Talk:Theodism

Hey, Sorry i have missed some comments- been really busy. I am a trial attorney in New York City- it is sometime hard to get the time to do all this.I will collect primary and secondary source materials and start gathering a list of refs for the articles.Any other suggestions are most welcome.Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by omisson (talk • contribs)

Spurious Links

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. I think that having links to numerous subdomains which all lead back to the same domain is pointless other than making organizations look larger than they are. The websites already have links to all the regional chapters. -HroptR 19:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

POV Dispute

"Discouraging Freedom of Conscience: In the past, individuals who have attempted to leave Theodish groups have been refused dismissal, or have been unable leave without threats or harassment." Sorry... but I don't believe this is accurate. You cite the criticism as 'discouraging freedom of conscience' - then link it to 'freedom of thought'. Yet your examples have nothing to do with curtailing someones freedom to think what they will: no examples of censorship, no examples of arrests, no examples of book burnings. "Even when leaving on good terms, they are often set wretched or outlawed which is an archaic practice of civil death and disassociation which has connotations of being a criminal." You cite being set wretched as akin to outlawry. It isn't that simple. A wretch was a lordless man. It could be an exile... or it could be a simple matter of being the only guy left alive. See The Wanderer, an Old English poem; yet even the wanderer was not an outlaw... just a luckless wretch who hoped to once again find a Lord. So I think your putting an unneccesary spin on the term equating it with being set a wolf/varg/warg (outlaw). Plus, who is this ambiguous 'They'? 'They' account for the most oppressed folk I've ever met in my life... I'd sure hate to be 'They'. I'm the Lord of my tribe, Œþelland, and I have set a man wretched, on good terms, for a Freedom of Conscience issue. I still see him damn near everyday... so I've got to ask that you provide more substance in these claims... because I just don't see it. ~~Daniel -BjornP 03 FEB 2006

I didn't create any of that section. Who are you referring to? Look in the history of the entry and click on the dates to discern who edited and added what. I re-added information which you deleted under a new section called "Freedom of Conscience" - which you had (correctly) said "has nothing to do with thralldom". Deleting information without citing verifiable evidence to refute it is not neutrality. If you question the veracity of it use the {{fact}} tag right behind the statement you take issue with. There currently is one right in the very first paragraph, because someone has contested whether the term Theodism really encompasses the cultures outside of the Anglo-Saxons which settled in England. You cannot POV tag a whole entry for one statement listed under a clearly defined "criticisms" section. I'm reverting your template and adding the {{fact}} tag. Like it or not, when people have a beef with anything in an entry it goes in the criticisms section. Look at almost any article on wikipedia, and you will see this. By being under a clearly defined "criticism" header, it implies that the critic takes issue with statements in the rest of the article, and is appropriate. If the critical statements were interspersed throughout the entry attempting to falsely represent the views of Theodsmen, you would have a case for a POV template. That is not currently the case.-HroptR 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the editing help Hroptr. ~~Daniel -BjornP 03 FEB 2006

