Talk:Germanic neopaganism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

 This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.
WP:WPN This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Germanic neopaganism was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-04-02

Contents

[edit] Slight correction, and slighter grammatical fix

Qualified the section on "Blót" under Rites, to prevent some misunderstanding. The blót is performed outside of the homestead, and "garb" isn't required.

Also corrected "is are" to "are."

GeminiDomino 14:08 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] .

Someone using IP address 69.146.136.161 made a pointless edit of one letter to this article, so I reverted it to the last good version. P.MacUidhir 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1980s

Historical information is quite sparse, on US Asatru websites, so if anybody knows what happened to the US subculture during 1987/88, I'd be glad for the addition. From the pattern of society forming, there appears to have been some sort of split. More detail about the process of chapter-forming of Odinic Rite would also be nice. dab (ᛏ) 05:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I know some people... ;) If you want to chat via e-mail, we can get that data hashed out for you to use as you wish with this article. P.MacUidhir 21:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
we need some standard of verifiability, though. We can quote people, as in "according to the chairman of the X association, ..."; but I cannot just put stuff I got via e-mail here without quoting any sources, I'm afraid. dab (ᛏ) 10:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
That could be easier said than done, though it may be easier with the recent history of the reconstruction than with things like how rites are performed. Without an Àsa-pope, so to speak, there's no one to speak to the "right way" to be Àsatru (and most of us like that just fine ;)), and things like that may differ from hearth to hearth.GeminiDomino 14:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Folkish Asatru

I have noticed the following quote, which I believe violates the NPOV of the matter:

Folkish Asatru insists on the necessity of "Germanic blood" for Asatru practitioners, with clear affinity to white power movements.

I don't disagree with the statement regarding the "Germanic blood" aspect; though I think that it may be improved if I were to replace this statement with "Northern European heritage." The problem I have is with the statement of its "affinity to white power movements." In most cases, this is simply not true. The term "white power" has implicit connotations with racist and neo-Nazi movements and organizations which is not present in legitimate Folkish Asatru. True, it is present in the spin-off "Asatru"-like organizations that do teach racism; but these groups are mainly shunned by the Asatruar community. Folkish Asatru is not racist in that it doesn't teach that the Northern European race or people is superior to all others; it teaches that each people should learn the wisdom of their own culture instead of ripping off other traditions for their own ends. This being said, it can't then follow that it is connected with Nazism, given that it would be illogical to reject racism yet hold views of Nordic Supremacism.

If no one objects, I can make the needed changes.

Yogensha 01:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Folkish does not equal racist, at least in the 'mainstream' of Folkish beliefs with which I am familiar. I say change it to what you think is fair, and then we can consider the change in phrasing on its own merit. P.MacUidhir 10:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
well, what is the difference between "folkish" and "tribalist" then? As I understand it, "tribalists" emphasize cultural heritage; it doesn't matter what your genetic composition is, as long as you are exposed to and immersed in Northern culture. Folkish, on the other hand, focuses on descent and ancestry (i.e. genetics). The distinction is not sharp, of course, and it is unclear whether "trust no stranger people" is supposed to refer to non-pagans, to non-Scandinavians/Anglo-Saxons, or to non-whites. I take as my source the very convincing account on winterscapes, [1]:
Opposite the Universalists are the Folkish Asatruar. These claim that the only ones who can be Asatru are those with Norse or Germanic blood. They claim that other bloodlines had other gods and that people of other bloodlines should stick to those gods. They claim that the only people who can properly worship the Aesir and the Vanir are people with such blood as the ancient Norse and Germans had.
It is true that radically racist Asatru are a minority. Mainstream Asatru are usually fond of saying that these are 'shunned'. This is, however, far from clear. Actively anti-racist ('tribalist') Asatru is also confined to a minority. The majority, it would appear, dodges the issue by claiming to be unpolitical. This allows all currents within their ranks, including actively racist ones. This situation has really been brought to a point in Germany, where a notable fraction of Asatru is Neo-Nazi, pure and simple. Then there are those claiming neutrality, and consequently refuse to reject even extremists. The openly Neo-Nazi groups do not disguise their intention to infiltrate these 'unpolitical' societies, for using them as "sockpuppets" so to speak. Then there are groups that clearly reject any "volkisch" tendencies. Finally there is the almost extremely anti-Nazi 'Rabenclan' which is so immersed in fighting Nazis that one wonders whether they still have time left to actually practice any sort of Paganism. Due to this configuration, the German Neopagan subculture is in disarray. In the USA/UK the situation is more relaxed, and therefore, the distinct faction are not as clearly visible, but the basic mechanisms are identical. My personal outlook is that of a Swiss, with some familiarity of the very minor local paganism, casting a worried eye on the happenings across the northern border. Frankly, if I was German, I wouldn't want to join the fray, and prefer to remain unorganized. The characterization of folkish as "other bloodlines should stick to other gods" is reconfirmed by a humorous story written by a member of OR Germany I have recently read, where Odin appears to a German Turk, and convinces him to follow the Hunnic gods rather than Islam. The Turk agrees to "follow the gods in his blood". Now, a glance at Huns will inform you that not only do the Turks not equal Huns in any way, the Huns during some time even included Germanic (Gothic) members. This was just a humorous little tale, but it fully drives home the point of the fallacy of trying to establish "bloodlines" between people of today and people 1500 years ago (who knows how many children Attila's Huns fathered in Western Europe, for instance?), and more to the point, this example reconfirms the "folkish" (each "bloodline" - not 'culture' - has its own gods), but not "white power" (no claim that Germanic gods are in any way superior to "Hunnic" or African gods) position of Odinic Rite. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Hej. I sent you an e-mail explaining the differences, at least as I and some other tribalists view these matters. For the record here, though: the difference between folkish and tribalist tends to be more in how they organise themselves *as* groups. The race issue does not matter to either set of people. Only the extremists / fanatics on both sides care at all about race, and those people are very much in the minority. I am a tribalist, but the folkish people I meet are usually quite friendly and decent folk. They simply develop differently as a group in comparison to tribalists.
Besides, anyone who claims to be a heathen and also has racist beliefs is a living contradiction. Being a racist is contrary to what heathenry teaches as a way of life. Discussing those hypocrites is pointless, since by definition a racist cannot be a heathen. Racist beliefs and heathen beliefs are mutually exclusive and incompatible in every way imaginable. This is not just opinion: it is a fact and supportable with plenty of evidence. P.MacUidhir 15:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
well, this entirely depends on your definition of "racism" then; if you equate "racism" with "brainless foaming nazis" then you are right, certainly. But one may well have racist notions without being fanatic about them. And certainly, I have talked to people with decidedly extreme views who were entirely friendly and decent towards me, that's not a contradiction at all. But hey, I'm not saying this whole article should be dominated by the racism debate. It is a real issue within Asatru, but it shouldn't be blown out of proportion. I still do think the difference between the "tribalist" and the "folkish" directions involves the notion of a "bloodline" (or, synonymously, "race"). dab (ᛏ) 15:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Berserkr

