Talk:Modern paganism/Archive 5

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Modern Paganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090119172319/http://www.census.gov/prod/www/religion.htm to https://www.census.gov/prod/www/religion.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131115113848/http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/classification-counts-tables/about-people/~/media/Statistics/Census/2006-reports/Classification-Count-Tables/People/religious-affiliation.xls to http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/classification-counts-tables/about-people/~/media/Statistics/Census/2006-reports/Classification-Count-Tables/People/religious-affiliation.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for merging "polytheistic reconstructionism" with "modern Paganism"
I propose that "polytheistic reconstructionism" is merged into the main article "modern Paganism". The reason is that the article is of a very low quality, lacking substance and poorly sourced, and the term "reconstructionism" seems to be a fringe descriptor or have largely fallen out of favour both within the communities of modern Pagans and within the academia. Religions that some have classified as "reconstructionist" largely employ the terms "traditional", "indigenous" and "native" to present themselves, as it is already described in the main article itself.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not especially opposed to a merge, I would just like to raise the following points:
 * Given that this pages is already bulging with the number of different varieties of Modern Paganism described, would it not be better to improve the quality and sourcing of the reconstructionism page, rather than increase the length of this page?
 * The reconstructionism page has a quite detailed explanation of the proposed differences between reconstructionism and "classical paganism", and the page itself states that many reconstructionists don't adopt the term "pagan".
 * I don't think it's the case that "reconstructionist" has fallen out of favour, the major groups still describe themselves as reconstructionists even if they don't use the word in the name of their religion (Nova Roma, Hellenismos etc.). Wasechun tashunka HOWLTRACK 16:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As for (n) I think:
 * 1) The merger would not require copying the current content "polytheistic reconstructionism" article into the "modern Paganism" article since the latter already treats the topic, and that content is not really qualitatively good.
 * 2) That strengthens the motivations for a merger, since it makes the content of "polytheistic reconstructionism" an unuseful duplicate of content that is already, and more thoroughly, treated in "modern Paganism".
 * 3) Based on what I have read, "reconstructionism" is an academic descriptor that was used by the very first scholars who studied the phenomenon (Bonewits, Adler), and is not really used by Pagans describing themselves ("I am a reconstructionist"). Among the most recent academic publications about Paganism, Aitamurto 2016 about Slavic Native Faith in Russia uses "reconstructionism" as a synonym for "historical reconstruction", in many cases unrelated to religion (p. 53).--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue about the first point, I agree that the Polytheistic Reconstructionism page in its current form is seriously lacking. However,
 * 2) I don't see where the Modern Paganism page properly describes the idea behind reconstructionism, and it doesn't properly explain the difference in opinion on the use of the words "reconstructionism" and "paganism". Although this in itself isn't reason enough not to merge the pages, that information would need to be migrated to this article, and it seems a little counter-intuitive to be explaining on a paganism page why certain groups described don't identify as pagan!
 * 3) That's an interesting book, but its reach is quite narrow, and when it comes to what people call themselves, it's useful to consider primary sources also. Maybe it differs by area, but many of the groups I've come across are more likely to use reconstructionism to describe themselves, and strictly in a religious context. For example, Hellenismos define reconstructists as being very serious practitioners of the religion, and place themselves somewhere between that and "neopagan groups like wicca"; some individual practitioners of Hellenismos describe it solely as reconstructionism; the YSEE refer to their group more as "restorationists" rather than reconstructionists, but avoid the word pagan; the Kemetic Temples of the US (apparently they have an umbrella organisation) use "reconstructionist", while stating that they only focus on the religious side of reconstructionism; Nova Roma use the word reconstructionism in a religious sense only, although they are also reenactors; and although the House of Netjer do not mention reconstructionism, they explicitly state they are not pagan.  Wasechun tashunka HOWLTRACK 19:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I respond to 2): "reconstructionism" is already discussed in the "eclecticism and reconstructionism" section of the present article.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator --Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The Modern Paganism article is at a pretty good length right now, after having been trimmed back significantly from what, at some points in the past, has been a very rambling and disjointed article. I don't think we should make it longer by merging other articles in. While some overlap between the two is necessary, I support fleshing out the Polytheistic reconstructionism article rather than expanding the section here. To expand the section here would result in undue weight, which would most likely result in the desire of other editors to again add more content to other sections and bloat this article again. The fact most Polytheists do not call themselves "Pagans" or "Neopagans" is also worthy of consideration, especially at a time when some groups are adamant about the differences between the groups, and there would be bold edits, complaints, and vandalism in response to this forced teaming, were we to go ahead with it based solely on the consensus of wikipedia editors. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 20:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur. These are valid concerns. We don't need to "merge away" articles that are well-supported by sources (even if they badly need rewriting), especially if doing so may be conflating distinct subjects.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is also an oppose over on Talk:Polytheistic reconstructionism. I will direct them here. