supremacist currents

It's unsourced. OR? Sounds like it to me. The source given does not say that at all, and is left over from when I put it in to source the fact that there's diversity under the Neopagan umbrella. here's the statement from the version I sourced:

Many Neopagans practice a spirituality that is entirely modern in origin, while others attempt to reconstruct or revive culturally historic Pagan and indigenous belief systems.[3]

Unless someone can find a WP:V source for that, I'm going to put it back to what was actually sourced.

I just went through and did a lot of cleanup. We really need more sourcing in this. In cases where I'm pretty sure what source can be used, I noted so in hidden text. As I've said before, this could be a really good article, and it's getting there slowly, but now we need to work on the sourcing. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The division is that of Gardell, which is one of the few neutral academic sources on the topic, although admittedly he is only discussing Germanic neopaganism. This shouldn't be controversial. There are obvious various criteria along which "Neopaganism" can be divided into subcategories. They are not mutually exclusive. We'll have to go along with such divisions as made by academic authors. Valid distinctions include

1. reconstruction vs. "unverified [personal] gnosis" (your personal favourite)
2. reconstructionism vs. traditionalism (funtrad)
3. level of ethnocentricity (racial supremacism -- "metagenetics" -- tribalism -- universalism)
4. demographics, de-facto distribution of movements

The German Ásatrú article distinguishes Folketro (funtrad), "Alt-Heidentum" (that's New Age style as advocated by Géza von Neményi) and then discusses the folkish vs. universalist distinction as one possible but controversial way of classification. A de-facto analysis of neopagan demographics shows that the large majority of Neopagans are not ethnically oriented. They are either New Age or Wicca inspired "nature-worshippers". This is a direct consequence of the context of the rise of Neopaganism in the 1960s-1970s. The "reenactment" or "reconstructionist" aspect affects only a minority, from the 1980s. You have to be aware that even the Icelandic Asatrufelagidh in the 1970s was dominated by New Age ideas and by no means a strict "reconstructionist" effort. In the light of this (I assure you, I am personally much more interested in the minority "reconstructionist" and/or "funtrad" currents), the main division of the umbrella term "Neopaganism" should be along the lines:

1. Wicca
2. Neo-Druidism
3. New Age
   • Neoshamanism
   • Unitarian Universalism
   • Earth religion
4. "Ethnic Neopaganism"
   • folkish
   • traditionalist
   • tribalist
   • reconstructionist
   • (universalist is covered under 1.-3.; e.g. Seax Wicca, Celtic Wicca)

dab (𒁳) 14:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that Asatru should be givin it's own section in this article among this set. It is it's own religion officially recognized by many contries and while it is in a reconstructionist phase it does not fit with other religons there. Also, as I am a member of the Asatru Folk Assembly I can attest to not hearing often about metagenetics, and since you mention the AFA the rest of the USA based Asatru orgs should be listed within the Asatru section. Asatruar (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

rejection of "Neopagan" label

The rejection of "some reconstructionists" of the "Neopagan" label is sourced to two sources in two footnotes:

• Adler (2006) pp.243-299
• Bonewits (2006) pp.128-140

that's a total of 68 pages (!) as a reference for a simple laconic statement. What is the content of actual relevance to the statement sourced in these sources? Cannot we please just pinpoint what we really want to quote and make everyone's life easier? dab (𒁳) 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a traditional Pagan. Please be more specific when addressing the subject. Thank you. Mew Xacata (Raven) (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Mew Xacata (Raven)

"Folklorism" citation tags

[2] -- Kathryn, I am afraid that this is a debate that has taken place in recent years in Scandinavian neopaganism, and by the nature of such things (as is evident from the CR article as well), this debate has, where not orally, taken place online. It is certainly notable to the current status of neopaganism in Scandinavia, but that's also as far as it goes at present. So I would agree that it is taking rather too much room in this article at present. The citations that can be given, however, will be in Danish or Swedish, and derive from online sources. That's not what we are looking for in academic topics, of course, but relative to the subject matter (Scandinavian neopaganism), it's just about what you can expect. Again, I'd agree the paragraph can be cut down to a fraction of its present length: I wrote it before the creation of a separate Folketro article. Now that the latter exists, we can do with just a brief mention on this page. --dab (𒁳) 00:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

External link

Hi folks, another editor has posted a link [3] in the external links section which I have reverted twice. He has emailed me to say:

"I received a message from you and I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia system... are you personally in charge of controlling the neopaganism page ? It seems to me funny that neopagan.com, the dedicated website for neopagan culture cannot be listed here. It contains really sparkling images and has content on many pages. This website is new and in development to have further pages and more content."

I've told him I'm replying here so that other editors can see the discussion. My own view was that the website looked attractive but had very little content as yet (as effectively acknowledged by Paolo in his email.) We have been trying to limit the number of external links from here (because of the danger of being swamped because there are potentially so many!) The unspoken criterion has been, I guess, that links ought to be to well-established, authoritative sites with wide content, sites which themselves are very likely notable or are at least well-known and highly-visited by pagans and others. personally, I don't think neopagan.com matches up to the others we currently link to. There is a further problem, in that there may be a conflict of interest as Paolo, who posted the link, is the website owner. I've invited him to comment here and would ask other editors to review the site, as the two of us obviously disagree on its suitability for inclusion. PS: Paolo is a new editor and unfamiliar with Wikipedia process, so I'm sure we'll treat him with care and patience! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It has practically no content. We must admit that it has "sparkling images", but the merit of thi this is (ahem) in the eye of the beholder. Now, Paolo Rustichelli may be notable in his own right (we list him at List of smooth jazz performers). Here is an apparently independent report that "Veteran Italian Composer & Producer Paolo Rustichelli Goes 'Neopagan' to Express His Deep Love for Planet Earth via a Mix of Hip-Hop, Soul and Jazz." This appears to be "Neopaganism" closer to the meaning of Neo-Pagan (literature) (which still languishes as a pathetic stub). dab (𒁳) 13:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating! I never even thought of looking for him here on Wikipedia! I'm not sure the site you link to can be called independent, dab: it appears to be one where anyone can post an article creating a news release, and no authorship of articles is reported... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I created a brief Paolo Rustichelli stub. It turns out that his most recent album is called Neopagan -- this may be a case for WP:DAB. I'm not sure how this relates to this page: his neopagan.com website seems to be serious about providing an 'online community of eclectic people', but with 60 members, the notability of the website remains derivative of Paolo's own notability. dab (𒁳) 08:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations in lead section