I am a bit hesitant to agree with the addition of the berserkrgang being linked with seidh. The 'how' of a berserkr being what he/she is in past centuries is still a hot topic for speculation and debate between scholars of Scandinavian history. Do you have some lore texts you can cite for that reference in the article in order to support it, Dieter? I can pull out my notes on the subject and do so myself, but if you have them handy and get to it before I can, please feel free. You might have some I do not have, and vice-versa. P.MacUidhir 20:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

no, I just wanted to mention it as a sort of religious experience; feel free to rephrase. Since it involves altered states of consciousness, I decided to list it with seid rather than as a separate item, but I am not claiming it is identical with, or a subset of seid. I am not even sure it qualifies as a "rite", but that seemed the most appropriate section for mentioning it. I am sure you will find a better way of incorporating it. dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Odinism

I don't like the bit about the "term focuses on worship of Odin in particular." This is incorrent. You may wish to read the article called 'Odinism, By Any Other Name...' which can be found here: http://geocities.com/odinistlibrary/OLArticles/Articles/Odinismbyanyothername.htm from the Odinist Library here: http://geocities.com/odinistlibrary/

well, "time of light", vs "tyranny of Christianity", that sounds just a little bit too biased (and naive) for WP. Also, a site that claims to "educate" but mixes up Guido von List and Black Sun stuff with Germanic paganism is a rather sad sign of the education of the would-be educators. Even OR appears to claim the fylfot "has been part of our heritage for over 10,000 years. Let's see. The term "fylfot" most likely dates to the 19th century. The swastika symbol may be aged some 4000 years [2]. Odin in any form is aged 3500 years at best, more likely 2500 years. In his historical "Eddaic" form, 1500 at best. If you really want to stretch "Odinism" to include steppe nomads of Kazakhstan, you may argue that the "holy symbol" of "our tradition" is aged 4000 years. The figure of 10,000 is more than twice that, dating "our tradition" to the Ice Age. That's simply nonsense. dab (ᛏ) 19:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning Motives for Re-Direct

Why did someone redirect Asatru and Odinism to this entry with no explanation or justification on the talk page?

I think Asatru should fall under Germanic Reconstructionism, Germanic Heathenry or just Asatru. Here is why:

Doing a Google search of "Germanic Neopaganism" turns up only 142 hits. Doing a Google search of "Germanic Heathenry" turns up 2,640 hits. Doing a Google search for "Odinism" turns up 26,800 hits. Doing a Google of "Asatru" turns up 431,000 hits. I feel that the term "Germanic Neo-Paganism" is factually incorrect & misleading and I advocate reverting the re-directs unless a reasonable explanation is offered.

Asatru has been a legally recognized religion in the United States since 1972. "Germanic Neo-Paganism" has not.

Also, "pagan" is felt to be a perjorative term by many Asatruar. The term "pagan" was primarily used by the Romans and later the Roman Catholics to deride the country folk who worshipped the old Gods while the city folk had all been converted to monotheistic xianity. Just like the Greeks used the word "barbaroi" to describe non-Greeks, Muslims call non-Muslims "infidels" and Jews use "gentile" or "goyim" - these are all considered perjorative by the groups being demonized - including modern Asatruar.

Sources:
The word heathen was first documented by Bishop Ulfilas (311-382) - in the first translation of the Bible from Greek to Gothic. The closest we can ascertain, the term "heathen" meant a polytheist who worshipped on/ or lived on the heath. Other than seasonal gatherings at the temples blót were outdoors (on the heath or in sacred groves).This was specifically referred to and forbiden by the church fathers. There were also specific Germanic tribes - the Heathobards (Beowulf lines 2032 & 2067 in my version) and the Heathoreams (among other tribes) whose names attest to the fact that the term "heathen" or "heath dweller" predates Ulfilas.

The term "heathen" was coined and used exclusively regarding Germanic indigenous religion and cultural practices in it's original context. Later, when the Bible was translated into Modern English, the term "heathen" was used rather than the Latin pagan because the people who would be reading it spoke a Germanic tongue. Also note that Irish Monks referred to the vikings specifically as heathens - not pagans.

Thus, in a historical context, Heathen refers exclusively to those who follow the reconstructed Pre-xian religion of Northern Europe.

The Vikings in Irish Chronicles, 794-902 is a very interesting database citing all known entries in the Irish annals referring to Vikings during a 108 year period during the heighth of the Viking age. The annals were huge. Just the references to the Vikings are around 94 pages long.

  • The word Heathen occurs 172 times.
  • The word Dane occurs 72 times.
  • The word Northmen occurs 44 times.
  • The word Pagan occurs 2 times, but not as a descriptor for the Vikings but for their "pagan-like" activities.

Thus, in a historical context, I think the facts bear out that "heathen" refers to those who follow the indigenous religion(s) or tribal practices of the pre-xian Northern Europeans. As such Germanic_Neopaganism is incorrect both historically as well as in modern common usage, just by the sheer discrepancy in the usage of the terms shown on google. As indicated by Google hits, there appears to be far more adherents and self-declared Asatruar in the English speaking world than there are in Scandinavia.

I think that perhaps there is a conflict of interest here, and I ask whomever has taken the stewardship and spokesperson role for all Asatruar on wikipedia to please identify themselves and their motivations.

