![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The Ásatrú entry has been resurrected and the general consensus is that this entry is specifically confined to people and groups who self-identify themselves as Ásatrú and exclusively follow the Eddaic religion. This entry specifically does not encompass the entire Germanic Heathen milieu or Neonazi groups. When editing or adding to this entry, please also consider that there are separate entries specifically for the following subjects, and whether your edits would be more appropriate there:
This has been a controversial subject in the past. Please observe the thews of Wikipedia:
HroptR 05:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There are many new links which have been added to the end of this article, which violate the umbrella people and groups who self-identify themselves as Ásatrú and exclusively follow the Eddaic religion that we came to consensus on when this entry branched off from Germanic Neopaganism. The Odinic Rite and several other groups which have been added *do not* identify themselves as Ásatrú. Links for this and other such groups belong at Germanic Neopaganism. Also, the Rune Gild is distinctly *not* a religious group - anyone of any religion or belief can be a member of the RG. - WeniWidiWiki 17:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The "See also" section can be anything related to the subject, so I don't see anything that needs to be removed there. The Ásatrú entry - much like the Odinic Rite entry has gotten so big that it needs to be separate from the umbrella Germanic Neopaganism. People's propensity to turn every Heathen and Recon related entry into a link-farm has been a problem in the past, and it's starting to get bad again... I'm not advocating the removal of the links from wikipedia, just for them to be moved to their more relevant respective entries. - WeniWidiWiki 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that the Theodish and the followers of Fyrnsidu(basically Anglo-Saxon Heathenism) do not self-identify as Asatru.-- AnnaBucci ( talk) 04:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I have observed in Germany, and if you look araound in the Internet. The article's definition of Asatru as non-neo-Nazi Eddaic is not widely used in the scene. Wikipedia should stick to the broad use. E.g. the German neo-Nazi Artgemeinschaft has reserved both the domains asatru.de and asatru.eu E.g. four political tolerant groups (German Eldaring, Danish Forn Sidr, Dutch Het Rad and the Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið) have reserved asatru.info
In Academic publications these two terms are used interchangably. I therefore strongly advice to merge these two articles. Everything wouldn't express the way the term Asatru is used. The Merging of the categories must follow as well. -- Levthanatos 09:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm opposed to the suggested merge. I was going to make an argument, but I see that all the points I would have made have already been stated, so I'll simply add my agreement.
Steve Lowther 04:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If a relevant infobox could be added on the right side it would be very helpful. Thanks. - Emiellaiendiay 23:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
this entry seems as if it were translated from a foreign language and then simply cut and pasted, there is a great deal of minor errors present. I did my best to clean it up, but it looks like it still needs work... also, there seems to be too much opinion involved in the entry HammerHeadHuman 05:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ásatrú (Icelandic "Æsir faith") is a new religious movement which is attempting to revive the Norse paganism of the Viking Age
Ásatrú originated as a second (or third) revival of Germanic paganism in the 1960s and early 1970s
I object to this. it's the same as the original viking faith (or trying to be the same?), and I believed it was called Ásatrú back then as well.
suggestion: Ásatrú is an old religious faith of the viking age, which has recently been revived. Thoes who currently practice it are part of the second (or third) revival of this faith.
(𒁳) 09:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That the religions split off into factions with varying Wiccan or Odinic influence at some point (lost in time, BTW) bears the clash of the two religions witness. I have read of Tribes in the far north of Scandinavia (Pukkha?) that never stopped worshipping "The Old Gods", Never converted to christianity, and who look at asatru as a subset of the Odinic religion. Likewise, There have been historical reports of underground Wicca who fought to hold onto their religion in its original form, and believe they are worshipping the old way.
This has been tagged for a month or so - I pulled it and placed it below until it can be reworked. I also pulled the unsourced section on Finnish Paganism because it seems very tenuous, and there is no mention of the info therein at Finnish Paganism. I've asked for sources or clarification on the talk page there. WeniWidiWiki 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The term is the correct genitive of Asatru. You cannot just count google hits and decide on its usage. "Asatruarmenn" means "men of faith in the Aesir". Hence, it would be correct, if somewhat pedantic, to use "Asatruar men", "Asatruar people", "he's an Asatruar man" in English. You could also say "they are Asatruar", eliding "people", I suppose, much like you could say "he's secret service" or something. This doesn't make "Asatruar" a plural any more than "secret service", it will be equally correct to say "he is an Asatruar [man]" as it is to say "they are Asatruar [people]", and both are either pedantry, or fake learning. If you want to discuss how the Genitive is used in English, you will have to find out notable occurrences, just counting google hits tells us nothing. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I just found that there is a family name Ostroth in the USA. [1] [2] [3] If this is an English name, it would correspond exactly to a continuation of the Old English equivalent of Asatru. The problem is, this could also be an unrelated German name, Ost-roth rather than Os-troth. I was unable to find anyone called Ostroth either in the UK or in Germany, so that I am unsure whence this family immigrated to the US. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If you know the corerct Pronounciation for the words defined here, could you please define it, using one of the Wikipedia standards. Thanks. Richard Allen 11:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The sentence "The first is Ása-, genitive of Áss, one of the Norse pagan gods." read like 'Áss' is a god. I modified it to properly reflect that the Æsir are a group. 194.144.92.20 15:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure its fair to say modern rites and such are a modern invention. There is a LOT of research out there from the sagas and other recorded sources.
