Talk:Modern paganism/Archive 1

message: Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults 
cairoi 14:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is anyone interested in the following article nominated for deletion?

message: I don't know quite what to do with Dianic Wicca. I'm fairly certain it is wrong to even use the term Wicca to refer to Dianics, since the important factor in Wicca is gender polarity which doesn't apply even remotely to Dianic practice. But I'm not Dianic myself and don't know much about the details of their practice. It would be great if someone who knows more would clarify this. Perhaps it should be Dianic Paganism, or Dianic Tradition. --Dmerrill
----
Most Dianic Wiccan's consider themselves Wiccan and do consider the birth of Wicca with Gardner the beginings of their religion; they are just a group that broke off (kind of like protestants from the Catholic church- the protestants are still Christian). Though I am not very familar with the Reclaimation Tradition (which apparently does not consider it's self to be part of Wicca), it sounds very much like Dianic Wicca and could be composed of women with very similar beliefs and practices who allie themselves more on the "political side" and less on the "Wicca side" than Dianic Wiccans.  I guess I'm saying that if Dianic Wiccan's consider themselves Wiccan, who are we to say they are not. Just a thought, I may be wrong.   
----
There are two kinds of Dianics, and I was initiated as one kind which I note first. The Dianic Craft which is women only was founded by Zsuszanna Budapest from the early 70s as a blend of Hungarian folk magic and Western feminism. This kind of Dianic cannot be Wiccan for Wiccans insist on polarity of Goddess and God (as Dmerrill says above): some Wiccan material and phrases do form part of Dianic practice however. But such Dianics do not see Wicca as their main lineage, looking instead to local folk traditions, feminist foremothers of the early 20th and late 19thC etc In particular the matriarchy tradition of Gage, Bachofen, Engels, Neumann, Murray, Gould Davis, Sjoo and Gimbutas figures largely.
Starhawk was/is the most famous of Zee's students, ref her The Spiral Dance 1979, but her Craft is not restricted to women. Her worldwide network centres on Reclaiming Coven/ Reclaiming Tradition in California. I belong to a very similar tradition in the UK.
Dianic Wicca, also known confusingly as Dianic Craft, is a variant of Wicca that centrally honours Diana, Queen of the Witches. Both women and men, Goddess & God polarity. Otherwise Wicca.
It can also help to distinguish the American usage of 'Wicca' from the British. In the USA, Wicca is a loose label, broadly similar to Paganism. In Britain Paganism is the loose term, and the Craft/ witchcraft is only one of many kinds of Paganism. Other forms are Druidry, Heathenism (Asatru/ Nordics), Eco-Paganism, Shamanism, Goddess people, High Magic, Chaos Magic, Techno-Paganism etc .....Within the Craft itself Wicca is strictly only one form, though a very important one, arguably dominant?, founded by Gardner and Valiente, and with Alexandrian Craft following on. There are other forms of Craft, not seen as offshoots, such as Starhawk's, my own Circlework, Dianics, Celtics, and the claimed Hereditaries. 
:The usage you cite is also quite common in the US, although it could certainly be less prevalent than in the UK. We usually consider Wicca to be those groups closest to Gardnerianism and Neopaganism to include those plus the more eclectic groups. The boundary is quite fluid here though. --Dmerrill
::Starhawk believes in Goddess Spirituality, which is not Wiccan (and has said so herself). Disinclination 20:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dianic Wicca 

message: The following is copied by Laurel Bush 16:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article looks to me a lot like a dictionary entry and Im thinking a shift to Paganism (disambiguation) might be appropriate. (This would leave the current name free as one for an article about current pagan practice.) Laurel Bush 13:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neo-paganism does deserve an article, and already has one. Distinguishing neo-paganism from paganism is relevant there, but not here, as with Nazi and Neo-Nazi etc etc etc. The reader looking for "paganism" is well served in getting this article, improved by Laurel Bush, I hope! If there is anything that needs disambiguation, Paganism (disambiguation) awaits! --Wetman 17:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: A second look at Neo-paganism shows that the article quite intentionally blurs the distinctions, confusing people like Laurel Bush. Rather like saying, "We're not Neo-Nazis, we're real Nazis." Or confusing Wedgwood with Roman bas-reliefs. Readers are strongly encouraged to contribute some clarity at Neo-paganism.  --Wetman 17:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Two questions: (A) what would be the purpose of doing this, and (B) how do you define "self-styled" Paganism? --Corvun 09:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
No plans to actually do anything at present. Just making observations. Laurel Bush 10:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is [[Paganism]] a disambiguation article?

