Talk:Ásatrú

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-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.)

Religion Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

Start

This article has been rated as Start 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.)

Archive 1

[edit] Scope of the Ásatrú entry

The Ásatrú entry has been resurrected and the general consensus is that this entry is specifically confined to people and groups who self-identify themselves as Ásatrú and exclusively follow the Eddaic religion. This entry specifically does not encompass the entire Germanic Heathen milieu or Neonazi groups. When editing or adding to this entry, please also consider that there are separate entries specifically for the following subjects, and whether your edits would be more appropriate there:

This has been a controversial subject in the past. Please observe the thews of Wikipedia:

HroptR 05:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

View Wiktionary þēaw if you don't know about thews. Metarhyme 14:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many new links which have been added to the end of this article, which violate the umbrella people and groups who self-identify themselves as Ásatrú and exclusively follow the Eddaic religion that we came to consensus on when this entry branched off from Germanic Neopaganism. The Odinic Rite and several other groups which have been added *do not* identify themselves as Ásatrú. Links for this and other such groups belong at Germanic Neopaganism. Also, the Rune Gild is distinctly *not* a religious group - anyone of any religion or belief can be a member of the RG. - WeniWidiWiki 17:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point but those link are in the "see also" section. Do links there need to be groups that self describe as Asatru? Many OR members use Asatru and Odinism interchangably as do many practitioners of Asatru. I don't really mind either way but I can see the relevance of some of those links in the see also section.

The "See also" section can be anything related to the subject, so I don't see anything that needs to be removed there. The Ásatrú entry - much like the Odinic Rite entry has gotten so big that it needs to be separate from the umbrella Germanic Neopaganism. People's propensity to turn every Heathen and Recon related entry into a link-farm has been a problem in the past, and it's starting to get bad again... I'm not advocating the removal of the links from wikipedia, just for them to be moved to their more relevant respective entries. - WeniWidiWiki 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with Germanic neopaganism

As far as I have observed in Germany, and if you look araound in the Internet. The article's definition of Asatru as non-neo-Nazi Eddaic is not widely used in the scene. Wikipedia should stick to the broad use. E.g. the German neo-Nazi Artgemeinschaft has reserved both the domains asatru.de and asatru.eu E.g. four political tolerant groups (German Eldaring, Danish Forn Sidr, Dutch Het Rad and the Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið) have reserved asatru.info

In Academic publications these two terms are used interchangably. I therefore strongly advice to merge these two articles. Everything wouldn't express the way the term Asatru is used. The Merging of the categories must follow as well. --Levthanatos 09:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

what evidence do you have that "In Academic publications these two terms are used interchangably"? I realize the terms are often lumped together, but I advise against merging. It has been discussed, scope and variant uses of the term are properly declared, and the risk of misunderstanding has been minimized. Keep in mind that we need to optimize Wikipedia against well-meaning but little-informed kneejerk additions. I think things work best as they are now, your merger would destabilize what we have put considerable effort into stabilizing: this is my advice based on my experience with the topic here on WP, but I will not bicker about it, so you will meet no actual resistance from me. dab (ᛏ) 19:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Thing is: The term Asatru as part of Germanic neopaganism, for those who are a) eddaic and b) non-neo-Nazi, is as far I have experienced and as one can see from the Organisation's websites as just another name for Germanic neopaganism.

E.g. Michael Lenz in this articles: Is he Asatru or just Germanic neopagan? One cannot really seperate this. There are racist neopagans who call themselves Asatru. There is IMO no wide-accepted definition of Asatru that would differ from that of Germanic neopaganism--Levthanatos 12:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

well, I think I do understand the problem. This is really no different than with other designations. What is a "Christian"? There are two approaches to the question,

a) anybody who self-designates as "Christian"

b) anybody who fulfills certain criteria, such as accepting that Christ has historically lived, was crucified and rose from the dead, and furthermore accepts the gospel as an authority over their own lives, etc.

for most practical purposes, the two approaches will yield almost identical results, in fact, b) is really just an abstraction, an algorithm intended to yield the members enumerated in a). In a given biography, it may be a matter of taste whether the subject's denomination is given as "Christian" or as "Lutheran", with both a possibility. I am not sure "non-Nazi" is a requirement for qualifying as "Asatru" any more than as "Christian", in fact the contradiction seems to be more straightforward in the "Christian" case, yet you will probably not find "non-Nazi" in any definition of "Christianity".

