Talk:Modern paganism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Modern paganism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Is anyone interested in the following article nominated for deletion?

Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults cairoi 14:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dianic Wicca

I don't know quite what to do with Dianic Wicca. I'm fairly certain it is wrong to even use the term Wicca to refer to Dianics, since the important factor in Wicca is gender polarity which doesn't apply even remotely to Dianic practice. But I'm not Dianic myself and don't know much about the details of their practice. It would be great if someone who knows more would clarify this. Perhaps it should be Dianic Paganism, or Dianic Tradition. --Dmerrill

Most Dianic Wiccan's consider themselves Wiccan and do consider the birth of Wicca with Gardner the beginings of their religion; they are just a group that broke off (kind of like protestants from the Catholic church- the protestants are still Christian). Though I am not very familar with the Reclaimation Tradition (which apparently does not consider it's self to be part of Wicca), it sounds very much like Dianic Wicca and could be composed of women with very similar beliefs and practices who allie themselves more on the "political side" and less on the "Wicca side" than Dianic Wiccans. I guess I'm saying that if Dianic Wiccan's consider themselves Wiccan, who are we to say they are not. Just a thought, I may be wrong.

There are two kinds of Dianics, and I was initiated as one kind which I note first. The Dianic Craft which is women only was founded by Zsuszanna Budapest from the early 70s as a blend of Hungarian folk magic and Western feminism. This kind of Dianic cannot be Wiccan for Wiccans insist on polarity of Goddess and God (as Dmerrill says above): some Wiccan material and phrases do form part of Dianic practice however. But such Dianics do not see Wicca as their main lineage, looking instead to local folk traditions, feminist foremothers of the early 20th and late 19thC etc In particular the matriarchy tradition of Gage, Bachofen, Engels, Neumann, Murray, Gould Davis, Sjoo and Gimbutas figures largely.

Starhawk was/is the most famous of Zee's students, ref her The Spiral Dance 1979, but her Craft is not restricted to women. Her worldwide network centres on Reclaiming Coven/ Reclaiming Tradition in California. I belong to a very similar tradition in the UK.

Dianic Wicca, also known confusingly as Dianic Craft, is a variant of Wicca that centrally honours Diana, Queen of the Witches. Both women and men, Goddess & God polarity. Otherwise Wicca.

It can also help to distinguish the American usage of 'Wicca' from the British. In the USA, Wicca is a loose label, broadly similar to Paganism. In Britain Paganism is the loose term, and the Craft/ witchcraft is only one of many kinds of Paganism. Other forms are Druidry, Heathenism (Asatru/ Nordics), Eco-Paganism, Shamanism, Goddess people, High Magic, Chaos Magic, Techno-Paganism etc .....Within the Craft itself Wicca is strictly only one form, though a very important one, arguably dominant?, founded by Gardner and Valiente, and with Alexandrian Craft following on. There are other forms of Craft, not seen as offshoots, such as Starhawk's, my own Circlework, Dianics, Celtics, and the claimed Hereditaries.

The usage you cite is also quite common in the US, although it could certainly be less prevalent than in the UK. We usually consider Wicca to be those groups closest to Gardnerianism and Neopaganism to include those plus the more eclectic groups. The boundary is quite fluid here though. --Dmerrill

Starhawk believes in Goddess Spirituality, which is not Wiccan (and has said so herself). Disinclination 20:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of Issac Bonewits terms

Parhaps some clearification regarding Neo-Pagan, Paleo-Pagan and Meso-Pagan is an idea. Are there other types of Pagan religions?

Asatrurar

SHould it be noted that asatruers prefer to be called heathens rater than pagans? Also the difference between the Wicca based and the other? // Liftarn 15:20 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism

Between the section on Druidry and the mention of other Celtic trads, there needs to be something about Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism (CRP). This is an emerging complex of trads that are not specifically Druid, but are based on increasingly sound scholarship and don't fit the rather dismissive description of "Celtic Twilight" practices. I don't know enough about it to write it, but I may be able to seduce someone who does. Feel free to beat me to it!
Freeman 17:30 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Is Paganism a disambiguation article?

The following is copied by Laurel Bush 16:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) from Talk:Paganism:

The article looks to me a lot like a dictionary entry and Im thinking a shift to Paganism (disambiguation) might be appropriate. (This would leave the current name free as one for an article about current pagan practice.) Laurel Bush 13:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Neo-paganism does deserve an article, and already has one. Distinguishing neo-paganism from paganism is relevant there, but not here, as with Nazi and Neo-Nazi etc etc etc. The reader looking for "paganism" is well served in getting this article, improved by Laurel Bush, I hope! If there is anything that needs disambiguation, Paganism (disambiguation) awaits! --Wetman 17:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A second look at Neo-paganism shows that the article quite intentionally blurs the distinctions, confusing people like Laurel Bush. Rather like saying, "We're not Neo-Nazis, we're real Nazis." Or confusing Wedgwood with Roman bas-reliefs. Readers are strongly encouraged to contribute some clarity at Neo-paganism. --Wetman 17:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The above was copied by Laurel Bush 16:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) from Talk:Paganism.

Perhaps Paganism needs a move to Proto paganism as the name of an artlicle which should include references to now emergent self-conscious (self-styled) paganism. Laurel Bush 16:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Two questions: (A) what would be the purpose of doing this, and (B) how do you define "self-styled" Paganism? --Corvun 09:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

No plans to actually do anything at present. Just making observations. Laurel Bush 10:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Anyone who is involved in the Neo-Pagan community knows very well that there is a difference between paganism, Paganism, and Neo-Paganism or Neopaganism. Neo-Paganism generally refers to modern Paganism as it is practiced today or more specifically, the Neo-Pagan movement. Mirlin 21:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Fluffy bunny

In addition, there is a growing tendency within the Neopagan community to look down upon "fluffy bunny" pagans, who are seen as diluting the faith by making it too "mainstream" and New Age.

I want to delete this, because I don't believe it is true. What do you think? -- till we *) 21:20, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

[note added jan 12 2004: This is mostly true, although there is a bit of a backlash movement against this "discrimination" in some areas. I might write up on this a bit after I read more about the wikipedia to know what's going on. -LittleBrother]

[note added 1/16/2004: I am brand new to this, but I will add my two cents. I think this should also be deleted or severely edited. A statement of fact was made without attribution. Is there a tendency at all? Is it across all of Pagandom or local to the authors experience? This tendency existed 15 years ago when I was heavily involved with the Pagan community, how long has it been growing? how fast? How do we know if it is growing or shrinking or almost non-existant?

