Talk:Modern paganism in the United Kingdom

message: In the Neo-Druidry section, it states it isn't pagan. This should be rectified or the section should be deleted due to it not being relevant. I am not in a position to comment on whether the statement is or is not correct.
--Ingwina (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presence of Neo-Druidry 

message: I removed the link link to the Order of the Jarls of Baelder  placed by dab  as I don't believe this organisation is of nearly the same stature as the small list of others there. True, there is a website for the group but it has not been updated for over four years (the 'what's on' page refers to an update due in late 2003 ) I've never heard of the group myself (though that's not a reason for removing the link of course!) but a quick Google reveals few if any independent sources for what appears to be a tiny (one-man?) and eccentric group. I wouldn't want to set a precedent of every miniscule grouping needing a mention here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: they are eccentric to be sure. Otoh, I don't see any danger of "list creep" just now, at a mere six entries. Anyway, Partridge (2005:230) names them as one of four "Orders" that all form part of an "Infernal Alliance". If I get around to researching this, we can link to the umbrella "Alliance" instead. I find it important to discuss both the fluffy and the fascist-satanic fringe just to make clear what a huge spectrum the term "neopagan" covers. I came across Cox' "Order" while researching Koenraad Logghe, the two being connected in this article. This is, admittedly, an article from an anti-fascist publication, the sort which are often prone to over-dramatisation. 
dab (𒁳) 08:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. My first (irrational) reaction was to want to speedy the Order of the Jarls of Baelder article but then I came to my senses: you'd sourced it convincingly and of course the group are worth knowing about. My worry with placing a link on this page was that it may appear to give them an equal weight to much larger and more significant organisations such as the Pagan Federation. I agree a list of six is not long. But it implies to me that the small number of organisations listed (from the large number of possible candidates) should be the most significant, largest or most notable organisations. Perhaps there is a place for a separate article on extreme and/or right wing and/or fascist/satanic groups? (With a link to that article from here, of course). Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 09:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite these are (sub-)lunatic fringe and should by no means be implied to be of equal notability with mainstream neopagan organisations. It's just, as you say, that they are worth knowing about. I agree that if we list them here, we should make a note regarding their relative notability. It would be a useful project to unite all these far-right fringe neopagan stub articles (Heathen Front etc.) into a single article discussing the phenomenon in context. Partridge uses the term fascist Satanism, so perhaps that would be a good title.  dab (𒁳) 10:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, I have merged this into a new Nazi satanism article. But it should be emphasized that here, black metal style "Satanism" merges with "Odinism" (Savitri Devi as "the priestess of Odin", heh). dab (𒁳) 11:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of link 

message: What has the Battle of the Beanfield got to do with this article? No doubt some of those involved were Pagans, but others belonged to other faith groups or none. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point. And the only othr individual mentioned in this section is a Satanist. IMO neither New Age travellers nor Satanists are closely enough identified with neo-paganism for their inclusion here to be relevant. Hence I've been bold and removed the section on discrimination until it can be re-written specifically about neo-pagan topics. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of the Beanfield 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neopaganism in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113182416/http://www.scottishpf.org/census.html to http://www.scottishpf.org/census.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved to Modern Paganism in the United Kingdom. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Neopaganism in the United Kingdom →  – "Neopaganism" as a term is rarely used by adherents in the United Kingdom and can be seen as pejorative. "Contemporary Paganism" is commonly used both by adherents and scholars. Ingwina (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Neopaganism has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject United Kingdom has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 March 2022 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Modern paganism and New Age which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress