Talk:Neopaganism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details.

The citation is in: "The Wiccan Way.", The Longview Washington, May 8, 2004.

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. See comments

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Thraco-Dacian?

I am sorry, but I have to question this paragraph. OK, I will admit that it exists, but so do hundreds or thousands of other small splinter revivals, recreations and outright fabrications. Seems to me at best this belongs on the Asatru article, or are we going to give a paragraph to every single sub-sect of every Neopagan grouping out there? I know I am not wording this correctly, and I cannot think of the correct wiki-word (significance? relevancy? sigh...) but I just don't see a reason for this subheading. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do a general paragraph along the lines of "many European countries have pagan revivalist movements based on their own pre-christian traditions" and simply list link to a few examples. Totnesmartin 21:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The word I was looking for was 'Notability". :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 00:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, has anyone actually clicked around the Thraco-Dacian website that's currently in the external links? The pages I wound up on were about Black Death Metal, with poetry about "Unholy woods of mysteries, Alone witches full of hate... Diabolical feast around the fire... There is a place where Evil lives..." and the links are called "further blasphemies". I haven't looked through the whole site but... While I love Dethklok as much as the next person, this site doesn't really seem appropriate for this particular article. Though I'm not overly attached either way, I'm removing it unlesss someone points out something more redeeming about the site. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring

What do you guys think about removing most of the forms segment of this article and just having very brief explanations on the concepts and then linking to the pertinent entries? Right now there seems to be too much overlap with all the content in the respective recon entries, as well as the Wicca entry. As it currently exists, the entry is barely redeemable in my estimation, and a total refactoring seems to be in order. - WeniWidiWiki 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? - WeniWidiWiki 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd support this, as long as there's a sufficiant summary of each left here which clearly locates the form within neopaganism as a whole, i.e. how it relates to other forms, its origins, beliefs, etc. Dinoguy2 23:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on how to best go about doing this? A lot of the article seems very redundant to me, and i'm having to restrain myself from removing large swathes of material until others are able to help with a refactoring. - WeniWidiWiki 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bulk of the forms section is reconstructionist, with seperate sub-headings for each reconstructed tradition. I'd eliminate these headings, and combine all the current contents into a single prose section, which may require a lot of re-writing. Some sections, like Finnic, are extremely short and/or only list further sub-divisions. These should be listed at the end of the re-written section, as something like "Other reconstructionist traditions include Finnic, Baltic," etc. etc. The reconstructionist section should be more an overview of reconstructionism itself with some examples drawn from the ones that currently have a lot of content written. I think the Wicca section is fine at the length it is now and could even be longer, given that the parent article is very lengthy and Wicca is probably the most prominant neopagan tradition. Dinoguy2 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been more helpful with this. I'm looking at it and feeling overwhelmed, and even with your suggestions I'm not sure what the best thing is to do with this. Most of the work I've done on this article has been very piecemeal. What it needs is a strong overview and unified approach, which I've been having a hard time envisioning based on what we have now. If you have a clear vision for it, it may just be time to be bold and the rest of us can do what we can to help as it progresses. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I redacted the Forms section, but would really like to just remove a lot more material through out the article that look like they are remnants of bygone arguments, POV and bits & pieces of merged articles... Again, I think much of the material is redundant, as neopaganism is too large an umbrella term to attempt to cover everything. We should treat this more like a portal. Also, did we ever come up with a consensus on the usage of the word? Is it capitalized, hyphenated, etc. ? - WeniWidiWiki
There was surprisingly little discussion on the word usage. After a few discussions on the matter, I've been standardizing to "Pagan" or "Neopagan" when describing a Pagan religion. I sourced the capitalization of the words to Margot Adler. Small-"p" "pagan" is only relevant when using the "irreligious" meaning/connotation, afaik/imho. Adler does use the form "Neo-Pagan" in DDTM, and I see that's the form used on the cover of Trish Telesco's "Which Witch is Which". However, unless and until some decision was made to change it, I've stuck with "Neopagan" on WP, as that's the form currently in use all over Wikipedia. I'm not really attached to either form of Neopagan/Neo-Pagan/NeoPagan, only that, when referring to a religion, the word(s) be capitalized. I'll look over the changes you made and be back a bit later... ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 16:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Neopagan or Neo-Pagan

We need to standardize this usage. Could folks weigh in on which they think we should standardize to?