How would a comparible statement be received regarding Christianity e.g. "There is a growing tendency within the Christian Church to look down upon "Christmas/Easter" Christians, who are seen as diluting the faith making it too "mainstream."

I hope I have made a case. I will allow someone with more boldness than I (who just rolled into the community today and hasn't even registered) to make the edit. --A Druid]

The term "Fluffy Bunny" refers more towards the nature of participation and not the amount of participation. There are quite a few fluffy bunny christians who participate regularly but make me want to vomit with their nicey nice version of Christianity.--Gbleem 19:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the wording of this section to explain that this type of behavior is common in all religious movements. Hopefully this clears up the issue? --Wolf530 19:24, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Probably because it's already wikified in the article text. --Gary D 11:20, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Should I do it again? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 20:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, ok, nm then. Sam [Spade] 14:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, what does "nm" mean? Seems I've never seen that abbreviation before. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 15:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

nm = Never mind. Essentially it means you can ignore what I just said, as it turns out not to have been worth saying ;) Sam [Spade] 15:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Eurocentrism?

I believe this article may need expansion to include near-eastern Neopaganisms such as the secret societies, kemeticism, hindi, etc. Although these are certainly "Western" in that they are predominantly reconstructive and recreated, they don't (I think) "claim to be a revival of mainly European Paganism." I may be very far off, but I seem to recall the two "sources" of the neopaganism movement were one predominantly reconstructive Celtic, and the other predominately recreative Egyptian. - Amgine 23:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wondered if anyone with the relevant knowledge would be able to mention a bit about 'neopaganism' in South America. Adambisset 23:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC) :)

The earliest variety of Neopaganism, Neo-Druidry, was heavily inspired by Masonry and other "secret societies" around at the time. To call it "Neopaganism" is probably a bit of a misnomer, as the first few groups were mainly Christian, adapting pseudo-Masonic ritual to what they percieved as a more "Celtic" (rather than Mediterranean) flavor.

The Western mind has been for many ages shaped by Mediterranean culture, whether Egyptian, Greek, or Roman. Up until about the time of Gerald Gardner, most occult traditions were deeply intrenched in Mediterranean philosophies, and Greco-Roman Paganism had an substantial impact on the every-day Westerner's perception of polytheism. Gardner tried introducing some Norse and Celtic flavor into his watered-down form of occultism, which likely inspired other reconstructionists to delve deeper into history in search of greater authenticity. And of course the continuing Mediterranean influence (through such sources as Thelema and Masonry) in the realm of the occult drew more people to the Greco-Roman, Egyptian/Kemetic, and Sumerian reconstructions.

Then there was the "New Age" phenomenon, which introduced elements of Eastern Paganism and Post-Modernism into the Neopagan traditions; endless reincarnation, the abandonment of the belief in destiny for the more modern belief in "you can be anything you wanna be" (hence the idea that it's okay for anyone to play around with magick), the loss of a distinction between black magick and white magick, the belief in a strictly positive afterlife and disavowal of any form of evil deity or eternal punishment, and many other vast departures from traditional Western Paganism, all became standard.

In truth, it's not just the lack of attention to non-European Neopaganisms that's a problem here, it's also the lack of attention to the non-European influence on European traditions that needs fixing. --Corvun 04:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

A "Stoner Activist"

This article is being co-opted by a self-declared "stoner activist" who is reverting quite sensible material that sets Neopaganism in the context of the history of ideas and replaces it with material such as " Neopaganism is perhaps most closely related to Syncreto-Pagan religions such as Voodoo and Stregheria." Is this how neopaganism is to be characterized at Wikipedia. Not up to Wikipedia standards really. --Wetman 06:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your material isn't sensible by anyone's criteria. Your claim that Neopaganism is somehow different and distinct from "real paganism" is an extreme position. I don't think even Ronald Hutton himself would be so bold as to make such a declaration.

"Paganism" is most broadly defined as a default category for any non-Abrahamic religion, and most narrowly defined as any Earth- or Nature-based spirituality. Both of these are inclusive of Neopaganism. What odd-ball definition of "Paganism" are you using? Paganism is not an artistic movement defined by a specific set of standards and criteria that can be "revived". There is no "original" Paganism. Take a look at the Paganism page. Paganism is a vast category of religions, most of which have no relationship to eachother whatsoever. On what basis do you exclude Neopaganism simply because it doesn't have a historical continuity with the earlier forms of Paganism?

I've studied this subject for five years now, and the categorization on the Paganism page (i.e., that Neopaganism is one of many different and various forms of Paganism) is the one that all parties agree to, both academics and adherents. This opinion that Paleo-Paganism, Classical Paganism, Meso-Paganism, Syncreto-Paganism, that everything from Roman mythology to Native American religion, all belong in one group, while Neopaganism alone should be singled out as "not real Paganism" -- is an opinion held only by a very small minority of educated folks.

And what's wrong with " Neopaganism is perhaps most closely related to Syncreto-Pagan religions such as Voodoo and Stregheria"? Have you studied this subject at all? Stregheria was a massive influence on Wicca and many other forms of Neopaganism by extention. Most modern religious conventions, such as quarter guardians, circle casting, covens/groves, and a number of others can be traced back to Stregheria.

Oh, and the "self-declared stoner activist" bit won't work here. Not only is it an ad hominem attack (which you should well know), but only the most extreme, brain-washed conservative actually believes that marijuana is harmful to anything but the lungs (and even that much hasn't been proven). Besides which, what does stoner activism have to do with Neopaganism, anyway? That's a big ol' non sequitor right there homie. --Corvun 06:26, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Corvun's material contains assertions that are not substantiated, e.g. 'a small minority' and 'there is little argument'. The direction he wishes to take us in is clearly 'neopagans are pagans'. The term is a contentious one and the entry should reflect this. A genuinely neutral point of view does not seek to define the term for the reader, but to document its use. Cavalorn 23:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Solitary/Christo Paganism

Did somebody delete my references to Christo-Paganism and Solitary Neopaganism, or was it a wiki-error? --Whiteash 15:56, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, now it's in there twice. Could you pick one and remove the other, Whiteash? DenisMoskowitz 18:19, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I made a mistake. I've been having trouble loading the edit page. I'll fix it. --Whiteash 15:36, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I wasn't upset or anything. For the record, it appears that what happened is that Wetman moved those into a different section and then Whiteash added them again, not realizing they had moved. DenisMoskowitz 16:47, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Removal of Oh My Gods! Link