Recently, User:Dbachmann removed requests for citations that were in the lead. Justification this is duly discussed in the article body. Request citations in the article body, not in the lead, which is a summary of the article content. Except for two things:

• Ukraine isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, nor are reliable demographics studies showing where Neopaganism is most prevalent, OR which form of Neopaganism is next most prevalent, after Wicca.

• Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.[4] --Vidkun (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of term by Christians

Well I do agree that Christians uses the term pagan to refer to nonbelievers(not necessarily godless as the article says). I believe neopagan is always used to refer to modern religious movements based on ancient paganism. Since, this article is not about pagans, I removed the line Rds865 (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a traditional Pagan and I do not agree with the notion. Most Christians are well aware of the fact that the term "Pagan" was used before the 1980's to describe a religion known as Paganism, which is mine. It was found under "magic" in a conventional encyclopedia. But thanks for considering. Mew Xacata (Raven) (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Mew Xacata (Raven)

Oops. Forgot the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mew Xacata (Raven) (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Graham Harvey and "contemporary Paganism"

The statement that Graham Harvey coined the phrase contemporary Paganism needs a citation. The link given, and even his own site, don't mention it. The American Academy of Religion does not mention him, so should the article say he helped set up their contemporary paganism study group? Totnesmartin (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've waited two days, and since there were no objections I've removed the statement. If anyone comes across a reference to Harvey coining the phrase, feel free to put it in with a citationTotnesmartin (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Graham Harvey did indeed up to set up the Contemporary Pagan Studies Group within the American Academy of Religion in the group's first incarnation as an "additional meeting," which is the lowest rung on the AAR's ladder of program units. He would not be named on the AAR web site, because he is not currently a steering-committee member for that group. (I am, however.)

I cannot think of a book or article in which he argued for the term contemporary Paganism, although he has made that argument in personal discussion and on email lists. If I do think of one, I will add it. Best wishes. Chas S. Clifton (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please skip the NEO

New age and paganism are NOT the same.. Paganism would be OLD age in that context. What is more.. NEO-paganism does not exist, you're pagan(you have an earth based religion) or you're not. A lot of pagans find the therm NEO insulting, since it's mostly used to ridiculize them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.157.228 (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As a Neopagan I must take issue with you. for a start, bunchanumbers, your statement is your personal opinion. Some neopagans self-describe as such, others (as you say), never use the term. Also NP exists as a distinct form of paganism - "old" paganism depended on oral traditions to survive, Neopagans often read a lot to find the path that suits them. There are other differences, but that's not my main point. provide some sources for you statement, or accept that it is simply your own opinion. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

it isn't a question of self-description, it is a question of what they are called in relevant literature, per WP:NAME. --dab (𒁳) 14:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a traditional Pagan, not a Neopagan. If you are a Neopagan, that is fine with me. Neopaganism is to Paganism what Messianic Judaism is to mainstream Judaism. It does not matter if your "paganism" is Pagan. I am a Pagan and I do not honor any "goddess." I am a follower of the Gaidheal (Tao Te Ching) and heir of Zeta Reticula. If you disagree, at least be honest about it. Your words sound harsh and my ears are sensitive. My Paganism rivals Judaism and is considered to be the third-largest religion on Earth. I would appreciate it if you do respect the spiritual rights of others. And please do not use all caps. That is perceived as shouting.

By the way, I edited the article on Neopaganism adding the subentry of "Traditional Pagansim (Magic)" so as to defend my beliefs. When I read about paganism or Neopaganism, I feel like crying. If you feel the article is nonsense, talk to me about it and hopefully we will gain a compromise. Thank you and may you be blessed. Mew Xacata (Raven) (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Mew Xacata (Raven)

Polytheistic reconstructionism?

The Polytheistic reconstructionism article seems to make the case Reconstructionist religions are not included under the Neopagan movement. A very valid case can be made they should be listed under the Neo-Pagan (disambiguation) page as an new non-Abrahamic religious movement, but not with self-identified Neopagans. It seems Reconstructionists are listed here because Neopagans see them as part of their movement, despite Reconstructionists rejecting that idea. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There isn't "a" Neopgan movement. Neopaganism is an umbrella term including a wide range of movements, including Reconstructionism. --dab (𒁳) 11:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The way this article presents Neopaganism is as an umbrella term for individual religions is as denominations, and in the same sense that Christianity is an umbrella term for individual religions. This is a dubious suggestion, especially when one goes to the Polytheistic Reconstructionism article, and then wades through the information from actual Reconstructionist organizations who all seem to address the issue, and state they are not "Neopagan." --151.201.149.209 (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

They are on the Internet, and they are pagan? Then they are Neopaganm, by definition. If they were "Paleopagan" they would need to be dead for at least 500 years. dab (𒁳) 14:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So, for instance, Hindus on the 'net are "Neopagan", by virtue of not being dead?

