![]() | 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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This section is really obscured, as there are no links to any surveys, article. even the wicca article doesn't include something even remotely close to "people with Jewish backgrounds are twice as likely to become Neopagans, in comparison to Gentiles (non-Jews)". this is a really stupid paragraph, which seems to have been written by either someone whom heard it somewhere and wanted to add, or someone with a hidden agenda. so i'm taking it down until someone will bring the appropriate links, info, and solid information to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.89.137 ( talk) 22:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
... for one week because of this kind of edit warring. Removal of material like this needs justifying here on the article talk page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Introduction is full of unreferenced generalisations. Could some references be provided for claims that are made in the text, or should we perhaps rewrite the introduction. Perunova straža ( talk) 12:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)?
I'll wait until you've done with editing, so I wouldn't meddle in your work. Your revisions, so far, are just the things I would've done. As far generalizations go claims such as "Of the various days for celebration among Pagans, the most common are seasonally based festivals of the Wheel of the Year." do require at least some reference. Providing reference that proves the negative might be hard, since I don't think any author would waste time with writing a paper that proves that this or that polytheistic religion never even heard of "Wheel of the Year". Perunova straža ( talk) 08:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
As far generalizations go...
On 8 December 2012, Seonookim ( talk · contribs) moved Paganism (contemporary) to Contemporary Paganism. "Is right term, does not use commas"
I noticed only after realizing that the archive pages and settings for MiszaBot have been broken for months. (I fixed them.) The problem is there was no discussion. "Contemporary Paganism" may be very similar to "Paganism (contemporary)", but there are grammatical differences. The move should been put to discussion first.
—
Sowlos 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I just finished cleaning up much of the article's citations (a very long and painstaking process). It is nice to see someone (or some-few) tried using short footnotes. They are very good for large articles, but there are templates for this. {{ Sfn}} is specifically designed to be simple and self-organizing. Manually labelling each source, then tying references to them is unnecessary and error-prone (a fact exemplified by the number of the broken links).
In my working through the entire article, I found a few other issues I would like to highlight.
Extended content
|
---|
Books
Anthologies
Journal articles
Contemporary littérateur
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowlos ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Modern Paganism. ( non-admin closure) Apteva ( talk) 17:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Paganism (contemporary) → Neopaganism – There is no reason to have a disambiguator when there is a common and perfectly acceptable term for this.--Relisted. Cúchullain t/ c 15:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC) — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
But why the caps? As the article says, these are umbrella terms, not proper names. Paganism is usually lowercase in sources; "modern paganism" is more often capitalized, but not enough to meet the threshold in MOS:CAPS. When it is used as the name of a specific religion, I could see it being capitalized, but that is not the case in the current article. The previous mover introduced this error when moving from Paganism (contemporary) to Contemporary Paganism, and I'm sorry I didn't notice sooner. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I see that the page has been moved again very quickly to decapitalize "Paganism", and I don't think I agree with the sudden decapitalization. That wasn't suggested or discussed in the move request discussion that just ended with a consensus result. Protestantism isn't a single unified religion either, but it is consistently capitalized in the Protestantism article. I suspect that the decapitalizing reflects a lack of respect. Other religion-related -isms seem generally capitalized. — BarrelProof ( talk) 17:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In the context of the contemporary phenomenon, the "p" in "Paganism" is almost universally capitalized. This should undoubtedly be reflected in the article. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Collapsed off-topic rant per
WP:NOTAFORUM
|
---|
|
Oh dear I missed the boat, I wish I got here sooner, and I'll make no difference probably. What is modern paganism? never heard the term, neopaganism is a much more used term. Searching for Google books? Who ever was doing that wasn't doing it very well, If you search Google books for "modern paganism" in speech marks like you should [ [3]] it returns 19K hits, neopaganism returns 47K hits [ [4]]. If you search without speech marks it returns matches like "The Practical Pagan: Common Sense Guidelines for Modern Practitioners" that contain both words but not always together. That's why you got 300K+ matches. Something like house paganism has 145K matches[ [5]] whilst "House Paganism" on the other hand has just 7 not 7K just 7. [ [6]]. Or to look at the chart someone else posted again which shows how popular the terms are [ [7]], I know I probably won't make a difference and I'm late but I've said my pice now I'll get my coat. Carlwev ( talk) 16:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