Liastnir 07:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree this paragraph is worthless. It's just a biased meditation on polytheistic reconstructionism. This article should, and does, state up front that Asatru is a new religious movement. To say that this is a "problem" is just somebody's opinion. dab (𒁳) 19:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to get some input at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans regarding Religious discrimination against Asatruers. It would be nice if you could give it a look. Thanks. // Liftarn
The section Politics and controversies should be reorgarnize since it is a little bit long a complicated with eventually a reference to Heathens against hate. The first paragraphe doesn't directly concern politics and controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astenorh ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion over at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans#Merge suggestion regarding if Religious discrimination against Asatru should be merged and if so where. // Liftarn
In the initial introductory section, there is a sentence stating that Asatru is a reconstructionist movement aimed at recreating the Norse paganism of the Viking Age. I find that to be too specific to accurately reflect the diversity of modern Asatruar, especially the "official" Asatru in Iceland, which is very peaceful and earth-centered. First off, Asatru in practice is not always specifically "Norse", but rather "Scandinavian" or "Northern European"; and secondly, many individuals and organizations do not look specifically to the Viking Age for inspiration but rather to simply the pre-Christian era, which includes the Viking Age but is in no way limited to it. Many Asatruar prefer to avoid the whole "Viking" thing, rather focusing on the traditional earth-centered spirituality of the European pastoral/agricultural society (as opposed to Viking warriors and raiders etc). Could this sentence be changed to reflect a wider understanding of Asatru spirituality? 24.116.151.23 21:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Aelswyth
As it is now vanatru links to asatru article, that's wrong isn't it, Vanirs were an older religion replaced with Aesirs. Better then link the vanatru to the Vanir-article, right? Magnus Andersson ( talk) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
While I have no doubt whatsoever that Asatru as a whole is not an inherently racist set of beliefs, I have some major problems with this article from a NPOV perspective. Simply put, the accusations of racism that dog Asatru and the role of Asatru and Asatru imagery in the white supremacist movement is a major part of this article that is being heavily downplayed. The ADL, for instance, identifies the Thor's Hammer symbol as a racist symbol: [10]. That does not, of course, mean that all people who use it are racist. But it does mean that the article on Asatru needs to provide a better and more thorough documentation of these connections - one that acknowledges the reality that Asatru, being a movement rather than an organization, is a movement that has attracted attention and adoption by the white supremacist movement.
To be clear, I think the article should still heavily emphasize that Asatru and racism do not go hand in hand, and that most/many/the vast majority/whatever is accurate and sourceable followers are not white supremacists. But it should not, as it currently does, bury that connection either. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 01:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I draw your attention to the December 18 version of this article, when the "Folkish Asatru, Universalism and racism" section did have a link to Neopaganism and the New Right. This definitely needs to be restored. A agree the topic needs to be addressed up front, but it should not be given undue weight. White supremacism is, after all, a minority position within Asatru. I do take issue with the phrasing "While Ásatrú is generally a tolerant religion, it is sometimes erroneously identified with neo-Nazi and 'white power' organizations which also use the same symbolism." The problem is, of course, with the "erroneously" in Wikipedia's voice. The fact of the matter is that there is in fact a portion of Asatru adherents who at the same time are part of the "white power" subculture. It isn't erroneous to point out this association at all. It would be erroneous, to be sure, to jump to conclusions about Asatru as a whole from there. A link to Metagenetics (a redirect) should also figure somewhere: While "metagenetics" isn't "white supremacism" per se, it certainly qualifies as as a sort of neo-racial mysticism that does play to the white racist crowd. dab (𒁳) 08:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
nothing to do with the ADL. I really don't care what symbols they list on their website. My reply was directed to Phil. You criticize it as if I had inserted it to article space as it stands. That's beside the point. The article now known as Neo-völkisch movements has a section entitled "racial Nordic paganism" which is precisely the topic we are addressing here. Your revert to the hand-waving "erroneously" is not defensible. Bloodofox, we have discussed this before. Nobody says "Asatru is racist", or even "mostly racist". All we are stating is that there is a racist and/or racialist minority within Asatru. This is a notable and important fact. If Christianity and Islam have their bad guys and murky pasts laid out in detailed article series ( Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Persecution by Christians, etc.), we certainly can and should also present the less savoury aspects of minority religions like Asatru in an unexcited und matter-of-fact way. If you are not willing to address this constructively and honestly, I will not waste further time in debate with you, and I put it to the other editors here (Phil, Haukurth) to evaluate the competing versions under dispute here. dab (𒁳) 11:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with the (rather laconic) present version. If they denounce stuff, it's fair enough to say they denounce it, no problem. Nobody is pushing to make this a "major" part of the article, although I have to note that the question is rather central in Neopaganism in Germany and Austria even if it isn't in the US ({{ globalize}}). boo, you are over-reacting. We agree there has been knee-jerk hysterical vigilantism surrounding this question. Nothing of this sort is happening on this talkpage at present. Just because some people react hysterically to a problem doesn't mean the problem isn't real. -- dab (𒁳) 15:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Among many other things needing to be fixed on this page, I think the section on neo-nazis and folkish Asatruars should be separated, or at least given a more detailed explanation of both. At the moment it seems that the article is throwing both into the same circle of people, which isn't true at all. Yes, some people see the folkish as too strict, but they're not anywhere near as extremist as neo-nazis. JanderVK ( talk) 10:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Honoring ones ancestors and heritage and being aware of a need for cultural and genetic conservation (or even tribalist values)
has no relation to neo-nazi beliefs. If that were true then Indigenous Native American traditions, as well as indigenous Asiaitic or African or most of the worlds religions would be nazis.
While it is possible for someone to honor their ancestors and have "racialists" (aware of race nothing more) views and be nazi, they are not the same thing. A person can be a Christian and a Nazi. The ignorance on this page is astounding.
The term "folkish" or "racialist" is used precisely to denote someone who is racially aware but not a white supremacist
or neo-nazi. While some may argue that it is simply a term used to obscure true intentions, the majority of people who use these terms do so because the term nazi is deeply offensive towards them and really is a form of personal slander as it does not reflect their political or social views at all!
P.S.: sorry I'm not too keen on how these pages work!
edit: I want to hit a few things after reading the other notes. Firstly Asatru is a modern word. Asa and tru are both from Old Norse, but no the Vikings never called themselves Asatru. They simply grew up in a culture and that was what a Norseman did and believed. There was no word for religion either. There was only what we do and believe as a tribe or people and what they do/believe. Secondly, a point of hot debate. Some Asatru say we are following the exact same religion as the Vikings. They are historical heathens or reconstructionists. Others believe Asatru is a living religion. There are many denominations of Asatru and that should be addressed: the extremists racist denomination, the folkish denomination which has racial undertones but seriously different, the universalists (which is the official religion of the state of Iceland and I think Denmark) which does not have any emphasis on race but focuses on honoring the culture and customs of Scandanavian heritage, there are tribalists (who usually are also folkists in some form) who believe in recreating tribal societies, though some of these are reconstructionists. Then there's Norse Wicca which is Wicca but with Norse gods and the symbel and blot. I guess that's about all the major branches of the religion.