message: I believe this article may need expansion to include near-eastern Neopaganisms such as the secret societies, kemeticism, hindi, etc. Although these are certainly "Western" in that they are predominantly reconstructive and recreated, they don't (I think) "claim to be a revival of mainly European Paganism." I may be very far off, but I seem to recall the two "sources" of the neopaganism movement were one predominantly reconstructive Celtic, and the other predominately recreative Egyptian. - Amgine 23:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurocentrism? 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing policy proposal 

message: Are we attempting to define "neopaganism" as any modern form of paganism (as the Paganism article seems to), or as a set of reconstructionist/revivalist traditions ("a heterogeneous group of religions which attempt to revive ancient ... religions")?  Because the one seems to contradict the other (breaking Wiki's self-consistency policy).  By the apparent Paganism definition, basically any religion or set of spiritual beliefs which exists outside a monotheistic framework is paganism, and "neopaganism" merely refers to modern spiritualities as opposed to earlier ones.  Without any kind of modifier (such as "many," "commonly" or "often") "attempt to revive ancient ... religions" line seems to be too restrictive to properly agree with the Paganism definition.
The most simple way to fix this seems to be the addition of a modifier, so I did, but I'd like feedback.
Sorry I forgot to add a edit summary.--12.5.1.207 23:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question! 

message: well, "psychologistic" is just the adjective to "psychologism", regardless of the meaning of the term. I do think "psychologism" is used correctly here, although there is a specialized meaning in arithmetics, see here, and check general use. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: psychologism

message: Why is there a list of kinds of religious belief in this article? Shouldn't this information be in a more general article, such as "Religion" or "Belief" or "Theology"? What is specifically Neopagan in those definitions as they are shown? I don't think there is anything so specific that justifies keeping this section in the article. --Jdemarcos 14:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related concepts? 

message: Pagan and neopagan are sometimes used to mean anti-religion. E.g. The Nazis were not just antisemitic but neo-pagan.
I'm sure I don't have the quote exact but I heard this on the radio today on a discussion about Vatican 2.
My sound card isn't working so maybe someone can go to www.kcur.org and listen to the Nov 17 Up To Date program.
I always thought neopagan meant recreation of european pagan beliefs while American Indian beliefs would be just pagan.
--Gbleem 18:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these uses are gross and improper. End of discussion. --Chèvredansante 15:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, our denial of these usages will not stop them from occurring.  Words, even the words we use to talk about ourselves and our own religions, do not always mean what we want them to mean; they mean whatever the majority of people believe they mean.  Until such time as all of us English-speakers can agree on the meaning of "pagan," these alternate usages will continue to be relevant, because some people will continue to say "pagan" when they mean "non-religious" or "anti-religion". - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 17:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we talking about Bill Kristol here? I'll give it to him, he's a smart guy, but on this subject he needs to respectfully shut his mouth for his own sake - way out of his field for him to discuss. And the Nazis were just as Christian as they were "pagan". If we are to deal in polemics, see: Hitler was a Christian. As to further dignifying this usual sensationalist volley with further discussion is futile. The politics behind terms like 'heathen' and 'pagan', which originally meant roughly rural have been referenced many times in etymological and religious studies, and I don't need to preach to the choir here about them. But yeah, of course the alternate meanings are relevent - just so long as the definitions are from popular usage and not neo-con essays (or any biased view for that matter). Khiradtalk 13:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other uses of the term

message: *Johnson, Nathan J. & Wallis, Robert J. Galdrbok: Practical Heathen Runecraft, Shamanism and Magic London & Winchester: The Wykeham Press, 2005.  
:Does anyone agree with  that this article should have the above book as "Further reading"?   The user has added this book to something like ten articles.  Jkelly 17:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: clear promotion stunt. Maybe on galdr, but I'd remove it everywhere to discourage spamming. dab (ᛏ) 17:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Reading section cut

message: "Neopagan/ism" is written with a capital 'N' throughout, "Pagan/ism" is sometimes written with a capital 'P', and sometimes not - is there a reason for the capitalisation? And either way, can we get some consistency in here? TheMadBaron 15:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe neither "neopagan" nor "pagan" should be capitalised (but "Wicca" should be). —Ashley Y 12:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: depends on context I think; noun vs. adjectival form; specific vs. abstract idea, no? Khiradtalk 13:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: Removed the following from the description of pantheism: "This is a combination of animism and henotheism." This requires a source if it is to be kept, or should be at least modified to reflect that it is conjecture on the part of the writer. I think, however, that it will not survive scrutiny. It reminds me of the popular neo-pagan habit of conflating pantheism with polytheism. Pantheism need entail no other objects of reverence beside the unity of everything existing (so it is not henotheism), and it doesn't assert the existence of spirits indwelling each physical entity or phenomenon (so it is not animism). See Michael Levine, who has established himself as the contemporary philosophical authority on the subject with his exhaustive treatise <I>Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity</I>. The rest of the description is crude but functional. Vorpal Suds 05:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This is a combination of animism and henotheism." 