Other Sources Cited:

HroptR 18:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


it is a question of the scope of this article. This article covers all reconstrucitivist Germanic religions, and therefore its title is correct. Google counts don't enter into it, Google gives 20 million hits for "viking" and yet we do not move this article to Viking because its subject matter are not (exclusively) Vikings. Now, "Asatru" is an Icelandic word, originally referring to the Icelandic Asatruarfelagidh. It should properly refer to reconstructions of the Eddaic religion, exclusively. If we want to do a special article about this, fine: Similarly, Odinism does not redirect here, but treats groups who specifically self-describe as Odinists. Not all currents treated on this article can properly be identified as "Asatru", and the term is not uncontroversial. The Icelanders do not like to see syncretistic currents self-describe as "Asatru". We can very well portray the various views on the topic, but we cannot prejudice the question by choice of title. Maybe there should be an independent Asatru article, or maybe Asatru should redirect to the Icelandic Asatruarfelagidh instead of here, I don't know. I do know that we cannot just move this article to Asatru, since Theodism, for example, certainly does not qualify as Asatru, insofar as it does not aim at the reconstruction of the Icelandic religion of the 10th century. As for "heathen", no, "heathen" is simply a translation of "paganus". It does not specifically refer to Germanic customs, as stated in the article. heathen - pagan is just a case for List of Germanic and Latinate equivalents. As for your Irish monks calling the Vikings "heathen", could I have a source for that please? Did your Irish monks speak Old English, or maybe Norse? Or did they actually loan the Germanic word into Irish? dab (ᛏ) 17:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] [3]

HroptR, while I agree with most of your edit, you have changed "minority" to "majority" with regard to the number of hard polytheists. What is your justification for this? If you dispute that it is a minority, you could just remove the classification. If you actually claim it is a majority, you'd need to quote some sort of evidence. dab (ᛏ) 17:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Dab

Do you think that there might be some kind of bias against American practitioners of indigenous Germanic religion on your part? Perhaps you need to question your insistence that only Scandinavians can use the term. Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson specifically recognized the Asatru Folk Assembly and the Asatru Alliance in North America in the early '90's. However, it's not like they needed permission to use the term or practice the religion. This is not a lineaged belief system. I absolutely agree 100% that Astaru should only refer to the "reconstructions of the Eddaic religion, exclusively". I also feel that Google hits are relevant as to common usage. Citing a reference to viking is a straw-man. Viking religion would be more relevant but not as accurate as the other offerings.

Don't get me wrong: I think there should be an entry for either Germanic Reconstructionism or Germanic Neopaganism in addition to Asatru. Groups like Northvegr and the various Theod and Irminist groups do not even self-identify as Asatru, thus they should not be under that entry. I think that the Germanic Neopaganism entry is getting very lengthy, and having a separate entry for the future growth is forward thinking.

As far as the semantics on heathen vs. pagan apparently the source I cited Vikings in Irish Chronicles, 794-902 is 404. I have written the School of Celtic Studies for access to the file, but I assure you my data is correct. (It is thought that the Irish monks had acces to Ulfilas' writings and that is where they gained the word hæðen. Also recall that the Irish monks where heavily involved with continental Christianity since the 400's and were regulars at Charlemagne's court. They were reknowned for their learning. I refer you to the entry for Heathen in the Online Etymology Dictionary to attest to the fact that it is far from certain whether heathen is cognate to paganus. In fact it is thought to perhaps to be cognate with the Greek ethne which would further bolster my position.

Concerning whether hard polytheists are in the majority, I don't think empirical evidence could be offered at this time either way, so I will redact the statement. However, just reading through the major real world organization's positions, all of the major players in North America (AFA, AA, Troth, OR, the various Theods - even Northvegr) seem to be hard polytheists.

What's with all the Northvegr advertisements anyway?

Also, do you think we can archive this page? It's getting pretty long.

I think that there should have been a vote on the deletion /redirect of Asatru. If you feel adamantly about deleting the entry, I think that there should be a vote or poll on it.

Thanks for taking the time to steward these entries - I realize how confusing and convoluted all the material and agendas can be.-HroptR 19:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


As for my alleged bias, it is irrelevant. I realize that "Asatru" is used as a cover term in the USA, and our article has stated as much for months. All I am saying is that we cannot move this article to the title Asatru, since that would be a controversial, and you seem to agree. You can document American usage of the term to your heart's content, without opposition from me. In fact, I will now branch off an independent Asatru article, where the term, and anybody using the term as a self-designation can be discussed at leisure. If you care to check the history of this article, you will note that it was a dilapidated mess before I started to re-organize it. There was no need for a vote. There may be a need for a vote now, and we can still have one, if we do not arrive at a consensus. So far, however, I don't see any irreconcileable differences between our positions. As for your statement regarding heathen, I am afraid you do not make a terrible amount of sense. Are you saying the Irishmen used the Gothic term, haithno? Or the Old English one, haedhen? My suspicion is that you have read an English translation of an Irish text, and the translator simply decided to render some Irish term as "heathen". I don't see how this is relevant at all. I apologize, of course, if you have in fact read the Irish text, and seen the Germanic word in the Irish, in that case I would ask you to point me to the exact location of the text, or at least to give a verbatim quote. You must realize, that our explanation of heathen here is in part based on etymonline? It is entirely in accord. Ulfila's use, yes, the first attested occurrence of the Germanic word, is in reference to a Greek woman, so I really cannot see how you can claim the term is used for Germans exclusively. Please, if you feel Northvegr is unduly advertised, do edit it out. It's just that Northvegr is a prime source of all things Old Norse on the Internet, so we end up citing them quite frequently. I do think that their text editions have the status ofe a serious reference. dab (ᛏ) 10:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you have already separated the Asatru article. That's fine with me; problem solved, as far as I'm concerned. dab (ᛏ) 10:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong Dab - I appreciate the effort and time you have spent on these entries and I looked back through the conflagration of the edit histories. I realize that for most of the time this article has been extant that you have been the only one keeping it in some form of cohesive form. I appreciate that, and I'm sure all the people who have come here via search engine do as well. You are partially correct: It was very foolish of me not to correlate the Latin and the Gaelic - the primary seems to be a derivative of gentile genntibh and gennte. However a case could be made that the mere fact that they did not use pagani in the annals - when the word was known and available to them - indicates the word was lacking for their definition. (I'm not arguing to change the entry title to Germanic Gentilis though :D)

Again, agreeing upon the strict definition of Asatru: "reconstructions of the Eddaic religion, exclusively" I'll try to keep it within this scope. Can we archive this page? It is getting very long. -HroptR 19:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

well, I am glad we seem to be able to agree on practically everything. I am certainly looking forward to your contributions to Asatru, and your criticism (such as, I may have given Northvegr, which I am familiar with as a good source, too much prominence) is welcome; I think we can leave this topic hanging here for a few days, and if nobody else comments, we can archive the page. regards, dab (ᛏ) 19:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Valknut