I would like an explination as to the removal to the link to the article on Oh My Gods! - which is a Pagan comic strip dealing directly with NeoPaganism. The commentary left by User:Wetman merely stated (rRv User:Shivian's self-advertisement for his comic strip) - however I don't understand why a article that is about a comic strip which directly deals with neopaganism was removed. The comic strip referenced in said article directly references the History of Neopaganism, Mythological and religious sources, Earth-based religions, Witchcraft, Number of adherents, Concepts of Divinity, Festivals, Traditions, Wicca, Heathenism, Celtic-based, Modern, Terms for kinds of Neopagan worship Usage of the term 'Neopagan' in different quarters, Neo-pagan as used in literary criticism. I don't see why a reference which was properly sub-categoriesed in the "see also" section was removed as "self advertisement" - when it is obviousally based on a article which does little advertising and much more historical referencing of the comic strip, it's history, and it's current place. --Shivian Balaris 05:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

No explanation will be forthcoming. Are we to have a link to B.C. (comic) at the Wikipedia entry Neolithic? Where should Flintstones be linked: Cretaceous or Pleistocene? This is crude self-advertisement from a new User, whose recent interest in Wikipedia is simply as an advertising vehicle for his own comic-blog, as his Edit history demonstrates.--Wetman 05:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"No explanation will be forthcoming..."

I am very sorry to hear that. I figured you would know better how to write then to just say "I have no reason to explain myself." I don't see why just because the first article I posted was on a comic strip that makes me a "new User, whose recent interest in Wikipedia is simply as an advertising vehicle for his own comic-blog". Apparently you feel that I have no other contribuitions to make? What about other writers who only post about their personal projects and inventions? Shoudl they all be removed to! If we did we'd likely lack much content on small but very well understood ideas and conventions. Who else knows them better then their creators?! Sadly, apparently you feel any "self-promtion" (ie: article written by the creator of the information to which it's referencing) is horrible and must be removed. That's sad, and quite small. I would ask you to explain this, but I don't believe you would choose to- as noted earlier. Perhaps then someone else can explain User:Wetman's apparent dislike towards the inclusing of a relevant article link within the the Neopaganism article - as he apparently doesn't feel like talking?

--Shivian Balaris 05:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a relevant article link. It's an attempt to plug your own creative work through a Wikipedia article. This is no more legitimate than it would be for me to link from, say, a Dungeons and Dragons page to some of my own published work on the subject. Wikipedia is not a medium for propaganda or advertising. See What Wikipedia Is Not.Cavalorn 11:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it was a good call on Wetman's part. The web comic is dubious for inclusion on Wikipedia at all, and has pretty close to zero relevance to anyone reading the Neopaganism article. -- Solipsist 08:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The article is to provide information, not a springboard into someone's creative take on the subject. Cavalorn 11:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC

On the contrary; a large portion of connected-Neopagans love Oh My Gods!. Thus, it is relevant in a seconday sense. Futhermore, persons interested in Neopaganism may be interested in it, as it shows that Neopagans do in fact have a sense of humour. Th link is highly valuable and should be replaced.--Chèvredansante 15:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Question!

Are we attempting to define "neopaganism" as any modern form of paganism (as the Paganism article seems to), or as a set of reconstructionist/revivalist traditions ("a heterogeneous group of religions which attempt to revive ancient ... religions")? Because the one seems to contradict the other (breaking Wiki's self-consistency policy). By the apparent Paganism definition, basically any religion or set of spiritual beliefs which exists outside a monotheistic framework is paganism, and "neopaganism" merely refers to modern spiritualities as opposed to earlier ones. Without any kind of modifier (such as "many," "commonly" or "often") "attempt to revive ancient ... religions" line seems to be too restrictive to properly agree with the Paganism definition.

The most simple way to fix this seems to be the addition of a modifier, so I did, but I'd like feedback.

Sorry I forgot to add a edit summary.--12.5.1.207 23:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Craft (aka AAROFM)

I'm curious as to why there is no notice of the similarities between all neo-pagan religions and the organisation from which each cult span off initially, Freemasonry. It amazes me that practitioners of neo-pagan religions haven't investigated the organisation that has for the last thousand years that we know of (historically) been refered to as 'The Craft', a name that has even been stolen, not to mention thousands of rites, et cetera. Why isn't there any mention of this in this article?

Almost every neo-pagan 'rite', regardless of where it's origin is oft cited to have originated, can be found in any rite and dogma book from any masonic lodge. 211.31.9.5 04:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The supposed "origins" of Neopagan religions and traditions in Freemasonry are grossly overstated. I've even heard it argued that Wicca got its three-degree initiation system from Masonry, which supposedly has a three-degree initiation system of its own (in reality, Masonry has well over 30 degrees). I suggest doing a bit more research. Occult traditions as a whole bottle-necked during the middle ages, only to again begin to diversify at the end of the 18th century; even as late as the late 19th and early 20th centuries, occult traditions had a great deal of influence over eachother. This does not mean, however, that Wicca or any other Neopagan religion had its origins in Masonry -- it only means that Masonry was one of the more influential parts of the "occult soup" from which Neopaganism, modern-day Witchcraft, Thelema, and LaVeyan Satanism (among others) developed. Also take into account that the Freemasons were strongly influenced by Classical Paganism and Medieval Occultism, and that most of what appears to be "borrowed" from the Freemasons can be explained merely by having a common source of inspiration. --Corvun 04:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Corvun, that reference is wrong, actually 3rd-degree initiation in Wicca is based upon Aleister Crowley's ritual called "Missa Gnostica", not Freemasonry. --Jdemarcos 14:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

cleanup

I am trying to balance out this article, removing material relevant only to particular Neopagan groups. This article should only describe the Neopagan movement as a whole, and give a list of individual traditions; all details, such as Wiccan festivals etc., must go o the subarticles. At the moment, the article is seriously Wicca-centric; since we do have a Wicca article, this is unnecessary, Wicca can be discussed in all detail over there. dab (ᛏ) 14:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Just saw your changes, great job! DenisMoskowitz 23:10, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

