Heathenry (new religious movement) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 2, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

Neopaganism B‑class Top‑importance

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.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: New religious movements B‑class Mid‑importance

This 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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

• I think that social efforts, such as In-Reach Heathen Prison Services (which started as an Urglaawe effort called "In-Reech Heidische Gfengnisbedienunge" in 2011 but is now primarily an effort of The Troth) could be included somewhere in this article, perhaps along with similar work being done by the Odinic Rite. I am happy to write something up, but Urglaawe has regularly been removed from this page despite an increasing identity in multiple areas and having increasing media coverage in the US. Thus, perhaps someone on the inside of this Wiki would be able to write something about this aspect of Heathenry in action. Verzannt (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, Verzannt. It's a relevant topic, and one of the more publicly visible manifestations of the faith. Be sure to include at least one citation though, if possible, to bolster its inclusion. Shouldn't be overly difficult since there has been some press coverage. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that one admin here keeps tearing down anything that has Urglaawe in it, including references to news articles from major media outlets, etc., and In-Reach began in the Urglaawe community. I am not sure how to protest to a superior about the bias of that admin, but for him to ignore a rapidly growing community is impairing people's ability to learn about the diversity of Heathen traditions. Verzannt (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we have Reliable Sources – and ideally academic ones, although mainstream press sources will also do – that support the information that you would like to see included, then I see no reason why this information can't be added. Wikipedia relies on those reliable sources, and we absolutely cannot have un-referenced information, or information cited only to non-reliable (i.e. self-published) sources, so any addition that is either not referenced or is poorly referenced will get deleted. That's just the way that Wikipedia policy works. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you folks can help me then. Is the article at http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/life-style/local-feature/groundhog-day-more-than-a-weather-forecast-for-this-faith/article_50e6b0dc-5f4b-5fd3-b505-7540023ccc03.html considered reliable? Since a subscription is required, the entire article may be found (with permission by the newspaper) at http://www.urglaawe.com/uploads/From_Another_Realm_-_Bucks_County_Courier_Times_-_January_25_2015.pdf. Thank you! Verzannt (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of edits going on that this is for reference and discussion.

Ásatrú (pronounced [auːsatruː] in Icelandic, [aːsatruː] in Old Norse) is a modern Icelandic compound derived from Áss, which refers to the Æsir, an Old Norse term for the Gods, and trú, literally "faith". Thus, Ásatrú is the "faith in the Æsir". The term is the Icelandic translation of Asetro, a neologism coined in the context of 19th century romantic nationalism, used by Edvard Grieg in his 1870 opera Olaf Trygvason ^{[citation needed]}. Ásatrúar, sometimes used as a plural in English, is properly the genitive of Ásatrú. Even so, Stephen A. McNallen of the Asatru Folk Assembly maintains that Asatru means "belief in the gods"^[1][2], “those who believe in the Aesir and Vanir”^[3], or "those loyal to the Gods."^[4][5] as does Edred Wodanson (E. Max Hyatt, 1948 - January 21, 2010) of Wodan's Kindred and the Wodanesdag Press.^[6][7][8][9]

Some adherents will use "Odinism" as synonymous with Ásatrú,^{[10][11][12][13]} while others will reject an equivalence between the two terms.^{[14][15][16][17] [18][19]}