regarding the difference between "Asatru" and "Germanic Neopaganism" in general, it is clear that the former is at least a true subset of the latter, according to some definitions they may coincide. But as you say yourself,

The term Asatru as part of Germanic neopaganism, for those who are a) eddaic (emphasis mine)

"Asatru" proper is equivalent to Eddaic Neopaganism, not 'Germanic' in general. The difference is significant, since there are reconstructionist movements that do not rely no the Edda (notably Anglo-Saxon groups). The tendency I observe at least in Switzerland seems to be to move away from using "Asatru" in a loose sense in favour of "Forn Sed" and related terms: translated into the local idiom, this group of terms adequately expresses what is intended without making implications about things Eddaic. dab (ᛏ) 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Dieter's assertions here. Germanic neopaganism is an 'umbrella' term, a generic description much like 'Christianity' or 'Islam'. 'Heathen' and its multitude of translated variants (heithni, heithinn, et cetera) can serve as equivalents of 'Germanic neopaganism', but Asatru as well as Ásatrú are distinct varieties. I can think of at least half a dozen of such without even trying very hard.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the suggested merge. I was going to make an argument, but I see that all the points I would have made have already been stated, so I'll simply add my agreement.

Steve Lowther 04:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

If a relevant infobox could be added on the right side it would be very helpful. Thanks. -Emiellaiendiay 23:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changes needed

this entry seems as if it were translated from a foreign language and then simply cut and pasted, there is a great deal of minor errors present. I did my best to clean it up, but it looks like it still needs work... also, there seems to be too much opinion involved in the entry HammerHeadHuman 05:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new?

Ásatrú (Icelandic "Æsir faith") is a new religious movement which is attempting to revive the Norse paganism of the Viking Age

Ásatrú originated as a second (or third) revival of Germanic paganism in the 1960s and early 1970s

I object to this. it's the same as the original viking faith (or trying to be the same?), and I believed it was called Ásatrú back then as well.

suggestion: Ásatrú is an old religious faith of the viking age, which has recently been revived. Thoes who currently practice it are part of the second (or third) revival of this faith.

How can it be "the same"? Do you have a time-machine? The term Ásatrú is relatively modern. This is covered in the etymology and has been discussed at length. Please cite sources. - WeniWidiWiki 22:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"trying to be the same" is fair enough. But then Lutheranism is also "trying to be the same" as Early Christianity, and we still wouldn't call it identical. it was not "called Ásatrú back then as well" either; if you'd be willing to read this article, you will learn that the term is 19th century coinage. dab

(𒁳) 09:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Asatro" refered to the old belief, and in Scandinavia it still does. See for example Carl Gustaf Leopold, Samlade skrifter. 1-3 (2 uppl.), 4-6. Stockholm 1800-02. 2 uppl. 1814-33. See also the Swedish version of this article, which covers the old believes - the modern revival is only a subsection.

[edit] Unsourced

This has been tagged for a month or so - I pulled it and placed it below until it can be reworked. I also pulled the unsourced section on Finnish Paganism because it seems very tenuous, and there is no mention of the info therein at Finnish Paganism. I've asked for sources or clarification on the talk page there. WeniWidiWiki 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

Groups identifying themselves as having Ásatrú cover a wide political and theological spectrum, ranging among left-wing environmentalist groups, New Agers, universalists, tribalists, reconstructionists, folkish groups and even neo-Nazi (e.g. Artgemeinschaft) movements.

In the Nordic countries there still exists a heathen low mythology, which in common terms is simply called den gamle tro (the old belief), or skik, sæd og brug, which may be translated as simply "custom and use", with the connotation of "the way things are". Since about 1900 the old belief has faded rapidly, but there are still those who grow up with it, and swear to it as theirs.

As the pagan low mythology and high mythology are very different, a mixture seldom works very well, even though some Asetroende try to combine elements of the two.

In mainland Scandinavia, the denotation of Ásatrú/Asatro/Asetro has been narrowed down from relating to all of pre-Christian high mythology, low mythology as passed down in oral form, and modern high mythology neo-heathenism, to meaning only the last of these. Most Asetroende in Scandinavia take a firm stand against right-wing or Nazi appropriations of the term. Genuine similarity with U.S. universalism is normally only found in Norse Wicca.