-- dab (𒁳) 13:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Leaving aside the self-definitions vs WP categories discussion for a moment... One of the ways some of the ethnic traditions are uncomfortable with the Wicca-centric Neopagan community is attitudes towards "witchcraft." Most Wicca-centric & other eclectic Neopagans accept the modern re-definition (that "witchcraft" includes positive magic), while ethnic traditions who practice folk traditions are more likely to stick to the older definition of witchcraft as harmful magic. I made an edit to this effect in that section. I can source the traditional definition to many sources (which are in the bibliography of the linked article), but for a contemporary statement about how witchcraft is seen among Gaelic Polytheists (who see them/ourselves as only technically Neopagan, as we fit the literal definition, but don't share most of the assumptions of the broader Neopagan community), my suggested cite is to a heavily-footnoted article of which I am a co-author. So rather than just add it, I'll suggest it here on the talk page: Rowan and Red Thread: Magic and Witchcraft in Gaelic Cultures. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
re-definitionis contradicted by the majority of the more reputable sources on the subject (Pagan and secular alike). I've removed the word traditional from "the traditional view that "witchcraft" describes only harmful magic", in your edit, pending further discussion on the topic.
quite different from how it's ever been used before. I don't believe that's in dispute. However, Oxford appears to disagree with the meaning of witch being "traditionally" negative.
The various European and Gaelic cultures are in the sources cited, so it's not weasely. Basically, as Kim has said, it's only modern Pagans and those influenced by them that consider "witchcraft" neutral or positive. If you would familiarize yourself with sources outside the Neopagan milieu, you would see this is not shocking, new information to most people. In most cases the quotes are because we are discussing the word, "magic." I did not intend them to be scare quotes, though I think some previous authors of that section may have. I think whether or not quotes or italics are needed in most places the word is used in this section is more a M.O.S. issue than a P.O.V. one. The sentence fragment you introduced was: "The rituals of whom are at least partially based upon those of ceremonial magic and freemasonry." This is not Simple English WP, it's WP. Most people can understand sentences with multiple clauses. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 00:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
lf there is a symbol of Ossetian neopaganism, in other words, " Etseg Din", it should be added to the infobox too. Lamedumal ( talk) 09:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added a very sketchy section on pagan music, whic seems an important enough topic to mention. There are in fact a number of WP pages relating to pagan music,, but apparently no single page on the whole topic. If there eventually is, maybe it could just be linked to. Littlewindow ( talk) 23:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The "Terminology and Definitions" section says
The American scholar of religious studies Michael F. Strmiska in 2005 argued that the modern adoption of the term "Pagan" was "a deliberate act of defiance" against "traditional, Christian-dominated society", and that, on the other hand, "Neopagan" is often deemed offensive and not used by many contemporary Pagans, who claim that the inclusion of the term "neo" disconnects them from their ancient polytheistic ancestors.[γ]
Unfortunately, the footnote associated with that only says "^ Strmiska (2005) p. 9" The book or article from which it draws is entirely absent. Anyone have a reference?
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 23:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I missed most of the discussion around "Neopaganism" vs "Modern Paganism" vs "Paganism (contemporary)," and had no significant attachment to the outcome. However, this was brought to my attention, and I think it is relevant to how we are naming various articles in the project:
Definition of neopaganism in English: neopaganism - noun - 'A modern religious movement that seeks to incorporate beliefs or ritual practices from traditions outside the main world religions, especially those of pre-Christian Europe and North America. Neopaganism is a highly varied mixture of ancient and modern elements, in which nature worship (influenced by modern environmentalism) often plays a major role. Other influences include shamanism, magical and occult traditions, and radical feminist critiques of Christianity.'" - oxforddictionaries.com
I think this has a bearing on ethnic and reconstructionist traditions that are opposed to "incorporat[ing] beliefs or ritual practices from...North America." While it's common knowledge that many Neopagans do this, there are traditions that are opposed to it, so are now excluded from this definition. (crossposted to Wikiproject Neopaganism) - CorbieV ☊ 21:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The opinions above have raised the relevant problems that the use of the term "neopaganism" as a catch-all category generates. Does "neopaganism", as a unified phenomenon, exist? Actually no: "neopaganism" is a virtual category that has been constructed through a series of publications from the Anglophone world. It originally referred strictly to Wicca and the modern syntheses that have emerged in America (ex. Church of All Worlds, Feri). Then the term was forced on all the so-called "reconstructionist" movements of the Old World, which rarely or in no case name themselves "neopagan".
