Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)/Archive 4

Summary of the sources for the reconstruction of the article

 * Michael Strmiska. Modern Paganism in World Cultures. It has a chapter dedicated to general Heathenry and another one dedicated to Nordic Neopaganism/Asatru subsets.
 * James R. Lewis (scholar). Handbook of Contemporary Paganism; Heathenry chapter. The Invention of Sacred Tradition; Heathen Reconstructionism chapter.
 * Robert J. Wallis (Richmond University). Shamans/neo-Shamans: Ecstasy, Alternative Archaeologies, and Contemporary Pagans. Heathenry and seidh chapter.
 * Jennifer S. Snook,University of Colorado at Boulder. Sociology. On Being Heathen: Negotiating Identity in a New Religious Movement.
 * Peter B. Clarke. Encyclopedia Of New Religious Movements. Heathenry chapter, very taut in its brief definition.
 * Margot Adler. Drawing Down the Moon. Heathenism chapter.
 * Graham Harvey. Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism. Heathens chapter.
 * Barbara Jane Davy. Introduction to Pagan Studies. Very bright in describing the distinction between Asatru and Odinist sub-gropus of Heathenism.
 * Mattias Gardell. Gods of the Blood. For further distinction between Asatru and Odinist movements.
 * Paganism: Druidry and Heathenry, written by Professor Eileen Barker as a chapter of New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction (1995), published by the INFORM and the Staffordshire University.
 * Introduction to Heathenism (Germanic Neo-Paganism) by Jennifer Porter, Associate Professor of Religion and Popular Culture at Memorial University of Newfoundland.

I think that now there's no need of further evidence to say that the word Heathenism/Heathenry is the umbrella term used by the academia to encompass all Germanic Neopagan movements, and that this article's title should follow the convention. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Bhlegkorbh, as already noted in our previous debate, some people do use heathenry, but not everyone does. Many prefer Asatru, Odinism, and so forth.  I like Odinism.  It has been in use since the 19th century, whereas, as you yourself admit, heathenry has only been used for the last ten years.


 * The point of using Germanic neopaganism is that it is a non-controversial umbrella term. Please stop repeating the same controversy.


 * --ThorLives (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I should also add that your bibliography is rather disingenuous.  Dr. Michael Strmiska, the author of the first book, himself uses Asatru in his own book.  Heathenism appears in his book, but it is used by Jenny Blain, who also wrote the article in your second book!  --ThorLives (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The matter here is not what is "your favourite name", or what you think about the sources. You're not the owner of this article. The sources are not just "bibliography", they must be used to construct the article, which at the current state is a mess. In the last months you haven't contributed to the improvement of the article, you've just copied and pasted the current version in your sandbox. Now it's the time to start writing a good article using academic sources. If the sources say A and you think or prefer B, your personal opinion counts for nothing. And PLEASE learn how to write well-formatted posts → Tutorial/Formatting --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct that it does not matter what ThorLives likes, but this applies to you as well. It appears that you've cherry-picked sources to create some appearance that heathenry is the common name above all others, when reliable sources, previous consensus, and sources in the article all refute this.  The sources above use heathenry in some form or fashion, yes.  However, how does this demonstrate that all the other terms are somehow invalid, or less common?  No.  Does it demonstrate that heathenry is the "umbrella term" used? No.  All it shows it that some reliable sources use this term, and this is something that isn't questioned and is already in the lede of the article. - SudoGhost 02:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . Reply: The works in the list are reliable sources written by academics and not self-publications by Heathens. Previous consensus is for Heathen and not Germanic Neopagan (which isn't in use anywhere, neither by Heathens nor, commonly, by academics), just count the various posts by users (the survey was a draw). The current revision of the article is not based on reliable sources in most of its parts, including terminology, with the exception of the BBC definition of Heathenry.
 *  Reply: The other terms are all valid, but they don't comprehend the whole movement, they delimit specific groups or trends within it, and some sources clearly distinguish these different "denominations" (for example see Mattias Gardell for the difference between the Asatru movement and the Odinist movement). And yes, some of the sources clearly use and define Heathenism \ -ry as the umbrella term, while none of them, or just in a minority of cases, uses "Germanic Neopaganism". --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Surveys" don't carry any weight; articles are not determined by voting, especially when accounts are created for the sole purpose of "voting". I've seen no previous consensus for heathenry being the common name, and this is reflected in the talk page archives. The only thing you've shown above is that some reliable sources use heathenry, and again, this is reflected in the article. - SudoGhost 11:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You continue to misinterpret what I write. I agree with you that polls count for nothing, what I mean is that consensus here was for Heathenry regardless of the poll, just read the posts of the various users on this talkpage and Archive 3. I think that Heathenism \ -ry should be the title, and Germanic Neopaganism a secondary name cited in the lede, since it's used neither by most of the academics nor by Heathens themselves (the term Heathen has been recovered precisely to substitute the generic definition of Neopagan, as you can read in some of the books cited above). --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You say there is a consensus, but this discussion very clearly demonstrates that this is not the case, even if this alluded to prior consensus did exist (diff?). - SudoGhost 12:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just read Archive 2 from that point downward and most of Archive 3. Users supporting Heathenism: Olaf.i44, .bloodfox., Liftarn, Yngvadottir, Noddyt, CaraShulz, dscarron, Frater SERVO, Dchmelik, and me Bhlegkorbh, supporting the use of the word with the scholarly works cited above. Then count users opposed to the word, they're a minority and their claims aren't supported by sources. The majority of scholars uses Heathenism \ Heathenry, only a minority Germanic Neopaganism or Paganism (referring to the modern movement), thus the article lede should be  and not viceversa. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't see a consensus, even taking into account the drive-by single purpose accounts saying "I agree". In fact that archives show a pointed lack of consensus for heathenry being the WP:COMMONNAME. There is not and has not been a consensus for this wording. - SudoGhost 12:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While you think the number of users supporting the term, including scholar Cara Shulz, is not enough, I agree with you that no-one cited many solid sources before. Now I have made a list of scholarly sources using the term. WP:COMMONNAME says < The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.>, thus in our case Heathenism \ -ry, and it's verifiable. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not the most common name used by reliable sources. Your only edits have been to advocate the use of this term, so it comes as no surprise that you believe the term should be used.  The sources you've shown do not demonstrate a common name per Wikipedia's definition, only use of the term by some sources; this is already reflected in the article. - SudoGhost 13:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SudoGhost, Heathenry reflects the Wikipedia definition of common name or article title. Those cited above are works by renown scholars, and they all use this terminology, there isn't any reliable work using Germanic Neopaganism. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I never stated that "Germanic Neopaganism" was the common name, but rather that heathenry is not, there's a key distinction there. Yes, you've selected sources that use heathenry in some form, does that demonstrate a common name? No. All that demonstrates is that certain sources use this terminology, not that sources overwhelmingly use this terminology or that everything within the scope of this article meets that terminology's scope. What the sources you've provided demonstrate is already reflected in the article's lede. - SudoGhost 13:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that you won't find reliable sources published by academic scholars using other terminology than Heathenism while describing the whole movement. The only exception of academic works which don't use the term is that of Mattias Gardell's Gods of the Blot, Jeffrey Kaplan's Radical Religion in America (Odinism and Asatru chapter), and Stephen E. Atkins' Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History (Odinism and Wotanism chapters), each of which focus on the description and the distinction of two subgroups of Heathenry: Asatru (i.e. the American and Icelandic movement based on Norse Paganism and initiated by Sveinbjorn Beinteinsson and McNallen) and Odinism (i.e. the ethnic nationalist / racialist movement started by Rud Mills and Christensen and primarily embodied by the Odinic Rite), and also Wotanism, a form related to Odinism. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Type in Asatru in WorldCat and there are 87 hits, including some doctoral disserations. Odinism produces 36 hits.  Heathenry produces 16 hits. 1, 2, 3. --ThorLives (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't mean anything. Those listed are not academic works but self-publications of the specific organisations of the various subgroups of Heathenry, mostly American: Asatru Folk Assembly, Asatru Alliance, Odinic Rite. The same discourse could be made for Theodism, Fyrnsidu, etc: The Way of the Heathen: A Handbook of Greater Theodism by Garman Lord isn't an academic work, it's a self-publication, and it can't be used for the description of the whole Heathen movement, at least only for the Theodish movement. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I was going slowly on the rewrite because these articles must not be the work of one person. Consensus is important here. Let's move beyond what we should call the article and work on improving it.