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 21:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two fallacies in your argument: 1) first of all the merger, as explained elsewhere, would not require an expansion of the article since the topic is already treated with good sources; 2) second, the article proposed for merger is not "well supported by sources" at all and the merger would not constitute the conflation of two distinct topics, being "reconstructionism" just an approach within Paganism. Rather, a standalone article for "reconstructionism" is WP:UNDUE.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Google Scholar reveals virtually no references to "polytheistic reconstructionism". There are insufficient Reliable Sources to warrant its existence as a separate article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that you just went and deleted partially-sourced (the book was named and already in the sources of the article), easily more fully footnoted content from Polytheistic reconstructionism rather than improving the article:. This not a good look. Especially while people are trying to evaluate these. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 21:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:CorbieVreccan; my thought process was that paring it down purely to that which is properly referenced to RS would make it easier for the decision regarding merging (or not) to be made. I can see your point, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support — I also support this. While polytheistic reconstructionism is a subset of Modern Paganism, I have not seen much evidence in the literature that people look for this term on its own. However, regarding usage here on Wikipedia, we may want to consider the average of 71 page views each day into this discussion. FULBERT (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 71 page views is a rather scant average, demonstrating that the topic is infrequently searched for on the Internet.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Just because Polytheistic Reconstructionism could use some work doesn't mean we should merge it to Modern Paganism. It is a separate portion of the movement, and is detailed enough to deserve its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabianzzz (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think it is a significant enough movement within Neopaganism that it deserves its own article. Considering that we have standalone articles about single episodes of popular television shows, I am certain that we can afford to keep articles about new religious movements and what they believe. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Per reasons given by . Current content of any of both articles should not be part of the discussion, the point is whether a separate should exist.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least for the moment. I would prefer it if, as others have suggested, we have someone make a serious review of the polytheistic reconstructionism topic and see if there exizts sufficient content for a standalone article. If it is found that there isn't sufficient content for a standalone article then merger can be proposed and probably supported then.John Carter (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a distinct approach very different from other forms of modern paganism, with features and issues different than other forms of paganism. There is plenty to talk about in Polytheistic reconstructionism that doesn't need to be in Modern Paganism. Daask (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for merging "list of Neopagan movements" with "modern Paganism"
I propose that "list of Neopagan movements" is merged into the main article "modern Paganism". The reason is that the list is a list of organisations rather than of major movements which fit within the category "modern Paganism". It is instrinsically incomplete and totally unsourced. Lists of significant organisations should be kept in the page of the pertinent major movement. The list could be transformed into a number of subsections within the chapter "encompassed religions and movements" of the article "modern Paganism"; these subsections could reflect the list of major movements as it is reported in this template (with the exclusions of fringe groups such as the "Church of All Worlds").--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator --Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Lists are easier to manage when kept separate. Modern Paganism is already long and doesn't need to be expanded by merging. See reasons above, as well. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 20:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I respond here to both of your comments. The article "modern Paganism" is not large at all compared to other articles (see for instance "Pope Francis") and for the capabilities of modern processors and browsers. Besides, as I explained both hereabove and in the section above, the merger of the two articles would not require the incorporation of all their content, since "polytheistic reconstructionism" is mostly based on unreliable sources (Bill Linzie is self-published) and the list has no sources at all, and its merger would equate to its total disappearance.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with CorbieVreccan. What's needed is, per WP:SAL, to clean up the list and keep it clean of non-notable chaff.  If it were merged in here, it would just need to be split back out later as both this article's regular content and the list developed.  It's fine for material best suited to being in a list to remain in one; we have thousands of list articles most of which also have a main topic article of some sort to which they could be merged in theory, yet we do not merge them. The present article does and should focus on the nature and  history of the modern paganism movements/trend/whatever (and it needs work in this regard; see the bias and other issues raised by a commenter in the RM discussion above).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: arguments for a merger are mostly current content-related, and should be fixed, rather than bypassed by a merger. The list is still useful.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: adding a list of all the movements wouldn't add any value to the article and will probably just making it harder to read. It will most likely be best to joust leave a easy to find link to the list. AlfonsLM (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose more or less per the other opposes above. John Carter (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Keeping the list separate relieves Modern Paganism from being all-inclusive and mentioning every branch, allowing it to focus on general trends and features. Daask (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing, given the consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

