Talk:List of Neopagan movements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Neopaganism (Rated List-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Renaissance Neopaganism[edit]

The root of all Neopagan traditions is the Renaissance Neopaganism of Plethon, Cosimo De Medici and Marsilio Ficino. Plethon did have a group in Mistra which was in all likelyhood a continuation of ancient Hellenistic religion that he reintroduced to the west, there was a Platonic Academy (Florence) founded by Cosimo De Medici and Modern Hermeticism is a direct, though eclectic and occultist, develepment of Renaissance Hermetic Neopaganism.

This primary form of Neopaganism is frequently overlooked and it deserves to be featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


I think we should notabilty to the list, as a pagan religion could be made with no sweat, creating an indiscriminate collection of beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

Should we leave up red links to deleted articles? What about if they were deleted as non-notable or unverifiable? Valhallaiac 20:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Even worse, the red links now have red question marks. I don't think that looks very good or encyclopedic. I also looked over some other religion lists on wikipedia, and they remove any dead links. So I'm going to go with that precendent and get all the red question marks out of here. Valhallaiac 16:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


While I can see some merits to putting the groups/movements in order of the years they were formed, I am not certain it's an improvement over alphabetising. I also changed the Celtic section, as the neo-druid groups listed are not strictly Celtic Reconstructionist, but PIE or British. I also removed "Celtic" Wicca, as it is not a reconstructionist movement and is already listed under the Wiccan section ("Celtic" Wicca is Wicca with some Celtic terminology taken out of context). - Kathryn NicDhàna 18:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I insist that grouping by period of formation and focus is a far superior approach over a mere alphabetical listing. Just listing a bunch of impressively sounding names is simply not informative, we have categories for that. My ToC is intended to sketch the main developments: pre-WWII, 1950s-1960s New Age, 1960s-1970s Wicca mainstream, 1970s-1980s "ethnic" neopaganism, 1990s reconstructionism. I suggest these are the main lines along which neopaganism developed, but obviously the particularities are very much open to discussion. The "ethnic/reconstructionist" section is ostensibly not intended to list purist reconstructionism exclusively: in my understanding, "reconstructionism" is a tendency, not a yes-or-no feature, and it would be impossible to decide where on a sliding scale of historical accuracy "reconstructionism proper" begins. It is important to realize that reconstuctionism de-facto grows out of Wicca more or less organically, with the ebbing of the 1980s New Age movement. Thus, the section is intended to list ethnically-oriented groups, as opposed to "Wicca" and "New Age" which are essentially universalist. The "$ETHNIC Wicca" flavours pose a problem, of course. But the validity of, say, the Celtic Wicca article itself is questionable: when was "Celtic Wicca" founded? This is apparently about a 2001 book postulating "Celtic Wicca", with no evidence that any such groups do in fact exist. dab (𒁳) 07:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that putting the articles in a generally linear order is more useful than a simple list. My only objection is that the lack of alphabetisation can make it hard to find a particular movement/tradition, if that's what a reader comes to this article looking for. One challenge with this is that some of these movements don't have a solid founding date, and others are not the product of only one category. Celtic Reconstructionism, for instance, has some early members who were once Wiccans, but others who come out of the more ethnic/reconstructionist background or the Neo-druid groups. As for Celtic Wicca - I don't think there is a founding date, as it's not really a distinct branch of Wicca. In my experience, "Celtic" Wicca, such as it is, is just generic Wicca with some Celtic terms and ideas taken out of context. It is by no means part of the reconstructionist movement. From the beginning of Gardner's founding of Wicca, he incorporated some things taken from Celtic sources, but no more so than the things he took from Hinduism, Ceremonial Magic, and misunderstood romanticisations of Native American practices. Arguably, all his ethnic inputs were misunderstood and romanticized.
I understand what you're trying to do here, and I don't want to edit war, but Wiccans, even ones who incorporate ethnic trappings, are not Reconstructionists. - Kathryn NicDhàna 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

