Talk:Odinism

Odinism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

untitled comments

My anti-virus software blocks this site, http://www.askrsvarte.org/eng as a malicious site.--Heathenguy (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then sorry, but your anti-virus software is incorrect. I can only suggest you report the link to the manufacturer of the software and ask them to look into it for you if you do not want to unblock it for obvious reasons. But it is legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The site is in Russia and does set off malware alerts. If it is your site, why do you not move it or fix it, since anyone clicking on it in the West at least cannot read it since our anti-virus programs block it. --Heathenguy (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is your settings that are incorrect, we don't need to chance anything. And it is in English too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.230.125 (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of name

This article states it was coined in 1848, however, it appears in 1840 in Heroes and Hero Worship by Thomas Carlyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.100 (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 1822 now. Updated article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.100 (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism here

Enric Naval, thank you for correcting the vandalism of an anonymous editor. --ThorLives (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review tool and comments on the contents of the article

I attempted to do a peer review using the peer review tool and received an error ( Missing page text on Odinism&lang=en) I thought its a protected page of sorts but when clicking the edit option I don't get a warning stating that its protected? I forgot how to check for that. I also just wanted to share my thoughts on the article contents. I came to this article curious to learn more about about this faith and maybe its me but I am not getting much from this or maybe it is that I just don't completely understand it. There are many sentences that appear to be a bit vague. Using terms like "may or may not" "seem to be" leave me with many questions regarding this topic. I wished this had more information about exactly what this faith consists of. There has got to be more to it than this. Any thoughts? Tattoodwaitress (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should this article become a redirect to Heathenry (new religious movement)?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Basic point: Should this article become a redirect that carries the reader directly to Heathenry (new religious movement)? 21:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wider explanation: This article is devoted to Odinism, which is a term that a minority of practitioners of the modern Pagan religion of Heathenry prefer to use in reference to their religion. As it stands, this article is in an absolutely terrible state. It consists almost entirely of material that is not-referenced, material that is cited to non-reliable, primary and self-published sources, and material on pre-Christian belief systems which are being used to bolster claims about this new religious movement. The latter has been placed there by practitioners of the religious movement in question, and reflects their own belief that the modern religion really is a direct continuation of the extinct belief system; this is not a position supported in the academic literature on either pre-Christian belief systems among the Germanic peoples or on the modern Pagan religion, and thus it is being used to simply un-critically promote an Odinist (or one Odinist's) view about their religion. Accordingly, all of this material absolutely has to be deleted.

As it stands, the vast majority of this article was written by User:ThorLives, and is currently being stubbornly defended from deletion by User:Holtj, who is engaging in Edit Warring in order to do so. ThorLives is currently the subject of a debated Topic Ban here as a result of their longstanding Disruptive Editing to Heathenry-themed articles, and there is also a Sock Puppet investigation here examining whether ThorLives and Holtj are one and the same individual. As User:Snowded pointed out over at Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement), ThorLives simply developed the Odinism article as a Coatrack to present the Heathen religion (to which they belonged) in a manner of their choosing; they did so after myself and other editors put a stop to their disruptive editing over at the Heathenry article itself. It was made abundantly clear to ThorLives in the discussions at that page that the quality of their contributions was sub-par and in contravention of Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy, however they used exactly the same sources (and lack of them) when expanding the Odinism article too. Textbook disruptive editing.

It is undeniable that the improperly referenced material should be removed and that Holtj should desist from re-adding it in their desire to preserve ThorLives' (poor quality) contributions. However, if that is removed then there is basically nothing left of the article except a few passages that duplicate what is already said over at the Heathenry article. Given this, as well as the fact that "Odinism" is essentially a partial synonym for Heathenry, and indeed that the Odinism article was originally created as a redirect to start with, I believe that this article should be converted into a redirect to Heathenry (new religious movement). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