Members of the Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið are somewhat unhappy with the semantic widening of the Icelandic term Ásatrú, and would prefer its usage to specifically apply only to reconstructed medieval Norse high mythology paganism.

This is not correct: asatro still referes to most pre-Christian mythology in Scandinavia.In fact most people are not even aware some people are trying to revive it.

[edit] Relationship to Finnish Paganism

Some Finnish neopagans consider Asatru a part of their faith, while others think it is foreign. Those who make a distinction between Asatru and Finnish neopaganism think Asatru is based too much on beliefs of neighbouring countries and not on their own local traditions. Some even see Asatru as a kind of cultural imperialism. Still the ancient faiths of Finland and its Scandinavian neighbours have many similarities, for example a thunder god who strikes lightning with his hammer, and rides in the clouds with his chariot making thunderstorms. (compare Thor and Ukko). Finnish folklore told about a great wizard Väinämöinen, the first and oldest human being, and maybe originally a god, who is - according to some - close to Odin.

[edit] Asatruar

The term is the correct genitive of Asatru. You cannot just count google hits and decide on its usage. "Asatruarmenn" means "men of faith in the Aesir". Hence, it would be correct, if somewhat pedantic, to use "Asatruar men", "Asatruar people", "he's an Asatruar man" in English. You could also say "they are Asatruar", eliding "people", I suppose, much like you could say "he's secret service" or something. This doesn't make "Asatruar" a plural any more than "secret service", it will be equally correct to say "he is an Asatruar [man]" as it is to say "they are Asatruar [people]", and both are either pedantry, or fake learning. If you want to discuss how the Genitive is used in English, you will have to find out notable occurrences, just counting google hits tells us nothing. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well with the current version, technically it makes it appear there are only male adherents. How sexist of you Dab :-D What do you propose to clear this up? I fully realize that the common usage is technically wrong, but that it is used (incorrectly) as a group definer is relatively verifiable on web and in print. I think it's important to mention the term because there is an editor who is stating the plural is "Asatru". "The event is attended by many Asatru". This sounds even worse than Asatruar... - WeniWidiWiki 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

um, "man" is of course to be taken in the wider sense. For the purposes of correct, encyclopedic language, it's "adherents of Asatru". I recognize that "Asatruar" is in use as the term for adherents, but this is for both singular and plural. You would have to show who considers this a plural in English usage. dab (𒁳) 20:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was being facetious :-D Your most recent edits work for me. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it, as I know it's rather trivial in the scheme of things. - WeniWidiWiki 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ostroth

I just found that there is a family name Ostroth in the USA.[1][2][3] If this is an English name, it would correspond exactly to a continuation of the Old English equivalent of Asatru. The problem is, this could also be an unrelated German name, Ost-roth rather than Os-troth. I was unable to find anyone called Ostroth either in the UK or in Germany, so that I am unsure whence this family immigrated to the US. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

possibly from Sweden [4], although I am unable to find anyone called Ostroth in Swedish directories either. It's probably unrelated, more's the pity, it would have been nice to find that the word had existed after all... dab (𒁳) 12:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

They may simply be members of the family Östroth who dropped the two dots over the o when they moved to the States.--Berig 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

sounds reasonable. False alarm, apparently :) dab (𒁳) 17:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation

If you know the corerct Pronounciation for the words defined here, could you please define it, using one of the Wikipedia standards. Thanks. Richard Allen 11:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's pronouced "awe-sa-true", however, I'm not sure how to put this on the article in a way that is considered Wikipedia standards... Is there a template, or something that I would have to use? Considering it's an icelandic word, I believe they put the stress on the first letter, instead of the second. So AWEE-sa-tru is indeed the correct pronouciation.Unconscious 11:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The correct modern Icelandic pronunciation is already given in the article in IPA form. It is not, I think, what you are trying to convey here. Perhaps OW-sah-true would come nearer in this sort of approximate pseudo-phonetic English transcription. Haukur 23:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just inserted the IPA because of this comment here. The problem is, of course, that the Old Icelandic pronunciation would be [aːsatruː], and it is unclear whether this term is supposed to be a modern Icelandic word, or a reconstructed Old Norse one. I also found it very difficult to decide, tagging the terms with {{lang}}, whether to put "is" or "non". dab (𒁳) 10:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think [aːsatruː] might be correct for 13th century Old Norse (though I suspect the development of /á/ into a diphthong was already under way then) but for 10th century ON we would have "ǭsatrú" (the first letter is o ogonek macron/acute) with a nasal ǭ (<*ansuz). Haukur 15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He, he. Then, the 10th century pronounciation would have sounded like a french once à trou. That is very interesting.--Berig 16:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

