Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5


Someone using IP address made a pointless edit of one letter to this article, so I reverted it to the last good version. P.MacUidhir 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


Historical information is quite sparse, on US Asatru websites, so if anybody knows what happened to the US subculture during 1987/88, I'd be glad for the addition. From the pattern of society forming, there appears to have been some sort of split. More detail about the process of chapter-forming of Odinic Rite would also be nice. dab () 05:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I know some people... ;) If you want to chat via e-mail, we can get that data hashed out for you to use as you wish with this article. P.MacUidhir 21:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
we need some standard of verifiability, though. We can quote people, as in "according to the chairman of the X association, ..."; but I cannot just put stuff I got via e-mail here without quoting any sources, I'm afraid. dab () 10:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
That could be easier said than done, though it may be easier with the recent history of the reconstruction than with things like how rites are performed. Without an Àsa-pope, so to speak, there's no one to speak to the "right way" to be Àsatru (and most of us like that just fine ;)), and things like that may differ from hearth to hearth.GeminiDomino 14:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
GeminiDomino heathens are confrontational we seem to have things worked out and accept the things that are believable everything else seems to get classified as wicca and dbachmann i think mcnellen was involved in the giant split it might of been in the eighties but even then it only affected one group of heathens not the majority so im not sure it would belong here--Ofrolvi (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The 1986 AFA split was a defining moment in the history of American Asatru, and it is the origin of the "folkish vs. universalist" division that plagues the movement to this day. My comment above dates to 2005. It has all been worked out and referenced in detail since then, and you can read up all about it on Wikipedia, and in the references cited. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Folkish Asatru

I have noticed the following quote, which I believe violates the NPOV of the matter:

Folkish Asatru insists on the necessity of "Germanic blood" for Asatru practitioners, with clear affinity to white power movements.

I don't disagree with the statement regarding the "Germanic blood" aspect; though I think that it may be improved if I were to replace this statement with "Northern European heritage." The problem I have is with the statement of its "affinity to white power movements." In most cases, this is simply not true. The term "white power" has implicit connotations with racist and neo-Nazi movements and organizations which is not present in legitimate Folkish Asatru. True, it is present in the spin-off "Asatru"-like organizations that do teach racism; but these groups are mainly shunned by the Asatruar community. Folkish Asatru is not racist in that it doesn't teach that the Northern European race or people is superior to all others; it teaches that each people should learn the wisdom of their own culture instead of ripping off other traditions for their own ends. This being said, it can't then follow that it is connected with Nazism, given that it would be illogical to reject racism yet hold views of Nordic Supremacism.

If no one objects, I can make the needed changes.

Yogensha 01:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Folkish does not equal racist, at least in the 'mainstream' of Folkish beliefs with which I am familiar. I say change it to what you think is fair, and then we can consider the change in phrasing on its own merit. P.MacUidhir 10:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
well, what is the difference between "folkish" and "tribalist" then? As I understand it, "tribalists" emphasize cultural heritage; it doesn't matter what your genetic composition is, as long as you are exposed to and immersed in Northern culture. Folkish, on the other hand, focuses on descent and ancestry (i.e. genetics). The distinction is not sharp, of course, and it is unclear whether "trust no stranger people" is supposed to refer to non-pagans, to non-Scandinavians/Anglo-Saxons, or to non-whites. I take as my source the very convincing account on winterscapes, [1]:
Opposite the Universalists are the Folkish Asatruar. These claim that the only ones who can be Asatru are those with Norse or Germanic blood. They claim that other bloodlines had other gods and that people of other bloodlines should stick to those gods. They claim that the only people who can properly worship the Aesir and the Vanir are people with such blood as the ancient Norse and Germans had.
It is true that radically racist Asatru are a minority. Mainstream Asatru are usually fond of saying that these are 'shunned'. This is, however, far from clear. Actively anti-racist ('tribalist') Asatru is also confined to a minority. The majority, it would appear, dodges the issue by claiming to be unpolitical. This allows all currents within their ranks, including actively racist ones. This situation has really been brought to a point in Germany, where a notable fraction of Asatru is Neo-Nazi, pure and simple. Then there are those claiming neutrality, and consequently refuse to reject even extremists. The openly Neo-Nazi groups do not disguise their intention to infiltrate these 'unpolitical' societies, for using them as "sockpuppets" so to speak. Then there are groups that clearly reject any "volkisch" tendencies. Finally there is the almost extremely anti-Nazi 'Rabenclan' which is so immersed in fighting Nazis that one wonders whether they still have time left to actually practice any sort of Paganism. Due to this configuration, the German Neopagan subculture is in disarray. In the USA/UK the situation is more relaxed, and therefore, the distinct faction are not as clearly visible, but the basic mechanisms are identical. My personal outlook is that of a Swiss, with some familiarity of the very minor local paganism, casting a worried eye on the happenings across the northern border. Frankly, if I was German, I wouldn't want to join the fray, and prefer to remain unorganized. The characterization of folkish as "other bloodlines should stick to other gods" is reconfirmed by a humorous story written by a member of OR Germany I have recently read, where Odin appears to a German Turk, and convinces him to follow the Hunnic gods rather than Islam. The Turk agrees to "follow the gods in his blood". Now, a glance at Huns will inform you that not only do the Turks not equal Huns in any way, the Huns during some time even included Germanic (Gothic) members. This was just a humorous little tale, but it fully drives home the point of the fallacy of trying to establish "bloodlines" between people of today and people 1500 years ago (who knows how many children Attila's Huns fathered in Western Europe, for instance?), and more to the point, this example reconfirms the "folkish" (each "bloodline" - not 'culture' - has its own gods), but not "white power" (no claim that Germanic gods are in any way superior to "Hunnic" or African gods) position of Odinic Rite. dab () 10:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Hej. I sent you an e-mail explaining the differences, at least as I and some other tribalists view these matters. For the record here, though: the difference between folkish and tribalist tends to be more in how they organise themselves *as* groups. The race issue does not matter to either set of people. Only the extremists / fanatics on both sides care at all about race, and those people are very much in the minority. I am a tribalist, but the folkish people I meet are usually quite friendly and decent folk. They simply develop differently as a group in comparison to tribalists.
Besides, anyone who claims to be a heathen and also has racist beliefs is a living contradiction. Being a racist is contrary to what heathenry teaches as a way of life. Discussing those hypocrites is pointless, since by definition a racist cannot be a heathen. Racist beliefs and heathen beliefs are mutually exclusive and incompatible in every way imaginable. This is not just opinion: it is a fact and supportable with plenty of evidence. P.MacUidhir 15:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
well, this entirely depends on your definition of "racism" then; if you equate "racism" with "brainless foaming nazis" then you are right, certainly. But one may well have racist notions without being fanatic about them. And certainly, I have talked to people with decidedly extreme views who were entirely friendly and decent towards me, that's not a contradiction at all. But hey, I'm not saying this whole article should be dominated by the racism debate. It is a real issue within Asatru, but it shouldn't be blown out of proportion. I still do think the difference between the "tribalist" and the "folkish" directions involves the notion of a "bloodline" (or, synonymously, "race"). dab () 15:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, what do folkish neopagans recommend for people of mixed ancestry, either of entirely different races or of different 'white' ethnicities? Most people in the US probably fall into that category these days, certainly I do, and one can hardly point to the ancestral gods of such people. Eddy1701 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Stephen McNallen, head of the Asatru Folk Assembly, often comments on that he is of Germanic and Celtic ancestry, as are most people from the UK and most likely most Germanic people in general. He identifies more with his Germanic ancestry. Since the two are so closely related historically and evidence shows they've intermixed on both a cultural and social level, I wouldn't think that's an issue. I would assume it's a similar situation with most folkish groups, that they would expect one to side with whatever ancestry is most dominant in their genetics. Really though, this is a question you should be directing towards some of the major Asatru groups for a solid answer instead of this talk page. :bloodofox: 09:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


I don't like the bit about the "term focuses on worship of Odin in particular." This is incorrent. You may wish to read the article called 'Odinism, By Any Other Name...' which can be found here: from the Odinist Library here:

well, "time of light", vs "tyranny of Christianity", that sounds just a little bit too biased (and naive) for WP. Also, a site that claims to "educate" but mixes up Guido von List and Black Sun stuff with Germanic paganism is a rather sad sign of the education of the would-be educators. Even OR appears to claim the fylfot "has been part of our heritage for over 10,000 years. Let's see. The term "fylfot" most likely dates to the 19th century. The swastika symbol may be aged some 4000 years [2]. Odin in any form is aged 3500 years at best, more likely 2500 years. In his historical "Eddaic" form, 1500 at best. If you really want to stretch "Odinism" to include steppe nomads of Kazakhstan, you may argue that the "holy symbol" of "our tradition" is aged 4000 years. The figure of 10,000 is more than twice that, dating "our tradition" to the Ice Age. That's simply nonsense. dab () 19:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Questioning Motives for Re-Direct

Why did someone redirect Asatru and Odinism to this entry with no explanation or justification on the talk page?

I think Asatru should fall under Germanic Reconstructionism, Germanic Heathenry or just Asatru. Here is why:

Doing a Google search of "Germanic Neopaganism" turns up only 142 hits. Doing a Google search of "Germanic Heathenry" turns up 2,640 hits. Doing a Google search for "Odinism" turns up 26,800 hits. Doing a Google of "Asatru" turns up 431,000 hits. I feel that the term "Germanic Neo-Paganism" is factually incorrect & misleading and I advocate reverting the re-directs unless a reasonable explanation is offered.

Asatru has been a legally recognized religion in the United States since 1972. "Germanic Neo-Paganism" has not.

Also, "pagan" is felt to be a perjorative term by many Asatruar. The term "pagan" was primarily used by the Romans and later the Roman Catholics to deride the country folk who worshipped the old Gods while the city folk had all been converted to monotheistic xianity. Just like the Greeks used the word "barbaroi" to describe non-Greeks, Muslims call non-Muslims "infidels" and Jews use "gentile" or "goyim" - these are all considered perjorative by the groups being demonized - including modern Asatruar.

The word heathen was first documented by Bishop Ulfilas (311-382) - in the first translation of the Bible from Greek to Gothic. The closest we can ascertain, the term "heathen" meant a polytheist who worshipped on/ or lived on the heath. Other than seasonal gatherings at the temples blót were outdoors (on the heath or in sacred groves).This was specifically referred to and forbiden by the church fathers. There were also specific Germanic tribes - the Heathobards (Beowulf lines 2032 & 2067 in my version) and the Heathoreams (among other tribes) whose names attest to the fact that the term "heathen" or "heath dweller" predates Ulfilas.