Remember, however, that these articles are designed for the general reader, so let's be clear. The tendency here to use ettin instead of giant and wyrd instead of fate is simple obscuration.--ThorLives (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ettin or Jotun and Wyrd describe specific concepts within Germanic cultures, which are not clearly defined by the generic terms "giant" or "fate", which have a different etymology. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost, thank you for your help! You make your points well.

Bhlegkorbh, you must let the pagan/heathen argument go. We cannot keep recycling the same points every two months. Heathen appears in the article itself, so what is the issue?

I find your reference to using archaic terms such Ettin curious. This is what wikipedia says on ettin: Ettin, an OBSOLETE English cognate to the Old Norse Jötunn from the Old English Eoten, meaning "giant"

I am sensing a theme here. You seem to love opaque language. Also, you seem to have a hostility toward English words with a Latin/French base (pagan or giant) Are you coming from some Germanic pride angle? Is that what this is all about? --ThorLives (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fate and Wyrd are not really the same. Wyrd only applies to English concepts, for Norse/Icelandic one should use its cognate Urðr however this could be problematic as the two words may not represent identical concepts. Wyrd and fate are not identical either and this has long been a topic of debate amongst Heathens. From an English point of view, based on poetry sources, "giants" are split into two groups; Entas and Eotenas. Ent is a gloss for "gigas" and "gigant" and appears to be different to the hostile, man eating eoten. Ent and eoten both appear in Beowulf but ent only when describing ancient armour, eoten is used to describe Grendel, his mother and their kin, they are never described as ent. Eotenas/ettins are man eaters or cannibals but entas/ents are an ancient race of giant builders or masons. If "giant" is used then some form as distinction should be made as two which type the giant is. Noddyt (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's very disappointing that all the electrons that have been rearranged above, and all the time spent on rearranging them, has not improved the article itself one iota. Nor is the discussion even about the content of the article, but about its title (a discussion which is itself a rehash of a recently-concluded page move request.) Please, please, consider going to the sandbox which I established here and making some changes to a proposed redraft. Anything rather than this unproductive debate which benefits the readers of the encyclopaedia not one bit. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  08:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kim, frankly I think that the version in your sandbox is even worse than the current "published" one. If you note, some of the reliable sources used in the current article (BBC article on Heathenry) have been removed again from your sandbox's version. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * it has been clear from day one that user Bhlegkorbh is a single-topic editor with the obvious agenda to wreak havoc on our coverage on Neopaganism based on some far-out idiosyncratic WP:COI. The user isn't even trying to represent the neopagan point of view (as it were, pro neopagan, but respecting the differences within the movement), no, they are content to just pursue their personal views. I have no idea why some editors still seem treat this account as an editor in good standing at this point. Their behaviour falls short of what is required in order to edit here so clearly and their good will to learn about how to become a bona fide contributor is so non-existent that "discussion" is just wasted time. --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The only user here who is a single-topic editor who has taken possession of this article imposing his own view is ThorLives, as his contributions list demonstrates, but this is not a problem for you since it's functional in keeping this article a mess, which is also what you have been doing for years.--79.10.80.178 (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

National Museum of Denmark on Asatro
Note that the National Museum of Denmark has an English language article on Danish Germanic Neopaganism—Asatro—that can be read here. This may be a useful little source for Danish Germanic neopaganism. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please everybody don't make massive reverts with snarky edit summaries such as this one or the re-revert which followed it. The place to dialogue is here, not in edit summaries. Edit wars don't have to get to three reverts before blocks are in order. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  11:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The revert feature is there for a reason. Itchy as you may be to hit someone with the block stick, these edits haven't gotten far enough for you to even consider block anyone, so put it away. The edit summary "Revert a clearly biased, left-wing and vandalistic removal of symbols used by modern Heathens" contains no snark but a lot of unfounded accusation. You might also want to get that right before trying to block anyone.


 * Meanwhile, the text was modified by me for several reasons. While the swastika was in fact a commonly employed symbol among the ancient Germanic peoples, it is not exactly clear what the swastika represented when employed (someone brought together a bunch of examples I've put on other articles here). Although the notion of it representing some aspect of Thor (or Thor himself) is not unlikely, this is by no means clear and cannot be presented as fact. The editorial claim that "Its symbolism is the same as that of the Swastika and the Vajra: the enlightenment of man reaching the state of "diamond" or "lightning", divine central, rational and bright thought and will. It is then the power of Irminsul or Yggdrasil on the individual level." is pulled directly out of someone's imagination; there's no Germanic source material to support any such interpretation of Thor's hammer and certainly nothing along those lines regarding either Yggdrasill or the Irminsul(s). The 19th century reference stapled on to it doesn't help it any. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing the content dispute to discussion here, Bloodofox. That's the right thing to do and this is the right place to do it. Anyone entering constructive discussion here adds a strong counterweight against any itches I may have to block them. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  12:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I know this is going to start a long problem but I hope that it will make the encyclopedia better in the long run
The section entitled True Asatru I removed due to lack of citation, promotional wording, religious dogma presented in a very poor fashion. I am Asatru so lets get that out of the way first. Does anyone have a citation from a third party source that is a reliable source that I could use to rewrite it into an actual descriptive and useful paragraph with citations? Even if someone could copy a bulk chunk of text I can use that as a starting point to draw upon to actually craft something worthy of an encyclopedia. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Is soteriology the right word?
Soteriology is the study of salvation. I'm not sure that the concept of the afterlife that exists within heathenism is properly analogous to liberation from Saṃsāra or Christian salvation or achieving Nirvana. So soteriology strikes me as out of place.

The section it introduces discusses the heathen view of the afterlife. Why not have a section called Afterlife? That's what the article on Wicca does, and it looks all right to me. Plus it's easier for most folks to understand. Lereman (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ethics Section
There are four paragraphs in the ethics section, and the last two deal with current social issues rather than traditional ethics. Is that misleading?--ThorLives (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As the editor responsible for the edits, I will naturally champion the inclusion of this particular material. Views on social issues (I'm not sure that I would necessarily refer to them as "current", given that they have been highly visible issues in western society since at least the 1960s, and show no sign of disappearing) are closely linked to morality and ethics. Thus, views on environmentalism and LGBT issues step from Germanic Pagan moral views, i.e. is same-sex sexual activity ethical? Such material is dealt with in academic studies of this particular religious movement (i.e. Blain, Harvey), and thus I do believe that it is clearly worthy of inclusion in this article. However, I am certainly willing to discuss the possibility of there being a better place to put this information than in an "Ethics" section. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am indeed becoming antiquated, since anything discussed only since the 1960's is, in my mind, a "current event."

In my opinion, the article should discuss general ethics in general terms, because "social issues" change. In 1890, in England, gay male sex was a felony, lesbianism was technically legal, abortion was a felony, and ecology was not really discussed. In 2014, the first three are legal, and almost no one, even criminals, take issue with ecology. But where will we be in 2090? --ThorLives (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I fear that we should not deal in counterfactuals; for instance, it could be that Germanic Neopaganism is itself extinct in 2090! (I don't actually think that particularly likely, but it is possible). However, I would reiterate my point that there are academic sources that deem the discussion of ecological activism and LGBT rights issues relevant to the discussion of Germanic Neopaganism, and as an encylopedia, Wikipedia should follow their example. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the material to a content footnote. Since the section on ethics deals in generalities, it is jarring to suddenly switch a specific lifestyle.

For the record, matriarchies fear and despise incest and tolerate homosexuality. Patriarchies, in contrast, fear and despise homosexuality but actually tend to tolerate incest.

Note that Saudi Arabia is a patriarchy and they usually marry their first cousins. They also are harsh on Gays!

