Jump to content

Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

The title of the article should be changed.

The article is about germanic heathenry, not modenr heathenry in general. HEathenism is a name for all modent heathen movements, so the title is misleading.

83.13.239.255 (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the proposed change, which I believe is rooted in a confusion as to the various different usages of this term. The reason for this confusion is that the term heathenry has multiple meanings. When it first developed in the Germanic languages of Early Medieval Europe, it was a synonym for paganism, and thus was a negative term applied largely to those practicing non-Judeo-Christian religions. As time has gone on and Christian missionaries have spread throughout the world, heathenry, like paganism, has also been applied as a pejorative term to other non-Abrahamic religions such as Hinduism and Shinto as well as to atheism and irreligion. In the twentieth century, the term was reclaimed by practitioners of this particular new religious movement who sought to revive the pre-Christian religion of the Germanic lands; they thought it fitting because it was a specifically Germanic term (as opposed to the Latin term pagan). Thus, while you may have Christians who label Hindus and Shintoists (and others) as heathens, this is not a term that those religious communities actively embrace themselves, and nor is it a term applied to them by scholars of religious studies. Conversely, you have many practitioners of this particular religious movement who do call themselves "Heathens" and wear it proudly as a self-descriptor. Moreover, the majority of academics studying the actual new religious movement in question term it "Heathenry"; conversely, I am not aware of any who use "Germanic Heathenry". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I've added a brief tag sentence at the top of the article to inform the reader where they can go to learn more about different usages of the term "heathen". I hope that that deals with this particular problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, "heathen" has nothing to do with the Germanics. It is anyone who is not a Christian or a Jew. And it is generally an offensive term. I think someone screwed up the title really bad, or the article is missing quite a bit.73.220.34.167 (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
See my comment above. It explains the etymology of the term and the different terminological uses that it has gained. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
"Heathen" is the term used by most modern Germanic pagans, and a discussion of the term and its widespread use was held when this article was still listed as "Germanic Neopaganism." Nobody screwed up the title, and if you don't understand how prevalent the term is for modern adherents of the faith, then you have no real business discussing it here. Stormkith (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
A heathen is someone who is not Christian or Jewish. So the usage is highly confusing. Someone should contact the Heathenry Church or whatever, and tell them they are silly.73.220.34.167 (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
A Heathen is an adherent of one of the reconstructionist faiths originating in Northern Europe. Get over it. And stop being an insulting prick. Stormkith (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Race and this religion

Why do the authors of this article write about white supremacy etc. when it comes to this religion?

Firs of all, this is the old religion of the Scandinavians and Germans, not all white people. Some might think only Scandinavians and Germans can have this religion, other white people have nothing to do with this.

I do not understand how to not welcome some groups to join you must be racism. Since racism stems from hatred, not just thinking you need to be a northern European to believe in the Germanic religion.

And supremacism is to believe you are superior to other races and that you therefor should rule over them. Old norse religion can't justify this thought.

If some people belive this it does not mean it has something to do with the religion. Like murdering don't have anything to do with Christianity, just because some murderers are Christian.

I'm a Christian and not Norse, but I think this article is very strange.2A02:2121:41:8820:0:36:AF50:9901 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Ogress 03:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
It is a place people can discuss the article. When it is clarly wrong on both definitions and simple logic, maby it should be edited.2A02:2121:41:8820:0:36:AF50:9901 (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
We follow what the Reliable Sources, authored by academic specialists in religious studies and allied fields, have to say. If they discuss white supremacism in relation to Heathenry, then so do we. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
When the sources seem ideologically based and illogical do you still use them? For they have clearly made huge mistakes. They don't even know what Nordic people are or white supremacism. 2A02:2121:42:8820:0:36:AF50:9901 (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
A) Everything ever written has an ideological basis from which it was written. There is no such thing as an objective, neutral position, so there's no point denigrating an academic's work as "ideologically based". B) Do you seriously think that experts in religious studies and other academic fields who spend many years, if not much of their lives, studying this religious movement have made mistakes in describing it while you have an accurate comprehension of all the facts? C) A significantly sized minority of Heathens are white supremacists and/or extreme white nationalists and find justification for that belief in their faith; what's so shocking or surprising about that? Many Christian white supremacists do exactly the same thing, but they make up a much smaller percentage of the overall Christian community. Anyway, I see little point in continuing this discussion as I'm beginning to smell a troll. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I said this is not a forum because you are generally complaining that Heathenry isn't racist, but the article cites extensively its statements on the blatant racialism present in the origin, history and present Heathenry movement. Ogress 18:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Racial Issues" section

There are additions of information that are being reverted by people who are of the "universalist" branch of Heathenry. An example is: Midnightblueowl, dedicated to building a more "tolerant, pluralistic society" meaning that the person is a proponent of multiracialism and essentially is biased against the "white genocide" conspiracy theory aspect of racialist Heathenry. This person declares to stand for "a better educated world will be a better world" and declares that to be the motivation why they edit Wikipedia. In relation to this article, it appears that a few "universalist" Heathens are trying to limit the information that is presented on the part of "racialist" Heathenry and allow only one type of frame. Anybody who is a scholar of political science, linguistics, religious philosophy/comparative religion, philosophy and other related topics knows that there is an element of bias on the part of the reversions that are taking place. There is also an intentional withdrawal of information. David Lane was a "Wotanist", not an Odinist for example. Not only that, but Wotanism teaches that there is a coalition of people based on doctrines of universalism that are engaging in "white genocide". I think we should instead all work together to build a solid article without just trying to force one slant. Labeling folkish Heathens as "white supremacist" is one slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.104.250 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Opening your discussion by casting aspersions about other editors is not a good move. Before you ask, I'm not a Heathen, and nor do I have any strong opinions on (or extensive knowledge about) Heathenism, so please try to take my comments at face value. Contentious material on Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable, third party sources, even if we are not personally convinced by what these sources say. If you feel that this article is incorrect in some way, please provide good, scholarly sources which document the issue as you understand it, or else identify the way that the sources currently cited in the article are being misinterpreted. If you are not able to do this, you are probably going to find that your edits will continue to be reverted. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
And I'm not even vaguely pagan; the issue is firmly one of reliability and neutrality. J Milburn is right. Your edits are contentious and your editing is tendentious. Ogress 20:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm not a Heathen either. I'm just following the reliable sources that are available for this subject matter. Incidentally, this article most certainly doesn't label all folkish Heathens as white supremacists. As the article makes clear, many folkish Heathens don't promote explicitly racist and white supremacist views, but a portion of them do (for instance the Odinist members of The Order). As it stands, this article reflects the diversity of opinions that exist within the Heathen community, as testified in academic sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, I think that some of your proposed edits weren't bad. For example, your addition of a link to White genocide conspiracy theory was a good idea, and thus I have retained that and kept it within the article. The problematic nature of your edits however largely boils down to two facets: the first was your addition of non-reliable primary sources, namely davidlane1488.com. The use of sources like this is generally considered to be a no-no on Wikipedia as a result of our WP:Reliable Sources policy. The other was the addition of information that frankly wasn't referenced at all, but which had been snuck into sentences that already were reliably referenced, thus giving the illusion that the reference provided backed the additional information, which just isn't the case. Again, that's not acceptable on Wikipedia. Moreover, while these were the two problems with your actual contributions, the fact that you Edit Warred repeatedly in order to keep the information in the article, and then launched a personal attack on me here at the Talk Page, really did come across as disruptive and being in particular bad faith. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Relations with other Faiths

How has the Heathen community been received by more conventional faiths, especially the Church? what are the relationships and interactions like between Heathens and neighboring religions. Since this article talks primarily about Neo-Pagan faiths in European Christian majority countries, I'd fathom that most inter-faith dialogue would happen between the Heathens and their conventional Abrahamic counterparts.

