Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive of discussion from before WP:WPN's inception through to mid-February 2006.

The Frosts

Not to be a dick, but do you really think the Frost's should have pages?

Mmm.. then again, I suppose I am being a dick. Oh well. It happens. I'm just part of the majority that despise them, that's all.

Search4Lancer 10:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments expressed here, as the works published by the Frosts contain a lot of blatantly fictional statements alongside the factual... but we cannot dispute that they are influential people.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Tough articles to write and maintain, but they clearly meet WP:BIO. Jkelly 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a Tall Order

i just want to say, thanks for attempting to NPOV the neopagan topics. that seems to me as though it would practically have to be a crusade. Whateley23 02:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunate word choice. Jkelly 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but the idea itself is somewhat entertaining to consider- a 'neopagan crusade' in the mediæval sense of the term 'crusade'? Entirely amusing, really.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Help is at hand

I would be happy to help with your projects, I have been a practicing Wiccan since 1995 and am co-founder of the Moon River Tradition in the uk wher i live.

as an aside one wiccan/pagan author who doesn't get nearly enough credit is Cassandra Easson. she has written over 70 books and is huge in sweaden but lives in the uk I.O.W she is a fabulous lady ( and I got a mention in one of her books , so i might be a little bit biased!) *grin* but she is non the less a talented lady,

email me if you would like a list of her books or any more info.

info (at) moonriverwicca (dot) co (dot) uk

AmethystTygerMoon 10:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Info on Cassandra Eason

Books: Ancient Egyptian Magic: Classic Healing and Ritual for the 21st Century,

A Complete guide to divination,

A Practical Guide to Witchcraft and Magick Spells,

Every Woman a Witch,

Complete Guide to Night Magic,

10 Steps to Psychic Power,

Complete guide to psychic developement,

Modern Day Druidess,

Aura Reading,

Psychic Protection Lifts the Spirit,

Complete guide to Magic and Ritual,

Complete Book of Spells,

Crystal Healing Essentials,

Magic Spells for a Happy Life,

Smudging and Incense Burning,

The Illustrated Directory of Healing Crystals,

Tarot Talks to The Woman Within,

Psychic Suburbia,

Psychic Power of Children,

Modern Book of Dream Interpretation,

Discover Your Past Lives,

Chakra Power,

Contact Your Spirit Guides To Enrich Your Life,

There are loads more, but these are the ones on my book shelf at the mo!

Amethyst TygerMoon 10:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Amethyst TygerMoon

Some more useful data for whomever wants to write the biog. article for Ms. Eason-

her main website

her brief autobiographical page

her list of published works, including translations into other languages

Hope this helps a bit.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Serendipity

I was just going through the WikiProjects the other day, contemplating if I had the time to create something like this, and marveling that it didn't exist yet...and here it is! My reason for wanting something like this is obviously to increase the coverage/improve the NPOV and quality of our neopagan articles, but also so we can catch things like New Order of Druids and Traditions Magazine, which I suspect is more self-promotional cruft with interlocking nn-bios. More later... -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Straif's introduction

Like nae'blis, I thought that a project like this is needed, but I don't think I have enough wikipedia experience to have taken on the task. And I certainly don't want anything resembling a leadership position when neopagans are involved. I think I can contribute on the druid (I'm an OBODie) parts and I have an interest in Welsh myth. I believe that historical accuracy and academic honesty are extremely important. For example, if discussing a deity from the Mabinogion, a distinction should be made (with good secondary sources to back it up) from the original stories and more modern contributions (Iolo Morganwg and Robert Graves come to mind). But it should also stay NPOV--neither one is necessarily more important or better than the other, but they are different. Also, I have connections in an Interlibrary loan department at a college. In other words, I have access to just about every book at most of the public and university libraries in the US. Actually, most people do (or their country's equivalent). Befriending a librarian doesn't hurt. Anyway, I can probably help with citations. And I've had too much coffee and am starting to babble. -- Straif 14:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Redone task list

I've added some new sections to the task list - feel free to add new articles any time. I bolded a couple of articles that seemed especially urgent due to high visibility. If you take care of one of the tasks on the list to the point where it doesn't need to be listed any more, go ahead and add it to the "tasks from the past" list at the bottom of the page. Also, please tag any stubs you find on pagan/neopagan topics with the new {{paganism-stub}}. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 05:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Do past nominations for deletion need to be striked? it makes them hard to read. I think If they werent under a seperate heading (and annotated) I would understand, but it just kinda seems redundant. Also why don't they go under ==Tasks From the Past==  ?

--Phoenix9 01:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds plausible. I'll go fix it up. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 05:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of Neopagan

The subject of consistent and standard use of the term "Neopagan" on Wikipedia came up and I was wondering about people's opinions on this. This was my reasoning on dab's talk page:

Convention on this is probably confusing because of the usage in Roman writing to refer to all non-Roman religions as pagan. And that is the general usage of the term, particularly in relation to the Catholic or other Christian denominations.

However, modern usage in reference to Neopaganism is to capitalize it. It is not a general term in modern usage, it applies to a specific grouping of religions. For example, New Age is generally capitalized because, despite the variety of spiritual and religious paths encompassed, it refers to a rather specific community as well as a group of attitudes.

By some extension, pagan is sometimes properly capitalized if it's referring to specific grouping. Referring to Hellenic Paganism, my impulse would be to capitalize it because it is a specifically delineated group with certain religious commonalities. While not a organized religion or denomination per se, it would still fall under the grouping of a specific collection of beliefs.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure capitalizing Neopagan or Neopaganism is a relatively uncontroversial application of rules of English capitalization but let me see if I can get some input elsewhere. I agree that it should be standardized one way.

It's also Wikipedia convention to capitalize Neopagan although I couldn't tell you if that is written in stone or guidelines somewhere. Also, Margot Adler's book Drawing Down the Moon also explicitly applies [capitalization] as a convention in her footnote on the first page of the first chapter.

dab's concern was over the usage in the following articles: Germanic neopaganism, Baltic neopaganism, Hellenic neopaganism, Slavic neopaganism, Finnish neopaganism and Celtic Neopaganism among others. I've see a few variations (NeoPagan, Neo-Pagan, Neo-pagan all have fans) but the one that makes the most sense to me also seems to be the commonest: "Neopagan". "neopagan" with lower case feels like a non-starter for reasons I outlined above but I'd pay attention if people said otherwise. A version of this discussion happened here some time ago but I want to recheck on opinions because there was no firm consensus. Thoughts? Pigman^what?/trail 21:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The convention in this article, and in most articles on WP, is to capitalize Pagan and Neopagan when referring to religions. Lowercase is reserved for talking about "an irreligious person". The last time we had this debate, consensus was to go with this convention. We explain it in the Neopaganism article, and I sourced it to Adler. I'm assuming no one came along and removed that since I last looked; they shouldn't have, as it's sourced text and reflects consensus. Unfortunately, in his additions to these articles, creation of new articles and renaming of others, Dab has been ignoring both the convention, sources and consensus. He puts a lot of time into the articles, but it is frustrating the way he is proceeding against consensus and sources in these areas, and using up a lot of editors' time as we have to explain to him repeatedly that he can't just change it because he prefers it that way. I would like to see more editors working on this, so he gets the point. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When refering to religions is is Wikipedia standard to capitalise the name of the religion and it's adherents, right? // Liftarn

the problem is that "Neopaganism" isn't "a religion". Its a huge umbrella term, rather like "Abrahamic religions" etc. Actual denominations should of course be capitalized, viz. Wicca, Neo-Druidism, Asatru, Forn Sed, etc. The spelling "Neopaganism" is a bit like the spelling "Abrahamic Religions". Both are arguable, but they strike me as a bit of cheesy or pompous. We Like Capitals. Not a big deal. I do not object to capitalised spelling. In fact, I would prefer the hyphenated spelling Neo-Paganism. But I am not going to invest time in campaigning about this. Can I just ask you to please, please decide on something and then implement it universally, not just for the article you happen to care most about? And ideally also record the consensus on whatever spelling you end up endorsing on this page so that we have a guideline to point to? thanks, dab (𒁳) 08:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was my purpose in posting here about it, dab. But, barring objections, I'll standardise to Neopagan in the articles you mentioned above and any others I can find. I'll move them now. Pigman^what?/trail 05:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

that's right, you did well. thanks, dab (𒁳) 10:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the capitalization of the term "pagan" and "neopagan," always keep in mind the original purpose of the terms thereof. The term "pagan" refers to customs that pertained to non-Hebrew spirituality whole "neopagan" regards the override of all pagan worship due to the absense of Hebrew authority as defined by the Roman Catholic Church asd all of Christianity. The term "pagan" and "neopagan" should not be capitalized without any regard to religious faith. The world's relgions deserves recognizion, and to capitalize the terms "pagan" and "neopagan" would only deteriorate the religions at hand. Please respect the rights of the world's religions before you finalize the capitalization of these two words. Mew Xacata (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Mew Xacata

I wrote on this (and what else I thought I saw asked) below and then saw your posts. Nevertheless, I agree capitalization should probably be done 'because everyone is doing it'--it is just how all articles are named in at least their first letter. Maybe I did nore than imply why i consider that at least unaesthetic. Most of the terms Pigman mentioned have single-word terms--esp. if you ask a native speaker, AFAIK. Some may not like such topics or may be hard to find, but it seems enough terms exist to not have to do unaesthetic parts of modern syntax so much--whether one does not like mixed case in extra words or considers excess capitalization excess. --Dchmelik (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti-pagan vandalism