I propose to move the page to "Ásatrú", "Asatru" or any English translation, including "Ases faith" ("Asetroth" or "-truth" would be the philological compound word). "Germanic neopaganism" is an abstract construction, as all the other "neopaganism" labels in Wikipedia.--95.232.86.104 (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ásatrú is more specifically a variant, or denomination, of contemporary Germanic Paganism. The term is used by those who emphasise the use of Scandinavian, Viking Age sources, and tends to be rejected quite vehemently by those who link themselves to other linguistically Germanic societies from the Iron Age and Early Medieval. Thus, while I am not entirely happy with the title of the article as it currently stands (I'd go with "Heathenry"), I would oppose moving it to "Asatru", for doing so would be like moving "Christianity" to "Catholicism". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Asatru" means "faith in the spirits/gods", and is the general term for Germanic religion, it's not a branch of the concept of "Germanic neopaganism". "Odinism" and "Theodism", by contrast, are specific interpretations of "Asatru". German language uses "Asentreue" as the German variant of "Asatru".--80.116.13.241 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, "Asatru" translates as "Faith in the Aesir". Given that the Aesir are only one group of deities within Norse mythological sources, and don't appear at all in Anglo-Saxon and certain other linguistically Germanic sources, it is problematic to assume that the term is used generally for contemporary Germanic Neopaganism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware this topic has been broached here before. Repeatedly. But as someone who is VERY active in the Heathen community, I find I have to bring it up again. It appears, to me at least, that a number of editors here are insisting that something is true that is not true. Either these individuals are not personally familiar with Heathenry or are not widely familiar with it. I am, to say the least, a little annoyed that this is still an issue that has not yet come to consensus.

The overwhelming majority of adherents to what is being described here as "Germanic Neopaganism" refer to their faith, in general, as Heathenry. Others have submitted evidence to this fact before but have been "pooh-pooh'd" or otherwise dismissed as having an agenda. This, despite the fact that none of the three major American organizations for Heathenry (The Troth, the Asatru Folk Assembly, and the Asatru Alliance) use the words "pagan" or "neopagan" in the descriptions of their faith.^[1][2] In fact, The Troth exclusively uses the term "Heathenry" when discussing the faith.^[3]

In 2013, Dr. Karl E. Seigfried conducted a "Worldwide Heathen Census" online, and specifically addressed the use of the term "Heathen." As quoted:

"This survey was originally called Worldwide Ásatrú Census 2013. When I contacted practitioners from different communities around the world for their input, they all agreed that "heathen" was the most general term – and that it is the term with which most adherents would identify.

There are very real differences between different forms of this religion. Some practitioners are opposed to the word "heathen" itself. I respect these differences and realize how important they are. However, this census seeks to – for just this one brief moment in time – move beyond these differences in order to get a sense of the worldwide community.

For the purpose of this census, all of the following are considered part of the "heathen" world: Anglo-Saxon Heathenry, Ásatrú, Asatro, Firne Sitte, Forn Sed, Forn Siðr, Germanic Heathenry, Germanic Neopaganism, Germanic Paganism, Heathenism, Heathenry, Norse Paganism, Norse Religion, Northern Tradition, Odinism, Old Way, Theodism, Urglaawe, Vanatru If your preferred term is not included, I apologize. It was simply an oversight. The point is that this census is meant to include as broad a range of heathens as possible. As long as you self-identify as someone who belongs to any of these paths, please participate and help us create a true representation of worldwide heathenry."^[4]

Even ReligiousTolerance.org, a page that is notable for discussing religion in as neutral a context as possible, has changed their terminology, opting to use "Heathenism" rather than "Paganism."^[5]

Searching for communities on Facebook, you can find dozens upon dozens of groups that use the terms "heathen," "heathenry," or "heathenism." The number of those using "Germanic neopaganism"? Zero. Not one single community on Facebook uses the term that other editors insist in the most widely-used term for the faith.