Neo-Pagan is the form used by Adler (Drawing Down the Moon) and Telesco (Which Witch is Which). In Bonewits's Complete Guide to Druidism, as well as on his website and in other writings, Bonewits uses Neopagan. Currently Neopagan seems to be in more common use on WP, but that can easily be changed with AWB if consensus is to change it. Comments? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Either form is fine with me. - WeniWidiWiki 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can live with either, but am leaning a bit towards leaving it as Neopagan, as I'm not sure how easy it would be to change all the page names and categories that use that form. Seems much easier to standardize to Neopagan than Neo-Pagan. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why Adler went with a hyphen in a Greek prefix. It's unnecessary. That said, if that is standard usage, I suppose we should make the switch. Jkelly 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thing is, I don't a standard has been agreed upon. Some Pagan publications have also used "NeoPagan", and many others simply say "Pagan". And Neolithic isn't spelled Neo-Lithic... Hmmm... ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hutton used "neo-paganism" as well, didn't he? I agree that it's an odd usage compared to other latinized phrases. Dinoguy2 23:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
When Oberon Zell-Ravenheart began using the term publicly in the first issues of Green Egg in 1967, he used Neo-Pagan ("First Neo-Pagan Church of All Worlds") and has used it consistently since then. -- Davidkevin 09:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I would just stick with 'Neopagan' and call it a day. :bloodofox: 03:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

OK, I just did some fairly major cleanup. While there are still a few sections that could use better sourcing, I think at this point we can flag them specifically and pull the tag from the top of the article. I'm vascillating on whether to leave the brief "number of adherents" para at the top or just move it down to the Number of adherents section. I lean towards the latter, as the numbers are not definitive, and I think they need the qualifiers of the longer section for better context. Thoughts? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the data in that paragraph conflicts with the data said to be from the same source. Para from opening:

There are an estimated 1 million Neopagans worldwide, making it the 19th largest world religion. In Great Britain alone, historian Ronald Hutton estimated that in the late 90s there were 90,000 to 120,000 Pagans of non-initiatory traditions, and 17,000 to 20,000 Neopagans of initiatory traditions, including about 10,000 initiated Witches and 6,000 initiated Neodruids.[1]

para from Adherents section:

A study by Ronald Hutton compared a number of different sources (including membership lists of major UK organizations, attendance at major events, subscriptions to magazines, etc.) and used standard models for extrapolating likely numbers. This estimate accounted for multiple membership overlaps as well as the number of adherents represented by each attendee of a Neopagan gathering. Hutton estimated that there are 250,000 Neopagan adherents in the United Kingdom, roughly equivalent to the national Hindu community.[2]

??? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking good! I still think we should cut as much over-lapping material as possible for readability, but that's not a priority. Something weird is going on with the refs, though. As for the contradictory Hutton ref, does anyone have the book handy? Good job! - WeniWidiWiki 06:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I was inspired by your earlier work on this. I forgot to close a ref tag and it borked a whole section into the footnotes! Fixed now. Don't have that book here, or, at least not that I can find at the moment. (Hutton Hutton, who's got the Hutton?) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the Adherents.com study: Religions Ranked by Adherents - Neo-Paganism. I cannot find a link for the CoG study referenced in the article. There is also an interesting discussion on demographics on 'Wits' site called How many "Pagans" are there? we might want to reference. - WeniWidiWiki 19:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Identification Request