I checked my watchlist this morning and was disturbed to find this edit to Pagan Pride, accusing Pagan Pride of involvement with animal sacrifice, child sexual abuse, and bestiality involving children. The edit had been up for six and a half hours before I reverted it, probably because the editor had made two innocuous changes in an earlier paragraph (to fool RC patrollers). I wouldn't expect to see more from this editor, but please keep an eye out for further vandalism to project-related articles. Thanks. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the vandal's earlier edits in their contribs (one contrib only) or the article's edit history. Totnesmartin 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There were no earlier edits - it's one edit that includes both innocuous changes (fundraiser -> fund raiser) and vandalism. Sorry for the confusion. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 22:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, I'm always confused on a Monday. Totnesmartin 22:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-pagan vandalism either results in anti-Christian vantalism or is caused by such ativity. All vandalism is a crime (felony), for it is the damage of property. Religion is property, nd for neopagan property to be defaced means the defacement of all religious property. Although there would be nothing said about the neopagan variety, the vandalism thereof counts as a manifest of Christian or other religious prejudice into which the neopagan prejudice is also a form of religious persecution. When we persecute neopagans, we persecute all religions. We will defend the rights of all the world's religions. Pagan vandalism means all persecution of all the world's religions, including Christianity.Mew Xacata (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Mew Xacata

Profusion of templates

There is a number of very competently produced templates appearing on articles within the scope of this project, and I just thought it might be worth having a central discussion about their design and use. Rather than spread this talk over 3 or 4 template talk pages, or many article talk pages, I shall set up a page here,post some links and ask if people would join the discussion. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination of Wicca

This article has been nominated as a GA candidate. If any editors from the project could look at the article and comment/improve that would be great (especially if you have been uninvolved in contributing there recently.) If anyone feels sufficiently objective and knowledgeable to make the decision about GA status, the nomination is here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Eko Eko Azarak

I began an article about this Wiccan text, largely because I came across the page and found that it was devoted to a cartoon series, which I have moved. Just calling it to your attention for any further improvements or suggestions you might have.

Also - it's my understanding that some Wiccans use the Carmen Arvale in their current rituals. Some information about that might profitably be added to the article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Urban Magic

There's a current AfD going on over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban magic. It's not a neopaganism article per se, but a GHit search suggests a neopaganism article rather than the existing one. Since the consensus on the current revision is trending towards deletion, I figured I'd give the project a heads up in case any of you have a more appropriate redirect target, or perhaps even to write a more appropriate article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Neopaganism: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 10 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Rede Redirect and Article in need of attention/addition to WP:WPN

While I realize that the mandate states that Neopaganism isn't a synonym for Wicca, a Wikipedia search on "Pagan Rede" returned nothing. I think that the "Wiccan Rede" is often enough referred to as the former that a redirect was called for. Let me know if there are any objections. Further on the topic of the Rede, there's only a passing reference to the Rede as a philisophical "Weak Form" of the "Golden Rule" by its use of the double negative to indicate non-interference rather than the affirmative for positive action. I'd like to make that clarification while treading lightly on the subject.

Secondly, I'm considering writing a "Biblical Astrology" article, as the "Biblical Astronomy" (aka Biblical Cosmology) one doesn't really address the Zodiacal interpretation/implications of many scriptural tracts (how often do 12's and 5's and 7's appear in those books in significant situations?). I've got a few sources/citations for this, but would appreciate help once the first draft is posted.

There are also errors in the latter (Bibl. Cosm.), claiming "stars" as the "Heavenly Host" rather than differentiating between the fixed stars and the seven Wandering Stars (a much better article, but in need of additional info on MesoAmerican Astronomical interpretation as commented), as well as counting SEVEN planets rather than the five naked-eye planets plus the sun and moon to make "seven wandering stars". I've lastly got a problem with the claim in that page that the "Captain of the Army" be equated with Saturn, which is furthermore claimed to be the "furthest from Earth" due to the reference to the "highest in altitude". Sorry, but the ancients had no way of knowing the distance of each visible planet from the Sun or Earth. Too much conjecture with no citation and flimsy reasoning.

I added the first paragraph to Winter Solstice - History and cultural significance as well as the first paragraph of Joseph - Christian View. These'll give you an idea of the scope of what I'm trying to do in tying certain archetypal environmental experiences to various mythologies and traditions. I'd like to tag the articles here listed for work (or worked on already) with the WP:WPN project banner, but wanted to check here to make sure my inclusion of them is appropriate and within scope, as well as getting blessings/consensus on the changes/additions I've proposed.

Love and Light - Shamanchill (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

--as to Pagan Rede vs. Wiccan Rede; Wiccans have adopted the Rede of "An it harm none, do what ye will", and the more traditionally accepted title of this phrase is The Wiccan Rede... this Rede is accepted by the majority of Wiccans; hence the term "Wiccan Rede"; but it is not accepted by the overall majority of Pagans; therein lies the difference. There are various other titles such as "The Pagan's Rede", which refers to the Wiccan Rede poem (aka The Wiccan Rede: The Long Version), that has the traditional Wiccan Rede surmised in eight words at its finale, "The Witche's Rede" and others still. I have also seen The Pagan/Wiccan Rede. Whilst it may not be strictly "Wiccan" per se in its usage; for now I'd recommend using the common phrase of "Wiccan Rede" as per Wikipedia Naming Convention; unless the overall cultural aspect radically changes the label. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Queen of Heaven article

The Queen of Heaven article, which is tagged as a "WikiProject Catholicism" article, has been having some POV issues lately.
As that appellation seems at least as applicable to Isis (among others) as it is to Mary, I wonder if anyone here might have any useful suggestions re. the recent controversy and/or suggestions for improving the article itself?
Please note my comment on the talk page, as well as this one made previously by someone else.
Thanks! —Wikiscient— 03:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I need help

I need help improving these articles:

1. Fire Magick
2. Gray magic
3. Gray witch
4. Green Magic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Condalence (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My Request For Help

This article Wicca rock is AFD and so I changed it to suit the tastes of the naysayers. I would like to get a consensus of people not heretofore involved with the article.

I invite everyone to come round to Wicca rock and read the page and make a keep/delet comment at the AFD page. If there is a hope to save the article and there is something I need to do first : ask and I will.

Also Themis music is tied to this so you could do the same there but my main focus is Wicca rock..

I like Wicca rock LOL but more to the point want to find a place for its limited (but existant) notability withing Wikipedia

cheers

Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wicca Rock - Is it an Incipient Genre

Hello All. I am soliciting opinions on two articles, each of which I have made contributions on, one of which I have made the major contribution to: Themis music and Wicca rock the latter which I recently re-wrote.

I am completely new to Wikipedia (a few months) and I wanted to introduce the topic of an underground phenomina moving more to the surface.

Likely everyone here knows that there are many Wiccans out there who belong to no coven but who are in essence lone eclectic Wiccans. Given the world focus on ecology/giving back to nature; the preservation of earth and a quest for more wholesome values, Wicca is centered as the only nature-based religion.

Early this year I found it very novel to have encountered a group of music people gathered at "Holy Joes" a club in Toronto at a quasi black-garbed wicca event and got invited to another in middle Ontario. I went and it was pretty amazing. We did a "hand drumming in the woods" session and I was part of the circle. I learned of a band called Themis from one of the teachers (who is in the band) and now many months later after seeing much more and after rounding up the scant few public acknowledgments of this emerging music genre, I am writing about it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 July 2008

Maybe not a genre

I wonder that maybe this is not a new music genre but maybe just another form of music influenced by Wicca.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 July 2008

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 392 articles are assigned to this project, of which 186, or 47.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(deleted out-dated, and uncessary section) Wolfpeaceful (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Help updating Ellinais

Hi guys. The Greek polytheistic group Ellinais has just done a ritual on the Acropolis that attracted some news coverage, and the information needs to be incorporated into the group's Wikipedia article. I'd love to do it myself, but I'm swamped, and probably shouldn't even be on Wikipedia right now. I sifted through the articles and put links to what I think are four pretty good ones on the talk page. If anyone has a little extra time, would you please take a look and see what you can do? It shouldn't take long, and you'll have my gratitude! - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 08:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Neopaganism

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Schuler

There's a new translation from German on Alfred Schuler. I think it's in the project's scope and if anyone can help refine the categorization, I'd be grateful. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

pentagram/pentacle

The "pentagram" is not a symbol used by wiccans, it is the symbol for satanism. The one used for wicca is called a Pentacle, which stands upright with the point up. The pentagram, (used for satanism, and commonly has a goats head in the center) is flipped upside down with two points up and one down. These two signs are commonly confused, and causes much trouble for people belonging to the Wicca/Pegan religion.

--This is an old post, but what he is referring to here is The Sigil of Baphomet. When he says that "the pentagram is not a symbol used by Wiccans, it is the symbol for Satansim; he isn't exactly accurate. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a common confusion, but I see that the actual Pentacle article has the correct usage. A pentacle is a talisman made by inscribing some sigil on a disk, parchment, or what-have-you, whereas a pentagram is a five-pointed star, whether or not the circumscribed circle is added. The confusion arose because so many pentacles have pentagrams and of course because they both start with penta-.

Freeman (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

MagicMaiden (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Avalon a.k.a. MagicMaiden

I can see the confusion, MagicMaiden . . . as a Pagan for twenty years I've always understood that a pentagram is a pentacle inscribed in a circle, and that its orientation does not affect its usage so much as the perception of that orientation does. For example, although I do not use it in this way myself, I know that the inverted pentacle could be a symbol of Pan, or a cup of plenty.