In a sense, the modern Western tolerance for GLB lifestyles simply indicates that we are living in an increasingly matriarchal society.--ThorLives (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, a discussion of patriarchies and matriarchies is opening a huge can of anthropological worms; for the record, I'm highly dubious regarding whether any matriarchies have actually ever existed in human society beyond the fantasies of Marija Gimbutas. In this, I'm pretty much in agreement with what is (generally speaking) the current anthropological and archaeological consensus on the issue. However, it is of course off topic, and I'm not really sure that it is something that I wish to get into a debate about... I'd also take issue with the idea that LGBT people adhere to a "specific lifestyle" (there is an element of lifestyle and subculture attached to the LGBT community, granted), because being LGBT is rooted in a firm, biological reality, but again, that's a debate which is not terribly relevant right here. But, bringing myself back on topic, I'd like to hear what other editors think about where the information on LGBT issues in the Germanic Neopagan community should be placed in this article ? I'm really not sure that a footnote is the best place, but I can nevertheless appreciate ThorLives' concerns that "Ethics" is not the best place either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree, Midnightblueowl. You've said it far more concisely than I could have. Such ideas have largely been discarded as romantic fantasy within the anthropological community, as they have not been bourne out by archaeological evidence. For the record, ThorLives, I'd daresay that those cultural practises you mentioned have little to nothing to do with a dichotomy, invented or otherwise, of "partriarchy" and "matriarchy". Marrying one's first cousin is quite common in all Middle Eastern societies, especially within certain religious communities, as well as in expat communities in the west; statistically, over half of Pakistani Britons, for example, are married to their first cousins. But that's neither here nor there. As far as the LGBT issues... In my experience, it isn't a part of religious practise or identification within the Germanic neopagan community- it's essentially a non-issue for most, as are ethics in general. There are few absolutes. Ethics are thus usually dealt with in non-specific terms, and are more seen as the purview of the individual, rather than the community. I don't necessarily see why we need to include anything on the sort, unless a specific group makes a statement of collective opinion on such an issue. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

English Asatro
We need to talk about this addition of content. English Asatro is not a notable group, and adding links to their site is a violation of WP:LINKSPAM. Please do not add the text back in until there are reliable secondary sources that talk about it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree Since I'm a bit of a delusionist and like to cheer for the underdog I have spent much of the last half hour trying to refute your assertion by using several search engines looking for secondary and tertiary sources. Lots of stuff on blogs, mirrors for the primary source, minor mentions, nothing that would really support notability. You're right. This is not notable. Trilobitealive (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Move to Asatru
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)


 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)

Heathenry vs. "Germanic Neopaganism"
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. In fact, The Troth exclusively uses the term "Heathenry" when discussing the faith.

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."

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."

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)
 * I support the change of the article's title to "Germanic Heathenism".--151.19.103.39 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Shall I take this to Requested moves ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Social conservatism overstated?
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)
 * 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. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ethics?
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)


 * 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)

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)

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


 * 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)


 * 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. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Germanic neopaganism → Heathenry (new religious movement) – I would like to propose that this article, which is currently titled "Germanic neopaganism", be renamed to "Heathenry", or perhaps "Heathenry (new religious movement)". First off it must be noted that this is an issue that has been raised before here on the talk page: back in January 2012 the question was raised by User: Kim Dent-Brown, who suggested a move to "Heathenism (contemporary)". At that time the motion was defeated due to a lack of consensus: there were four declarations of support to four declarations of opposition. Nevertheless, I think that this is an important issue and requires a return visit, and would also like to invite other editors with no connection to the subject to offer their judgement on the basis of the evidence presented.

My argument for the change is threefold. First, I would argue that the term "Germanic neopaganism" is inappropriate for usage here at Wikipedia because it is a term that is used very rarely outside of this actual Wikipedia article itself. Having recently spent a fair bit of time expanding this article using almost all of the academic studies yet published on the subject, it became apparent to me that "Germanic neopaganism" simply isn't used to describe this new religious movement in any of them. Typing the term into Google basically brings up this Wikipedia article and very little else that we could deem to be reliable. Basically, it doesn't appear in any significant way in the reliable, third-party academic literature. Furthermore it does not seem that it is a term that is at all widely used within this religious community itself, with many practitioners actually expressing their dislike of the word "pagan" (and thus "neopaganism") due to its Latin origins. As User:Stormkith pointed out above, none of the three major U.S. organisations for this religious movement use the term "neo/pagan" on their websites. So if this term isn't being used either by practitioners or scholars studying the movement, why is it being used here ? Without trawling through the lengthy history of this article, I think that there must be a suspicion that it is a name that has been devised (or at least chosen) by a Wikipedia editor themselves without recourse to reliable sources, and thus may come under our restrictions surrounding the use of Original Research. All in all, it's a totally inappropriate term for us to be using.

My second point is that "Heathenry" remains the most widely used term for this religious movement within the community itself. While it is clear that different sections of the movement favour different terms (Odinism, Theodism, Asatru etc, each of which conveys information about a group's specific regional affiliation and socio-political bent), it is nonetheless apparent that "Heathenry" is a rapidly growing term, having become the dominant word within the United Kingdom and seeing its usage rapidly expand elsewhere. It is, for instance, the term generally used by the U.S.-based website The Wild Hunt, which is the foremost news service for the wider Neopagan movement, and when an insider-led statistical study of the Germanic-oriented Neopagan movement was made in 2013, it was called The Heathen Census because its creators recognised that "Heathen" "is the term with which most adherents would identify.". So while not every practitioner of this broad and diverse religion is using "Heathenry", a greater number of practitioners are using it as an over-arching catch-all term than any other. It's the closest thing that this religion has to a label like "Christianity" or "Hinduism".

My third, and perhaps the most important point here, is that "Heathenry" remains the most widely used term for this religious movement among those academics who have published studies on the movement. To cite just one example, in her recent study of the religion in the U.S., American Heathens (Temple University Press, 2015), the sociologist Jennifer Snook states that she uses that term over any others "because it is inclusive of all varieties" of this religion in a way that no other word is. (Clearly, she didn't even think of using "Germanic Neopaganism", a designation that she doesn't even mention). Fundamentally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus should follow academic conventions (rather than adopt fringe terms or engage in original research) – there's a reason why academic, peer-reviewed sources are described as the best form of sources in our Reliable Sources policy! Related to this is the fact that many non-academic reliable sources also refer to "Heathenry" when discussing this religious movement: see for instance this BBC Religion page (where, it should be noted, "Germanic Neopaganism" isn't listed as a synonym at all).

I appreciate that there are some valid arguments against the use of "Heathenry" as a title for this article. On the one hand, some practitioners – particularly those who self-designate as Odinist – simply don't like it, and they might not be happy with the change. On the other, there is the fact that the term heathen (which has been used in the English language for over a millennium) has long been used in a pejorative sense, initially to apply to those who continued practicing pre-Christian belief systems in the Early Medieval, and more recently in application to irreligious people. There is thus the potential for a little bit of confusion to arise between "heathenism" as a pejorative term and "Heathenry" the new religious movement. However, it will be abundantly clear to any reader who gets as far as the first few sentences of this article that it is not referring to heathenism as a pejorative but is discussing a new religious movement. Let's give our readers some credit for having a little basic intelligence and being able to differentiate between two very different things.

Ultimately, I do think it fairly apparent (in my opinion at least) that the positive aspects of an alteration to "Heathenry" far outweigh the comparatively minor negatives of using it. At the same time, I think that we lack any firm ground to stand on in using "Germanic neopaganism" in the way that we currently are, due to a chronic lack of support from academic sources, reliable third-party sources more widely, and even the religious community itself. Admittedly, I don't think that we are going to get total consensus on this issue as there will probably continue to be some editors – particularly some of those with a deep personal and emotionally powerful connection to this religious movement – who simply don't like "Heathenry", but I do believe in putting this argument forth anyway and trying to ensure that enough editors (including practitioners, interested outsiders, and those with no connection to the subject whatsoever) recognise the logic and the benefits behind the proposed change and offer their Support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * nb, I took the liberty of adding the above 'AfD type' source-search aid. Pincrete (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pincrete. I think the AfD searches show pretty clearly that of the two, "Heathenry" is the more widely used term. Where "Germanic neopaganism" seems to pop up most is on U.S.-based mainstream media sites, and given that that's the case I think it shows that a great many journalists have been relying on this Wikipedia article when writing their articles! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * nb, I took the liberty of adding the above 'AfD type' source-search aid. Pincrete (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pincrete. I think the AfD searches show pretty clearly that of the two, "Heathenry" is the more widely used term. Where "Germanic neopaganism" seems to pop up most is on U.S.-based mainstream media sites, and given that that's the case I think it shows that a great many journalists have been relying on this Wikipedia article when writing their articles! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator of the change, for the three reasons outlined above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support for the reasons listed above. Stormkith (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, while the argument for a change is made very clearly, and ignoring the 'negative' meanings, bare "Heathenry" does not tell me that this is a modern revival of a N. European belief system. "Heathenry (new religious movement)" or somesuch, locates in time, is there some way of locating place ? Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Heathen movement is distributed across the Western world; there are communities of practitioners in various parts of Europe, North America, and Australasia. I couldn't say for sure but I think it likely that there at least some isolated practitioners in places like Russia, South Africa, and Latin America too. Thus I think that pinning a location on the movement in the article title might prove problematic. I think that "new religious movement", which is how Heathenry is academically classified, probably offers the best way of making the content of this article clearest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading back your comment now, I believe that I misunderstood you; you are asking if there is a way of making reference to Heathenry's "Germanic" orientation in the lede, no ? It would be possible to perhaps change the title to "Heathenry (Germanic-oriented new religious movement)" or something of that nature but frankly I find that a little unwieldy. I do think that "Heathenry (new religious movement)" alone should be enough to do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your second reading was correct, I meant is there some other legitimate way of referring to 'Germanic' origins, the answer is probably not, but "(new religious movement)" or similar takes us 'out of the void'.Pincrete (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as this is the generally used term. Pincrete (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No evidence is presented that this is a common term in general use in English for the subject of the article - because it is not. The nominator also says, without evidence, that this term is used by some practitioners, but that others hate it - so it cannot be used as a self-description either. The current article title might have problems, but Google showed me plenty of examples of use as a self-description. Changing the title would make it worse. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The various search criteria used at AfD (above), suggest the opposite.Pincrete (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, I disagree with the anonymous IP's statements. First, I did present evidence that "Heathenry" is a common term in general use in English (that's what the references are there for). Second, just because some practitioners don't like the term doesn't disqualify it from being used as a "self-description" (surely it would just be "description" in this context, no?) of the movement on this Wikipedia article. Nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it state that we have to use terms that won't possibly cause offence. There are members of almost every religious group, and certainly political and social groups too, who don't like the designation that they are most commonly known under (for instance, many Neo-Nazis insist on being termed "National Socialists" but we still have an article on Neo-Nazism). This doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to devise new terms, or fish out very obscure ones, in an attempt to make sure that everyone is happy. Of course, in an ideal scenario there would be a term that all practitioners embraced and that all academics used, but given that that isn't the case i'm just presenting an argument for the most logical option available to us given the constraints of the situation and of Wikipedia policy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Update
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Snook Source
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. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

