Talk:Modern paganism

North America

The section titled North America contains only information about the United States, and even links to Neopaganism in the United States for further information. This section should either be renamed United States, or, preferably, have information pertaining to the rest of North America added to it. I'll see what I can find, but any help would be appreciated. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Help please

The article Neo-Pagan (literature) is one of Wikipedias article tagged the longest as needing references, if someone knowledgeable could take a look it would be a great help. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed 'see also' link to Heidegger

It may be a minor point, but I've just removed this link from the see also section. Heidegger was the only philosopher linked there and there's no reason I can see either here at Neopaganism, or on the Heidegger page, as to why he should be singled out. I'm not saying he's not appropriate - I have no specialist knowledge! Just that I can't see any particular reason why he should be emphasised thus. Happy to be put right by those who know better! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Replacing "Neopaganism" with "Paganism (new religious movement)"

Hello Wikipedia editors ! As many of you have been aware, I've been active on Neopagan articles for many years now, and all of the time we've been using the term "Neopagan". However I've been having doubts as to whether that is the appropriate term to use, considering both the contemporary Pagan community and academia both overwhelmingly use the term "Paganism" instead. By its very nature, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the mainstream use of terminology, and in this issue, the evidence is overwhelmingly on the adoption of the term "Paganism". From an academic perspective, Ronald Hutton, Chas S. Clifton, Margot Adler, Graham Harvey, Robert Wallis, Jenny Blain, Dave Evans, Joanne Pearson, Caroline Tully, Douglas E. Cowan, Ethan Doyle White and Michael York (to name but a few) all use "Paganism". Indeed, Sabina Magliocco and Helen Berger are the only academics that I am aware of that actually use the term "Neo-Paganism". The only academic journal to discuss the subject, The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies, insists that its authors use "Paganism" because it is the most widely used terminology whilst AltaMira Press refer to their books on the subject as the "Pagan Studies" series. Now, I don't personally object to the term "Neopaganism", but I just don't think that we can justify its continued usage on Wikipedia when the academic and popular consensus is so overwhelmingly one sided on this issue. (Midnightblueowl ^(Talk) 17:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC))

I agree Neo-pagan is badly outdated term, I think contemporary paganism since its the most applicable term for the subject covered here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The main issue I see with this is making it clear whether the subject is modern "pagan" movements or the historical polytheistic religions that the term was originally applied as a slur for. On top of this is an additional complication in that "paganism" seems to have simply become a synonym for "Wicca" or "Wiccan-influenced" in a number of modern circles. Wicca, of course, has little to nothing to do with any pre-Christian religion.

That said, on a personal level, I very much dislike using the terms pagan or neopagan if solely due to the fact that terms are so uselessly general. Groups falling under said categories frequently have little to do with one another other than not being focused on Yahweh. The fact that pagan originates as a slur doesn't help matters either. In my opinion, polytheism is far more appropriate a term to employ than paganism. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My initial reaction to MBO's suggestion was negative, but the arguments are nevertheless persuasive. I like the fact that the different article titles as they stand differentiate Paganism and Neopaganism quite well - a distinction that has been stable for several years now. However, as MBO points out, few or no modern pagans (I am Wiccan myself) describe themselves as neopagans. The UK's biggest pagan organisation is NOT called the Neopagan Federation....

I think it was the tag of "New religious movement" that raised my hackles; the term makes me think of wholly negative, cultish groups - even though the article on Neopaganism is linked from there! I'd go along with the suggestion of "Contemporary paganism" as a title. I don't think "Polytheism" works - it's much too broad and anyway that article is already there. Can we kick this around a bit more and canvass wider opinion? It's a big change and would be good to get a real consensus before we act. I'll put some posts out! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My issue with the term "Contemporary Paganism" (and I must stress, we have to use a capital "P" when describing this religious phenomenon as this is what is used in the overwhelming majority of sources) is that it is not used in many of the academic sources. Hence why I believe that "Paganism (contemporary religions)" or "Paganism (new religious movements)" would be preferable. Then again, Graham Harvey did publish a book entitled Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism... (Midnightblueowl ^(Talk) 22:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC))

I am not opposed to capitol "P" in "Contemporary Paganism." I am looking at email from Chas S. Clifton (editor of the Pomegranate) confirming that it is the correct term for what the article discusses. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Chas Clifton posted here about it→

“ Increasingly, however, scholarly writers prefer the term "contemporary Paganism" to cover all new polytheistic religious movements, a usage suggested by British scholar Graham Harvey, one of the founders of the Contemporary Pagan Studies Group within the American Academy of Religion. The term "contemporary Pagan" is also favored by The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. ” — Chas S. Clifton, #Terminology and definition

I think it's an excellent suggestion and in some ways, inevitable I think. I never would have thought a "neo" or capitalization should matter too much, if it clarified historical v. contemporary... But I'm not sure the two are ever in serious danger of being confused. It's actually pretty hard to imagine what contexts would permit the ambiguity; there's typically no question about it. The Paganism article informed me “...ethnologists avoid the term "paganism," with its uncertain and varied meanings, in referring to traditional or historic faiths, preferring more precise categories such as polytheism, shamanism, pantheism, or animism”, so I doubt it ever really served that purpose very well.