!Voting

Keep - I came here via Legobot. You point out some worrying things, but I do think it should be separate from Heathenry though. I don't know about the other Norse heathenry pages. I have watchlisted it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason do you believe that it should be kept separate, DreamGuy? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per comments above. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC
KEEP AS SEPARATE article. The Heathenry (new religious movement) needs a rewrite, however. As the talk page notes, Heathenry article is based on one book by Jennifer Snook. Her book calls female Norse pagans "overweight" and Valhalla "crap." --Holtj (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this editor's comment. They were abusively sock puppeting at the time of their posting in their attempt to avoid Topic Ban proceedings. To allow their comment to stand would be to endorse, or at least accept, their actions, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and make it a redirect ~~Keep, pending peer review~~ - The article needs a severe copy-edit in some places, but why throw the article away when it is salvageable, with some effort? Bot-summoned; Cheers Drcrazy102 (talk); updated 00:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every time that I tried to conduct a copy edit, all of my edits were reverted by Holtj, who is probably a sock puppet of ThorLives. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are welcome here, but the individual above tried to "blank" the entire article. I think that was "copy editing" in Stalinist days. --Holtj (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drcrazy102: Given that the peer review discussion has simply resulted in the majority of the article being removed as problematic, would you consider changing your opinion on keeping this article? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content and redirect to Heathenry (new religious movement). Summoned by bot. After reading both this page and heathenry, it's clear that the latter is well written, probably with appropriate editorial oversight, and that Odinism is described there. This article is a mess by comparison and there's no reason for its existence beyond POV forking. -Darouet (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: We are four days short of this RfC having been open for a month. We have three votes for converting this article into a redirect, and two for keeping it as a distinct article; however one of those expressing the latter view (@Drcrazy102:) only expressed support for it being kept pending peer review; that peer review had now been and gone. There's a slim majority in favour of deleting and turning this article into a redirect at present, but no clear consensus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clear now its a redirect and delete - I think unless there are objections that can now take place?----Snowded ^TALK 06:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; it's been a month, and there's a clear majority here (and thus something approaching consensus). Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, a similar RfC is going on here, which might interest some of those who have expressed opinions here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month; there's a clear majority in favour of deleting the article and redirecting it. I shall go ahead and implement this course of action. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

Comments by Holtj

I want to thank editors for the help here. One person has tried to blank this article. See article history. --Holtj (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CHECK THE EDITS OF THORLIVES. HE IS A PHD WHO LEFT WIKIPEDIA BECUASE OF THE ENDLESS ATTACKS OF THE PERSON ABOVE. --Holtj (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC) (Moved by Drcrazy102 (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Comment from an Odinist

Being an Odinist I appreciate the fact that some people, mainly those who do not know or understand the religion have an axe to grind. The Christians with their fading religion are quick to attack and various nefarious types are fond of trying to undermine a religion that, if left alone, is happy to return that favour. We have no interest in the bickering of the Abrahamics nor in their repeated attempts to dispute, denigrate or label us. Of course most of what is written is written by Odinists. Was not the Bible written by Christians? The Torah by Jews and the Koran etc by Muslims (at least in name) Which person here is so well versed in Odinism that they know more than those involved? Heathenry is not a religion. Heathenry is a blanket term used by those who would do well to educate themselves to cover a number of Pagan religions including Odinism. Apologies if this is not in the correct place. I do not usually add to these discussions. Editors please move to a more suitable location if required. - 94.15.207.69