I cannot imagine what evidence is being put forth to justify this. It needs to be corrected.Stormkith (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the change of the article's title to "Germanic Heathenism".--151.19.103.39 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. There are academic sources testifying to the fact that "Heathenry" is the most widely used term for this new religious movement, even if some members of the movement eschew it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I take this to Wikipedia:Requested moves ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 September User:Sovereign Sentinel – who is otherwise uninvolved in this article – [moved the page] from "Germanic neopaganism" to "Heathenry (new religious movement)" as was the conclusion of the Requested Move discussion, which had been open for a week. Several hours later, User:ThorLives – a longtime contributor to the article – attempted to unilaterally undo this change, by adding a redirect from "Heathenry (new religious movement)" to "Germanic neopaganism", in accordance with their own personal preference. Attempting to undo this act, I then reverted the page so that "Heathenry (new religious movement)" remains its name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThorLives, you can't go against consensus and create a content fork like you've attempted at Germanic neopaganism. If you've got a major problem with the current article title you've got to hash it out here on the talkpage. Edit-warring is not the solution.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ThorLives: if you want to move the article back to its original location, please start a new move request to determine consensus. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 01:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple mentions of Heathenry as socially conservative struck me as an oversimplification, given the Heathen community's diversity of political opinions. While Heathenry does have a larger contingent of conservatives than most pagan religions, there are also a lot of libertarian and left-leaning voices in the Troth, the Asatruarfelagið and other universalist groups. To reflect this, I changed the link to social conservatism in the in the morals & ethics section to instead mention a "focus on family ties and honest living".

The use of "social conservatism" here was following the source material – Jennifer Snook's American Heathens – which has been authored based on the sociologist-come-practitioner's extensive research among Heathens in the United States. Of course there is a great diversity within the Heathen community: as you point out, the Ring of Troth is a lot more centrist or left-leaning than many of the folkish or outright Neo-Nazi Heathen groups who are situated firmly on the right. Nevertheless, the basic emphasis on honor and group loyalty which underlie pretty much all Heathen groups are "socially conservative" in the Western context, even if many of those Heathens also embrace "socially liberal" ideas like feminism, anti-racism, or LGBT rights. I've tried to amend the prose so that it both retains the "social conservatism" term (following Snook's example) while at the same time taking your very valid point under consideration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we need to be very clear that this is specifically referring to American Heathens. Mainstream American values are considerably different than what one would find in, say, Scandinavia, and would be viewed pretty far to the left among typical Americans. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent discussion of ethics should deal with general principles, such as concepts of honor/shame, rather than tangents on current social issues, such as tree planting and nontraditional sexual functions. ThorLives (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just delete academically-referenced material as you did here, ThorLives, because that can lead us into the nasty and unproductive realms of edit warring. I appreciate your basic point that Heathen responses to LGBT, environmentalist, and heritage issues do not constitute ethical principles in and of themselves, but rather represent prominent social issues which confront the Heathen movement, forcing practitioners to take a stand based upon their moral framework. However, the reliable sources provided by academics studying the Heathen/Germanic Neopagan movement all think that these are issues worthy of discussion, and it is Wikipedia policy that we follow their lead. These might not be issues that are of particular concern to your own Odinic ethics (which is fine), but clearly they are issues that have had greater concern for the community more widely, thus warranting their academic discussion and therefore their inclusion here. I think that dismissing them both as "tangents" and as "current social issues" is also deeply misleading given that both the environmentalist and LGBT rights movements are actually older than the modern revival of Heathenry to start with, and both are clearly exerting a fairly significant impact within the movement. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, as I mentioned on your talk page, I respect your lifestyle choices, but there is no place in a small article to discuss sexual issues. Do we also talk about necrophilia, heterosexuality, bestiality, masturbation?

Also, do not think that referencing material somehow makes it valuable. Scientists alone publish 6,000 peer-reviewed journal articles EACH day on earth, but that does not make all of their productions valuable. Cheers --ThorLives (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. --ThorLives (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have unilaterally removed these two fully academically referenced paragraphs for a second time (here), and then offered what I personally think is a slightly odd comment at my talk page (here) making it clear that your main issue is with the mention of LGBT issues and Heathenry, I think that the best thing to do is to bring other, un-involved editors in on this one. I think that that is going to be the only productive way forward, and I certainly don't want to get caught up in an edit war. That being the case, I'm taking this to RfC. I hope that that's alright with you? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section shouldn't have been removed in the first place. Of course, topics such as the environment and sexuality should certainly be handled here. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past year I have been dramatically expanding and re-writing this article using the range of academic, peer-reviewed studies that have been published on the subject, in the hope of ultimately bringing it up to GA status. As part of this I expanded the sub-section on "Morality and ethics". As I constructed it, this section consisted of four, completely academically-referenced paragraphs. The former two dealt with such issues as ethical guidelines and gender norms within the community. The latter two looked at issues of serious ethical debate within the Heathen community, focusing on such subjects as appropriate sexual behaviour (with particular relevance to the place of LGB Heathens within the community), environmentalism, and attitudes toward archaeology and heritage. All of these issues have been raised as being significant by academic commentators in their study of the Heathen new religious movement and thus I certainly thought them worthy of mention within this Wikipedia article too.