It's admirable that you don't want unfair bad press brought to Paganism, but it's such a diverse group of religions that you may not be able to paint us all with any brush, for good or ill.--otherlleft (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The pentagram has various uses, including in the Congressional Medal of Honor. Pagans have used it for centuries if not longer, regardless of its orientation, and in talismanic magick different orientations can be used to symbolize different things. Satanists don't have a copyright on a particular version any more than werewolves, who are also related to "inverted" pentagrams in Hollywood movies and such. The Satanic connection probably relates to its connection to the Baphomet symbolism of Eliphas Levi, which has become common in Tarot decks, but may well date back further. You'll also find the inverted form as the symbol of the Order of the Eastern Star. All these symbols have multiple users, just as the Star of David can be found on the U.S. dollar bill, the Seal of Solomon and the Israeli flag, 50 5-pointed stars are on the U.S. flag and one on the Vietnamese flag (also China, Chile, Somalia, East Timor, etc), and swastikas can be found in Nazi, Hindu and Buddhist symbology, though they are unrelated. Such multiple uses are of endless interest to conspiracy theorists; I refer those interested to such books as Cosmic Trigger by Robert Anton Wilson. In NeoPaganism, the pentagram or pentacle has several uses, primarily as a simple symbol of Wicca, and as a symbol of Earth in ritual use. In the standard "circle-casting", Earth is usually represented by a disk of wood or stone with a pentacle carved in it, often bearing a small quantity of salt upon it. As a symbol of magical power in general, it is often carved or painted on ritual tools such as wands and libation bowls. Neopagans never use the pentagram to represent evil, and though it is found on the Devil card of the Tarot, that card is usually regarded as symbolizing a bondage to or negative relationship with the material world rather than "evil" per se.Rosencomet (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispute at Horned God

Hi, we've got a complex and long-running dispute at Talk:Horned God that we really need help with. Unfortunately it's not brief to read, but essentially I and a couple of other editors (User:Bloodofox and User:Midnightblueowl) are trying to expand the article, while User:Davemon is trying to reduce it. The main point of contention at the moment is a list of deities that Davemon believes should be deleted for a number of reasons. He has (among other things) cited WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN, and I have opened discussions at WP:ORN#Horned God and WP:FTN#Horned God to try to clarify these policies, but so far have received little response, and unfortunately its main effect has been to spread our argument to multiple pages. I really need some help with this; it's largely just the two of us slugging it out at the moment, although others have registered their positions.

Please note, the article is in an in-between state at the moment, and I have effectively stopped editing it while the dispute is under way. I don't claim that the article in its present state is ideal, but I'm trying to establish some principles and structure that will allow us to continue editing without threats of unilateral deletion hanging over us.

Please, any help would be greatly appreciated. Fuzzypeg★ 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not proposing to delete the content at horned deities as Fuzzypeg claims, but to move the content as it currently stands to its own article. One of the reasons I'm calling for it to be removed is that it isn't properly sourced to reliable second or third party sources which directly address the topic of the article (i.e. it fails wp:v). Fuzzypegs "I'm not sourcing this while it's in dispute" isn't very helpful and just serves to delay the article being improved. If anyone can properly source the relationships between these deities and the singular "Horned God" via reliable sources that would help a lot. Another reason the content should be split is that the topic "Horned Deities" deserves it's own place outside of the topic discussing the singular Horned God of Wicca/neopaganism (assuming, of course, the topic passes wp:n). Thankingyou! Davémon (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hellenismos portal (and comparative linguistics)

Eirene & Forseti (Peace) be with you,

    The new Hellenismos portal [...] might interest you. (--27 February 2009 (UTC.)) I added it to 'portal: Wicca,' but I know not how much people want Pagan portals (like Portal:Heathenism) interconnected. I was going to write notice there, but I see most talk is here.

    The FAQ and moderator of a 'Hellenist' forum (I am a 1.5 - 3 year member of) contrasts Wicca to Hellenismos. The moderator compares Heathendom to it. I will just state some of what I have researched and then join other discussion.

    'Wicca' is a relatively new English (Anglo-Saxon) spelling from Old Anglo-Saxon 'Wicche.' I looked through a physical Old Anglo-Saxon dictionary; 5 - 10 years later I forgot what else I learned there except 'Wicche' is indeed feminine, but the suffix 'a' ( 'Wicca') is masculine. Maybe that is why some traditionalists think it is odd. Some do not like emphasizing magic, though the word can be traced from Germanic to Greek (to Persian.) I only agree people are diverse--all Pagans (esp, close in place or also time) have much in common--separativism is detrimental. Here are similarities:

	Greek	Celtic	Anglo-Saxon/English
'priestess'	Hiereia	Druidess (?), etc.	Wicche
'priest'	Hiereus	Druid	(variety)
culture	Hellenismos	(Celtism?)	(Teutonism?)
religion	(wide variety)	(wide variety)	(wide variety)

    Of course all those 'culture' terms can mean religion: so I need not list those all, yet one can see various ones (Wicca, Druidcraft, maybe 'Hierophantic') implying an occupation depend on ones denoting culture--and vice-versa. However sometimes people see 'Wicce' (among ways Dianics might want to spell it) or that Craft, and the 'others' as separate as if from a completely different culture. Because of etymoloy it would be unreasonable to say Wicce and Heathendom are (much) culturally different--at least not as much as Druidism, and Druid Network may still have articles/books up that state even that is also slightly/quite wrong. Celtic words (even Latin, French, partly) entered Germanic (its writing is younger,) so how can anything be wrong with vice-versa? Those peoples are often called 'cousins.' Traditionalists may have their own terms in any language but those who do not need to be able to communicate to those who do. I could elaborate how that is okay in particular languages, but this is not the place.

    Those thoughts just re-entered my mind when I was going to mention Hellenismos on the 'Heathendom' portal, and I thought it would be good to restate some for here and say hi. I would like to add Slavic-Baltic terms but have not found any that say the same as the rest (it is equally relevant to me, but I cannot do everything at once)... Ceantar.org has various good Celtic ones. I do not recall if they had 'priestess,' and they probably did not have 'Druidess,' but one in OBOD taught me for a short while, and I accept the term. The other languages seem gender-neutral, and there is no reason Gaelic and Welsh should not be (if they were/are not already.)--Dchmelik (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthur E Powell books (Theosophical)

Lately I started 'AE Powell' article and I see there was a request for articles on what looks like maybe all his books. If you know those are his, I encourage you to add them to the article (the biblography is only an informal list, but admins may have found it is correct.) For 5 - 10 years I have thought he was a good author (though some call 'neo-Theosophist' and perhaps have not read 'Esoteric Section' Theosophical texts,) though I think many better ones existed--mostly farther in the past. Since many are unlisted, I doubt I can get back to the AE Powell Article soon. An Encyclopedia need not duplicate the ideas of an author to the point of being the same style (like summarizing every idea the author emphasizes.) Many such articles are just to give opportunity to learn of a topic--if one is interested they should probably read some of the sources and skim through them all if (s)he can.--Dchmelik (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: what way of writing pagan/heathen religion names is good?

    Was it my post on Portal:Heathenism that led to the request for answers? (I do not want to do all the discussion.)

    The main/whole question was: are capitalization and the prefix 'neo-' reasonable?

    Only proper-noun-based words are capitalized. That can include 'philosophies' (I capitalize the singular and should probably capitalize the plural) if they are named after people(s,) whether they are divinities or ethnic groups. One can write ideas in whatever case (s)he wants to. if i write in all one case i feel as if having the humility of a person who knows it is ideas that are important, not ideas' expressions separated, and it makes one feel the peace of mind that may have been more common to some of the ancients. Many people are very unused to reading in all one case if shorter lengths of it (than mixed) require more meditation.

    AFAIK, it is not 'pagan' that needs capitalization, but 'Gaia,' 'Rhea,' 'Ceres,' 'Proserpina,' 'Diana,' etc., and these are all Latin (originally in all caps.) Perhaps Stregha or Stregheria (sp?) must be capitalized. 'Hellenismos,' 'Slavianstvo,' 'Asatru,' 'Vanatru' should be capitalized and not just because it necessarily refers to mortal or even discarnate humans (on the latter topic, what would someone think if you did not capitalize 'Shinto?') (an example in the former: what would someone think if you said 'Olympianism' but 'hellenism,' as if there was an interval between the Olympians and Hellenes.) As a country-dweller about 6/7 my life, I feel no need to capitalize paganism--if it has scientific practice (non-caps,) then it requires a philosophical theory and little/no egotism or dogma exists in Philosophy (Hellenismos, or equivalents not coercing others to convert.) Why would a theory of Philosophy (the latter capitalization is just for 'Sophia' or the virtue some define entital) inherently try to capitalize itself and coerce? Proper noun capitalization just distinguishes a living thing--or life--from some'thing' else--a static idea or microcosm thing within Spirit.

i guess one must know capitalization's origin started--words used to be all caps. but, that is not convention and many people probably cannot stand much one-case writing at all--maybe moreso of editors than here if they learned or chose urban conventions of caps.

as for prefixes, one can write a word such as with the following grammar

'(neo)pagan'

and the idea is mystically one (if you use the optional syllable in parentheses or not,) though one can also draw a Venn diagram

{neo)(pagan)

Now which part of the word is optional?

--Dchmelik (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:27, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Category:Enoch

I would like to create category called Category:Enoch in order to re-organize the material in the Enoch series. Enoch is a very mysterious character that would still need to be de-mythologized for the sake of ancient and modern studies in religion. Is there anywhere I can propose or discuss the creation of this category ? ADM (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of folks named Enoch; any particular one? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I imagine that you could just start adding the category to relevant articles (WP:BEBOLD maybe?), but of course there is no guarantee that the category would remain if other editors disagreed. Are there other, similar categories already in existence for Biblical figures? I tried looking for some, but my already sparse religious knowledge seems to have deserted me! You could try looking through the sub-categories under Wikipedia:Categorical_index#Religion_and_belief_systems for a precedent.

