Talk:Heathenry (reconstructionism)

Article move?

Should heathen be moved to? —Ashley Y 05:10, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)

This was long overdue - think that both heathen and heathenry can stand, as the term is getting used in quite specific ways - e.g. often more 'animist' than Asatru. Seidkona 15:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge. Take all the best bits. FK0071a 12:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

I have today added more material on rituals etc. Seidkona 12:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested categories

Other than Neopaganism? Oh, redirects from heathen and heathenism now point to article. --139.80.123.3 23:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a few more - had problems editing this evening. Any suggestions - I've put Shamanism and Animisn and North European Paganism - though last has as yet no entries.. Seidkona 01:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed above to Germanic paganism Seidkona 12:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Links to the article from Paganism and the Heathenry definition included in that need sorting out, too. --139.80.123.3 19:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put one link in - that article needs serious sorting out, basically. There is some under-researched/disputed etymology there, and a lot of repetition. But I'm out of time for doing this in.. Seidkona 23:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article scope

the intro itself states that Heathenry as intended here is used as the equivalent of Germanic neopaganism. Therefore the articles should be merged. This article is fine, but it will not do to have two independent articles on the same topic for terminological reasons. Also, it is apparently implied that "heathen" refers to polytheistic reconstructionism while "pagan" includes "rituals from other sources". This seems idiosyncratic. Obviously, without the "neo-", "heathen" and "pagan" both generically refers to traditions, not reconstructions or inventions. dab (ᛏ) 14:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these articles conflict, but I have some other concerns. I have expressed them over at Talk:Germanic Neopaganism. WeniWidiWiki 20:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article has been left lying for two months now; I will go ahead and merge it when I have time. dab (ᛏ) 13:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

The article does not cover the same ground as the discussion on 'Germanic neopaganism': nor does the term 'Heathenry' as used in the UK necessarily imply the kind of identification that I have seen in the US. This article was written specifically to give access to meanings and understandings that were not covered elsewhere. In particular, the association of Heathenry with LandWights and 'local gods' is important.

Further, not all Heathens restrict their deity-affiliations to 'Germanic' deities. (I dislike the first line, btw, which has changed considerably from earlier versions. Heathenry as practiced today is not necessarily either revival or 'modern', and could be said to be closer to animism than to a specific 'Germanic paganism'.)

I hope that these articles will not be merged. Also, the permission to use copyright material was given specifically for an article on 'Heathenry'.

Seidkona 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seidkona, by submitting the material to Wikipedia, you agreed to license it under the GFDL. If you are not the copyright holder, then the submission violated copyright and must be remmoved. If you are the copyright holder, you may not attach any requirements to its use beyond those specified in the GFDL. It may be "edited mercilessly" and "redistributed by others". –RHolton ≡– 18:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material is quoted from a specified article (by me). It needs to be kept togeher and the citation kept with it. It is about Heathenry. Seidkona 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What it sounds like you're saying is that the material falls under fair use. However, in that case, your permission is not required. That's the point of fair use. Under fair use, you as the original author of the material have no more control than any other Wikipedia editor over what portion of that material is used in which article or articles, or under which titles. Unless what you're saying is that the material does not fall under the fair use criteria, in which case the solution is to reduce the quantity until it does. The point is, if it's not fair use, it's either released under the GFDL, or it's a copyright violation. But that determination has nothing to do with which article title it's used in, or what other content is in that article. –RHolton ≡– 10:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a copyright issue, more as a relevancy one. The material was written about Heathenry. If the Heathenry article merges with German Neopaganisn, then the material is perhaps longer relevant. I think Germanic neopaganism and Heathenry should be left separated. Merging will make for a large, unwieldy article. --202.61.138.217 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see them as the same at all having read the 'germanic neopaganism' article. 'Germanic Neopagan' certainly contains Heathenry as it contains Asatru and Odinism, so Heathenry is not it's equivalent. I don't think it's appropriate to merge the two as Heathenry seems to be a distinct category.