I've moved your comment into its own separate section, 94.15.207.69, rather than have it clog up the above discussion. To answer some of your concerns, I should make it clear that Wikipedia relies on attaining its information from what it calls "Reliable Sources". For instance, we would use the writings of religious studies scholars, anthropologists, and historians who have studied the modern Heathen movement to bolster any claims that we make here at Wikipedia, rather than the self-published writings of various Heathen practitioners themselves. As I'm sure that you'll appreciate, practitioners often have very clear "insider" agendas: they sometimes believe that theirs is the one true faith, they often seek to propagate their faith to their readers, to present it in an overwhelmingly positive light, or they seek to denigrate different sects and denominations with whom they have disagreements. For instance, were a devout, non-academic Catholic to write a book on Christianity, we could expect it to proselytise, whitewash the faith, and come from a strong Catholic perspective that ignores the vast variation and divergence of belief and praxes that exists within the religion. The writings of the religious on their own religions are thus not always particularly reliable for our purposes. While academics (as human beings and sometimes as religious practitioners themselves) are not perfect either, we go by the rule that – given their proven expertise, their knowledge of scholarly standards, and the process of peer review that their publications receive – their writings are reliable in a way that insider publications aren't. Odinism and Heathenry aren't being singled out here; exactly the same rules would apply to articles on Christianity, Islam, or secular humanism. There is no special privilege given to any particular religion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out in the Heathenry (New religious movement) talk page, the sources used for that page are written by pagan academics. Jennifer Snook, whose book is horrible, is an ex-witch who now associates with the Troth. The sources used on the Odinism page (48 books!), however, are diverse. --Holtj (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are diverse, that doesn't make them reliable or appropriately used. You know that Holtj/ThorLives. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Uses About FORTY-EIGHT books, the Heathenry article really only uses FIVE.

The present article uses dozens of references; Heathenry (new religious movement) needs work. According to the heathenry talk page, virtually all citations there are drawn from one book by Jennifer Snook --Holtj (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC) --Holtj (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense. This claim – made previously by User:ThorLives – has already been dismissed over at Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement). Any editor can go and check the history of that article for themselves. Moreover, Holtj should be well aware that it is not just about the number of references, but the quality of references, as specified in WP:Identifying reliable sources; the quality of the referencing that ThorLives and Holtj have used in this article on Odinism leaves much to be desired. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appalling Rhetoric in the Heathenry (New religious movement) Article

These are essentially ALL the references to Odinism in the Heathenry (new religious movement) article. To merge the Odinism article with this hate article would be an offense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Holtj (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holtj has also posted this comment, which is brimming with nonsense, to Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement). It is being dealt with there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to Professor Mattias Gardell, some see "Odinism as revolving around the primacy of race and Asatrú serving as its nonracial counterpart," but "in reality" there "seems to be no such neat division," and many "self-defined Asatrúers" are "centered on race."^[1]

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

--Holtj (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't read or comprehended Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Neutrality on Wikipedia means fairly representing all reliable sources, not throwing in non-reliable sources (i.e. primary sources from Odinist writers) to counter-balance claims made in the reliable sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mattias Gardell. Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism. Duke University Press. 2003. p. 152.

Peer review

Does anyone mind if I start a peer review request to help the article's content be improved? This is a "show of hands" vote so don't be silent about voting. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, but I think you would be better making small changes to the original article. This is a coatrack article from a self-confessed meat puppet farm. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowded, while I can appreciate, and typically follow, the philosophy of edit the article and then create focus group discussions, I don't think that would help very much at this point mainly because, allegedly, editors have tried that approach and been rebuked for right or wrong reasons. Hence the suggestion of peer reviewing the article's content as that allows for clear consensus to be made and finds most (if not, all) of the errors, little and big, of an article. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If no one responds I will assume silent consensus is agreed with me, and I will proceed with requesting a peer review in 24 hours. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to the possibility of a peer review, however anyone conducting such a review has to be made aware of the vast history of disruptive editing that underlies the expansion of this page. This article is, as Snowded pointed out, a Coatrack largely created by ThorLives and Holtj (who are probably one and the same user, but claiming to be father and son); he/they consistently use non-reliable, primary sources and are basically engaging in WP:Advocacy to promote the religion in question. Previous attempts to remove their non-reliable additions are met with edit warring, making the whole process of trying to improve the article according to Wikipedia standards rather frustrating. Given that we have a lack of reliable academic sources that deal with "Odinism" as a distinct phenomenon from the wider Heathen movement, I still favour this page being converted into a redirect that takes the reader to Heathenry (new religious movement). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Created and maintained by a sock farm - have nominated it for speedy delete not that the socking is proved and the socks banned. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Mattias Gardell. Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism. Duke University Press. 2003. p. 152.

[1]