NNPOV basis?
With 'pagan' still sometimes being a condemnation term used by Christians (maybe more rarely than 'heathen,' even common in Christian-influenced culture as 'immoral person') and Muslims (more often translating as 'heathen,' but sometimes 'pagan') many agnostics/atheists have reclaimed the term also. The standard top (OED, maybe MW, etc.) dictionary definitions of paganism & heathenism (other than country-dweller, of the heath, not necessarily religious) are in terms of not being in certain religion (Abrahamism,) and as such, many secular agnostics/atheists have 'pagan pride' and love identifying as 'heathen' (more worldwide ancient philosophy/religion adherents slowly are also, not always theist.) Ancient/Classical worldwide pagan philosophy includes spiritual (and non-spiritual, but still under non-Abrahamic/'pagan') agnosticism/atheism (especially India & Greece, where they had every philosophical viewpoint.) Is it likely this article and most the writing on 'Heathenry (new religious movement)' (capitalized having no specific meaning) are only from the point of view of some pagans/heathens and are excluding many/most?--dchmelik (t|c) 03:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

make page: Atheoteny
Atheoteny is to present an older religion in a more atheistic/an atheotenous manner; but it's also a general tendency towards atheism (not necessarily to pure atheism, but closer to it than the previous condition).

Some (not all) modern paganist doctrines are atheotenous when compared to their original doctrine (if it existed).

Atheoteny doesn't occur only in some neopagan doctrines; it occurs in some Western-style societies. Thus a dedicated page should mention all aspects of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:1E4C:F03E:DA08:3CE4:F708 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear to be the only person aware of it; I find no sources (none) that mention this word, much less give it significant coverage. The only mention I could find was when you brought it up in August on the Talk:Atheism archive Talk:Atheism/Archive_55. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Category renaming proposal
Please see the proposal for renaming the category in which this article exists here. --- FULBERT (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Section on Criticism Suggestion
I looked at the two journal articles added |in the recent edit on Criticism, and while both of them seem valuable, I do not see the text added in this article to really speak to criticisms of Modern Paganism. Can you elaborate on what you added to more clearly demonstrate this, ? --- FULBERT (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Pike (2004)
@GenoV84 I'm baffled by your edit summary here. From the top: Please either revert or fix the error that you've introduced in some other way; if you're not familiar with shortened footnotes you can find guidance here. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Linking to a source in a reference or bibliography section is not a copyright violation.
 * 2) Pike (2004) is already present in the bibliography section above (as I wrote) as
 * 3) Your revert has re-introduced a sfn multiple-target reference error.
 * 1) Your revert has re-introduced a sfn multiple-target reference error.


 * I didn't notice that, I'll try to fix it. GenoV84 (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)