Luvlymish 12:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowlance 01:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)== Beyond the Germanic ==[reply]

I wish to expand on an issue which Seidkona touched upon earlier. That being the understanding of Heathenry as being strictly Germanic in nature. I have long considered myself a Heathen, though certainly bot as described in this article. The understanding I have long held of Heathenry (and don't ask me to site some source as I learned from another human being, a woman in a small book store), is that a Heathen seeks to bring the beliefs and practises of his-her ancestors (be they physical, cultural, spiritual, etc.) into his/her own life. This can take the form of syncreticism, or even totally adopting what you understant to be the religion of your forebears.

In this manner by own practise of Heathenry involved elements of Anglicanism (the religious tradition in which I was raised), ancient Celtic and Germanic beliefs, and some African gods and folk magic/shamanism. I also plan to research First Nations beliefs and se what I can incorporate into my practise (though I have no first nations ancestry, I consider that as a Canadian I owe the first people of this land my respect and I wish to honour their ways).

I don't know how widely held this view of Heathenry is but it is my own and I consider it to be a valid one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.138.217 (talk • contribs)

as it is, this article describes a certain subset of UK Germanic neopaganism. It is fair enough to have an article about that, but "Heathenry" as a term has a wider scope. If people think it will not do to just merge, we will at least have to do some disambiguation, say move this to Heathenry (UK neopaganism) and make Heathenry a redirect to Heathen which may be a disambiguation page. I hope this would be a solution acceptable to everybody. I have no intention to belittle UK Heathenry, it is simply a matter of ambiguous usage of the term: "Heathenry" can and does refer to Paganism in a much more general sense. dab (ᛏ) 07:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that the notion that shamanism is something other than the traditional religions of Siberians, Mongols, and Turkic tribes of Central Asia should be confronted, and that the term neoshamanism should be used in its place. The word animism should be revived as the proper term to describe generally the majority of religions which are now described inaccurately as "shamanism" due to the contributions of New Age writers. 65.65.156.86 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Bryant Holman[reply]

Shamanism has been considered by many anthropologists, to be related to a universal Spiritual role, involving altered states of consciousness. To limit the term that has been accepted by the relivent scientific community to define this role to the origin of that term, is way beyond the scope this single article and is something that the anthropolical community would need to address rather than us. --Lextori 07:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've disambiguated, but I still strongly suggest a merge. As it turns out, the practices described here are not any more "reconstructionist" than your average Germanic neopaganism. Especially the section "Practices and discourses (what Heathens do and say)" has exactly the same scope as Germanic_neopaganism#Rites and can easily be merged there. We do not need two discussions of the same thing in slightly different lingo. I think the main reason the articles are still separate is Seidkona (talk · contribs) personal dislike of the term "neopaganism". While I appreciate the feeling, I would like to stress that the term is in no way intrinsically derogatory, and is simply used as the most universal referrer for the topic, since all other terms are subject to idiosyncratic use. It is part of the Germanic neopagan aesthetic to try and use "native" terminology, if possible antiquated or old-sounding, which depending on the user's erudition may turn out in varying shades of philological accuracy. It is not our fault that terminology is fuzzy. This is a direct consequence of the lack of central organization of the movement. This absence of a "church" is a good thing, and desired by adherents, but it necessarily leads to terminological confusion, and we need to pick the term that is least ambiguous. "Heathenry" is simply the term that some adherents pick to refer to what in encyclopedic tone should be called "Germanic neopaganism". My personal favourite is "Forn Sidhr"/"Forn Sed"/"Alte Sitte", adapted to the local dialect, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that Wikipedia's discussion of the phenomenon as a whole should be so titled. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of this Dab. The main difference I note, is that Germanic neopaganism entry seems to dwell more on the organizational and political aspects, and Heathenry (reconstructionism) seems to be primarily concerned with the praxis. This is a phenomenon which makes the Germanic neopaganism entry more representative of the USA rather than the rest of the world. For example, animism and land veneration is mentioned nowhere in the Germanic neopaganism entry, but it comes up a few times here. Also the old "tar them all with the neonazi brush" has not appeared at this entry, and I think undue weight is given to it at the other entry. I honestly think this entire entry has good content which is more cohesive and representative of the religion, and would like it worked into the other entry as the primary material if merging is the consensus. Currently Germanic neopaganism is very fragmenented, and is therefore somewhat lacking. - WeniWidiWiki 16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]