Do the general Christian population or at least the clergy etc. see these movements with disdain? Many Heathens, unless they actually believe in their deities, have a more or less agnostic view on the Norse gods, and may even be atheists culturally identifying as Heathens primarily for ethnic reasons. as such would they be seen as "confused Christian flock going astray?"

Since the Christianization of Pagan Germanic lands, the Church has never been to keen on polytheism or heretical pagan behavior, I doubt the modern day church would gladly sit back and except their old adversaries as a proper religion in their own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.197.30 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of Heathen relationships with larger and more dominant faith groups would indeed be interesting, although thus far this is not a subject that appears to have been discussed in the academic literature on the subject. Given that this article is based on said academic studies, and avoids engaging in original research, we can't put anything on this subject into the article at present, unfortunately. Hopefully some scholars will devoted attention to this subject matter in future, allowing us to write more about it here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Polytheism

Please name one heathen group that is monotheist. The source for this is Schnurbein, Stefanie von (2016). Norse Revival: Transformations of Germanic Neopaganism, but that book will be available in 2017. --Eswedenborg (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Scnurbein is confusing proto-Nazi groups with the religion. By definition, would someone who actually believes in Wotan/Odin reject the other gods?

Is she talking about modalism? --Eswedenborg (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Stefanie von Schnurbein's book has been available for many months now, hence why it was available for use in this article; it most certainly isn't the case that it will only become available in 2017. Suggesting that von Schnurbein is "confusing" proto-Nazi groups with Heathenry is a controversial statement; she is one of the world's foremost academic experts on the subject of the Heathen religion and its historical development and I very much doubt that she is "confused" about the situation. As her work conclusively demonstrates, there is a significant overlap between early Heathenry and the völkisch milieu from which Nazism later emerged. Certainly that isn't to say that all Heathens are sympathetic to Nazi ideology (most aren't) but the two clearly do have historical links in German-speaking Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As you note, it is in her work that she mentioned the existence of early Heathen groups which were monotheistic, but didn't go into much detail. However, she is clearly referring to the likes of Guido von List, who believed that the secret inner teachings of pre-Christian Germanic paganism were monotheistic, with polytheism meant as an exoteric world-view for the masses. Accordingly his own form of Heathenry was monotheistic. I see that you are new to Wikipedia, but do remember that Wikipedia relies on what are called "Reliable Sources" and Schnurbein's certainly fits that description. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

We can find evidence of polytheism in the roots of Judaism, but the religion would not be described as polytheistic.

NO heathen group is presently monotheistic. If you can name one, I will concede the point.--Eswedenborg (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you realize that "typically" has been used in this article a dozen times? --Eswedenborg (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware of any contemporary Heathen groups that are explicitly monotheistic, but that does not preclude the contemporary existence of individuals who adhere to the monotheistic beliefs promoted by the likes of Guido von List. If you like, we could take this to WP:Request for Comment to see what other editors have to say? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me that all other editors have been expelled from this page. --Eswedenborg (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite Needed

I am not qualified to do it, but even my amateur eyes see at least four errors in the current article. I think the problem is that the current version was written by one person. --Eswedenborg (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you identify these errors, please? Josh Milburn (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This is just a quick list. If I can find these, there are no doubt more:

Heathens are not typically polytheist; they are always polytheist. (Name one group that is not)

The gods do not die, but they can be killed. Even when they are killed, they return, as Balder does in the next universe.

The folkish sector of the movement deems Heathenry to be the indigenous religion of a biologically distinct Nordic race. Not true. Folkish emphasize European stock. A considerable number of followers are in SOUTHERN Europe and South America.

Hugh should be hugr. Hugh is French. English speakers, if they use the word, would use Old Norse. (The mistake is from Gardell’s book. He is a Swede, and it was a translation problem. NO Asatru group uses Hugh. http://norse-mythology.org/concepts/the-parts-of-the-self/ )

Simple facts about the names Asatru and Odinism: Americans tend to use the first and the British favor the second. Simple as that.

Mainline Christians now endorse gay marriage and premarital intercourse. Hard line heathens do not, so why are they compared to Christians?

The current article spends too much time on controversies (race, marriage, Loki) instead of focusing on core information. Loki receives more attention than Thor!

--Eswedenborg (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

--Eswedenborg (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

More issues. Wikipedia directs Theodism (Anglo-Saxon Paganism) here, and this article does not mention it.

The article ignores prison Odinism. Gardell estimated that 3% of inmates in Utah are prisoners, and all Heathen groups work with them. --Eswedenborg (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this information. I am in no way an expert, but perhaps I could help provide a third perspective on your concerns. In order: 1) The polytheism issue is being discussed above, so need not be discussed here. 2) The statement "with many practitioners believing that these deities will one day die, as did, for instance, the god Baldr in Norse mythology" is currently sourced to a large number of academic works. Could you provide a source to the contrary if you believe that it is inaccurate? 3) Again, this claim seems to be well-sourced in the article; is your argument with the interpretation of what the sources say, or the sources themselves? If the former, could you point out the mistake? If the latter, do you have any academic studies supporting your position? 4) If the putative mistake comes from a reputable source, it's surely understandable that it is replicated here. Again, could you cite an academic source which supports your claims? 5) Source? 6) I'm not sure I understand the objection- what in the article is problematic? 7) The current article, as far as I understand it, focuses on those things which have attracted academic attention- this is, of course, appropriate. If you could provide a reliable secondary source which goes into some details about Heathen conceptions of Thor, this could certainly be incorporated. 8) The redirect issue is a tricky one, as it combines at least two separate issues. If it is the case that Theodism belongs in this article, that does seem to be an oversight. However, it's possible that the redirect is pointing here in error. Could you clarify what you understand the problem to be? 9) Prisons are mentioned in the article at present; do you think they warrant a further mention? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Balder issue highlights the problem: the article misrepresents.

To explain: is Jesus dead because he was killed? No. Jesus, according to the Christians, rose from the dead, and the Trinity is again alive. It is not 2/3 dead.

Balder was indeed killed, but he will RETURN. Was is dead is only dead if he stays dead. As one heathen group declares: "Nothing dies forever."

The article could say that the gods can be killed, but should note that they return. If you need an academic source for Balder's return, any book on Norse myth.