of course, we should further improve this list. This isn't my "final" solution, just the first attempt in better structuring. No need to edit-war at all, at this stage, let's try to further improve it together. Since every browser has a search function (ctrl-f), and Wikipedia has a search function on top of that, and there are alphabetized categories, I really don't see how presenting an alphabetized list here would help anyone. I understand your point of reconstructionism being the opposite of eclecticism. My problem is: are there enough reconstructionist groups to warrant a separate list? Only a minority of Germanic neopagan groups are strictly reconstructionist. Your own group would probably be the only one left standing in a strict "reconstructionist" listing. Perhaps with Theodism, but Odinic Rite, Asatru Folk Assembly and the Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið certainly cannot be regarded as reconstructionist. In my understanding, reconstructionism in most respects isn't an independent movement, but a tendency that can be embraced to a greater or lesser extent within a movement. Is RUNVira reconstructionist? Their "reconstruction" is a monotheist worship of Dazhboh based on the highly questionable source of the Book of Veles. This is "reconstructionism" by intent, but then so is Gardner's Wicca: Gardner claims "Wicca" is an ancient tradition. How is this different from RUNVira claiming the Book of Veles is an ancient pagan manuscript, or the Odinic Rite claiming the "fylfot" is a Germanic sacred symbol? In the light of all this, I don't think it is advisable to organize a list by a "reconstructionist: yes or no" parameter. dab (𒁳) 07:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you dabs that there are doubts over how truly reconstructed certain "reconstructionist" faiths are, but they still take the vast majority of their inspiration from a historical polytheistic faith, whereas something like Wicca doesn't. One thing that really nags me is that organisations and traditions are getting mixed up, for instance, Children of Artemis keeps getting put into the list, whereas it simply isn't a Wiccan tradition, or denomination, or movement. It's an organisation, that is it. It would be like placing the Red Cross in a list of Christian denominations! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC))

Proposed merge from Denominations in Wicca[edit]

I propose that the page above, set up by Midnightblueowl should be merged into this section. I don't want to discourage Midnightblueowl and it's a shame he has put so much work into the page already, but I don't see how it adds to the section here (especially as it's entirely unsourced at the moment.) Frankly even if it were sourced, I think it would duplicate what's already here. I suggest a merge and redirect from Denominations in Wicca to this page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged, however this "List of Neopagan movements" is in gross need of work, to make it more than just lists with vague and unsourced dates next to them. I propose using the similar lay out to what I produced on Denominations in Wicca, and dividing this Wicca section into "British Traditional Wicca" (i.e. Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Blue Star), "Other" (i.e. Hedge Witchcraft, Dianic), and "Eclectic", and a further group for Organisations, such as Children of Artemis. I really don't think that there should be a jumbled mix of denominations and organisations all labelled "traditions". What do you all think? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC))
Yes, I agree that structuring the existing list here in this tri-partite way is no bad idea. (Some of the other sections have similar structuring). I'd just suggest that the list is kept to Wikilinked titles with no further accompanying text, so as to be in line with the rest of the page. Go ahead and have a go, I'm sure if people have better ideas they'll chip in! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay :) ( (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC))
Have redirected the page at Denominations in Wicca‎ to the section here as agreed. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Expand List[edit]

This list is sadly incomplete. It must be expanded.

-- (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree... why is there no mention of the religion of the primordial Great Mother Goddess ? That seems like a fairly major oversight. Maybe I need to write the page myself, and list a link to it here....

--Priestess Jean 06:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priestess Jean (talkcontribs)

Comunità Odinista and other red links[edit]

Please don't link directly to the italian version of the article. Translate the article to english and post it at Comunità Odinista so it's a blue link.

And please don't link the name of the societies to external links. Either you write an article and make a blue link, or it's a red link, or it's not linked at all because of whatever the reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

In light of the large number of edits from IP addresses, I've semi-protected this page for a week. IP editors and new editors will not be able to edit here. It's not that the IP edits were in any way vandalism - just that all of them seemed over-enthusiastic, none were discussed, and most had to be reverted by other editors - often after some hard work and time spent. I'd encourage the IP editor/s in question to register an account (so your contributions can all be accessed and credited in one place) and discuss your edits here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Similar non-Pagan (non-European or Near Eastern) movements[edit]

How is this not original research? Why should we be adding these here? I've removed it. Please don't restore it without some sort of policy or guideline based reason and discussion here. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


The main page for neopaganism redirects to modern paganism, a decision made awhile ago by others based on POV issues. So for consistency sake, I am doing the same here.Reigndog (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)