The term "heathen" was coined and used exclusively regarding Germanic indigenous religion and cultural practices in it's original context. Later, when the Bible was translated into Modern English, the term "heathen" was used rather than the Latin pagan because the people who would be reading it spoke a Germanic tongue. Also note that Irish Monks referred to the vikings specifically as heathens - not pagans.

Thus, in a historical context, Heathen refers exclusively to those who follow the reconstructed Pre-xian religion of Northern Europe.

The Vikings in Irish Chronicles, 794-902 is a very interesting database citing all known entries in the Irish annals referring to Vikings during a 108 year period during the heighth of the Viking age. The annals were huge. Just the references to the Vikings are around 94 pages long.

  • The word Heathen occurs 172 times.
  • The word Dane occurs 72 times.
  • The word Northmen occurs 44 times.
  • The word Pagan occurs 2 times, but not as a descriptor for the Vikings but for their "pagan-like" activities.

Thus, in a historical context, I think the facts bear out that "heathen" refers to those who follow the indigenous religion(s) or tribal practices of the pre-xian Northern Europeans. As such Germanic_Neopaganism is incorrect both historically as well as in modern common usage, just by the sheer discrepancy in the usage of the terms shown on google. As indicated by Google hits, there appears to be far more adherents and self-declared Asatruar in the English speaking world than there are in Scandinavia.

I think that perhaps there is a conflict of interest here, and I ask whomever has taken the stewardship and spokesperson role for all Asatruar on wikipedia to please identify themselves and their motivations.

Other Sources Cited:

HroptR 18:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

it is a question of the scope of this article. This article covers all reconstrucitivist Germanic religions, and therefore its title is correct. Google counts don't enter into it, Google gives 20 million hits for "viking" and yet we do not move this article to Viking because its subject matter are not (exclusively) Vikings. Now, "Asatru" is an Icelandic word, originally referring to the Icelandic Asatruarfelagidh. It should properly refer to reconstructions of the Eddaic religion, exclusively. If we want to do a special article about this, fine: Similarly, Odinism does not redirect here, but treats groups who specifically self-describe as Odinists. Not all currents treated on this article can properly be identified as "Asatru", and the term is not uncontroversial. The Icelanders do not like to see syncretistic currents self-describe as "Asatru". We can very well portray the various views on the topic, but we cannot prejudice the question by choice of title. Maybe there should be an independent Asatru article, or maybe Asatru should redirect to the Icelandic Asatruarfelagidh instead of here, I don't know. I do know that we cannot just move this article to Asatru, since Theodism, for example, certainly does not qualify as Asatru, insofar as it does not aim at the reconstruction of the Icelandic religion of the 10th century. As for "heathen", no, "heathen" is simply a translation of "paganus". It does not specifically refer to Germanic customs, as stated in the article. heathen - pagan is just a case for List of Germanic and Latinate equivalents. As for your Irish monks calling the Vikings "heathen", could I have a source for that please? Did your Irish monks speak Old English, or maybe Norse? Or did they actually loan the Germanic word into Irish? dab () 17:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


HroptR, while I agree with most of your edit, you have changed "minority" to "majority" with regard to the number of hard polytheists. What is your justification for this? If you dispute that it is a minority, you could just remove the classification. If you actually claim it is a majority, you'd need to quote some sort of evidence. dab () 17:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Dab

Do you think that there might be some kind of bias against American practitioners of indigenous Germanic religion on your part? Perhaps you need to question your insistence that only Scandinavians can use the term. Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson specifically recognized the Asatru Folk Assembly and the Asatru Alliance in North America in the early '90's. However, it's not like they needed permission to use the term or practice the religion. This is not a lineaged belief system. I absolutely agree 100% that Astaru should only refer to the "reconstructions of the Eddaic religion, exclusively". I also feel that Google hits are relevant as to common usage. Citing a reference to viking is a straw-man. Viking religion would be more relevant but not as accurate as the other offerings.

Don't get me wrong: I think there should be an entry for either Germanic Reconstructionism or Germanic Neopaganism in addition to Asatru. Groups like Northvegr and the various Theod and Irminist groups do not even self-identify as Asatru, thus they should not be under that entry. I think that the Germanic Neopaganism entry is getting very lengthy, and having a separate entry for the future growth is forward thinking.

As far as the semantics on heathen vs. pagan apparently the source I cited Vikings in Irish Chronicles, 794-902 is 404. I have written the School of Celtic Studies for access to the file, but I assure you my data is correct. (It is thought that the Irish monks had acces to Ulfilas' writings and that is where they gained the word hæðen. Also recall that the Irish monks where heavily involved with continental Christianity since the 400's and were regulars at Charlemagne's court. They were reknowned for their learning. I refer you to the entry for Heathen in the Online Etymology Dictionary to attest to the fact that it is far from certain whether heathen is cognate to paganus. In fact it is thought to perhaps to be cognate with the Greek ethne which would further bolster my position.

Concerning whether hard polytheists are in the majority, I don't think empirical evidence could be offered at this time either way, so I will redact the statement. However, just reading through the major real world organization's positions, all of the major players in North America (AFA, AA, Troth, OR, the various Theods - even Northvegr) seem to be hard polytheists.

What's with all the Northvegr advertisements anyway?

Also, do you think we can archive this page? It's getting pretty long.

I think that there should have been a vote on the deletion /redirect of Asatru. If you feel adamantly about deleting the entry, I think that there should be a vote or poll on it.

Thanks for taking the time to steward these entries - I realize how confusing and convoluted all the material and agendas can be.-HroptR 19:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

As for my alleged bias, it is irrelevant. I realize that "Asatru" is used as a cover term in the USA, and our article has stated as much for months. All I am saying is that we cannot move this article to the title Asatru, since that would be a controversial, and you seem to agree. You can document American usage of the term to your heart's content, without opposition from me. In fact, I will now branch off an independent Asatru article, where the term, and anybody using the term as a self-designation can be discussed at leisure. If you care to check the history of this article, you will note that it was a dilapidated mess before I started to re-organize it. There was no need for a vote. There may be a need for a vote now, and we can still have one, if we do not arrive at a consensus. So far, however, I don't see any irreconcileable differences between our positions. As for your statement regarding heathen, I am afraid you do not make a terrible amount of sense. Are you saying the Irishmen used the Gothic term, haithno? Or the Old English one, haedhen? My suspicion is that you have read an English translation of an Irish text, and the translator simply decided to render some Irish term as "heathen". I don't see how this is relevant at all. I apologize, of course, if you have in fact read the Irish text, and seen the Germanic word in the Irish, in that case I would ask you to point me to the exact location of the text, or at least to give a verbatim quote. You must realize, that our explanation of heathen here is in part based on etymonline? It is entirely in accord. Ulfila's use, yes, the first attested occurrence of the Germanic word, is in reference to a Greek woman, so I really cannot see how you can claim the term is used for Germans exclusively. Please, if you feel Northvegr is unduly advertised, do edit it out. It's just that Northvegr is a prime source of all things Old Norse on the Internet, so we end up citing them quite frequently. I do think that their text editions have the status ofe a serious reference. dab () 10:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you have already separated the Asatru article. That's fine with me; problem solved, as far as I'm concerned. dab () 10:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong Dab - I appreciate the effort and time you have spent on these entries and I looked back through the conflagration of the edit histories. I realize that for most of the time this article has been extant that you have been the only one keeping it in some form of cohesive form. I appreciate that, and I'm sure all the people who have come here via search engine do as well. You are partially correct: It was very foolish of me not to correlate the Latin and the Gaelic - the primary seems to be a derivative of gentile genntibh and gennte. However a case could be made that the mere fact that they did not use pagani in the annals - when the word was known and available to them - indicates the word was lacking for their definition. (I'm not arguing to change the entry title to Germanic Gentilis though :D)

Again, agreeing upon the strict definition of Asatru: "reconstructions of the Eddaic religion, exclusively" I'll try to keep it within this scope. Can we archive this page? It is getting very long. -HroptR 19:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

well, I am glad we seem to be able to agree on practically everything. I am certainly looking forward to your contributions to Asatru, and your criticism (such as, I may have given Northvegr, which I am familiar with as a good source, too much prominence) is welcome; I think we can leave this topic hanging here for a few days, and if nobody else comments, we can archive the page. regards, dab () 19:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Why was the link to Valknut removed? -- I would have thought it would be highly relevant... AnonMoos 20:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

why is it highly relevant? dab () 20:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Because some Germanic neo-pagan individuals or groups use it as an emblem, as you can see with very simple searching on Google (regular or image search). AnonMoos 20:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
It is a symbol found on Iron Age stones in Scandinavia, so, sure, there is presumably a connection to Germanic paganism, but why is it more relevant than e.g. Mjollnir. You could write a paragraph explaining why it is relevant rather than just linking it without comment as a "see also". The Valknut article isn't in very good shape, btw, quoting "one Asatru site", linking to some random AOL (of all things!) site. dab () 20:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
If you don't like the shape it's in, then please put it into a better shape -- I'm only really knowledgeable about the geometric aspects, not the historical or the modern neo-pagan community, so there's a limit to what I can do on that article. AnonMoos 20:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear AnonMoos, there are 818,000 articles on Wikipedia, the majority of which are in rather poor shape. I am spending far too much time here anyway (some 5 hours today, sadly), but I still can only work on so many articles at a time. I will certainly look after Valknut if I get round to it, but I have about a thousand other articles on my watchlist demanding attention. I was just pointing out that you cannot take for granted stuff you read on Wikipedia, unless it is referenced, and the reference turns out to be some credible academic or literary source rather than an AOL homepage. dab () 21:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Whatever, dude -- I didn't write the sections of the Valknut article which you're objecting to, and meanwhile, you're missing the main point, which is that very simple and elementary basic searching will turn up a fair number of homepages of people and groups who claim to be Germanic neopagans, and who use the Valknut as an emblem. As far as I can see, the only way that Valknut wouldn't be a relevant link for this article is if you had some credible reason to believe that all those homepages were hoaxes, put up by people who are claiming to be Germanic neopagans, but in fact aren't. AnonMoos
very well, dude, I do invite you to make mention of the highly relevant fact that a google search reveals the popularity of the 'Valknutr' design among neopagans. dab () 23:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think much can be said about it except that it was possibly a symbol for Odin. For practices particular to Odinic Rite, you may want to edit that article. dab () 20:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop deleting highly relevant link