The present article purports to use academic sources, but none of these are in-depth studies. I was looking at the sources today, and Gardell and Kaplan are focused on race, Snook does not discuss theology at all (maybe two pages), and so forth. I have ordered Norse Revival: Transformations of Germanic Neopaganism by Stefanie Von Schnurbein, a literature professor (!), but the book will not be available until next year.

I do not think that I have the ability to fix the article, but is there a process at wikipedia to invite a rewrite by an expert?

--Eswedenborg (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I wonder if the article could use a less controversial example than Baldr? If an example is needed at all? Alternatively, if Eswedenborg is correct about Baldr (in the eyes of Heathens) returning, perhaps this could be specified in the article?
Eswedenborg, to reply to your other comments: Are there particular in-depth studies which the article should be citing but fails to? If not, I'm not sure of the value of your criticism that it is not citing in-depth studies. As for rewrite requests, we have banner templates requesting rewrites ({{rewrite}}) and attention of experts ({{expert}}) but I'm not convinced that you've justified this need for a rewrite. If you were to add these banners, I expect your edit would be reverted, and this would not, in my eyes, be unjustified. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Many of these statements are simply not true: "The present article purports to use academic sources, but none of these are in-depth studies". Quite the contrary, a great many of the sources are lengthy and in-depth academic studies of Heathenry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


Regarding the death of gods,this academic source should help.

This is from The Odin Brotherhood (6th Revised & enlarged Edition) by Professor Mark Mirabello 180 pages. Oxford: Publisher: Mandrake of Oxford. 2014. ISBN-10: 1906958637. I apologize for the long extract, but the present wiki article distorts because it combines “facts” without context. Here, Mirabello is discussing “Odinist” concepts of time and how Odin returns after he is “killed.” Pgs 167ff Likewise, in Germanic legend, the end is not the end. Instead, destruction is a form of purification that leads to a new existence.

Indeed, in Germanic lore, as in virtually all Indo-European lore, the universe itself goes through birth, growth, and destruction, followed by rebirth.

This universe, the cosmos which features Odin, the Allfather, the “lord of the spear,” will be followed by another universe, this one without Odin, and that universe, which features Balder, the son of Odin, as a leader, will be followed by another different universe.

In the Norse/Germanic legends, no universe is created ex nihilo—but each universe seems to emerge from the wreckage of the previous cosmos. This is how the Prose Edda describes the emergence of Odin’s grandfather at the start of this universe:

She licked the ice-blocks, which were salty; and the first day that she licked the blocks, there came forth from the blocks in the evening a man’s hair; the second day, a man’s head; the third day the whole man was there. He is named Búri: he was fair of feature, great and mighty. He begat a son called Borr.

Modern readers, conditioned by Judaic-Christian notions of linear time (which has one beginning, one unique history, and one inevitable end), assume that Buri was born in the

salty ice block, but, more likely, the grandfather of Odin, a survivor from a previous universe, was released.

And, appropriate for a myth that probably originated from pastoral nomads, the “she” that releases Odin’s grandfather is a cow.

Now, if universe follows universe, how many will there be? There are at least nine—two books in the Prose Edda, Gylfaginning and Skáldskaparmál, note that Heimdall is the son of nine mothers, and that suggests nine births and nine lives for the god.

But what of Odin? Will he return?

In Indo-European lore, time curves back upon itself. As the book Hamlet’s Mill points out, Aristotle, the “master of those who know,” said that what is eternal is circular and what is circular is eternal.

In the circle of time—called the “Eternal Return” by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and the “Great Year” by the Babylonians and the Greeks—all entities return, and all history is repeated exactly.

Augustine, the Christian theologian, believing that the incarnation of Christ was a unique event, denounced the idea of the Eternal Return in The City of God: “For Christ died once for our sins, and rising again, does no more.”

But, in fact, the Eternal Return may be an inevitable fact. Henri Poincaré, the great scientist, theorized that given enough time, every closed system returns to its initial state, and Louis Auguste Blanqui, another scholar, showed that, given infinite time and infinite space, the eternal return was a mathematical certainty.

And so, in the words of the Odin Brotherhood, “time is an endless circle in which all possible destinies are repeated forever.”

Meaning, as Sir Thomas Browne noted in his Religio Medici in 1643: And in this sense, I say, the world was before the Creation, and at an end before it had a beginning; and thus was I dead before I was alive…

But, of course, both the demise of Odin, and his eventual return, lie deep into the future (and, if there is an eternal return, in the past!).

--Eswedenborg (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC) --Eswedenborg (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Mark Mirabello's The Odin Brotherhood is not an academic source. It is a primary source that makes some very dubious claims about the historical development of modern Heathenry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You are correct: it is for the general reader. I was simply using it on the talk page to explain what heathens actually believe.

Could you site a heathen group that actually is monotheistic? I find it hard to believe that anyone who believes in Odin will doubt the other gods.--Eswedenborg (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, could you cite a group that actually believes that when gods are killed they stay dead? It is clear in the Eddas that after Balder and Hod are killed they do come back. --Eswedenborg (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Could we simply "tighten up" the article and remove the contested material? --Eswedenborg (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not refuting the idea that many Heathens believe in the 'rebirth' of the gods, but we do need a quality, (ideally academic) reliable sources for this information. A primary sources probably won't do. The Eddas for example are not—for Wikipedia's purposes—an acceptable Reliable Source for discussing what Heathens believe any more than we could directly cite the Bible to attest to what modern Christians believe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


Question: You used these "Primary Sources" in your article on the Order of Nine Angles

ONA (2015). "Guide To The Order Of Nine Angles". Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. ONA (2011). "Magian Occultism and The Sinister Way". Archived from the original on September 28, 2015.

Long, Anton (1992a). The Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown, Volume I. Shrewsbury, Shropshire: Thormynd Press. Long, Anton (1992c). Hostia, Volume I. Shrewsbury, Shropshire: Thormynd Press.

These are primary sources and they help that article, which is rarther good, by the way. So why cannot this article be reinforced with material by heathens such as Stephen McNallen and Stephan Grundy? (Grundy has a Ph.D. from Cambridge on the subject!)