Why was the link to Valknut removed? -- I would have thought it would be highly relevant... AnonMoos 20:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

why is it highly relevant? dab (ᛏ) 20:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Because some Germanic neo-pagan individuals or groups use it as an emblem, as you can see with very simple searching on Google (regular or image search). AnonMoos 20:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
It is a symbol found on Iron Age stones in Scandinavia, so, sure, there is presumably a connection to Germanic paganism, but why is it more relevant than e.g. Mjollnir. You could write a paragraph explaining why it is relevant rather than just linking it without comment as a "see also". The Valknut article isn't in very good shape, btw, quoting "one Asatru site", linking to some random AOL (of all things!) site. dab (ᛏ) 20:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
If you don't like the shape it's in, then please put it into a better shape -- I'm only really knowledgeable about the geometric aspects, not the historical or the modern neo-pagan community, so there's a limit to what I can do on that article. AnonMoos 20:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear AnonMoos, there are 818,000 articles on Wikipedia, the majority of which are in rather poor shape. I am spending far too much time here anyway (some 5 hours today, sadly), but I still can only work on so many articles at a time. I will certainly look after Valknut if I get round to it, but I have about a thousand other articles on my watchlist demanding attention. I was just pointing out that you cannot take for granted stuff you read on Wikipedia, unless it is referenced, and the reference turns out to be some credible academic or literary source rather than an AOL homepage. dab (ᛏ) 21:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Whatever, dude -- I didn't write the sections of the Valknut article which you're objecting to, and meanwhile, you're missing the main point, which is that very simple and elementary basic searching will turn up a fair number of homepages of people and groups who claim to be Germanic neopagans, and who use the Valknut as an emblem. As far as I can see, the only way that Valknut wouldn't be a relevant link for this article is if you had some credible reason to believe that all those homepages were hoaxes, put up by people who are claiming to be Germanic neopagans, but in fact aren't. AnonMoos
very well, dude, I do invite you to make mention of the highly relevant fact that a google search reveals the popularity of the 'Valknutr' design among neopagans. dab (ᛏ) 23:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think much can be said about it except that it was possibly a symbol for Odin. For practices particular to Odinic Rite, you may want to edit that article. dab (ᛏ) 20:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stop deleting highly relevant link

Dude, I'm sorry for you that you seem to have developed an extreme violent aversion and uncontrollable virulent antipathy to a few sentences in the Valknut article (sentences which I did not write, I am not responsible for, and I don't really feel qualified to revise), but that does absolutely nothing whatsoever to change the rather indisputable fact that Valknut is a highly-relevant link for this article. AnonMoos 14:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


I think the link is highly irrelevant myself. You have not presented anything to explain why this symbol should be included, but not other symbols which are even in more common usage amongst germanic neopagans. Rather than proving your stance or bolsetering your position with fact or references like this: The Knots of Death you copped an attitude. Dab even told you in simple English, that you could place a cross reference to the valknut in the article, as long as you explained why it is even relevant. Instead you threw a fit like a kid.Mjolnir is a much more represented motif by adherents of Germanic Neopaganism and it isn't in the article anywhere. Yet, no one is arguing to include reference to that or to the runes which are also highly represented. Unlike Thorr's Hammer, there is no solid literary reference to the walknutr anywhere. There are hundreds of material instances of mjolnir pendants, moulds, inscriptions and references in the physical and literary material culture of the indigenous heathens. Even Sleipnir is cross referenced in the manuscripts by Snorri *AND* on pictographs. The only reference we have to the valknutr is a few sparse pictographs. Without other material evidence, the meaning is dubious at best. The oft made statement that it is "Odin's sign" is just not supported by the material. There is no historical proof that the valknutr was (or is) the symbol of Odin and it doesn't even appear in any of the medieval manuscripts or grimoires to my knowledge. The triskele or fylfot appear in conjunction with Odin more than the valknut, yet again, neither of these are in the entry. However the fact that it has been used by modern Germanic Reconstructionists since at least the '80's is verifiable, since it was used as a symbol of the Rune Gild and Edred Thorsson mentions such in A Book of Troth. If you would like, I will add to the valknut entry and figure out a way to add a reference to the valknut along with mjolnir in Germanic Neopaganism. But placing it at the end of the article with no explanation and out of context is not how to have it referenced in the entry.-HroptR 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thank you HroptR :o) that, and there is also the "Symbolism" section I created, putting the valknut in context, once it became clear that AM was either unwilling or unable to do it himself. He still threw a fit because the link had disappeared from the "see also", even though it was now put in referred to in the article body. Sometimes, you just have to shrug and accept that you'll get all kinds, on Wikipedia :p btw, a google image search for "Asatru" shows up one single valknutr for me, amongst lots of mjollirs and yggdrasils, so I have my doubts about the symbol's popularity. Likewise, the "fylfot", afaik there is no evidence that it had any significance as a symbol, where it appears at all it is typically one among variants of ornamental signs. During the composition of the Swastika article, at least, no evidence of Germanic use has substantiated. dab (ᛏ) 16:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It's nice that you created a little "symbolism" section for the article, but you're not "doing my work for me", since I never saw the need for any detailed explanation here (as opposed to a simple "see also" link), and you never even attempted to make the case for the necessity of such a section (instead rambling on about how valuable your precious time is, and how much you hate certain sentences in the Valknut article which I didn't write and can't fix). I really don't understand what was the point of all this fuss and botheration about a simple unobtrusive "see also" link to another relevant article. AnonMoos 22:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to toss in an "insider's" viewpoint: the valknut symbol does have some currency amongst modern heathens as well as heithinnfolk, but it is rare compared to, say, Mjolnir, runes, or Yggdrasil in terms of "popular" symbols. This opinion is based mostly on personal observations and experience rather than formal surveys of our folk.
As far as historical usages are concerned, almost nothing is known with any certainty. Even the Davidson quote is mostly speculative in tone, as she almost certainly intended it to be when she wrote it. I have a few sources here on the valknut design, but they invariably deal with the subject mostly in correlation with Borromean triangles or triskele-style knotwork symbols. Honestly, we know almost nothing about the so-called valknut- scholarly or otherwise.
I do not see a reason to disallow a link to the Valknut article from Germanic_Neopaganism since the symbol *does* have *some* usage... but dab's point about adding the other common symbols as well should be kept in mind and implemented if the Valknut article is linked here. That is my two florins on this topic.
P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Padraic. Sigh, that's what I meant to say precisely. "See also: Valknut" is plain silly. Why not "See also: Gimli"? Because, hell, Gimli is a character of Norse mythology, and that's what these people are into, isn't it? It was your job to provide a coherent sentence about Valknut because you, AnonMoos, insisted it had to be mentioned. We have such a coherent sentence now, off the top of my head. Feel free to improve the "Symbolism" section, I just listed the most common symbols I could think of. dab (ᛏ) 07:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wotanism