Dude, I'm sorry for you that you seem to have developed an extreme violent aversion and uncontrollable virulent antipathy to a few sentences in the Valknut article (sentences which I did not write, I am not responsible for, and I don't really feel qualified to revise), but that does absolutely nothing whatsoever to change the rather indisputable fact that Valknut is a highly-relevant link for this article. AnonMoos 14:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the link is highly irrelevant myself. You have not presented anything to explain why this symbol should be included, but not other symbols which are even in more common usage amongst germanic neopagans. Rather than proving your stance or bolsetering your position with fact or references like this: The Knots of Death you copped an attitude. Dab even told you in simple English, that you could place a cross reference to the valknut in the article, as long as you explained why it is even relevant. Instead you threw a fit like a kid.Mjolnir is a much more represented motif by adherents of Germanic Neopaganism and it isn't in the article anywhere. Yet, no one is arguing to include reference to that or to the runes which are also highly represented. Unlike Thorr's Hammer, there is no solid literary reference to the walknutr anywhere. There are hundreds of material instances of mjolnir pendants, moulds, inscriptions and references in the physical and literary material culture of the indigenous heathens. Even Sleipnir is cross referenced in the manuscripts by Snorri *AND* on pictographs. The only reference we have to the valknutr is a few sparse pictographs. Without other material evidence, the meaning is dubious at best. The oft made statement that it is "Odin's sign" is just not supported by the material. There is no historical proof that the valknutr was (or is) the symbol of Odin and it doesn't even appear in any of the medieval manuscripts or grimoires to my knowledge. The triskele or fylfot appear in conjunction with Odin more than the valknut, yet again, neither of these are in the entry. However the fact that it has been used by modern Germanic Reconstructionists since at least the '80's is verifiable, since it was used as a symbol of the Rune Gild and Edred Thorsson mentions such in A Book of Troth. If you would like, I will add to the valknut entry and figure out a way to add a reference to the valknut along with mjolnir in Germanic Neopaganism. But placing it at the end of the article with no explanation and out of context is not how to have it referenced in the entry.-HroptR 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thank you HroptR :o) that, and there is also the "Symbolism" section I created, putting the valknut in context, once it became clear that AM was either unwilling or unable to do it himself. He still threw a fit because the link had disappeared from the "see also", even though it was now put in referred to in the article body. Sometimes, you just have to shrug and accept that you'll get all kinds, on Wikipedia :p btw, a google image search for "Asatru" shows up one single valknutr for me, amongst lots of mjollirs and yggdrasils, so I have my doubts about the symbol's popularity. Likewise, the "fylfot", afaik there is no evidence that it had any significance as a symbol, where it appears at all it is typically one among variants of ornamental signs. During the composition of the Swastika article, at least, no evidence of Germanic use has substantiated. dab () 16:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It's nice that you created a little "symbolism" section for the article, but you're not "doing my work for me", since I never saw the need for any detailed explanation here (as opposed to a simple "see also" link), and you never even attempted to make the case for the necessity of such a section (instead rambling on about how valuable your precious time is, and how much you hate certain sentences in the Valknut article which I didn't write and can't fix). I really don't understand what was the point of all this fuss and botheration about a simple unobtrusive "see also" link to another relevant article. AnonMoos 22:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to toss in an "insider's" viewpoint: the valknut symbol does have some currency amongst modern heathens as well as heithinnfolk, but it is rare compared to, say, Mjolnir, runes, or Yggdrasil in terms of "popular" symbols. This opinion is based mostly on personal observations and experience rather than formal surveys of our folk.
As far as historical usages are concerned, almost nothing is known with any certainty. Even the Davidson quote is mostly speculative in tone, as she almost certainly intended it to be when she wrote it. I have a few sources here on the valknut design, but they invariably deal with the subject mostly in correlation with Borromean triangles or triskele-style knotwork symbols. Honestly, we know almost nothing about the so-called valknut- scholarly or otherwise.
I do not see a reason to disallow a link to the Valknut article from Germanic_Neopaganism since the symbol *does* have *some* usage... but dab's point about adding the other common symbols as well should be kept in mind and implemented if the Valknut article is linked here. That is my two florins on this topic.
P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Padraic. Sigh, that's what I meant to say precisely. "See also: Valknut" is plain silly. Why not "See also: Gimli"? Because, hell, Gimli is a character of Norse mythology, and that's what these people are into, isn't it? It was your job to provide a coherent sentence about Valknut because you, AnonMoos, insisted it had to be mentioned. We have such a coherent sentence now, off the top of my head. Feel free to improve the "Symbolism" section, I just listed the most common symbols I could think of. dab () 07:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


Someone recently added wotanism as allegedly being cognate with the other common terms. However, I don't think this is the case, as Wotanism has commonly taken on the ahistorical usage by followers of the incarcerated neo-nazi terrorist David_Lane. If one Googles "wotan" or "wotanism", it seems the term has become a byline for white supremacist activity and not Germanic neopaganism. Apparently WOTAN is an acronym for Will Of The Aryan Nation. I am tempted to remove the reference outright, but it probably should be used in the context of the neo-nazis who identify as Germanic neopagans further down in the entry, rather than as a cognate term. This doesn't seem to gel with the tripartite Folkish - Universalist - Tribalist division in the article, as the Wotanist people apparently even reject folkishness' as not being racist *enough*...WeniWidiWiki 15:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've ran into this also. Often, the term "Odinism", although not used as an acroynm, has been hijacked in a similar manner, maybe seen as a less obvious synonym to this word for such groups. :bloodofox: 07:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
wotanism redirects to Odinic Rite at the moment. If we can cite a credible source for the acronym thing, it may be well worth mentioning in the neo-nazi section. dab () 09:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well just to clarify, I don't think Odinism is any sort of secret code word for racist groups like Wotanism is. There are and have been numerous Odinist groups who do not tolerate politics or racism, and even the Odinist Fellowhsip and OR are not what I would qualify as racists or nazis - while the groups calling themselves Wotanists like the Temple of Wotan are 100% without a doubt neo-nazis. The first several hits for it on google are NS groups. Gambanreidi Statement, and on the second hit there is the essay by David Lane where he specifically states they do not identify with the term Odinist or Asatru:

So, I first chose the name Wotanism over Odinism. First because W.O.T.A.N. makes a perfect acronym for Will Of The Aryan Nation. Secondly because he was called Wotan on the European continent and only called Odin in Scandinavia. Therefore Wotan appeals to the genetic memory of more of our ancestors. And finally because a split had to be made with the game players, deceivers and universalists who had usurped the name Odin.

Maybe wotanism should re-direct to the OR because it turns out that most of the Temple of Wotan materials were blatantly plagiarized from the Odinic Rite with a bunch of nazi mysticism tacked on. However, I suppose there could be some genuine Germanic neopagans out there who use the term Wotan in the sense that Jung or Wagner used the term - I just haven't seen any. WeniWidiWiki 16:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I re-directed Wotanism here and also clarified the philosophy at David_Lane. This is the material I have for this entry, and I would like some feedback before I add it in, and if it should even be in this entry. Also wehere in the article I should add it. Unlike the other terms listed, "Wotanism" is not widely used and therefore the first paragraph would have to be rephrased if we add it in. Here is what I have thus far:

Based on the essay of the same name by Carl Jung, the term Wotanism in modern times heavily emphasizes white supremacy and National Socialism (NS). Wotan is the German name of the God Odin but is used as a symbolic acronym for "Will Of The Aryan Nation" by some Wotanists.[4] Unlike other Germanic neopagans, Wotanists emphasize dualism and view the Gods as Jungian archetypes.[5]

Feedback and input greatly appreciated - look at the two links and also back at the David_Lane bio. I have the book Gods of the Blood, and this topic is discussed in depth. WeniWidiWiki 02:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see Wotanism is now redirected to David Lane. I don't know if this is appropriate, as apparently there are 'Wotanists' who do no subscribe to Lane's philosophy. However, their group was founded by Lane (actually by his (ex?) wife, since he is incarcerated: Katuscha Maddox AKA Katja Lane. The group's name is the Temple of Wotan inspired by the book Temple of Wotan. There probably needs to be a sole entry for Wotanism since it's not distinctly Germanic neopaganism and it is not distinctly David Lane's philosophy. However with the current idealogy Lane is promoting in his most recent work KD Rebel, (kidnapping under-age girls and women and turning them into breeders in a racist Wotanist enclave up in the mountains) and considering his background, Wotanism should not direct to Germanic neopaganism. WeniWidiWiki 20:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
sorry, I was not aware of this discussion anymore. Yes I agree, it would be best to have a separate article dedicated to the term. dab () 17:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I created Wotanism and added material - hopefully the non-racist/nazi Wotanists will come along sooner or later and add their POV to it. WeniWidiWiki 19:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Wotanism should be a disambiguation page as Wotanism as defined by plagiarist Ron McVan is a completely different from the Wotanism of Guido von List. And, both are different to Odinism (Wotanism under a different name). FK0071a 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made this a topic of conversation on the Wotanism talk page HERE. FK0071a 09:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Attn editors

User:Wikipedical Added Germanic Neopganism to the Nazi Template and placed the nazi template on this entry with no explanation. Here are the diffs. [6][7] I have removed the template from this page and also removed Germanic Neopaganism from the template itself. Please help keep an eye on this. WeniWidiWiki 22:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging Heathenry