--Eswedenborg (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


--Eswedenborg (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


These two books by Grundy (under his pen name) contain all the information needed on the subject. Read them and find out what a hugr is! It is not a hugh!

https://www.amazon.com/Our-Troth-History-Kveldulf-Gundarsson/dp/1419635980/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475400330&sr=8-1&keywords=troth


https://www.amazon.com/Our-Troth-Living-Kveldulf-Gundarsson/dp/1419636146/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1475400039&sr=8-3&keywords=troth --Eswedenborg (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources are acceptable under certain circumstances on Wikipedia. I would be happy to use primary sources judiciously on an article about—for example, Stephen McNallen or the Order of the Nine Angles—i.e. I would be okay with using a few, select primary sources if they are closely related to an individual or specific group. This is particularly the case when we have comparatively few academic secondary sources about these individuals/groups and have to look elsewhere for our information. However, using primary sources when discussing an entire religion becomes a lot more problematic. This is because religions usually contain such a wide array of internal diversity that it is difficult to take the claims or statements of any one religionist as indicative of the whole (they make have an axe to grind against differing denominations, they may really only be talking about their personal beliefs or the beliefs of their denomination or group, and may not recognise the validity of their co-religionists' practices etc). I would, for instance, not wish to see a primary source written by the Pope, Billy Graham, or the Imperial Wizard of the KKK in the Wikipedia article on Christianity because each is coming from a different perspective within the Christian tradition and is incapable of speaking for the entire faith. The same is true with Heathenry. Can a Neo-Nazi Heathen be trusted to fairly represent the ideas of the Troth when writing about Heathenry? Equally, can a member of the Troth be trusted to fairly represent the ideas of someone like Guido von List or Wyatt Kaldenberg? In general I think not, which is why such primary, non-academic sources should be avoided.
As for the hugr/hugh issue, I think that you have a fair point. I used hugh because it was in the Gardell source but it really does look like a typographical mistake of some sort. I'll make the change in the article itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the error. --Eswedenborg (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


Midnightblueowl, I find your argument on primary sources a stretch. You have read the Satanic sources for the Order of Nine Angles, and that is why you use them Fair enough. You refuse to use primary sources here because you have not bothered to read them. If you would take the time to read one Asatru book, such as Stephen Mcnallen's Asatru: A Native European Spirituality, you would see the mistakes in this article.

You remind me of the mathematicians in the Swift novel. They refuse to directly measure Gulliver, but instead use "equations." As a result, the clothes do not fit! --Eswedenborg (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

More on Polytheism

By definition, the religion is polytheistic. I see you have completely rewritten the articles on Alexander Rud Mills and Guido von List, so where did either author deny the existence of the other gods?

Granting that these proto-heathens were eccentrics, and scarcely represent anyone today, what about this wording as a compromise?

Although early heathens, such as Guido von List in Austria and Alexander Rud Mills in Australia, were focused on Odin/Woden/Wotan, modern heathen groups are all polytheistic, with equal attention given to gods and goddesses. On the moderns, see Asgard in America Paperback – September 19, 2013Paperback: 116 pages Publisher: GRIN Verlag (September 19, 2013) Language: English ISBN-10: 3640946030 ISBN-13: 978-3640946037 by Gundula E. Rommel (Author) pgs. 18, 94

--Eswedenborg (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC) --Eswedenborg (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't have sources that specifically state that Rud Mills and von List were monotheists. Adding their names to the article at that juncture would be WP:Synthesis. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Checked the Gardell quote, and he made no mention of monotheism. Entire quote now inserted in the article.

Please use logic. If someone believes in Odin, they will not deny the existence of Thor, or Balder, or Frigg. Of course, some polytheists may be henotheists (they focus on one god, but they believe that other gods and goddesses exist), but henotheists are not monotheists.

At best, thee people you are referring to were henotheists. Besides, is not this an article about modern Asatru?

Polytheism is central to all forms of Norse religion. In particular, no group rejects the goddesses, and to suggest Asatru types are monotheist implies that they reject the goddesses.

I am not claiming to be an expert here, but let's recognize what these people actually believe. Technically, a Roman catholic may be a polytheist because he believes in a Trinity, but no one (except an ideologue) would call a Catholic a polytheist. --Eswedenborg (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of contemporary Heathens are clearly polytheistic. That's why the term "typically" is in there. However we have reliable sources testifying to the fact that some of the early Heathens were monotheists. Whether there are monotheistic Heathens operating today is unknown, at least to me, but given that there are those who continue to adhere to von List's Armanism then I suspect that there perhaps there are. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

At best, thee people you are referring to were henotheists. Besides, is not this an article about modern Asatru?

Besides, Von List started with Woden. He did NOT deny the other gods. --Eswedenborg (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Page protected

I have fully protected this page for a week. I ask all involved parties to discuss possible changes on the article talk page and attempt to reach a conclusion, opening a request for comment if necessary. The ongoing editing back and forth is not good for anyone and is only going to lead to blocks/other sanctions. This protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page; at this time, I have no particular opinion on the issue under discussion. Any administrator has my permission to revert/shorten/lengthen my protection. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --Eswedenborg (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: - as there doesn't appear to have been any consensus achieved here, or any attempt to take the issues to RfC, perhaps it would be advisable to extend the full protection for a week or so? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. --Eswedenborg (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: @Eswedenborg: I am a little nervous about using protection tools further at this time, though I am prepared to do so if necessary. Nonetheless, there does seem to be some progress being made; given that you both support the article being protected, perhaps you could voluntarily agree to restrict your editing to uncontroversial changes, changes which you have agreed upon, and changes which are being made as a result of a RfC? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I will make no changes to the article as it currently exists unless they have gained support through an RfC or other consensus on the Talk Page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Milburn, to be clear, I do not support the article as it is. I do not have the knowledge to rewrite it, but I have listed some of the obvious errors on the talk page.

It can be fixed, but Midnightblueowl has reversed every content edit made by every other editor since September 2015, including two minor edits that I made using her sources.--Eswedenborg (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

"Midnightblueowl has reversed every content edit made by every other editor" - "every other editor", or just Eswedenborg? The answer is just Eswedenborg. And those content edits involved the deletion of existing text and its replacement with random quotes taken from Gardell's book on white separatist Heathenry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you have deleted every CONTENT edit of every other editor since September 2015. By content, I mean someone trying to add information or delete errors. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heathenry_(new_religious_movement)&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heathenry_(new_religious_movement)&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eswedenborg (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, September 2015 - I had misread that as September 2016. My apologies. Nevertheless, if we are looking at the contributions made since September 2015, I have not undone or removed the edits of Kdalmatien, Alexb102072, BDD. I am now claiming 'ownership' of this page. Material which I have removed has typically been by anonymous IPs and has contravened Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policies. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


Midnightblueowl, I have two of Lachman's books, and I like them.

My point is that you have a peculiar obsession with sources here and only here. Professor Mirabello's book is not good enough, Dr. Grundy's work is not good enough, McNallen's work is not good enough, but a rock musician book is fine on another page.

I suspect there is a hidden agenda at work here, but I cannot yet figure it out. Is it somehow connected to your edit wars here?

My comment on non-Blavatskian Theosophy refers to the fact that you are creating a parallel article.

We have Theosophy.

So why are you creating Theosophy (Blavatskian)?--Eswedenborg (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for Article

On the conversation on your talk page, you asked for some academic sources to clean up the article. This is a work in progress, but here are some ideas.

Generally speaking, the present article some changes. The in-depth discussion of the various terms smacks of medieval scholastic ism. We simply need to say that Heathenry, also called Germanic Neopaganism, is a comprehensive term for Asatru, Odinism, Theodism {etc}

Instead of discussing race and gay marriage separately, we should have one section for these issues (Gay marriage is not about ethics these days, it is about civil rights. Many people voted for gay marriage in Ireland because they saw it as a human rights issue.