psychologism

well, "psychologistic" is just the adjective to "psychologism", regardless of the meaning of the term. I do think "psychologism" is used correctly here, although there is a specialized meaning in arithmetics, see here, and check general use. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my connection went flaky on me yesterday before I could post to the discussion page. I found the link to the (currently non-existent) Psychologism article from this page while preparing to write an article for it. The other references in Wikipedia deal with the position in philosophy of mathematics, and so I decided that it would be less confusing if the link from this page didn't go to an article that had nothing to do with the intended use here. It's not that there is a specialized meaning in philosophy of mathematics, it's that the philosophy of mathematics meaning is the standard meaning. That's what Mill, Frege, Husserl, et al. were talking about when they wrote about psychologism. The general use google search you mention backs this up (indeed, those articles were someplace else I'd already been looking in preparing the Psychologism article). While Mill and others certainly may have intended for 'psychologism' to eventually refer to something more general, the fact is that such usage never developed (and it's probably too late to introduce it now). I edited this article so that the link would point directly to Psychologistic just in case that was a technical term from neopaganism with which I was unfamiliar, but as somebody has now created that article as a redirect to Psychologism I'm simply going to clean up the whole mess and de-link the reference in this article, rather than confuse people when they follow the link from here ("What does neopaganism have to do with philosophy of mathematics and logic?!") --Wclark 14:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I linked it to Psychology instead, since that seems to capture the intended meaning in this article just fine. --Wclark 14:48, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, SO LISTEN TO ME............................... It is incorrect to refer to the Dianic tradition founded by Zsusanna Budapest as being 'Wiccan', as Wicca embraces the god as well as the goddess in their worship. Strictly speaking, you should call it Dianic Witchcraft. This form of witchcraft tends to be popular with feminists and the lesbian community. Dianic Witchcraft allows only women to join their covens, and focuses on goddess worship and celebrating femininity and sisterhood. A lot of Wiccans consider this a rather imbalanced type of witchcraft, and also take issue with Dianic witches and their practise of black magick as well as white, which is against the Wiccan Rede. As Zsusanna Budapest lives in Texas, I imagine her religious beliefs make her a target for a fair amount of criticism from Christian fundamentalist types who tend to reside in southern American states.

JONATHAN CRANE.

eclectic AND syncretic

Slight change made to subject header. Using "or" suggested that the two words are synonomous. They aren't.

Related concepts?

Why is there a list of kinds of religious belief in this article? Shouldn't this information be in a more general article, such as "Religion" or "Belief" or "Theology"? What is specifically Neopagan in those definitions as they are shown? I don't think there is anything so specific that justifies keeping this section in the article. --Jdemarcos 14:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Other uses of the term

Pagan and neopagan are sometimes used to mean anti-religion. E.g. The Nazis were not just antisemitic but neo-pagan. I'm sure I don't have the quote exact but I heard this on the radio today on a discussion about Vatican 2. My sound card isn't working so maybe someone can go to www.kcur.org and listen to the Nov 17 Up To Date program. I always thought neopagan meant recreation of european pagan beliefs while American Indian beliefs would be just pagan. --Gbleem 18:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Kristol offers a devastating critique of the liberal Protestant organizations that have been "more keenly interested in social reform than in religious belief." Lukewarm Christianity, Kristol suggests, is more attractive to Jews because they assume, incorrectly in his view, that social-minded religious people will be less likely to produce the sort of anti-Semitism "our Jewish ancestors experienced for centuries in Europe." He thinks this is a faulty assumption because vicious anti-Semitism is not Christian anti-Semitism, but neopagan (Nazi and fascist), Muslim fundamentalist, Marxist, or "simply nationalist chauvinist anti-Semitism of a kind one now finds in Japan (of all places!) or Latin America."[1] --Gbleem 18:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

, Kertzer had done a brilliant job of refuting the self-exonerating claims made in the 1998 Vatican document "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah." The Vatican had argued that there was a sharp line separating traditional Christian anti-Judaism from Nazi racial and "neopagan" anti-Semitism.[2]--Gbleem 18:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

All of these uses are gross and improper. End of discussion. --Chèvredansante 15:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our denial of these usages will not stop them from occurring. Words, even the words we use to talk about ourselves and our own religions, do not always mean what we want them to mean; they mean whatever the majority of people believe they mean. Until such time as all of us English-speakers can agree on the meaning of "pagan," these alternate usages will continue to be relevant, because some people will continue to say "pagan" when they mean "non-religious" or "anti-religion". - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Are we talking about Bill Kristol here? I'll give it to him, he's a smart guy, but on this subject he needs to respectfully shut his mouth for his own sake - way out of his field for him to discuss. And the Nazis were just as Christian as they were "pagan". If we are to deal in polemics, see: Hitler was a Christian. As to further dignifying this usual sensationalist volley with further discussion is futile. The politics behind terms like 'heathen' and 'pagan', which originally meant roughly rural have been referenced many times in etymological and religious studies, and I don't need to preach to the choir here about them. But yeah, of course the alternate meanings are relevent - just so long as the definitions are from popular usage and not neo-con essays (or any biased view for that matter). Khirad^talk 13:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation

"Neopagan/ism" is written with a capital 'N' throughout, "Pagan/ism" is sometimes written with a capital 'P', and sometimes not - is there a reason for the capitalisation? And either way, can we get some consistency in here? TheMadBaron 15:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe neither "neopagan" nor "pagan" should be capitalised (but "Wicca" should be). —Ashley Y 12:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

depends on context I think; noun vs. adjectival form; specific vs. abstract idea, no? Khirad^talk 13:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

When I was working on Neopagan zines in the 80's and 90's, this is the convention we used, and which those of us from that era are still using in print and online works:

Pagan = A theist religion. A member of a theist, Pagan religion.
pagan = Not a member of an Abrahmic or theist religion. May be an atheist.
Neopagan = A modern Pagan religion. A member of a modern Pagan religion. (alt. form: NeoPagan)

In terms of Reconstructionism, the convention we've followed has been to capitalize it when it is part of a trad name, such as Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism (CR). Lower case is used when "reconstruction" is used to describe any act of reconstructing, but not a particular religion. IMHO, the Polytheistic reconstructionism article should have Reconstructionism capitalized, though I guess it's more in a grey area as it is not a specific tradition name, as CR is. BTW, in reference to the above section, we use "CR" for both "Celtic Reconstructionism" and "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism". Both terms are used pretty interchangeably, depending on whether the priority is brevity or the need to stress that it's a spiritual/Pagan tradition and not just an act of reconstruction. But in both cases we always use the abbreviation "CR", not "CRP". --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Gardnerian Traditional Witchcraft"