No problem. This exact same thing goes on all over wikipedia. I think the issue in this instance, is that there is not an explanation of the Theodish doctrine concerning why someone is "not wretched" when oathed to someone of a higher station, but "wretched" when they are not. This is also the crux of the xenophobia criticism as well, especially since it apparently applies to *everyone* who isn't one of the elect. This seems to be one of the kernel elements of Theodish doctrine (correct me if I'm wrong) and a concise no BS explanation with some sort of modern corollary that outsiders can understand would probably help. If you want, you can give me the long version for this belief on the talk page here or direct me to a source and I'll work it in to the article. Then, with that prerequisite met, we can differentiate being "set wretched" from "outlawry" and also better explain the perception of xenophobia. -HroptR 18:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just as a clarification to my edit from last night, I took out the reference to people swearing hold-oaths to become thralls; that's actually the reverse of what's true. As a thrall, one cannot swear any oath. When one becomes free ("cheaps one's abbraidedness"), THEN one can swear a hold-oath, not before. See "The Way of the Heathen" by Garman Lord, pp. 54-55. (Hope I'm giving sufficient citations for my edits.) --NJHeathen 12:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I re-added a sentence which was dropped, because I didn't see any explanation for the removal, and reworded so the "criticism" is distinct from the rebuff, to clear up an original research problem. I'm going to update the footnoting system in the entry to adhere to a new wikipedia standard soon, so be aware that it will be slightly different. WeniWidiWiki 17:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you may want to add a short section about oaths, hold-oaths and oath-breaking under the Important Theodish Concepts section. The practice seems glaringly absent in the entry. It has been tangentially brought up, but further information would probably better explain the initiatory /thrall aspects. WeniWidiWiki 17:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I had removed that line because a) there is no documentation to support the assertion, b) the way it's phrased, it sounds like something that is practiced by all Theodish groups, and c) it's contrary to my own experience. If someone can document that it happens, I've got no problem keeping it, but otherwise I'd move to strike the sentence (you can't prove a negative, right?). Good idea on the Important Concepts section re: oaths; I'll try to put something together. --NJHeathen 18:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask the person who added the section to cite some sources. He's only made one hit & run edit to the entry, and all he added was criticisms. WeniWidiWiki 19:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I did a "bold edit" of the Criticisms page. Here is what I was thinking... I took out the "disputed" tag for the entire section, because it occurred to me that many of the items in the criticisms section were actually mentioned elsewhere in the article, and it seemed bizarre to dispute something in one section that was attested to in another. Nobody, for instance, is going to dispute that Theodsmen practice animal sacrifice, have the institution of Thralldom, etc. I did, however, put in "fact" tags for stuff that seemed iffy, but didn't rise to the level of removal-pending-citation-of-sources. I did take out two sentences; the notion that Theodsmen "recruit" Asatruar, and that Thralls are publically ridiculed. (I will not object in the slightest if a citation is offered, but in the spirit of the "cite your sources" page, I opted to take them out pending such citation). I moved the "pre-feudal social construct" intro to it's own bullet-point under the heading of "holism" (which seemed a lot more neutral and ultimately all-encompassing to me). I changed the word "utilized" to the more accurate "allowed" in the "sexism" header (no woman is _forced_ to serve drink at sumble), and changed "Xenophobia" to the more neutral "Insularity" (which term was used in the text itself to describe the phenomenon by the guy who originally wrote the paragraph, but which is much more neutral and less incendiary than the "xenophobia" bullet-point). I also changed the "Freedom of Conscience" section to read "Freedom of Association", because that is what the section is really talking about; "Freedom of Conscience" refers to thoughts of individuals, and "Freedom of Association" deals with the group to which one belongs; the section is talking about people being given a hard time when trying to leave various groups. (In the same section I gave a thumbnail explanation of "wretched" in this context, but see below for my thought that we will want a glossary of some sort in this article.) I generally tightened up the language where it seemed in need of tightening, and re-worded (hopefully without changing meaning or nuance) as needed to accomodate the above changes, and tossed in a few citations where I could. Undertaking this exercise, it seems to me that ultimately we will want to add a "Comparison of Ásatrú and Théodism" section, a "Rituals" section (probably under "Important Beliefs") and a "Terminology" section. On the whole I tried to be scrupulously neutral, and in several cases made the wording of the criticisms even more critical. --NJHeathen 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I requested that the person who included the material provide sources (being that the information is so specific, I suspect he can provide them). However, he hasn't reappeared, so I wouldn't have any problem with pulling the section until he (or someone else) comes along and sources the material. I don't want to imply "troll" but hit & run editors who come along and insert a bunch of negative comments and then disappear, seem to epitomize the term. I suggest we archive the section as he created it, and then create another heading to document the changes and edits done to the section. If someone comes along who wants to readd the material, they will then be able to. Feedback? WeniWidiWiki 04:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that anyone who wants to see the original edits in question can always look at the January 27, 2006 entry in the history page. (It should be easy enough to track down for folks who are curious, without making them slog through every edit.)--NJHeathen 12:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Archival of criticism section

On 27, Jan, 2006 User:Earl Rezner added a sub-section called Criticism to the Theodism entry. [1] This is the user's only edit, as of 17:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC). [2] Numerous requests have been made for the editor to supply sources, as per WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR and especially WP:NPOV at Talk:Theodism and at the editor's talk page. After giving User:Earl Rezner plenty of time to explain himself /herself or expand his /her edits, and not receiving any follow up, I moved the original Criticism section as it was added by User:Earl Rezner, as well as the section as it exists as of 17:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC), until the burden of proof required by WP:CITE is met, or until User:Earl Rezner or other editors appear to discuss the issues involved. If you would like to comment, add to this material, or re-integrate this material back into the Theodism article properly, please discuss it here. The archived content can be found:

HERE

WeniWidiWiki 17:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Transcription of Old English text

I changed the intro about "Þēodisc Gelēafa" to use macrons (the horizontal bars above vowels) rather than acute accents, since that is what is most commonly used in the transcription of Old English.