Germanic neo-paganism is basicallly Asatru though some may call themselves Vanatru (after the vanagods). Wotanism, Odinism etc. are all basically under the Asatru umbrella, though these people may not call themselves Asatru specifically. The term has sort of transcended its original meaning as "follower of the Asa". Being a more recent word older sources tend to use the now less common terms (Odinism for example). Many racists actually prefer the term "wotanism" as distinct from Asatru.
There should be an introduction which states the broad definition: those people who honor and acknowledge the Nordic gods. how they view those gods doesn't matter. also all Asatru honor the Sagas and Eddas to some degree, and place the havamal as sacred writing (usually these ancient writings are spiritual poetry and not always to be taken literarily). From there have a section on each different branch of Asatru: folkish, racist, universalists etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.218.107.126 ( talk) 21:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
on wikipedia, you need references. And our references, such as they are, confirm that folkish is a loan-translation of völkisch (and you may read up on what that entails), and that a significant portion (not all, and not a majority, but if a minority, a significant one) of adherents are involved in far right ideology, racial supremacism etc. "are they racist"/"are they neo-Nazi" is a perpetually relevant question between the various Asatru groups, and the problem certainly won't disappear by ignoring it. The 1986 hostile split in the US was due to this, and most current organizations are aligned wrt this question. Opinions on where to draw which line differ, of course, as they always do in politics. It is the purpose of Wikipedia to document the full scope of relevant and attributable opinions. -- dab (𒁳) 10:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't write Wikipedia articles and am not sure how all this works, but I do use wikipedia to look things up.
I would like to comment about folkism so that a more apt user can then add it to the official article.
Folkism centers around an ideology that human beings operate as social organisms, not as individuals. Thus behavior can only be understood through the group, not the individuals. Behavior and characteristics are also understood through heritage. There is some influence of jungian racial archtypes involved in the theory.
I may not be being too coherent here but I'm just presenting a rough draft for someone to fine tune and write about.
An example would be self sacrifice which is a hallmark and cornerstone of Germanic culture. Looking at it from the perspective of the individual it makes no sense. It would seem to be a genetic trait that would die off. Yet it survives in most species. Why? Because a person who sacrifices himself saves his relatives who carry that similar gene. Survival only exists as a group. Folkism looks at behavior through the eyes of the social organism. It sees individuals as cells. Mostly meaningless and sacraficable in some ways. What is most important is the blood and the culture; the group as a whole. This blood and culture can be eternal, whereas the individual is short lived.
Folkism necessitates a sort of tribalism or racialism. Partially because for example a person who sacrifices himself who has other people in his tribe who are different and don't have a self sacraficing gene is comitting suicide. The traits only prosper in a community of related and mostly homogenous people. Of course all healthy tribes, people etc. have some degree of genetic transfer so as not to be over inbred, but it generally centers around a nucleus of family or "folk" which is an extended family or race.
Folk is not necessarily racial. The saying is "the folk define the folk" people decide on their own who they consider worthy of membership into their groups or who they feel they can bring home to their families or into their tribe. This is different for everyone to some degree or another. It is completely subjective and not racial in the traditional sense. Though groups can set a more specified criteria for membership which usually has more racial undertones.
It is mainly based on a concept of social cohesion. Those people who are too far removed from you or your own group genetically or phenotypically may be excluded. This can even count towards blood relatives. Certain people born into a family or race who may not conform to the community standards.
Most groups, tribes, etc. have an oath of allegiance. Thus is it normal for many to live outside of the inner tribe or circle in "utgard". In the past these would have been the low ranking peasants or thralls (commoners) whereas the vikings and noblemen and uppertribesmen had to meet certain standards of criteria.
Most folkist also place great emphasis on honoring ancestors. It is believed typically by folkist(and there is evidence to back this up though it is debated) that the Gods are actually personified ancestors. That there was a literal Odin who was a Nordic king who thus was a founder of the modern Germanic culture/ race. That there was a primevial Thor etc. later these gods took on other spiritual characteristics as well and became archtypes but the religion in general to a folkist is centered around ancestor honoring (we may call it worship but it isn't worship like a christian would think of it)
Asatru in general only concedes that one must honor the Nordic gods. how one views those gods (as literal or figural, ancestors or archtypes) varies between individuals and groups. Folkist fit this broader definition.
Asatru has many divisions. Some are folkish. Some are tribal. Some are folkish and tribal. Some are universalist. However the folkish aspect of Asatru is probably the least understood among outsiders.
Folkish ideas are ancient. And are found in many non-Nordic cultures in some form or the other (if by other names). The Nazis did embrace "volkish" concepts in the form that it appealed to the popular sentiment of the people of the day. Yet Hitler himself put neo-pagans folkish and non-folkish alike into death camps and condemned them in mein kampf. It seems a bit contradictory where he seems to embrace the religion and folkish concept on one hand and persecute in the other. His goals were political, not spiritual. Thus you can see it is not only offensive to call a folkist a neo-nazi because of the typical insulting nature of it but in a way its like calling a jew a nazi. Its outright absurd given that the nazis killed folkists.
That being said folkishness is very racial oriented and to the outsider it may be hard to tell the difference. Some nazis and hardcore racists due consider themselves folkish. It is a much more extreme and narrow form of folkism but I guess it is not incorrect for them to consider themselves this, though a true folkist would not put his standards onto everyone else as to a folkist the concept of "folk" is more subjective than what is now considered a typically outdated concept of three or four main races being put on earth.
though again all that being said, it is considered a bit absurd for someone without at least some degree (preferably) a large degree of Germanic heritage to follow Asatru among folkists. It simply seems absurd and a bit disrespectful to "commune" with ancestors that aren't your own and wear the colors of a different tribe so to speak. Though folkist aren't going to necessarily be outright hostile to those who practice who aren't nordic they may not accept them among their own circles.
Today there isn't much distinction made between various
"Aryans" and German. A person %100 Irish can be accepted as Germanic heritage. Part of it is the confusing history of Europe. You can be %100 irish and still have a lot of Viking ancestors for instance. the distinctions there are just too difficult to make. Therefore the distinction is often more "aryo-Germanic" than pure Germanicism. Again though each community and tribe are different. Two tribes can have just as much a claim to Germanic ancestry but not feel socially cohesive with each other. This isn't common today because of the small size of the pool of Asatruar but is a possibility.
