Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)

Too Generalized?

Should all these different beliefs be plopped together in one page? Many of these beliefs have vastly different core values. Gurluas (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course, there's a great deal of variation within Heathenry, but the same could be said of almost any sufficiently large religion. Think of the huge internal diversity within Christianity, for example. We wouldn't break up the Christianity article just because the Jesuits, Positive Christianity, and Mormonism all seem very different from one another. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

But we do have a multitude of different pages on Christian denominations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion that this article is far, far too generalized. The fact we do not have any article on the phenomenon of racist germanic paganism is ridiculous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA

There are pages about the Odinic Rite, the AFA, Stephen McNallen, Edric Thorsson, as well as specific pages for Nazi Occultism and Nazi Religion which prominently feature paganism. Not to mention the Heathenry page itself has an entire section on Romantic and Folkish (racist) influences.

I'm not sure it is accurate to say there is no article on racist germanic paganism, unless you mean to suggest there should literally be a page titled "Racism in Germanic Paganism" just detailing the various ways racist people have identified with the religion? FarHarBard (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Individual, specific people or groups are not the phenomenon. That would be like suggesting since we have an article on a specific heathenry group that us lacking a heathenry would be justified. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA

So the problem is that the general article is too general, but the specific articles are too specific?

is there a specific phenomena of racism in Heathenry? To not just require a section in the article, but to warrant an entire article unto itself?

It is a problem common to much of paganism, and much of religion in general. There are articles on individual people and practices and groups who espouse it, yet there's not even an article about racism in Christianity. There is "Catholic Church and Race", "Christian Nationalism", "christian views on slavery", there's a category page for "Christianity and race" but that just links to the aforementioned articles and a variety of specific people and scriptures on the topic. Even when it comes to Mormonism, we do not find any "Racism in Mormonism" but specific articles about Mormon beliefs on specific races.

Even when we look at articles of "Racism in Jewish Communities" it is about internal racism and focuses on Jewish victims of racism, only even having a single section about white supremacy.

A page specifically about racism in heathenry feels like it is presuming the presence of a phenomena that other religions do not get scrutinized for, that is already being examined and articulated across a variety of articles. FarHarBard (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

rereading the "Racial Issues" section of the Heathenry Page, I can see nothing wrong with it being included there, nor any reason why it should receive its own page separate from this one. FarHarBard (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that we only have the general articles, and the group articles, and nothing in between.

Christianity, for example, has the parent Christianity article, then Protestantism and Catholicism, then further specifics like Calvinism or Lutheranism. This is contrast has no sub articles of that kind, of any kind of Heathenry. Even disregarding the racist bit, there are many different kinds of Germanic neopaganism that are notable.

We do have an article about, say, Antisemitism in Christianity, Catholic Church and race, etc.

There are multiple books about the phenomenon of racist neopaganism, I think we are neglecting the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA

Of course there are books about it, the books are cited on the articles I'm talking about.

There are specific articles for Asatru and the Odinic Rite and AFA. There is even articles specifically about ariosophy, nordicism, and the wider volkisch movements. Plus articles on the intersection of religion and Nazism.

This is also ignoring the fact that Heathenry is an intermediary label, it is below Paganism but above specific traditions like Forn Sidr and Asatru and ecclecticism and so on. It is less like "Christianity" and more like "Protestantism".

I'm not sure what "in between" you are talking about. There are articles about the religion at large (that feature a section on racial issues), there are articles about those racial issues, there are articles about the specific groups that espouse such ideologies.

The fact it has an entire section on the article, with there being other articles about the specific individuals and organizations is all indicative that it is not being neglected. Unless you specifically mean to have an article frame the phenomena of people being racist in ways not already covered that are still fundamentally related to the religion, in which case I would ask what that is?

Is it just because none of it is labeled "Racism in Germanic Neopaganism", and would this also require articles about racism in other neopagan populations, or would an article about racism in neopaganism in general be sufficient? FarHarBard (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

"There are specific articles for Asatru" - no, we do not have an individual article for Asatru, that redirects here, that is one of the major absences I am referring to. We don't even have a section for Asatru, or any other type. The racism phenomenon was just one example of this article being too generalized, not the whole problem. As I have said, individual articles and organizations are covered just fine. The fact we do not have sub-articles for any of the identified (and bolded) other types in the lead is what I am referring to.

I mean I guess we could argue about this more but no I would say it is more analogous to Christianity level-wise than Protestantism because "Paganism" is not one coherent faith and never has been. But that's quibbling. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA

Yes there is, at least via the Simple.Wikipedia which still gets read the same by the app. So maybe I'm just mistaken in thinking it is still wikipedia.

Asatru https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asatru?wprov=sfla1, it is not expansive, but it not being expansive is separate from it not existing.

You specifically listed the lack of a special article for Racism in Germanic Paganism as the specific problem. A problem which has been recognized by including an entire subsection on the Heathenry page.

I am now even more confused what it is you want. It feels like you just want a special page listing Germanic Paganism as having a unique racial problem despite that being covered via a variety of other articles.

Do you just feel the "See Also" section should be expanded? What is the new article you want? What is the criticism other than "This highlighted problem isn't highlighted enough"? FarHarBard (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@FarHarBard Simple Wikipedia has nothing to do with English Wikipedia. Totally unrelated to here. Different rules, different editors, unconnected in terms of content. We have no article on Asatru.

I first said "But we do have a multitude of different pages on Christian denominations [...] I stand by my opinion that this article is far too generalized" then I named an example.