Well, I think this article should be reduced to a list, or disambiguation page, of the different things to which the name "neopaganism" has been attached.
I suggest you look up the website of the late Isaac Bonewits. It is maintained by his widow now. He spent his entire life as a scholar defining the term that this is issue is talked about in and writing about it. http://www.neopagan.net/ Kannath Raymaker 21:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannathraymaker ( talk • contribs)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Modern paganism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Article has a lot of information, but it seems that it is generally agreed to be a bit of a mess. Needs more source citations and cleanup. - AdelaMae ( t - c - wpn) 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 20:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted all the "Cleanup needed" tags inserted by anonymous user 87.2.83.122 for two reasons. First, this user clearly has a personal view of the subject which insists that any presentation of it emphasize differences among various pagan groups over what they have in common. Anonymous user 87.2.83.122 has a right to their opinion, but I don't think they have a right to insist that their opinion dominate the article by plastering cleanup needed tags all over it. If anonymous user 87.2.83.122 thinks that the differences in these groups should be given emphasis over their similarities, then what anonymous user 87.2.83.122 should do is argue on this Talk page that respected mainstream scholars of the subject take this approach to it, so the Wikipedia article should too. Second, anonymous user 87.2.83.122's repeated claims that most of the sources cited are "hardly reliable" is wrong. Most the the sources cited are from respectable, mainstream commercial and academic publishers such as Penguin, Routlege, Oxford University Press, Brill, etc. This is not to say of course that the views in these sources must be accepted as correct, but it certainly means that these sources are reliable mainstream academic opinion. If anonymous user 87.2.83.122 thinks the article's general approach needs revising, please discuss that proposal on this talk page, instead of covering the page with their own POV in the form of cleanup needed tags. Littlewindow ( talk) 16:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Dbachmann added a COI tag to this article. I'm not going to remove it, but I think a little explanation would be good. It's true that many of the editors here are Pagan, but that doesn't necessarily rise to a conflict of interest.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 21:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have any idea why some of the references are numbered and others have Greek letters? Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Whether to capitalize pagan and paganism is a controversial issue. My impression is that books written by and for practicing pagans tend to capitalize, while those considered objective scholarly or journalistic treatments don't, though there are exceptions, and at least one book published by a mainstream university press argues for capitalization. The deciding factor I think is that currently the University of Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook don't capitalize pagan (though both state without qualification that Wicca/Wiccan should always be capitalized, and the UofC manual says that Druid/Druidism should usually be capitalized.) If the current lobbying efforts result in these standard authorities saying to capitalize Pagan, then the WP article should; but though I'm sympathetic to the capitalization personally, I have to admit that so long as the standard reference books don't capitalize, neither should the WP article. (Though of course any capitalization in quoted material should be kept.) Littlewindow ( talk) 22:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the first sentence from "Modern paganism, also known as contemporary paganism, and neopaganism," to "Modern paganism, also known as Neo-Paganism" because the only source given for that statement, Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon, 1) nowhere uses the phrase "contemporary paganism," and 2) always capitalizes "Neo-Paganism." Since that is the only reliable source given, the statements in the sentence ought to conform to it. If other phrases or forms of punctuation are used here, their sources ought to be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlewindow ( talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Do we know anything about how many of those who engage in heathen practices, have faith in the respective cults? Or in other words: For how many is it religion, and for how many is it folklore? Or in yet other words: Is there anybody who actually believes in this nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.149.188 ( talk) 03:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I noticed this article repeatedly refers to the name Ethan Doyle White and find it rather suspicious. A quick internet search will tell you that this is a PhD student based in the archaeology department at UCL. He obviously has an interest in Paganism, but is not a specialist scholar in the fields of either Religious Studies or History. In one of the sections, he is listed alongside Professor Ronald Hutton (a well-known, long-tenured historian from the University of Bristol) and Professor Sabina Magliocco (Anthropology professor at Northridge). I suspect someone's using Wikipedia as an advertising platform:) Either the guy himself or a friend. Will someone fix this? There are more accurate & more significant scholarly sources out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalassa391 ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to remove it without consensus, because it's cited, but the lead explicitly states the practices which fall under the umbrella of "Modern paganism" have their origins (or claim to) in Europe. However, the article goes on to include Kemetic reconstructionism. This is inconsistent, any thoughts? Wasechun tashunka HOWL TRACK 09:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Wasechun tashunka HOWL TRACK 09:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor ( talk) 01:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Modern Paganism →
Modern paganism –
MOS:ISMCAPS, and
WP:CONSISTENCY with
Germanic paganism, etc. This is not a religion, but a blanket term for a class of them. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.