Germanization of the article
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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) ///////


 * 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)

Temporary block
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)

ON THE DELETION OF SOURCES
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)


 * 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)


 * I would point the editor to 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * Accusations of Sockpuppetry are very serious, : 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)


 * 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)

Add In-Reach Heathen Prison Services and similar social efforts?

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Now, I see some progress
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)


 * 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)


 * 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. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

A typical Asatru reading list. Note the number of historical sources.--ThorLives (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not relevant to the above discussion about why the materials should not be included, which has laid forth in detail. Ogress 01:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

Removing "Modern chronology up to the 20th" section
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)
 * Nope. Ogress 22:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've deleted it. Hopefully it won't get put back. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the high-handed edits
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)
 * The only person I see being high-handed and self-righteous on this page is you, ThorLives. Ogress 01:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

On this occasion, User:ThorLives may be correct. Based on http://www.worldcat.org/title/religiose-welt-der-germanen-ritual-magie-kult-mythus/oclc/715786358 and https://www.worldcat.org/title/barbarian-rites-the-spiritual-world-of-the-vikings-and-the-germanic-tribes/oclc/656456143 I believe that the original German version is not a self published work, but the English translation is from a very specialised publisher. Note: I don't speak German. Either way the citation should include the German-language name of the work. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost no libraries in the entire United States have it; it's a lurid book described as being "obsessed with the Männerbund". I question this text very strongly. Ogress 04:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ogress--love the name--please do not post about books you have not read. We are writing English here, and the book, by a distinguished scholar, is NOT obscure. Buy it at [ http://www.amazon.com/Barbarian-Rites-Spiritual-Vikings-Germanic/dp/1594774218/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442210189&sr=1-1&keywords=Hans-Peter+Hasenfratz amazon.com]

It is NOT some frenzied work on male warrior brotherhoods. It is simply a discussion of the religion in question.

For the record, a great article on religion should discuss history, belief, ethics, and practice. Professor Snook, a talented young sociologist, is only useful for practice. Sociologists can use facebook pages and telephone calls as sources as she does--she is studying a subculture and how it functions--but we must use other academic disciplines for history, ethics, and belief.

To give another example: sociologists can tell us how physicists network and work, but we would not use sociologists for an article on the content of physics. --ThorLives (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Who said "frenzied"? Also, being sold by Amazon proves nothing: here's the classic [ http://www.amazon.com/Pounded-Butt-My-Book-Own-ebook/dp/B00VDRUI5Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442215042&sr=1-1&keywords=pounded+in+the+butt+by+my+own+butt Pounded In The Butt By My Book "Pounded In The Butt By My Own Butt" by Chuck Tingle at amazon.com]. Also, we use German words all the time in English; in this case, we speak of a secret society of Pagans who allegedly kept traditional beliefs alive whose notoriety is so great it remains in its German form in many languages, even on Wikipedia. Ogress 07:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ogress your words: it's a lurid book described as being "obsessed with the Männerbund"  Just plain ridiculous.It is a quality academic text. --ThorLives (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the heart of the matter: is Barbarian Rites: The Spiritual World of the Vikings and the Germanic Tribes about the Heathen new religious movement? As far as I can see, it isn't. Instead it is about a particular aspect of cultic behaviour in the distant past. And thus, as was specified in the above discussion on "Now, I see some progress" by myself, bloodofox, and Ogress, it doesn't belong in this particular article. Period. The two phenomena are distinct and must not be conflated in the service of a Heathen religionist agenda bent on depicting modern Heathenry as a genuine "revival" of ancient belief systems.
 * Furthermore, why on Earth am I being accused of "bullying" you, ThorLives? That is utter nonsense, and rather ironic given that you have repeatedly and blatantly violated our Harassment policy. I appreciate that this is a religious movement that you passionately care about, and that your intentions in editing the article about it are well meaning, but you are regularly introducing edits that are not up to Wikipedia standards and are repeatedly and deliberately violating Wikipedia policies at almost every turn (edit warring, disruptive editing, adding non-reliable sources, harassment). You have been warned about this again and again, both here on the Talk Page and at the Administrators' Noticeboard. You have been asked by a variety of editors on the Talk Page not to add in references and sources to academic studies of pre-Christian belief systems, and yet you are trying to do so again. The fact that a wide range of experienced editors are telling you off or expressing disapproval of your actions is not bullying; it is because they are trying to uphold the quality and policies of this encyclopedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete books that you have not read.

Midnightblueowl, as for "edit warring, disruptive editing, adding non-reliable sources, harassment," that is what you are doing to me. Over the last several months, has any editor made a change here not deleted by Midnightblueowl? Has any other editor tried to ban people? (That is harassment.)

As for academic scholarship on old Norse/Germanic religion, I repeat, for the seventh time or so, that Modern paganism is, by and large, reconstructionist. It is based on the old ways. One cannot properly understand the religion if one depends on American postings on facebook and private e-mails as Professor Snook does. We can learn a great deal about the practice (that was the goal of sociologist Snook), but we need more.

Now Professor Strmiska is a historian, and he wrote an excellent doctoral dissertation on Eddaic and Vedic parallels (I had the opportunity to read it), but you use only brief articles here. Historians cannot "go deep" in a brief article.

Be that as it may, I have respected your over-use of the same sources, please respect my attempt to add substance. A religion is not just about racism, sex, and mead drinking. Those are superficial aspects.

--ThorLives (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ThorLives, the claim that I am guilty of "disruptive editing, adding non-reliable sources, [and] harassment" is frankly absurd. The fact that I took your case to the administrators' noticeboard for a potential block or ban in order to deal with your repeated violations of policy does not constitute WP:Harassment, so don't claim that it does. Conversely, your attempts at 'outing' and false accusations of sock puppetry very much do reflect a violation of that policy. You are guilty of these things; I am not. (Notice, for instance, how no one other than yourself has criticised me in any way for my edits to this particular article – User:Bloodofox was even kind enough to award me a barnstar because of my improvements to the page – while you have been told off repeatedly by quite a wide range of experienced editors now, for a wide range of offences, and seen your edits repeatedly undone by several different editors).
 * Regarding the main point of this section, the issue is this: you can desire to incorporate references to ancient belief systems (such as Strmiska's doctoral dissertation, or Barbarian Rites, or whatever else) into this article as much as you want, but as long as you continue to do so regardless of the opposition from other editors here on this Talk Page, your edits will keep being reverted. You cannot make sweeping and controversial changes to the article when a majority of other editors oppose them (with good reason). If you're going to edit Wikipedia, then you have to abide by Wikipedia's policies and regulations, and a massive component of that is that you are not allowed to make controversial edits without consensus being achieved first. Your continued desire to conflate the ancient belief systems with the modern new religious movement – while perhaps a central pillar of your own personal spiritual worldview – is highly controversial, and I am of the opinion that you really should accept that. You are more than welcome to argue your case here at the Talk Page, but do not act unilaterally to enforce your own controversial perspectives on the article nor launch spurious accusations against those editors who undo said edits. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, could you provide a brief list of works by Pagans that you have read on the subject? (I mean this literally) My "controversial" point of view is solidly orthodox. Except for a few marginal types, they all use ancient sources.