I agree that these two entries are competing now, however I feel that this entry is trying to be all things to all men and the presentation of the material is severely lacking as a result. So many things are now out of context, which should have been corrected in the previous merges, that it is difficult to make heads or tails of it. Neologism or not, Heathenry or Germanic Heathenry are the common usage terms by the adherents themselves. Also, I feel that before someone just flushes Heathenry they should probably hold an RfC or at least inform the editors of that entry that there is going to be a merge /re-direct and wait for feedback. I feel it is inappropriate to just assimilate everything into an all encompassing Borg entry which is so conflicting and inaccurate as to just leave the reader extremely confused. The main proponents and advocates of these merges need to stick around and help clean up the disaster and factual errors left in the wake of such wide-scale merges if they insist upon them. In this instance they probably should be merged, but let's do it with more caution and attempt to keep the article cohesive rather than a conflicting jumble of factoids. WeniWidiWiki 20:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

first of all, merging does not mean assimilating. Heathenry has valuable information that should be merged here. Secondly, as discussed several times before, "Heathenry" is not the term used by adherents, it is one of the terms. Now, Asatru, Theodism and Odinism have sub-articles, by virtue of being well-delineated subsets (Asatru Viking Age Norse in particular, Theodism and Odinism being particular organizations). The same does not hold for "Heathenry". If we agree that "Heathenry" and "Germanic neopaganism" should be merged, the question arises, at which title should the merged article reside. Again, as discussed several times before, "Heathenry" is not unambiguous. It may be used synonymously with any of Paganism, Germanic paganism or Germanic neopaganism. I suggest it could be a disambiguation page. Germanic Heathenry is ambiguous, referring to both Germanic paganism or Germanic neopaganism. As for the creators of the Heathenry article, they were well aware of this article, yet they created it as a fork. It should have been merged at an earlier stage, but I only just noticed it now. As for the drawbacks of this article, it may need sub-articles per Wikipedia:Summary style, but it certainly doesn't need a fork with identical scope. dab () 20:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing about the ambiguous terminology, nor am I advocating a fork. I agree that the lead needs work. What I am advocating, is that there needs to at least be reference to Germanic Heathenism in the lead in my opinion, neologism or not, because neopaganism is ambiguous. The term, in the US at least, specifically has connotations of Norse Wicca[8], and Wiccatru [9] which are not even reconstructionist beliefs, but offshoots of the New Age who have appropriated Norse and Germanic cosmology. I'm also not advocating merging or renaming both of these into Germanic Heathenism. I'm stating that the term needs to be mentioned. (I'll also point out that Odinism does not have a sub-article - it redirects back to this entry and that the UK based organization the Odinic Rite obviously identifies as Odinist and they are not in the US.) In good faith, I think that the original creators of Heathenry felt that this specific article was lacking - because it obviously is. I am advocating more careful merging than in the past, and there is no hurry in my opinion. In good faith I feel we should hear from the editors of Heathenry who obviously put much time and work into it, before we assimilate or merge the entry. WeniWidiWiki 21:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

merge, not assimilate. I have no issue with anything that's in Heathenry, except that it should be merged here :) Yes, I thought Odinism redirected to Odinic Rite, apparently not anymore. Obviously Neopaganism is the much wider term, including Wicca and what not, and of course I agree that all terms, neologisms or not, should be listed in the lead. dab () 21:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Heathenry should be a disambiguation page. FK0071a 08:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

list of terms in the lead

We have

The term Germanic Heathenry (Old Norse heiðinn), is commonly used by adherents as a self-descriptor, while in the USA, the terms Ásatrú ("Æsir faith"), and Odinism are also widely used. In Britain, Heathenry, and in Scandinavia Forn Sed ("Old custom", Anglo-Saxon fyrnsidu) are also commonly used terms

this is inconsequent. There are about four or five things wrong with it. "Heathenry" (heiðinn --what now, heathenry or heiðinn? heathenry is not derived from heiðinn, it is a genuinely English cognate)is commonly used by adherents [where?], while (while?) "Asatru" and Odinism are used in the USA. Oh, and "Heathenry" is used in Britain. Oh, and Forn Sed is also commonly used. See the problem? I tried to fix it, avoiding repetition of "Heathenry", and avoiding the impression that "Heathenry" is commonly used, while "Asatru" is merely "widely used" (wth?). Furthermore, it is not true that "Germanic Heathenry" is commonly used. It gets about 1,000 google hits (Asatru: 370,000; "Heathenry": 48,000). People using "Heathenry" usually take the "Germanic" to be implied by using a Germanic word. dab () 20:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Rephrased for other editors' edification. WeniWidiWiki 22:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
nice one, well done. dab () 15:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Are 'Goths' into paganism?

I hear the terms Goth and pagan and I think those younger Goths are suppose to imitate an early Germanic tribe. The word Gothic sometimes refer to a neo-pagan religion. Goths were named for a tribe of North Germans entered the Roman Empire in the 3rd century AD, then became an underclass in Roman society and their oppression was evident to create an uprising by Gothic tribal chiefs nearly destroyed Rome. The typical 'goth' in today's world are mainly young people, into morbid subjects of pain and death, and fascinated with heathenry, demonic influences and anti-social behavior. Some Goths openly discuss sex, sadism or masochism, others dress in dark clothes and their faces covered with grey 'dead face' makeup. Some Goths act like 'nocturnal zombies' visiting cemeteries, and are loners or only associate with their peers. Many goths listen to black metal, death metal and other hard rock/metal genres like Marilyn Manson, but also into techno and soft rock like Savage Garden. I recall the two suspects, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the Columbine school shooting were practicing Goths, but are influenced by Neo-Nazism, anti-authority attitudes, ultra-violent video games, cult fans of movies like the Basketball Diaries and are firearms collectors. Does anyone have concerns of the Goth movement is either pagan or something else entirely different? + 11:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your short answer: Read the article on Goth and then Gothic rock to better educate yourself on the subject. What you have stated above is unfounded and untrue. :bloodofox: 16:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I second :bloodofox: in that opinion and his suggestions. Neo-paganism gets picked up by 'gothic' people because they think it fits in with their sub-cultural values. In my experience, they generally figure out very quickly that they are decidedly mistaken- 'gothic' subculture, at its most basic level and definition, tends to be incompatible with many strains of neo-paganry. Further, it is almost completely contrary to the ideals of both older and modern heithni / Germanic neopaganism. In short- 'goths' in the modern sense are not good candidates for being 'Germanic neo-pagans', and vice-versa as well.
However, on a related note, you will find some common ground when viewing Germanic neo-paganry and industrial music, or at least some variants of each. A few strong ideals tend to be shared by both groups in modern contexts. Neofolk fans, too, share a lot with Germanic neopaganry in terms of common interests.
P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on, I'm not trying to unfairly stereotype Goths, but I came across two or three in high school. They tell me what their subculture is and what they believe in. I read the Goth and Gothic rock articles, so it looks like the meaning changed over the course of years. Because of the 'dark' nature and its ties to rock music 'counterculture', many others joined the Goth movement with their own thing. I'm concerned of those 'goths' into death and negativity has influenced the subculture, and pagans are naturally attracted to the theological standpoint of many Goths. The Columbine shooting suspects are a rare kind of Goths, experimented with violent revenge and targeted a girl who confessed she's Christian, was killed over her remarks. How does the Goth culture reacted to the Columbine event? I apologize to bloodofox if I offended him.+ 11:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Your post seemed so off the wall and unfounded to me, I was seriously wondering if it was a joke. It sounded very much like something I once heard Jerry Falwell say regarding the specific subculture. The article on the subject that we have here is pretty concise and, in my opinion, on the mark - I would disregard what notions you've culled from these people you had. First off, I should probably state that, despite sensationalistic media reports at the time, it quickly became clear that neither of these two teenage killers had any involvement with gothic subculture (nor Germanic neopaganism for that matter) at all. I'm not taking offense, my dealings with said subculture are pretty much null. In the US, you're more likely to find goths involved with Wicca, New Age or, even less so, Thelemic matters than things involving reconstructive forms of paganism. Christian imagery and Christianity itself are major themes for many goths. In Europe, matters are considerably different and the subculture itself overlaps heavily with other subcultures and groups that either do not exist or are considerably more minute in size than those in the US - Including reconstructive forms of Germanic neopaganism, which has a considerably larger base in Europe anyway. Basically, what I'm saying is that many of the notions you have regarding this particular subculture, based off of what you've written above, are wrong and the connections to Germanic neopaganism in the US to it are extremely minute. Again, I refer you to the Gothic subculture article. :bloodofox: 20:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, but the Goth movement isn't uniform and Christianity is a major religion of Goths, along with the Syncretism borrowed from different European religions of previous centuries. There are Goths who don't fascinate with this death and morbid stuff, but my claims aren't a joke and seriously by my experience coming in contact with 3 young Goths. They are into Germanic neopaganism, or Celtic Wicca; but concerned with dark imagery and mysticism that claim was inherited for generations by the cultures of Europe. Romanticism is a movement that borrows whatever was in the distant past of any given people, nation or religion. To bring back the glorious and innocent past associated with paganism, not indulge in weird or bizarre rituals. I don't agree with Falwell, Pat Robertson or Christian fundamentalists, but I heard Dr. Laura said things on Goths, pagans and rock music fans on her radio show that are defamatory. I don't listen to her show, but her fame is spouting her political, social and religious views. I think Michael Savage went on a tantatous rant about the "pagan revival" of Europe, its' ties not limited to Nazism, but the French revolution and the European Union. So he has expressed a problem with neopaganism, same goes to other right-wing columnists, like the Green Party with some members are in a religion associated with mankind's closeness to mother nature. Of course, European paganism is stronger than in the U.S. and this proves to you I took my time to research Goths and paganism. That's all for now. + 07:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

it appears sectarian and elitist to suggest that "Goths are mistaken about/ incompatible with" paganism. Still, it should be noted that they are named not after the historical Goths (who became Christians very early, in the 4th century, anyway) directly, but after the term in 18th/19th century romanticism. Hence, if the "Goths" are in any way historical reconstructionists, they do a fancy impression of 18th century eccentrics, not Germanic pagans. Nevertheless, symbols and terms from Germanic paganism are very popular among them (as, of course, during the romanticist revival). It is certainly true that the Goth subculture is not connected to polytheistic reconstructionism. Their notions of paganism may often be naive, but syncretism and naiveté imho are the true hallmark of a "folk religion" (while learnéd Eddaic reconstructionists are doing their best to turn Germanic paganism into a book religion) dab () 11:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

ive never edited a wiki article befor but i think it is worth mentioning that the ancient goths have nothing to do with this article i do not know where the modern gothic culture comes from but the ancients were christian every aspect of theyre culture was heavely influenced by christianity they were extreemly violent but that was common for the era especialy among the romans

9 Noble Virtues Vs. 10 Commandments

The article says: "Comparison of the Nine Noble Virtues of modern heathenry, which are loosely based on the Havamal can be contrasted with the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments." There is no reason to contrast virtues to commandments, that's an easy error given the fact that both are lists. Christians (or judeochristians) have their own virtues, which are not the same as the more specific commandments. Later on it is said: "Such a comparison shows that it is not the actual behaviour (such as "thou shalt not steal") which are prescribed, but rather an emphasis on character traits", which doesn't explain anything: a commandment IS a prescription on behavior, and virtues ARE moral dispositions, to put it in two words. So, at least, if the "nine noble virtues" are not compared with the four cardinal virtues or the three theologal virtues in Catholicism, it could be compared (contrasted) with the more known "Seven deadly sins" (which are the opposite of virtues). I'm inclined to do it myself but I wanted to put it here first, and I'll be glad if someone who is already working on this article does it himself. 16:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Nahuel

um, did you note that contrast is in fact about pointing out these differences? You are just repeating the point already made in the article. dab () 10:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Er, did you note that Christianity already has its virtues, and that any contrast would fit better if you take the same denominators? The text is totally misleading, since it doesn't show what virtues christians do prefer instead, neither what forbiddances the old germanic tribes had. But don't worry, I will change it as soon as I have some time. Nazroon 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Addition and removal of links & templates