I see the image from the Wicca article has made it here. Are these Wiccans? If so, it should be noted in the caption and I would personally question the use of the image where it stands. :bloodofox: 01:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The descriptor on the image file is :"Pagan handfasting ceremony at Avebury (Beltane 2005)". What are your concerns? - WeniWidiWiki 01:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
They are just listed as "Neopagans" and it seems to me they are specifically Wiccan. I am thinking we could use an image better examplifiying the stratum of neopagan beliefs that exist, likely some sort of medium between reconstructionist and 'ecclectic' - but this does not really seem possible. I will change the caption and move it to the Wiccan section. :bloodofox: 01:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer to have the image back up top, with the other caption. I don't think anything in the picture makes it more Wiccan than Genero-Pagan. They're not in robes or waving swords, they're just people holding hands in a field. The other pics we have for Reconstructionist faiths are of particular, often rather identifiable traditions. Perhaps we could put the general Neopagan one back up top, and add one of the Reconstructionist ones down in the Reconstructionist section? I don't think the fact that the pic is also used in the Wicca article makes it a solely Wiccan picture any more than using a Reconstructionist pic in this article would make that a solely Neopagan picture. Actually, given that the people are described as "Neopagans", not "Wiccans" on the image file itself, perhaps the Avebury picture should *not* be used in the Wicca article. Perhaps the Wicca article should instead have Brit-Trad robed people with swords etc. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you really dislike the Avebury pic up top, what about this one up top? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I like that image, and I like it that size or even a bit bigger. - WeniWidiWiki 00:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I made it bigger :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am still pretty curious as to what it is. There's really no such thing as "generic neopagan" - there's always some organization involved or some direct line of influence. I think the image has too little information for any real usefulness. I want to know exactly what I am looking at. :bloodofox: 22:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You sure have a stiffy about that picture, don't you :-D Contrary to popular opinion, there are "generi-pagans" who are not Wiccans, but not recons. I've met hundreds of them. - WeniWidiWiki 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate that damned picture! In all seriousness, I am usually just a stickler for picture information as they can be pretty misleading. :bloodofox: 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well look on Wiki-media or commons for a better one, but don't just change it out unilaterally - post links so we can get some consensus first. - WeniWidiWiki 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I bet they're roleplayers. :bloodofox: 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well. I contacted the photographer and he says it was a Wiccan group, and he took the pic specifically for the Wiccan page. So, I'll go change the caption :-) As long as the caption is changed, are we ok with leaving the pic where it is, or, bloodofox, do you feel strongly about only having the pic in the "Wiccan" section? My preference for leaving it where it is is largely visual: I'd rather have the pics spaced somewhat evenly through the piece, rather than have two so close to each other in the varieties of Pagans section. I also think we can have a Wiccan pic in general use as long as it's marked as such, as we've used a Reconstructionist one in a similar manner up top. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you, Kathryn. I am glad we are able to clarify this. I agree. I am not too concerned about where the image is, I think it is fine where it is now. :bloodofox: 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
"And there was great rejoicing: Yay!" ;-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Were you able to find out who that guy with the green wig was for :bloodofox:? :-P - WeniWidiWiki 22:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
USER:BLOODOFOX HAS FEELINGS TOO! :*( :bloodofox: 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common claim?

I question the statement in the Concepts of the Divine section where it states "A common claim in Neopaganism is that "a religion without a Goddess is halfway to atheism"" This is a common claim? The "feeling" may be somewhat universal amoung Neopagans, but it doesn't fit NPOV. Does anyone mind me rewording this paragraph.MCWicoff 18:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a direct Bonewits quote, and probably should just be attributed as such. - WeniWidiWiki 18:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is a quote from Dion Fortune oft-repeated in neopagan circles, particularly among eclectic Wiccans and Asatru. Vassyana 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
But does that make the statement "a religion without a Goddess is halfway to atheism" a "common claim"? I'm just questioning the NPOV on this, not whether anyone has ever said it.MCWicoff 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty common LOL It's a direct quote so it's inherently the author's POV. I don't know how common it is, I'd have to bow to the expertise of others on that. - WeniWidiWiki 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've only ever read it from a few of the more radical websites--never heard it passed as a claim, except maybe in jest or derision. It seems to be more a rhetorical "slap" at monotheism than an actual theological assertion. (That's from 16 years in the Wiccan community--anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but better than no evidence.) Justin Eiler 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If someone has a reference for this statement being in print, maybe this can be clarified. I thought I had read everything Isaac had written, but maybe not. I've read a lot of Fortune's work too and never come across it, to my recollection. Granted I read some of it over 20 years ago! Otherwise I'm going to reword the statement, if there are no objections.MCWicoff 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any of Fortune's books readily available, but it's attributed (but not cited) to her at various places around the web. But to tell the truth, I would not be at all upset if the quote was removed entirely. Justin Eiler 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MCWicoff. Have a cookie. :) Justin Eiler 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!MCWicoff 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The print reference is: Clifton, Chas. "A Goddess Arrives." Gnosis Fall 1988: 20-29. This was added to the article. However, the language has been changed, which should make the discussion moot. (The article still supports the current statement as well.) Vassyana 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History and accuracy