I have tolderated your edits. Why must you delete mine? If they are contrary to the facts, let another delete them. --ThorLives (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You have "tolerated" my edits? You mean that you have "tolerated" all of the academically referenced information that I added, and that earned me praise and a barnstar? Your edits are controversial and problematic, hence why myself and others have reverted them. Yet again I ask you to seek consensus before forcing your controversial edits onto the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

On Inner Traditions.
Hasenfratz, Hans-Peter. Barbarian Rites: The Spiritual World of the Vikings and the Germanic Tribes. Inner Traditions; Reprint edition, 2011. ISBN 9781594774218

Inner Traditions is a major press. Please do your research. --ThorLives (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Ogress, you edit pages on eastern Religions and you never heard of Inner Traditions? Astonishing! --ThorLives (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

http://www.innertraditions.com/category/eastern-religion-philosophy --ThorLives (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I edit a lot of Jainism and Buddhism; the category "Eastern philosophy/religion" is an Orientalist construct that is the equivalent of thinking of Africa as a country. Ogress 00:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but we sometimes have to use conventional language. If you are interested in Buddhism, I highly recommend the works of Professor Lopez at the University of Michigan. Many great works on Jainism, but I especially love the sections on Jainism in the classic Philosophies of India by by Heinrich Robert Zimmer. Of course, there is also the work Professor Paul Dundas.--ThorLives (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I have a degree in it from Harvard University. I've got the 1,304-page Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism in print next to my bed, actually. Ogress 04:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! --ThorLives (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a number of books by Inner Traditions on my bookshelves. They do publish English translations of a few academic works originally authored in other languages, and for that are (IMO) a Reliable Source in certain circumstances, however it is undeniable that there is a strong esoteric, and in particular Traditionalist, ethos behind their endeavour. Thus, the term "Inner Traditions" seems to be a reference to the Traditionalist preoccupation with a universal perennial philosophy, which is obviously something not endorsed by academic scholarship even if it is a core article of faith for many esoteric new religious movements, among them Theosophy and the New Age movement. That may complicate Inner Tradition's designation as a Reliable Source. But – and this is important – the validity of using Hasenfratz's Barbarian Rites in this article is not based entirely on the reliability of the publisher. Instead, it is based on the applicability of this book's contents to this article. It appears to me that the book is a historical study of an ancient cultic practice, not a study of the Heathen new religious movement. Thus, for reasons outlined elsewhere on this Talk Page, it isn't appropriate to incorporate it into this article, for to do so would result in a misleading conflation of Iron Age/Early Medieval cultic practices with this new religious movement, as if they were part of the same phenomenon. Doing so would serve the religious interests of the Heathen community, but not that of interested outsiders. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

On the Old Sources
From the Odinist Fellowship in the UK:

The aim of the Odinist Fellowship, according to its constitution is "to practise, promote and propagate Odinism. '''By Odinism is meant the original, indigenous form of Pagan, polytheistic religion and spiritual beliefs, practised by the ancestors of the English and related northern European peoples, as embodied in the Eddas and as they have found expression in the wisdom and in the historical experience of those peoples." '''

Asatru Alliance: "Asatru is thousands of years old. It's beginnings are lost in prehistory, but as an organized system, it is older by far than Christianity."

All other groups do the same (although there may be a few American chaps wearing Viking horns and reading Marvel comics who ignore ancient sources and the scholarship about them.) --ThorLives (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Soooo the English read the Eddas? This is getting confusing. Ogress 01:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, was that a serious question? If you think the answer is no, that could explain your curious edits. --ThorLives (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah so Snorri Sturluson, a Christian, compiled the Eddas in the year 1220 and the Poetic Eddas were also 13th century collections. I find the suggestion that the English were reading the Norse-language Eddas extremely unlikely. The Norse and the English are not the same and its unlikely their religious beliefs were. Even Norse beliefs find great diversity over time, class, and geography. Ogress 05:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Odinists often believe that theirs is a revival or continuation of ancient religion, just as many Muslims believe that their faith was the belief system of the very first humans to walk the Earth. Such emic perspectives (ones which are not shared by outsiders to the tradition in question) are common among many religious movements. Antiquity conveys authenticity in many people's eyes, thus making it particularly desirable. But what's your point, ThorLives? Are you asking that we push the controversial insider beliefs of practitioners as if they were objective facts in this article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, as I have said many times, only Icelandic religion can be reconstructed. That is the reason for this reference, endlessly deleted from the article: ''Our most complete sources for reconstruction are from Iceland. On the alleged existence of a collective Germanic paganism in medieval times, Professor Lois Bragg makes this observation: "But we have no persuasive evidence of any common cult, belief system, or even pantheon that might ever have been recognized among speakers of various Germanic languages across geographical, cultural, political, and dialect boundaries. While there are obvious commonalities, for example in the names of some deities (Odin, Woden, Wotan), these point to common origins rather than common praxis or belief. Compare present-dy Jews, Lutherans, and Mormons who share common myths (the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the Moses cycle, the Patriarch cycle ) and who similarly name their children after the heroes of these myths (Adam, Aaron, Judith, Rebecca), but maintain distinctive cult practices and identities and even disparage and attempt to convert one another." Lois Bragg. Oedipus Borealis: The Aberrant Body in Old Icelandic Myth and Saga Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 2004. ISBN 0838640281''

--ThorLives (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Second request: Midnightblueowl, could you provide a brief list of works by Pagans that you have read on the subject? (I mean this literally) My "controversial" point of view is solidly orthodox. Except for a few marginal types, they all use ancient sources.--ThorLives (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This point: "But what's your point, ThorLives? Are you asking that we push the controversial insider beliefs of practitioners as if they were objective facts in this article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My point is that the article is about BELIEFS. Readers do not want to know your personal ideas about religion; readers of wikipedia come here to learn what Norse/Germanic pagans believe.

Likewise, an article on Judaism should not dismiss Moses and the Torah. --ThorLives (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl wrote: ''It appears to me that the book is a historical study of an ancient cultic practice, not a study of the Heathen new religious movement. Thus, for reasons outlined elsewhere on this Talk Page, it isn't appropriate to incorporate it into this article, for to do so would result in a misleading conflation of Iron Age/Early Medieval cultic practices with this new religious movement, as if they were part of the same phenomenon. Doing so would serve the religious interests of the Heathen community, but not that of interested outsiders.''

Are you suggesting that modern pagans just made up or "invented" Odinism and Asatru in the 1970's? Although that is a ridiculous notion (they based the religion on old sources), at least it would explain your logic.--ThorLives (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Various forms of Heathenry were indeed invented from the late nineteenth-century onward, with a particular flourish of development in the 1970s. They did draw on older material (often synthesizing it in a highly inaccurate manner, as with Guido von List's Wotanism, for example), and we actually state that, very clearly, in the article. However, the fact that Heathens typically utilise such material does not mean that we should be adding a wide variety of references on archaeological and historical studies of these ancient belief systems into the article. Doing so would be problematic for reasons that have been repeatedly outlined. So far you've received no support for this position here at the Talk Page; if you feel the need, why not take this to RFC to gain the perspectives of other editors? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As an encyclopedia, we do not take the position of the true believer that paganism is a long-maintained ancient tradition; we follow what the scholarship clearly says, which is that it is revivalist. That also means we don't cite the Eddas as sources, because they aren't sources. Ogress 17:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The choices are two: Pagans either invented the material, or they got it from somewhere. In fact, the Norse/Germanic pagans used the Eddas, etc.

As for "taking it to RFC," I am an academic who writes books and lectures on the subjects we are discussing here, but I have no idea what "RFC" is. Wikipedia jargon does not interest me. --ThorLives (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Statements like "In fact, the Norse/Germanic pagans used the Eddas, etc." don't give me a lot of faith in that you're telling the truth about your supposed formal background on this topic, to be honest. Fortunately for you, none of our backgrounds matter here. And the same goes with whatever affiliations we may or may not have here, as well as whatever belief system we may or may not have.