I've reverted an edit that changed a section title from simply "Wicca" to "Gardnerian Traditional Witchcraft (Wicca)". First, I do not believe that "Gardnerian Traditional Witchcraft" is in common usage; a Google search for that term turns up only about 200 hits if references to "pre-Gardnerian traditional witchcraft" are excluded. Compare this to "Wicca", which gets over three million google hits. Second, "Gardnerian Traditional Witchcraft" could be interpreted to refer only to the Gardnerian tradition of Wicca; while some people do believe that Gardnerian Wicca (or, more generally, Wicca as an initiatory mystery religion practiced in covens) is the only "real" Wicca, I don't think we should assume that in our naming of the section. Third, many people make a distinction between witchcraft (as a practice) and Wicca (as a religion), and equating Wicca with a specific variety of witchcraft begs the question against that distinction. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, but not accepted. Do we want to provide correct information or common information? If we choose the latter, then I suggest that we update the HIV/AIDS article to say that one can indeed get HIV/AIDS from a toliet seat, hmm? --Chèvredansante 23:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Futhermore, Gardner (et al) stopped using the word Wicca torwards the end of his life, as the proper etymology became clear (see [Gerald Gardner]): Wicca is a Anglo-Saxon masculine noun (Wicce the feminine) meaning necromancer, while witchcraft is the derived practice of Wiccae. In additional, Gardnerians are eclectic, generally -- to call true Gardnerianism a specific tradition shows a lack of real knowledge of the tradition. --Chèvredansante 23:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In re: HIV example, I have no idea what state that article is in, but what we should do is say "Survey x showed that y number of people believed that HIV was transmittable through toilet seats[CITE1]. Expert Z states that there is conclusive proof that this is not true[CITE2]." Jkelly 23:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I would be in favour of such wording. --Chèvredansante 23:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because Gardner may not have called it Wicca does not negate the fact that tens of thousands of people who themselves practice this religion DO call it Wicca. It is not our job as an encyclopedia to enforce a prescriptive definition. "Wicca", as it is used in this article and in Wicca (I'd like to point out here that we have no Gardnerian Traditional Witchcraft) is not an Anglo-Saxon term, but an English one. If it means something different in English than it meant in Anglo-Saxon, then it means something different in English than it did in Anglo-Saxon.

A main reason why I would be opposed to changing the title of this section is that such a change would imply that anyone who didn't accept the "Wicca = Gardnerian Traditional Witchcraft" idea wasn't really a Wiccan. I believe that in general, people's claims to belong to a religion should be taken at face value, and attempts to establish oneself as an expert authority on who is or isn't a real Wiccan seem to be no different for attempts by various fundamentalist Christian groups to define Christianity so that they are the only real Christians. If tens of thousands of people say they are Wiccans and that Wicca is thus and so, what possible grounds could we have for saying that they are wrong... and the dictionaries are wrong, and Witchvox is wrong, and the millions of webpages are wrong, and the news reports are wrong, and the teaching groups are wrong, and the Wiccan authors are wrong, and so on? - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to highlight the following passage from the official Wikipedia policy No original research: "A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas; that is:...it defines new terms; or...it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or...it introduces or uses neologisms." Also: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the better term would be British Traditional Wicca. This is the current term being used by those who are Gardnerian, Alexandrian, or within the same familial grouping. The analogy to Christians arguing over who is or isn't Christian isn't quite valid. With Christianity, you have a history going back over 2000 years. The term Wicca as a religious path, however, has only been in the public eye since Gardner first published it, which puts it in the mid 20th Century. British Traditional Wicca FAQ The term Wicca, and the variant Wica, originally referred to the initiatic priesthood that is now known as BTW. I guess I could say that the djinni is out of the bottle, and, from a descriptivist point of view, Wicca is whatever anyone wants it to be. But, then again, from a descriptivist point of view, there are a lot of vampires around, seeing how a number of people in the world call themselves that. However, historically speaking, the word Wicca as a name for religion is a neologism itself, when looked at from the scale of millennia. Query: if there is a one year-old child, and they have a newborn sibling, is the newborn not consider the younger one? Is the newborn not considered the new family member? I would suggest, as it seems the descriptivist idea is that Wicca will never mean only the initiatic version ever again, that the term British Traditional Wicca, which has been used for a number of years, come into the fray. I will be working on finding verifiable sources for the term. It's a shame that has to happen; it could be worse - you should see the flame wars over the terminology describing the Roman Catholic Church vs Catholic Church--Vidkun 14:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So, let me sum up a number of references for the use of the term British Traditional Wicca or BTW:

The general consensus among practioners of BTW seems to be that the descriptivist POV can't be changed, and, thus, when dealing with identifying to outsiders (if ever) the choice is to use the term British Traditional Wicca or BTW. --Vidkun 15:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would not be averse to editing both this article and Wicca to reflect the fact that many practitioners of traditional initiatory Wicca believe that "solitary Wicca" is so radically different from the religion established by Gardner that it shouldn't be called Wicca and, due to the widespread usage of the name "Wicca" by solitary and other non-traditional practitioners, they have adopted the term "British Traditional Witchcraft" to differentiate themselves from this movement. This is a significant and widespread POV and certainly ought to be mentioned and explained in both articles - I just don't think we ought to present it as "the truth", which is mostly what I was objecting to above. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would actually stick with British Traditional Wicca not Witchcraft and here is why: BT Witchcraft tends to be used by those who do not consider themselves Wiccan, but DO Consider themselves Witches, such as those deriving from Robert Cochrane, aka Cochranites, or 1734 Tradition, which have a very different practice (and practice not belief is the bigger hallmark of either British Traditional Craft concept) than the Wiccans. The BT Witchcraft practioners do not claim descent from either Gardner or New Forest, whereas that is a hallmark of BT Wicca. With those changes in mind, I am going to use your wording, and inject it somewhere in each article. Thanks for the well thought out phrasing!--Vidkun 15:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Some good thinking going on here. Do try to find appropriate references for the addition from the material that you compiled above. Jkelly 15:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The biggest issue for citing the information is that the BTW concept that Wicca means BTW is an opinion, and the articles I have referenced are simply personal opinion pages. However, when explaining a POV, how do we go about citing it?--Vidkun 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Using primary sources alone skirts very close to WP:NOR. It's a challenge when dealing with material which has not had much scholarly attention. For the time being I think it is safe to note that there are prominent individuals who hold this view and quote them. Jkelly 17:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"This is a combination of animism and henotheism."

