Talk:Persecution of Germanic Pagans

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.
Disambig This article has been rated as Dab-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.)

Contents

[edit] article name

Shouldn't article this be titled Persecution of Germanic pagans? That would adhere to the style of the other articles on Template:Religious persecution. To the point, one cannot persecute paganism, only pagans. — coelacan talk — 04:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. // Liftarn

[edit] Scope of entry

I think it is quite a stretch to equate the original Germanic Heathens with the modern groups who are reconstructing it or loosely basing their belief systems off of it. I think that the premise of this entry is flawed as a result and think that it should be re-factored or deleted or at the very least renamed Persecution of Germanic Neopagans. I didn't realize that some modern Heathens drank the sacred draught of perpetual victimhood that Wiccans do. - WeniWidiWiki 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

indeed. come on, we don't need a "persecution" article for everything. The content of this can easily accommodated in two very small sections in Germanic paganism and Germanic neopaganism, respectively. dab (𒁳) 18:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Those two articles are already quite long. If this article's content was moved there, then it would immediately have to be removed and remerged here, per WP:SUMMARY. This is currently the correct format for the content of this article. Whilst I share WeniWidiWiki's distaste, there is no encyclopedic reason for deleting or merging this article into the parent articles. However, I agree that the persecution of actual germanic pagans is almost completely unrelated to the persecution of modern neopagans, and modern neopaganisms are all pretty much the same, regardless of whether they choose a germanic facade or a greek facade or whatever. So it would be legitimate to keep this article here and limit it to the persecution of actual historical pagans, and create a new article for the Persecution of Neopagans, and merge all such content there, from this article as well as from Persecution of ancient Greek religion, leaving behind only the pre-nineteenth century content in both articles. — coelacan talk — 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The persecution of Germanic Pagans (regardless of time and place) is obviously related. Trying to lump different unrelated religions together ("modern neopaganisms are all pretty much the same") is a recepie for disaster. This attitude is a low key type of persecution. I almost never hear that Judaism, Christianity and Islam (who actually are related) "are all pretty much the same, regardless of whether they choose a Jewish facade or a Muslim facade or whatever.". // Liftarn

Please clarify how this is "persecution", especially considering my edit history. It is illogical to have articles documenting the alleged persecution of a group spanning all across wikipedia, especially since much of the information is undocumented and POV. I'm not arguing against documenting these things somewhere but to do it correctly, we need to dispense with the redundancy and also face facts that the ancient pre-Christian pagans and the modern adherents of Germanic Heathenry are not the same people and cannot identify themselves as such. For example, this obsession with being persecuted, and self-identifying as martyrs and victims would have been totally foreign to the honour and beliefs of the ancient Heathens. - WeniWidiWiki 15:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't bother to check your edit history and I don't see how it's relevent anyway. I just reacted to what I saw as "Your religion is not a real religion.". Ancient Asatruers and modern Asatruers are not the same persons, but they follow the same religion. I don't obsess about being persecuted, but I don't see why it should be hidden either. // Liftarn
Well we are going to have to disagree on whether modern Ásatrúar practice the same religion as the pre-christians. There already has been much debate and consensus reached on wikipedia about this. (If I thought Ásatrú wasn't a "real" religion I wouldn't have put so much time into editing the article and documenting so many of it's leaders and orgs.) Despite that, I'm not advocating a total purging of the material. I think that the relevant sections should be merged into more appropriate articles. For example the recent court cases over dog tag identification and cemetery markers for the US military, as well as the banning of runes and Ásatrú gatherings in Texas prisons should be merged into Germanic neopaganism. However, stating these people (who are being inconvenienced at best) are being "persecuted" on par with those who were tortured to death in unspeakable fashion under the reign of "St."Olaf or Charlemagne is inaccurate and insulting to their memories. I do not advocate revisionism of history, and regardless of what happens with the deletion /merge this material will be documented and hopefully disambiguated in a more intelligible and cohesive fashion. - WeniWidiWiki 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have a point that the level of persecution is not the same now as it was then, but there is a denial of the same level of religious freedom that is given to other religions. I feel that the material is best presented as a whole instead of chopped up and shipped away in different articles. // Liftarn