However, I see there are all kinds of Old English words throughout the text, such as þēodisc, Blót, Húsel, and some modernized words like Théodsmen (why the e is marked there but not in Theodism I have no idea). Clearly these are important concepts for the group: it may common practice in to use the acute-accented forms when referring to these things, so I don't want to go ahead and change that arbitrarily.

Can anyone say whether there is a preference in the published writing of this group between the use of accents and of macrons? --Saforrest 12:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Splitting into two articles

I see no reason to remove the article and roll it into two already-extant Wikipedia articles (not, as the tag implies, splitting it into two new and unique articles). The article does not, in fact, state that Theodism is a "synonym" for Germanic paganism, but rather that it is one *variant* thereof. There are many, including Asatru, Forn Sed, Odinism, etc. Each is a distinct entity unto itself and many, including Theodism, deserve and require their own entry (much the same as Catholicism and Lutheranism are both variants of Christianity). Too, as the article plainly states, although the first Theod was Anglo-Saxon in its orientation, the current state of affairs is that there are many individual Theods, each pursuing a thew related to a different Germanic tribe. Fifteen years ago, Theodism might have been equatable with Anglo-Saxon polytheism, but such is no longer the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NJHeathen (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been 11 days since I posted that last, and no one has defended the idea of splitting the article. I'll remove the tag pending anyone championing the cause. --NJHeathen 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-Removal of References

No individual or group has the right to opt-out of mention in Wikipedia merely because they find it irrelevant or silly. There are many groups and people who would love to have their Wikipedia references omitted because they find them embarasing or inconvenient. However, as long as the references are factual and do not display a POV bias, they should and have every right to be included, as they are a part of Theodism's history and present-day makeup.

See the [Wikipedia Article Subjects' FAQ, question #13][3].

NJHeathen 18:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"...so long as references are factual and do not display a POV bias..." Exactly. Ermund 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Sahsisk Theod was fostered by the Gerings (it was), and if it is a Theodish group with a website (it is), then there is nothing unfactual or POV about the lines you want to remove. If you're no longer Theodish, then just put in a line saying so, rather than trying to re-write history. As the FAQ (referenced above) says;

"I am mentioned in an article about something else, and I would like the reference to me removed. How can I do that?

"You probably cannot. If you think the reference doesn’t belong in an encyclopedia (because it’s incorrect, or not worth mentioning), you can make that comment on the talk page. But editors won’t remove the reference just because you don’t like it.

Also, please don’t just remove it yourself. It’s a bad idea, generally, to write or edit material about yourself."

NJHeathen 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

3rd party sources

This article seems to be completely lacking in independent 3rd party sources as required by WP:ORG. It does have verifiable sources, i.e. a number of self-published books by members of the organization, but I am doubtful whether the organization's notability can be taken as established until we can show it has been covered by an independent reviewer:

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability.

--dab (𒁳) 11:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Google books gives me nine (9) hits. Of these, only two appear to be at all usable in the above sense (the others are either self-published or unrelated):

Essential Asatru "Theodism defines itself as "Retro-heathenry"

The Nature of Asatru: "Asatru (also called Theodism)"

This clearly isn't enough to satisfy WP:ORG. I am not sure what to do with this, but I think I will need to tag the article for notability for the time being. --dab (𒁳) 11:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, if no references are forthcoming, I'll go ahead and merge this into Asatru in the United States. --dab (𒁳) 17:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a bit confused- what "quantitative" amount is enough? We (theodsmen) certainly do not regard ourselves as Asatru- and are quite distinct theologically and philosophically. Furthermore the various theodish aetts (communities) spring out of a different history entirely than Asatru.

As for out published ventures, Theod Press has produced a quarterly magazine for 7 years- Way of the Heathen, Hammer of the Gods, and Introduction to Theodish Belief are all book-publications available on Amazon. When Dr. Kaplan reviewed the Germanic Pagan movements in the 1990's we were certainly considered distinct from Asatru... and I believe that reality to still be the case.

Dan ( omisson ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.39.187 (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate this, and I would like to see a standalone article on Theodism, but it has to be done properly. Wikipedia has rules. Specifically, "Theod Press" is irrelevant, because WP:ORG explicitly requires independent third party sources. See also WP:COI. It is generally a bad idea to write Wikipedia articles about your own group. --dab (𒁳) 21:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)