Removed the following from the description of pantheism: "This is a combination of animism and henotheism." This requires a source if it is to be kept, or should be at least modified to reflect that it is conjecture on the part of the writer. I think, however, that it will not survive scrutiny. It reminds me of the popular neo-pagan habit of conflating pantheism with polytheism. Pantheism need entail no other objects of reverence beside the unity of everything existing (so it is not henotheism), and it doesn't assert the existence of spirits indwelling each physical entity or phenomenon (so it is not animism). See Michael Levine, who has established himself as the contemporary philosophical authority on the subject with his exhaustive treatise Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity. The rest of the description is crude but functional. Vorpal Suds 05:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup, revisited

I still think dab has a point, but the very nature of this subject might make it indeed impossible to ever catagorize satisfactorily. I just find things like "Wicca in particular emphasizes the role of witchcraft and ritual" in the Worship and Ritual section less than desirable, if not redundant. Also, for possible further reading, I'm not pushing this on anyone (and certainly not as 'the' book), but I think using Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon as at least a partial reference would compliment the current references. We all use what we got, not in any way passing judgement - been there myself - but the books cited are a little too niche-specific (though great as supplementary material I'm sure). And on a final note, do Discordianism, Church of the SubGenius, et al. not merit any mention here? Although; I hate to throw anything else in here to add to what could become, in theory, an endless list of over-specific Neopagan beliefs & practices. Khirad^talk 13:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe the Church of the SubGenius as neo-pagan - Discordianism might be though. DenisMoskowitz 23:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Limited geographic scope

(cross-posted on Talk:Paganism) - I am placing the {{limitedgeographicscope}} template on both this article and Paganism, and here is why. I've been re-tagging some articles from Category:Religion stubs as paganism stubs and also placing the WikiProject Neopaganism template on appropriate article talk pages, and I've had some difficulty determining whether to do this with some articles, especially the numerous articles related to syncretic African religions. I went to the Wikipedia articles on paganism and neopaganism for guidance as to the scope of these terms, and found very little. In particular, I have noticed that all of the religions on the "list of pagan religions" in Paganism and all of the traditions listed in Neopaganism are explicitly European. Neopaganism comments that "Polytheistic or animistic traditions that survived into modern times relatively untouched by Christianity and Islam, like Shinto or Hinduism are not considered pagan nor neopagan," but no explanation is given for why non-European, pre-Christian, polytheistic religions that haven't survived (or their revivals) are not included on these lists. I think that this is an important issue that merits serious discussion and deliberation. So... Are paganism and neopaganism strictly European phenomena? Are these terms used to refer to non-European religions? And should religions like Voodoo and Candomblé, both of which have been called "pagan" according to their articles, be included here? - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 06:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Paganism is a concept originally coined by Christians, and therefore it is better understood only in contrast with Christianity, particularly in the period between the 2nd and the 6th century, but also during the colonial era. Neopaganism is, however, a neologism conceived to include all NRMs that are more or less based on modern ideas about old Paganism. Most of them are actually rooted in the Romantic movement and in some branches of Occultism, and therefore the Neopaganism term should be applied only to those religions that appeared at the end of the 19th century and during the 20th century aimed at reviving or reinventing a "Pagan religion" that actually never existed as such. Therefore they are different concepts that should be applied differently and for different entries. --Jdemarcos 20:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Reconstructionist groups

Considering that the length of this entry is already very long, how should we deal with references to the specific recon groups who already have their own entries? Much of what is currently in the article discussing them is redundant.WeniWidiWiki 19:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

We could condense it to a general description of Polytheistic reconstructionism and a list of recon traditions by culture... - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 06:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! WeniWidiWiki 07:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of naming conventions

A discussion of usage and capitalization/hyphenation conventions for the terms N/neo(-)P/pagan and P/pagan is ongoing on the WikiProject talk page. Contributors to this article will likely be interested in participating. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Santeria, Lucumi et al

"Here, the Orishas of the West African Yoruba people lived on behind the masks of Catholic saints. Yemaya, Goddess of the Sea, Terrible Mother, became the Virgin Mary. Chango, a fierce God who loves tribute made of iron and steel, became Santa Barbara, to whom Spanish soldiers also prayed in times of war. And so on." Does anyone have a source or traditional teaching about Yemaya as "Terrible Mother" and Chango (Kabio Sile) "loving tributes made of iron and steel"? I don't recall hearing the former, and the latter, while plausible, sounds more like Ogun. I realize there's a great deal of variation from house to house and branch to branch, but I'd like to know the original source on this, just to make sure. Kathryn NicDhàna 20:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC) (aleyo, but with a bit of background in Lucumi and other Afro-Carribean trads)

The prose is a bit... um, exoticizing to boot. Jkelly 20:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Kathryn NicDhàna 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked the section to hopefully be a bit more accurate and neutral. Kathryn NicDhàna 22:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wicca

The summary here previous to my recent edit largely consisted of theories about Gardner's inspirations and a lengthy discussion of the differences and friction between Trad and Eclectic Craft. I swapped that out with a summary of the WP:LEAD of Wicca. Ideally our brief summary at this article should not be a content fork of our main article. The "traditions" we are listing stike me as needing review. Jkelly 21:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Related theological concepts

I'm really not sure these belong in this article. These topics certainly deserve to be on Wikipedia, but I'm thinking an article on NeoPaganism doesn't really need a section on Monotheism. I think this entire section could either be eliminated, or reduced to a paragraph or two that discusses which of these theologies are relevant to NeoPaganism and then links to pages on the theologies themselves. Kathryn NicDhàna 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Willing to give a pithy summary a shot? We're trying to do too much here. Jkelly 22:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I Agree with Kathryn NicDhàna. While I can understand the intent, perhaps the concepts should just be listed under See also - or not at all. WeniWidiWiki 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have renamed the section Complementary and Contrasting Theological Concepts, moved it to the end, and reduced it to a list of links to other Wikipedia pages. I still think the article would do fine to have the section deleted entirely, as if these links are truly relevant to the article they should already be linked within the main text. Kathryn NicDhàna 22:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and religion

There seems to be a large amount of vegetarians within the neopagan community and I would like to request some help adding neopaganism to Vegetarianism and religion. If anyone here is interested in helping please let me know. Thanks - Solar 09:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Added Thraco-Dacian paganism

I considered necessaryly to add it.