EvertonFC13
(talk2me) 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
DrStrauss
talk 21:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: To quote from the article itself: "Several academics operating in Pagan studies, such as Ronald Hutton and Sabina Magliocco, have emphasized the use of the upper-case "Paganism" to distinguish the modern movement from the lower-case "paganism", a term which is commonly used for pre-Christian belief systems.[30] In 2015, Rountree stated that this lower case/upper case division was "now [the] convention" in Pagan studies.[20]". Basically, the academic convention (as well as the convention within the Pagan community itself) is to capitalise the term, and this article should follow that convention. As for Eckhardt's view that the article presently privileges forms of Paganism dominant in Western countries, I would have to agree; the article certainly needs greater expansion when it comes to forms of Paganism in Eastern Europe and Russia. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has numeric name (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Modern Paganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:54, 1 December 2017 (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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This section is really obscured, as there are no links to any surveys, article. even the wicca article doesn't include something even remotely close to "people with Jewish backgrounds are twice as likely to become Neopagans, in comparison to Gentiles (non-Jews)". this is a really stupid paragraph, which seems to have been written by either someone whom heard it somewhere and wanted to add, or someone with a hidden agenda. so i'm taking it down until someone will bring the appropriate links, info, and solid information to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.89.137 ( talk) 22:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
... for one week because of this kind of edit warring. Removal of material like this needs justifying here on the article talk page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Introduction is full of unreferenced generalisations. Could some references be provided for claims that are made in the text, or should we perhaps rewrite the introduction. Perunova straža ( talk) 12:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)?
I'll wait until you've done with editing, so I wouldn't meddle in your work. Your revisions, so far, are just the things I would've done. As far generalizations go claims such as "Of the various days for celebration among Pagans, the most common are seasonally based festivals of the Wheel of the Year." do require at least some reference. Providing reference that proves the negative might be hard, since I don't think any author would waste time with writing a paper that proves that this or that polytheistic religion never even heard of "Wheel of the Year". Perunova straža ( talk) 08:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
As far generalizations go...
On 8 December 2012, Seonookim ( talk · contribs) moved Paganism (contemporary) to Contemporary Paganism. "Is right term, does not use commas"
I noticed only after realizing that the archive pages and settings for MiszaBot have been broken for months. (I fixed them.) The problem is there was no discussion. "Contemporary Paganism" may be very similar to "Paganism (contemporary)", but there are grammatical differences. The move should been put to discussion first.
—
Sowlos 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I just finished cleaning up much of the article's citations (a very long and painstaking process). It is nice to see someone (or some-few) tried using short footnotes. They are very good for large articles, but there are templates for this. {{ Sfn}} is specifically designed to be simple and self-organizing. Manually labelling each source, then tying references to them is unnecessary and error-prone (a fact exemplified by the number of the broken links).
In my working through the entire article, I found a few other issues I would like to highlight.