It's sad that the “neo” prefix picked up some derogatory connotations... (as mentioned above in 2008 #Please skip the NEO), but I think the editors here were arguing in good faith, even though neo-like-it-or-not, in hindsight, can't be so easily justified. I haven't read through the two articles lately, but I think linking to the Paganism article (as opposed to Neopaganism) has been under-utilized as an alternative. Changing the article name is one thing, but all the neo/Neo links are a concern too. I wonder about the implications of a name change vis-à-vis the Paganism article, would it precipitate a self-fulfilling ambiguity?

I'd favor "Paganism (contemporary religions)" over "Paganism (new religious movements)" because the latter might imply a more inclusive definition of Paganism, “Paganism, i.e. new religious movements”... like UFO-based new religious movements, for example. The equivalent parenthetical for “Contemporary paganism” should probably be “Paganism (contemporary)”... it can capture a “spiritual but not religious” factor in a way that “contemporary religions” does not. A bit of an an oxymoron in that, philosophers were pagan simply on account of not being Christian and theology was a branch of physics. I think paganism and physics are awfully full of religions these days.

One minority to keep in mind are people who do self-identify with Neopaganism and mean it as the proper name of their religion, not just an -ism. A recent thread at Talk:Paganism#Pagan or pagan?, was prompted by what appears to be the self-same sentiment (sans “Neo”) given the edit summary “Capitalized the word Pagan, as it is a religion and should be afforded the same respect as Christianity.” I'm reminded of Isaac Bonwitz encouraging (Neopagans, effectively) to take it as a slight on their religion if “Pagan”/“Paganism” [sic] isn't capitalized:

• ‘Like the members of every other religious community, we Pagans have the right to define ourselves and to demand that our definitions, rather than (or in addition to) those invented by individuals and institutions hostile to us, be quoted or referenced when we are discussed by the mass media.’
• ‘Like the names of all other religions and their followers, “Pagan” and “Paganism” deserve a capital letter, just as “Buddhist,” “Christian,” “Protestant,” or “Bahai” do.’
• ‘Like other general terms for religions, “Pagan/Paganism” requires modifying prefixes or adjectives in order to communicate specific approaches, denominations or sects. The following are the ones I have settled upon over the last thirtyfive years...’( http://www.neopagan.net/PaganDefs.html )

Bonewitz goes on to present his Paleo/Meso/Neo classification scheme (I wonder if a tolerance for religious category error selects for Neopagans?) For the eastern hemisphere and sundry “original polytheistic, nature-centered faiths”, the term “Paleopagan” is hardly less obnoxious than “savage” (“Savage” even). Of the people who actually do get associated with contemporary paganism, he's really only sorting “Neopagans” form Non-Neopagans... ostensibly due to influence from Abrahamic religions (apparently contagious amongst religions) or else racism, sexism, homophobia etc. (The term “Mesopagan” doesn't seem to have caught for some reason... And Wicca (proper) isn't Neopagan, imagine that...) People who aren't adverse to identifying as a member of the religion Neopaganism, or rather, Paganism, as he explicitly calls it, probably don't have too much to complain about. Apparently, [Neo]paganism is a religion with denominations/sects called Taoism, Shinto, (Ab negative) Hinduism, the various religions of indigenous peoples, the whole mess o'subpaganoid religions (who don't quite get it) and, of course, Neopagans. (Or to put that another way, non-Abrahamic/UFO/vampire based religions).

I don't mean to harsh anyone's buzz—I'm just saying that what might be plausible for Neopaganism can be an irrational without the “Neo”, analogous to expecting “Religion” and “Religiosity” to be capitalized because ‘Neoreligion isn't just a “religion”, it's our Religion and no one should call their Subreligion “a religion”’.