an excellent observation, Haukur. We should also give the ǭsatrū pronunciation (and why not Ansutrewwjaz :). Are you thinking of once "ounce" or once "snow leopard", Berig? dab (𒁳) 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dieter that the 10th century pronouncation should be added. I was thinking of "snow leopard for holes" ;).--Berig 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, but seriously, this level of detail belongs in the terminology section, not in the intro... dab (𒁳) 17:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slight modification to a poorly worded sentence in the terminology section

The sentence "The first is Ása-, genitive of Áss, one of the Norse pagan gods." read like 'Áss' is a god. I modified it to properly reflect that the Æsir are a group. 194.144.92.20 15:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Tag

I'm not sure its fair to say modern rites and such are a modern invention. There is a LOT of research out there from the sagas and other recorded sources.

Liastnir 07:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I pulled the section because it is unsourced. Although the assertion is probably correct, it appears to be OR. Section follows below:

=== Problems with Asatru theology ===

No systematic unified theology for the Norse gods seems to have ever been written down (and may not have ever existed). Most of what has survived was either stories (such as the Prose Edda, writen by Snorri Sturluson about 200 years after Iceland became Christianized) or accounts by Christian monks who came to Scandinavia. The monks wrote down accounts about the native religion which are unreliable at best. The result is while the Asatru know that the gods were worshiped at one time, they don't know why the gods were worshipped. In the stories that survive, the Aesir do very little that in directly beneficial for humans.

So the modern worship of the Aesir is mostly a matter of modern invention, based on the stories.

-WeniWidiWiki 21:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with the OR. Why do you assume it is? --Hengest 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"OR" on Wikipedia means "Original Research" :o) dab (𒁳) 19:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, my mistake. Thanks for the explanation. --Hengest 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree this paragraph is worthless. It's just a biased meditation on polytheistic reconstructionism. This article should, and does, state up front that Asatru is a new religious movement. To say that this is a "problem" is just somebody's opinion. dab (𒁳) 19:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input wanted

I would like to get some input at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans regarding Religious discrimination against Asatruers. It would be nice if you could give it a look. Thanks. // Liftarn

[edit] Politics and controversies

The section Politics and controversies should be reorgarnize since it is a little bit long a complicated with eventually a reference to Heathens against hate. The first paragraphe doesn't directly concern politics and controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astenorh (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

You are invited to join the discussion over at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans#Merge suggestion regarding if Religious discrimination against Asatru should be merged and if so where. // Liftarn

[edit] Introduction section

In the initial introductory section, there is a sentence stating that Asatru is a reconstructionist movement aimed at recreating the Norse paganism of the Viking Age. I find that to be too specific to accurately reflect the diversity of modern Asatruar, especially the "official" Asatru in Iceland, which is very peaceful and earth-centered. First off, Asatru in practice is not always specifically "Norse", but rather "Scandinavian" or "Northern European"; and secondly, many individuals and organizations do not look specifically to the Viking Age for inspiration but rather to simply the pre-Christian era, which includes the Viking Age but is in no way limited to it. Many Asatruar prefer to avoid the whole "Viking" thing, rather focusing on the traditional earth-centered spirituality of the European pastoral/agricultural society (as opposed to Viking warriors and raiders etc). Could this sentence be changed to reflect a wider understanding of Asatru spirituality? 24.116.151.23 21:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Aelswyth

"Norse" isn't meant to mean "Norwegian" but is used in the sense of "North Germanic". But you are right. The definition in the intro is flawed, and in direct contradiction to the actual definitions by adherents cited under "Beliefs and practice". According to these, Ásatrú is:

in Scandinavia: pantheist spirituality rooted in Scandinavian folklore [5]. In Scandinavia, the term Asatru has in fact been mostly superseded by "forn sed" and cognates, even by groups that carry Asatro in their name [6]
in the USA: the notion of a racially determined "native European religion"[7][8]
in Germany: a loose Naturreligion [9], synonymous with Germanic neopaganism in general.

neither has much to do with polytheistic reconstructionism at all (excepting one German proponent). We'll need to correct this, or tag the article with {{contradict}} for now.

dab (𒁳) 09:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it right to link Vanatru to the Asatru article?