Someone recently added wotanism as allegedly being cognate with the other common terms. However, I don't think this is the case, as Wotanism has commonly taken on the ahistorical usage by followers of the incarcerated neo-nazi terrorist David_Lane. If one Googles "wotan" or "wotanism", it seems the term has become a byline for white supremacist activity and not Germanic neopaganism. Apparently WOTAN is an acronym for Will Of The Aryan Nation. I am tempted to remove the reference outright, but it probably should be used in the context of the neo-nazis who identify as Germanic neopagans further down in the entry, rather than as a cognate term. This doesn't seem to gel with the tripartite Folkish - Universalist - Tribalist division in the article, as the Wotanist people apparently even reject folkishness' as not being racist *enough*...WeniWidiWiki 15:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've ran into this also. Often, the term "Odinism", although not used as an acroynm, has been hijacked in a similar manner, maybe seen as a less obvious synonym to this word for such groups. :bloodofox: 07:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
wotanism redirects to Odinic Rite at the moment. If we can cite a credible source for the acronym thing, it may be well worth mentioning in the neo-nazi section. dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well just to clarify, I don't think Odinism is any sort of secret code word for racist groups like Wotanism is. There are and have been numerous Odinist groups who do not tolerate politics or racism, and even the Odinist Fellowhsip and OR are not what I would qualify as racists or nazis - while the groups calling themselves Wotanists like the Temple of Wotan are 100% without a doubt neo-nazis. The first several hits for it on google are NS groups. Gambanreidi Statement, and on the second hit there is the essay by David Lane where he specifically states they do not identify with the term Odinist or Asatru:

So, I first chose the name Wotanism over Odinism. First because W.O.T.A.N. makes a perfect acronym for Will Of The Aryan Nation. Secondly because he was called Wotan on the European continent and only called Odin in Scandinavia. Therefore Wotan appeals to the genetic memory of more of our ancestors. And finally because a split had to be made with the game players, deceivers and universalists who had usurped the name Odin.

Maybe wotanism should re-direct to the OR because it turns out that most of the Temple of Wotan materials were blatantly plagiarized from the Odinic Rite with a bunch of nazi mysticism tacked on. However, I suppose there could be some genuine Germanic neopagans out there who use the term Wotan in the sense that Jung or Wagner used the term - I just haven't seen any. WeniWidiWiki 16:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I re-directed Wotanism here and also clarified the philosophy at David_Lane. This is the material I have for this entry, and I would like some feedback before I add it in, and if it should even be in this entry. Also wehere in the article I should add it. Unlike the other terms listed, "Wotanism" is not widely used and therefore the first paragraph would have to be rephrased if we add it in. Here is what I have thus far:

===Wotanism===
Based on the essay of the same name by Carl Jung, the term Wotanism in modern times heavily emphasizes white supremacy and National Socialism (NS). Wotan is the German name of the God Odin but is used as a symbolic acronym for "Will Of The Aryan Nation" by some Wotanists.[4] Unlike other Germanic neopagans, Wotanists emphasize dualism and view the Gods as Jungian archetypes.[5]

Feedback and input greatly appreciated - look at the two links and also back at the David_Lane bio. I have the book Gods of the Blood, and this topic is discussed in depth. WeniWidiWiki 02:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see Wotanism is now redirected to David Lane. I don't know if this is appropriate, as apparently there are 'Wotanists' who do no subscribe to Lane's philosophy. However, their group was founded by Lane (actually by his (ex?) wife, since he is incarcerated: Katuscha Maddox AKA Katja Lane. The group's name is the Temple of Wotan inspired by the book Temple of Wotan. There probably needs to be a sole entry for Wotanism since it's not distinctly Germanic neopaganism and it is not distinctly David Lane's philosophy. However with the current idealogy Lane is promoting in his most recent work KD Rebel, (kidnapping under-age girls and women and turning them into breeders in a racist Wotanist enclave up in the mountains) and considering his background, Wotanism should not direct to Germanic neopaganism. WeniWidiWiki 20:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
sorry, I was not aware of this discussion anymore. Yes I agree, it would be best to have a separate article dedicated to the term. dab (ᛏ) 17:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I created Wotanism and added material - hopefully the non-racist/nazi Wotanists will come along sooner or later and add their POV to it. WeniWidiWiki 19:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Wotanism should be a disambiguation page as Wotanism as defined by plagiarist Ron McVan is a completely different from the Wotanism of Guido von List. And, both are different to Odinism (Wotanism under a different name). FK0071a 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made this a topic of conversation on the Wotanism talk page HERE. FK0071a 09:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attn editors

User:Wikipedical Added Germanic Neopganism to the Nazi Template and placed the nazi template on this entry with no explanation. Here are the diffs. [6][7] I have removed the template from this page and also removed Germanic Neopaganism from the template itself. Please help keep an eye on this. WeniWidiWiki 22:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Heathenry