message: I still think dab has a point, but the very nature of this subject might make it indeed impossible to ever catagorize satisfactorily. I just find things like "Wicca in particular emphasizes the role of witchcraft and ritual" in the Worship and Ritual section less than desirable, if not redundant. Also, for possible further reading, I'm not pushing this on anyone (and certainly not as 'the' book), but I think using Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon as at least a partial reference would compliment the current references. We all use what we got, not in any way passing judgement - been there myself - but the books cited are a little too niche-specific (though great as supplementary material I'm sure). And on a final note, do Discordianism, Church of the SubGenius, et al. not merit any mention here? Although; I hate to throw anything else in here to add to what could become, in theory, an endless list of over-specific Neopagan beliefs & practices. Khiradtalk 13:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't describe the Church of the SubGenius as neo-pagan - Discordianism might be though. DenisMoskowitz 23:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup, revisited

message: (cross-posted on Talk:Paganism) - I am placing the  template on both this article and Paganism, and here is why.  I've been re-tagging some articles from :Category:Religion stubs as paganism stubs and also placing the WikiProject Neopaganism template on appropriate article talk pages, and I've had some difficulty determining whether to do this with some articles, especially the numerous articles related to syncretic African religions.  I went to the Wikipedia articles on paganism and neopaganism for guidance as to the scope of these terms, and found very little.  In particular, I have noticed that all of the religions on the "list of pagan religions" in Paganism and all of the traditions listed in Neopaganism are explicitly European.  Neopaganism comments that "Polytheistic or animistic traditions that survived into modern times relatively untouched by Christianity and Islam, like Shinto or Hinduism are not considered pagan nor neopagan," but no explanation is given for why non-European, pre-Christian, polytheistic religions that haven't survived (or their revivals) are not included on these lists.  I think that this is an important issue that merits serious discussion and deliberation.  So... Are paganism and neopaganism strictly European phenomena?  Are these terms used to refer to non-European religions?  And should religions like Voodoo and Candomblé, both of which have been called "pagan" according to their articles, be included here? - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paganism is a concept originally coined by Christians, and therefore it is better understood only in contrast with Christianity, particularly in the period between the 2nd and the 6th century, but also during the colonial era. Neopaganism is, however, a neologism conceived to include all NRMs that are more or less based on modern ideas about old Paganism. Most of them are actually rooted in the Romantic movement and in some branches of Occultism, and therefore the Neopaganism term should be applied only to those religions that appeared at the end of the 19th century and during the 20th century aimed at reviving or reinventing a "Pagan religion" that actually never existed as such. Therefore they are different concepts that should be applied differently and for different entries. --Jdemarcos 20:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited geographic scope 

message: Considering that the length of this entry is already very long, how should we deal with references to the specific recon groups who already have their own entries? Much of what is currently in the article discussing them is redundant.WeniWidiWiki 19:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could condense it to a general description of Polytheistic reconstructionism and a list of recon traditions by culture... - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reconstructionist groups

message: A discussion of usage and capitalization/hyphenation conventions for the terms N/neo(-)P/pagan and P/pagan is ongoing on the WikiProject talk page.  Contributors to this article will likely be interested in participating. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 21:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of naming conventions 

message: "Here, the Orishas of the West African Yoruba people lived on behind the masks of Catholic saints. Yemaya, Goddess of the Sea, Terrible Mother, became the Virgin Mary. Chango, a fierce God who loves tribute made of iron and steel, became Santa Barbara, to whom Spanish soldiers also prayed in times of war. And so on."  Does anyone have a source or traditional teaching about Yemaya as "Terrible Mother" and Chango (Kabio Sile) "loving tributes made of iron and steel"?  I don't recall hearing the former, and the latter, while plausible, sounds more like Ogun.  I realize there's a great deal of variation from house to house and branch to branch, but I'd like to know the original source on this, just to make sure. Kathryn NicDhàna 20:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The prose is a bit... um, exoticizing to boot.  Jkelly 20:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Kathryn NicDhàna 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've tweaked the section to hopefully be a bit more accurate and neutral. Kathryn NicDhàna 22:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santeria, Lucumi et al 