More or less we allow people to self judge what culture fits them and where they feel comfortable. If the Germanic culture fits you and appeals to your character and you are of "white" descent you can typically be considered Germanic. In fact Germanic culture embraces the two main root races of Europe- the Vanir tribe and the Aesir (Aryan) tribe. It is the only culture to do so. The Aryan culture is reflected in Greece and Roman religion for example and is very war like and patriarchle. The Vanir were tribe honored fertility gods more so and the otherworld. This culture is more manifest among the Celts today for example. In fact many in Germanic sosciety were not warriors and did not really fit into the culture of Asatru. Though all can follow Asatru to be a Viking or noblemen is something earned so many tribes or groups today set certain standards of membership and an oath is taken to join.
Folkishness actually centers around the family more than it does the tribe (if you are tribalist as well), and the tribe more so than the race. Race is considered subjective though each group has its own standards of what is ideal or what defines its folk. Usually blood relation plays a big role though there are always marriages and adoptions into tribes and families. Some are regionalist.
That is folkism in a nutshell. Racialism on the other hand simply means that you acknowledge that there is a difference between races or that race exists in some way. folkism and racialism neither one implies any kind of hate, conflict, disrespect or anything towards other races. It promotes mutual respect. though at times groups may come into conflict or feud it is not part of the philosophy. It neither claims superiority or disclaims it. It just claims that we are a people that is distinct from those other people. Folkism believes that the culture of your ancestors is most suited to you. And the culture of someone elses ancestors is most suited to them. That related people have a special bond. Really nothing profound or complex about it, but something our modern mainstream society has discouraged.
Actually I haven't even touched on something else: historical heathens. They are people that want to basically copy a historical religion. They want to learn what some ancient Germanic tribe thought or did and copy it or dress up in medieval robe and so on. Folkists are not historical heathens. They see Asatru as a living religion. Largely based on the anceint ways, but also adapting and growing to some degree within the confines of acceptable tradition. At any rate we do not have complete knowledge of Asatru from the past so all forms of it is reconstructed to some degree. So those who claim to be historical are wrong. Much of what we believe is either modern invention or speculation. Some of it is even from biased and innacurate sources (Romans writing about what they observed among the Germans which is often not correct interpretations or biased as they saw them as barbarians and often made up sensational stories to tell back home).
Tribalism: related to folkism. believe in creating literal tribes. These would be about the size of a small church congregation. Some say 500 or less people, some say 300 or less, thereabouts the size of historical human tribes worldwide. The theory is a society where everyone knows everyone else reinforces altruism and other positive social aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.218.107.126 ( talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is slanted. It does not present any criticism of Asatru. As with every religious movement their are criticism and controversies.
It should be mention: According Mattias Gardell a professor of religious history at the University of Stockholm's Center for Research in International Migration and Ethnic Relations in an article for The Southern Poverty Law Centre title "The New Romantics" in a study indicated 40% and 50% of Odinists and Asatrúers held racist views. [11]
--Ted--
Saturday November 7, 2008
Old article is seven years old. Not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.181.209 ( talk) 14:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"It does not present any criticism of Asatru"? There is a full section entitled "Politics and controversies" with a dedicated "Folkish Asatru, Universalism and racialism". This topic is clearly of central importance to Asatru, and also occupies a major role in discussions within Asartu, and indeed is at the core of most of the group splits. There is also a full article on Nordic racial paganism. I suggest that it is clearly not true that the article currently ignores these points, and thus remove the warning tag. Further addition of material is of course welcome. -- dab (𒁳) 10:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I have long been unhappy with the ill-defined scope of this article wrt Germanic Neopaganism. As it stands, this article addresses three things
Ásatrú in the US and Ásatrú in Iceland are as different as any two branches of Germanic Neopaganism can be. For this reason, I do not think there is any justification to have an article dedicated to address "Ásatrú in general" and yet as separate from Germanic Neopaganism. From this I conclude that Ásatrú should properly disambiguate between three usages, i.e. three existing articles:
-- dab (𒁳) 12:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
True, there is a difference between Neopaganism in Scandinavia and specifically "Scandinavian Neopaganism" as practiced outside Scandinavia. Ásatrú in Icelandic may pretty much be the translation of Neopaganism. Asatru in Germany may be equivalent to Germanic neopaganism, while Asatru in the US may be synonymous with " Stephen McNallen and grouplets descended from his organization". I.e. there is a scale of increasing specificity attached to the term, including anything from "Neopaganism" to "US 'folkish' ideas of native 'Northern European Folkways' as defined by the AFA". The question is: shold we dedicate this article to pointing out these facts in detail, or should this be treated as a case for disambiguation, with three articles each explaining one of these meanings of the term? -- dab (𒁳) 16:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
A point of clarification, although Americans tend to use the word Ásatrú, British adherents tend to use the word Odinism, as in the Odinic Rite and Odinist Fellowship. English wikipedia should consider the broader world. -- Tsmollet ( talk) 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the mistake. I spend so little time at wikipedia--I am an administrator on two other wikis and I find wikipedia too congested by what Kafka called "the slime of bureaucracy--that I got rather sloppy here.
Although your last edit is accurate and precise, is it not too "scholastic"? May we just note that many names are used?
This is how the pagan wikia article addresses the issue:
http://pagan.wikia.com/wiki/Asatru
Asatru is religion dedicated to the gods of the norse pantheon. The religion's name derives from the old Norse words meaning "trust in the gods."
The religion is also Odinism, Heathenism, Germanic Heathenism, the Elder Troth, the Old Way, Asetro, Forn Siðr (which means the Ancient way or tradition), Forn sed (the Old custom), Nordisk sed (Nordic custom), or Hedensk sed (Pagan custom), and Folkish Ásatrú.