[edit] Split

Oppose for obvious reasons. The article also isn't long enough for a split. // Liftarn

Support - Germanic paganism and Germanic neopaganism are very different subjects, while directly related. In time, both articles could be filled to the brim with information and history. It is better to prepare for that and keep the two subjects seperate in seperate articles - Persecution of Germanic Paganism and Persecution of Germanic Neopaganism. :bloodofox: 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather rewrite the article towards an overview of the Christianization of Scandinavia; I suspect that the neopagan claims about its violence are mostly incorrect. Zara1709 21:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that? // Liftarn
Uhm, the neopagans would have to explain why their alleged ancestor religion came to be replaced by Christianity anyway. They are not likely to admit that it happened because the people of their country preferred Christianity over their old religion. However, I took a closer look at the history of Norway (see my user page), and it seems that the Christianization was rather violent. I still think, though, that it was probably no more violent than the usual clashes between rival groups of earls. Zara1709 22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Like it says in the article "Christianization of the various Germanic peoples was achieved by various means". Looking at history it seems that monotheism always replace polytheism. // Liftarn
You will see that I also added some Information on Varg Vikernes. I hope, you get my point. But the article still needs a lot more work. -Zara1709 20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a bit of original research and quite some undue weight to a few Norwegians. // Liftarn

[edit] Move article?

I am thinking of requesting to move this article, away from Persecution of Germanic Pagans to Christianization of Northern Europe. The reason is simple:

1) One cannot really speak of religious persecution here. The process of Christianization was sometimes rather violent, but that seems to be related to the 'usual wars' that were going on during that time. And even if one could speak of religious persecution in some instances here, in many other instances one could not. Christianization is the more encompassing term here, since it covers the propagation of Christianity whether violent or not.
2) There is yet no article on that topic, but there should be one. The process of Christianization is a historical fact, and a lot of information on this should already be included in the biographical articles of the persons involved. An article 'Christianization of Northern Europe' would make the topic much easier accessible.
3) Furthermore, although the events have happened about thousand years ago, they still seem to have an impact. There seem to be some 'fundamentalist' neopagans who are now attempting to persecute Christians in turn.

Please tell me what you think, before I make the effort to propose the move. I would than probably move the part on 'Neopaganism In Nazi Germany' to Holocaust victims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zara1709 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC). -Zara1709 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1.Agree. 2.Agree 3. Somewhat disagree. There is an established community precedent and consensus which separates historical paganism from modern neopaganism at wikipedia. *They are not the same groups* and editing this article to that effect when consensus has been determined to distinctly separate them is counter-productive. There have been protracted discussions about this. - WeniWidiWiki 15:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Partially disagree. 2. Start working in the Christianization article. 3. No particular view. // Liftarn

I added Christianization of the Germanic peoples to the split notice. This article should just be a disambiguation page. Yes, the Christianization has long been in dire need of cleanup, people should work on that instead of doing another round of the stale "persecution" debate. Such neopagan claims to the effect of historical persecution can easily discussed at neopaganism articles, while academic evaluation of violence connected with Christianization belongs in the Christianization of the Germanic peoples article. dab (𒁳) 15:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry then, I hadn't noticed that there already had been a large debate on this (though I probably should have guessed). I stumbled across this article when I needed to falsify the stuff that I mentioned than under Persecution of Germanic Pagans?. If this article had not been so prominently linked at the Christianization page, I would not have had that problem. -Zara1709 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite annoyed about myself for missing the article on the Christianization of Scandinavia. Of course I would have edited that one then - so I started moving some parts over there. I really hope that this is ok, since I would not want to move those parts back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zara1709 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC). -Zara1709 16:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
it's alright, none of your work is lost, it should just be moved to the respective articles. No problem. I really hope we can reduce this to a disambig page soon... dab (𒁳) 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer to see something more than a disambig. Something that can give a fuller picture. // Liftarn
I would vote for a disambig page - though it will probably no be your standard one. -Zara1709 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now here are yet 2 more articles that are somehow related:

and there also really need to be reworked, at least in some parts. -Zara1709 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In what way are they related? // Liftarn

