Jump to content

Talk:Polytheistic reconstructionism

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

Terminology

[edit]

I think Wikipedia really needed this article and I appreciate all the work that went into it. I was just wondering... perhaps this is my bias as a US Hellenic polytheist, but it "distinctions from neopaganism" section seems kind of off to me, and not consistent with the way this issue has been treated in other Wikipedia articles or with my personal experience. The biggest thing here is, we have a Neopaganism article that has a section on reconstructed traditions. I don't know what it is like in other reconstructionist traditions, but I know that a pretty high percentage of Hellenic polytheists use the word "pagan" to apply to their religion at least some of the time. I mean, some of the most well-known people in the Hellenic polytheist community call it a pagan religion ([1]), and our biggest mailing list is called "HellenicPagan". We don't want to say that all reconstructionists are neopagans or that reconstructionism is a subtype of neopaganism, but there is a significant amount of overlap. Saying that "Reconstructionism is a distinct and separate phenomenon from Neo-Paganism" is inaccurate - many reconstructionist traditions got their start as reactions to Neopaganism and many reconstructionists have a history of involvement with other neopagan religions. The two did not develop independently in all times and all places. Also, saying that "most reconstructionists are not neo-pagans or even sympathetic to their practices" is a bit too harsh, and comes close to suggesting that reconstructionists are actively hostile to neopagan practices, which, while true of some, is hardly a prevailing attitude. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I realize where you are coming from. However, I think the evidence bears out my position. There is a distinct difference between hard reconstructionist and soft reconstructionists who often self-identify as neo-pagans and I am glad you have created their respective entries. As the entry says: Recon and Neo-Paganism are not mutually exclusive and the term doesn't have the same connotations in the usage you cited. I think that there is a certain lack of objectivity on your part in this matter and even perhaps an American bias. In much of the world, reconstructionist religions *did not* derive from Neo-Paganism. This may be the case in North America and specifically with the Hellenic sphere, but a quick poll of the external links in the entry for the term 'pagan' or 'neo-pagan' tells a lot. It seems to show that there is enmity or an explicit separation from affiliation with the neo-pagan milieu in the bulk of even American adherents. Reconstructionism is not an offshoot of Neo-Paganism, as entailed in this article. It primarily encompasses indigenous folk religions, which seems to be glaringly absent from the Neo-Paganism entry. The link you cited above [2] is a prime example of the phenomena which reconstructionists do not want to be affiliated with: he identifies himself as an Egyptian recon, a Hellenic recon and a Thelemite. This is *not* representative of reconstructionism in most of the US and the rest of the world. If it was, why are there so many explicit statements against these activities on so many recon websites? Why does the WCER have an explicit mandate against this?[3] I'm willing to work with you on the tone, but I cannot misrepresent the subject matter just to cater to a few dissenting opinions.

  • Indian Religion (also Indic, Vedic)
    • Vaidika - No reference to Paganism on the website
  • Canaanite Religion (also Qadish)
  • Ancient Greek Religion (also Hellenismos, Hellenic Religion, Dodekatheism, etc.)
  • Egyptian Religion (also Kemetic, etc.)
    • House of Netjer "we do not classify ourselves as Pagan as we neither follow the spiritual teachings of the Holy See, nor do our spiritual practices derive from the practices of spiritual groups which do refer to themselves as Pagan or Neo-Pagan today" [7]
    • International Network of Kemetics - Eschews the term Pagan [8]
    • Per Ankh - No reference to Paganism on the website
  • Roman Religion (also Religio Romana)
  • Germanic /Norse (Asatru, Hedenskab, Theod, Heithni, etc.)
  • Celtic Religion (also Sinsearach, Gaelic, etc.)
  • Baltic Religion (also Slavic, Rodnaya Vera, Pravoslavya, Romuva, Dievturi, Jazyk, etc.)
  • Hungarian Religion (alsoTuranian)
    • Hunmagyar Hungary - Do not use the term Pagan
  • MesoAmerican Religion (Aztec, Nahua)