No, the criterion is how old the religion is, not how old the person is who has that religion. Sizzle Flambé (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

hm no, the Hindus would be, like, Hindu. It isn't usual to talk about the "heathen Hindoo" these days, Hinduism is considered a world religion.

Bonewits' terminology can only be taken so far, but by conception, a "Paleopagan" religion is one that hasn't been in any way exposed to monotheism, theological speculation and other effects civilization tends to have on religious thought. Its age in absolute terms is immaterial, it's just that nowadays it is very difficult to remain unexposed to civilization. You may find some few hundred genuine paleopagan among the uncontacted peoples still around, but it is certainly impossible to be on the internet and be unexposed to civilization. --dab (𒁳) 11:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Reconstructionism dispute

I am disputing the information in the "Reconstructionism" section. What Magret Adler discusses in her book is what she calls Eclectic Reconstructionist Neo-Paganism. This is linked to and in association with Isaac Bonewits calls Eclectic Reconstructionist Neo-Paganism and the ADF calls "Liberal Reconstructionism." It has really nothing to do with CR, Religio Romana, Hellenic Reconstruction or what is today considered Polytheistic Reconstructionism. Polytheistic Reconstructionism is not eclectic, they are culturally specific. In one place she talks about the Church of Aphrodite being reconstructionist; they are not. Maybe by Eclectic Reconstructionist Neo-Paganism standards, but not by Polytheistic Reconstructionism standards. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The label "Neopaganism" does not necessarily mean "new paganism". It could also mean "revived paganism". Wicca and other groups such as Church of Aphrodite are "new paganism", while reconstructionistic religions are "revived paganism". Personally, I'm a Heathen (Germanic Reconstructionist Neopagan) and I identify myself as a Neopagan because I adhere to the contemporary revival of the historical religion. --87.9.82.228 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point. There is a difference between the Neopagan movement, and religious movements that can be described generally as neopagan. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between Wicca and the reconstructionisms. Neopaganism is not only Wicca; it is a term encompassing all religious movements that revive historical paganism, not specifically eclectic movements such as Wicca, Streghery, Jewitchery. Neopagan religions can be divided into two categories, the eclectic religions (Wicca, Jewitchery, Streghery) and the reconstructionistic religions (Heathenry, Druidry & Celtic Reconstructionism, Hellenic Reconstructionism, etc...). --79.10.76.4 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem. while reconstructionist religions are neopagan (small n, common noun), they are not, and generally do not consider themselves part of Neopaganism. Reconstructionist religions do conform to the broad common definition of neopagan, but do not conform to the precising definition of Neopagan, used by the Neopagan movement. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Added: I want to clarify this a bit by referencing the Wikipedia article on -ism:

"The suffix -ism denotes a distinctive system of beliefs, myth, doctrine or theory that guides a social movement, institution, class or group. For example, baptize (literally derived from 'to dip') becomes 'baptism,' a distinctive system of cleansing in water to testify to the forgiveness of sins. It is taken from the Greek suffix -ismos, Latin -ismus, and Old French -isme, that forms nouns from verbal stems. Greek baptismos 'immersion', for example, is derived from baptizein, a Greek verb meaning 'to immerse'. Its usage has since been extended to signify the ideology or philosophy surrounding the element to which the suffix is added."

Therefore, Neopaganism denotes a distinctive system of beliefs, myth, doctrine or theory that guides this social movement. Fact is, Reconstructionism denotes a system distinct from Neopaganism. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

this is pure sophistry. So "there is a difference between the Neopagan movement, and religious movements that can be described generally as neopagan"? Please. I see where you are coming from, and your argument might carry some weight as a polemic or an opinion piece if you published it in a quotable forum, but it doesn't carry weight here: For the purposes of Wikipedia, you cannot dispute anything. You have to show quotable sources that make your point for you. WP:NAME says we treat terminology in whatever way we can establish is the common use, not according to what we may think it should be used. --dab (𒁳) 21:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

North America survey

An anon IP has twice delted the Covenant of the Goddess survey, claiming it to be unsuitable for an encyclopedia. My suspicion is that s/he disagrees with what the survey says. Perhaps they'd like to argue the case here? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at it, I can't see any reason that a poll with all the disclaimers attached to it even in this article, should be considered a RS to be used for referencing WP. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey. No arguing. If you have a problem with the encyclopedia, talk with the webmasters. Yes, you have the right to be involved since Wikipedia is for anyone to edit, but you have to be respectful. This online encyclopedia is for everyone. If you keep this up, no one will use Wikipedia. There are plenty of other useful topics such as Australia, cinema and the Renaissance. Do not debiliate over something this petty unless you want the media to take advantage of this and call this something else. I would appreciate it if you used the encyclopedia for something useful. Thank you. Mew Xacata (Raven) (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Mew Xacata (Raven)

Modern Pagan Journey

I am just starting on my Modern Pagan (Neopagan) journey and writing my experiences down, does anything think that this would be useful in educating visitors a little more and showing them in realtime how Neopaganism can work in a modern life.
http://pagan-man.livejournal.com/
--194.72.35.118 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, no. I am a Classic Pagan (Traditional) and my journey has lasted 25 years. I have been married to a friend of mine for that time, also a Pagan, and I am on my way to passing down the faith to a couple of boys I have known for years since I have no children. I will write down what they need to know and pass it on to them. Once San Antonio gains a Pagan community, we would hopefully have our first Pendragon. Ironically, if you are a Pagan, then consider this: the children need to be educated in ways that are very mature and very considerate to other cultures. Write down your experiences carefully and convert them into ways that children can understand. Do not be afraid to talk to anyone about this. If you have friends that are conservative Christians, ask them where to draw the line. Tell them that this is your decision and yours alone. If you have friends and family that question your experiences and ask about your religion, tell it as it is. Do not use psychedelic terms or other types of nonverbal communication. Just the facts. And when addressing your religion, tell them that this is a personal committment and that you are not seeking converts. I will demonstrate the process by having a dialogue between a conservative Christian and a classic or modern Pagan.