I can see a case for capitalizing Neopagan in reference to those who self-identify as that religion. I'd think they're sufficiently organized, for example, they engage with each other on the Internet about what members of their religion believe. However, if it's not at the beginning of a sentence, I can't imagine where or why paganism should be capitalized, least of all on account of being a religion. A respondent to the Talk:Paganism#Pagan or pagan? thread described why lowercase would be grammatically/stylistically correct. It sounded plausible... ? Midnightblueowl raises a point in favor of capitalization based on convention in WP:RS. I wonder why they would be grammatically/stylistically incorrect though? I'm a bit confused about that.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Bonewits might have been a key figure in the American Druidic movement, but no-one else of any note has ever adopted his Paleo-Meso-Neo definitions. As such it should only really be discussed on his own Wiki page, and not here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. (Midnightblueowl ^(Talk) 20:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with Midnightblueowl about the Bonewits classifications; elegant though they were I don't know that anyone else ever took them up and used them - certainly not the 'Meso-pagan' group, of whom by his definition I am one! As far as capitalisation goes, modern pagan movements such as Wicca or Druidry I think deserve the honorific of a capital. Christianity and Buddhism get one because of the proper name of their founder, but then so do Judaism and Islam.... However I'm not sure there is a single, definable modern religion of Paganism - just a collection of paths more or less closely allied. Hence I'd be usually inclined to see pagan/ism as generic nouns rather than the proper name of some entity.

So far of all the options I've seen, I'm tending towards Paganism (contemporary religions) as it avoids the 'neo' word and the 'new religious movements' terminology, as well as identifying the religious nature of the movements and their plural nature. There are indeed some non-religious pagans - interested in ecology, the cycle of the seasons etc but not engaging in religious practice. But I think by that token there are probably many non-religious Christians too! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, with respect to you both, it's come up often enough here on this talk page, at Wikiproject Neopaganism, it was an argument in favor of the mandatory “neo”, and (I'll bet you a donut) it was exactly what motivated that brief edit-skirmish at Paganism. But point taken regarding religiosity, Kim. Ecology is probably a better contemporary example. Although many individuals do, I don't expect contemporary paganisms will overcome the monolithic of religion, certainly not while legal systems reward the opposite.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my point, in case “elegant” wasn't meant facetiously, the scheme is ridiculous.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the changing. Neopaganism defines the contemporary reconstruction and reestablishment or reinvention of the Pagan religions (the ethnic religions of Europe and Near East as defined by the ECER and Parliament of World Religions, not all the ethnic religions of the world), and these reconstructions are surely very different in sociological and organisational terms from the old religions. Calling both pre-Christian Paganism and post-Christian Paganism just "Paganism" makes only a lot of confusion. As for caps or non-caps, I surely think capitalisation is preferable for a variety of reasons. --79.10.175.157 (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the consensus seems to be in favour of switching from "Neopaganism" to "Paganism (contemporary religions)". I shall make the alteration. (Midnightblueowl ^(Talk) 20:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Main Currents and Denominations

I suggest changing "denominations" to "traditions," since denominations implies that Paganism/Neo-Paganism is one religion with several branches. Paganism/Neo-Paganism is not one religions, and I think this needs to be made clear. Plus, traditions is the word used within the community, so I think it would be appropriate here. Thoughts? WarriorPrincessDanu (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)WarriorPrincessDanu

Seems reasonable to me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Some other concerns regarding the Main Currents and Denominations section:

Judeo-Paganism and "Jewitchery" are listed under the Wicca sub-section. This doesn't seem to make any sense. What does pre-monotheistic Judaism have to do with Wicca? Wouldn't it fit better in the Reconstructionist sub-section?

Also under Wicca, in the last sentence describing the common denominators of the various varieties of Wicca there is no mention of ritual practices, which seems to me to be one of the biggest similarities.

Under Neo-Druidism, it is described as "the largest Neopagan sub-denomination after Wicca." This just doesn't seem right. Wicca is called a religion up in its section, so why isn't Neo-Druidism listed as a religion? Also, using sub-denomination implies that it is a twig on a branch of a religion. And with Wicca mentioned so soon afterwards, it could be confused as being part of Wicca. I think it would be better to say that Neo-Druidism is "the second largest Neopagan religion" or "the largest Neopagan religion after Wicca." Though this claim has no citation, and it would be nice to see one.

I also have an issue with the New Age Syncretism sub-section. Neopaganism is not part of the New Age movement. They may have emerged at about the same time, and have a few points of commonality, but they are not the same thing. Also, there is nothing mentioned about the New Age after the first sentence, so it doesn't seem to be an appropriate title. WarriorPrincessDanu (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)WarriorPrincessDanu

Demographics

The North American section uses data from the early 2000s. ARIS and the Pew Forum have recently done surveys again. Wouldn't it be a good idea to up date this section to include this new data? WarriorPrincessDanu (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)WarriorPrincessDanu