 * The other editors are right that neutrality is not optional here, and therefore the approach is non-negotiably etic. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I also think it odd that a supposed academic with a specialism in this area appeared unaware that "Norse paganism" was a subset of "Germanic paganism", instead arguing that they were different things and expressing the view that "Germanic" pertained only to the area of modern Germany. For anyone studying the ancient societies of linguistically Germanic Europe, understanding the terminology of what constitutes "Germanic" is something that you learn on day one, and for an alleged academic specialist to not be aware of this fact seems astonishing. Frankly, anyone can claim to have any manner of credentials here on Wikipedia, but if they don't provide evidence of that (and, to be fair, they are not required to), then there is really no reason why anyone should believe them. I could say "I have a PhD", and it may well be true, but I'm producing no evidence to bolster that claim and for that very reason I don't make the claim to start with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if, as you state, "Wikipedia jargon does not interest" you, then why are you here editing Wikipedia in the first place? Wikipedia operates according to Wikipedia policies, and is replete with 'insider' jargon. If you want to be a Wikipedia editor, you have to play by the website's rules and learn how it works. If you're not happy doing that then you're more than welcome to go off and create your own website or write your own book about Heathenry, where you can play by your own rules and write things in a way that is pleasing to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

&#58;bloodofox:, as an alleged pagan, you would agree with the argument made by others here that Germanic neopaganism, which is reconstructionist, is no way based on the Eddas, sagas, and historical research? That is what thety are saying, and I find that astonishing!

I repeat this point made above:

''The aim of the Odinist Fellowship, according to its constitution is "to practise, promote and propagate Odinism. By Odinism is meant the original, indigenous form of Pagan, polytheistic religion and spiritual beliefs, practised by the ancestors of the English and related northern European peoples, as embodied in the Eddas and as they have found expression in the wisdom and in the historical experience of those peoples." ''

As for your skepticism about my credentials, I should not parade them. Here, sadly, secondary-school students have as much power as academics. --ThorLives (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No one – I repeat, no one – is claiming that Heathenry is "in no way based on the Eddas, sagas, and historical research". In fact I used academically-referenced information to state, very clearly in the "Definitions" section of the article, that Heathens used such sources in the construction of their new religious movements. I don't know whether you are deliberately trying to misrepresent our arguments or whether you simply haven't understood that which you have been repeatedly told, but please cease from attacking our positions in such a flagrantly straw man manner. That's just not on. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Biased and Incomplete Article
Problems:

The lede is flawed. Contains no references.

Attempts to introduce material on South American Norse pagans repeatedly deleted.

Distorts ideas on race. Asserts that most Odinists are racist.

Ignores Ragnarok as a fundamental religious concept and depicts it as a simple race war.

Makes no reference to the eternal return, an Odinist concept. (Earlier reverences were deleted)

Superficial discussion of afterlife concepts.

Uses sources extensively that are of questionable neutrality. Blain and Snook are themselves pagans with a leftist perspective.

--ThorLives (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:LEDE states that cites should only be used in the lede in unusual circumstances, so I'm not sure what you are on about that part. Ogress 07:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As Ogress pointed out to you, WP:LEDE states that references aren't necessary within the lede, because the lede serves to summarise the content of the rest of the article. Information on South American Heathens would be welcome if it is referenced; you were adding un-referenced claims about their existence into the article. The information on Odinists and racial issues is squarely based on academic sources such as those of Jeffrey Kaplan and Matthias Gardell; note that the word used is "racialist", not "racist", so ThorLives' statement is actually factually incorrect. If you have academic, peer-reviewed sources discussing the place of Ragnarok as a concept within modern Heathenry then it would be most welcome, but we need those academic references first. Again, if you have academic references discussing the concept of the eternal return and other afterlife concepts in the modern Heathen NRM then they would definitely be welcome, but you cannot make claims about them using non-reliable or dubiously reliable sources (see Identifying reliable sources). As academics who have published some of the largest studies of the Heathen movement, Blain and Snook are quite clearly reliable sources under Wikipedia's policies (the "neutrality" of reliable sources isn't really an issue; read Neutrality of sources), and we certainly counterbalance their usage using other academic sources (such as Gardell, Harvey, Goodrick-Clarke, and Strmiska - the latter, I should note, is also a leftist Heathen, but ThorLives has yet to complain about the use of their work in this article). If no one else endorses ThorLives' views here, then I suggest that we remove the unsightly tag that they have placed upon the article. Anyone else agree with me on that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need agreement here unless the person who places it provides some evidence. A set of assertions without references does not satisfy that so I have removed it.   I'm not getting involved in the content debate, I'm just monitoring for "due process"  Snowded  TALK 10:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag unless the issues are addressed. For evidence, check the deficiencies I list and note that they are inherent in the article.

The word is "racism." I am an American. By the way, any American who uses "heathen" is not informed. Here, the word mainly means lazy, ignorant, non-religious.

Check ledes in other articles. They have notes.

For your information, "lede" is an advertising term. The function the lede is to hook the public to read or buy more, not bore them to death, as the current lede does.

--ThorLives (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC) On neutral sources, Ph.D.'s do not invest a person with neutrality. Blain and Snook represent the leftest (Norse/Wiccan) side of the movement. Kaplan (a friend of mine and a nice man) studies Neo-nazi movements, but he is NOT a religious scholar. He is a sociologist who studies right wing movements.

It is NOT apparent from the article, but the main division in Germanic paganism is between those who emphasize the warrior ethos and those who represent the magical tradition. Odinic Rite is in the first. Troth is in the second.

--ThorLives (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There are no issues to address until you provide some evidence to support your assertions. Your opinion and/or your background or expertise have no relevance here.   I suggest you learn how to edit or you will end up with a topic ban  Snowded  TALK 17:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, these are the issues. They cannot be addressed by ignoring them or threatening me:

Problems:

'''The lede is flawed. Contains no references.

'''Attempts to introduce material on South American Norse pagans repeatedly deleted.

'''Distorts ideas on race. Asserts that most Odinists are racist.'''

'''Ignores Ragnarok as a fundamental religious concept and depicts it as a simple race war.

 Makes no reference to the eternal return, an Odinist concept. (Earlier reverences were deleted)

Superficial discussion of afterlife concepts.'''

'''Uses sources extensively that are of questionable neutrality. Blain and Snook are themselves pagans with a leftist perspective.

'''

As the article now stands, we learn about planting trees, racism, and cross-dressing, but the article is devoid of real content. I would repair it, but Midnightblueowl deletes everything that I add. To test the waters, I even tried to insert academic and Eddaic references, and these were deleted.

Be respectful. Do not threaten. Do not vandalize. --ThorLives (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Snowded most certainly did not engage in WP:Vandalism, ThorLives, so please don't accuse them (or me) of doing so. (Note how no-one has accused you of vandalism, because they appreciate that your edits are well-meaning, if WP:Disruptive). Pay attention to what these terms actually mean within the context of Wikipedia - and yes I'm afraid that that means learning a lot of jargon! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ThorLives - look this is very simple. (i) the lede does not contain references it summarises the article (ii) you can't say that the article must cover something without proving sources. (ii) accusing other editors of vandalism when they are simply following wikipedia rules fails to follow WP:CIVIL.   Now you can choose to follow normal process here, work with other editors and keep a civil tongue in your head or you will end up with a topic ban.   I think Midnightblue took this to ANI too soon (and should stop posting there) but if you carry on like this then a case will be made for a topic ban.   Snowded  TALK 23:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ragnarok
Although I disagreed with ThorLives' repeated insistence on including the controversial Tag into the article (without sufficient evidence), it is apparent that a number of their comments do have some validity. For instance, their claim that the article failed to properly reflect Heathen beliefs regarding Ragnarok was quite apt. Seeking to rectify this problem, I had a look through the academic literature on the Heathen NRM, and while I am not aware of any research articles devoted to the subject of Ragnarok in modern Heathenry, I did find some reference to such beliefs in Strmiska and Siguvinsson's chapter on the religion in Iceland and the United States. I have added some additional information into the article accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional problems with the Present Article
Additional Problems which must be addressed:

1) Checking Midnightblueowl’s edits against the Snook book, it is clear that virtually ALL of his edits on this article are taken from Snook ONLY. When Midnightblueowl cites Kaplan, Strmiska, etc.,  the passages are lifted from the Snook book without credit.  (Writing 101: when citing a source found in another source, the book actually being used must be cited.)

2) Since the massive rewriting of the article now is based almost exclusively on one book, this violates Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. Dr. Snook, a former witch, notes in her book that she was expelled from the Asatru Folk Assembly for her leftist opinions.