--
Tsmollet (
talk)
20:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
well, please review the section right above this one. The problem is that we already have this article, only it is located at Germanic Neopaganism. One usage of "Asatru" is simply in the sense of "Germanic Neopaganism". This is a possible source of confusion, hence the suggestion to make Ásatrú a disambiguation page between three articles. -- dab (𒁳) 16:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand now. On this point, I conclude that Ásatrú should properly disambiguate between three usages, i.e. three existing articles:
1. Germanic Neopaganism 2. Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið 3. Ásatrú in the United States (presently a section redirect)
I agree. -- Tsmollet ( talk) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
ok, I've implemented the split as discussed. Some cleanup may still be necessary, especially, what to do with the Category:Ásatrú. -- dab (𒁳) 10:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. -- Tsmollet ( talk) 08:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The Ásatrú entry has been resurrected and the general consensus is that this entry is specifically confined to people and groups who self-identify themselves as Ásatrú and exclusively follow the Eddaic religion. This entry specifically does not encompass the entire Germanic Heathen milieu or Neonazi groups. When editing or adding to this entry, please also consider that there are separate entries specifically for the following subjects, and whether your edits would be more appropriate there:
This has been a controversial subject in the past. Please observe the thews of Wikipedia:
HroptR 05:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There are many new links which have been added to the end of this article, which violate the umbrella people and groups who self-identify themselves as Ásatrú and exclusively follow the Eddaic religion that we came to consensus on when this entry branched off from Germanic Neopaganism. The Odinic Rite and several other groups which have been added *do not* identify themselves as Ásatrú. Links for this and other such groups belong at Germanic Neopaganism. Also, the Rune Gild is distinctly *not* a religious group - anyone of any religion or belief can be a member of the RG. - WeniWidiWiki 17:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The "See also" section can be anything related to the subject, so I don't see anything that needs to be removed there. The Ásatrú entry - much like the Odinic Rite entry has gotten so big that it needs to be separate from the umbrella Germanic Neopaganism. People's propensity to turn every Heathen and Recon related entry into a link-farm has been a problem in the past, and it's starting to get bad again... I'm not advocating the removal of the links from wikipedia, just for them to be moved to their more relevant respective entries. - WeniWidiWiki 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that the Theodish and the followers of Fyrnsidu(basically Anglo-Saxon Heathenism) do not self-identify as Asatru.-- AnnaBucci ( talk) 04:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I have observed in Germany, and if you look araound in the Internet. The article's definition of Asatru as non-neo-Nazi Eddaic is not widely used in the scene. Wikipedia should stick to the broad use. E.g. the German neo-Nazi Artgemeinschaft has reserved both the domains asatru.de and asatru.eu E.g. four political tolerant groups (German Eldaring, Danish Forn Sidr, Dutch Het Rad and the Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið) have reserved asatru.info
In Academic publications these two terms are used interchangably. I therefore strongly advice to merge these two articles. Everything wouldn't express the way the term Asatru is used. The Merging of the categories must follow as well. -- Levthanatos 09:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm opposed to the suggested merge. I was going to make an argument, but I see that all the points I would have made have already been stated, so I'll simply add my agreement.
Steve Lowther 04:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If a relevant infobox could be added on the right side it would be very helpful. Thanks. - Emiellaiendiay 23:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
this entry seems as if it were translated from a foreign language and then simply cut and pasted, there is a great deal of minor errors present. I did my best to clean it up, but it looks like it still needs work... also, there seems to be too much opinion involved in the entry HammerHeadHuman 05:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ásatrú (Icelandic "Æsir faith") is a new religious movement which is attempting to revive the Norse paganism of the Viking Age
Ásatrú originated as a second (or third) revival of Germanic paganism in the 1960s and early 1970s
I object to this. it's the same as the original viking faith (or trying to be the same?), and I believed it was called Ásatrú back then as well.
suggestion: Ásatrú is an old religious faith of the viking age, which has recently been revived. Thoes who currently practice it are part of the second (or third) revival of this faith.
(𒁳) 09:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That the religions split off into factions with varying Wiccan or Odinic influence at some point (lost in time, BTW) bears the clash of the two religions witness. I have read of Tribes in the far north of Scandinavia (Pukkha?) that never stopped worshipping "The Old Gods", Never converted to christianity, and who look at asatru as a subset of the Odinic religion. Likewise, There have been historical reports of underground Wicca who fought to hold onto their religion in its original form, and believe they are worshipping the old way.
This has been tagged for a month or so - I pulled it and placed it below until it can be reworked. I also pulled the unsourced section on Finnish Paganism because it seems very tenuous, and there is no mention of the info therein at Finnish Paganism. I've asked for sources or clarification on the talk page there. WeniWidiWiki 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The term is the correct genitive of Asatru. You cannot just count google hits and decide on its usage. "Asatruarmenn" means "men of faith in the Aesir". Hence, it would be correct, if somewhat pedantic, to use "Asatruar men", "Asatruar people", "he's an Asatruar man" in English. You could also say "they are Asatruar", eliding "people", I suppose, much like you could say "he's secret service" or something. This doesn't make "Asatruar" a plural any more than "secret service", it will be equally correct to say "he is an Asatruar [man]" as it is to say "they are Asatruar [people]", and both are either pedantry, or fake learning. If you want to discuss how the Genitive is used in English, you will have to find out notable occurrences, just counting google hits tells us nothing. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I just found that there is a family name Ostroth in the USA. [1] [2] [3] If this is an English name, it would correspond exactly to a continuation of the Old English equivalent of Asatru. The problem is, this could also be an unrelated German name, Ost-roth rather than Os-troth. I was unable to find anyone called Ostroth either in the UK or in Germany, so that I am unsure whence this family immigrated to the US. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If you know the corerct Pronounciation for the words defined here, could you please define it, using one of the Wikipedia standards. Thanks. Richard Allen 11:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The sentence "The first is Ása-, genitive of Áss, one of the Norse pagan gods." read like 'Áss' is a god. I modified it to properly reflect that the Æsir are a group. 194.144.92.20 15:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure its fair to say modern rites and such are a modern invention. There is a LOT of research out there from the sagas and other recorded sources.