For discussion, perhaps the best place to begin might be the talk page of Wikiproject Religion, or alternatively the talk page of one of the articles mentioned at Enoch (I wasn't sure which Enoch you meant), although a discussion there may not get as many contributors. --Kateshortforbob 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The son of Jared is by far the most famous one, known simply as Enoch, there is merely a problem in the disambiguation which I would like to fix. ADM (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It would only be worth creating a category for Enoch if there were sevaeral articles about him (and not articles that just mention him). Is this the case? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because Enoch has several incarnations, for instance Hermes Trismesgistes. Hermes, Thoth and several others are virtual clones of Enoch. See also Islamic view of Enoch ADM (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably worth doing then. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so you're going to classify Hermes and Thoth under "Enoch"? The name "Enoch" doesn't even appear in either of those articles. Can you be a little more clear as to what this "Enoch" category would include? Also, WP:CAT will probably be helpful, if you haven't already taken a look. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 05:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Interfaith and Pagans

I would like to see some wiki-content on the possible role of Pagans in interfaith relations. This idea of inter-religious relations did not really exist before, so that is why many religions were historically forbidden. I mentioned before that Enoch was important to both Pagans and Christians, this is why I think that this particular religious figure could be an important help in interfaith relations. ADM (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Pythagoras and Socrates thought there was a first cause or even causeless cause, which is a type of monotheism, i.e. a viewpoint about something 'first' and what they called 'The One' (probably for both causes.) Socrates also said 'Worship the gods.' You could find content on how Classical Philosophy influenced both paganism in the West and later 'monotheism' there (arguably (kat)henotheism unless a sect specifies, but they probably do not get rid of many of the old religious elements.) Most of the great philosophers are important in ecumenism (interfaith,) even Yeshua (in his more esoteric statements.) I suggest you research what Theosophists said about paganism and the so-called 'great religions' (monotheisms or actually (kat)henotheisms with pan(en)theist and autotheist esoteric mysticism.) Enoch would have been before Noah, so Enoch may be before Vaivasvatu (though it is said he lived after a flood earlier in the far East than later ones in the near and maybe far East,) a Hindu 'Noah,' but average Hinduism seems much more accepting of other religions. When one notes some of these facts and philosophies the line between 'pagan' and the rest of religion blurs.--Dchmelik (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In the story of Jacob in the Bible, when Jacob left the house of his father-in-law Laban, his wife Rachel had stolen Laban's gold idols. Laban chased the family to retrieve the idols, and met with Jacob on a plain where they set up a common altar consecrated both to Jacob's God and Laban's: "The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor", Nahor being Laban's grandfather and Abraham's brother. As far as I know, this is the first instance in the Bible of cooperation between the religion of Abraham and a Pagan religion. There is no indication at all in the Bible that this was inappropriate. Rosencomet (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thelema article

We have a bit of a dispute. The way I see it, a banned user and his anonymous friend don't like the scholarly sources on Rabelais and Aleister Crowley, but of course you may see it differently. Dan (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been very clear that what I don't like is your insistence on making multiple major changes all at once without discussion. Try taking my suggestion to make your changes one at a time in order of importance and discussing. I'm not interesting in trying to carry on 21 simulataneous discussions of as many points like you insisted on doing last time. Your editing style seems to me to be disruptive. I'm hoping that it's not intentional and that you can find a new way of proceeding. Will in China (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Just about everyone here is more or less anonymous. Your comment above seems close to violating Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. I say close only because I don't really understand what you are trying to say! Will in China (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

User:Mr.Z-man has a new service available to various requesting WikiProjects which gives the project a monthly update of the number of hits on the 1,000 most frequently accessed articles for that project. An example of such a listing can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages. Would the members of this project be interested in getting such a list for their use? John Carter (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, think that would be very useful (not to mention interesting!). - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 05:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Goddess movement article

The Goddess movement article is in need of some love, it is tagged for NPOV. It also doesnt have references until halfway down the page. Sephiroth storm (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Witchcraft

Witchcraft has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Stregheria

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Stregheria article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria. My review is here. I am notifying the interested projects that I have put this article on hold pending fixes. Should there be any questions please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Neopaganism in Iceland

I've requested a peer review on Ásatrúarfélagið. I'd be grateful for comments from people in this project. Haukur (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Capitolization of "Witchcraft"?

"Curious I am" says the yoda wannabe... but shouldn't Witchcraft be capitolized when referring to real Witchcraft traditions... likewise, shouldn't "Witch" be capitolized when referring to a follower of these traditions. I would see no difference in this, than in the usage of Christianity and Christian vs. christianity and christian. In other words, when do you use "witch" instead of "Witch" and when do you use "witchcraft" instead of "Witchcraft." ?????75.186.111.99 (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. When referring to a tradition or a Witch, I would capitalize it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would tend NOT to capitalize witch or witchcraft, since the terms could be used to describe a practitioner of a type of magic and/or that type of magic itself, without referring to a member of a religion. I would treat it the way one would medicine-man, shaman or shamanism. I would, however, capitalize Wicca or Wiccan. I might also capitalize it if it is preceded by a qualifier denoting it as a specific tradition or culture's magic-user, like Lakota Medicine-Man, Nanai Shaman, or Gardnerian Witch (or Gardnerian Witchcraft). Rosencomet (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Consider these words: wicca = m.wizard or m. witch (proncounced as "wicha" or "witch-ah"), wiccaraed = divination [hmm... note the masculine stem] (pronounced "witchah'raid or witcha'red") wicce f. witch (pronounced "witch'eh"... hmmm... I wonder what it might have been like if Wiccans adopted this term instead of the masculine one.) wiccecraeft, wiccedom = witchcraft [ahem... note the feminine stem] (pronounced "witch'eh-crayft" or "witch'eh-craft" (i.e. craft as in the british tone "croft") wiccian = follower of wiccecraft or wiccedom (pronounce witch'ee'an)

So, here, we see that noneof the precursors used capitolization. But now, I want to go further. I want to know what is the proper linguistical attitude to the modern usage of the capitolization of these terms, since I highly doubt that Wikipedia editors will come to a universal consensus on this. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we have no idea whether such words were capitalized when referring to a real witch when writing. However, whether or not the precursors used capitalization is irrelevant, just as it would be to the precursors of a person's name. Once it becomes a proper noun, it is capitalized, no matter how the components or such were handled. Wicca or Wiccan would be handled as one would any other religion or member of the same. Witchcraft, however, is a word used both as a religious practice and a non-religious one; you can practice witchcraft without being a member of The Craft, as it were. Also, witchcraft is used metaphorically (as in the Sinatra song), and in fictional usage (as in the TV show Bewitched), none of which merits capitalization. Rosencomet (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Witchcraft should not be capitalized. It is not a proper noun. It does not refer to anything in specific; just the craft (work) of witches, whoever they may be. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Article needs help

I took it upon myself to write an article on the American Council of Witches. I believe I wrote it pretty well, and relatively thoroughly for a start-up article, but it does need help with further sourcing, and other things. Thanks Wolfpeaceful (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming and focus issues at Triple Goddess

This is a very similar problem as discussed above in December: #Dispute at Horned God. Triple Goddess was rewritten by the same user to be only about the Graves/Wiccan, Maiden-Mother-Crone (MMC) archetype. All content on historical Triple Goddesses was cut; some dregs of it were dumped in a mess of a circular file now called Triple deities: [1].

While I think Davemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has done a pretty good job sourcing much of the MMC article as it stands, and despite having a disclaimer up top that says the article is about the Maiden-Mother-Crone archetype, people still link to it assuming the article is going to be about, or also about, historical triple Goddesses, many of which are worshipped by other religions (like, say, non-Wiccan Neopagan traditions, let alone members of world religions like Hinduism). This results in erroneous information in articles about Triple Goddesses who do not fit the MMC mold.

I don't think the current article should re-incorporate the non-Wiccan/non-Graves material, as that contributes to people trying to squish triple Goddesses who do not fit the M-M-C archetype into that pattern. What I think should happen is the article as it stands should be moved to a more specific name, with Triple Goddess being an overview of Triple Goddesses in history and multiple cultures, and with a section on the MMC archetype that links to the MMC article for more details. Straw poll on naming here: Talk:Triple Goddess#Poll. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Call for editors to help manage religion related content

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Coordination of activity. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

List of religious organizations

Hi. The article List of religious organizations is in need of serious help. It was in an abandoned state and discussed for deletion, however I feel it has strong potential to become a useful list. But it needs lots of help and collaboration. Is someone of you interested? --Cyclopia^talk 23:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Bath and Body Works

http://www.examiner.com/x-18484-Sacramento-Pagan-Spirituality-Examiner~y2009m10d26-A-boycott-against-Bath-and-Body-Works Neopagan discriminated against by BB&B. I would like to see this added, but im not sure if local newspapers are Reliable sources (besides the link is spam listed? Remove the * from the url)

I used "nowiki" so the actual link could be included. I write for Examiner myself, and it would not qualify as a reliable source because there is not editorial oversight of the content. However, it's not unusual for stories on the site to be picked up by other news media which may be reliable. However, the link in the article may prove to be reliable - I didn't review it myself.--otherlleft 18:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm mostly seeing it on message boards, fourms so far, still looking. What about this, http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/23/Wiccan_Says_Firing_Was_Religious_Bias.htm Never heard of them. another one- http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/75/37.php

Isaac Bonewits as reliable source - Need more eyes on Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article

An editor on the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article is insisting on removing anything sourced to the published works of Isaac Bonewits, even uncontroversial statements of belief or clarification of terminology, claiming Bonewits is not a reliable source on Neopaganism. He has also tried to remove content sourced to Margot Adler. I would really appreciate more eyes on this. See Talk:Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. Thanks - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Inform the user that it doesn't matter if the person is a relaible source on Paganism. If the information can be properly sourced in accordance with policy, then it can be included. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary paganism

In response to a very disruptive user at the Neopaganism talk page, a good point was raised with regard to the trend away from using "neo" as prefix in favor of the phrase "contemporary paganism" or simply "paganism". (To reduce complexity, I'll use lowercase letters throughout, please offer advice regarding proper capitalization). The trend exists in both peer-reviewed literature and popular usage. It was suggested the prefix remains frequent when a negative connotation of "fluffiness" is intended. I had been under the impression that the prefix would simply distinguish historical paganism from contemporary. I'm surprised to find the Paganism page noting how the word is avoided in an historical context due to negative connotations. With no need to disambiguate newer from older, categorically, one must expect to find almost every religion under this heading. That's not useful, so what's the solution? What are the implications for ethnic/regional religions undergoing revitalization and (as distinct) for the religions of indigenous peoples. Assuming a duty of special care toward the latter, are there policy implications, (notability/NPOV/RS)?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: proper capitalization, I would capitalize when referring to the NeoPagan movement/community and when describing any of the myriad religions that are subsets of the term, but leave the first letter lowercase when using it in the more general sense of a "non-Abrahamic religion."