As it is now vanatru links to asatru article, that's wrong isn't it, Vanirs were an older religion replaced with Aesirs. Better then link the vanatru to the Vanir-article, right? Magnus Andersson (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

While I have no doubt whatsoever that Asatru as a whole is not an inherently racist set of beliefs, I have some major problems with this article from a NPOV perspective. Simply put, the accusations of racism that dog Asatru and the role of Asatru and Asatru imagery in the white supremacist movement is a major part of this article that is being heavily downplayed. The ADL, for instance, identifies the Thor's Hammer symbol as a racist symbol: [10]. That does not, of course, mean that all people who use it are racist. But it does mean that the article on Asatru needs to provide a better and more thorough documentation of these connections - one that acknowledges the reality that Asatru, being a movement rather than an organization, is a movement that has attracted attention and adoption by the white supremacist movement.

To be clear, I think the article should still heavily emphasize that Asatru and racism do not go hand in hand, and that most/many/the vast majority/whatever is accurate and sourceable followers are not white supremacists. But it should not, as it currently does, bury that connection either. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, many white supremacists are protestants too, aren't they? Don't you think that the connection between Ku Klux Klan and Protestantism is being downplayed in the article on Protestantism too? In fact Protestantism does not even appear to mention that many of its adherents are racists! Go ahead and tag it that article as well, please.--Berig (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you would be hard pressed to seriously argue that the adoption of Asatru symbols and Protestant symbols among white supremacists is of equal import to the respective topics. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Protestantism is a movement that brought death and destruction to large swathes of Europe. Its most important founder was as antisemitic a person as they come. None of this is mentioned in the protestantism article. That said, I don't disagree with dab's argument. Haukur (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I draw your attention to the December 18 version of this article, when the "Folkish Asatru, Universalism and racism" section did have a link to Neopaganism and the New Right. This definitely needs to be restored. A agree the topic needs to be addressed up front, but it should not be given undue weight. White supremacism is, after all, a minority position within Asatru. I do take issue with the phrasing "While Ásatrú is generally a tolerant religion, it is sometimes erroneously identified with neo-Nazi and 'white power' organizations which also use the same symbolism." The problem is, of course, with the "erroneously" in Wikipedia's voice. The fact of the matter is that there is in fact a portion of Asatru adherents who at the same time are part of the "white power" subculture. It isn't erroneous to point out this association at all. It would be erroneous, to be sure, to jump to conclusions about Asatru as a whole from there. A link to Metagenetics (a redirect) should also figure somewhere: While "metagenetics" isn't "white supremacism" per se, it certainly qualifies as as a sort of neo-racial mysticism that does play to the white racist crowd. dab (𒁳) 08:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

None of this matters if there's no references. It's worth noting that the ADL has a few disclaimers on their poorly-written database regarding these symbols. The reasons that link no longer exists is probably because "Neopaganism and the New Right" no longer exists and, in its place, an article called Neo-völkisch movements now exists. With this inclusion there's obviously going to be some discussion regarding the relevance of it here. At the time, it was also linked several times on the article. If you want this link in place - either of them - that's going to requiring some proper referencing. Regarding "metagenetics", the fact that it "plays to a white racist crowd" is obviously an opinion and any such comments should be sourced by those who have stated it. I would argue that this topic doesn't need a "main" tag but just a hyperlink. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