Liastnir 07:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree this paragraph is worthless. It's just a biased meditation on polytheistic reconstructionism. This article should, and does, state up front that Asatru is a new religious movement. To say that this is a "problem" is just somebody's opinion. dab (𒁳) 19:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to get some input at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans regarding Religious discrimination against Asatruers. It would be nice if you could give it a look. Thanks. // Liftarn
The section Politics and controversies should be reorgarnize since it is a little bit long a complicated with eventually a reference to Heathens against hate. The first paragraphe doesn't directly concern politics and controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astenorh ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion over at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans#Merge suggestion regarding if Religious discrimination against Asatru should be merged and if so where. // Liftarn
In the initial introductory section, there is a sentence stating that Asatru is a reconstructionist movement aimed at recreating the Norse paganism of the Viking Age. I find that to be too specific to accurately reflect the diversity of modern Asatruar, especially the "official" Asatru in Iceland, which is very peaceful and earth-centered. First off, Asatru in practice is not always specifically "Norse", but rather "Scandinavian" or "Northern European"; and secondly, many individuals and organizations do not look specifically to the Viking Age for inspiration but rather to simply the pre-Christian era, which includes the Viking Age but is in no way limited to it. Many Asatruar prefer to avoid the whole "Viking" thing, rather focusing on the traditional earth-centered spirituality of the European pastoral/agricultural society (as opposed to Viking warriors and raiders etc). Could this sentence be changed to reflect a wider understanding of Asatru spirituality? 24.116.151.23 21:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Aelswyth
As it is now vanatru links to asatru article, that's wrong isn't it, Vanirs were an older religion replaced with Aesirs. Better then link the vanatru to the Vanir-article, right? Magnus Andersson ( talk) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
While I have no doubt whatsoever that Asatru as a whole is not an inherently racist set of beliefs, I have some major problems with this article from a NPOV perspective. Simply put, the accusations of racism that dog Asatru and the role of Asatru and Asatru imagery in the white supremacist movement is a major part of this article that is being heavily downplayed. The ADL, for instance, identifies the Thor's Hammer symbol as a racist symbol: [10]. That does not, of course, mean that all people who use it are racist. But it does mean that the article on Asatru needs to provide a better and more thorough documentation of these connections - one that acknowledges the reality that Asatru, being a movement rather than an organization, is a movement that has attracted attention and adoption by the white supremacist movement.
To be clear, I think the article should still heavily emphasize that Asatru and racism do not go hand in hand, and that most/many/the vast majority/whatever is accurate and sourceable followers are not white supremacists. But it should not, as it currently does, bury that connection either. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 01:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I draw your attention to the December 18 version of this article, when the "Folkish Asatru, Universalism and racism" section did have a link to Neopaganism and the New Right. This definitely needs to be restored. A agree the topic needs to be addressed up front, but it should not be given undue weight. White supremacism is, after all, a minority position within Asatru. I do take issue with the phrasing "While Ásatrú is generally a tolerant religion, it is sometimes erroneously identified with neo-Nazi and 'white power' organizations which also use the same symbolism." The problem is, of course, with the "erroneously" in Wikipedia's voice. The fact of the matter is that there is in fact a portion of Asatru adherents who at the same time are part of the "white power" subculture. It isn't erroneous to point out this association at all. It would be erroneous, to be sure, to jump to conclusions about Asatru as a whole from there. A link to Metagenetics (a redirect) should also figure somewhere: While "metagenetics" isn't "white supremacism" per se, it certainly qualifies as as a sort of neo-racial mysticism that does play to the white racist crowd. dab (𒁳) 08:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
nothing to do with the ADL. I really don't care what symbols they list on their website. My reply was directed to Phil. You criticize it as if I had inserted it to article space as it stands. That's beside the point. The article now known as Neo-völkisch movements has a section entitled "racial Nordic paganism" which is precisely the topic we are addressing here. Your revert to the hand-waving "erroneously" is not defensible. Bloodofox, we have discussed this before. Nobody says "Asatru is racist", or even "mostly racist". All we are stating is that there is a racist and/or racialist minority within Asatru. This is a notable and important fact. If Christianity and Islam have their bad guys and murky pasts laid out in detailed article series ( Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Persecution by Christians, etc.), we certainly can and should also present the less savoury aspects of minority religions like Asatru in an unexcited und matter-of-fact way. If you are not willing to address this constructively and honestly, I will not waste further time in debate with you, and I put it to the other editors here (Phil, Haukurth) to evaluate the competing versions under dispute here. dab (𒁳) 11:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with the (rather laconic) present version. If they denounce stuff, it's fair enough to say they denounce it, no problem. Nobody is pushing to make this a "major" part of the article, although I have to note that the question is rather central in Neopaganism in Germany and Austria even if it isn't in the US ({{ globalize}}). boo, you are over-reacting. We agree there has been knee-jerk hysterical vigilantism surrounding this question. Nothing of this sort is happening on this talkpage at present. Just because some people react hysterically to a problem doesn't mean the problem isn't real. -- dab (𒁳) 15:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Among many other things needing to be fixed on this page, I think the section on neo-nazis and folkish Asatruars should be separated, or at least given a more detailed explanation of both. At the moment it seems that the article is throwing both into the same circle of people, which isn't true at all. Yes, some people see the folkish as too strict, but they're not anywhere near as extremist as neo-nazis. JanderVK ( talk) 10:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Honoring ones ancestors and heritage and being aware of a need for cultural and genetic conservation (or even tribalist values)
has no relation to neo-nazi beliefs. If that were true then Indigenous Native American traditions, as well as indigenous Asiaitic or African or most of the worlds religions would be nazis.
While it is possible for someone to honor their ancestors and have "racialists" (aware of race nothing more) views and be nazi, they are not the same thing. A person can be a Christian and a Nazi. The ignorance on this page is astounding.
The term "folkish" or "racialist" is used precisely to denote someone who is racially aware but not a white supremacist
or neo-nazi. While some may argue that it is simply a term used to obscure true intentions, the majority of people who use these terms do so because the term nazi is deeply offensive towards them and really is a form of personal slander as it does not reflect their political or social views at all!
P.S.: sorry I'm not too keen on how these pages work!
edit: I want to hit a few things after reading the other notes. Firstly Asatru is a modern word. Asa and tru are both from Old Norse, but no the Vikings never called themselves Asatru. They simply grew up in a culture and that was what a Norseman did and believed. There was no word for religion either. There was only what we do and believe as a tribe or people and what they do/believe. Secondly, a point of hot debate. Some Asatru say we are following the exact same religion as the Vikings. They are historical heathens or reconstructionists. Others believe Asatru is a living religion. There are many denominations of Asatru and that should be addressed: the extremists racist denomination, the folkish denomination which has racial undertones but seriously different, the universalists (which is the official religion of the state of Iceland and I think Denmark) which does not have any emphasis on race but focuses on honoring the culture and customs of Scandanavian heritage, there are tribalists (who usually are also folkists in some form) who believe in recreating tribal societies, though some of these are reconstructionists. Then there's Norse Wicca which is Wicca but with Norse gods and the symbel and blot. I guess that's about all the major branches of the religion.