This entry has been heavily disputed in the past and most new additions are heavily scrutinized. Drive by link removal and the addition of templates with no justification on the talk page are counter-productive unless it is blatant vandalism or nonsense. Due to the controversial nature of this entry and some of it's related entries, I am throwing a template at the top of this page which requires consensus for modification - and at the very least detailed descriptions in the edit summary. - WeniWidiWiki 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No they are not. The removal of justified templates without fixing the problem is considered vandalism. They are quite self-explanatory.
As for links, see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:EL. In general, "free" hosted sites like geocities and angelfire are not considered reliable sources or good sites to link to. An organziation hosted on such a service does not meet Wikipedia notability requirements. Frater Xyzzy 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Frater Xyzzy, BTW I don't think your requests for sources are out of line and I think a lot of the stuff in the entry are kruft and unsubstantiated - just be aware of some trends in the edit history of the entry. If you remove a link, please just move it to the talk page with an explanation so everyone knows why it was removed. - WeniWidiWiki 16:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[10] This is exactly why you need to explain why you are removing links, so we can have consensus. The link does not belong there - you are correct. It was inappropriate and placed in the wrong spot - however if you would have explained this here, we wouldn't have people reverting it back and forth. Also, you placed a template on the page which says "See the talk page for details" yet there is nothing here concerning your request for sources. - WeniWidiWiki 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I did explain it here. Scroll up two paragraphs. If you are going to insist that people post on the talk page, I must insist that you actually READ it. Frater Xyzzy 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I state that it is unclear. You did not state what links you removed on the talk page and you did not state why you tagged the entry. The template specifically states "See the talk page for details". I'm looking. -WeniWidiWiki 18:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm editing the article according to standard policy. I'm not changing the content, simply removing unreliable citations and discouraged links. Please READ the relevant policies so that you are familiar with them. If and when I remove actual content, I may follow the suggestions on the template. But as WP:V states, any editor may remove uncited material at any time, so I may not. Frater Xyzzy 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


  • I have gone through and sourced everything which was tagged and removed the templates, but will leave the top template until there is consensus on this issue.
  • I have removed the following text because it is unsourced. Scandinavian editors may be able to find a source.

"In the strict sense, the term refers to reconstructed medieval Norse or Icelandic paganism and in particular to the Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið."

  • I also cut the following because the only source I could find was on a personal site, and the author seemed to have an axe to grind:

"A simplistic description of the various factions in North American Asatru, are: Universalist, Tribalist and Folkish Asatru. Universalist Asatruar practice a cultural and moral relativism to the point of syncretism, while Folkish Asatruar emphasize Northern European heritage and ancestry for the adherents of Asatru. Tribalist Asatruar take the middle approach between these two perspectives, and emphasizes Germanic cultural identity and history without an emphasis on heritage or ethnicity. However, these division semantics are seen as increasingly redundant and irrelevant as the movement grows. Membership overlaps in groups which were formerly solely "folkish" like the Asatru Folk Assembly and groups which were solely "universalist" like The Troth, brings into question the adequacy of this paradigm."

  • I have also gone through and standardized all the capitalization of neopagan to lowercase. - WeniWidiWiki 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I've finally merged Heathenry (reconstructionism). Read Talk:Heathenry (reconstructionism) for the pertaining discussion. I've imported all of the material, meaning, no information was lost, because merging and cleanup should be done separately. The material I've imported seems rather subjective (informed by the Blain references): it is perfecly valid, but may possible need some recasting into neutral/encyclopedic tone. The reason for the merge is that after many months, no clear delineation between the two articles has become apparent (unlike the clear sub-topic at Asatru). We can well state (with sources) that some adherents are not too fond of the term "neopaganism", but that is still the encyclopedic term we should use. I am perfectly sympathetic towards the movement, but I maintain that this is Wikipedia, and not a self-description by adherents. Compare the parallel situation at Hinduism: many Hindus object to the term, preferring Hindu Dharma, but the article is still at Hinduism because that is by far the most current and unambiguous term. dab (𒁳) 11:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


the article is now at 48k, this means that we should not look towards adding new stuff, but polish the existing material, editing towards {{GA}}. Some sections are over-long and contain redundancies because of the merge, especially "Seid" could be cut down a little. dab (𒁳) 11:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down a bit and hopefully made it more cohesive. I have also removed the following section until we've decided what to do with it. - WeniWidiWiki 15:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In Fiction

Eric Norden's Dystopian 1975 novel The Ultimate Solution depicts an alternate history where a victorious worldwide Nazi Reich supresses Christinity and other religions and replaces them with Nazi-flavored Odinist temples.
A more fantasy-orineted alternate reality is depicted in David Brin's The Life Eaters (2003), where the Aesir themselves appear over Europe in 1943 and help the Nazis to victory, except for the trickster Loki who takes the opposite side and saves many captives from the Nazi death camps.

Himmler was a pagan, but not an Asatru follower

The deleted edit I placed below is a contradictory one: Heinrich Himmler participated in pagan rites and supernatural forces from his studies of Indo-European mythology and Eastern religion. But, Himmler would belong to the category as a neopagan adherent except for holding a bigger interest in Indo-Iranian or Indo-Germanic (Teutonic) mysticism. Head over to the Talk:Heinrich Himmler (discussion) page and you'll find better evidence on Himmler's strong neopagan and polytheist occultism. There are quotes from Himmler's later dislike of Judeo-Christian doctrine he considered a threat to the "Aryan race" is reliable enough to state the edit's points of interest. + <<It's widely studied on Heinrich Himmler was an adherent to Germanic neopagan beliefs and was a believer in Ariosophy, a type of Nazi mysticism seem to combine Nazi political theology with that to have originated from eastern polytheist religions. [citation needed] >> 06:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, no. Himmler may have been a mystic or occultist, but there are numerous books and research papers which refute the WWII and postwar propaganda which placed the Nazis in a neat little box that says "pagan", the Communists in a neat little box that says "atheist" and the God-Fearing US of A in box that says "Christian". Such polar contrasts were handy as propaganda during the war, but time and research has shown that it wasn't near as clear cut as that and such characterizations are best left to simpletons. - WeniWidiWiki 06:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This form of mysticism was little more than blatant Christianity dressed in some vague middle eastern trappings, many convenient "revelations" and extremely inconsistent Germanic imagery with little regard for historical basis. Referring to it as neopaganism is pretty questionable and, as WeniWidiWiki notes, far too simplifiying. Please see Guido von List and subsequently Karl Maria Wiligut for more information. :bloodofox: 12:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Nazi occultism was "blatant Christianity", eh? I hope you won't try repeating this in article namespace :) dab (𒁳) 10:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 2, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: For the most part yes but there are inappropriate additions such as "emphasis added" sections and the such. Also, extensive use of speculative language such as "usually" "perhaps" "might be" "possibly" etc. Smacks of WP:OR.
2. Factually accurate?: Seems to be accurate but there is extensive use of in-text external links to unreliable sources and not near enough citations backing sweeping assertions about the subject. This is my largest concern with the article.
3. Broad in coverage?: Actually very thorough, my only concern is that the terminology section is too large and unwieldy.
4. Neutral point of view?: I'm please with the coverage of all the good bad and ugly cultural aspects and the tone is good.
5. Article stability? Seems to be very stable for the past few months, few reversions but the article has done alot of growing and might need to get some exposure from the larger community before it could really be considered "settled".
6. Images?: Another big one, there is only one, not very illustrating image.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — NeoFreak 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "Good Article (TM)", but this is easily a good article. I dare you to find a better coverage in any encyclopedia. The present GA bureaucracy is a perversion of an originally good idea. dab (𒁳) 10:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to Heathenism

"Heathenism" is not one of the subsets of Germanic Neopaganism, it is the most common umbrella term for Germanic Neopaganism. IMHO this page should be moved to Heathenism. The term has been used for Hjuka Coulter's Germanic Heathenry, and it is promoted by many Germanic Neopagans, as you can read here and here. "Heathenism" (in its less diffused form "Heathenry" [ Google hints for Heathenry, Google hints for Heathenism ]) is used as an umbrella term also by, and by the Pagan Federation. --Esimal 07:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is more correct even though a lot of the links are going to require the term "Germanic neopaganism" applied next to it or "modern" before it. :bloodofox: 07:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Esimal. We could move Germanic Neopaganism to Heathenism, and Heathenry to Heathenism (disambiguation). Blood: I think applying "Germanic" is not precise, because Asatru and Vanatru are based on the Viking religion / Norse Paganism, that was no longer specifically and ethnically "Germanic", while Theodism is oriented towards an Anglo-Saxon vision of the Germanic religion. In general terms, "Heathenism" is the better label, because it's not ambiguous. --Nyo 14:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Norse paganism is simply a subset of Germanic paganism, just as Anglo-Saxon paganism was. Germanic culture originally comes from Southern Jutland and the culture of the Germanic people are a product of it. Perhaps you are confusing the modern association with "Germanic" with it - as in being a product of Germany. This term is not a product of modern Germany. This is important to note. :bloodofox: 03:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

no. "heathenry" (or "heathenism") in English means paganism, not Germanic neopaganism. Capitalised "Heathenry" (or "Heathenism") has been used as a self-designation by some neopagans, since the late 1990s, but the term does by no means have wide currency. dab (𒁳) 09:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the term Germanic Neopaganism is fine. If you are concerned that Norse paganism might not fit under this term, one could consider moving it to Nordic Neopaganism, but otherwise try to figure out which term the acadamic literature uses. There has to be more literature on this topic, and a few more academic references would do the article good. Zara1709 12:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've found this article, this one, and the sources cited in my previous message (Pagan Federation, BBC). I'm Heathen and I assure that the term "Heathenism" is far more common than other labels in denoting the entire Nordic Neopagan movement. --Esimal 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Esimal on this one. I've also found this to be the case. It's appropriately technically described as Germanic neopaganism but you're going to find way more hits for "Heathenism" than "Germanic neopaganism." In fact, you'll encounter many Heathens who are offended by the very word "pagan" and the associations it brings. :bloodofox: 09:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As the term "pagan" (and even more so "neopagan") is considered insulting to many I would reccomend a move, but it would probably be to "Germanic heathenry" to be more exact. // Liftarn