Earlier today, User:ThorLives removed those latter two paragraphs with the statement that in doing so they were "keeping it simple". I was concerned that this was simply sweeping pertinent ethical issues under the rug because of one editors' personal opinion on the relevance of those issues - an opinion that wasn't in accordance with the academic studies of the subject. Thus, I restored those paragraphs (and thus initiating the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), arguing that it was not appropriate to delete such academically-referenced information unilaterally. However, they then simply removed the information for a second time, posting a rather odd message onto both my talk page and this talk page stating that while they "respect [my] lifestyle choices" (and therefore assuming that because I am interested in LGBT issues I must be LGBT?), they still believe that information on the LGB-themed ethical issues that the Heathen community faces were not important enough to be discussed in the article, regardless of what academics have written on the subject. Clearly ThorLives – a self-described Odinist who clearly and understandably cares a great deal about this religion and the way that it is being presented on Wikipedia – is well intentioned but I do disagree with their point of view and the way that they have repeatedly deleted these paragraphs without any support from other editors. Fearing that there would simply be an endless edit war that emerged from the situation, I thought it best to take this issue to RFC, so that un-involved editors can have their say on this issue and we can hopefully come up with a compromise. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PROPER PLACE FOR MATERIAL ON SEX AND RELIGION

For editors wishing to discuss sexual issues and religion, please post here:

Religion and sexuality Wikipedia is massive. There is room for everyone. --ThorLives (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, these paragraphs regarding environmentalism and sexuality should be restored. We're producing an article here via secondary sources. This should not in any way be influenced by whatever beliefs a user may personally have on the matter. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any other editors' views on the issue ? And ThorLives, please stop adding both un-referenced information and information from first-hand, Heathen sources. If this article is to get anywhere in the GA-to-FA scale we have to focus almost exclusively on the use of academic, secondary sources. If you feel that there is important information about Heathenry not being reflected in these academic sources, why not write a paper on the subject yourself and publish it in an academic, peer-reviewed outlet like The Pomegranate ? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned by the bot. Based on Thorlives' current explanations I see no convincing reason for these sections to be removed. Is there a WP:UNDUE situation going on or something? If there's not the material should definitely stay. Brustopher (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as no support for ThorLives' controversial change has been forthcoming, I have restored the two paragraphs. If they wish to see them removed they should establish consensus for doing so on the Talk Page first, as is Wikipedia policy, otherwise they will be engaging in edit warring. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was also summoned by a bot. I read the relevant paragraphs in the article and found them to be very informative. They are not written in an offensive manner and I see no reason to remove them. Louieoddie (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Good call on the RFC. HGilbert (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snook's 2015 American Heathens: The Politics of Identity in a Pagan Religious Movement is cited throughout the article in a general manner. Correct me if I am wrong, but Snook's monograph seems to refer solely to American Heathenry. If so, we need to be very explicit that only US Heathenry is being referred to. Statements such as "Among male Heathens there is a trend toward hypermasculanized behavior, while a gendered division of labor – in which men are viewed as providers and women seen as being responsible for home and children – is also widespread among Heathens." are particularly problematic outside of the US. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was responsible for adding the Snook information, and yes you are quite right, the book is devoted to the U.S. scene specifically. Thus, I agree with your general point that on this article we should be clear when referring to the U.S. Heathens specifically, and will try and make some prose edits accordingly. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is progressively becoming "Germanized." The use of "heathen," as opposed to the more proper "pagan" (no doubt rejected because it has Latin and French roots), and also constant references to "Germanic religion," even though most of our material comes from Scandinavia, or, more properly, Iceland.--ThorLives (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the archaeological and historical literature, Iron Age and Early Medieval Scandinavia (and the Scandinavian settlements in places like Iceland) are categorised as "Germanic" for they speak Germanic languages, exhibit a "Germanic" material culture, and thus are termed "Germanic peoples". Hence, within this context, Scandinavia is as Germanic as Germany itself. Introducing wording such as "Germanic paganism and/or Norse Paganism" simply confuses things because it presents the two as being distinct phenomenon, whereas in reality one is simply a sub-set of the other. With regard to the question of "Heathen", it is important to distinguish between heathen the Early Medieval term for pagan, and "Heathen" as a term that has come to be very widely used for Germanic-oriented contemporary Pagan religions, whether Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, or continental-oriented in nature. Thus I would disagree with the idea that using terms like "Germanic" and "Heathen" within this article skew it away from any focus on Scandinavian-based and Nordic-based traditions. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And ThorLives, if you're going to make sweeping changes to parts of the article, as you did earlier today, that entail both the removal of academically-referenced information and its replacement with poorly referenced text, please just ask us here at the Talk Page first so that it can be discussed. Otherwise edit wars ensue. If you want to make small additions, using academic sources devoted to this new religious movement (not about pre-Christian belief systems themselves) then that's great, but if you have something in mind that it is clearly going to be controversial, please just talk to myself, Bloodofox, and others first. Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mark Ludwig Stinson (or one of his acolytes) From your edits, including your deletion of material on Valhalla (an important idea concept among all Odinists and followers of Ásatrú), you seem to be Mr. Stinson or one of his followers. If I recall correctly, Mr. Stinson maintains that the only afterlife is inside the grave.