CHRISTIAN: What is your religion? PAGAN: I am a Pagan. CHRISTIAN: Do you realize that it is of the Devil? PAGAN: That is your interpretation of the term. CHRISTIAN: The Bible says paganism is wrong. PAGAN: You mean "cult worship." The Bible speaks of gods that served groups like the Phillistines. I do not approve of them. CHRISTIAN: Then why do you worship them? PAGAN: I do not. You just want me to be a Christian, and I will not practice Christianity. CHRISTIAN: Okay, okay! You got me! Why are you being so pushy. PAGAN: Because I worship Gaia. CHRISTIAN: Oh, you are a Magician, a Magus. Why didn't you say so? PAGAN: I do practice a little bit of magick, but I am not a Wiccan -- or Witch, if you prefer. CHRISTIAN: In that case, remember, your belief in Jesus matters. PAGAN: I do not believe in Jesus, but I do believe that a Jeshua of Nazareth walked the Earth. CHRISTAIN: Well, some believers in Jesus are not Christians, but what the heck.

Remember, in case of doubt, always address yourself as a Magus. If someone disagrees with your beliefs, just say that you are a Magus or Magician. I am a follower of the Gaidheal (Tao Te Ching) and an heir of Zeta Reticula. I am with you. May you be blessed in the name of the Gods. Mew Xacata (Raven) (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Mew Xacata(Raven)

When is a Neopagan a Neopagan?

I was looking at Neopaganism in German-speaking Europe, and noticed some confusion regarding when we can speak of "Neopagans" proper. I turn here in the effort of finding some kind of consensus on the topic before moving ahead with an edit over there. The question is: Can individuals practicing prior to the 1970's what would today be called "Neopaganism" be referred to as "Neopagans", i.e. before the tern "Neopagan" entered the mainstream? To use a concrete example: Guido von List. If he took his writing seriously, the man was definitely a Neopagan by today's standard. But can we refer to him as such? And can we refer to his Armanism as a Neopagan ideology? If it's not Neopagan, then what is it? List is not an isolated example: the Deutschgläubige Gemeinschaft (1911), the Germanenorden (1912) and the Germanische Glaubens-Gemeinschaft (1913) were all engaged in similar activities. Were these "Neopagan organizations"? I'd like to hear what the literature says as well as what the community here thinks. Thanks. —Aryaman (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please Explain

"Neopaganism emerged as part of the counter-culture, New Age and Hippie movements in the 1960s to 1970s"

Please provide verification that the New Age movement and the Hippie movement is directly related to Neopaganism. Please explain how and why this is so. When movment occurs within the same time-line as another it does not necessarily mean that they are directly related. I do not dispute that they might be related, but please provide resources for such a strict statement.

Thanks 70.61.247.31 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

MOVED HERE: "Neopaganism emerged as part of the counter-culture, New Age and Hippie movements in the 1960s to 1970s. Reconstructionism rose to prominence in the 1980s and 1990s." (For the first sentence, see above. For the second sentence see below.)

How does reconstructionism relate specifically to the broad spectrum of Neopaganism? These two sentences together (if sentence A was correct, that is) imply that Reconstrunctionism is the major focus of the whole of Neopaganism? Would this implication be correct? 70.61.247.31 (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement in question has been properly sourced and returned to the main page. Next time, instead of simply removing something, please contribute by doing some research. Thanks. :) —Aryaman (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

-- Oh, Varoon.... My research is more focused on specific areas of Neopaganism (i.e. Wicca, Stregheria etc.) rather than the broad spectrum. That is why I asked another person to look into it. I don't have access to the same resources others have access to. I did not delete anything. I moved it to this page, until it was sourced. I don't believe I did anything wrong. [According to Wikipedia Guidelines "unsourced material should be removed"... "If a claim is doubtful...you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source (which is what I did here), unless you regard it as very harmful or absurd (which I did not), in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. (They mean that if is harmful or absurd to remove it)"] Also, I think that perhaphs the quote by Hunt used in the(your?) Reference Note, could be included in the article: "Although as a contemporary movement neo-Paganism can be traced back to the nineteenth-century, it was the counter-culture of the mid-twentieth-century which increased its popularity in the USA where a rediscovery of the ancient cultural traditions of the Native American Indians became popular." 70.61.247.31 (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I was, perhaps, too brisk. I didn't mean to offend you, if that's what happened. One resource which is quite useful - I'm assuming, as you have an internet connection, you can access it - is Google Books [5]. It took me all of 30 seconds to find that reference from Hunt. Happy editing. :) —Aryaman (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

But I would even question the authenticity of Hunt's proclamation in regards to the "whole of Neopaganism", because Wicca began in the U.K. and therefore would not have been heavily influenced by Native American Indians. Perhaps American Wiccans were (or some were, to be more accurate), but those who lived in the British Isles would have next to zero influence by Native American Indians. Hunts quote above therefore, specificly applies only to Neopaganism within the U.S.A. Yet the sentence in the article does not dictate that they are only speaking of New Age and Native American influences in the U.S. If this is the definition that is being used, this sentence: "Neopaganism emerged as part of the counter-culture, New Age and Hippie movements in the 1960s to 1970s" is improperly worded. 70.61.247.31 (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Polytheistic Reconstructionism is a problematic term. For some people, it means "not completely made up", while for others it means "reenactment quality", while for yet others it means "academia-level knowledge about historical paganism". Also, if it has "risen to prominence", this was mostly an effect of the internet, and has happened too recently to be substantiated from credible literature. --dab (𒁳) 19:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