3) Since Dr. Snook’s book is not about a religion, it is about the “politics” of a religious subculture, the massive use of her text explains why the article now scarcely addresses religious beliefs.  4) Since Dr. Snook writes about American Norse pagans only, this explains why the present article is effectively provincialized.

5) Since Midnightblueowl’s massive edits are based on one book, and the present article is essentially Germanic Neopaganism according to Snook, this creates an additional problem.   Dr. Snook’s book, which was originally written as a doctoral dissertation, is a work of original research.   There are restrictions regarding original research at Wikipedia.


 * Note that my points above are not intended as criticisms of Dr. Snook or her work. Her book is excellent, and I recommend it to anyone interested in the politics of a Norse pagan subculture.  To understand the religion and its beliefs, however, one must use other sources.  --ThorLives (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is all total and utter rubbish and once again reflects ThorLives' unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy. The claim that my "massive edits" are "based on one book" is 100% untrue. The claim that "the passages are lifted from the Snook book without credit" is 100% untrue. The claim that "the article now scarcely addresses religious beliefs" is 100% untrue (as anyone reading it should be able to readily attest). In fact, if you look at the revision history of this article, you will observe that a great deal of the material that I added to the article was actually added prior to the publication of Snook's 2015 book to start with. Moreover, the claim that Snook's academic study is "original research" and thus is problematic for the article reflects a total and utter misunderstanding of what "Original Research" means in Wikipedia jargon. Frankly, I suspect that this criticism is nothing but a tit-for-tat attempt to lash out at myself for playing a key role in preventing and undoing ThorLives' persistent disruptive editing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I can find virtually all of your material from the Snook book. If I have the time, I could do it page by page.

--ThorLives (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I reiterate: every one of the academic sources which I used in constructing this article was consulted first hand. If you care to check the revision history of the article, you will see that many of them were added in February to April 2014, long before the publication of Snook's book in 2015. Now, Snook did include references to many of the same sources in her study (as would of course be expected) but that does not for a moment mean that I have used her book and her book alone in improving the article. Claims to the contrary are nothing but an attempt to undermine my work (for which I have been praised and awarded a barnstar, I might add) in order to lay the groundwork for ThorLives' own attempt to fill this article with their own non-reliable primary sources and original research, which altogether fits within their wider framework of Disruptive Editing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggested removal of "Notable organizations" group
At present we end this article with a section titled "Notable organizations" in which we then a series of Heathen groups. Unfortunately, this section lacks references and many of these groups are already referred to elsewhere in the article, making this perhaps a little superfluous. Moreover, lists like this are not standard in high-quality Wikipedia articles, and thus I believe that it may well constitute a barrier to this article advancing on to GA and FA quality. Given that this is the case, I would like to suggest that we remove this particular section, and wondered if there was sufficient support for such a course of action? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Do not remove this section. The article, as it exists, provides too little useful information. --ThorLives (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not an argument for keeping the section. It's just a statement of opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Any other views? How about User:Bloodofox? User:Ogress? Will we need to take this question to RFC? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I recommend that we remove the list and merge what is notable about it into the body. Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a platform for promotion. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The list in question is providing links to other wikipedia articles. To be consistent, should we also not remove all links from those groups to the Germanic Neopagan page? Also, to be consistent, should we not remove all links from the Methodist page to all the articles on Methodist denominations? --ThorLives (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting my argument. Most of these links already exist elsewhere within the article (and where they don't, we could follow Bloodofox's suggestion and try to ensure that they are incorporated into it). My suggestion is that we simply remove this list, not the links themselves. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC pertaining to "Morality and Ethics" section
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)

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)


 * 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. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

Thor Lives' parallel article
User Thor Lives has been writing a parallel article to this one under the definition of "Odinism", with wrong syntheses of concepts, the inclusion of organizations such as the Ásatrúarfélagið which don't identify as Odinist, perhaps with the purpose to merge all the article into "Odinism" in the future. Recently he has also changed the definition of Asatru in the United States to expunge links to the main article.--151.43.94.67 (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How frustrating. Still, at least they are not disruptive editing on this particular article anymore. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Ásatrúarfélagið removed from the Odinism article. The Icelandic chaps are left-wing.

Who is writing a parallel article? It is a quality work on Odinism, clear and without errors.

One mistake here: "Heathenry" is not similar to Christianity in terms in ethics. That is a mistake Snook made in her book because she notes that Christianity and Germanic paganism have the same opinion on gay marriage. Ethics is not about sexuality only. --ThorLives (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In its present state, the Odinism article is hardly "a quality work... clear and without errors". It's a mess that flagrantly infringes on Wikipedia's standards for reliable referencing and repeatedly pushes an insider, religionist agenda in its presentation of that particular new religious movement. Moreover, Snook is being totally misrepresented here: her point was that in the United States, Heathen ethical systems tend to place an emphasis on "traditional", conservative attitudes toward family structures and personal morality. In doing so they do share a great deal with traditional American Protestantism in a way that other Neo-Pagan religions, such as Wicca and Druidry, do not. Snook never claimed that the similarity was simply as a result of a shared attitude to "gay marriage". (And in the name of accuracy, it should be pointed out that there are plenty of Heathens – and Christians too for that matter – who are favourable toward the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.) Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, you do hurl insults. If you find issues with the Odinism article, such as alleged bias, kindly list them on my talk page. If you make any valid points, I will make corrections.

On ethics: Odinism denounces "penance" as an act of cowardice. Penance is fundamental to Christianity. --ThorLives (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * At no point above did I actively insult you, ThorLives. I merely pointed out that your self-aggrandizing claims regarding the quality of your recent additions to the Odinism article were patently and demonstrably false. Nowhere did I resort to name calling or besmirching your character. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It does look like a coatrack article - designed to overcome objections here.  You could PROD it ....  Snowded  TALK 14:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would not want to resort to PROD because I do think that there is a very valid case for having an "Odinism" article on Wikipedia. "Odinism" is a term preferred by many racialists involved in the Heathen movement, and I think that an article outlining the etymology of the term and describing these racialist Heathens using reliable secondary and tertiary sources would be a good thing. To some extent, "Odinism" is a denomination or group of denominations within Heathenry, and thus warrants a separate article as much as Protestantism or Sunni Islam does. The problems lie with the state of the Odinism article as it exists at present, rather than the existence of an article on Odinism itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then again, thinking it over, it might be worth PRODing the Odinism article and moving what is valid within it over to an article titled Etymology of Odinism or something of that nature... Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You've got a problematic user who is creating a coat rack - I'd prod it, or wipe a lot of the material down to a shell article.  Snowded  TALK 22:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice Snowded, it's appreciated. Certainly the Odinism article needs to be wiped down, but I fear being caught up in edit wars and further disruptive editing which I'm just not in the mood to deal with at present. It was exhausting enough undoing the damage inflicted onto this page over the last few months. Right now I just want to polish off this article and get it up to GA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Question on Sources
This article, in its present form, avoids books by pagan leaders, such as Stephen McNallen, Stephan Grundy, and Stephen Flowers, but extensively uses books and articles by pagan followers, such as Snook, Strmiska, and Jenny Blain. I know the latter three have Ph.D.s, but so do Grundy and Flowers. Indeed, anyone reading the books all of all six people would find the books by the pagan leaders far richer in material. (Strmiska, however, is working on a new book that will be an excdellent source.) --ThorLives (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The reasons why such sources are excluded has all been explained to you before, Thor Lives, and I should point out that "Refusing to Get the Point" is considered to be a form of Disruptive Editing. Nevertheless, I will explain it once again. Wikipedia relies upon what it calls Reliable Sources (RS). As could be expected, the best form of RS are "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks", and it is those which have been used in this article thus far. The writings of McNallen, Grundy, and Flowers – each one of them a prominent figure in the Heathen community – do not fall into this category. Instead, they constitute "Primary Sources", sources that are written by Heathens, published by esoteric and New Age companies, and which outline how they believe Heathenry should be practiced. As our policy on Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources makes clear, Primary Sources can only be used in very select circumstances, with many caveats affecting and restricting that usage. In the context of this article, there seems to be no reason to use any of these Primary Sources when we have so many good Secondary and Tertiary sources available to us.