Paganism v. Neopaganism

Whereas the term "Neopaganism" may be popular in the USA, it is almost never used by practitioners in the UK - where the movement began - who use the term "Paganism". TharkunColl 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

really? I'm a practitioner in the UK, and I always make the distinction between the original, pre-christian "Paganism" and the post-christian version I practice, "NeoPaganism". --Krsont 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But I am also a practioner, and I never use the term "neo-pagan" except when e.g. comparing ancient and current beliefs or practises. Seems that there are as many ideas about (neo) Paganism as there are Pagans. Totnesmartin 23:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Eco-magic/Eco-paganism

I apologise if I've trodden on anyone's toes with my recent edits, re citation, verifiability etc. In particular, I'd love to find a reference for

Described as 'The Ecology Party at prayer' (Hutton)

as Hutton is an excellent and reliable commentator. I've no personal doubt as to its veracity, but I've not been able to find it in his published work. Anyone step to the plate?

History

First sentence of the second paragraph in History section: "These trends of pagan revival reached Germany in the late 19th century Völkisch movement, which was to become one of the main roots of 20th century Neopaganism."

Thoughts on this, anyone? I don't agree, but would like to hear what others think. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It needs attribution. Who argues this? Jkelly 22:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who put it into the article. I have heard this sort of thing argued by those who want to link the modern Pagan/Neopagan movement with the Nazi party, but not by anyone I know of who has done academic studies of the Pagan community. Then again, most of the studies I'm aware of are American. It may be different in Europe. If it's valid and attributable, we should include it. But if not, I think it's biased. --Kathryn NicDhàna 19:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It is documented that some people linked to the Völkisch movement supported the birth of the NSDAP, such as the Thule Society. Some modern-day Neo-Nazis are, or claim to be, Pagans, usually of the Odinist variety. Even today, some German non-Christian religious organizations which find their roots in the Völkisch movement, such as the Free Religious Fellowship (Religious Humanists) or the German Unitarians, are occasionally labeled as "Neo-Nazis" by some Nazi-chasers([3] (in German).

On the other hand, most Pagan groups in Europe tend to be nationalistic and socially conservative, although not necessarily with far-right leanings. Likewise some outspoken sectors of the French nationalist-populist Nouvelle Droite reclaims a return to polytheism and reject Christian morality, such as the GRECE association, founded by far--right French philosopher Alain de Benoist. --Jdemarcos 01:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Murray

We can't use Hutton as a reference for most of this discussion of Murray, because Hutton doesn't actually say much of this. Where does Hutton say that Murray's primary mistake was relying too much on the similarity of confessions? Where does Hutton claim that covens based on Murray existed before Gardner? Jkelly 21:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does Hutton claim that covens based on Murray existed before Gardner? It's been a while since I read the book, but doesn't Hutton argue the opposite of this? Not sure where the idea of pre-Gardnerian covens is coming from, unless there were some associated with Leland. Never heard of any having been documented however.Dinoguy2 01:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I originally put the cite correctly within the paragraph (see history), but then mistakenly moved it to the end of the paragraph. The information about Murray's reputation can be found in Hutton. I have no idea where the Murray coven stuff comes from either - I'm not sure who put it in here, so without a cite, I'm going to remove the information. Dinoguy and Jkelly are correct.

I'm sorry, but that really doesn't help much either. Just putting an author's name and year of publication doesn't give us much information on which to verify a claim. Please give us a page number, then it is a good cite.--Vidkun 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Neopaganism is an Americanism

In the UK, these groups just call themselves Pagan. Please address this somehow in the article. TharkunColl 23:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, TharkunColl. While Neopagan does seem to be less common (according to my UK sources, both scholarly and Pagan), it is still extant in the UK community. Justin Eiler 19:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

it isn't an "Americanism", it is an "intelligenzia-ism". it isn't a question of what the individual groups subsumed here call themselves, it is about the proper term that does subsume all of them. "Pagan" includes ancient and tribal paganism and is thus clearly a superset of the scope of this article. INn an exact parallel, the Neoplatonists did call themselves just "Platonists", but they are still referred to as "Neoplatonists" because it would be too misleading to use "Platonists" for them as well as for the 'original' Platonists. dab (ᛏ) 19:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As both a sometimes-Neopagan, and at least an amateur scholar, I must agree with Dbachman--we tend to be a pretentious lot, and we like our fancy words. :) Justin Eiler 19:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

suggest merge with paganism

A lot of the same ground is covered on both pages.

I'm not against there being two pages, this one for modern interpretations of paganism (such as wicca), and paganism for a presentation of historical sources related to pre-christian beliefs, but at the moment those two different (though related) subjects are dealt with in both pages.

But I'm no expert, so whaddaya think? --User24 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, User24. I personally would copnsider such a merger to be ill-advised. While I agree that both movements are "related," the differences between Paganism and Neopaganism (and the radical differences between the contexts in which the two formed) render them different enough to require separate listings. If they were merged, there would be far more "contrast" than "comparison, as there is very little actual overlap between the two movements (or the two articles). Justin Eiler 19:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am also against a merge. Though the terms are used interchangeably by many contemporary, self-described Pagans or Neopagans, there *is* a difference in the meaning of the words themselves. There are many Neopagan traditions that would not fit into an article on living Pagan traditions. And though many people may argue which term they prefer as a self-identifier, I think we need to stick with the more technical definitions, while acknowldeging the self-identification factors. If nothing else, the Neopagan article is already very long. Any attempt to combine them, plus the additional verbiage needed to explain differences periodically, would make the resulting hybrid well beyond Wiki guidelines for article size and very difficult for newcomers to absorb and edit properly. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks to both of you for replying. I think that you've both misunderstood me a little though. I agree that one page trying to cover both topics would be too long, and that the two topics are sufficiently different to warrent separate pages, but at the moment, the two pages try to do just what you think I'm suggesting.

What I actually am suggesting is that the 'neopagan' content from paganism should be moved to neopaganism, and the 'pagan' content from neopaganism should be moved to paganism. This will reduce the size of each page, reduce repeated content and make the distinction between the two topics clearer.

The current situation is that both pages cover both topics, not that each page covers it's own topic. I hope I've explained that well enough. --User24 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh! (Now I feel silly. :) ) What you're talking about isn't want I understand as a "merge," but now I understand where you're coming from.