[edit] Charlemagne

I removed the section

although some modern historians[who?] think it likely that Charlemagne exiled (delocabat) the apostates rather than beheading (decollabat) them.[citation needed]

that has been without source for some time now. // Liftarn


[edit] Disambiguation

I don't think that it is possible to link this topic adequately in a disambiguation page while adhering to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). You can try, though. -Zara1709 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

it's still too wordy to conform with the MoS, but your edits are an improvement, thanks. dab (𒁳) 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. 1) it's way too short (it needs expanding, not shortening) 2) it doesn't even mention present day // Liftarn

Thank you Liftarn for stating the reasons for you revert now. I would really have appreciated if you could have done that earlier. The reply to 1) is simple. Persecution of Germanic Pagans is not a useful concept at all.
I will revert to my previous version then. Before you (or anyone else) thing of expanding this article again, please do one of the following:
  1. Find a notable historian that speaks of Persecution of Germanic Pagans. Have fun, some of those books have 1000+ pages. (That is the reason why I could not make the effort.)If you find one, mention him in Historical persecution by Christians first.
  2. Clarify how many Germanic esoterics have been suppressed in Nazi Germany, what happened to them and who of them would actually have referred to himself as a Germanic Neopagan.
  3. Find out what is actually the problem between the US prison authorities and some Germanic Neopagan Groups in the USA. Has any official US agency ever stated that Freedom of Religion does not apply to Germanic Neopaganism? Have their been lawsuits on this? What was their result?
-Zara1709 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I admit that my previous statement from 3 June 2007 was rather impolite. But I don't know any literature that speaks of persecution of Germanic pagans for the middle ages or late antiquity. If you have such literature, just bring it forward. Concerning Nazi Germany: According to Goodrick-Clarke the suppression was most likely the the result of a general Nazi policy against all esoteric groups. And present time? Well, people just seem to make a habit of accusing the USA of religious persecution, but obviously you can't compare that to the real cases of religious persecution. While no pagan was killed because of his religion (they just happened to be at war with the Christians) in the middle ages, the Cathars were at the same time brutally suppressed. Oh - not to mention that the USA has this thing about the separation of church and state in their constitution. If there would really be anyone there that is persecuted for his religion, they could just go to the supreme court. -Zara1709 03:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So religios persecutio is OK if it's done at war times? As for the USA you doesn't make any sense. // Liftarn

1) So you propose there should be an article on Persecution by Germanic pagans because the Vikings raided Lindesfarne? I would guess that more Christians did at the hands of Germanic Pagans than vice versa. Not every time people of different religions have slaughtered each other that constitutes religious persecution. (And Germanic Paganism probably isn't even a religion in the sense Christianity is.) 2) The USA is a modern state, after all. It's not like England 1600 were you had to pay a fine for being Catholic etc. ... 3) And I'm sorry if you feel personally attacked, but I had the impression that we had this issue cleared because you did not say anything on this discussion page. Your unwillingness to respond to my points on this discussion page - and your revert without any discussion - still gives me the impression of not being taken serious. As soon as I have sorted out the historians opinion in Germanic Christianity, I will write a few line about those incorrect allegations of persecution from the side of Germanic Neopaganism at Pagans and Christians. (Assuming that I don't quit Wikipedia about this.) Then I will ask that Persecution of Germanic Pagans will be deleted and only be an redirect. Until then, since I don't want to have an edit war, just consider this page totally disputed. -Zara1709 05:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1) No, as it was done due to economy, not religion. If you go on a religious war agains a different religion then it's indeed a form or religious persecution. 2) Yes, and? Religious persecution stille xists in the USA. Probably more there than in other modern states. 3) Don't do major changes without discussing them first. And unless you give a specific reason why the "neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed" I will remove the tag. // Liftarn