I agree that these two entries are competing now, however I feel that this entry is trying to be all things to all men and the presentation of the material is severely lacking as a result. So many things are now out of context, which should have been corrected in the previous merges, that it is difficult to make heads or tails of it. Neologism or not, Heathenry or Germanic Heathenry are the common usage terms by the adherents themselves. Also, I feel that before someone just flushes Heathenry they should probably hold an RfC or at least inform the editors of that entry that there is going to be a merge /re-direct and wait for feedback. I feel it is inappropriate to just assimilate everything into an all encompassing Borg entry which is so conflicting and inaccurate as to just leave the reader extremely confused. The main proponents and advocates of these merges need to stick around and help clean up the disaster and factual errors left in the wake of such wide-scale merges if they insist upon them. In this instance they probably should be merged, but let's do it with more caution and attempt to keep the article cohesive rather than a conflicting jumble of factoids. WeniWidiWiki 20:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

first of all, merging does not mean assimilating. Heathenry has valuable information that should be merged here. Secondly, as discussed several times before, "Heathenry" is not the term used by adherents, it is one of the terms. Now, Asatru, Theodism and Odinism have sub-articles, by virtue of being well-delineated subsets (Asatru Viking Age Norse in particular, Theodism and Odinism being particular organizations). The same does not hold for "Heathenry". If we agree that "Heathenry" and "Germanic neopaganism" should be merged, the question arises, at which title should the merged article reside. Again, as discussed several times before, "Heathenry" is not unambiguous. It may be used synonymously with any of Paganism, Germanic paganism or Germanic neopaganism. I suggest it could be a disambiguation page. Germanic Heathenry is ambiguous, referring to both Germanic paganism or Germanic neopaganism. As for the creators of the Heathenry article, they were well aware of this article, yet they created it as a fork. It should have been merged at an earlier stage, but I only just noticed it now. As for the drawbacks of this article, it may need sub-articles per Wikipedia:Summary style, but it certainly doesn't need a fork with identical scope. dab (ᛏ) 20:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing about the ambiguous terminology, nor am I advocating a fork. I agree that the lead needs work. What I am advocating, is that there needs to at least be reference to Germanic Heathenism in the lead in my opinion, neologism or not, because neopaganism is ambiguous. The term, in the US at least, specifically has connotations of Norse Wicca[8], and Wiccatru [9] which are not even reconstructionist beliefs, but offshoots of the New Age who have appropriated Norse and Germanic cosmology. I'm also not advocating merging or renaming both of these into Germanic Heathenism. I'm stating that the term needs to be mentioned. (I'll also point out that Odinism does not have a sub-article - it redirects back to this entry and that the UK based organization the Odinic Rite obviously identifies as Odinist and they are not in the US.) In good faith, I think that the original creators of Heathenry felt that this specific article was lacking - because it obviously is. I am advocating more careful merging than in the past, and there is no hurry in my opinion. In good faith I feel we should hear from the editors of Heathenry who obviously put much time and work into it, before we assimilate or merge the entry. WeniWidiWiki 21:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

merge, not assimilate. I have no issue with anything that's in Heathenry, except that it should be merged here :) Yes, I thought Odinism redirected to Odinic Rite, apparently not anymore. Obviously Neopaganism is the much wider term, including Wicca and what not, and of course I agree that all terms, neologisms or not, should be listed in the lead. dab (ᛏ) 21:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Heathenry should be a disambiguation page. FK0071a 08:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list of terms in the lead

We have

The term Germanic Heathenry (Old Norse heiðinn), is commonly used by adherents as a self-descriptor, while in the USA, the terms Ásatrú ("Æsir faith"), and Odinism are also widely used. In Britain, Heathenry, and in Scandinavia Forn Sed ("Old custom", Anglo-Saxon fyrnsidu) are also commonly used terms

this is inconsequent. There are about four or five things wrong with it. "Heathenry" (heiðinn --what now, heathenry or heiðinn? heathenry is not derived from heiðinn, it is a genuinely English cognate)is commonly used by adherents [where?], while (while?) "Asatru" and Odinism are used in the USA. Oh, and "Heathenry" is used in Britain. Oh, and Forn Sed is also commonly used. See the problem? I tried to fix it, avoiding repetition of "Heathenry", and avoiding the impression that "Heathenry" is commonly used, while "Asatru" is merely "widely used" (wth?). Furthermore, it is not true that "Germanic Heathenry" is commonly used. It gets about 1,000 google hits (Asatru: 370,000; "Heathenry": 48,000). People using "Heathenry" usually take the "Germanic" to be implied by using a Germanic word. dab (ᛏ) 20:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Rephrased for other editors' edification. WeniWidiWiki 22:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
nice one, well done. dab (ᛏ) 15:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are 'Goths' into paganism?

