Talk:Heathenry (reconstructionism)

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, merge. Take all the best bits. FK0071a 12:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article move?

message: I have today added more material on rituals etc. Seidkona 12:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions

message: Other than Neopaganism? Oh, redirects from heathen and heathenism now point to article. --139.80.123.3 23:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested categories

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: article scope