 * Now, while the situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that Grundy and Flowers possess PhDs, as far as I understand it, neither of their doctoral projects actually focused on the Heathen new religious movement itself, but rather on the evidence that we have for ancient belief systems in Germanic Europe (Flowers received his PhD in "Germanic Languages and Medieval Studies" while Grundy wrote his on "The Cult of Óðinn: God of Death?"). If and when Grundy or Flowers publish studies of the Heathen new religious movement in an academic context (whether that be a research article in a peer-reviewed journal, in an academic edited-volume, or as a lengthier monograph) then I would be more than happy to incorporate said sources into this article. But until they do so, there is nothing that we can do. Simply having a PhD does not transform their Primary Sources into a Secondary or Tertiary Source. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, my friend. Both Grundy and Flowers have written on modern Norse paganism as well as medieval Norse pganism. Also, you must move beyond the notion that religion is "time sensitive."

Be that as it may, I have to stop wasting time on this page. --ThorLives (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If you can list works written by Grundy or Flowers on the subject of modern Heathenry that have appeared in academic publications then I would be more than happy to look into incorporating them into this article. From what I gather, however, all of Grundy and Flowers' writings on Heathenry have been published by New Age and esoteric publishing companies like Llewellyn and thus constitute Primary Sources rather than academic, Secondary ones. If I am incorrect on this issue then I am happy to be corrected; however if you are going to proclaim me "incorrect" then it would be appreciated if you could demonstrate why that is the case, which thus far you have not done.


 * As for the "time sensitive" comment, this is something that we have talked about before. I appreciate that you are an Odinist and that a key part of your own religious world-view is the belief that modern Heathenry really represents a revival of pre-Christian belief systems, and that you personally may feel a great emotional and spiritual connection to those ancient belief systems and those who practiced them. However, as I have said before and others have endorsed here at this Talk Page, that is an intrinsically 'insider', emic and religionist viewpoint. It is not one that can be easily endorsed by non-Heathens, in particular archaeologists and historians who have specialised in the study of the pre-Christian belief systems of Europe (a great many of whom are privately quite critical of Heathenry and other Neo-Pagan faiths, seeing it as nothing but romanticist play-acting and flim-flam). Accordingly, while I respect your personal beliefs, it is just not appropriate for you to unilaterally force your religionist opinions into Wikipedia articles, as you previously did on this page and have recently done over at Odinism, by adding references to studies of pre-Christian religion to articles about modern new religious movements. The two are distinct phenomena existing in distinct socio-cultural and historical contexts, hence why no scholars academically writing on the subject have treated them as a singular religion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Snook's sources, if you read her book, are mainly facebook posts, e-mails, and personal conversations. Hence, her book includes such observations as pagan women are "overweight" and Valhalla is "crap." (She is quoting others.)

I am glad you are not a student writing a paper for me! --ThorLives (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

[Note: Thor Lives later included the last, insulting, part of his comment in his initial post. Having read it, I decided not to take the bait (don't feed the troll etc). He subsequently removed it, but I have re-added it (with the additional) strike out, thus reflecting that the comment was originally made (hence my decision not to respond) but that they then retracted that statement, quietly and privately. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Community Discussion regarding Disruptive Editing on Heathenry-themed Articles
Editors interested in the presentation of Heathenry and related articles here at Wikipedia may wish to view and contribute to a community discussion that has been inaugurated to debate how best to deal with the problem of repeated disruptive editing on these articles. See here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No Neutrality in this Article
The references to Odinism in THIS article are all hate-filled. They follow:

''Many racialist-oriented Heathens prefer the terms Odinism or Wotanism to describe their religion.

There is thus a general view that all those who use Odinism adopt an explicitly political, right-wing and racialist interpretation of the religion

Some folkish Heathens are white supremacists and explicit racists,[177] representing a "radical racist" faction that favours the terms "Odinism" and "Wotanism".

Kaplan stated that the "borderline separating racialist Odinism and National Socialism is exceedingly thin"

A variant of "Odinism" was developed by the Australian Alexander Rud Mills, who published The Odinist Religion (1930) and established the Anglican Church of Odin. Politically racialist, Mills viewed Odinism as a religion for the English race which was in a cosmic battle with Judeo-Christian religion.

profoundly different opinions concerning what Asatrú/Odinism is all about. The key divisive issues are centered on race and for whom the Nordic path is intended."''

--Holtj (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no basis to these accusations. All of the claims made in this article are factually true, and attested to in reliable, peer-reviewed sources authored by academics who have studied the movement. A number of them are direct quotes from said academics; in other examples, Holtj has quoted passages from the text out of context. In no way, shape, or form can the inclusion of said information in the article be considered "hate", even if some self-described Odinists would like to white-wash these claims. As for a little context to these allegations, I will point out that Holtj is currently under investigation for being a sock puppet which has been activated to avoid the Topic Ban discussion regarding one of their other accounts. It is one such account, that of ThorLives, who previously made very similar allegations regarding the neutrality of this article, which were refuted by myself and User:Snowded here. This is just part of their pattern of disruptive editing, a complaint they are making because other Wikipedia editors aren't letting them write the article exactly as they see fit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, our friend is missing the point. To be neutral, she must not simply post statements from a single point of view. Anyone who actually reads some of the books she is quoting would find this:

According to Professor Mattias Gardell, some see "Odinism as revolving around the primacy of race and Asatrú serving as its nonracial counterpart," but "in reality" there "seems to be no such neat division," and many "self-defined Asatrúers" are "centered on race."

Second POINT, even if her claims about Odinism and racialism were true, there is more to a religion than its position on race! Islam accepts all races, but there is more to that religion!

--Holtj (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You quite clearly have neither read or comprehended Neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, "Neutrality" means fairly presenting the views presented in reliable sources. It doesn't mean piling the opinions of a) yourself, or b) those to have published in non-reliable sources, into the article. But of course, this has all been explained to you several times before, particularly when you were using the ThorLives account. You're deliberately "failing to get the point", a classic example of Disruptive Editing. Perhaps you are hoping that you will just wear myself and other constructive editors down so that we shall all go away and then you can rewrite all of the Heathenry-themed articles in exactly the manner of your own choosing, promoting these religions to the world in a highly religionist manner which would flagrantly violate all of the encyclopedia's policies on Advocacy and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Germans are the Only Pagans?
Curious. I did not know that we are the only pagans out there? I was under the impression there were many different kinds of pagans and heathens?73.220.34.167 (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want a fuller discussion of this subject, see Paganism and Modern Paganism. Clearly, "Heathens" or "Germanic Neopagans" are only one type of modern Pagan. Other articles deal with different forms of modern Paganism or historical "pagan" and "heathen" belief systems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

How can heathen be only one type of pagan? Many heathens are not pagans at all. Like Muslims. 73.220.34.167 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the article. That will make things perfectly clear to you. It explains that this article is about a modern Pagan new religious movement that is most commonly known as "Heathenry". It is not about the etymology and history of the word heathen and that term's many different uses over the centuries. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

German tribes are not only germans including today england, france, scandinavia etc.

Islam
Why no section on Islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.220.34.167 (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it would be almost totally irrelevant to the subject at hand, surely? No academic publications deal with the relationship between Heathenry and Islam, and given the fact that Heathenry developed in Christian-majority countries, it is the relationship between Christianity and Heathenry that is mentioned in this article (although even then it doesn't merit an entire section of its own). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How would it be irrelevant? Islam is the world's biggest heathen religion! And I don't think Islam started out of Christian nations, did it? I thought the nations were originally poly-theistic? I would think there are millions of academic papers on Islam, right? 73.220.34.167 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As has been repeatedly specified to you, this is an article about a modern Pagan new religious movement commonly known as "Heathenry". It is not an article about the word heathen and its many different usages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is confusing. So you are saying "Heathenry" is not the same as "heathenry"? As in one is the name of a religion or sect of Asatru?73.220.34.167 (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Many words have multiple meanings. "Heathenry" is one such example. It's not that difficult to grasp. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the impression that this nameless commenter is being deliberately obtuse. A simple Google search would clear up the matter for him, but he's insisting on a definition of the term that is out of date and has no bearing on this topic. Stormkith (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Asatru or Odinism, and meaning
Lots of edits going on that this is for reference and discussion.

Ásatrú (pronounced in Icelandic,  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. 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", “those who believe in the Aesir and Vanir” , or "those loyal to the Gods." as does Edred Wodanson (E. Max Hyatt, 1948 - January 21, 2010) of Wodan's Kindred and the Wodanesdag Press.

Some adherents will use "Odinism" as synonymous with Ásatrú,    while others will reject an equivalence between the two terms.

Odinism and Asatru are not interchangeable terms, and should not be treated as such. Modern adherents of Asatru do not typically lend special relevance to Odin as most Odinists do, and the focus is more on honoring ancestors than it is direct appeals to the gods. Stormkith (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)