Also, your insistence on using Heathen, as opposed to Odinism, etc. , seems to be an attempt to promote your “brand.” I also note your deletion of all links to more established groups, such as the Asatru Alliance and the Odinic Rite.

As an academic who studies all religions, I can assert that “intolerance” characterizes monotheistic traditions only. Polytheists—the pagans—respect all beliefs.

I welcome you to make edits in your tradition, but please do not delete material on the more established Odinist groups.

Regards.--ThorLives (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC) ///////[reply]

ThorLives, you are repeatedly violating a variety of Wikipedia policies with your actions, including edit warring and disruptive editing, so please stop making such sweeping unilateral changes to the article without gaining support from others on the Talk Page first. Furthermore it is a gross violation of policy to try and identify a user's identity, as you have done. In the spirit of disclosure, I am not promoting a "brand" of Heathenry, for I am not a practitioner of this religion to start with. I find the subject interesting, and thus expanded and dramatically improved this article using academic secondary sources, just as I have done for many other religious groups in the past. Using the proper procedural channels, I argued the case that "Heathenry" is the most widely used term for this new religious movement among its practitioners, and a majority of other editors were in agreement, thus explaining why the name was changed. I have actually added in academically referenced information on the Odinist and Asatru groups that you mentioned, so I'm certainly not trying to "delete material on the more established Odinist groups" as you claim. I am simply trying to create a good quality article using the secondary sources, ensuring that information on all of the diversity of the religion is properly reflected in it, without resorting to the use of 'insider' Heathen sources (usually produced by particular denominations or factions often with axes to grind), many of which are self-published and would not count as WP:Reliable Sources. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To ThorLives, User:Bloodofox and whomever else it may concern, I have successfully sought a temporary three-day full protection on this article, which will prevent any edits being made without a consensus being reached on the Talk Page first. If the disruptive editing and edit warring continues after this period then more severe steps will have to be adopted to ensure the stability of this article. Of course, I'd rather it didn't come to that, but the ultimate improvement of this article must come first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, because of some misguided edits, proper sources and references have been removed from this article. For some inexplicable reason, one editor is laboring under the assumption that articles and books by professors on Asatru (I am writing English, so no accent marks) are the only legitimate sources. These are acceptable, but they are what scholars call secondary sources. (Trust me. I am a published academic.)