I agree that "Germanic Heathenry" would be more appropriate and specific. :bloodofox: 10:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
What, Liftarn, are you concerned that the term NEOpaganism would imply that there was no 2000 year- or whatever continuity of heathenism? Anyway, I would rather consider the term 'heathen' insulting, as it originaly meant something like "the dumb villager". Zara1709 11:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The original meaning of "Heathen" was "inhabitant of the heath". I think it's a fine meaning for a set of Neopagan spiritualities, because it emphasizes the relation with nature. Here you can read that it is considered tha best term by many Norse Neopagans also because of its connotations of wildness (and freedom). --Esimal 11:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, as far as I know the term was coined during the Christianization of Europe, as Christianity spread through the cities first and the Christians perceived the people of the country which took longer to adopt Christianity to be somehow 'left behind'. Anyway, Pagan and Heathen mean the same here, only that one is Latin and the other would go back to Old High German or Middle High German if I guess correctly. Since there was no historical continuity between contemporary Neopaganism and the historic polytheism, I would strongly be in favor of keeping the Neo-prefix. And it think that Germanic neopaganism just sounds better Germanic neo-heathenism. Zara1709 11:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favor of "Neopaganism" in denoting the modern revivals, I'm not objecting this. Simply, "Heathenism" is used today, by Germanic/Norse Neopagans, as an umbrella word to denote all the Neopagan religions (Asatru, Vanatru, Theodism, Odinism, Wotanism) inspired by ancient Germanic paganism and Norse paganism. We could move to "Neoheathenism", but its not a widely used term. --Esimal 11:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I was led here by Bloodofox =) I see that both Heathenry and Heathenism had links to this page "Germanic neopaganism". And I think it's fine as it is. "Pagan" and "Heathen" have the same meaning, but different roots. Pagan is from the Latin word "paganus", Heathen is from the Germanic word "hāþen". Neo is from "Neos", a Greek word, so it goes better with the Latin "pagan" than with "heathen" (Neoheathenism is a weird word to me). The term "Neo-paganism" clearly defines that it's "pagan" and it's "new". While changing it to Heathenism would make someone confuse it with the old religious beliefs. Shinto is also a Heathenism, right? If you like Heathenism, why don't you create "Germanic Heathenism" and "Nordic Heathenism" and redirect them here, other than renaming this page? My two cents, never mind me =P Shrine Maiden 13:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but "heathen" is generally seen as much more offensive than "pagan". "pagan" is actually the neutral term avoiding offence. It is true that some people have begun to use Heathen as a self designation from 1998 or so, but this completely pales to the general perception of heathen as a derogatory term. The COED has derogatory. The proper scholarly and encyclopedic term is neo-paganism. We can by all means dedicate a section to various self-designations but that's as far as it goes. --dab (𒁳) 14:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In Encarta Dictionary, it's the same:

Heathen:an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody who does not acknowledge the God of the Bible, Torah, or Koran

Microsoft® Encarta® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Pagan:an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody who does not acknowledge the God of the Bible, Torah, or Koran

Microsoft® Encarta® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. "non-Christian" is not offensive =D Shrine Maiden 15:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but today they've different meanings. --Esimal 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My point here is that many modern Germanic Neopagans favor the term "Heathen" to pagan, which is not viewed in a negative light at all by adherents. What we need to find out here is a ratio to further this conversation, which may well be impossible and, if this is going to go any further than that, we're going to need citations and references regarding the term. Otherwise we may as well stick with the technically correct term "Germanic neopaganism." :bloodofox: 01:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is OR on my part, and we need sourcing on it, but from personal experience I have to concur. At least in the US, Germanic groups I've encountered vastly prefer "Heathen" to "Pagan" or "Neopagan". As this is about self-definitions, I'd suggest this is an instance where an overview of the literature produced *by* these groups will tell us more than mainstream dicdefs. - Kathryn NicDhàna 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the rejection of the term "Pagan" and "Neopagan" may have to do with wanting to avoid association with fluffy bunny Wiccans and such. // Liftarn
be that as it may, for the purposes of article titling, we have to find out which is the term most widely used in encyclopedic or peer-reviewed sources, not do a census on which is the term most favoured by adherents. for one has "Neo-Paganism".[11] We can discuss on whether it should be spelled with or without a hyphen, but I do not think there is any room for debate regarding the "Neo". Neo-Paganism is both unambiguous and used in academic sources. Both "Paganism" and "Heathenism" are misleading, since they refer to Paganism in general. --dab (𒁳) 08:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC) is not a very reliable source. // Liftarn
you argue for a move, so the burden to produce a source is on you. You should be grateful that I set the "notability threshold" as low as then. dab (𒁳) 15:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
it should also be noted that Isaac Bonewits, one of the more notable Neo-Pagan leaders, endorses the term "Neo-Paganism" to distinguish it from "Meso-Paganism" and "Paleo-Paganism". dab (𒁳) 11:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Isaac Bonewits is some kind of Wicca/Druid combo so what he thinks in the matter of Germanic heathenry is hardly relevant. // Liftarn
I agree with Liftarn. Bonewits isn't a serious scholar. His "Mesopaganism" is a cauldron of pseudo-religions like Rosicrucianism, Eastern religions like Sikhism (that is exclusively monotheistic and demi-Abrahamic), and other things that have nothing to do with historical Paganism (the ancient European religions) and modern Neopaganism (Wicca, Heathenism, Celtic Neopaganism, Kemetism, Natib Qadish, and other). --Esimal 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
so? I merely pointed out that some Neopagans self-identify as Neopagans. Your personal opinion of Bonewits is without relevance to this discussion. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


There is a large number of self-designations of Germanic neopagans, and we obviously should not move the article to an arbitrarily selected one such as "Heathenism". If there is a tangible group associated with one self-designation, this may at best be reason for a sub-article to this one, such as Asatru, Forn Sed, Folketro, Theodism or Odinism. If there is a tangible sub-group identifying as practicing "Heathenry" by all means we can have a "Heathenry (Neopaganism) article, the brackets being necessitatated by WP's initial-case-insensitivity (heathenry=paganism, Heathenry=a certain(?) current of Germanic Neopaganism).

Heathenry as self-designation:

  • James Hjuka Coulter: "Germanic Heathenry" (also "Irminenschaft")
  • UK Heathenry (Yahoo Groups)
  • "various names including Asatru, The Northern Tradition, Odinism, Forn Sed, Germanic Pagan Reconstructionism or, simply, Heathenry."
  • "Heathens practice the faith of pre-Christian Scandinavia, Anglo-Saxon England, and Continental Germany."
  • Glasgow University Pagan Society (note the "Pagan"): "Heathenry is the religion centred on the Æsir and Vanir, gods once revered in much of Northern Europe, including Scotland."
  • The Troth: "We in the Troth practice the Germanic/Norse religion of Heathenry, commonly referred to as Asatru."

I conclude that "Heathenry" is used as a loose synonym for various other terms, including Asatru. There does not appear to be any consensus that this is the "primary" term. Historically, it emerges late (1998) as a self-designation and has to compete with various terms established up to 30 years before. Germanic Pagan Reconstructionism or Germanic Reconstructionist Paganism is a good term for specifically reconstructionist currents (but by no means equivalent to "Germanic Neopaganism" as a whole, which includes Runosophy and whatnot). dab (𒁳) 15:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced assertions

The entire lede appears to be an unsourced abstraction. The dilineation of the religion into three clearly-defined fictitious categories may be convenient for simpletons to wrap their minds around a non-heirarchical belief system, but it is misrepresentative of the available material in my opinion. The current final sentence refutes the entire supposition put forth by the tripartite abstraction. Please source this highly contentious section with some disparate sources, or I will revert it back to the previous version. Also, there are numerous statements which have been placed in the entry which are unsourced. I am going to move them to this page so they can be discussed. - WeniWidiWiki 17:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following sub-section. It is unsourced and appears to be a fabrication. Please source groups that use this identifier.

The term Vanatru does not have Germanic/Nordic roots, but is a modern term following the same pattern as Ásatrú. Where Ásatrú denotes primary dedication on the Æsir, Vanatru denotes dedication to the Vanir, the Earth Gods. Although Vanatru is a modern concept, the Vanir were worshipped equally to the Æsir. Freyr and Freyja, for example, were given a great amount of importance, especially in Viking religion.

- WeniWidiWiki 17:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I also have removed the following sub-section for discussion and reworking. Neither the Heathen Front (proponents of Odalism - now a defunct organization) and any proponents of Wotanism (pretty much all defunct non-extant groups) self-identified as Germanic Neopagan, but primarily as racialists and national socialists. The cited sources even indicate as much. Perhaps some sources can be culled from the internet archive, but this section needs much further sourcing and if it is re-integrated, better explanation of relevance to this entry.

===Odalism, Wotanism===
Odalism (a philosophy of Green[citation needed] Social Darwinism) and Wotanism (a racialist / neo-Nazi position held by e.g. David Lane <ref name="Gods of the Blood">{{cite book |first=Matthias |last=Gardell |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2003 |month= | title =Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism |chapter= |editor= |others= |edition= |pages=269-283 |publisher=Duke University Press |location= |id=ISBN 0-8223-3071-7 |url=}}</ref> ) are two terms primarily focused on politics rather than religion.
When the FBI identified threats towards the domestic security of the USA related to the turn of the Millennium in 2000 in the Project Megiddo report,<ref> [ Full text of the F.B.I.'s 'Project Megiddo' report] </ref> it stated that: "Without question, this initiative [i.e. Project Megiddo itself] has revealed indicators of potential violent activity on the part of extremists in this country. Militias, adherents of racist belief systems such as Christian Identity and Odinism, and other radical domestic extremists are clearly focusing on the millennium as a time of action." [Emphasis added]

- WeniWidiWiki 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto with the "Germanic Mysticism" section. How is this relevant? Sources?