-- Thank you for that insight, Dbachman. I understand what you are saying, yet, there are (neo-)Pagan religions that are not so overly inclined for reconstructionism aspects, such as Asatru and Wicca. Even Thelemites are more concerned with magickal practice than they are with reconstruncting old(historical) occultic ceremonies. I suppose I should have worded my question this way: Is the major focus of the whole of Neopaganism in the modern age an aspect of Reconctructionism? (E.g. if I ask "Does Reconstructionism affect all of Neopaganism? The answer is "No, not necessarily." But if I ask "Was Neopaganism influenced by Reconstructionism?" The answer would be "Sometimes. Some of the relgions were, and vice versa.") So my question above has yet to be fully answered. Thanks 70.61.247.31 (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, my post was in reference to the "Reconstructionism rose to prominence in the 1980s and 1990s" part you questioned, and I was granting that you do have a point. That is, I was expressing partial agreement. It is propably correct that since the 1990s, reconstructionism has become much more prominent. But my understanding is that this isn't for the most part by some conscious decision on the part of the neopagans, but simply because with the advent of the internet, bullshitting people with phony claims of ancient druidic lineages etc. has become much more difficult.

In my understanding, "neopaganism" does in essence have an aspect of "revival". I.e. people imagine they are doing something which had been done centuries ago, and had then been lost or obscured by Christianity, and is now being rediscovered. The difference is in claims of continuity. Obviously there is cultural continuity from paganism right there in Christianity and in folklore. But, there is no verifiable continuity of pre-Christian organized religion, no underground priesthood, no unbroken lineage of initiation. The early neopagan movements presented claims to such an effect. This was during the 1960s and 1970s when the hippies and New Agers were willing to believe anything at all just as long as it contradicted mainstream society. By now, it has become clear even to people who have never seen an university or a library from the inside that these claims were phony, and neopagans who want intellectual honesty are reduced to (a) either create genuinely new 'pagan' traditions, based on 'personal gnosis' or (b) piece togeter a reconstruction of historical paganism based on such sources as there are, or (c) come up with a combination of the two. --dab (𒁳) 09:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Asatru is a Reconstructionist tradition, 70.61.247.31. Or maybe "reconstructed" would work a bit better for you? They just got started on it then to twenty years before many of the other cultural traditions. But much of what some who are newer to the information may assume is ancient and intact was actually reconstructed or revived some time in the past two or three decades. Or do you mean you see Asatru mostly based on "UPG"? There are streams of the tradition that are very traditional, and others who are rather eclectic, so the naming can be confusing. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In Iceland, "Asatru" is pretty much the term for "Neopaganism". It doesn't have much to do with reconstructionism, or even the Edda in particular, they are extremely inclusive of the entire spectrum of neopagansm. In the USA, on the other hand, "Asatru", at least according to McNallen is short for "native religion of the Northern Eurpean peoples", again not restricted to the Viking Age, but including whatever people take to be the "religion of the blood" of White Americans. Of course Asatru includes reconstructionist approaches, but I cannot say that they appear to be very prominent. See also Ásatrú (disambiguation). --dab (𒁳) 07:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How very odd. Well, it makes sense that I've primarily known the reconstructionist, anti-racist Ásatrúar in the US. Among most of the US groups (and this is OR, I have no idea if anyone is writing about it in WP:V or WP:RS sources) most are reconstructionist, and are trying to keep eclectic approaches from seeping in. It's a bit of a controversy, actually.

As soon as anyone starts ranting about "blood" I back away, so that has limited how much I know about the racist groups. With any of these movements, especially now with the Internet, as soon as there are a significant number of adherents, we're seeing people adopting terminology but using it to mean different approaches.... sometimes radically different approaches. It's become a problem in CR as well. It was inevitable, I guess, but still confusing to outsiders and at times rather frustrating. And I agree with you that "reconstructionism" is a problematic term. Not what I would have chosen. *snerk* - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope I do not give the impression that I am "ranting about blood" here. I fully concede your point that there is certainly a "reconstructionist Asatru", and we may also agree that this constitutes the saner part of the movement. I was just saying that we cannot subsume all of "Asatru" under reconstructionism. --dab (𒁳) 19:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh no no, I didn't think you were ranting about "blood", or anything else :-) It's important to keep these articles international in scope. I honestly did not know of that usage in Iceland; I'm glad to know of it now, as it really affects how we can apply the terminology. As for the racists and fascists... well, they exist, and we have to acknowledge that existence even when we personally disagree with their views. I know I flinched when you first added some of the stuff about fascism and racism to the relevant articles and templates, but I got over it. It's better to have that stuff out in the open so it can be dealt with. It's an issue here in the US, too, especially with the white supremacist groups recruiting in the prisons. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gardner, Seton, Kibbo Kift, etc