The "neutrality and factual accuracy" of this article are disputed, because I am of the opinion that there was no Persecution of Germanic Pagans. That is, what I have been saying the whole time. -Zara1709 16:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Not ever? That's a bold statement. // Liftarn

the reason this needs to be a disambiguation page is that it is fallacious to lump together events of the migration period and whiny filibustering in the present-day USA. This is original synthesis of disparate topics. I do not allege that there was "no persecution of Germanic pagans". My claim is that it is an anachronism to use "persecution" for the events of the 8th century. In any case the pertinent article for that is over at Christianization of the Germanic peoples, and if you have academic references arguing for "persecution", you are welcome to present them there. "persecution of esotericists (both 'Germanic' and other) in Nazi Germany" is an entirely unrelated topic. Allegations of government "persecution" by supremacist crooks hiding behind "Wotanism" in the USA today is yet again a completely different topic. Disambiguation pages are simply Wikipedia's answer to dispatate topics sometimes treated under the same term. Whatever persecution there may or may not have been is to be debated at the relevant articles, and is a debate completely unrelated to this being a disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Since it is the persecution (yes, persecution) of people of the same religion it is perfectly valid to "lump it together". Persecution is persecution, even if the person being persecution happens to be crooks. Freedom of religion also applies to crooks. Compare it with not allowing Christians prisoners to have a bible. I agree that the various subjects are better dealt with in separate articles, but I would like to have a meatier article to give the larger picture (and also deal with issues not covered in other articles). For instance the fines for bloting that was in effect long after the supposed christianization of Scandinavia. // Liftarn
As WeniWidiWiki told you in January on this same discussion page: "Well we are going to have to disagree on whether modern Ásatrúar practice the same religion as the pre-christians. There already has been much debate and consensus reached on wikipedia about this." Even if this here was persecution, it would not be persecution of people of the same religion. After I stumbled across this question, I agreed. If you want to disagree, you have to question the consensus that as been reached at Wikipedia already, according to WeniWidiWiki. I really need to take a break from this now. -Zara1709 09:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, but you shouldn't confuse you opinion with facts. // Liftarn
Don' give me an argument on facts. I repeatedly asked for historians that use the term religious persecution, but you did not even try to find them. On the other hand this useless discussion has taken up the time it could otherwise have used to add the archaeological evidence that speak for peaceful conversion in the Germanic Christianity article. -Zara1709 09:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I did find a source[1] (also published in Cultural Expressions of Evil and Wickedness: Wrath, Sex, Crime). You may be pleased that the writer also say the attack on Lindisfarne may have been motivated by something other than economic gain. // Liftarn
I still very much prefer that 300-page book that doesn't use the term religious persecution, but now we are probably getting somewhere. -Zara1709 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Cultural Expressions of Evil and Wickedness: Wrath, Sex, Crime is only 244 pages (at least the paperback edition). ;-) // Liftarn


Liftarn, you are obviously pushing some sort of weird agenda. I have no idea what it is, but your behaviour has nothing to do with serious historiography. dab (𒁳) 07:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we keep the focus on the article rather than the editors? I want the article to be meatier so we can also include other instances than the three mentioned and also give a larger picture. // Liftarn
Liftarn, I have to take this to you as the editor. Which of these two statements do you not understand?
  • According to my textbooks, there was no persecution of Germanic Pagans.
  • There is an important difference between Germanic Paganism and Germanic Neopaganism. There is no Germanic Neopaganism that is a continuity of Germanic Paganism.
Also check Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. I had originally intended to elaborate that point that there was no persecution of Germanic Pagans in some detail, but with you this is like trying to bite iron. -Zara1709 10:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hatemongering criminals