As for the question of when to use the "neo-" prefix, I'm inclined to follow Isaac Bonewits' system of different classes of Paganism. He does point out that these are not tidily defined categories, presumably because people and their religions often do not fit into tidy categories. I'm unwilling to discard the "neo-" prefix, nor do I find it implies "fluffiness." I like it because it carries a level of precision in communication.

I have spoken...

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 02:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Help Requested

Please help find third party references for The Witches' Voice. Also, someone should set a bot to auto archive this page. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ipsita Roy Chakraverti

Hello. I have developed this article on the Wiccan according to GA criterias, but can you guys from the WikiProject take a look at it to see whether I added the Wiccan terms and tools correctly? Also correct anything that you want. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tom Cowan

There is a request for an article on "Thomas Dale Cowan" that I would like some community input on.

• First, the name of such an article, if created, should probably be "Tom Cowan (writer)" or some variant, since this is how the name appears on his books and how he refers to himself.
• Second, I'd like an opinion on conflict of interest. I know Tom - he lives a town over from me and we tend to run into each other at social functions once or twice a year, and many years ago I attended a class he gave. If he is particularly interested in an article about himself, I could probably get his help in locating reliable sources (working under the assumption that published authors do a good job of keeping track of how they're covered in the press). If I were to do so, would this rise to the level of a bona-fide conflict of interest? I don't believe so, but I'm happy to abide by consensus.

Regardless of community opinion, I won't pursue an article if Tom isn't interested in helping out. Thank you for any input you provide!--~TPW 17:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving proposal

I see at least one request on this page for automatic archiving, and I think it's a good idea. However, the manual archiving which has been done makes it tougher for me, with my somewhat limited understanding of bots and the like, to make the necessary changes.

1. {{archivebox}} will automatically list past archives if they are numbered, rather than dated. Moving the existing archives to numbered pages is not something I would do without consensus.
2. User:Miszabot supports date-based archiving, but I haven't puzzled out if it's possible to get all the archives to list automatically as they're created. I've never tried using other archiving bots, so I don't know if there are better options. I'm happy to ask User:Misza13 for help if there's interest in setting up continuous date-based archiving.

So barring objections to automatic archiving, is there any opinion on whether we should continue using date-based archives or move to numbered ones?--~TPW 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I just took another look and noticed that the archive links are piped, and in fact two of them are properly named and the other (more recent) two simply need a space. Since this is a minor change I'm going to move those last two to support better archiving and move forward.--~TPW 11:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That being said, I went ahead and added an archive bot. It's configured to leave seven threads, and otherwise archive threads more than 31 days old. The new talk header automatically lists the archives, so I removed the old archive table as well. I also removed the project banner, since the {{Talk header}} makes it pretty clear what this page is all about and the multiple banners made it a big cramped.--~TPW 11:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Pagan Warrior. :) Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Neopaganism articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Neopaganism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

New article on Christianity and Neopaganism

After some discussion on the talk page of the article on Christian Wicca I have moved what little was left of that article to a new page with the title above. The old page had at one time been a bloated and entirely unreferenced monster; successive cuts had left it as a bare stub with virtually no content. I'm hoping that the new article may be a little broader in focus and a little better referenced and so may survive better. Please have a look and comment on the talk page if you feel inclined.

PS: Having been taking a lengthy Wikibreak I thought I would fancy a bit of a challenge rather than mindlessly tagging cruft for speedy deletion. Hopefully I have not bitten off more than I can chew! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

This AfD might be of interest since the parent article, Discordianism is a part of this project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discordian calendar (2nd nomination).Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed annual interreligious discussion

I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Annual meeting? that we maybe create some sort of forum for discussion of religious issues and content in an interreligious basis here. Any input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Requests

The template lists article requested for the Georgian Church. There is already an article Georgian_Wicca which should serve that purpose. It likely needs further expansion (most of the current text was taken from websites I authored over the past 20 years) to be brought up to standards. HR Mitchell 06:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondancer (talk • contribs)

Template changes

I'm in discussion with an IP at Template talk:Neopaganism about changes s/he is making with regard to additions of links and images relevant to Christianity and Neopaganism. I think they violate WP:UNDUE but would value others looking at the template's talk page and recent history. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Bias

Greetings,

I’m from Costa Rica and I’m Neo-Pagan, I have been Redding the articles of English Wikipedia about Neopaganism in order to take info for the Spanish Wikipedia Neo-Pagan Project, but I’m kind of concern and I would like to call your attention on this matter. I think there is some sort of bias in english Wikipedia trying to associate Neo-Paganism with White supremacism and racism. For example: White Order of Thule

This is only one of many examples, wich I think is very inadequate. In Spanish Wikipedia this doesn’t happen. There are mention of certain fascist-neopagan connections when applies, but not so much nor so often like I think is seen in English Wiki. I would like to edit more but my handle of the English language is not good enough.

Opinions?

Thanks. --Lucifer2000 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bienvenito, Lucifer2000.

The following is based upon my undocumented experiences and wide, unscholarly studies. It is not a thorough examination of the question.

I think that it is important to see that within the Neo-Pagan sphere are many schools of thought regarding ethnicity, national origin, and their importance to spiritual practice. In its beginnings, when Neo-Paganism was first beginning to depart from mystical traditions of European origin such as Freemasonry and Spiritualism, its adherents were ethnically and linguistically English. Although they taught nothing on the subject of their Englishness having anything to do with their religion, they drew upon a combination of British, Continental European, and even Jewish and Hindu ideas to form what would become Neo-Pagan Witchcraft, Druidry, and other similar faiths and practices.

In the 1970s, largely as a reaction against the universalist feminism that seemed to have taken hold of Neo-Paganism, some Neo-Pagan adherents began to link up with already-existing Neo-Nazi groups, adding some of their language and practices to that of white supremacy groups. This led to the formation of groups with both a racist and a Neo-Pagan flavor. It was not the result of intrinsic qualities of the Neo-Pagan movement, but of the ideas and inclinations of certain adherents.

My advice is threefold: firstly, that one should never rely just on one source of information as a guide to forming opinions and learning spiritual principles and practices, because in doing so, one comes to believe that the message received through that source is infallible; secondly, that one should always question every source, no matter how impressive and well-founded it seems, to find out why it is relevant to your path; thirdly, that as soon as one finds a group of truly like-minded persons with whom to engage in spiritual practices, one should keep on guard for the tendency to hand over one's identity and values to the betterment of the group. This applies to your findings in that you are drawn to a spiritual practice that comes to you largely through European and English-speaking North American culture. By its limited cultural origins, it naturally speaks to only some of the experiences and values of a person living in Costa Rica. It even harbors members whose beliefs would exclude people because of their ethnicity, possibly including you. I admire the service you are performing for both Neo-Paganism and for Spanish speakers in translating and composing Wikipedia articles about the subject. I hope that you can capture the essence of Neo-Paganism while also offering a balanced, realistic perspective on all of its variants. I believe that in doing so, you will find that the heart of Neo-Pagan belief and practice today is just as diverse, inclusive, and tolerant as any religion, and that persons claiming to be Neo-Pagan, yet who teach and practice racist ideas, are hangers-on at the fringes of the Neo-Pagan movement who, eventually, drift out of the picture altogether as they find that few of their fellow Neo-Pagans are interested in their rhetoric.

I hope this helps. Sincerely yours, Amergin Sierkejd (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for input in discussion forum

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

_{Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011}

Capitalisation and hyphenation

Has any consensus been reached yet on the capitalisation and hyphenation of paganism/neopaganism? I glanced through the archives and didn't see anything, but maybe I missed it. I see that Neopaganism does not use the hyphen, which I think is good. But is it neopagan or Neopagan? Spock of Vulcan (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I've been reading the Manual of Style and it says that all religions, sects, churches, and their followers are capitalised. So Pagan and Neopagan are correct, whether being used as nouns or as adjectives. Problem solved! Spock of Vulcan (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Neopaganism article is rather inconsistent. I've seen Neopaganism, Neo-paganism, Neo-Paganism, neopaganism, neo-paganism, and neo-Paganism. Lately it seems to have been leveled out to Neopaganism. However, the debate continues between using Paganism or Neopaganism. WarriorPrincessDanu (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)WarriorPrincessDanu

Please help

The Starhawk article was moved/renamed today to Starhawk (author) without discussion by a proponent of the video game of the same name. Now Starhawk (and all 100 Wikilinks to her name) redirects to a disambiguation page. Please note my Requested Move discussion about moving it back to the original article title. If inspired to vote, please note Wiki policies that support this, such as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, etc. Softlavender (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the article back so that while it still sits at Starhawk (author), the page at Starhawk is a redirect there in the first instance. We can then put an 'otheruses' tag on the page to lead to a disambiguation page. I think that's the best solution for now, and have asked the original mover of the page not to do so again unless there is consensus for the move. At least this way all the links point to the right place. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Kim. However, your wording of your vote as Against move implies that you are against my proposal that the page should be titled "Starhawk". Do you mind clarifying your position in the move request discussion? I'm saying this because an Against vote means against what I proposed, which is the reversion back to "Starhawk". Thanks very much! Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What makes a significant witch/Wiccan?

There's an interesting discussion at Template talk:WiccaandWitchcraft about the criteria for inclusion of named individuals in the template. Folk with an interest in the topic might like to express their opinions. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Portal maintenance

Would anyone here like to deal with the walls of text that have appeared at Portal:Wicca? -- John of Reading (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw this myself and was a bit flabbergasted. To be honest the 'delete' button seemed the cleanest option! I don't even know what the point of the Wicca portal is - it seems to have gone un-edited for about two years until two recent edits. The Wicca article itself is a far better place for anyone to go than the portal, which seems to be there on the basis that other religions have one, so we should as well! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment on changing the title of article "Roman polytheistic reconstructionism"

Please see what I wrote here: Talk:Roman_Way_to_the_Gods#Changing_the_name_of_this_article and comment on it. Roman polytheistic reconstructionism should be the title, not "Roman Way to the Gods" - which absolutely does not sound as a descriptive scientific term. --Gonda Attila (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Heathen/Pagan - non-Pejorative alternatives?