70.61.247.31 wrote: "...because Wicca began in the U.K. and therefore would not have been heavily influenced by Native American Indians. Perhaps American Wiccans were (or some were, to be more accurate), but those who lived in the British Isles would have next to zero influence by Native American Indians." Actually, there's been a very convincing argument made that Gardner based some of the Wiccan cosmology and ritual structures on Caucasian fantasies of Native American religion(s). He was involved in a hobbyists group that went camping and basically "played Indian". These "indianer" groups are still very popular in Germany. See Greer, John Michael; and Gordon Cooper. "The Red God: Woodcraft and the Origins of Wicca". Gnosis Magazine, Issn. #48: Witchcraft & Paganism (Summer 1998). I don't know if it's available online, but it's quoted in this article: "The Wicca that Never Was" Steiner, Utne Reader. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He was involved in a hobbyists group that went camping and basically "played Indian".-- do you have a source for that? But before you answer that, I would assume that you are talking about his reflecting the tribal customs of the aboriginal Malayans. He did write about this. (I don't know if he actually "played" like them or not) But these were natives to British Malaya, not North-American Native Americans (i.e. indigenous peoples of the United States Gerald Gardner went to Malaya in 1911. He was also associated with pygmy tribes (again not North-American Native Americans.) If he "played Indian", it would have been far more likely for him to "play" either a native of Malaya or of a pigmie tribal race. There has been a convincing argument that Gardner based his ritual structure on Caucasion fantasies. hmmm, really? I don't think that holds much water, especially if you ever read Witchcraft Today. But if you can supply me a reference I'd be interested into looking it. 70.61.247.31 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe what Kathryn is referring to is the Kibbo Kift and the Woodcraft Indians. Greer and Cooper present evidence linking Gardner to both organization, although I think Heselton also deals with it, but does not give it as much weight.--Vidkun (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have references/quotations from either author? If so, share them here, or include them in the article, with cite, please. I already know that Gardner does not address these orginzations in either the Gardnerian Book of Shadows, or Witchcraft Today. 70.61.247.31 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I already know that Gardner does not address these orginzations in either the Gardnerian Book of Shadows which isn't citeable here, anyway, so why would that matter?--Vidkun (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I already linked to the Utne article in my comment above. Did you read it?

"In Gnosis Magazine (Summer 1998), John Michael Greer and Gordon Cooper discount the long-held belief that Wicca is a religious tradition surviving from pre-Christian times. Rather, they argue that modern witchcraft has its roots not in ancient Europe but in turn-of-the-century Connecticut.

"Modern Wicca's true origins, Greer and Cooper theorize, are in the Woodcraft Tribe, a nature organization established in 1902 by naturalist and writer Ernest Thompson Seton that in 1915 became known as the Woodcraft League of America. In an effort to placate the rowdy local boys who lived near his wooded estate in Cos Cob, Connecticut, Seton created a lodge called Woodcraft Indians, a nature club that by 1910 boasted some 200,000 American boys and girls as members.[6]

... ... ...

"For adults interested in taking part in the rituals of the Woodcraft Indians, Seton established Red Lodges: spiritual, initiatory groups whose practices and principles, according to Greer and Cooper, closely resemble those of modern Wicca. From the Red Lodge - and from other offshoot organizations such as the British-based Kindred of the Kibbo Kift - eventually grew the religion we now call Wicca. These nature-focused groups employed similar ritual meeting styles, secrecy rules, initiation rites, and even practiced mysticism and "magick" - hallmarks of modern-day Wicca."[7]

I've got the hardcopy of the Gnosis issue around here somewhere as well. Gardner's aims in his writings were to build on the mystique of a supposedly "discovered", intact European magical tradition, not to accurately cite his diverse, multicultural influences. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Several problems with this: The title "Wicca" was never officially formulated until after the date of the religion's origin: Gardner used the title "Witchcraft" not "Wicca" and titled the adherents as either "witches" or "wica". The next problem would be the verification that Gardner was indeed truly a member of any of these groups. Perhaps a Charter or something similar would be useful there. The third problem I would have is that in 1902, Gerald Gardner was in London, if I remember correctly after all he was only about 16 or 17 years old then. The fourth problem, is that Wicca wasn't really known in the 1900's in the U.S. in its modern context. Yes, some Witchcraft may have been, but these aren't the same thing. Yes, the Woodcraft may have influenced Wicca, but that would come later... not in the early 1900's. Gardner didn't write about the New Forest Coven until 1954 (which is the usual reference date for the "origin" of Wicca, culturally speaking at least.) So there is a 52 year gap between the two dates of origin suggested. The fifth problem, would be verification that these groups are inter-related. Perhaps, Gardner was involved in a sect like this (or this one) however, we're looking for verification here. This text above specifically states the author's are "theorizing" their claims. The final problem, I'll list for now, is that Raymond Buckland didn't "bring" Wicca until 1974. (What I mean is that his first book published in America was in 1974.) As stated below the "customs resemble those of modern Wicca." Interesting, because so does any other Tribal and primal customs, which are used all over the world. 70.61.247.31 (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How is the Kibbo Kift related to the groups that Wicca is known to have been identified with? 70.61.247.31 (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

70.61.247.31, what is your problem? You asked for a quotation and Kathryn provided one. If you are unhappy with the theories of John Michael Greer and Gordon Cooper, maybe you want to tell them about it, but I fail to see what this has to do with us. Also, "Wicca" is the current term for the religion founded by Gardner. It is completely irrelevant that Gardner did not himself use that term to refer to it back in 1954. I don't even see what point you are trying to make. It is completely undisputed that Wicca originates with Gardner (1954) and as such is a modern creation. Whatever disparate influences Gardner may or may not have drawn from, including historical paganism Native Americans, Romanticist occultism and hat have you is an entirely different discussion, and probably not one that is relevant to this article. --dab (𒁳) 19:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

--Whoa, Whoa... no need to get testy.... I was merely trying to find (figure) out if there was any verifiability to he claim that these groups (i.e Woodcraft and Kibbo Kift) aided in the Wicca origination. If so, I'd include the quotes in the article. I could include them now... but not under the terms as "Wicca originated with the Kibbo Kift and Woodcraft orginizations." but rather as something like "Cooper and Greer stated that Wicca might have originated with the Woodcraft and Kibbo Kift orginizations." But the quotations from Greer and Cooper were sketchy. While the first sentence may or may not be true, the second is verifiable. However, if there was authentication that Gardner or another prominant figure related to Wicca was a member of these groups it would add substantiability to their claim. Does that make sense? 70.61.247.31 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"See also" Sex Magick et al.