I hear the terms Goth and pagan and I think those younger Goths are suppose to imitate an early Germanic tribe. The word Gothic sometimes refer to a neo-pagan religion. Goths were named for a tribe of North Germans entered the Roman Empire in the 3rd century AD, then became an underclass in Roman society and their oppression was evident to create an uprising by Gothic tribal chiefs nearly destroyed Rome. The typical 'goth' in today's world are mainly young people, into morbid subjects of pain and death, and fascinated with heathenry, demonic influences and anti-social behavior. Some Goths openly discuss sex, sadism or masochism, others dress in dark clothes and their faces covered with grey 'dead face' makeup. Some Goths act like 'nocturnal zombies' visiting cemeteries, and are loners or only associate with their peers. Many goths listen to black metal, death metal and other hard rock/metal genres like Marilyn Manson, but also into techno and soft rock like Savage Garden. I recall the two suspects, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the Columbine school shooting were practicing Goths, but are influenced by Neo-Nazism, anti-authority attitudes, ultra-violent video games, cult fans of movies like the Basketball Diaries and are firearms collectors. Does anyone have concerns of the Goth movement is either pagan or something else entirely different? +207.200.116.68 11:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your short answer: Read the article on Goth and then Gothic rock to better educate yourself on the subject. What you have stated above is unfounded and untrue. :bloodofox: 16:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I second :bloodofox: in that opinion and his suggestions. Neo-paganism gets picked up by 'gothic' people because they think it fits in with their sub-cultural values. In my experience, they generally figure out very quickly that they are decidedly mistaken- 'gothic' subculture, at its most basic level and definition, tends to be incompatible with many strains of neo-paganry. Further, it is almost completely contrary to the ideals of both older and modern heithni / Germanic neopaganism. In short- 'goths' in the modern sense are not good candidates for being 'Germanic neo-pagans', and vice-versa as well.
However, on a related note, you will find some common ground when viewing Germanic neo-paganry and industrial music, or at least some variants of each. A few strong ideals tend to be shared by both groups in modern contexts. Neofolk fans, too, share a lot with Germanic neopaganry in terms of common interests.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on, I'm not trying to unfairly stereotype Goths, but I came across two or three in high school. They tell me what their subculture is and what they believe in. I read the Goth and Gothic rock articles, so it looks like the meaning changed over the course of years. Because of the 'dark' nature and its ties to rock music 'counterculture', many others joined the Goth movement with their own thing. I'm concerned of those 'goths' into death and negativity has influenced the subculture, and pagans are naturally attracted to the theological standpoint of many Goths. The Columbine shooting suspects are a rare kind of Goths, experimented with violent revenge and targeted a girl who confessed she's Christian, was killed over her remarks. How does the Goth culture reacted to the Columbine event? I apologize to bloodofox if I offended him.+ 207.200.116.68 11:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Your post seemed so off the wall and unfounded to me, I was seriously wondering if it was a joke. It sounded very much like something I once heard Jerry Falwell say regarding the specific subculture. The article on the subject that we have here is pretty concise and, in my opinion, on the mark - I would disregard what notions you've culled from these people you had. First off, I should probably state that, despite sensationalistic media reports at the time, it quickly became clear that neither of these two teenage killers had any involvement with gothic subculture (nor Germanic neopaganism for that matter) at all. I'm not taking offense, my dealings with said subculture are pretty much null. In the US, you're more likely to find goths involved with Wicca, New Age or, even less so, Thelemic matters than things involving reconstructive forms of paganism. Christian imagery and Christianity itself are major themes for many goths. In Europe, matters are considerably different and the subculture itself overlaps heavily with other subcultures and groups that either do not exist or are considerably more minute in size than those in the US - Including reconstructive forms of Germanic neopaganism, which has a considerably larger base in Europe anyway. Basically, what I'm saying is that many of the notions you have regarding this particular subculture, based off of what you've written above, are wrong and the connections to Germanic neopaganism in the US to it are extremely minute. Again, I refer you to the Gothic subculture article. :bloodofox: 20:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, but the Goth movement isn't uniform and Christianity is a major religion of Goths, along with the Syncretism borrowed from different European religions of previous centuries. There are Goths who don't fascinate with this death and morbid stuff, but my claims aren't a joke and seriously by my experience coming in contact with 3 young Goths. They are into Germanic neopaganism, or Celtic Wicca; but concerned with dark imagery and mysticism that claim was inherited for generations by the cultures of Europe. Romanticism is a movement that borrows whatever was in the distant past of any given people, nation or religion. To bring back the glorious and innocent past associated with paganism, not indulge in weird or bizarre rituals. I don't agree with Falwell, Pat Robertson or Christian fundamentalists, but I heard Dr. Laura said things on Goths, pagans and rock music fans on her radio show that are defamatory. I don't listen to her show, but her fame is spouting her political, social and religious views. I think Michael Savage went on a tantatous rant about the "pagan revival" of Europe, its' ties not limited to Nazism, but the French revolution and the European Union. So he has expressed a problem with neopaganism, same goes to other right-wing columnists, like the Green Party with some members are in a religion associated with mankind's closeness to mother nature. Of course, European paganism is stronger than in the U.S. and this proves to you I took my time to research Goths and paganism. That's all for now. + 207.200.116.68 07:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

it appears sectarian and elitist to suggest that "Goths are mistaken about/ incompatible with" paganism. Still, it should be noted that they are named not after the historical Goths (who became Christians very early, in the 4th century, anyway) directly, but after the term in 18th/19th century romanticism. Hence, if the "Goths" are in any way historical reconstructionists, they do a fancy impression of 18th century eccentrics, not Germanic pagans. Nevertheless, symbols and terms from Germanic paganism are very popular among them (as, of course, during the romanticist revival). It is certainly true that the Goth subculture is not connected to polytheistic reconstructionism. Their notions of paganism may often be naive, but syncretism and naiveté imho are the true hallmark of a "folk religion" (while learnéd Eddaic reconstructionists are doing their best to turn Germanic paganism into a book religion) dab (ᛏ) 11:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

ive never edited a wiki article befor but i think it is worth mentioning that the ancient goths have nothing to do with this article i do not know where the modern gothic culture comes from but the ancients were christian every aspect of theyre culture was heavely influenced by christianity they were extreemly violent but that was common for the era especialy among the romans

[edit] 9 Noble Virtues Vs. 10 Commandments

The article says: "Comparison of the Nine Noble Virtues of modern heathenry, which are loosely based on the Havamal can be contrasted with the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments." There is no reason to contrast virtues to commandments, that's an easy error given the fact that both are lists. Christians (or judeochristians) have their own virtues, which are not the same as the more specific commandments. Later on it is said: "Such a comparison shows that it is not the actual behaviour (such as "thou shalt not steal") which are prescribed, but rather an emphasis on character traits", which doesn't explain anything: a commandment IS a prescription on behavior, and virtues ARE moral dispositions, to put it in two words. So, at least, if the "nine noble virtues" are not compared with the four cardinal virtues or the three theologal virtues in Catholicism, it could be compared (contrasted) with the more known "Seven deadly sins" (which are the opposite of virtues). I'm inclined to do it myself but I wanted to put it here first, and I'll be glad if someone who is already working on this article does it himself. 200.55.118.233 16:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Nahuel

um, did you note that contrast is in fact about pointing out these differences? You are just repeating the point already made in the article. dab (ᛏ) 10:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Er, did you note that Christianity already has its virtues, and that any contrast would fit better if you take the same denominators? The text is totally misleading, since it doesn't show what virtues christians do prefer instead, neither what forbiddances the old germanic tribes had. But don't worry, I will change it as soon as I have some time. Nazroon 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Addition and removal of links & templates

This entry has been heavily disputed in the past and most new additions are heavily scrutinized. Drive by link removal and the addition of templates with no justification on the talk page are counter-productive unless it is blatant vandalism or nonsense. Due to the controversial nature of this entry and some of it's related entries, I am throwing a template at the top of this page which requires consensus for modification - and at the very least detailed descriptions in the edit summary. - WeniWidiWiki 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No they are not. The removal of justified templates without fixing the problem is considered vandalism. They are quite self-explanatory.
As for links, see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:EL. In general, "free" hosted sites like geocities and angelfire are not considered reliable sources or good sites to link to. An organziation hosted on such a service does not meet Wikipedia notability requirements. Frater Xyzzy 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Frater Xyzzy, BTW I don't think your requests for sources are out of line and I think a lot of the stuff in the entry are kruft and unsubstantiated - just be aware of some trends in the edit history of the entry. If you remove a link, please just move it to the talk page with an explanation so everyone knows why it was removed. - WeniWidiWiki 16:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[10] This is exactly why you need to explain why you are removing links, so we can have consensus. The link does not belong there - you are correct. It was inappropriate and placed in the wrong spot - however if you would have explained this here, we wouldn't have people reverting it back and forth. Also, you placed a template on the page which says "See the talk page for details" yet there is nothing here concerning your request for sources. - WeniWidiWiki 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I did explain it here. Scroll up two paragraphs. If you are going to insist that people post on the talk page, I must insist that you actually READ it. Frater Xyzzy 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I state that it is unclear. You did not state what links you removed on the talk page and you did not state why you tagged the entry. The template specifically states "See the talk page for details". I'm looking. -WeniWidiWiki 18:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm editing the article according to standard policy. I'm not changing the content, simply removing unreliable citations and discouraged links. Please READ the relevant policies so that you are familiar with them. If and when I remove actual content, I may follow the suggestions on the template. But as WP:V states, any editor may remove uncited material at any time, so I may not. Frater Xyzzy 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