I'm not really familiar with the religions of Europe, but it seems to me that the terms Heathen and Pagan are both a description of what they aren't (Abrahamic) rather than what they are, which is understandable in the sense that the idea of separating religious belief from cultural belief was something that only large empires such as the Persians and Romans had to contend with. Being named for something that you aren't, to me, appears either reactive or pejorative, depending upon who it was that coined the term.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathen#Heathen Both "pagan" and "heathen" have historically been used as a pejorative by adherents of monotheistic religions (such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam) to indicate a disbeliever in their religion.

I guess that my contention is that by accepting these terms, one is taking a reactive stance to another set of beliefs, and by doing so, one is creating a strong relationship - a bond - with those other beliefs. It appears obvious that some religious beliefs are inherently bonded to Abrahamic religions - especially those who share the same theology (e.g. Satanism), but for others there is no such inherent bond, and it sits uncomfortably with me to address those people of faith using a negative connotation.

My personal beliefs are Buddhist, and even the term 'Buddhist' is pretty much a neologism - the self-designated term for a Buddhist is 'insider', but within the context of the world, 'insider' isn't going to work, and at least 'Buddhism' is an assertive name indicating a correlating relationship with Buddha. I feel a sense of brethrenship with those who follow the old religious beliefs of Europe, but I do not wish to base that relationship on the grounds that we are both not Abrahamic. Also, for me to say 'my friend Knut is a heathen' - is not descriptive; as, by definition, I also am heathen. Following the negative inclusion construction, I would need to say something like 'my friend Knut is a heathen outsider' - but he could still be a Hindu, a Sikh, a Taoist, Shinto... (20040302 (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)) -apologies for the single cross-post.

I understand the argument above and appreciate its inclusivity. The issue for me is that while historically (eg in the 19th century) Christian missionaries glibly talked about converting the heathen, or about working with pagan savages, as far as I'm aware no strand of Christianity does so today. They might talk aboute creeping secularism, or some sects might be concerned with devil worshippers but for me any pejorative weight to the terms heathen or pagan is several decades out of date. As you say, modern followers of Norse religions might call themselves Heathens (like your friend Knut) and most Wiccans (like me) are happy to be called Pagans. The terms have been pretty much entirely taken over by heathens/pagans for their own purposes.

The second problem is one of following the sources. There's simply no reliably sourced alternative to these terms because there is none in general use. WP has to follow language use and can't prescribe it; if there were reliable sources using an alternative term more frequently than heathen or pagan, we might take it up, but there simply isn't one as far as I can see and we're not in a position here to invent one. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wicca portal at MfD

This is a notice to say that I have started a discussion here about the Wicca portal which you may be interested in. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have re-worked the portal, hopefully making the "substantial progress" needed to avoid its deletion. Please see Portal talk:Wicca#Impending deletion for a list of the sections that still need attention. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD Discussion of a WikiProject Neopaganism Article

I'm writing to inform you that there is a dicussion about deleting the WikiProject Neopaganism article of the neopagan Roman religion "Nova Roma", and you might have intention to comment in the debate. Thanks --Gonda Attila (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Title of the article: "Germanic Neopaganism" or "Heathenism (contemporary religion)"?

Discussion here. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Final call for contributions to the renaming discussion on this article.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

deities' articles written in past tense and academic mythology-studies style

While deity articles for some pagan religions such as Hinduism and probably non-European ones, besides Abrahamic ones, are written largely in present tense, many or most articles on deities of interest to our project are written in an academic, past-tense, mythology studies style. These need to be changed at the very start of, and throughout, each article to make it clear, though with a NPOV, that the topics are about religion--primarily--and not just mythology, and about religious ideas that are still practiced.--Dchmelik (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

project name?

Neopaganism was moved to paganism (contemporary). In light of that, perhaps it is appropriate to rename this project: quite a few of its articles are about paleopagan and modern mesopagan topics, so according to definitions[2], the name and current project conflict. The existence of lineages and the advent of reconstructionism makes these definitions seem artificial and maybe even as if non-paleopagans are doing something wrong; I dislike the definitions, except sometimes for discussing history. No similar terms are often used for the synonym 'heathenism;' Teutonic pagans do not feel they have to use the term 'neoheathen,' and it would be worth asking Greek, Slavic/Baltic pagans, etc., and any others worldwide who are named by Abrahamists.--Dchmelik (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly. Hundreds of kilobytes and hours of editors' time have been wasted on rename arguments in two articles relevant to this topic, with no visible benefit to the actual content of the articles themselves. In my opinion we should leave well alone the stable title of this project because to consider changing it would lead to yet another time-sink. Create and improve articles, please! When the list of articles needed is empty, we can debate this. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If it would take hundreds of hours, then your argument is reasonable; I agree.--Dchmelik (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

merging WikiProject Germanic Mysticism?

Has the merge been discussed? I am no expert on Germanic mysticism except Theosophy (but not German books; its core one is English.) German/Austrian esoterism and Ariosophy include schools of thought that have Abrahamists/monotheists. Some German mystic school founders used ideas of mainstream Judism/Christianity. Maybe Abrahamists call such schools pagan, but some may be equally Abrahamic. If they are patriarchal Abrahamic, I may disagree with merging. The core text of Theosophy says on some pages the supreme Divine being is male, and on other pages, female, and it says about triple manifestation/trinity the second Divine being is the opposite, and the child is male, which may be patriarchal, depending on practice and further theology. Anthroposophy is German Christian Theosophy saying Christ is the supreme Divine being. I know Theosophists/Anthroposophists of mainstream patriarchal Abrahamic sects. Even if 'pagan' is 'reclaimed,' it excludes patriarchal Abrahamism, which defined 'paganism.' Some Theosophists are polytheist; I do not know about Anthroposophists. Certain Ariosophy is polytheist Christian (and thinks deities are aliens.) I do not think polytheist Abrahamism is pagan when patriarchal--it is just uncommon mainstream Abrahamism. Anthroposophy and some Ariosophy might use all the gospels, which while saying good things, also have Jesus say and do bad things--such as saying Abraham's god (a psychopathic one) is 'God.' If Anthroposophy or any Ariosophy agrees with all that, it is not pagan, and I disagree on merging. Perhaps 'Jewish/Christian Witches' use texts without knowing the bad parts, and I suppose such people are pagan if they reject bad parts when finding them. Ethnic philosophies of India are all pagan, and some include patriarchal religions, so I suppose any polytheist Judaism/Christianity can be pagan; I do not know if adherents agree. They could be pagan if they are either Elohists or think the Bible is false about God (with a few truths.) If Anthroposophy and Ariosophy are that way, I agree with merging.--dchmelik (t|c) 10:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments moved from Project Page

• Priestess - this redirects to Priest.

--I see no need for a distinct article, simply because one is female and the other is male... the redirect is fine as it is, in my opinion, the Priest article uses both terms...Wolfpeaceful (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, redirect priestess to priest, which reflects most religious cosmology, and genetics (males have X chromosomes, but females do not have Y, so priests are partly priestesses, but not vice versa.)--Dchmelik (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnalmonk (talk • contribs)

Salem (MO) Public Library blocks wikipedia Wicca page on library computers

Several stories related to how the Salem Public Library in Salem, MO, has blocked access to a variety of content from their library's computers, relating to wicca, astrology, and the like, including the English-langauge wikipedia Wicca article, can be found here. I thought it might be of interest to the editors here. I have also left messages at the Signpost [] and with Jimbo himself here regarding this matter. If anyone would like to maybe help contribute to a proposed opinion piece on the matter for the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost here, I think it would be very welcome. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Neopaganism will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in Neopaganism. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Questionable wording on Paganism(Contemporary) page

There is some wording on the above mentioned page which I question as inflammatory without further quotation or counter quotation. The Quote is as follows - "Beliefs and practices vary widely amongst different pagan groups, however there are a series of core principles common to most, if not all, forms of contemporary paganism.[17] The English academic Graham Harvey noted that Pagans "rarely indulge in theology."[18]" There are several other "academics" who feel Paganism has sufficient theology, and this quote seems out of context in relation to it's preceding text. Should not other wording be used, or another quote be found?Ladyisarma (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would just delete it as an unimportant statement devoting little to the article. I mean, how much is "rarely" and how much is "sufficient"? What does this out-of-context phrase really contribute to the article from an encyclopedic standpoint?Rosencomet (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ellen Cannon Reed & Kemetism

Can someone take a look at this article, and also at Talk:Kemetism#removed mention of "kemetic wicca". and the recent edit to Kemetism which is how I ended up at Reed's article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I just added to the Ellen Cannon Reed page and added "Kemetic Wicca" to the "pages requested" section of the Project page with a link to the talk page you mentioned. In the mean time, I would encourage anyone familiar with Kemetic Wicca to add relevant material to both Kemeticism and to Ellen Cannon Reed. Autumnalmonk (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Major Project Update

As it doesn't seem to have been updated in quite a long time, I've been making some significant changes to the Project page, deleting outdated links and editing material to bring it all up to date. There are a large number of people affiliated with this project but little organized work seems to have been done recently so I am hoping that this reinvigorates interest in the project and facilitates more people contributing effort in ways currently relevant to this important dimension of Wikipedia. Autumnalmonk (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion

There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Redesign

Hi folks! I'm going to be a little bold and do a redesign to help with navigation of the project (to help reduce excessive scrolling, etc.). If there are any objections, please let me know here -- we can always revert them later if needed! Phoenixred (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks great in my opinion! I was hoping that we could do something like this. Thanks for your efforts. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 11:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! I'm still tinkering with project pages and templates, and doing a lot of tagging so that the Article Alerts bot and WolterBot can do their jobs well! Phoenixred (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I just did the same. I cleaned up much of the code by implementing templates, using transclusions for the customized section headers, and general refactoring to make the layout scale on screens of different sizes. I also added a new navigation pane. More work is still needed, but I hope it's helpful.
—Sowlos (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Template:Neopaganism-sidebar