I suggest deleting:

The process of converting indigenous Pagan cultures to Christianity, usually involves a syncretism of Pagan elements into the regional religious practices of the peoples converted. In the High Middle Ages scholars like Thomas Aquinas, began to take a marked interest in the Pagan philosophies of Graeco-Roman Classical Antiquity.[7] The result was a syncretic fusion of Pagan concepts like Aristotelianism and the infusion of some of these concepts into Christianity, which peaked during the Renaissance with a huge influx of Graeco-Roman mythology in art and thinking.

Aristotelianism is a philosophical, not religious, school of thought. This paragraph muddles the distinction, presents the matter inaccurately and should be deleted outright. The use of philosophical tools in theology significantly pre-dates Christianity, and even in Christianity is evident even during the time of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vassyana 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The stance of DeBenoist and many others - especially Catholics - disagrees with this mentality. If you can reword it to refactor the specific elements you find distasteful please do. Syncretism is important in the history of neopaganism and we can't just ignore it. - WeniWidiWiki 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The use of Greek philosophy is hardly syncretism. On the other hand, if Greek mythology were used, then it would be. Muddling the two is sloppy at best and intellectually dishonest in a worse light. Vassyana 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No philosophy is created in a vacuum and to ignore the integral culture from whence it derived is even more intellectually dishonest. If you can reword it to refactor the specific elements you find distasteful please do. - WeniWidiWiki 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is severely prblematic. Muddling philosophical borrowing and religious syncretism is plain wrong. They can coincide, but they are still seperate topics and Aristotelian thought is an improper example. The lead-in of the assimilation process of pagan elements in Catholic Christianity is incongruent with the remainder of the paragraph which focuses exclusively on Aristolelian philosophy. Aristotelianism is not a religious topic, though the philosophical tools thereof (notably teleology and logic) are extensively used in much philosophical and theological thought. If inclusionism and reform are the main goal, it would be far more appropriate to focus more on the integration of pagan practices in Catholicism and the influence of Neoplatonic theological and metaphysical thought on Christian theology. But this would still entail a near-complete deletion and rewrite of the current paragraph. Vassyana 03:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right. Do you want to rewrite it? - WeniWidiWiki 04:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to put some effort into that if we can generate some agreement that is the direction that should be taken. Vassyana 15:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Neopaganism" is hardly ever about Hellenistic "paganism". Indeed, Christianity itself can be seen as an outgrowth of Neoplatonism: there is no dichotomy between Christianity and Hellenistic philosophy. "Neopaganism" usually focusses on "ethnic"/"tribal" paganism, and indeed the urban culture of Hellenism is the very antithesis of paganus (I am aware the issue is complicated by Mark 7:26 and the Jewish concept of "gentile". Judaism is itself an "ethnic" religion and as such closer to "paganism" than Hellenistic culture, and Christianity has the unique trait of merging the Jewish and Hellenistic viewpoints into a new "Christan" viewpoint. The word paganus can only be used in a religious sense after the 4th century. If you try to extend it to earlier times, it just dissolves into self-contradiction. To call Aristotle a paganus is ludicrous). The whole paragraph is a confused red herring and shouldn't be so much rewritten as struck without replacement. dab (𒁳) 09:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you focus far too much on literalisms that deny the practical situation. The influence of Neoplatonic thought on early Christianity is important. The vehicle of Christianity and Christian mysticism delivered Neoplatonic thought to more current times, where it was essential in the early modern occult revival. This is certainly apropos for neopaganism, which is directly indebted to the Hermeticism and theosophy that preceded it. Vassyana 15:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that Neopaganism is really an outgrowth of Christian mysticism? I find it a bit dubious to equate Neoplatonism with occultism, although the link you point out is most interesting. Germanic mysticism may have been indebted to hermeticism and whatnot. The Viking revival was, rather, indebted to the philological discovery of Old Norse literature. While contemporary polytheistic reconstructionism isn't indebted to occultism at all, but directly based on findings of history, philology and archaeology. "Neopaganism" in general is a syncretistic hodgepodge that cannot be cleanly separated from Christian mythology or mysticism. I do find the proposition intriguing, however that "in retrospect", Christianity should have served as a means to transmit Platonic mysticism across the Middle Ages :) dab (𒁳) 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I've pulled the paragraph. I don't think neopaganism sprang from a rock independently of "pagan" thought, and if I remember correctly, the first coining of the term was actually about the philosophy, not the modern "religion". I have a book on this subject which I haven't read in years, I'll have to crack it open. As a side, there is an interesting concept forwarded by a Professor named Dennis MacDonald, in which he proves - pretty strongly in my opinion - that the bulk of the New Testament was actually cobbled literary mimesis from Homer. The usual revisionist rebuttal has been that (like Aristotle) Homer wasn't a real pagan and that philosophy is not religious. - WeniWidiWiki 15:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard that one yet. I fail to see even a remote connection between the New Testament and Homer, short of maybe Paul's shipwreck o_O dab (𒁳) 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Read some of his books - I think you'll be surprised. -WeniWidiWiki 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Prof. McDonald's research regarding Homeric influence, concentrates upon travel books, such as parts of Acts and some non-canonical works such as the Acts of Andrew. That would not be very strange after all, because Hellenistic Jews (most if not all writers of the New Testament), Greeks and Romans were quite familiar with Homer's works (they had to learn them at school) and surely were influenced by them in their own writing when they dealt with epic and travel narratives (for a masterwork which is also a perfect example of imitation of Homeric style, see the Aeneid). That is very far from affirming that the New Testament is a mimesis of Homer's work.--jofframes 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
hah, I wasn't so far off with Paul's shipwreck then :) but come on, stylistically, Homer's Greek is very lofty indeed, while the Greek of the NT is, if you'll excuse, crap. If they wanted to mimic Homer, they certainly did a lousy job of it. dab (𒁳) 08:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Having no vested interest in the ineffability of the texts in question, I humbly disagree, and encourage anyone interested in reading the material for themselves rather than making a priori assumptions. - WeniWidiWiki 22:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