Extended content
|
---|
Books
Anthologies
Journal articles
Contemporary littérateur
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowlos ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Modern Paganism. ( non-admin closure) Apteva ( talk) 17:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Paganism (contemporary) → Neopaganism – There is no reason to have a disambiguator when there is a common and perfectly acceptable term for this.--Relisted. Cúchullain t/ c 15:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC) — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
But why the caps? As the article says, these are umbrella terms, not proper names. Paganism is usually lowercase in sources; "modern paganism" is more often capitalized, but not enough to meet the threshold in MOS:CAPS. When it is used as the name of a specific religion, I could see it being capitalized, but that is not the case in the current article. The previous mover introduced this error when moving from Paganism (contemporary) to Contemporary Paganism, and I'm sorry I didn't notice sooner. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I see that the page has been moved again very quickly to decapitalize "Paganism", and I don't think I agree with the sudden decapitalization. That wasn't suggested or discussed in the move request discussion that just ended with a consensus result. Protestantism isn't a single unified religion either, but it is consistently capitalized in the Protestantism article. I suspect that the decapitalizing reflects a lack of respect. Other religion-related -isms seem generally capitalized. — BarrelProof ( talk) 17:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In the context of the contemporary phenomenon, the "p" in "Paganism" is almost universally capitalized. This should undoubtedly be reflected in the article. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Collapsed off-topic rant per
WP:NOTAFORUM
|
---|
|
Oh dear I missed the boat, I wish I got here sooner, and I'll make no difference probably. What is modern paganism? never heard the term, neopaganism is a much more used term. Searching for Google books? Who ever was doing that wasn't doing it very well, If you search Google books for "modern paganism" in speech marks like you should [ [3]] it returns 19K hits, neopaganism returns 47K hits [ [4]]. If you search without speech marks it returns matches like "The Practical Pagan: Common Sense Guidelines for Modern Practitioners" that contain both words but not always together. That's why you got 300K+ matches. Something like house paganism has 145K matches[ [5]] whilst "House Paganism" on the other hand has just 7 not 7K just 7. [ [6]]. Or to look at the chart someone else posted again which shows how popular the terms are [ [7]], I know I probably won't make a difference and I'm late but I've said my pice now I'll get my coat. Carlwev ( talk) 16:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
-- dab (𒁳) 13:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Leaving aside the self-definitions vs WP categories discussion for a moment... One of the ways some of the ethnic traditions are uncomfortable with the Wicca-centric Neopagan community is attitudes towards "witchcraft." Most Wicca-centric & other eclectic Neopagans accept the modern re-definition (that "witchcraft" includes positive magic), while ethnic traditions who practice folk traditions are more likely to stick to the older definition of witchcraft as harmful magic. I made an edit to this effect in that section. I can source the traditional definition to many sources (which are in the bibliography of the linked article), but for a contemporary statement about how witchcraft is seen among Gaelic Polytheists (who see them/ourselves as only technically Neopagan, as we fit the literal definition, but don't share most of the assumptions of the broader Neopagan community), my suggested cite is to a heavily-footnoted article of which I am a co-author. So rather than just add it, I'll suggest it here on the talk page: Rowan and Red Thread: Magic and Witchcraft in Gaelic Cultures. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
re-definitionis contradicted by the majority of the more reputable sources on the subject (Pagan and secular alike). I've removed the word traditional from "the traditional view that "witchcraft" describes only harmful magic", in your edit, pending further discussion on the topic.
quite different from how it's ever been used before. I don't believe that's in dispute. However, Oxford appears to disagree with the meaning of witch being "traditionally" negative.