A user would like to add sex magic and the great rite to this articles See also section. Most information relating to this had been discussed on Wicca's discussion page, and it was decided to keep them out of that article. I have previously removed them from here, as the "See also" section contains a list of Wikipedia articles that expand upon critical points raised within the specific article (if it needs to be, that is). As sex magic isn't integral to Neo-Paganism itself (but to individual practitioners), I see there no reason to have it linked in the "See also" section. What does everyone else think? Xxglennxx (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wicca is not Pagan?

I'm still trying to pull together information from various sources, but it seems that the 2009 Parliament of the World’s Religions has come to an interfaith understanding and agreement that Pagan religions include only the traditional indigenous religions of Europe, and not neo-religions such as Wicca. Therefore, reconstructionist religions such as Celtic Reconstructionism, Religio Romano, and Hellenismos are Pagan (only when used to describe the traditional cultural religion), while Wicca, Neo-druidism, and other neo-religions are not. Paganism and Neopaganism would seem, based on this global interfaith council, to be distinct identities and movements, and should not be commingled in the way Wikipedia is presenting them currently. Will the Paganism and Neopaganism articles be updated to reflect this understanding? --151.201.146.123 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Parliament of the World’s Religions doesn't control the English language and I doubt any "neo-religion" is adequately represented by them.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that the Circle Sanctuary, Earth Spirit Community, Covenant of the Goddess, and Fellowship of Isis have been representing Neopagan religions within the Parliament since 1993, and other organizations such as Cherry Hill Seminary, Correllian Nativist Tradition, EarthSpirit, PaGaian Cosmology, Reclaiming, Witch School, and others have been added over time. The Parliament of the World’s Religions would seem to be a legitimate source for interreligious understanding and legitimate information. Wikipedia contributors seem to use proof by assertion to include revivals of the traditional indigenous religions of Europe under the "umbrella term" of Neopaganism dispite many of these groups making public statements they have no association with them, and at least this global interfaith organization wanting to make the distinction. --151.201.146.123 (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware organizations have made efforts to be involved. Surely, those you mention make little pretense of speaking for the representative majority of "[neo]pagan" groups. For example, membership in Covenant of the Goddess (CoG) is exclusively for groups (and Elders) whose religious practice qualifies under specific criteria and who self-identify as practicing "Wicca" or "Witchcraft" and being a "Wiccan" or "Witch". (BTW, Cherry Hill Seminary is or was affiliated with CoG's interfaith efforts). Whilst a denial-of-use "understanding and agreement" wouldn't exactly leave Wiccans/Witches without a means to freely identify themselves as members of their own religion, there's still no chance CoG would agree to such a thing (for example).

Frankly, I'm not clear how this, apparently obscure (?), yet clearly controversial statement/recommendation "should" prompt changes to how Wikipedia editors "commingle" groups under an "umbrella term" against their wishes. Is it appropriate to conflate the POV of specific pagan groups with the POV of the 2009 Parliament of the World’s Religions? I remain skeptical. However, if you can pull together a policy statement from your sources, I don't see why it wouldn't be discussed and included.

—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally tries to be a follower, rather than a leader, when it comes to terminology so we wouldn't necessarily change anything based on a recent conference, even if it had all the legitimacy in the world. When general usage (among reliable sources) has changed we would change. But even apart from that, these PoWR definitions appear to be by no means universally accepted by contemporary pagans. They were hotly debated on The Wild Hunt blog, to name one popular resource. Haukur (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll have a look at The Wild Hunt blog, thanks—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only do you both continue down the proof by assertion path, but you have added an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Those groups engaged in restoring and rebuilding traditional indigenous religions of Europe, which finds some unity with the World Congress of Ethnic Religions, often vehemently and publicly reject being part of the Neopagan movement. It is only the assertion by obvious Neopagans that these reconstructions are under the Neopagan umbrella, and that is what is being used as the basis for Wikipedia including them, with a subsequent argument that this is the consensus opinion of the majority.

I also want to add that the reason I did not just start editing the appropriate articles to provide the opposing point of view coming both from reconstructionist groups, and the greater interfaith community, is because these articles are obviously contributed primarily by Neopagans who have an agenda and want a certain image. There was enough information put out by reconstructionist groups prior to the 2009 Parliament of the World’s Religions that the difference between conflicting claims and opinions should have been more prominent and accurately depicted in the associated articles. --151.201.146.123 (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

When reliable sources start drawing a sharp distinction between "reconstructionists" and "neopagans" then Wikipedia will start doing so. My personal opinion is that this is not likely to happen anytime soon as almost all contemporary pagan groups represent an amalgamation of reconstructionism, innovation and other elements. Tell me, for example, does Ásatrúarfélagið represent one of the "traditional indigenous religions of Europe" or a "neo-religion"? Haukur (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Add to the growing list of fallacies used to support the way these articles are crafted is an appeal to authority. Is Margot Adler and Isaac Bonewits really reliable sources for arguing the revivals of Indigenous European Religions are Neopagan? It is like if the Christians got together and said Jews and Muslims are really Christians dispite their claims otherwise, and then Wikipedia proclaiming the Christian opinion is more authoritative and therefore the correct one. Point to Wikipedia policy all you want, but Wikipedia policy also states there must be a Neutral Point of View that requires articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints. Just because Neopagans want these revivals and reconstructions to be Neopagan, does not make it true no matter how many Neopagan sources are cited. --151.201.146.123 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, claiming Wicca is not pagan or fanning some more-authentic-than-thou pissing contest is not on the table here. And it's not like we could do what you ask us even if we tried - you didn't even answer my question about Ásatrúarfélagið. How are we to distinguish between "reconstructionists" and "neopagans" if you won't tell us which is which?