looking at [1], I'll say, it's an interesting thought, and I'm glad someone looked into it, but I'm not exactly thrilled, agreeing especially with objections 1, 2 and 5. Yeah, so maybe there was some "osmotic" influence of Homeric plots, but most parallels will be due to fundamental mythemes or archetypes. And don't forget that Greek mythology is strongly influenced by the Near East in the first place. dab (𒁳) 08:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't see any real influence as shown by this professor in the document provided. Of course this is only a brief rebuttal and not a scholarly work, but still, similarities seem to be only in the researcher's mind. You just cannot compare the king of Itaca and destroyer of Troy with "a wise charpenter of Nazareth", or a blind man in Jerusalem with Tiresias, or Odysseus's revelation to his son with the transfiguration scene (if only because the father-son relationship would be inverted, which completely changes the symbolic meaning of the act). Simply, the roles, status, and symbolism of these elements are quite different. And their part in the whole narrative is also different.
As I mentioned, McDonald's research may be worth studying as far as travel narratives are concerned, as in Christianizing Homer: "The Odyssey," Plato, and "The Acts of Andrew." But comparisons as those listed in the document provided are just a way to stretch the texts a bit too much. --jofframes 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The proverbial "judging a book by it's cover", eh? Again, a priori assumptions are hard to shake off. Ultimately, the merit of his ideas will (or will not) be bourne out with time. - WeniWidiWiki 16:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Meanwhile, just don't hold your breath and keep waiting. --jofframes 11:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no vested interest in the texts in question being holy writ, so it doesn't matter either way. - WeniWidiWiki 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] ^ Letcher (2001)?