The various European and Gaelic cultures are in the sources cited, so it's not weasely. Basically, as Kim has said, it's only modern Pagans and those influenced by them that consider "witchcraft" neutral or positive. If you would familiarize yourself with sources outside the Neopagan milieu, you would see this is not shocking, new information to most people. In most cases the quotes are because we are discussing the word, "magic." I did not intend them to be scare quotes, though I think some previous authors of that section may have. I think whether or not quotes or italics are needed in most places the word is used in this section is more a M.O.S. issue than a P.O.V. one. The sentence fragment you introduced was: "The rituals of whom are at least partially based upon those of ceremonial magic and freemasonry." This is not Simple English WP, it's WP. Most people can understand sentences with multiple clauses. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 00:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
lf there is a symbol of Ossetian neopaganism, in other words, " Etseg Din", it should be added to the infobox too. Lamedumal ( talk) 09:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added a very sketchy section on pagan music, whic seems an important enough topic to mention. There are in fact a number of WP pages relating to pagan music,, but apparently no single page on the whole topic. If there eventually is, maybe it could just be linked to. Littlewindow ( talk) 23:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The "Terminology and Definitions" section says
The American scholar of religious studies Michael F. Strmiska in 2005 argued that the modern adoption of the term "Pagan" was "a deliberate act of defiance" against "traditional, Christian-dominated society", and that, on the other hand, "Neopagan" is often deemed offensive and not used by many contemporary Pagans, who claim that the inclusion of the term "neo" disconnects them from their ancient polytheistic ancestors.[γ]
Unfortunately, the footnote associated with that only says "^ Strmiska (2005) p. 9" The book or article from which it draws is entirely absent. Anyone have a reference?
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 23:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I missed most of the discussion around "Neopaganism" vs "Modern Paganism" vs "Paganism (contemporary)," and had no significant attachment to the outcome. However, this was brought to my attention, and I think it is relevant to how we are naming various articles in the project:
Definition of neopaganism in English: neopaganism - noun - 'A modern religious movement that seeks to incorporate beliefs or ritual practices from traditions outside the main world religions, especially those of pre-Christian Europe and North America. Neopaganism is a highly varied mixture of ancient and modern elements, in which nature worship (influenced by modern environmentalism) often plays a major role. Other influences include shamanism, magical and occult traditions, and radical feminist critiques of Christianity.'" - oxforddictionaries.com
I think this has a bearing on ethnic and reconstructionist traditions that are opposed to "incorporat[ing] beliefs or ritual practices from...North America." While it's common knowledge that many Neopagans do this, there are traditions that are opposed to it, so are now excluded from this definition. (crossposted to Wikiproject Neopaganism) - CorbieV ☊ 21:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The opinions above have raised the relevant problems that the use of the term "neopaganism" as a catch-all category generates. Does "neopaganism", as a unified phenomenon, exist? Actually no: "neopaganism" is a virtual category that has been constructed through a series of publications from the Anglophone world. It originally referred strictly to Wicca and the modern syntheses that have emerged in America (ex. Church of All Worlds, Feri). Then the term was forced on all the so-called "reconstructionist" movements of the Old World, which rarely or in no case name themselves "neopagan".
Well, I think this article should be reduced to a list, or disambiguation page, of the different things to which the name "neopaganism" has been attached.
I suggest you look up the website of the late Isaac Bonewits. It is maintained by his widow now. He spent his entire life as a scholar defining the term that this is issue is talked about in and writing about it. http://www.neopagan.net/ Kannath Raymaker 21:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannathraymaker ( talk • contribs)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Modern paganism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Article has a lot of information, but it seems that it is generally agreed to be a bit of a mess. Needs more source citations and cleanup. - AdelaMae ( t - c - wpn) 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 20:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted all the "Cleanup needed" tags inserted by anonymous user 87.2.83.122 for two reasons. First, this user clearly has a personal view of the subject which insists that any presentation of it emphasize differences among various pagan groups over what they have in common. Anonymous user 87.2.83.122 has a right to their opinion, but I don't think they have a right to insist that their opinion dominate the article by plastering cleanup needed tags all over it. If anonymous user 87.2.83.122 thinks that the differences in these groups should be given emphasis over their similarities, then what anonymous user 87.2.83.122 should do is argue on this Talk page that respected mainstream scholars of the subject take this approach to it, so the Wikipedia article should too. Second, anonymous user 87.2.83.122's repeated claims that most of the sources cited are "hardly reliable" is wrong. Most the the sources cited are from respectable, mainstream commercial and academic publishers such as Penguin, Routlege, Oxford University Press, Brill, etc. This is not to say of course that the views in these sources must be accepted as correct, but it certainly means that these sources are reliable mainstream academic opinion. If anonymous user 87.2.83.122 thinks the article's general approach needs revising, please discuss that proposal on this talk page, instead of covering the page with their own POV in the form of cleanup needed tags. Littlewindow ( talk) 16:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Dbachmann added a COI tag to this article. I'm not going to remove it, but I think a little explanation would be good. It's true that many of the editors here are Pagan, but that doesn't necessarily rise to a conflict of interest.