===Germanic mysticism===
Germanic mysticism is an occultist current loosely inspired by "Germanic" topics, notably runes. It has its beginnings in the early 20th century (Guido von List's "Armanism", Karl Maria Wiligut's "Ariosophy" etc.) and was mostly eclipsed by the more reconstructionist Neopagan revival in the 1970s, but there are some contemporary proponents, notably Stephen Flowers advocating "Odianism", an occultist school involving "runosophy". Historical schools of Germanic mysticism became closely linked with Nazi occultism, while contemporary currents have close ties to Alain de Benoist's Nouvelle Droite and neo-fascist schools of thought such as "Radical Traditionalism" or "Integral Traditionalism" based on the writings of Julius Evola and others.

- WeniWidiWiki 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to revert that. It won't do to simply sanitize the article of those aspects you don't like. "Neither the Heathen Front and any proponents of Wotanism self-identified as Germanic Neopagan" -- what is this supposed to mean? Are we only going to list groups now that literally self-identify as "Germanic Neopagan"? That's silly, and fully addressed by the discussion of various self-designations. Now, I am not saying the paragraphs under discussion cannot be improved. (a) "Vanatru" might indeed raise notability concerns. It is listed in the 1997 Pagan Dawn article on nomenclature. It also occurs in a number of publications on neopaganism, including Michael York's 2003 Pagan Theology: Paganism as a World Religion. That still doesn't mean we necessarily have to dedicate a h3 section to it. Regarding the "Germanic myticism" and "Wotanism / neo-Nazism" sections, there is no question at all that they are pertinent, but they might be moved out of the "terminology" section, since they address tangible differences, not just questions of terminology. dab (𒁳) 18:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Dab, just because you say so doesn't make it true. You need sources. And you need to state who the sources are and what they've said precisely. We've been over this on the Tyr (journal) and I see you've decided to insert the journal as "neo-fascist" here too despite the large amount of discussion we've had over this.
Not only that but WWW is right about "Vanatru." It's unsourced and so it can go. If you want it back in, source it out and mention those specific references above. You are not exempt from the policies you know well and I wouldn't expect any different from anyone else. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
so, are you going to remove each sentence that isn't followed by a footnote, or just those you object to on personal grounds? Requesting sources is a good thing, but it needs to be done (a) within reason and in good faith, and (b) neutrally, not selectively in order to get rid of one side of the story but not the other. If you find a statement dubious, try to rephrase it or use {{fact}}. Avoid using {{fact}} disingeniously for WP:POINT, tagging uncontroversial statements just to make life difficult for editors actually trying to build this article. Otoh, feel free to use {{fact}} liberally for passages that are genuinely dubious. dab (𒁳) 10:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is that these specific edits break down to accusations on your part. Accusations are very sensitive subjects and definitely require sources. While I always want sources, I am very critical about it when it comes down to accusations. Since I've had to go around deflecting your fondness for plying the term "fascist" and "Neo-Nazi" all over this hemisphere of Wikipedia without a sources this is simply another example. I would expect anyone to do the same to me if I did that.
This is not an objection based on "personal grounds" but on the fact that you have not cited sources and you have done precisely the same on other pages. This is blatantly against policy and helps no one. I don't think that I need to remind an administrator that unsourced information can be removed at any time. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
this is, frankly, bullshit. I have just provided sources, including page numbers, for any statements I consider in need of such.[12] If you have bona fide doubts about any other statement, use {{fact}} or state your concerns regarding bias or undue weight in constructive debate, don't just blank content you don't like. I cannot help but noting that you only challenge statements connecting Odinism with the far right. The claim that "in Iceland, Asatru has left-wing asociations" is just as unsourced, but for some reason, you didn't choose to designate it "dubious". You are obviously biased. When I review an article for quality of sources, I review the entire article, not just those bits I don't happen to like. dab (𒁳) 10:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have shown willingness to provide sources where requested, within reason. I'll ask you again to stop blanking content in this disruptive manner, and civilly/constructively ask for attribution for statements you consider unsubstantiated. It isn't possible to work on this when you just keep blanking random passages you don't like. Thus, the connection of Evola with fascism is completely undisputed. Just look at the Julius Evola article. Removing claims that are fully referenced in sub-articles just by pretending they are "unsourced" because no footnote has yet been attached to the local phrase is disingenous. If I went around blanking all mention of "US President" in connection with "George Bush" as "unsourced" unless there is a footnote attached giving a link to official results of US presidental elections would be obvious disruption under WP:POINT, and an editor persistently engaging in such behaviour would be rightly blocked from editing. We cannot work together unless you deign to WP:UCS. dab (𒁳) 10:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am well within policy here, Dbachmann. I advise you to quit attempting to look for "bias" and start looking for sources. The only "bias" here is the simple fact that I'm having to go behind you and clean up your loose use of terminology. We can get to the "left wing" commentary later but this quite obviously stems from discussions we've had on other articles. We have a problem here and that is the fact that you are adding inflammatory information without sourcing it. Again, policy dictates that if it's questionable and there's no source for it, out it goes. That's pretty straight forward. Your threat of a block for my insistence on policy is also not appreciated. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
WeniWidiWiki and :bloodofox:, could you stop being reckless here? If you have doubts about the sources or the neutrality of a certain section, there are always the appropriate tags! Zara1709 (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Zara, this may require some background. As an example, please see: Tyr_(journal)#Controversy regarding "Fascist" tag being applied to Radical Traditionalism here. Just to be clear, WeniWidiWiki has not edited since his initial post here and is not currently involved in the debate. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this might require some background. The paragraph with the FBI statement originated from the controversy about Persecution of Germanic Pagans and the question if Varg Vikernes is an Odalist or a Nazi has been discussed controversly at his article. I am not going to use the word 'fascist' here, unless we are dealing with someone who describes himself as that. (See the discussion on Neo-fascism and Religion.) But there is a serious ideological / political issue with Germanic Neopaganism and you are not getting around it. Zara1709 (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not attempting to "get around" anything. I want just the facts and that goes with anything here. That includes strains of unsourced claims. Vikernes is obviously a particularly nutty form of Neo-Nazi but that would require a source. Odalism is something he was involved in but is directly associated with the Heathen Front, which has been a long time now as far as I understand. Chapters of which even issued statements condemning racism towards the end of their existence further confusing things. There are strains of such subject in modern Germanic Neopaganism, no doubt, but this is where we must be as concise as a surgeon to avoid misinformation and that means references. Solid references. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for elucidating the "background" of this, then. So, you are up in arms against me because of the controversy we had over at Tyr (journal), and because of this you are now following me around undoing my edits, chiming in with vague complaints at the Afrocentrism rfar and generally trying to make life difficult for me? That's WP:POINT by any other name. That Evola's "Traditionalism" is a topic of neo-fascism is beyond any reasonable debate. If you want a source for this, you need only ask, no need to go around disrupting articles. dab (𒁳) 12:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The note regards the subject matter, which is the same as at the Tyr page. Here you have Radical Traditionalism listed as a "Neo-Fascist school of thought" which you have no source for because it does not exist, as we've been over. Evola is one thing but referring to Tyr - as we discussed - is another thing entirely. I have had this page on my watch list since my early days of editing and have subsequently edited it sporadically to varying degrees, focusing mainly on Non-Neopagan Germanic paganism subjects except when something blips on my radar. I've re-emerged upon WWW's post here - but does that even require an explanation? WP:POINT does not apply, this is well within my area of interest, past edits and has been since I started. I am following policy every step of the way and have no intention of doing otherwise. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you linked me to WP:POINT, it would probably be pertinent for me to point out a pearl of wisdom from it that I feel would apply to this situation:
  • "If you think someone unjustifiably removed your additions on an article with the edit summary "unsourced"...
    • do find a source for your additions"
:bloodofox: (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no source for "Radical Traditionalism" because it is not notable enough to be discussed in any independent sources. By your argument, we will remove all material from the article that isn't directly based on external reviews. The Tyr (journal) article is borderline wrt WP:NOTE. WP:RS calls for quality of sources relative to the topic's notability. If you persist in your current vein, we will need to take the article to AfD, which I understand is not really your aim (or else I invite you to submit it yourself). You did not blank "my addition". You blanked content that has been perfectly uncontroversial for month. Basic courtesy would require you to raise your concerns on talk and await reactions before gutting a developed article. dab (𒁳) 15:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so now we're taking a different angle all of a sudden. I don't have a problem with Tyr being deleted. However, I do have a problem with your insertion of your opinion and then your weaseling around it with thin smokescreens such as attempting to claim WP:POINT when there is no sign of it outside of your refusal to source, telling me I have some sort of "bias" in my edits because I have targeted a matter we have discussed at length before on various other pages in an attempt to turn my neutral edits around on me, threatening me with a ban for deleting unsourced material that originates with your edits that another user in good standing has had the exact same problem with because it lacks a source (which, per policy, can be deleted at any time and is even encouraged via WP:BOLD and Jimmy Wales on WP:SOURCE) and who you subsequently wholesale reverted, attempting to claim that if the inflammatory material I've attempted to remove due to lack of references is removed then all unsourced material in the article music be removed (a principle forbidden in WP:CITE where it says to simply reference it) and then, finally, when all else fails, you decide that the only solution is to have the Tyr (journal) article deleted.
While I encountered hints of it before, I am frankly impressed by the lack of respect for policy on your part, Dab, and since I don't think it contributes anything to edit war, I am not going to go back and revert your own reverts even though they also included various grammar fixes, links and formatting changes. However, you are way out of line here and I think it is obvious to see. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
your selective deletions are pov-pushing pure and simple. Your "neutral edits", it has long become clear, are consistently trying to downplay and obfuscate the ties of Germanic neopaganism to neo-Nazism and neo-Fascism. If you had any interest in improving the referencing of the article, you would have ample possibilities to do so constructively. Edits such as this one are just degrading the article from coherent prose to isolated weasly factoids. this edit is indefensible. this one is just plain wrong (the quote refers to Hitler personally, not to "the Nazis"). Now stop alleging I am trying to push content without providing sources. I have shown fully prepared to present sources where reasonably requested. Yes, the Tyr journal hasn't been called "neo-fascist" in any reliable source. Because it hasn't even been discussed in any reliable source. Its editor having a history of embracing neo-fascism, and its content representing a positive florilegium of neo-fascist ideology, the connection is still obvious. I did not insist on any particular revision, but was prepared to discuss the case with you within reason. Your hostility is completely uncalled for. I am glad to see your newly found zeal for following policy to the letter. It hasn't always been like that[13][14].
If you won't do me the courtesy to ask for sources or explain your concerns before removing content or twisting it into something else, we will not collaborate, and the result will be degraded article quality. dab (𒁳) 08:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Dab, I would more point out the fact that the link to Germanic mysticism appears in the article currently no less than three times. If deletion of extra links means POV pushing, I think we may be editing in the middle of a bigger hornet's nest than I thought. However, despite this, the restructuring I was doing to the article at the time called for more defined editing but thanks for singling that particular edit out as "inexcusable."
Since this business about Moynihan seems surprisingly new to you, here's a far more recent resource from those familiar fellows at Willamette Week: [15]. This might help you with your edits, it seems to encompass what you've mentioned there.
I also find it funny here that you seem to be complaining about me "reducing the article to factoids" whereas earlier today I inserted plenty of referenced information into the symbolism section and you deleted it under the vague guise of WP:UNDUE despite that it was perfectly on topic. For everyone else, here's the diff: [16]. I wonder why you did that.
While seemingly mentioned in an aggressive context, it's very perplexing to me that you mentioned this diff where you state "There is no evidence that the Swastika played any role in Germanic paganism," when you are blatantly contradicted by sources and photographs by myself and others here as well as a bevy of basic written material on the subject. Now this one I am really curious about your response to, Dab.
With that said, you're still wrong about the bias in my edits. While you've posted something from my talk page from 2005 where I wasn't exactly familiar with policy (and the info I removed was unsourced anyway, so I wasn't breaking it, either), I've long since realized If something seems wrong to me it's time to request a source. If it's particularly dubious or libelous and has no source, it needs to be deleted outright. Again, this is such a basic policy it says it on every edit page. While I don't really care what your beliefs are, it's OK as long as you go by policy with it but we seem to have a problem with that last part. (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
excellent. we seem to agree that every controversial claim needs a source, and that material needs to be strictly on-topic. I am done appealing to your common sense or good faith, and I am perfectly happy to proceed on these grounds alone. There is obviously room for debate concerning what constitutes "due weight". We will obviously not be able to agree on that, and we will need to rely on third opinions. I have no problem with that. This isn't the place to debate the merit of the swastika as a "Germanic pagan symbol". I agree that such evidence as there is is now fairly summarized here. I admit that I had not been familiar with the claims attributed to H. R. Ellis Davidson at the time I said we have "no evidence". Some evidence is presented now, albeit rather meagre evidence. dab (𒁳) 10:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