No, the see also section is too long as is. It's not about "the problem". I have identified what I take issue with. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA Fair enough about the Simple Wikipedia, that being said there is also a page specifically for Germanic Paganism that is separate from the Heathenry Page. So I stand by my notion that there are already general, intermediary, and specific articles about all of this

The "see also section" is a scant 4 articles long.

I am very confused as to what you are reading that is leading to these conclusions. FarHarBard (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@FarHarBard Germanic paganism is not Germanic neopaganism though.

It was a hyperbolic way to suggest that I don't like see also sections and I don't think expanding it would help anything (sarcastically referring to a minor amount of articles as far too long...) might have not been clear.

I think this article is basically fine. My issue with it is that it has taken the unique approach of just not having any sub articles and collecting everything into one, which I think is over generalizing when there are trends and ideologies in Germanic neopaganism that are notable and not fully addressed here (Asatru, folkish/Odinism, etc.) PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA In my mind the claim that there should be a specific page about racism in Germanic Paganism begs the evidence that there is a unique racial problem in Germanic Paganism.

Except wheb you look into, we see that the issues are usually those of Ariosophy and the Volkisch Movement and other already-covered content that the page already links to.

Christianity has its own unique internal racial information, as in there is actual content within the religion that is unique to that religion that causes divides and discussion about race. That same cannot be said about Germanic Paganism as the racism comes in from tangential philosophies (the aforementioned Ariosophy and Volksgemeinschaft/Volkisch Movement.

Anyone reading it has ready access to the content and information without needing a new article that then potentially inflates the legitimacy of those racial ideologies from outside the religion as being oart of the religion.

We similarly lack articles about Declarations 127 and Deeds which are also quite prominent.

Perhaps I am misreading and you just want an overall expansion of the article, but if so then the fixation on the racial issues feels like an oddly specific way to go about it. FarHarBard (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

In your opinion - I disagree. Could it not also go for having an entire section on it? The lead already frames the "folkish" varieties as their own type! That is what I mean.

Yes, but the Christianity articles aren't trying to shove every single type of Christianity into one article, like this one is doing. We have combined every single type of Germanic Paganism into one article.

"Christianity has its own uniquE" ... no? The racism in Germanic neopaganism does not come from "tangential philosophies" at all.

Who is deciding what is the "legitimate" variety of the religion, here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA There is already a section for Racial Issues, also this does not shove all of Germanic Paganism into one page, there is a page for Germanic Paganism and one for Heathenry, and then furthermore specific pages for several specific cults/churches. Such as the various Forn Sed communities.

Yes, Christianity has it's own biblical bases for its own racism. Ethnic Slavery is a biblical concept, hence why it got used to legitimize things like the TransAtlantic Slave Trade.

Germanic Paganism has no scripture or internal source of knowledge that legitimizes these concepts except maybe Rigsþula? Hence why concepts like Ariosophy and Volksgemeinschaft required people to not actually engage with reality and engage with made up nonsense philosophies. The entire idea of a "esoteric Aryan philosophy" requires people to think the "Aryan" is a thing, which certainly isn't anywhere in any historic Germanic Pre-Christian work. Therefore isn't a thing in Heathenry (the modern reconstruction) except by introduction from non-Pagan sources, therefore their legitimacy as a basis for Germanic Paganism is in question. Just because some Nazi says he's worshipping Odin doesn't make his racism religious in nature.

Which is why there is already an entire section of the reconstructionist article (Heathenry) about the racial issues that are modernly involved with, but not of origin with, the religion today.

I am not denying the legitimacy of their religion, but rather the legitimacy of framing their racism as religious in nature when it is almost always secular in origin.

It seems the solution would be an expansion of the Heathenry Page to include links to these various specific pages to make it a better intermediary between the general "Germanic Paganism" page, and the specific articles, but the framing of it around racial issues seems a bad way to go about it.

Also, apologies for accidentally creating two threads, technical error on my end. I have said what I need to say, my criticism is not changing because FarHarBard (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no continuity between Germanic paganism and Heanthenry, they are two totally different things where one is trying to emulate the other. This isn't a sub article of that nor should it have any direct connection in terms of content. I don't know why you keep bringing up this same point over and over because that isn't what I am arguing.

Not true but also totally unrelated. There is no Heanthenry Bible, so in contrast, anyone can claim what they want, including racialistic interpretations. That you argue that all the racist Germanic neopagans are all fake neopagans is not borne out by the sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah but all of those beliefs share core values, such as the belief in Jesus or their God. This is the equivalent of making a monotheistic article and plopping Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in the same article and removing their respective articles. Norse Paganism is entirely different from Greek Paganism, or Celtic Paganism. Gurluas (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This article doesn't discuss Greek or Celtic-oriented Paganisms, only Germanic-oriented ones. In contemporary contexts, Heathenry refers to Germanic-oriented modern Paganisms, and the article makes this quite clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gurluas Hence why there isn't significant Celtic or Hellenic information? Hellenism is only referenced as an example of a cognate term and the history between the two groups, Celtic Paganism is only mentioned in the 'See Also'? FarHarBard (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Heathenry to Heathendom

The proper, original, and true name of this religion is Heathendom. That is what it was referred to as by people in the Heathen era. It is also a Germanic term. Heathenry is Latin and incorrect.

Kind regards Sam

Happy Yule! ~2025-42765-69 (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. You did not provide a source either. That term seems to appear mostly in old English-language sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

"E. Max Hyatt" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect E. Max Hyatt has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 28 § E. Max Hyatt until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

"Edred Wodanson" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Edred Wodanson has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 28 § Edred Wodanson until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

"Wodanesdag Press" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wodanesdag Press has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 28 § Wodanesdag Press until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)