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 21:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have any idea why some of the references are numbered and others have Greek letters? Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Whether to capitalize pagan and paganism is a controversial issue. My impression is that books written by and for practicing pagans tend to capitalize, while those considered objective scholarly or journalistic treatments don't, though there are exceptions, and at least one book published by a mainstream university press argues for capitalization. The deciding factor I think is that currently the University of Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook don't capitalize pagan (though both state without qualification that Wicca/Wiccan should always be capitalized, and the UofC manual says that Druid/Druidism should usually be capitalized.) If the current lobbying efforts result in these standard authorities saying to capitalize Pagan, then the WP article should; but though I'm sympathetic to the capitalization personally, I have to admit that so long as the standard reference books don't capitalize, neither should the WP article. (Though of course any capitalization in quoted material should be kept.) Littlewindow ( talk) 22:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the first sentence from "Modern paganism, also known as contemporary paganism, and neopaganism," to "Modern paganism, also known as Neo-Paganism" because the only source given for that statement, Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon, 1) nowhere uses the phrase "contemporary paganism," and 2) always capitalizes "Neo-Paganism." Since that is the only reliable source given, the statements in the sentence ought to conform to it. If other phrases or forms of punctuation are used here, their sources ought to be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlewindow ( talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Do we know anything about how many of those who engage in heathen practices, have faith in the respective cults? Or in other words: For how many is it religion, and for how many is it folklore? Or in yet other words: Is there anybody who actually believes in this nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.149.188 ( talk) 03:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I noticed this article repeatedly refers to the name Ethan Doyle White and find it rather suspicious. A quick internet search will tell you that this is a PhD student based in the archaeology department at UCL. He obviously has an interest in Paganism, but is not a specialist scholar in the fields of either Religious Studies or History. In one of the sections, he is listed alongside Professor Ronald Hutton (a well-known, long-tenured historian from the University of Bristol) and Professor Sabina Magliocco (Anthropology professor at Northridge). I suspect someone's using Wikipedia as an advertising platform:) Either the guy himself or a friend. Will someone fix this? There are more accurate & more significant scholarly sources out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalassa391 ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to remove it without consensus, because it's cited, but the lead explicitly states the practices which fall under the umbrella of "Modern paganism" have their origins (or claim to) in Europe. However, the article goes on to include Kemetic reconstructionism. This is inconsistent, any thoughts? Wasechun tashunka HOWL TRACK 09:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Wasechun tashunka HOWL TRACK 09:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor ( talk) 01:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Modern Paganism →
Modern paganism –
MOS:ISMCAPS, and
WP:CONSISTENCY with
Germanic paganism, etc. This is not a religion, but a blanket term for a class of them. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.
EvertonFC13
(talk2me) 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
DrStrauss
talk 21:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: To quote from the article itself: "Several academics operating in Pagan studies, such as Ronald Hutton and Sabina Magliocco, have emphasized the use of the upper-case "Paganism" to distinguish the modern movement from the lower-case "paganism", a term which is commonly used for pre-Christian belief systems.[30] In 2015, Rountree stated that this lower case/upper case division was "now [the] convention" in Pagan studies.[20]". Basically, the academic convention (as well as the convention within the Pagan community itself) is to capitalise the term, and this article should follow that convention. As for Eckhardt's view that the article presently privileges forms of Paganism dominant in Western countries, I would have to agree; the article certainly needs greater expansion when it comes to forms of Paganism in Eastern Europe and Russia. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has numeric name (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Modern Paganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)