Talk:Theodism

message: Wikipedia is not a collection of links. I think that having links to numerous subdomains which all lead back to the same domain is pointless other than making organizations look larger than they are. The websites already have links to all the regional chapters. -HroptR 19:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spurious Links

message: "Discouraging Freedom of Conscience: In the past, individuals who have attempted to leave Theodish groups have been refused dismissal, or have been unable leave without threats or harassment." Sorry... but I don't believe this is accurate. You cite the criticism as 'discouraging freedom of conscience' - then link it to 'freedom of thought'.  Yet your examples have nothing to do with curtailing someones freedom to think what they will: no examples of censorship, no examples of arrests, no examples of book burnings. "Even when leaving on good terms, they are often set wretched or outlawed which is an archaic practice of civil death and disassociation which has connotations of being a criminal." You cite being set wretched as akin to outlawry.  It isn't that simple.  A wretch was a lordless man.  It could be an exile... or it could be a simple matter of being the only guy left alive.  See The Wanderer, an Old English poem; yet even the wanderer was not an outlaw... just a luckless wretch who hoped to once again find a Lord.  So I think your putting an unneccesary spin on the term equating it with being set a wolf/varg/warg (outlaw). Plus, who is this ambiguous 'They'?  'They' account for the most oppressed folk I've ever met in my life... I'd sure hate to be 'They'. I'm the Lord of my tribe, Œþelland, and I have set a man wretched, on good terms, for a Freedom of Conscience issue.  I still see him damn near everyday... so I've got to ask that you provide more substance in these claims... because I just don't see it. ~~Daniel -BjornP 
03 FEB 2006
I didn't create any of that section. Who are you referring to? Look in the history of the entry and click on the dates to discern who edited and added what. I re-added information which you deleted under a new section called "Freedom of Conscience" - which you had (correctly) said "has nothing to do with thralldom". Deleting information without citing verifiable evidence to refute it is not neutrality. If you question the veracity of it use the  tag right behind the statement you take issue with. There currently is one right in the very first paragraph, because someone has contested whether the term Theodism really encompasses the cultures outside of the Anglo-Saxons which settled in England. You cannot POV tag a whole entry for one statement listed under a clearly defined "criticisms" section. I'm reverting your template and adding the  tag. Like it or not, when people have a beef with anything in an entry it goes in the criticisms section. Look at almost any article on wikipedia, and you will see this. By being under a clearly defined "criticism" header, it implies that the critic takes issue with statements in the rest of the article, and is appropriate. If the critical statements were interspersed throughout the entry attempting to falsely represent the views of Theodsmen, you would have a case for a POV template. That is not currently the case.-HroptR 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Dispute 

message: On 27, Jan, 2006 User:Earl Rezner added a sub-section called Criticism to the Theodism entry.  This is the user's only edit, as of 17:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archival of criticism section

message: I changed the intro about "Þēodisc Gelēafa" to use macrons (the horizontal bars above vowels) rather than acute accents, since that is what is most commonly used in the transcription of Old English.
However, I see there are all kinds of Old English words throughout the text, such as þēodisc, Blót, Húsel, and some modernized words like Théodsmen (why the e is marked there but not in Theodism I have no idea).  Clearly these are important concepts for the group: it may common practice in to use the acute-accented forms when referring to these things, so I don't want to go ahead and change that arbitrarily.
Can anyone say whether there is a preference in the published writing of this group between the use of accents and of macrons? --Saforrest 12:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcription of Old English text 

message: I see no reason to remove the article and roll it into two already-extant Wikipedia articles (not, as the tag implies, splitting it into two new and unique articles). The article does not, in fact, state that Theodism is a "synonym" for Germanic paganism, but rather that it is one *variant* thereof. There are many, including Asatru, Forn Sed, Odinism, etc. Each is a distinct entity unto itself and many, including Theodism, deserve and require their own entry (much the same as Catholicism and Lutheranism are both variants of Christianity). Too, as the article plainly states, although the first Theod was Anglo-Saxon in its orientation, the current state of affairs is that there are many individual Theods, each pursuing a thew related to a different Germanic tribe. Fifteen years ago, Theodism might have been equatable with Anglo-Saxon polytheism, but such is no longer the case.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NJHeathen (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting into two articles 

message: No individual or group has the right to opt-out of mention in Wikipedia merely because they find it irrelevant or silly. There are many groups and people who would love to have their Wikipedia references omitted because they find them embarasing or inconvenient. However, as long as the references are factual and do not display a POV bias, they should and have every right to be included, as they are a part of Theodism's history and present-day makeup.
See the [Wikipedia Article Subjects' FAQ, question #13].
NJHeathen 18:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Removal of References