Now, what could be on the table is trying to reduce usage of the word 'neopagan'. There's been some movement in academia towards talking about "contemporary paganism" or "pagan revival" and among pagans, the word 'neopagan' is often as not used as a slur. Not many people strongly self-identify as 'neopagan' but lots of people like to throw around accusations of 'neopaganism'.

What's also totally on the table is improving this article in various ways. It's certainly true that Bonewits isn't a final authority on anything - though I note that the only claim the article cites to his work is this one: Some Reconstructionists reject the term "Neopagan" because they wish to set their historically oriented approach apart from generic "Neopagan" eclecticism You don't disagree with that, do you? What specific reliable sources do you suggest we use to improve the article? Haukur (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement I read out of the Parliament of the World’s Religions was "Wicca, for example, cannot be seen as an indigenous Pagan faith practice and is instead a modern syncretic movement. Under this description Wicca therefore would not fall under the definition of Pagan, and would be squarely a New Religious Movement, while British Traditional Witchcraft could be considered a Pagan and Indigenous faith tradition."

The World Congress of Ethnic Religions states unequivocally indigenous religions are the "religion, spirituality, and cosmology that is firmly grounded in a particular people's traditions [and] does not include modern occult or ariosophic theories/ideologies, nor syncretic neo-religions."

Read what you wrote. Your whole premise is based on an ideology rather than a neutral point of view. The article on Ásatrúarfelagið calls them Neopagan, but I had a hard time finding that word used on their website with them describing themselves. So then the real question is, does the organization actually call themselves Neopagan or has the writers on Wikipedia decided they are Neopagan? It still goes back to you (you referring to the contributors of various articles) deciding that the Neopagan perspective is more authoritative than other sources, including these actual groups and the greater global interfaith community. Neopagans are absolutely right to assimilate these religions, and these religions and the greater interfaith community are absolutely wrong to reject the classification, therefore the objections can be ignored. That is hardly unbiased. --151.201.146.123 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please make specific suggestions on how articles can be improved. Haukur (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is segregate indigenous religions from Neopagan articles, and make clear when referenced the relationship is dubious. Religions such as Asatru, CR, Religio Romana and Hellenismos should be reclassified to distinguish them, and references identifying them as Neopagan removed. Religions such as Wicca and Neodruidism should be clearly identified as Neopagan and/or New Religious Movements. I mean really, all things considered, doesn't it strike anyone as odd that Paganism is listed as a system under Neopaganism on this article's sidebar? Even if Neopagans are Pagans, it would be Neopaganism as a system under Paganism, not the other way around, and that would still allow for the distinction and segregation of indigenous religions from Neopagan articles. --151.201.146.123 (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we can't do this - that's not the way reliable sources generally classify things. Nor does it fit well with self-identication of adherents. Many Wiccans vehemently reject the label 'neopagan', for one thing.

All you've cited in support of your ideas is that statement by discussion at the Parliament and you keep ignoring that the statement this has widely been a source of controversy. Here's Chas Clifton's take on the 'indigenous' word: [8] The person you've actually quoted above is Andras Corban-Arthen and apparently it's something of a misquotation.[9] The root of the whole hoobla is that Andras Corban-Arthen thinks he represents a direct survival of a European indigenous pagan religion which he supposedly was introduced to some decades ago in Scotland. In his preferred terminology he gets to be 'indigenous' while almost all other Western-European or North-American pagans get classified as adhering to 'new religions movements'. That's what this Parliament brouhaha is about. Haukur (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the PWR doesn't vote on resolutions - whatever Corban-Arthen et al. were saying in their presentations there doesn't represent a consensus of the Parliament or anything like that. Haukur (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What reliable sources? I think you are still showing your bias here. First of, logically Paganism would not be a subdivision of Neopaganism as represented in this article's sidebar. It is a question of which came first, and there is just no way to defend it. Second, the controversy was with Wiccans and others who want to be Pagan because they interpret being Neopagan as less than. Your also saying that that organizations specifically dedicated to the restorations of the traditional indigenous religions denying links to Neopaganism, modern Esotericism and the New Age are not reliable, and is not a significant viewpoint to be fairly' represented? You are also saying that a global interfaith organization that has exited over 200 years working for interfaith understanding and cooperation is not reliable? Nowhere on the Ásatrúarfélagið website did I see them describe themselves as Neopagan. What "reliable source" was used to classify them as such in their article? Oh wait, there was no cited source... is there? --151.201.146.123 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What is my "bias"? What "ideology" do I follow? What are you talking about? What "global interfaith organization that has exited over 200 years" are you talking about and where is your citation to what they have to say? Haukur (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your bias is placing certain opinions, which may or may not be relevant, above others. Representing Paganism as a subdivision of Neopaganism is not correct, and you don't even try defend it, but are uwilling to allow the change. There is no reliable source stating Ásatrúarfélagið is a neopagan organization, but you deny the reliability of organizations at the forefront of the movements to rebuild the indigenous cultural religions of Europe. You place weight of reliability on Neopagan opinions who want these groups and movements to be included under them above the opinions of the groups themselves that identify otherwise. This is not rocket science. --151.201.146.123 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a question about article following Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Please see Wicca is not Pagan?. 151.201.146.123 (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)