In that section the article should note that the main division in heathenry today is the left (Representative by the Thoth, which endorses gay marriage and multiculturalism) and right (represented by the Odinic Rite, etc,) which represents heterosexual marriage and "folkish thought" (ethnic pride/racialism) The present article says that the folkish ideas endorses Northwest Europeans only, but, as Kaplan and Gardell note, the right tends to be "pan Aryan." Gardell Gods of Blood 192 ff

Drawing Down the Moon, by the late Margot Adler, discusses heathen ethics intelligently. She notes that they reject guilt and sin for honor and courage (279)e. Adler also discusses metagenetics.

American Heathens: The Politics of Identity in a Pagan Religious Movement. by Jennifer Snook (Author) Snook discusses metagenetics 16, 154, 158 Snook Loki debate 72 ff

Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism2003 Gardell on polytheism p.154, on ethics of gods 156 On ethics p57 courage,honor loyalty, etc P 155 nature of time On anti racist Asatru 162 ff Troth 191 ff on Robert j Matthews, David Lane etc P 212 ff pagans in prison

Article ignores Pagan Theology: Paganism as a World Religion by Michael York (Author new York university press

Jeffrey Kaplan Radical Religion in America: on relationship to gods. No bowing 72 On polytheism of 71 P 73 ff of Seith and Galdor On role of women in Asatru P 79 ff on geneticist theory 92 ff on Odinism as a religion of battle Pagan Theology: Paganism as a World Religion by Michael York (Autho Paperback: 239 pages Publisher: NYU Press (April 1, 2005) ISBN-10: 0814797083

The article, for notions of time and space in Asatru, should use this exceollent book Myth: The Icelandic Sagas & Eddas– 1982 by Edmund Steblin-Kamenskij (Author) Publisher: Karoma (1982)

ISBN-10: 0897200543

Another useful source that has been ignored:

Asgard in America Paperback – September 19, 2013 by Gundula E. Rommel (Author)Publisher: GRIN Verlag (September 19, 2013) Language: English ISBN-10: 3640946030

--Eswedenborg (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC) --Eswedenborg (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC) --Eswedenborg (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC) --Eswedenborg (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Rommel's Asgard in America is self-published, which usually means that it would not count as a WP:Reliable Source. Nonetheless I am happy to discuss its potential utility further as it does appear to be based on Rommel's master's thesis, which may be considered permissible. Steblin-Kamenskij's Myth is not about the NRM of Heathenry at all; it is about medieval literature. We cannot use sources about the Eddas and Sagas as a reliable source about what Heathens believe. The suggestion that Michael York's Pagan Theology may be of use here is an interesting one and worthy of further exploration and discussion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, because you REFUSE to read the Eddas, sagas, and books by people like Steblin-Kamenskij, you are making mistakes an inserting errors in this article.--Eswedenborg (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Some more information from another ignored book:

Theology of Hate. by George Michael (Author) Publisher: University Press of Florida (July 19, 2009) Language: English ISBN-10: 0813033500 p. 51 “The Odinist religion is polytheistic”

on ethics p 51 "the emphasis is more an honor than on any Manichaean notion of good or evil."

P 53 on metagenetics that tradition and culture are a matter of genetic inherence

the religion is p. 51 “a syncretic blend of Norse mythology, millennialism, and a modern warrior cult.” note the warrior reference

p. 51 on whether it is a new religious movement, {he says it isn't. but the article could use this source . p 214 on mirabello claim

p. 53 “The exclusivity of Odinism—that is, only people of European ethnic background cn be adherents” note that it is not northwesten Europeans. It is European

p. 36 on Guido von List author mentions that "For the most part organized Odinism disintegrated after List's death in 1919, although individual follwers, including Hitler's fellow putschist, General Erich Ludendorff, continued to world the old gods." NOTE he says "gods" Polytheism is fundamental to heathenry. A Marxist who does not support worker rights is not really a Marxist. A heathen who is a monotheist is not really a heathen. Marxism does not typically support the workers. It always does. Heathens do not typically honor all the gods, they always do.

p 40ff on Hitler, Himmler, and Nazis on Nordic paganism Alfred Rosenberg, said "Wotan is dead." p. 40


--Eswedenborg (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Some additional problems:

Article mentions Christianity 39 times, Theodism zero times Valhalla once , goddess only six times, and so forth

--Eswedenborg (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

--Eswedenborg (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)--Eswedenborg (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

--Eswedenborg (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


The article mentions The Order, more correctly known as Brüder Schweigen (German for Brothers Keep Silent) or Silent Brotherhood/ article should also refer to Flynn, Kevin; Gerhardt, Gary. The Silent Brotherhood. Signet, 1990. ISBN 978-0-451-16786-6., which is the best book on the subject. --Eswedenborg (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

More information. This is from the excellent Drawing Down the Moon by Adler:

p. 276 'Odinism and Norse paganism are very polytheistic"

p. 279 "there's less vegetarianism and more alcohol" among heathens

p 279 they see the West in decline and they "are living in the ruins"

--Eswedenborg (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

More from Drawing Down the Moon by Adler.

p. 280 "Odinists do not believe in sin and regard guilt as a destructive rather than a useful concept."

adler quotes McNallen p. 280:

"Odin pragmatically breaking the rules to safeguard the worlds of gods and men; Tyr, indulging his appetites without shame or fear; Frey and Frea, reveling in healthy sexuality; these are powerful, liberating models casting off the chains of restraint. By invoking them into our lives we can experience the joy of existence in a world where strength, ambition, competence, and pleasures are not fettered with alien, life-denying bonds."

The present article on Wikipedia states how Christians heathen are. Excuse me?

--Eswedenborg (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)\\

Source of the Error on ethics;

in note 99, midnightblueowl uses Snook, page 45, as a source to claim that a warrior cult that has no concepts of guilt or sin(see sources above) is somehow Christian. Snooks words are "in many of its shared values, however, American Heathenry in general is more similar to Christianity than any other Neopagan group." OK. But read the context! Snook is talking about gun-control, public nudity, and feminism! I agree that heathens and Christians are socially cnservative, but there is more to ethics than gun control, public nudity and feminism! To be fair to Midnightnightblueowl, however, Snook on page 46 seems to think that morality is about these issues only.

On page 45, Snook does in passing mention the heathen "warrior ethic." Does Christianity have a warrior ethic? Regarding guns, American evangelicals do support gun ownership, but I doubt Jesus would. --Eswedenborg (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You've provided a wide array of quotes from various reliable sources (almost all of which are books that are already cited in the article), but how exactly are you proposing that we use them in this article? Moreover, statements such as "The present article on Wikipedia states how Christians heathen are" just aren't true. The article doesn't state this. Moreover, statements such as "Article mentions Christianity 39 times" are misleading; the majority of these examples are actually "pre-Christian", which as I'm sure you'd agree was always going to be a commonly used term in this article given that modern Heathenry seeks to revive the pre-Christian belief systems of Northern Europe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


Speaking of misleading, using an academic source does not work if you change the meaning.