David Lane and Varg Vikernes are proven villains before courts of law; the fact that they are self-professed "pagans" means nothing. The idea that they are being persecuted for their faiths, is actually damaging to the image of those who are not hatemongering pagans. I am not pagan, but I can see how those two men misrepresent pagan revival movements and are pretended to be "mainstream" practitioners by those hostile to Paganism. 68.110.8.21 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I removed it from the article as it's not really relevant to the article. // Liftarn
Lane is listed because he alleges to be persecuted. Obviously there is no merit to the claim. Vikernes should not be listed since he does not even allege to be persecuted because of his religion. He admits that he deserved an 8-10 years sentence for his deed, and (quite realistically) concludes that he received the maximum penalty of 21 years instead as a result of media hysteria surrounding his (unadmitted) church burnings and the satanist image he intentionally built up with the press in order to draw attention to himself. dab (𒁳) 15:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering he's a Satanist (or something) Vikernes isn't even relevant for this article. // Liftarn
It does say "However, Vikernes has made clear that he was motivated by pagan ideology." in the Varg Vikernes article, doesn't it? I think his statements quoted there are definite. Hey, and even if I would be wrong on the point that there was no Persecution of Germanic Pagans in the Middle Ages (and then a 300-page introductory book published by the Reclam Verlag would be incorrect), you still haven't replied to the objection raised by Dbachmann. -Zara1709 08:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the different generations of Asatru? And you want academic book? Ok, what about Fredrik Skott's "Asatro i tiden" (ISBN 91-7229-009-9)? // Liftarn
yes, I "want academic book", how did you notice? I want it cited, incidentially, at Talk:Historical persecution by Christians, not here at the disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 10:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It's here in the article about the persecution of Germanic Pagans it is relevant. // Liftarn
I'll have to check it out but the chapter "Modern asatro och dess historia" (Modern Asatru and it's History) from Hedendomen i historiens spegel (ISBN 9189116801) looks interesting. // Liftarn

[edit] Blankings

Please do not remove valid and sourced content from the article, thank you. If you see a problem with it please bring it up on the talk page first. // Liftarn

[edit] Why this is a disambiguation page

There isn't any continuity, and aren't many commonalities, among the topics here. I strongly suggest you address your concerns on the various pages this page links to. Jacob Haller 07:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Do you have a source for that? I have some sources for that like Fredrik Skott's Asatro i tiden (ISBN 91-7229-009-9) (it's about modern time Asatru, so the author indirectly says there was a non-modern Asatru) and the chapter "Modern asatro och dess historia" (Modern Asatru and it's History) from Hedendomen i historiens spegel (ISBN 9189116801) (I will have to check it, but it looks interesting). 2) There never was a consensus to blank this page. 3) There is not page on persecution of modern time Asatru. Your blankings removed the content. // Liftarn

I'm not going to debate the continuity/discontinuity of Asatru. The question is the continuity/discontinuity of persecutions of Asatru. In the absence of specific arguments otherwise, I have to consider these separate phenomena:

  • Wars between Christian and Pagan states/alliances. (e.g. Charlemagne in Saxony)
  • Conversion from above. (Conversion from below involved persecution the other way).

(Although sometimes occurring within wars or after conversion from above, I'd consider these somewhat separate phenomena):

  • Religious persecution directed at Germanic paganism, at other religious practices in northern Europe, which also affected Germanic paganism, or at other religious practices elsewhere, which also affected Germanic paganism.

Each of these can be divided among the persecuting institutions. Jacob Haller 08:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn, you are now moving into "disruption" territory. Several people have repeatedly and patiently explained to you why you are mistaken. You have not found a single editor who would endorse your approach. If you continue reverting anyway, you may be blocked from editing not just for 3RR, but for unconstructive and disruptive behaviour in general. This is a disambiguation page. If you want to write an article about neopagan groups and their claims of "persecution", do it, but don't do it here. Either insert your material at Germanic neopaganism or create a new article and see if it stands. Disambiguation pages don't need references, they merely disambiguate between articles which themselves are to be referenced. dab (𒁳) 08:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have done so (over at Persecution of Asatruers), but now I noted that you blindly deleted the link to it. I restored it so please let it remain there. // Liftarn
great. I have just noted that. Now, whatever claims of merit you may have, present them at Persecution of Asatruers and leave this page alone, alright? At present, I see nothing of value at the article and have put a merge tag, but I am willing to give it some time to evolve. dab (𒁳) 08:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, fine by me. // Liftarn