The editor in question has omitted all primary references, such as the sagas and the Eddas. These are actually more important than the professor articles and books .

The editor in question has also removed all present-day primary sources, such as the writings of Stephen McNallen, John Yeowell, Garman Lord, Osred, Kvelduflr Gundarrson, and so forth. EVEN IF THESE ARE SELF-PUBLISHED, they are still crucial primary sources. These individuals started the modern movement. The Gospel of Matthew is more important than books by Paul Johnson on the history of Christianity. Besides, Gundarrson actually is a professor!

Finally, the editor in question has also deleted all academic references dealing with the medieval Norse/Germanic period. He has deleted, for example, a reference containing Professor Hilda Roderick Ellis Davidson’s The Road to Hel, the definitive book on Old Norse afterlife beliefs. (Also, I cannot understand why he keeps deleting Valhalla from this article!)

I want to see legitimate material and legitimate material restored. --ThorLives (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources we are looking for are independent reliable sources. Look for academic studies rather than first-person accounts. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would point the editor to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which should clear up some of the issues. I am merely adhering to Wikipedia policy on these issues. Using the Eddas and Sagas, as well as academic sources on pre-Christian belief systems, are just not appropriate when discussing a new religious movement. In fact, using them only serves to reinforce the Heathen religious view that theirs is a genuine revival of said ancient belief systems; while that belief is very important to said practitioners, it is not one that cannot be easily endorsed by many non-practitioners or scholars specialising in the study of the ancient belief systems in question. Moreover, the use of a wide variety of self-published books and other sources of similar quality is explicitly prohibited by policy. However, the reverts to your recent additions were not simply because they were poorly sourced, but also because patches of them weren't referenced at all, and they were generally quite messy, introducing all manner of sub-sections on fairly minor subjects; why on Earth would the words "Odinism" and "Wodenism" each get a whole sub-section to themselves ? It was clearly a controversial addition, as both myself and Bloodofox pointed out, but rather than accept that and discuss with us on the Talk Page when I invited you to, you simply started edit warring and then attempted to "out" my identity, which again is prohibited. You've repeatedly contravened policy after policy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Bhlegkorbh. Midnightblueowl , I have NO interest in learning your identity (real name and such). I just note that you once posted here under Bhlegkorbh, and now you post under Midnightblueowl Again, the former edits of Bhlegkorbh here (and he made hundreds!) now appear under Midnightblueowl. Check the history of the article. --ThorLives (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's total nonsense... I made every edit as "Midnightblueowl" for the simple reason that I am not, nor ever was, Bhlegkorbh... If I was sock puppeting using two separate accounts why would all the edits performed on one account all of a sudden change and register as those of another? Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of Sockpuppetry are very serious, ThorLives: either file a grievance formally or stop, because they are considered personal attacks if you are just bloviating. Ogress 00:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really did not want it to come to this as I hoped that a three day block on editing the page would be enough, but I've had to take this situation to the Administrators' Noticeboard as it really is just getting out of control. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I see some progress

Ok, Midnightblueowl, let's try to work together, instead mutual attacks. I say this because the last version that you posted and then froze is vastly improved.

Agreed?

