Talk:Germanic paganism

message: The way the article is currently written, it would seem to take it for granted that there was, uncontroversially and knowably, one single Germanic religion of all Germanic peoples who had not converted to Christianity. It could be that this is simply because of the way the article has grown organically, or is this really the position of the editors? If it is not then I think it should be looked at with this point in mind. Some questions to consider, all just thinking around the same type of thing:
*If there was not one religion, were there several, is it perhaps simply not known how many there were?
*Germanic peoples can be defined in several different ways, so which definition is being linked to the title of this article? For example are the Gothic peoples (often included on a linguistic basis) known to have followed a Germanic religion?
*A previous poster has pointed out that this article has an overlap with Norse paganism. Potentially this article is intended to focus on discussions about the idea of a bigger and/or older forerunner of the Norse paganism that was also present on the European mainland, and maybe England? If so, then this might be something to lay out for the reader so that they can see the connection between articles.
To me it seems like thinking about these types of "constitutional" issues can help in many ways when an article gets older and bigger.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, someone might reply that I am being unfair, because there are bits which are very different from what I am implying the article is like. So I will point to the first two sentences, which are of course critical for all readers and indeed all future editors.
Germanic paganism refers to the ethnic religion practiced by the Germanic peoples from the Iron Age until Christianisation during the Middle Ages. It was an essential element of early Germanic culture.
The first sentence refers to a very broad category which could include the Gothic peoples, and it implies unity which I think just Tacitus on his own shows to be unlikely, or at least difficult to reconstruct. (The article, broken into different regions etc, does not necessarily agree.) The second sentence seems to be purely Wikipedian in its origin.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  scope, lead etc 

message: As some of you already know, I've been putting together a draft of to replace this article, which you can find here: User:Ermenrich/sandbox. I invite anyone who contributes to this article to make suggestions for improvement. Feel free to advertise as well. I'm not sure when I intend to finally move the draft over here, but there is not yet any hurry.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the draft use the term "idol" instead of cult image? The former is a pejorative term. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for one thing, people are unlikely to know what a “cult image” is (for the average person the word “cult” is probably far more pejorative than “idol”) but feel free to alter/remove.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ll also note that the three citations in the lead of that article stating that idol is a pejorative do not actually say that it is pejorative.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My leaning is in line with this quote describing Cult image on the Idol disambiguation page: "a neutral term for a man-made object that is worshipped or venerated for the deity, spirit or demon that it embodies or represents". Cult image appears more neutral in its usage from where I stand but I haven't read up on the scholarship - this is just based on what I have come across in papers. From my understanding, "cult" typically lacks pejorative connotations both historically and in religious studies contexts. Ingwina (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's a neutral term in scholarship, but having tried to teach my students about "mystery cults" and gotten quiz responses like "The Romans thought other religions were cults", it's worth keeping in mind that  the vast majority of people understand the term to be highly pejorative.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion would be to have this page as a platform for educating people in line with scholarship and so address the misunderstanding, with links being offered where possible to help. That's just my view though. I'll drop back and let other people voice their thoughts. Ingwina (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm happy to remove the term "idol" if people don't like it, but I don't think "cult image" is an improvement.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sieht sehr gut aus. Zweivellos eine Verbesserung. You've done a lot of research here and it shows.--Obenritter (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Well done and many thanks for your labors. --Obenritter (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please comment on draft to replace this article