In good faith, Dab, regarding the swastika, I am not sure what else you need. This is pretty basic stuff. You may note that I've even provided the photograph of the Snoldelev Stone, taken by myself, that clearly displays an example of the symbol now housed in Copenhagen. I am not sure if I should upload some more photographs I've taken of the stone over the years but I certainly can, it's just that article is a bit small at the moment - though a fine start - but I may as well add a few full-stone shots later. Davidson gives some solid examples relating to the West Germanic tribes she's referring to and, for what it's worth, I've seen the symbol more commonly than almost any other distinct symbol relating to the Germanic tribes in various museums in Scandinavia from prehistoric times and into the contemporary; modern folk knitting and all over modern age buildings. I can even produce images I've taken of historical clothing with it on it as the base pattern. This relates to the usage of the symbol by some Germanic Neopagan groups. I've re-inserted the information for now regarding the swastika and the ADL situation. Both of which enrich and add to this subject matter and are quite on topic as they both deal directly with incidents and matters regarding symbolism in Germanic Neopaganism, as per the title of the subheader. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to dispute whether the swastika was actually used sometimes by the historic 'Germanic' pagans, because I would need to read a little more on this. But when it comes to claims about the use, you should really be careful, because such claims often come from Neo-'Germanic pagans' who are pushing some racist ideology. Take again Vark Vikernes as example: [17]. The racism in this type of ideology is less the issue here - the main issue is that those people are completely unreliable when it comes to questions concerning the historic Germanic Paganism, as their views are ideologically motivated and not by an actual historic interest. Of course, the statement, that the swastika is "a symbol once commonly used by the historical Germanic tibes" is extremly controversial. This was not only claimed by Ariosophy in the 1890s-1930s, but could also today be claimed by people who would like to downplay the possible connection between current Germanic Neopaganism and Ariosophy or Nazism. If you insinst on having this statemant there, you need a really good reference. Otherwise one should take out the "commonly", and then it still could really use more references. Zara1709 (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Zara, would you direct me to a reference where I can find some information regarding this controversy about the swastika? Although I am pretty familiar with this subject, I don't seem to be aware of this controversy. I would be very interested in the arguments put forth that somehow state that the swastika wasn't a symbol used by the Germanic tribes as there seems to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary from where I am standing and some groups, like the Odinic Rite, note this in an attempt to remove the ramifications of the symbol in the modern world from their faith, which, to me, is similar to what Hindus are having to do in Europe as the symbol became more and more associated with the Third Reich after World War II. As another example outside of the Odinic Rite relating to neopaganism, Reginheim lists the symbol with a bit of explaination: [18] though I feel it is a bit muddled. There's a conversation going on about Davidson's cited artifacts here:Talk:Swastika#East_Anglia :bloodofox: (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Bronze Age "sun wheel" pendants: not swastikas, not Germanic.
opinions and claims of Odinic Rite or "Reginheim" are patently irrelevant to the question. The only source we seem to be aware of at present is Davidson (1964). The claim is that the swastika was a symbol associated with burial at some point in East Anglia, I suppose in the 6th century. This wouldn't make it a symbol of "Germanic paganism" in general at all, even if the East Anglia claim can be substantiated, but of course we can refer to Davidson's claim for whatever it is worth: she also speculates on a wider significance of the symbol as a "symbol of fire" derived from the Bronze Age sun wheel. That the latter is a widespread symbol for which a religious significance is plausible is widely accepted. Just, a "sun wheel" isn't a swastika, and the Bronze Age isn't "Germanic", so that the connection is purely a speculative suggestion of Davidson's. If her suggestion hasn't been taken up in the 40 years since she published it, I guess it doesn't seem it has made much of an impression. It is undisputed, of course, that the swastika shape does occasionally appear on artefacts of the period, but I am not aware of any evidence that this represents more than a random ornamental shape among many, except for the East Anglian burials claim. Germanic neopagan groups who make noise about the swastika being a "holy symbol" usually have at best a thinly veiled racist or "neo-völkisch" agenda. I am not aware of any non-racialist Germanic neopagans who see the need to "reclaim" this symbol, since its historical significance is clearly marginal at the most compared to the dominant symbols of historical Germanic paganism. Odinic Rite, to put it plainly, are regarded as Nazis, pure and simple, within "moderate" Germanic neopaganism. At least, this is the prevalent opinion in Germany, and the reason why the former "Odinic Rite Deutschland" has dissociated itself from its "mother group". dab (𒁳) 08:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
An example of use of the swastika by Germanic pagans, from the Snoldelev Stone, circa 800 AD. More images of the stone on request. drawing -- the swastika incision is not part of the inscription proper.
It's basically indisputable that this symbol was used by the historical Germanic pagans and indeed it is one of many symbols used by them. While this is obvious, there's obviously a stigma around the symbol. While I have a serious problem with National Socialist ideology being inserted into Germanic Neopaganism movements and find it counter-active, I don't think it's fair to call the Odinic Rite "Nazis" as I have not seen sufficient evidence of this. I would be interested in your sources. Of course, people are going to regarding anything involving Germanic paganism and swastikas with suspicion - especially in Germany - and that's an unfortunate consequence of the legacy of the Third Reich and I generally take a closer look at groups as every once in a while you're going to get some nutty David Lane-influenced group popping up further setting back the efforts of people like Manwoman. However, that doesn't mean the symbol is damned forever and I see sufficient basis for a group to claim that the symbol was used by historical Germanic paganism, as well, it was. I don't think it's fair to state that attempts to acknowledge the symbol as a religious symbol equates to Nazism. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
the eagle -- a "symbol of Germanic paganism" of the migration period?
It is "basically indisputable" that the shape does occur in artefacts made and used by Germanic people of the pagan period. Your immediate conclusion that this makes it a "pagan" "symbol" is unfounded. This is quite apart from any discussion of a "stigma" associated with the symbol. I wouldn't call OR "Nazi" in WP's or even my own voice. I merely pointed out they have that reputation, viz., not among "people regarding anything involving Germanic paganism with suspicion", but among actual Germanic neopagans. I have full sympathy with Hindus and Buddhists trying to "rehabilitate" a symbol that is clearly central to the symbolism of their faiths. This isn't the case for Germanic paganism at all, and you have to go out of your way and build on rather shaky evidence to even establish a claim that it played any role, at all, in Germanic pagan symbolism. Look, boo, your evidence of "use of the swastika by Germanic pagans" is misguided. "Germanic pagans" did "use" any number of things, including socks, trousers, fur caps, knives, carts, etc., without any of these things qualifying as "symbols of Germanic paganism". Likewise, in Germanic artwork of the pagan period, the prevalent motives are zoomorphic abstractions of birds, snakes, horses, dogs and the like, and I have yet to hear that "the bird" or "the dog" are "symbols of Germanic paganism": an incidential ornament isn't the same as a symbol, and the claim "religious symbolism" is much, much stronger than a mere inventory of ornamental patterns in period artwork. dab (𒁳) 12:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think what this is getting down to is the term descriptor of "symbol of Germanic paganism." I think, obviously, this conversation is going to require a big, long list of where, how and when it was used to make this claim. Obviously, the symbol was used by the Germanic tribes and, likely, it had some significance. However, symbols such as Mjolnir were obviously more important and instituted for a specific purpose. Perhaps I should restate this: The symbol was used by Germanic pagans and the question is to what ends. Most symbols used seem to have some purpose or ascribed meaning and to claim that it was "religious" doesn't seem odd to me whereas, obviously, a sock.. not so much. We're having a similar conversation regarding this on the swastika page. Personally, I think it's pretty interesting and am interested in seeing what we dig up. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, regarding your edit to my image above.. The swastika isn't a part of the inscription but neither is the horn symbol. What's the point? :bloodofox: (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
while you are right wrt the sort of questions involved here, you are dead wrong wrt how we should proceed. We don't do this sort of judgement on complex questions on Wikipedia: we report the opinions defended in academic, peer-reviewed literature, by people who have done all that work for us. Thus, if you want to claim the swastika or whatever as a "religious symbol" in Germanic paganism, you merely need to cite what scholar made the claim; not more, but also not less. dab (𒁳) 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand this well and have no desire to insert any further information here other than what is solid and sourced, thus this extended conversation here. The only thing I've raised here are those questions. I am still curious about your editing of my image descriptor above and what you were trying to say? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)