Let's begin by fixing this. As mentioned above, when Snook compares Heathens to Christians, and says they more similar to one another than to witches, she is talking about their positions on guns, feminism, and public nudity. Since gun ownership and public nudity are tangental issues at best, they should not be discussed here. I am ok with feminism. So let's rewrite to this:

Due to its focus on family ties – values perceived as socially conservative in Western nations -- gender roles in heathenry are based upon perceived ideals and norms found in Early Medieval Northwestern Europe, in particular as they are presented in Old Norse sources.[101] Among male American Heathens there is a trend toward hypermasculanized behavior,[102] while a gendered division of labor – in which men are viewed as providers and women are seen as being responsible for home and children – is also widespread among Heathens in the U.S.[103]

All I have done is delete the misleading material. --Eswedenborg (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not totally opposed to this suggestion, by any means. Mentioning Snook's comparison between conservative Christianity and forms of Heathenry in the American context are not essential to this article. Perhaps, however, we should see what other (uninvolved) editors have to say on this particular issue. I suggest an RfC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I welcome uninvolved editors who have studied the material and understand it, but please do not bring "shills" here. --Eswedenborg (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Eswedenborg: An RfC is the standard procedure in cases in which agreement cannot be reached. I note that they can be time-consuming and sometimes frustrating, meaning that if you are able to reach an agreement, that would probably be preferable. RfCs brings uninvolved Wikipedians to offer their view on the dispute. There is no guarantee that they will be familiar with the subject matter, and, given that this is a very niche topic, I'm afraid that's something we will have to deal with. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Let me clarify. I was not suggesting that Dr. Milburn would bring "shills" here, but I think Midnightblueowl would. Sadly

Dr Milburn, I notice that Midnightblueowl often resorts to the process that you mention, and she NEVER loses. Here is one example of many:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heathenry_in_the_United_States

I am not criticizing her; I am just noting that she exploits the wikipedia system with great skill.--Eswedenborg (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC) --Eswedenborg (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Any RfC would be open for any experienced editor to come along and give their opinion. Specifically asking someone to come in and shill would be WP:Canvassing and is prohibited. As I said, I am happy with an RfC on this particular question if you are. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

More Material

Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (Author) Black sun 257 “an unabashed racial paganism, invoking the gods of the Norse and Teutonic pantheons” “By reviving the festivals, rituals, and customs of the ancient Indo-European peoples, they wish to break with what they regard as the alien, imposed dominion of Christianity after two thousand years:” P 257 branches in Europe, united states sourth Africa Australia

Article aAatru northern paganism in Iceland and America p 161 heathen ethics warrior ethic perseverance discipline, honesty integrity p 127 to 180 s Strmiska, Michael F.; Sigurvinsson, Baldur A. (2005). "Asatru: Nordic Paganism in Iceland and America". In Michael F. Strmiska (ed.). Modern Paganism in World Cultures. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 127–179. ISBN 978-1-85109-608-4.

--Eswedenborg (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This is more raw material from "academic sources." I will later quarry such material (see above as well) to fix the misrepresentations in the article.

Kaplan n Radical religion p. 77 on pc Asatru gundarsson / women are equal anti racial p 74 on runes p 73 seith and galdor

p 72 “The relationship is less one of creator to creation or of a distant, all-knowing, and all-powerful spirit to waek, mortal flesh than it is one of father to child or of tribal elder to youthful warrior.’ “Asatruers do not bend the knee even to Odin”

this is a usual quote from kaplan/ Note how the gods do not die. Since Midnightblueowl insists on secondary sources here (but not in her article on The Order of Nine Angles), we can do an end run and discuss the circular nature of time and the return of dead gods by quoting Kaplan quoting Mirabello. A lttle ridiculous, but it works.


p.69. 194 “hail to the gods that are dead! They are the future race of lords!” quotes mirabello 1993 , p. 57 kaplan says “The words are attributed to Baldur to announce the return of the old gods to the earth following the defeat of Christianity.’ p. 194

Midnightblueowl, since you are so focused on academic sources, why do you use as a source the drummer from the group Blondie in your article on Theosophy (Blavatskian) Also, what is non-Blavatskian theosophy?

////////// Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity

by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (Author) Black sun 257 “an unabashed racial paganism, invoking the gods of the Norse and Teutonic pantheons” “By reviving the festivals, rituals, and customs of the ancient Indo-European peoples, they wish to break with what they regard as the alien, imposed dominion of Christianity after two thousand years:” 

P 257  branches in Europe, united states south Africa Australia

--Eswedenborg (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Gary Lachman is a respected independent scholar who has published widely on the history of esotericism. Yes, he was formerly a drummer in Blondie but so-what? His works may not be strictly academic but they are certainly appropriate for the uses of a Wikipedia article. If he ever writes a book on Heathenry then we could probably use that here too. Non-Blavatskian Theosophy is the Christian-oriented theosophy of Jakob Bohme and his followers (which predates Blavatsky's Theosophy by several centuries - she just pilfered the name). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know enough wikipedia stuff to fix it, but the link to the Swedish version of this page leads to the "normal" Asatro page. As in, the old religious movement. Viking stuff. There's a page in Swedish called "Modern asatro" and that is the page that should be connected with this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.25.59 (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted! I have fixed that link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Images too big and capitalisation issues

As I discussed also in Talk:Slavic Native Faith, I suggest the illustration of the page with smaller images (they are really big at the current version) and the use of the labels "(neo/modern/contemporary)pagan" and "(n./m./c.)paganism" in lowercase. "Modern paganism" is a category of religions, not a single movement or a unitary religious identity that might justify the uppercase initial letter.--87.8.77.112 (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Movement" is in the title. Maybe it's a category of movements, maybe not. Either way, lowercase is the MOS's way to go. Primergrey (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Among academics who study the modern Pagan phenomenon, the capitalised "Paganism/Pagan" is the preferred spelling for the new religious movements; this distinguishes it from the pre-Christian belief systems usually referred to with the lower-case, as "paganism/pagan". Thus, this article follows the lead of the academic literature on this subject. Moreover, capitalisation is also favoured by many of the groups that actually use "Pagan" as a self-designation. As for the images, they seem fine to me and no other user has yet expressed concern about them through the process of GAN and FAC; is there perhaps something different about your browser, 87.8.77.112, that results in them becoming unnecessarily large? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Theodism

I notice that the page "Theodism" redirects to here, but can find no mention of it in the article. The previous article on Theodism had a lot of information, however, it was removed due to lack of third-party sources. Shouldn't the redirect be removed then, since there is no mention of Theodism on this page?Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 16:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable sources on Theodism that could be used in this article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Google Scholar has a few decent hits. Snook mentions it as a branch of Heathenry in doi:10.1525/nr.2013.16.3.52; Strmiska mentions it in doi:10.1558/pome.v9i2.154, which is already cited in the article. It is also acknowledged in doi:10.1163/ej.9789004163737.i-650.114. May be worth adding. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I've added a brief sentence mentioning Theodism and a few other terms used, citing Snook and Strmiska as a source. Many thanks for the doi links, Josh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Spelling Check?