Germanic neo-paganism is basicallly Asatru though some may call themselves Vanatru (after the vanagods). Wotanism, Odinism etc. are all basically under the Asatru umbrella, though these people may not call themselves Asatru specifically. The term has sort of transcended its original meaning as "follower of the Asa". Being a more recent word older sources tend to use the now less common terms (Odinism for example). Many racists actually prefer the term "wotanism" as distinct from Asatru.
There should be an introduction which states the broad definition: those people who honor and acknowledge the Nordic gods. how they view those gods doesn't matter. also all Asatru honor the Sagas and Eddas to some degree, and place the havamal as sacred writing (usually these ancient writings are spiritual poetry and not always to be taken literarily). From there have a section on each different branch of Asatru: folkish, racist, universalists etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.218.107.126 ( talk) 21:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
on wikipedia, you need references. And our references, such as they are, confirm that folkish is a loan-translation of völkisch (and you may read up on what that entails), and that a significant portion (not all, and not a majority, but if a minority, a significant one) of adherents are involved in far right ideology, racial supremacism etc. "are they racist"/"are they neo-Nazi" is a perpetually relevant question between the various Asatru groups, and the problem certainly won't disappear by ignoring it. The 1986 hostile split in the US was due to this, and most current organizations are aligned wrt this question. Opinions on where to draw which line differ, of course, as they always do in politics. It is the purpose of Wikipedia to document the full scope of relevant and attributable opinions. -- dab (𒁳) 10:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't write Wikipedia articles and am not sure how all this works, but I do use wikipedia to look things up.
I would like to comment about folkism so that a more apt user can then add it to the official article.
Folkism centers around an ideology that human beings operate as social organisms, not as individuals. Thus behavior can only be understood through the group, not the individuals. Behavior and characteristics are also understood through heritage. There is some influence of jungian racial archtypes involved in the theory.
I may not be being too coherent here but I'm just presenting a rough draft for someone to fine tune and write about.
An example would be self sacrifice which is a hallmark and cornerstone of Germanic culture. Looking at it from the perspective of the individual it makes no sense. It would seem to be a genetic trait that would die off. Yet it survives in most species. Why? Because a person who sacrifices himself saves his relatives who carry that similar gene. Survival only exists as a group. Folkism looks at behavior through the eyes of the social organism. It sees individuals as cells. Mostly meaningless and sacraficable in some ways. What is most important is the blood and the culture; the group as a whole. This blood and culture can be eternal, whereas the individual is short lived.
Folkism necessitates a sort of tribalism or racialism. Partially because for example a person who sacrifices himself who has other people in his tribe who are different and don't have a self sacraficing gene is comitting suicide. The traits only prosper in a community of related and mostly homogenous people. Of course all healthy tribes, people etc. have some degree of genetic transfer so as not to be over inbred, but it generally centers around a nucleus of family or "folk" which is an extended family or race.
Folk is not necessarily racial. The saying is "the folk define the folk" people decide on their own who they consider worthy of membership into their groups or who they feel they can bring home to their families or into their tribe. This is different for everyone to some degree or another. It is completely subjective and not racial in the traditional sense. Though groups can set a more specified criteria for membership which usually has more racial undertones.
It is mainly based on a concept of social cohesion. Those people who are too far removed from you or your own group genetically or phenotypically may be excluded. This can even count towards blood relatives. Certain people born into a family or race who may not conform to the community standards.
Most groups, tribes, etc. have an oath of allegiance. Thus is it normal for many to live outside of the inner tribe or circle in "utgard". In the past these would have been the low ranking peasants or thralls (commoners) whereas the vikings and noblemen and uppertribesmen had to meet certain standards of criteria.
Most folkist also place great emphasis on honoring ancestors. It is believed typically by folkist(and there is evidence to back this up though it is debated) that the Gods are actually personified ancestors. That there was a literal Odin who was a Nordic king who thus was a founder of the modern Germanic culture/ race. That there was a primevial Thor etc. later these gods took on other spiritual characteristics as well and became archtypes but the religion in general to a folkist is centered around ancestor honoring (we may call it worship but it isn't worship like a christian would think of it)
Asatru in general only concedes that one must honor the Nordic gods. how one views those gods (as literal or figural, ancestors or archtypes) varies between individuals and groups. Folkist fit this broader definition.
Asatru has many divisions. Some are folkish. Some are tribal. Some are folkish and tribal. Some are universalist. However the folkish aspect of Asatru is probably the least understood among outsiders.
Folkish ideas are ancient. And are found in many non-Nordic cultures in some form or the other (if by other names). The Nazis did embrace "volkish" concepts in the form that it appealed to the popular sentiment of the people of the day. Yet Hitler himself put neo-pagans folkish and non-folkish alike into death camps and condemned them in mein kampf. It seems a bit contradictory where he seems to embrace the religion and folkish concept on one hand and persecute in the other. His goals were political, not spiritual. Thus you can see it is not only offensive to call a folkist a neo-nazi because of the typical insulting nature of it but in a way its like calling a jew a nazi. Its outright absurd given that the nazis killed folkists.
That being said folkishness is very racial oriented and to the outsider it may be hard to tell the difference. Some nazis and hardcore racists due consider themselves folkish. It is a much more extreme and narrow form of folkism but I guess it is not incorrect for them to consider themselves this, though a true folkist would not put his standards onto everyone else as to a folkist the concept of "folk" is more subjective than what is now considered a typically outdated concept of three or four main races being put on earth.
though again all that being said, it is considered a bit absurd for someone without at least some degree (preferably) a large degree of Germanic heritage to follow Asatru among folkists. It simply seems absurd and a bit disrespectful to "commune" with ancestors that aren't your own and wear the colors of a different tribe so to speak. Though folkist aren't going to necessarily be outright hostile to those who practice who aren't nordic they may not accept them among their own circles.
Today there isn't much distinction made between various
"Aryans" and German. A person %100 Irish can be accepted as Germanic heritage. Part of it is the confusing history of Europe. You can be %100 irish and still have a lot of Viking ancestors for instance. the distinctions there are just too difficult to make. Therefore the distinction is often more "aryo-Germanic" than pure Germanicism. Again though each community and tribe are different. Two tribes can have just as much a claim to Germanic ancestry but not feel socially cohesive with each other. This isn't common today because of the small size of the pool of Asatruar but is a possibility.