nothing to do with the ADL. I really don't care what symbols they list on their website. My reply was directed to Phil. You criticize it as if I had inserted it to article space as it stands. That's beside the point. The article now known as Neo-völkisch movements has a section entitled "racial Nordic paganism" which is precisely the topic we are addressing here. Your revert to the hand-waving "erroneously" is not defensible. Bloodofox, we have discussed this before. Nobody says "Asatru is racist", or even "mostly racist". All we are stating is that there is a racist and/or racialist minority within Asatru. This is a notable and important fact. If Christianity and Islam have their bad guys and murky pasts laid out in detailed article series (Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Persecution by Christians, etc.), we certainly can and should also present the less savoury aspects of minority religions like Asatru in an unexcited und matter-of-fact way. If you are not willing to address this constructively and honestly, I will not waste further time in debate with you, and I put it to the other editors here (Phil, Haukurth) to evaluate the competing versions under dispute here. dab (𒁳) 11:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'm requesting here are sources and not some sort of heavy-handed opinion piece regarding what is and isn't true by the mysterious figurehead of Wikipedia, i.e. some random editor acting as narrator. I'm not requesting that we hide anything - certainly not - what I am requesting are some hard facts and references, as always. What's this business about "constructively" and "honestly"? Is this a comment on my reverting you? I think I have been exactly that here and I see no reason for such comments. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that hard facts and references are needed. But I also think it is vital that, in the article, we attempt a neutral presentation of the current situation, not attempt to present the truth. That is, while it may be the case that the ADL's directory of hate symbols is terribly written, racism is a minor to trivial part of Asatru, and that Protestantism is far more evil and more racist than Asatru, that is, ultimately, immaterial. And I say that as someone who is quite sympathetic to many of those claims. The issue is one of providing a duly weighted and factual presentation of major aspects of the topic. It seems to me undeniable that, in terms of how Asatru is generally mentioned and discussed in mainstream culture, the accusation of racism is a major part of the subject. That means we need to deal with it as a major part of the article. But that does not mean that the lead should read "Also, Asatru is racist." It shouldn't. On the other hand, it should acknowledge the co-opting of Asatru symbols by neo-Nazis, the divisiveness of racial issues within Asatru organizations (it having led to a number of schisms), the lack of distinction between racist and reasonable Asatru made by the FBI in reports, and the particular characteristics of Asatru in prison (Which the SPLC has identified as a largely racist movement).

None of which should detract from the repeated focus on the perfectly sane and reasonable people who make up most of Asatru. But it is a much larger aspect of the religion as a topic in contemporary culture than the few sentences allowed to it in this article, and that is a major NPOV problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that it's not so clear cut. Some people may have had previous association in the past that, for example, that they've denounced. The largest groups have also openly denounced these connections. What is said here now pretty well works as a basic overview, as much of the article is. If anyone else is making some sort of claim regarding it that is notable, we should reference them and so on. However, often times this belongs on the subject's article.

For what it's worth, I don't think this is a fundamentally major part of Asatru and therefore shouldn't be a "major" aspect of the article. As stated, all of the major Asatru groups in the US denounce Neo-Nazism and racism. The section that exists is enough. I'm of the opinion that there exists a number of smaller, fringe groups (The defunct Volksfront, Heathen Front, etc.) and specific figures that don't play a role in the larger Asatru groups that have caused a lot of knee-jerk reactions and have resulted in some extremely poorly researched and sensationalistic reports by "watch dog" groups like the ADL. The sheer fact that they put up those disclaimers only after pressure says quite enough about how dedicated they are to getting their facts straight in this area. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the (rather laconic) present version. If they denounce stuff, it's fair enough to say they denounce it, no problem. Nobody is pushing to make this a "major" part of the article, although I have to note that the question is rather central in Neopaganism in Germany and Austria even if it isn't in the US ({{globalize}}). boo, you are over-reacting. We agree there has been knee-jerk hysterical vigilantism surrounding this question. Nothing of this sort is happening on this talkpage at present. Just because some people react hysterically to a problem doesn't mean the problem isn't real. --dab (𒁳) 15:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, look above and you will see that Phil stated "That means we need to deal with it as a major part of the article" and thus my response. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

ok. Well, that will depend on the sources we can come up with, won't it. In any case, I do not find the approach of "Wotanism isn't Asatru" productive. A lot of white supremacism is lurking under the garb of Nordic paganism, like it or not. The major US groups denounce racism -- fair enough: that's important to note, but hardly the end of the debate. Asatru is notoriously fragmented into tiny kindreds and has no central spokesperson. We need evaluations of external observers to reference this either way. Which essentially means Goodrick-Clarke, since this isn't exactly a hot topic of social studies. dab (𒁳) 16:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Separation

Among many other things needing to be fixed on this page, I think the section on neo-nazis and folkish Asatruars should be separated, or at least given a more detailed explanation of both. At the moment it seems that the article is throwing both into the same circle of people, which isn't true at all. Yes, some people see the folkish as too strict, but they're not anywhere near as extremist as neo-nazis.JanderVK (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)