The article has a quote from Jefferey Kaplan and uses the words, "strongly millenarian and chialistic overtones." The last word may be spelled wrong. It should be "chiliastic." Could someone check which word the author uses? I would change it but it is used in a direct quote. Ehgarrick (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Heathenry (new religious movement) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Good to see it today, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Role of "Heathens" in Poland and Slavic countries

I am happy this article reached the WP:FA status. I won't edit it due to the potential WP:COI, but let me comment re: 

There are a small number of Heathens in Poland, where they have established a presence [only?] on social media...

and 

... a few Heathens in the Slovenian Pagan scene, where they are outnumbered by practitioners of Slavic Native Faith.

Being a Heathen and a Slavic Native Faith believer is not exclusive. Thus (Western European?) "Heathens" are not "outnumbered" by Rodnovery: as these two are often the same. My local friends (granted, and co-believers, hence the COI) have kolovrats tatooed next to mjölnirs, and nobody bats an eyelid. Has anybody heard of a real conflict between these two faiths?

I know these are far from WP:RS, but if you can speak some Slavic, take a look here (a discussion about the "right" 'native' tattoo ;) or here for the common symbols.

Update: while browsing related WP articles, I found that "Modern Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Central and Eastern Europe", Kaarina Aitamurto, Scott Simpso purportedly confirms it too, pacem our colleagues who discuss it in Slavic Native Faith's identity and political philosophy: 

Some of these far-right groups merge Rodnover elements with others adopted from Germanic Heathenry and from Russian Orthodox Christianity.[45]

-> Shall we elaborate on it here? Zezen (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. I've introduced the source that you point to into this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know that I agree that they aren't exclusive. According to most sources, the basics are different enough that Slavic religions such as Rodnovery aren't considered part of the Heathen faiths. Stormkith (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
There are all manner of odd religious syncretic identities in the world: take the Christian Wiccans as an example. This being the case, individuals who blend elements of Slavic Native Faith with those of Heathenry really aren't that surprising. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

History of each particular branch

May I create a section retelling the history of each of the most relevant branches of modern Heathenry, like Urglaawe, Theodism, Ásatrú, Odinism, Fyrnsidu, etc? They've quite different histories and it should be taken into consideration, imho SonneHeljarskinn (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd advise against it. We already have a section giving the history of Heathenry writ large, which makes reference to the key groups and traditions within it, so expanding the historical coverage here might be a bit superfluous. I'd also be concerned about how what you term "branches" would be presented; "Odinism" is a term for instance used by hardline neo-Nazi Heathens, and also some universalist Heathens. Thus, it is difficult to think of these as "branches" per se; they are more like terms that certain branches favour but which might also be used, in a conflicting way, by members of other branches. It gets very messy and I don't think that we could accurately portray that by listing the history of one group after another. It is also worth noting that at present, there are not the academic WP:Reliable Sources available to enable the article to offer a history of, for example, Urglaawe, so we would be forced to rely on WP:Original Research or poorer quality sources in many places. A better option would be to flesh out articles about Heathenry which are peripheral to this one; for example by expanding, using the appropriate sources, articles on particular Heathen organisations. That way we ensure that Wikipedia gives more information on the histories of particular branches and sub-groups, but without causing any problems in the Featured Article-rated main article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Heathenry

For me it's curious to ask, but if it's required... Do anyone have something against to put the Template:Heathenry into article? It can looks like that. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a nicely designed template, but the very use of top templates is rather controversial at Wikipedia. Ultimately, they tend to look clunky and messy when added to the lede of an article, forcing any images that previously held that space down below them. Moreover, they are completely unnecessary; they contain links that are already found throughout the article. For that reason, they don't really add anything of value to the article. In this case, the article is FA-rated, and throughout the GA and FA processes no one thought it pertinent to even suggest that such a template be added. So why would we need it now? I can appreciate that there are a group of Wikipedia editors (and I was once among them) who are very keen on templates, so I would recommend some sort of compromise. How about a template on Heathenry down at the bottom of the article? We already have a template for Modern Paganism down at that location, and another on Heathenry could quite easily join it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, all (or most, I wasn't check it) links from template would be already contained in article, but for me the sense of such template is to collect all in one box for easy navigation between the articles. In articles like Slavic Native Faith or Hellenism (religion) similar templates are putted in lead. GA/FA status shouldn't be an obstacle for improvement. What you think about following solution: the template will be put directly under lead, so it will show up vis-a-vis of Contents list? --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't like that idea, personally. I think better would be appearing in the "definition" section, but that would necessitate removing an image. I think MBO's suggestion of a more standard navbox for the bottom of the article is a good one. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge of Category:Odinism

The article Odinism was merged into this article a few years ago. I have started a discussion here about doing the same with the category. Ffranc (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Animal sacrifice

The article discusses historical and modern heathens who practice animal sacrifice, but there's no mention of the heathens who shun the practice. This is a point of controversy within the religion and it seems disingenuous to only discuss one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.125.157 (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Good call. I've modified the text to reflect this, including a reference to this statement. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Most of the prose edits here are pretty good but I'm a bit concerned by the wording "Notable groups that explicitly reject animal sacrifice include the Ásatrúarfélagið". Calling Ásatrúarfélagið "notable" may constitute original research or something of that nature; I would suggest that we trim out "notable" just to be on the safe side. After all, this is a Featured Article and we need to try and keep it at that standard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
You've got a point—feel free to trim to your liking, Midnightblueowl. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hatnote

The current hatnote is not needed, per WP:NAMB. Neither the title nor any of the redirects is ambiguous with Heathen. There are, however, redirects like Germanic Heathenry that are ambiguous with Germanic paganism. That is why I changed the hatnote. If nobody objects, I will restore my edit. Srnec (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to change "the modern Pagan new religious movement" to "the modern pagan new religious movement". The article uses "modern Pagan" rather than "modern pagan" and the hatnote should do the same. I'm also not convinced we need a link to Germanic paganism to start with; if we remove the hatnote as per WP:NAMB do we even need to replace it with something else? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't really care about the capital, although I think lower-case is better. Do you not think "Germanic Heathenry" is ambiguous with Germanic paganism? Srnec (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I can see that there could be some ambiguity. I don't mind if you make the change, just make sure that "Pagan" is kept in upper-case when referring to the modern movement, to ensure standardisation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Mention of McNallen

Following up on this diff, what should we do about this? The problem here is that McNallen was once aptly describable as notable within the heathen community, but I think one would be hard pressed to say the same today, particularly since his white nationalism has become quite unambiguous since this citation saw publication. I agree that "historically" is too vague, but I think we should figure out some way of presenting the sentence in a manner that holds up over time. Maybe the line about McNallen should just be struck as outdated? Suggestions? (@Midnightblueowl:) :bloodofox: (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"Previously"? I checked Paxson's Essential Asatru for mentions of McNallen, but it was published in 2006, so it's a bit before McNallen's outspoken turn to idiocy. Will check a few other books on the shelves.. this is hubby's path, not mine, although I do try to keep up with broad developments. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
"previously" is probably better than "historically", but I worry a little about WP:Recentism here. The fact that he has fallen out of favour with many Heathens of late does not erase the long term significance and impact he has had in the history of the movement. At the end of the day, he's a major figure in the religion's history and that will probably never change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

What purpose do these external links serve other than to link to groups promoting this ideology? GiantSnowman 18:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

They provide readers with the opportunity to read more about the religion from the perspective of the religion's own adherents. That may be useful to a range of readers; those interested in joining the religion, those who are students of religious studies or some related discipline, or those who are simply curious about Heathens. So long as we stick to listing groups which have a significant presence in the movement (and that can be ascertained by looking at the reliable sources provided by academics or the mainstream media) I don't see a problem with including this section at the bottom of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

NNPOV basis/title?