This is currently footnote #20 in the article. Does anyone know what book this is referring to? Did we lose it in an edit? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Google is my friend: Letcher, Andy. "The Scouring of the Shire: Fairies, Trolls and Pixies in Eco-Protest Culture" in Folklore (2001). I'm reading it now. If it supports the text I'll cite it. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syncretism

I don't think that the Yoruban/dahomey diasporic religions should be mentioned in the neopagan article. there's nothing "neo" about them - all other neopagan faiths are conscious *revivals* that have occured in the last century or so. santeria, candomble, voodoo, and thier sister religions all have survived, albiet in somewhat modified form, monotheistic incursions. the priesthoods of these religions can trace thier lineage of initiation back into prehistory. none of the yoruban disaporic religions consider "solitary" practitioners to be members of thier religion at all - and most of them resent and resist modern new-age encroachment into thier traditional practices. most of the santeros/candomblieros I know would be rather offended at the suggestion that they were "pagans" at all.

the syncretism section is informative and accurate, but santeria, voodoo, and candomble are *not* neo-pagan faiths, and as such I suggest the dicussion of them be removed from this article. they are initiatic, oral traditions. both Santeros and Candomblieros will occasionally seek initiation into the priesthood from Ifa priests or priestesses in Nigeria. Voodoo is practiced in very much the same form in Benin that it is in Haiti and the US, and consequentially these religion should be considered far-flung, stylistically different *branches* of the old african traditions - NOT NEOPAGAN REVIVALS. Ifa arguably pre-dates Hinduism...and can hardly be considered "neo" anything.

they are, of course, syncretic - but so are the Druze, the Yazidis, the Mandaes, and various sub-religious folk traditions like curanderismo and hoodoo. this sort of syncretism deserves a seperate article, and should not be confused with neopagan syncretism. tell a daughter of Yemaya who was crowned in Ile Ife that she is a "neo-pagan" and see if she doesn't tell you off...Feralnostalgia 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in your general complaint, but some variations of the Afro-Carribean religions are indeed part of neo-paganism. I think there needs to be a better distinction in the article. There are numerous "new age" books on the religions and many "neopagan" stores sell some Santeria and Vodou supplies. We should be clear in this topic, but not omit the information for fear of offending someone who is part of the (majority) traditional diaspora faiths. Vassyana 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, Vassyana, just because some Neopagans and Newagers want to incorporate elements of African religions into their practices does not make the source religions Neopagan or Newage. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree--some Neopagans incorporate elements of Christianity and Judaism as well. Does that make Christianity and Judaism Neopagan religions? Of course not. Dinoguy2 02:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that for a religious movement to be considered Neopagan, it needs to fulfill three criteria: 1) be essentially outside the Abrahamic tree of religions; 2) have recent origins (e.g. less than one century); and 3) include some conscious effort of reconstructing a previously existing religion with which it pretends to claim continuity or resurgence. The "pagan" label (which is quite questionable because it is a Christian term) refers to the non-Abrahamic aspect, and the "neo" refers to its novelty and to its aspiration to reconstruct a lost and better past. I think that these criteria pretty much encompass most if not all religions included in this article. --jofframes 08:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Alafia, Feral - I have to agree with you here. The African/Afro-Diasporic religions are not Neopagan, and I've always been a bit unclear on why they're in this article. In the diaspora, in my experience various houses either lean towards Christianity or towards re-Africanisation, and while here and there you will find some members of the Religion who are comfortable with having some degree of interaction with the Neopagan community, in general most are not eager to be associated with it. If we are going with Bonewits's classifications to any extent, I believe he categorizes the Afro-Diasporic faiths as Meso-Pagan. I think it would be appropriate to move the material and link to it in some manner. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Agreed. Article Meso-Paganism now exists, as well as Paleo-Paganism. -- Davidkevin 14:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps work it into a mention of neopagans drawing on older surviving pagan traditions, sometimes taking those traditions as a central focus. This would account for Afro-Caribbean neopagans and neopagan borrowings, while clearly distinguishing them from the main body of such religions. Links can be handled by wikilinks. Thoughts? Vassyana 11:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] WikiPagan A free content wiki-based website for Neopagans is not Dead

Hello, all. WikiPagan, a free content wiki-based web site for neopagans, is not closed. I corrected the eror on the page and added the link.

BTW, please help us edit there! It is a wikipedia site!

--Mig-17 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/o/Talk%7ENeopaganism_c41f.html"