Talk:Crypto-paganism

message: In keeping with convention this article should be named "Crypto-paganism" or "Crypto-Paganism". I'm no expert so I don't know which capitalisation is correct. Please comment for/against here, I would not want to move this without some concensus. Zunaid 14:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will automatically redirect, and it should be capitalized. I'll do it. Cuñado  - Talk 00:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You spelled wreak wrong. Cuñado  - Talk 05:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: This article still needs at least one good reference. I think you mentioned reading about this stuff in a book somewhere. As it is now it's all original research, and obviously vague. It basically says "Somewhere... somehow... someone is hiding something." Cuñado  - Talk 05:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Perhaps the Practices section should be rewritten by someone who actually knows about the subject. Whoever wrote what's there doesn't know much about it and presents a pretty one-sided view of things. comment added by ChiMama (talk • contribs) 10:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Practices

message: These sections should be removed from this article. Rwflammang (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. While there are over 200 books using the term Crypto-Pagan at Google Books, none of them also include either "Druze" or "Yezidi". Yworo (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Druze and Yazidi aren't pagans

message: This is my first submission to Wikipedia in a long time - just in case anyone's troubled by my non-existent list of previous edits. :o)
I'm troubled by the phrasing of parts of this article.  It seems, let's say, 'weighted' in places.
For example:
"Given the high Christian religiosity of the United States, many American neopagans conceal their practices in daily life to avoid being ostracized or persecuted."
This is probably true, insofar as some American pagans probably do feel unable to be open about their beliefs.  There are, it's true, high levels of conservative Christian belief in certain areas.  I'm not sure, though, that it's entirely safe for an encyclopaedia to talk about 'the high Christian religiosity of the United States'.  I'm aware that religion in the US is a highly emotive issue, so it might be better to find a more neutral way to put this.  If this section needs to identify the US specifically, then I suggest something like:
"In the United States, particularly in traditionally conservative Christian areas, some pagans feel unable to practice or express their beliefs publicly for fear of ostracism or persecution."
I can't cite any sources for this, but the existing statement isn't cited either.  I also think that this wording avoids the implication that they will be ostracised or persecuted, which smacks of an accusation, and replaces it with their concern that they will, which I think is more legitimate.
"Traditionally, the Wiccan Laws suggested hiding symbols, ceremonies and altars in plain sight[...]"
The article linked to here doesn't make any reference to hiding anything in plain sight.  The link goes to the Wiccan Rede, and discusses the history and meaning of the rule, "An it harm none, do as you will", and its variants.  The Wiccan Rede article is redirected from Wiccan Laws, however, so it may be that there was originally a Wiccan Laws article discussing this.
"Many crypto-pagan sects exist in the Middle East; they have gone underground to avoid persecution from the dominant Muslims.[citation needed] This can perhaps be seen in opposition to Europe, wherein pagan groups have simply been eliminated (short of recent revivals, such as the Ásatrú, and in Neo-druidism and Neopaganism), while some pagan traditions (e.g. New Year's Day) have been absorbed into mainstream Christianity."
Crumbs.  Where to start?  By definition, if these Middle-Eastern sects have gone underground, they'd be difficult to identify.  Who are they, then, and how do we know they're there?  I appreciate this is pretty much covered by 'citation needed' - I'm just emphasising.
'Persecution from the dominant Muslims'?  Again, without knowing anything at first hand about the socio-religious situation in the region (other than the picture painted by western media), it might be more neutral to refer to pagans' fear of persecution, as with Christianity in America, rather than imply that there would certainly be persecution.
"This can perhaps be seen in opposition to Europe, wherein pagan groups have simply been eliminated[...]"
That's very loaded, and I'd lay odds we'd struggle to find a reputable source to back it up.  There is a tendency in pagan circles to portray the conversion of Europe from paganism to Christianity as an act of violent oppression: conversion at the point of a sword.  In fact it was a more gradual process driven in large part by the appeal of the new religion.  Saying 'pagan groups have simply been eliminated' gives a strong impression of systematic suppression, when in fact, as unpopular a view as it may be, most ancient pagan beliefs were simply left behind by the people themselves.  What practices remained often weren't so much eliminated as absorbed or, as the article itself says, syncretised into Christianity.  This is very different from 'simply eliminated'.
"In South America, with the aggressive evangelizing of state sponsored Christianity and the suppression of native religions, there have also, arguably, been some crypto-pagan groups."
This desperately needs a cite.  Even if it's 'common knowledge' or "everybody knows" for someone with knowledge of the area.  If we're going to level accusations of 'aggressive evangelizing' by 'state-sponsored Christianity' against an entire geopolitical region, then we have to be able to back them up.  Also: there have 'arguably' been crypto-pagan groups?  Have there or haven't there?  If we can show that there have, then we don't need 'arguably'.  If we can't, then we shouldn't be making the claim at all.
"Generally crypto-pagans in the Middle East have adopted Arabic and Islamic terminology as part of their cover. Equally often, the laity knows little about the religion, which is kept as a mystery for priests and people who have undergone initiation.
The precise theology of many of these religions is still kept a closely guarded secret to this day, and the groups themselves will provide disinformation to further their secrecy."
So how do we know about them?  Seriously: this article is making a lot of assertions, but it's not saying how Wikipedia has managed to penetrate this shield of secrecy.  This needs to be explained.  This last paragraph in particular gives the strong impression that it's basically just someone's opinion.
On this Talk page, all the way back in 2005, it seems, User:Nygdan said:
"This term is important because there are several thousand people throughout the modern world that fall under the umbrella of being crypto-pagans, that have been ruthlesly persecuted and nearly exterminated in some instances"
That's a very heavy claim, and as far as I can see, this article doesn't do anything to evidence it.  There has been a citations tag at the top of the article since February 2010.  I think if we haven't found something to back up what's being said in that time, we need to start seriously considering whether the article deserves to be here at all. - Coldwind139 (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a stab at re-writing the bulk of the article in what I hope will be a slightly less weighted style.  I've put in a couple of links which may or may not be useful or acceptable - I tried to shorten one of them via TinyURL but didn't realise this service was blocked, so the full-length URL is now in the reference.  I've tried to cite properly, but I'm no expert on academic referencing, so please feel free to correct if I've got it wrong.  Or just revert the lot if I've made an unsalvageable pig's ear of the whole thing. :o) - Coldwind139 (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Oh, and PS: I've removed most of the last section on crypto-paganism in Islamic cultures only because much of it as it stood seemed to be speculative. - Coldwind139 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article seriously needs some citations