Some changes have been made to the sidebar and we need input on what to do with it. Please see Template_talk:Neopaganism-sidebar#Colour_change.
—Sowlos (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of Template talk:Neopaganism-sidebar#Cross-in-circle image

There's a further issue here in relation to a cross-in-circle image which another user asserts is appropriate here because it's the only suitable and generally applicable symbol in traditional paganism. I dispute its suitability because this is a tempate about NEOpaganism, not TRADITIONAL paganism. Quite apart from that, I'd need to see some reliable source backing such a claim. I folks would care to comment at the template talk page that would be great. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC) The universality of that symbol is a true fact which does not need to be verified through sources. Do you need sources to assert that the Latin cross is used by Christians? No. The sun-cross is not only traditional Reconstructionist but it is used by neo-Pagans and Wiccans as well as a symbol of the wheel of the year, time, the four seasons and the four cardinal directions. So, what's the actual problem with that symbol? --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks for responding here, SvF. Rather than making this a pure dialogue, I'll wait for a bit to see if anyone else has a view before I charge in again with my own! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC) The universality of that symbol is a true fact which does not need to be verified through sources. — User:Schwert von Feuer It's true that commonly known facts don't need citation. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, for example. However, "sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article," WP:WHYCITE. The Sun cross is not commonly known as a symbol of paganism. Most people must do research to find out about the symbol, its history, and its usage. That means we are talking about something which needs to be verified by reliable sources (WP:V). If Sun cross was in a better state, all of this would be moot. It would have all the needed sourced facts and we would be able to refer to it in this discussion. Unfortunately, it's not and we can't. I dispute its suitability because this is a tempate about NEOpaganism, not TRADITIONAL paganism. — User:Kim Dent-Brown To be fair the title was changed to "Contemporary Paganism" for a reason. 'Neopaganism' can imply no direct connection to the past, while 'Contemporary Paganism' is agnostic to the antiquity of any given tradition's origin. While there are debates pertaining to the age of various Pagan traditions, we can at least agree their ages are varied. I feel that renders this specific point usable in neither direction. My stance: I feel we should work to improve Sun cross to a B-class article, at the very least, and revisit this issue then, when we have more material in conformity with Wikipedia standards. In the interest of full disclosure, I actually like using the encircled cross. It's a very old, common pagan motif. However, its meanings are indeed varied, as are its uses. —Sowlos (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC) We've been through this issue with the cross-in-circle before and the consensus then was that it was neither well liked nor seen as appropriate for use in the Neopaganism template. If memory serves, the same person brought it up then as is bringing it up now. I for one remain firmly opposed to it's use in this context, regardless of its history. My reasoning on this is based on the facts that the symbol is not currently identifiable as a particularly pagan symbol, does not suggest paganism of any sort to most people seeing it now, and is much more associated in peoples minds with other ideas and religions including Celtic Christianity and Native American spirituality. In this context, a discussion of the cross-in-circle symbol's possible historical meanings is completely irrelevant to it's use in this template. There are other symbols much better connected with Neopaganism in the modern psyche that would be much better choices, and even no symbol at all would be better than using this one. ~Autumnal Monk~ talk 21:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Most of what you are saying is true. I, however, don't believe there are any choices better at representing the whole Pagan community. Unfortunately, no single symbol is currently used widely enough. The Solar cross, Pentagram, Triskelion, Mjölnir, classical Labyrinth, Labrys, even the Ankh get wide usage in varying contexts. —Sowlos (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC) My position on the issue of an image for the template is that I think no one image is sufficiently recognised as the primary symbol of contemporary paganism. The cross-in-circle may have academic arguments in its favour but for most pagans would be seen as an obscure and unrepresentative imnage. I accept the arguments against the pentagram and would not want to see that in this template either. As it happens my belief is that the pentagram is probably the leading contender if we absolutely HAD to choose one symbol, but as no-one is imposing this choice on us why not choose to avoid the debate by having no symbol at all? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC) If only one person is perusing this, the consensus, minus one, is still for no image. My suggestion was under the assumption more wanted an image. While I agree it would be nice, no single image/logo is truly representative of the whole Pagan community. Although if we had to chose, the Solar cross would be one of the few contenders. The only suitable image would likely be one that incorporated several symbols. The problem with that is deciding who's important enough to be represented. Everyone would want their symbols in such an image. The best option still is having no image. Sorry, Schwert von Feuer. I'm putting a comment in the template code to make editors aware of this. —Sowlos (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Apple Branch

I wanted to notify any interested WikiProject members that this article has been nominated for deletion as a result of little to no sources to establish notability. I believe that the article should be kept as it may be significant for Wiccan members but it desperately needs attention from experts. Concerned users are free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Apple Branch. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Druid

I've found many sources saying Neo-Druidism is the second largest neopagan movement to put it in the demographics section, but none are high-quality sources. Can anyone find such please? Thanks. Pass a Method talk 20:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Lists of articles in reference books

I have started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism/Encyclopedic articles, which provides a basic listing of the conent of the reference work mentioned, as well as an indication of the relative length of the articles in that work, which might help indicate at least the relative priority of some of the articles. I am going to continue to go through various other reference books relating to the broad topic of religion, and see which if any have material which is relevant for inclusion in the list as well, and would also clearly welcome if any others were to follow suit with similar lists of articles from other reference sources. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Usage

Doesn't the term "pagan" have pejorative connotations? Pass a Method talk 19:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Wicca#GA Reassessment

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wicca#GA Reassessment. —Sowlos 16:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Neopaganism vs paganism by country

I started tidying up Category:Paganism by creating Category:Paganism by country but it looks like some of the articles should be renamed as neopaganism. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to start taking on that task. Our categories could be better organized.
Categorizing articles under "Neopaganism by country" or "Paganism by country" is a matter of perspective. "Neopaganism by country" may be seen as redundant (since ancient paganism can't be present in any modern countries), it may be seen as offensive by the camp opposed to separating modern Pagans from historical pagans with a "Neo-", and it can be argued that modern scholarship is increasingly referring to "Neopaganism" as "[Contemporary] Paganism".  —Sowlos  17:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Membership

I've done some cleaning of the membership list. Users not active on Wikipedia for over a year have been recategorized as "inactive" members. We now officially have more inactives than actives; 65 to 47.

We may want to consider establishing consensus on if if members should be purged from the rolls after a specific number of years.  —Sowlos  17:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen other projects once in a while maybe adjust the banner, or perhaps have a bot send out messages to talk pages, calling for a "roll call" of editors listed as members. So, for instance, the membership list could have a new section of "nonconfirmed" editors, for instance, which individuals are suggested they could move their names out of, and perhaps into a separate "active" section, at some point over, say, 30 days. Any not moved over that period might then be moved to "inactive". I know WikiProject Star Wars has done that, for instance. Maybe something like that could be done here? John Carter (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

general vandalism and point-pushing on many important articles

It has come to my attention that recently, and sometimes for years, certain people have been pushing both anti-pagan and specific pagan views as the main view on general pagan articles such as Slavic neopaganism, and someone said on my talk page it had been happening on Germanic neopaganism. I also recently had to change several references on Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism from 'Julian the Apostate' to the actual article name. Though I am not so in favour of Isaac Bonewits' terms such as used for the name of this wiki project and these articles, maybe all the main articles need to be checked out such as the Celtic, smaller European and other ethnic group articles. There are certain people who by this time for their anti-pagan point-pushing and arguing with the admins should have been banned. Every so often I come back to Wikipedia just to check if this is still happening, but I am just tired of continually having to fix articles to the point of getting in edit wars.--dchmelik (t|c) 04:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I and few other editors have been trying to address these issues. My personal focus — at present — is the academic deficit, lack of encyclopaedic structure, and uneven coverage of in-scope topics that most Pagan articles currently suffer from. However, there is a lot of content to look over and it will take time. One thing that can help is identifying and cataloguing specific issues that are plaguing Paganism articles. Knowing problems exist ≠ knowing what/where those problems are.
Before pointing fingers, please remember there is enough blame for all sides. Article deterioration is caused by Pagans with strong POVs just as much as by people with anti-Pagan POVs.

... maybe all the main articles need to be checked out ...

They definitely do.

Though I am not so in favour of Isaac Bonewits' terms such as used for the name of this wiki project ...

I am not sure what you mean.  —Sowlos  10:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought he was the one who invented the terms 'paleopagan,' 'mesopagan,' 'neopagan'... I just do not see the relevance of these terms outside of dry academic usage that is not necessarily pagan... if you read the Neopaganism article, it says lots of reasons why people dislike the term 'neopagan.'

I already stated how some articles (such as the one someone told me about, previously) were being focused too much on specific points of view of certain pagans... but when certain anti-pagans repeatedly openly argue with and defy admins, have a history of getting blocked from pages and mediators refusing to work with them, blanking parts of talk pages to censor people, apparently attempting to 'out' people, and leaving non-constructive comments only telling someone what to do, which can be considered harassment, I certainly will do more than just point fingers.--dchmelik (t|c) 01:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Lots, and I mean lots, of groups which could be and have been described as new religious movements or similar are subject to edit warring of various kinds. I know both Scientology and Falun Gong have both been to ArbCom twice or maybe even more since then, for instance. For the past few months, I've been trying to get together lists of articles in other reference sources which could be used as some sort of rough indicator or very rough guideline regarding what the content of our own articles on those topics might be. With the recent deluge of reference books of all kinds, including both witchcraft and related topics, the New Age in general, and new religious movements, I think probably most of the topics we have here are going to be covered by at least one substantive article in one of those sources, probably more than one. I know that reference sources are in general not always seen as being optimum as secondary sources, but previous discussion on one of the notice boards I remember indicated that substantive "articles" in many of these more focused reference works could qualify as secondary sources themselves, and the others will generally have bibliographies which can be used to find secondary sources making those statements. For a lot of this contentious material, consulting those sources, and maybe in the early stages of article development trying to build articles based on them, might be the best way to go about ensuring that they really are more or less objective.