Also, *of course* Greek and Roman recons have no problem with the usage of the term 'pagan' - the term was not imposed upon them at sword point, or used as a slur (for the most part).--HroptR 09:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that my perspective on this is deeply influenced by my own experiences, which are mainly with Hellenic polytheism. Sannion's essays are typical of mainstream American Hellenic reconstructionism - and I would like to point out that while the polytheistic groups in Greece eschew the word "pagan", neither do they call themselves reconstructionists. Imposing the term "reconstructionist" on people who do not claim it for themselves is little better than imposing the term "pagan". How many of the groups mentioned above self-identify as reconstructionist? How often is this term used by WCER members? I don't have time to figure this out right now, but I hope to come back later and investigate.
There's one thing, though, that needs to be pointed out immediately - I found your recent edits to this article very biased, not so much against neopagan forms of reconstructionism as against neopaganism itself. Specifically, I'm referring to this paragraph (italics mine):
The term Reconstructionism is thought to have been coined by Isaac Bonewits in the late 1970's. Margot Adler later used the term "Pagan Reconstructionists" in the 1979 edition of Drawing Down the Moon to refer to those who claimed to adhere to some sort of historical religion. However, as the term "Neo-Paganism" began to take on the libertine connotations of the abortive Hippie movement and encompass free love, drug use, polyamory and leftist politics the need for a distinction in paradigms arose. The comparison to the hippy movement became even more apt when Neo-Paganism began to be co-opted by New Age publishing companies like Llewellyn Publications and Red Wheel /Weiser who seemed to only be interested in catering to the lowest-common-denominator mass market. Books on the subject of historically authentic Neo-Pagan or indigenous traditions could not get published unless they were politically correct. Prior to print on demand, Reconstructionist authors were forced to self-publish books with a very limited specialized distribution. As a result, a rift grew between Reconstructionists and the more eclectic elements embodied by Wicca and Neo-Paganism who saw nothing intrinsically wrong with ethnocentric cultural appropriation. Today, the term Reconstructionism encompasses far more than the superficial concept Isaac Bonewits coined in the 70's.
I have italicized the sections I believe to be problematic. These slurs against popular neopaganism are inappropriate, unsourced, and unnecessary. In one paragraph, you've insulted hippies, polyamorists, leftists, New Agers, Llewellyn, Weiser, people who read books by Llewellyn and/or Weiser, people who write these books, Wiccans, syncretists, and neopagans in general. Whether these people deserve insulting is irrelevant; a Wikipedia article is not the place. Also, this paragraph implies that reconstructionism, or at least the use of the term "reconstructionism", did develop as a reaction to neopaganism, which you've previously stated was not the case in much of the world.
As far as your comment that "*of course* Greek and Roman recons have no problem with the usage of the term 'pagan' - the term was not imposed upon them at sword point, or used as a slur (for the most part)" - please read anything on Christianization and tell me that Greek and Roman pagans were not stigmatized and persecuted. I mean, seriously - the root of "pagan" is a Latin word, and Christianization began with the Roman empire. I have no idea where you get the idea that the Greeks and Romans somehow escaped persecution. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 19:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. I contributed these comments to a similar discussion on the Germanic paganism talk page and I think they would be appropriate here as well:
The association with Wicca and other New Age religions is really what lead to the eschewing of the term "neopaganism" in the English language by Germanic neopagans in favor of "Heathen." It's in an attempt by Germanic neopagans to differentiate themselves from the Wiccan, new age and often hermetically-influenced "neopagan" crowd.
Due to this, the term is sometimes considered derogatory by practitioners. The reason for the wish for differentiation is due to the distinctly reconstructive nature of the religion, which lead to the advent of the Heathen term over pagan or Odinist -- The latter of which has been all but erased outside of heavily monotheistic-influenced prison and "white power" groups.
So, basically, although you'll find those that refer to themselves as "pagans," I find that, like myself, many English-speaking Germanic neopagans prefer the term "Heathen" officially due to the specific connotations of the term and the lack of association with new age "me-isms." :bloodofox: 05:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of Neopaganism at the moment includes reconstrucitonism, and this article seems little short of a pov fork. Reconstructionists by definition are Neo-Pagans ("Paleo-Pagans" do not reconstruct anything). Of course there is a difference between reconstructionists and Wicca/Eclectic/whatever, and the Neopaganism is very careful to keep the two apart. dab (ᛏ) 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also the (itself rather horrible) Neopaganism#Usage_of_the_term_.27Neopagan.27. I find it rather annoying to have new articles created treating the exact same points already discussed elsewhere, especially if no reference is made to the already existing discussion. Try to fix the existing content first, otherwise we'll have many unfinished, but no good articles. dab (ᛏ) 21:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-section at Neopaganism *is* horrible. This article was specifically written to be more concerned amd considerate of indigenous religions and modern groups which attempt to be historically authentic (or at least congruent). The distinction exists between those who are attempting to reanimate historical religions - no matter how improbable that is - vs. those who invent unbroken lineages, mix and match cultures and rewrite history to conform to the Burning times, fictitious primeval matriarchal utopias, etc... Of course not all neo-pagans believe these things, but neo-pagan has taken on the connotations of just being an open ended amorphous term which means anything and everything - thus moral relativism. Isaac Bonewits has a manifesto called What Neopagans Believe which discusses a lot of what I'm talking about. I could go point by point and show how his neo-pagan manifesto is pure bunk to the average Reconstructionist. For example, on his website he discusses how a neopagan would never join the military or sacrifice animals - yet Germanic Reconstructionists do these all the time. Hence, why so many groups are attempting to differentiate themselves from the term.

