Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Germanic neopaganism)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleHeathenry (new religious movement) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2017.
Article milestones
December 6, 2015Good article nomineeListed
March 24, 2017Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 23, 2017Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

WikiProject Neopaganism (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as High-importance).


Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Heathenry (new religious movement) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Good to see it today, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Role of "Heathens" in Poland and Slavic countries[edit]

I am happy this article reached the WP:FA status. I won't edit it due to the potential WP:COI, but let me comment re:

There are a small number of Heathens in Poland, where they have established a presence [only?] on social media... 


... a few Heathens in the Slovenian Pagan scene, where they are outnumbered by practitioners of Slavic Native Faith.

Being a Heathen and a Slavic Native Faith believer is not exclusive. Thus (Western European?) "Heathens" are not "outnumbered" by Rodnovery: as these two are often the same. My local friends (granted, and co-believers, hence the COI) have kolovrats tatooed next to mjölnirs, and nobody bats an eyelid. Has anybody heard of a real conflict between these two faiths?

I know these are far from WP:RS, but if you can speak some Slavic, take a look here (a discussion about the "right" 'native' tattoo ;) or here for the common symbols.

Update: while browsing related WP articles, I found that "Modern Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Central and Eastern Europe", Kaarina Aitamurto, Scott Simpso purportedly confirms it too, pacem our colleagues who discuss it in Slavic Native Faith's identity and political philosophy:

Some of these far-right groups merge Rodnover elements with others adopted from Germanic Heathenry and from Russian Orthodox Christianity.[45]

-> Shall we elaborate on it here? Zezen (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. I've introduced the source that you point to into this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know that I agree that they aren't exclusive. According to most sources, the basics are different enough that Slavic religions such as Rodnovery aren't considered part of the Heathen faiths. Stormkith (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
There are all manner of odd religious syncretic identities in the world: take the Christian Wiccans as an example. This being the case, individuals who blend elements of Slavic Native Faith with those of Heathenry really aren't that surprising. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

History of each particular branch[edit]

May I create a section retelling the history of each of the most relevant branches of modern Heathenry, like Urglaawe, Theodism, Ásatrú, Odinism, Fyrnsidu, etc? They've quite different histories and it should be taken into consideration, imho SonneHeljarskinn (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd advise against it. We already have a section giving the history of Heathenry writ large, which makes reference to the key groups and traditions within it, so expanding the historical coverage here might be a bit superfluous. I'd also be concerned about how what you term "branches" would be presented; "Odinism" is a term for instance used by hardline neo-Nazi Heathens, and also some universalist Heathens. Thus, it is difficult to think of these as "branches" per se; they are more like terms that certain branches favour but which might also be used, in a conflicting way, by members of other branches. It gets very messy and I don't think that we could accurately portray that by listing the history of one group after another. It is also worth noting that at present, there are not the academic WP:Reliable Sources available to enable the article to offer a history of, for example, Urglaawe, so we would be forced to rely on WP:Original Research or poorer quality sources in many places. A better option would be to flesh out articles about Heathenry which are peripheral to this one; for example by expanding, using the appropriate sources, articles on particular Heathen organisations. That way we ensure that Wikipedia gives more information on the histories of particular branches and sub-groups, but without causing any problems in the Featured Article-rated main article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


For me it's curious to ask, but if it's required... Do anyone have something against to put the Template:Heathenry into article? It can looks like that. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a nicely designed template, but the very use of top templates is rather controversial at Wikipedia. Ultimately, they tend to look clunky and messy when added to the lede of an article, forcing any images that previously held that space down below them. Moreover, they are completely unnecessary; they contain links that are already found throughout the article. For that reason, they don't really add anything of value to the article. In this case, the article is FA-rated, and throughout the GA and FA processes no one thought it pertinent to even suggest that such a template be added. So why would we need it now? I can appreciate that there are a group of Wikipedia editors (and I was once among them) who are very keen on templates, so I would recommend some sort of compromise. How about a template on Heathenry down at the bottom of the article? We already have a template for Modern Paganism down at that location, and another on Heathenry could quite easily join it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, all (or most, I wasn't check it) links from template would be already contained in article, but for me the sense of such template is to collect all in one box for easy navigation between the articles. In articles like Slavic Native Faith or Hellenism (religion) similar templates are putted in lead. GA/FA status shouldn't be an obstacle for improvement. What you think about following solution: the template will be put directly under lead, so it will show up vis-a-vis of Contents list? --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't like that idea, personally. I think better would be appearing in the "definition" section, but that would necessitate removing an image. I think MBO's suggestion of a more standard navbox for the bottom of the article is a good one. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge of Category:Odinism[edit]

The article Odinism was merged into this article a few years ago. I have started a discussion here about doing the same with the category. Ffranc (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)