message: The summary here previous to my recent edit largely consisted of theories about Gardner's inspirations and a lengthy discussion of the differences and friction between Trad and Eclectic Craft.  I swapped that out with a summary of the WP:LEAD of Wicca.  Ideally our brief summary at this article should not be a content fork of our main article.  The "traditions" we are listing stike me as needing review.  Jkelly 21:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wicca

message: I'm really not sure these belong in this article.  These topics certainly deserve to be on Wikipedia, but I'm thinking an article on NeoPaganism doesn't really need a section on Monotheism.  I think this entire section could either be eliminated, or reduced to a paragraph or two that discusses which of these theologies are relevant to NeoPaganism and then links to pages on the theologies themselves. Kathryn NicDhàna 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Willing to give a pithy summary a shot?  We're trying to do too much here.  Jkelly 22:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related theological concepts

message: There seems to be a large amount of vegetarians within the neopagan community and I would like to request some help adding neopaganism to Vegetarianism and religion. If anyone here is interested in helping please let me know. Thanks - Solar 09:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetarianism and religion 

message: Whereas the term "Neopaganism" may be popular in the USA, it is almost never used by practitioners in the UK - where the movement began - who use the term "Paganism". TharkunColl 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: really? I'm a practitioner in the UK, and I always make the distinction between the original, pre-christian "Paganism" and the post-christian version I practice, "NeoPaganism". --Krsont 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But I am also a practioner, and I never use the term "neo-pagan" except when e.g. comparing ancient and current beliefs or practises. Seems that there are as many ideas about (neo) Paganism as there are Pagans. Totnesmartin 23:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paganism v. Neopaganism

message: In the UK, these groups just call themselves Pagan. Please address this somehow in the article. TharkunColl 23:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, TharkunColl. While Neopagan does seem to be less common (according to my UK sources, both scholarly and Pagan), it is still extant in the UK community. Justin Eiler 19:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: it isn't an "Americanism", it is an "intelligenzia-ism". it isn't a question of what the individual groups subsumed here call themselves, it is about the proper term that does subsume all of them. "Pagan" includes ancient and tribal paganism and is thus clearly a superset of the scope of this article. INn an exact parallel, the Neoplatonists did call themselves just "Platonists", but they are still referred to as "Neoplatonists" because it would be too misleading to use "Platonists" for them as well as for the 'original' Platonists. dab (ᛏ) 19:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As both a sometimes-Neopagan, and at least an amateur scholar, I must agree with Dbachman--we tend to be a pretentious lot, and we like our fancy words. :) Justin Eiler 19:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neopaganism is an Americanism

message: The Witches Voice is the largest and best known Pagan networking site in the US, and possibly the world, and is deserving of inclusion in the External Links section. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i second that, even though I feel the urge to yell "US is not everyone" (I'm from the UK) --User24 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Witchvox covers the UK pretty extensively as well, IIRC.Dinoguy2 03:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link Proposal for Witches Voice

message: The 4th and 5th paragraphs conflicted in whether Neopaganism's roots were in the 18th or 19th centuries. I changed the 4th paragraph to 19th, but have no real surety that I was right... --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 12:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witch century? 

message: from Syncretic and Eclectic
Eclectic pagans make up a good portion of the Open Source Spirituality movement. Rather then viewing culture and tradition as static, some eclectic pagans frame their experience in the belief that human culture is constantly evolving, with elements of some cultures merging with others in a process of hybridity (Appiah, 2006).
Was that intended as a reference? Was it a ref to Kwame Anthony Appiah? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 03:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the reference is in the Reference section at the bottom: #
# Kwame Anthony Appiah, 2006. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
OrionK 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: then it needs to be reformatted as an actual ref tag, rather than a simple plain-text comment. I will do it. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 06:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appiah? 

message: I have removed the recently-added map of "nodes of Neopaganism".  While I appreciate the effort that went into making the graphic, there are a number of problems with it.  
#It is inappropriate to represent non-Wiccan traditions with the pentacle.
#There would have to be agreement here on the talk page that it is even accurate, and the data indicated in the map would have to be sourced.  As it is, it seems like Original Research.  
#Some of the tradition names, such as "Peyotism", seem to be based on opinion rather than verifiable data from the traditions being called such. 
#It only covers a small number of traditions, and many of the "centers" of traditions seem either arbitrary or inaccurate. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map