Regarding the use of the word "neopaganism," yeah, that does seem, from what I've recently seen, to have maybe fallen out of favor recently to some degree. but I don't know how much so, or what other options might exist, basically because this really ain't my field. I suppose it would be possible to rename the project, and if someone wanted to start discussion about that, I can't see any objections to their doing so. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI in case anyone missed recent developments in the Young/Qworty anti-Pagan and revenge editing saga, see Robert Clark Young and List of Wikipedia controversies#2013. Helen (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Article tag

Any reasion for this project to have it's own tag ({{WikiProject Neopaganism}}) separate from {{WikiProject Religion}}? You don't have any subprojects, so the only reason I can think of would be if you want to have a separate Quality assessment from Religion's. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Hi people: Can we please have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting category for articles related to paganism so that I and others can watchlist it? I made this request perhaps a year ago at WikiProject:Religion after becoming aware of this AfD through the Swedish-related AfD alert list and realising that I would miss any such AfDs concerning US, UK, Italian, and so on and so on paganism-related topics, and got no response; I've thought of doing it myself but I believe it's beyond my technical competence. Since this is an area of the encyclopaedia where WP:FRINGE collides with WP:BIAS, it's urgently needed. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as you suggested, I created the "Deletion Sorting page for Paganism" here:- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Paganism. Shortcut:- WP:DPAGAN - Jijithnr (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC). Need your support in defending the highandedness of some biased editors. See Historicity_of_St_Thomas and Talk:Thomas_the_Apostle. Jijithnr (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Circletriangle.gif

image:Circletriangle.gif has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing workshop

In light of the Qworty incident, I am preparing a workshop on Wikipedia to present at a Pagan gathering I will be attending later this month. It's a camping event, so my goal for the discussion will be to familiarize concerned Pagans with Wikipedia standards and culture, so that if they decide to begin editing they will be as constructive as possible.

To that end, I invite input from project members. What are the issues and topics that you feel are most important to cover?--~TPW 00:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Roman polytheistic reconstructionism

This controversial article was renamed today without discussion to "Italo-Roman Traditionalism". I've moved it back and am hoping that if there is a need to rename it this will take place through discussion at Talk:Roman polytheistic reconstructionism. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Dinas Affaron and the Pheryllt

Just ran into Dinas Affaraon via our Druid article. The editor involved could probably use advice from other editors besides me. [3] as well as the source I added explains the derivation of this modern idea.Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

John and Caitlin Matthews

Needs cleaning up, I've found some serious misrepresentation and cherry picking of sources. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Pheryllt

Any reason not to take this to AfD? Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be speediable as a recreation of material previously found non-notable at AfD - see your own section two above and what was removed in this edit. For more looking, I'll have to be home from work - too many interruptions to my wiki-work here - but as I recall there were no sources justifying coverage. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I see Cuchullain redirected it in the meantime - good solution. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

New AfD of relevance here

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filianism which includes Janya (Filianism). Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine why this article was tagged for this project. There's no indication that this is a Pagan religion.--~TPW 14:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignore it then. I saw it elsewhere described as a mother goddess religion, but probably it shouldn't be described as neo-pagan. See[4]. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a matter on which people can disagree, so I've added it to the paganism deletion-sorting list. Thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Logo

Reading this week's Signpost report on Wikiproject logos got me thinking again about this project, which doesn't have a logo so much as an arbitrary assemblage of some Pagan symbols. I have an idea for a logo, crystal clear in my head, but no skills with which to create it. If someone who reads this would be willing to work with me on creating it, I'd be pleased to propose it as a logo and let project members consider it.--~TPW 20:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Kenny Klein

The article on Kenny Klein may become more active as news of the subject's arrest spreads. More editors watching this article will help it evolve based on reliable sources and Wikipedia policy, rather than sensationalism.--~TPW 23:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitions of Neopaganism

I missed most of the discussion around "Neopaganism" vs "Modern Paganism" vs "Paganism (contemporary)," and had no significant attachment to the outcome. However, this was brought to my attention, and I think it is relevant to how we are naming various articles in the project:

Definition of neopaganism in English: neopaganism - noun - 'A modern religious movement that seeks to incorporate beliefs or ritual practices from traditions outside the main world religions, especially those of pre-Christian Europe and North America. Neopaganism is a highly varied mixture of ancient and modern elements, in which nature worship (influenced by modern environmentalism) often plays a major role. Other influences include shamanism, magical and occult traditions, and radical feminist critiques of Christianity.'" - oxforddictionaries.com

. I think this has a bearing on ethnic and reconstructionist traditions that are opposed to "incorporat[ing] beliefs or ritual practices from...North America." While it's common knowledge that many Neopagans do this, there are traditions that are opposed to it, so are now excluded from this definition. - CorbieV^☊ 21:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

New article Wiccans and Pagans in the United States military

I did Buddhists in the United States military, Military history of Jewish Americans, and Sikhs in the United States military, so figured this was a good next one to cover. I welcome any help in expanding the coverage for the article, and perhaps in finding some official military photos since those are Public Domain by default. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Pagans

The scope and name of List of Pagans is under discussion, see talk:List of Pagans -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Viking metal FAC

I've nominated Viking metal as a featured article. Please give any input you may have on the article. Thanks, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Impromptu edit-a-thon to reestablish the Ecosexuality article

I am hosting an edit-a-thon on 2017-01-02 from noon to 4pm PST to work on reestablishing the Ecosexuality article, minus the POV, COI, PROMO, primary sources, & other problems. Folks are welcome to help edit remotely. I have some instructions at User_talk:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality draft & Wiki markup from one or two versions before it was deleted at User:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality draft (please leave the latter be). We are starting a fresh version at User:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality. Please add & edit individual sections rather than the whole article.

The Facebook event page is at https://www.facebook.com/events/178307402644082/. Maybe you can message me from the event page.

Peaceray (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Place of power being considered for deletion

Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place of power. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

FAC of Heathenry (new religious movement)

Just to let folks interested in modern Paganism know that Heathenry (new religious movement) is currently up for FAC. It would be great if some of those reading this could come, take a look, and offer their thoughts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Neopaganism and Current Activity

I am a new Wikipedian and am learning how this work, and became one in part because I saw a lack of activity and current editing in this project. Any ideas about updating the to-do lists and updating across the site? FULBERT (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@FULBERT: I would suggest checking out the "Cleanup listing for WikiProject Neopaganism". tools.wmflabs.org. Peaceray (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Peaceray: Many thanks! As you probably noticed, I am very new here and trying to understand how this works so I can help. Was that page you listed linked from here in some way that I missed? Again, just trying to understand the set-up so I can better work within it. --FULBERT (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@FULBERT: There is a plethora of stuff that goes on in namespaces other than the (main) namespace. So there are many links in these other namespaces. Under the Article Alerts & Cleanup section of of the main page for WikiProject Neopaganism, I happened to see this:

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Working with the cleanup list was one of my best introductions for what a WikiProject needed, to being a WikiGnome, & to aspects of editing that I had not previously considered.

Peaceray (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Chthonic, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Wikimania 2017

Anybody working on this project happen to be attending Wikimania? I am here, and would love to meetup for in-person time if anybody else is here. FULBERT (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Myrhh

The religious uses of myrrh include neither Hellenic nor contemporary Pagan references. Might be a worthy topic to improve for this project.~TPW 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC) ~TPW 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Witch and witchcraft: two Wikidata items, and a problem

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Witchcraft#Witch and witchcraft: two Wikidata items, and a problem which is of relevance to this WikiProject. Narky Blert (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gothi that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  15:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WPN listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPN. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of Pagan, Paganism, Witch, and Witchcraft?

I saw the portal box mention capitalization of Pagan and Paganism (including in the word NeoPagan) in the current (as of June 2019) revision. As these are religious terms, shouldn't they also be generally capitalized on Wikipedia? I am particular thinking of the Witch-hunt article (which even includes a Talk section discussing hyphenation but no mention of capitalization). Some might argue the word was traditionally not capitalized, but I don't think that's a strong argument, as it's an argument originating from the linguistic practices of a culture which has been discrediting Pagan traditions and Witchcraft for a long time. If there was an article talking about a "christian-hunt" where people had been accused of being a christian and were persecuted for it whether they practicied christianity or not, I think there would be a rush to capitalize the 'C'. So why not Pagan and Witch? Am I wrong? (Or likely to get shot down and have my intellect questioned in some patronizing fashion?) os (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It depends on how you use the word. You don't capitalize types of religions, like "revealed religion" or "mysticism", so when "paganism" is used in this way it's not capitalized. But in the context of neopagan movements it's sometimes used as the name of a religion, and then it's capitalized just like Christianity. So it's not about discrediting anything, it's just that the word pagan can mean a few different things. Ffranc (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Kemetic Orthodoxy article considered for deletion

The article Kemetic Orthodoxy is currently being considered for deletion. If you want to voice your perspective on why this should or should not be deleted, please share that here. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for new WikiProject

I have made a proposal for a new WikiProject as Wikipedia: WikiProject Council - WikiProject Mysticism. I know that Wikipedia is not meant to be a forum for original research, but in my Ph.D. (which was in the area of Transpersonal Psychology) I found Paganism to be a pro-mystical religion, so I wonder whether any members of this WikiProject would be interested in getting such a WikiProject started? Many thanks, Vorbee (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Article Alerts & Cleanup

The new section added to the project page, Article Alerts & Cleanup, by Ffranc is very helpful. I have not see this done in this way before and think it will help our project editing greatly. Thanks for adding that. --- FULBERT (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not the one who added it. It was already there when I came here. Ffranc (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it was added by Phoenixred back in May 2012. It's also possible to go directly to the article alerts page itself and put it on a watchlist. I agree it's very useful. Ffranc (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)