More or less we allow people to self judge what culture fits them and where they feel comfortable. If the Germanic culture fits you and appeals to your character and you are of "white" descent you can typically be considered Germanic. In fact Germanic culture embraces the two main root races of Europe- the Vanir tribe and the Aesir (Aryan) tribe. It is the only culture to do so. The Aryan culture is reflected in Greece and Roman religion for example and is very war like and patriarchle. The Vanir were tribe honored fertility gods more so and the otherworld. This culture is more manifest among the Celts today for example. In fact many in Germanic sosciety were not warriors and did not really fit into the culture of Asatru. Though all can follow Asatru to be a Viking or noblemen is something earned so many tribes or groups today set certain standards of membership and an oath is taken to join.
Folkishness actually centers around the family more than it does the tribe (if you are tribalist as well), and the tribe more so than the race. Race is considered subjective though each group has its own standards of what is ideal or what defines its folk. Usually blood relation plays a big role though there are always marriages and adoptions into tribes and families. Some are regionalist.
That is folkism in a nutshell. Racialism on the other hand simply means that you acknowledge that there is a difference between races or that race exists in some way. folkism and racialism neither one implies any kind of hate, conflict, disrespect or anything towards other races. It promotes mutual respect. though at times groups may come into conflict or feud it is not part of the philosophy. It neither claims superiority or disclaims it. It just claims that we are a people that is distinct from those other people. Folkism believes that the culture of your ancestors is most suited to you. And the culture of someone elses ancestors is most suited to them. That related people have a special bond. Really nothing profound or complex about it, but something our modern mainstream society has discouraged.
Actually I haven't even touched on something else: historical heathens. They are people that want to basically copy a historical religion. They want to learn what some ancient Germanic tribe thought or did and copy it or dress up in medieval robe and so on. Folkists are not historical heathens. They see Asatru as a living religion. Largely based on the anceint ways, but also adapting and growing to some degree within the confines of acceptable tradition. At any rate we do not have complete knowledge of Asatru from the past so all forms of it is reconstructed to some degree. So those who claim to be historical are wrong. Much of what we believe is either modern invention or speculation. Some of it is even from biased and innacurate sources (Romans writing about what they observed among the Germans which is often not correct interpretations or biased as they saw them as barbarians and often made up sensational stories to tell back home).
Tribalism: related to folkism. believe in creating literal tribes. These would be about the size of a small church congregation. Some say 500 or less people, some say 300 or less, thereabouts the size of historical human tribes worldwide. The theory is a society where everyone knows everyone else reinforces altruism and other positive social aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.218.107.126 ( talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is slanted. It does not present any criticism of Asatru. As with every religious movement their are criticism and controversies.
It should be mention: According Mattias Gardell a professor of religious history at the University of Stockholm's Center for Research in International Migration and Ethnic Relations in an article for The Southern Poverty Law Centre title "The New Romantics" in a study indicated 40% and 50% of Odinists and Asatrúers held racist views. [11]
--Ted--
Saturday November 7, 2008
Old article is seven years old. Not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.181.209 ( talk) 14:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"It does not present any criticism of Asatru"? There is a full section entitled "Politics and controversies" with a dedicated "Folkish Asatru, Universalism and racialism". This topic is clearly of central importance to Asatru, and also occupies a major role in discussions within Asartu, and indeed is at the core of most of the group splits. There is also a full article on Nordic racial paganism. I suggest that it is clearly not true that the article currently ignores these points, and thus remove the warning tag. Further addition of material is of course welcome. -- dab (𒁳) 10:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I have long been unhappy with the ill-defined scope of this article wrt Germanic Neopaganism. As it stands, this article addresses three things
Ásatrú in the US and Ásatrú in Iceland are as different as any two branches of Germanic Neopaganism can be. For this reason, I do not think there is any justification to have an article dedicated to address "Ásatrú in general" and yet as separate from Germanic Neopaganism. From this I conclude that Ásatrú should properly disambiguate between three usages, i.e. three existing articles:
-- dab (𒁳) 12:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
True, there is a difference between Neopaganism in Scandinavia and specifically "Scandinavian Neopaganism" as practiced outside Scandinavia. Ásatrú in Icelandic may pretty much be the translation of Neopaganism. Asatru in Germany may be equivalent to Germanic neopaganism, while Asatru in the US may be synonymous with " Stephen McNallen and grouplets descended from his organization". I.e. there is a scale of increasing specificity attached to the term, including anything from "Neopaganism" to "US 'folkish' ideas of native 'Northern European Folkways' as defined by the AFA". The question is: shold we dedicate this article to pointing out these facts in detail, or should this be treated as a case for disambiguation, with three articles each explaining one of these meanings of the term? -- dab (𒁳) 16:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
A point of clarification, although Americans tend to use the word Ásatrú, British adherents tend to use the word Odinism, as in the Odinic Rite and Odinist Fellowship. English wikipedia should consider the broader world. -- Tsmollet ( talk) 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the mistake. I spend so little time at wikipedia--I am an administrator on two other wikis and I find wikipedia too congested by what Kafka called "the slime of bureaucracy--that I got rather sloppy here.
Although your last edit is accurate and precise, is it not too "scholastic"? May we just note that many names are used?
This is how the pagan wikia article addresses the issue:
http://pagan.wikia.com/wiki/Asatru
Asatru is religion dedicated to the gods of the norse pantheon. The religion's name derives from the old Norse words meaning "trust in the gods."
The religion is also Odinism, Heathenism, Germanic Heathenism, the Elder Troth, the Old Way, Asetro, Forn Siðr (which means the Ancient way or tradition), Forn sed (the Old custom), Nordisk sed (Nordic custom), or Hedensk sed (Pagan custom), and Folkish Ásatrú.
--
Tsmollet (
talk)
20:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
well, please review the section right above this one. The problem is that we already have this article, only it is located at Germanic Neopaganism. One usage of "Asatru" is simply in the sense of "Germanic Neopaganism". This is a possible source of confusion, hence the suggestion to make Ásatrú a disambiguation page between three articles. -- dab (𒁳) 16:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand now. On this point, I conclude that Ásatrú should properly disambiguate between three usages, i.e. three existing articles:
1. Germanic Neopaganism 2. Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið 3. Ásatrú in the United States (presently a section redirect)
I agree. -- Tsmollet ( talk) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
ok, I've implemented the split as discussed. Some cleanup may still be necessary, especially, what to do with the Category:Ásatrú. -- dab (𒁳) 10:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. -- Tsmollet ( talk) 08:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)