I want to begin by restoring some important academic references on medieval paganism. We cannot call it reconstructionism unless we indicate from where the raw material comes. --ThorLives (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I don't object to the inclusion of academically-referenced information on the pre-Christian belief systems of linguistically Germanic Europe if it is done judiciously. On the one hand we must be very careful so as to differentiate between the ancient, extinct belief systems and the New religious movements which turn to them for inspiration. I do appreciate that many Heathen/Germanic Neopagan practitioners have a strong personal and even emotional belief that their religion is a revival of the original belief systems, but from etic and outsider perspectives that is often hard to share -- many outsiders, including scholarly ones, view Neopaganism of all kinds as a romanticist longing for an imagined past rather than a genuine revival of that which is extinct, and cannot by its very nature be revived. Certainly, some Heathen groups are practicing religions that seem to have rather little in common with ancient religion, beyond a few deity names. Thus, in this article we must tread a fine balance; too much discussion of Iron Age and Early Medieval belief systems and we risk propagating the idea that Heathenry is a genuine "revival". Any discussion of such pre-Christian cultic practices should therefore be kept to a minimum. For instance, I was strongly opposed to the use of Hilda Ellis Davidson as a reference because she only talked about ancient religion, not the modern NRM, and it isn't appropriate to use references on one to bolster claims made about the other.

Furthermore, it is against Wikipedia's Manual of Style to simply quote large chunks of copyrighted text in our articles, and it is very important to include page numbers; this is why I removed the previous quoted text that was used as a citation in the lede. Referencing needs to be impeccable, else this article will never reach GA or FA status. Ultimately I think that we could include a small paragraph providing a brief overview of Germanic religion as a note, rather than a footnote, but we should discuss its contents here first. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Midnightblueowl here. Primary sources are problematic for a variety of reasons—they require certain levels of source criticism in an academic context. The use of primary sources on Germanic paganism needs to be strictly limited here without any potential gray area. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been observing Odinist and Asatru groups since the 1970's, I have met all the major people, and I have lectured on the subject at the university level since the 1990's, and ALL of these groups focus on the study of ancient practices. Indeed, except for the obvious amateurs, they are experts on the subject. I therefore believe such sources are important.

Moreover, people come to wikipedia to learn. Providing such sources helps them to learn.

Although I will leave the references in place, Professors Snook and Blain have been over-used here. They are members of the left-wing side of Asatru, and that hardly makes them neutral observers. --ThorLives (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A typical Asatru reading list. Note the number of historical sources.--ThorLives (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not relevant to the above discussion about why the materials should not be included, which Midnightblueowl has laid forth in detail. Ogress 01:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly aware that most Heathen groups (of all forms) rely to a greater or lesser extent on the historical texts, archaeological material, and sometimes later folklore, of linguistically Germanic Europe, which they then use in constructing their new religious movements. Indeed, I made sure that that was made very clear in the very first paragraph of the "Definition" section, so that readers would very quickly learn of it. However, the fact that such contemporary groups utilise such material does not, I believe, legitimise the widespread quotation or citation of that material itself in this article. Any reader who wants to learn more about the Prose Edda (for example) can quite easily click on the link to a whole article on the subject; they don't need a lengthy description of it here at this page. Regarding the issue of Blain and Snook (which isn't really germane to this particular discussion), it should also be noted that Kaplan and Gardell's work is also cited here too, both scholars who have focused on the racially-oriented Odinist and Asatru movements (which, while sizeable and significant, constitutes a numerically smaller portion of the wider Heathen movement globally). Anyway, returning to the original point, I suggest that you perhaps put together a brief, thoroughly academically-sourced description of "Germanic paganism" that could perhaps be appended to this article as a Note, and show us this proposed wording so that we can suggest improvements/amendments before deciding whether to incorporate it or not. Would that work for you? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the removal of the "Modern chronology up to the 20th" section that has been added to the end of the article. Aside from being totally un-referenced, the section simply provides us with a list which contains information which has largely already appeared in the "History" section. I really don't see how this list adds anything of value for the reader, and it most certainly does not fit in with Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines for how to construct an article. Any objections if I remove it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Ogress 22:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it. Hopefully it won't get put back. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the bullying continues here. Please stop deleting the edits by others.

Midnightblueowl, this is not your article. Please be respectful.

As to academic sources, please note that modern neopaganism --generally speaking-- is a reconstruction. People leading the movement ‎

are reading the Eddas, the Sagas, and scholarship on the old Norse/Germanic traditions. I suspect that your hostility to such sources is based on a lack of familiarity. --ThorLives (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]