  • I have gone through and sourced everything which was tagged and removed the templates, but will leave the top template until there is consensus on this issue.
  • I have removed the following text because it is unsourced. Scandinavian editors may be able to find a source.

"In the strict sense, the term refers to reconstructed medieval Norse or Icelandic paganism and in particular to the Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið."

  • I also cut the following because the only source I could find was on a personal site, and the author seemed to have an axe to grind:

"A simplistic description of the various factions in North American Asatru, are: Universalist, Tribalist and Folkish Asatru. Universalist Asatruar practice a cultural and moral relativism to the point of syncretism, while Folkish Asatruar emphasize Northern European heritage and ancestry for the adherents of Asatru. Tribalist Asatruar take the middle approach between these two perspectives, and emphasizes Germanic cultural identity and history without an emphasis on heritage or ethnicity. However, these division semantics are seen as increasingly redundant and irrelevant as the movement grows. Membership overlaps in groups which were formerly solely "folkish" like the Asatru Folk Assembly and groups which were solely "universalist" like The Troth, brings into question the adequacy of this paradigm."

  • I have also gone through and standardized all the capitalization of neopagan to lowercase. - WeniWidiWiki 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I've finally merged Heathenry (reconstructionism). Read Talk:Heathenry (reconstructionism) for the pertaining discussion. I've imported all of the material, meaning, no information was lost, because merging and cleanup should be done separately. The material I've imported seems rather subjective (informed by the Blain references): it is perfecly valid, but may possible need some recasting into neutral/encyclopedic tone. The reason for the merge is that after many months, no clear delineation between the two articles has become apparent (unlike the clear sub-topic at Asatru). We can well state (with sources) that some adherents are not too fond of the term "neopaganism", but that is still the encyclopedic term we should use. I am perfectly sympathetic towards the movement, but I maintain that this is Wikipedia, and not a self-description by adherents. Compare the parallel situation at Hinduism: many Hindus object to the term, preferring Hindu Dharma, but the article is still at Hinduism because that is by far the most current and unambiguous term. dab (𒁳) 11:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] todo

the article is now at 48k, this means that we should not look towards adding new stuff, but polish the existing material, editing towards {{GA}}. Some sections are over-long and contain redundancies because of the merge, especially "Seid" could be cut down a little. dab (𒁳) 11:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down a bit and hopefully made it more cohesive. I have also removed the following section until we've decided what to do with it. - WeniWidiWiki 15:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Fiction

Eric Norden's Dystopian 1975 novel The Ultimate Solution depicts an alternate history where a victorious worldwide Nazi Reich supresses Christinity and other religions and replaces them with Nazi-flavored Odinist temples.
A more fantasy-orineted alternate reality is depicted in David Brin's The Life Eaters (2003), where the Aesir themselves appear over Europe in 1943 and help the Nazis to victory, except for the trickster Loki who takes the opposite side and saves many captives from the Nazi death camps.

[edit] Himmler was a pagan, but not an Asatru follower

The deleted edit I placed below is a contradictory one: Heinrich Himmler participated in pagan rites and supernatural forces from his studies of Indo-European mythology and Eastern religion. But, Himmler would belong to the category as a neopagan adherent except for holding a bigger interest in Indo-Iranian or Indo-Germanic (Teutonic) mysticism. Head over to the Talk:Heinrich Himmler (discussion) page and you'll find better evidence on Himmler's strong neopagan and polytheist occultism. There are quotes from Himmler's later dislike of Judeo-Christian doctrine he considered a threat to the "Aryan race" is reliable enough to state the edit's points of interest. + <<It's widely studied on Heinrich Himmler was an adherent to Germanic neopagan beliefs and was a believer in Ariosophy, a type of Nazi mysticism seem to combine Nazi political theology with that to have originated from eastern polytheist religions. [citation needed] >> 63.3.14.1 06:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, no. Himmler may have been a mystic or occultist, but there are numerous books and research papers which refute the WWII and postwar propaganda which placed the Nazis in a neat little box that says "pagan", the Communists in a neat little box that says "atheist" and the God-Fearing US of A in box that says "Christian". Such polar contrasts were handy as propaganda during the war, but time and research has shown that it wasn't near as clear cut as that and such characterizations are best left to simpletons. - WeniWidiWiki 06:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This form of mysticism was little more than blatant Christianity dressed in some vague middle eastern trappings, many convenient "revelations" and extremely inconsistent Germanic imagery with little regard for historical basis. Referring to it as neopaganism is pretty questionable and, as WeniWidiWiki notes, far too simplifiying. Please see Guido von List and subsequently Karl Maria Wiligut for more information. :bloodofox: 12:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 2, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: For the most part yes but there are inappropriate additions such as "emphasis added" sections and the such. Also, extensive use of speculative language such as "usually" "perhaps" "might be" "possibly" etc. Smacks of WP:OR.
2. Factually accurate?: Seems to be accurate but there is extensive use of in-text external links to unreliable sources and not near enough citations backing sweeping assertions about the subject. This is my largest concern with the article.
3. Broad in coverage?: Actually very thorough, my only concern is that the terminology section is too large and unwieldy.
4. Neutral point of view?: I'm please with the coverage of all the good bad and ugly cultural aspects and the tone is good.
5. Article stability? Seems to be very stable for the past few months, few reversions but the article has done alot of growing and might need to get some exposure from the larger community before it could really be considered "settled".
6. Images?: Another big one, there is only one, not very illustrating image.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — NeoFreak 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/r/Talk%7EGermanic_neopaganism_44a5.html"