With 'heathen' still being a popular condemnation term used by Christians (maybe more rarely, but even common in Christian-influenced culture as 'immoral person') and Muslims (when translating to English rather than Latin) 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.) Is it likely this article and most the writing on 'modern Paganism' (capitalized having no specific meaning) are only from the point of view of some pagans/heathens and are excluding many/most?--dchmelik (t|c) 03:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Atheists/humanists who might refer to themselves as "heathen" or "pagan" would be a separate phenomena from modern Paganism (including Heathenry) and so probably wouldn't warrant coverage in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Source of Heath.

Source of Heath is(alpine: Heide) loose Woodland and especially holy Glades, where most Feast for Astronomic events til Marriages and Peace Treaties of War were negotiated.

First Terror Attempt of common Christianization of course were always arsonary against Wood and Glades, called Christopherus Rites, til today illegal fire-setting in Wildland is usual behave of Christian an Monotheist, to proof superiority of the False God against the primary Heathen Believe of Common Impact, the Theatres of Iustitia, known as Courtyard, and it is wolrdwide usus to build Stairs an entries as Pillar in gladelike Shape. likewise to Parliaments and other "Pantheons".

Justice is in absolute incompatible with Abrahamitic Sect Cultures. like Democracy.

The Insult Pagan is obviously an attack against the Heathen Roots of Law and Order, to legitimize non legal and extra-ordiniary criminal unitings like Churches to Wash Dirty Money of Slavery and worst, or Drug and Weapon concerns. Organ Extractions Killing Business on Sinai and Mexican Borderland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.140.155 (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"20,000 pagans worldwide"

There are many more people who follow some form of pagan path nowadays. This needs to be updated. 2600:387:C:7018:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Balder Rising" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Balder Rising and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 21#Balder Rising until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paradoctor (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

"Vrilology" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vrilology and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 21#Vrilology until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paradoctor (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thursatrú

The following papers regarding the Heathen current of Thursatrú might be useful for further developments of the article:

Æo (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Misleading secondary sources

I know wikipedia prefers secondary sources (in contrast, academics prefer primary sources), but errors must not be included in these articles. To Say Baldr dies is misleading. Not only does he continue to exist elsewhere in the Nine Worlds after he is killed here, he returns to lead the pantheon after Ragnarök.

Using the logic that Baldr is dead because he is killed, means we must change Christianity and say Jesus is dead because he was killed.

Perhaps a compromise: if rule-obsessed wiki editors want to remove the truth, perhaps we should leave the truth out, and also delete the error. 45.53.207.255 (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


Addendum:

Primary References used for the Baldr article: 

 Calvin, Thomas. An Anthology of German Literature, D.C. Heath & Co. ASIN B0008BTK3E, ASIN B00089RS3K. pp. 5–6.

Bellows, Henry Adams (1923). The Poetic Edda. American-Scandinavian Foundation. pp. 14–15, 25, 195–200.

Crawford, Jackson. (2015). The Poetic Edda: Stories of the Norse Gods and Heroes. Hackett Publishing Company. p. 106.

"Gylfaginning, XXII". Archived from the original on 30 September 2007. Retrieved 23 September 2007.

"Gylfaginning [U]: 17–21". hi.is. Archived from the original on 19 June 2009. Retrieved 11 November 2007.

"Gylfaginning, XLIX". Archived from the original on 30 September 2007. Retrieved 23 September 2007.

 Anglo-Saxons Chronicle (Winchester Chronicle).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.53.207.255 (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Primary Sources:

Note that the Poetic Edda is a kind of scripture for Norse Neopagans, and it SHOULD be used in this article.

The Christianity article uses Biblical (primary source) references: 

Acts 2:24, 2:31–32, 3:15, 3:26, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40–41, 13:30, 13:34, 13:37, 17:30–31, Romans 10:9, 1 Cor. 15:15, 6:14, 2 Cor. 4:14, Gal 1:1, Eph 1:20, Col 2:12, 1 Thess. 11:10, Heb. 13:20, 1 Pet. 1:3, 1:21

Acts 1:9–11
Jn. 19:30–31 Mk. 16:1 16:6
1Cor 15:6
John 3:16, 5:24, 6:39–40, 6:47, 10:10, 11:25–26, and 17:3
Am I right in saying that the issue is with the statement "Many practitioners believe that these deities will one day die, as did, for instance, the god Baldr in Norse mythology."?
I see no problem in this given that the belief is that Baldr will die/ is dead. This isn't making any reference to his return. Given that we see references to his death with terms like "Old Norse: Dauði Baldrs ins góða" (Skáldskaparmál 49) and his funeral, I think we can safely say it is believed it is a death rather than him just going to another place. Given that Hel is a land of the dead, he isn't necessarily depicted overly differently to the other dwellers of Hel who seem alive but critically are not due to their location and lack of freedom to leave.--Ingwina (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
So who leads the pantheon after Ragnarök? A corpse?
My problem with saying he is dead is that it implies extinction. A typical wiki reader with no background in religion will think Norse pagans are honoring extinct deities.
Christianity teaches that Jesus was killed, but he exists. In contrast, the Nation of Islam teaches that Jesus is DEAD, he does not exist, and he is not coming back. See The Nation of Islam by Steven Tsoukalas and Carl F Ellis Jr.
As for the Norse Hel, Baldr does eventually leave.
Wiki articles must NOT mislead. 45.53.207.255 (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Dead does not imply non-existence. Baldr is described in Old Norse sources as dying. Like in the quote above, words cognate to dead are used throughout accounts of Baldr's death and the terms seem completely fitting. One can in concept have been dead and yet no longer be. I would be fairly confident in saying many Christians believe "Jesus died for our sins". Death and resurrection are central aspects to their beliefs. There is no misleading here. Ingwina (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The Ohio-based editor at IP 45.53.207.255, who is evidently also linked to the Bluebeetle account (given that they are both edit-warring to push the same changes in the article), is almost certainly Holtj, who kept popping up at Heathenry articles from the mid-2000s through to the mid-2010s (see the sockpuppet investigation archive on that user). They were banned then for disruptive editing, edit-warring, and persistent sockpuppetry, which appears to be what they are doing again. Best to ignore them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heathenry_(new_religious_movement)/Archive_5&oldid=1252389980"