However, I'm afraid I don't see the issue. Yes, the Paganism article has brief coverage of Neo-Paganism ... but that's understandable, as neopaganism is a subset. It would be just like the article on Christianity having a brief section on Catholicism. I just don't see enough overlap. However, I only gave the articles a brief scan today looking for overlap--if there's a specific section you're concerned about, can you give an excerpt here? Justin Eiler 23:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've read each page more deeply and there isn't as much overlap as I thought. There still is some, but perhaps not enough to matter. I do think that 'discordianism' should be moved from the 'pagan religions' section of paganism to neopaganism though. Also the 'neopaganism' section of paganism could stand to be reduced/merged. The neopaganism page seems to stick to it's topic well.

also, you're right, it's not a merge I was suggesting - what is it though? cleanup? :-) --User24 23:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We need a template for, "It has been suggested that this article be Sorted Out." I could use that all sorts of places. *grin* Seriously, though - could you "cross-post" your concerns about differentiating these two articles to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism? We still have a ways to go at figuring out what paganism and neopaganism are, how they are different, how various (neo)pagan religions should be categorized, whether we should use "neopagan" to refer to groups that are neopagan by definition but emphatically prefer the term "pagan", how all of this should be capitalized, and so on. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would, but under what section? There's quite a lot of talk on that page about the same sort of concern (Paganism vs Neopaganism); should I just dive in to that debate or start a new topic? (I think the latter would be rather redundant.) --User24 13:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Shall we retitle Christianity to Proto-post-Christian? The connection with paganism is an assertion of neopaganism that needs to be discussed thoroughly enough at this article that the reader will understand the differences.--Wetman 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Paganism currently has a section on Neopaganism, and points to this page from the top. I think this is appropriate. Both pages have something to say about the other, but exhaustive coverage of each topic should be reserved for its own page, with a summary of the other and pointer to the full article. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Link Proposal for Witches Voice

The Witches Voice is the largest and best known Pagan networking site in the US, and possibly the world, and is deserving of inclusion in the External Links section. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

i second that, even though I feel the urge to yell "US is not everyone" (I'm from the UK) --User24 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Witchvox covers the UK pretty extensively as well, IIRC.Dinoguy2 03:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Witch century?

The 4th and 5th paragraphs conflicted in whether Neopaganism's roots were in the 18th or 19th centuries. I changed the 4th paragraph to 19th, but have no real surety that I was right... --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 12:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Appiah?

from Syncretic and Eclectic

Eclectic pagans make up a good portion of the Open Source Spirituality movement. Rather then viewing culture and tradition as static, some eclectic pagans frame their experience in the belief that human culture is constantly evolving, with elements of some cultures merging with others in a process of hybridity (Appiah, 2006).

Was that intended as a reference? Was it a ref to Kwame Anthony Appiah? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 03:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the reference is in the Reference section at the bottom: #

Kwame Anthony Appiah, 2006. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.

OrionK 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

then it needs to be reformatted as an actual ref tag, rather than a simple plain-text comment. I will do it. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 06:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation tag in Wiccan section

Why is this here? This is all rather obvious. :bloodofox: 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All? There's a lot that wouldn't be obvious to someone coming across the topic for the first time. Totnesmartin 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the following section needs reliable sources:

Wicca is not a continuation or reconstruction of any known prior form of paganism, but instead a mixture of various elements of a number of often unrelated, pre-Christian forms of paganism, mixed with turn of the century romanticism and occultism, espousing views of dualism and universalism.

Quite a bit of what is written here may in fact be true, but is it verifiable?--Vidkun 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How should we tone this? I think it should stated, as the way it was worded before insinuates that there is some sort of tradtional basis for the religion. I would refer to the blending of distant source without basis of ethnicity as a form of universalism, wouldn't you? :bloodofox: 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The map

I have removed the recently-added map of "nodes of Neopaganism". While I appreciate the effort that went into making the graphic, there are a number of problems with it.

It is inappropriate to represent non-Wiccan traditions with the pentacle.
There would have to be agreement here on the talk page that it is even accurate, and the data indicated in the map would have to be sourced. As it is, it seems like Original Research.
Some of the tradition names, such as "Peyotism", seem to be based on opinion rather than verifiable data from the traditions being called such.
It only covers a small number of traditions, and many of the "centers" of traditions seem either arbitrary or inaccurate. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nazi neopaganism

I am suprised that there is nothing here about the attempts to start a neopagan religion in Nazi Germany - or is this dealt with at another article? Adam 00:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Look here. The National Socialists were very much against neopaganism and perceived it as a threat to the state. - WeniWidiWiki 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked that passage. It seems very POV to me, suggesting a clear oppositional relationship between the Nazis and neopaganism. In fact senior Nazis like Himmler, Rosenberg and Darre were active neopaganists, and Himmler sponsored a neopagan cult within the SS. (Evans, The Third Reich in Power, 251). Adam 01:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all properly sourced. This is one of the things that people continue to debate about, even though modern research has pretty much refuted it. Neopaganist is not a word - I'd be interested in having the exact quote you are talking about. The NS were co-opting neo-pagan religions and occult symbolism and twisting them into a new religion which was comprised of veneration of the state and fuhrer - but they were not neo-pagan. They sent neo-pagans to the camps and publicly and privately mocked and persecuted them and their beliefs. Probably should move this over to Germanic neopaganism - also see Germanic mysticism. - WeniWidiWiki 01:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The passage in Evans is several pages long and I'm not going to retype it here. The book is easy to find. Modern research has not refuted the strength of neopaganism among a section of senior Nazis, including Himmler, the second most powerrul man in Nazi Germany. The views of Rosenberg and Darre are well documented, and there was certainly official neopaganism within the SS. The fact that other people who called themselves neopaganists or whatever were persecuted doesn't alter that fact. Adam 03:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're not going to retype it in its entirety here (which I have no problem with), how about some quotes illustrating your assertion, at least?--Vidkun 00:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I can provide one:

A more consistently paganist in the Nazi elite was the Party's agricultural expert Richard Walther Darré, whose ideology of 'blood and soil' made such a powerful impression on Heinrich Himmler. Darré believed that the medieval Teutons had been foisted on them by the effete Latins from Southern Europe. Himmler in his turn abandoned his early Christian faith under Darré's influence. In Himmler's plans for the SS after 1933, the black-shirted racial elite was to become a kind of quasi-religious order, modelled to some extent on the Jesuits. The ideas that were to cement it together were drawn from supposed Germanic pagan rituals and beliefs of the Dark Ages... These were to be a mixture of bits of Viking or Teutonic pagan religion with Wagnerian symbols and pure invention. (Evans, pp. 251-252).

--jofframes 10:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You are free to edit as you see fit, but be aware that it is a controversial issue. - WeniWidiWiki 03:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)