Also, Re: Terminology - if Reconstructionism has to be categorized as a New Religious Movement, is that implying the negative connotations of cult? While both of these terms are factually accurate, here on wikipedia, they seem to have taken on very negative connotations. The usage of the term NRM on Wikipedia seems to indicate any non-Abrahamic religion as per This entry. Why not just use cultists and cut the pretense? :D -HroptR 23:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in your camp, HroptR. The problem is not, however, that the term "(Neo)pagan" was given in contempt, but that self-proclaimed "Neopagans" write pure bunk in their manifestos. I understand the desire of the reconstructionists to be seen as separate from the syncretists. However, I do not think this should be done by leaving the "Neopagan" label to syncretists, but rather by pointing out where approaches differ, within the Neopaganism article. Compare "Christians", who are not realy free to jettison the "Christianity" label just because some self-proclaimed "Christians" are horrible nutters, or outright evil. I am not objecting to the existence of this article, mind you. It is perfectly warranted, as a sub-article of Neopaganism. But as such, it has to be aligned with the content over there. Note that I added it as "main" article in the "Reconstructionist" section, as well as mentioned it in the lead. Sigh, and no, "NRM" should not be prejudiced as derogatory either. I wish we could cut all the worrying about "negative connotations". There are a lot of bigoted editors on wikipedia who will try to portray anything but their own brand of salvation in a negative light. The only answer I have to that is NPOV. Opposition_to_cults_and_new_religious_movements is a terrible title and should maybe be AfD'd. There is such a thing as pov pushing by article title. This should be strongly discouraged. A NRM is a religious movement that is also new (younger than a couple of centuries). If some people will think this is a bad thing per se, there is nothing you and I can do about that. But I don't see why we should care, either. From a pagan perspective, I don't see what is wrong with "cult", even. Yes, "cult" has a negative connotation, historically (compare Cult vs. Cult (religion)). So does "atheist", but that doesn't stop atheists from self-describing as atheists. dab (ᛏ) 23:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I thought atheists were neo-pagans :P No seriously, as long as there is a place to explain the differences and distinctions between the approaches, and information and perspectives are not stifled to the point of bias toward the eclectic /new age sphere, I will be happy. I just think there needs to be more balance on the issue, because obviously everyone isn't living happily under the same tent. Thanks for taking the time to consider the issues involved, Dab. - HroptR 01:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, "living happily under the same tent" is not the hallmark of many religions. The various "Christian" denominations, at least, are easily twice as diverse as the most antagonistic directions of "Neopaganism", and their history of infighting goes back at least to the 4th century. Even among "reconstructionists" there is hardly ever peace, look at the "History" section of Germanic Neopaganism. Anyway, thanks for your constructive approach. The question is now, of course, where to draw the line. While anyone is free, I suppose, to call themselves "Neopagan", there is such a thing as a bad or invalid reconstruction, and I wonder if all groups listed actually qualify as reconstructionist proper. Many people's idea of reconstruction, I am afraid, appears to be to dress up in costumes and brandish swords or axes. dab (ᛏ) 09:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

As IMBAS does still have an active listserve, useful articles on their website, and is in the process of creating a study program, I have removed the "defunct" note from their name. I have also added a link to the CR Essay which, while not representative of one single group, is the only consensus tradition document co-authored by representatives of multiple, longstanding, CR sub-traditions. The Essay also includes links to other websites in its resource section. Do we want to include websites with CR content that do not represent specific groups? Or shall we just let people find those sites through the CR Essay and other links? Right now, these are the CR links:

  • ACTG (Gaelic Tribal Confederation)
  • Clann na Fhaoil-Choin
  • The CR Essay
  • IMBAS
  • Tuath na Ciarraide

While I don't personally care whether they're included, I would note that, as far as I am aware, neither the ACTG, Fhaoil-Choinn nor Tuath na Ciarraide identify as CR anymore. While they all initially called themselves CR, last I heard they had become very vocal about identifying as Gaelic Traditionalists, not Celtic Reconstructionists, and have distanced themselves even more from the NeoPagan community. I believe there's now a GT Wiki entry, though I won't speak to its accuracy. Kathryn NicDhàna 22:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The GT people are actually more representative of this entry because they attempt to recreate a historical religion and tribe and maintain authenticity as opposed to identifying themselves as neopagans... Also, I think that we need to be very selective about what specialized links are added to essays, etc. because of the potential for the entry to just get buried. This is just a general recon entry with links directing the reader to further specific inf. Germanic recon alone has hundreds and hundreds of such sites and essays. I think a link to that essay is appropriate @ Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism... I was going to add in links to the respective recon subgroups on wikipedia, but haven't figured out the best way to do it yet. -HroptR 22:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durr - I already did: HERE - I'll add in Gaelic Traditionalism and Theodism and any others anyone can think of...-HroptR 22:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22:28, January 18, 2006 HroptR (Removed link to essay - there are links to several CR groups and to the CR wikipedia entry already) "several CR Groups" - Which ones?

I respect the desire to not bury an entry in external links. However I question the links you're choosing to include, and your understanding of what Celtic Reconstructionism actually is. Since the mid-80's, CR has always been about recreating historical religion and tribe and maintaing authenticity. CR is also about adapting to the modern world, but so are the GTs you list (unless they're the ones who are just ren-faire re-enactors). The GTs you list only came on the scene in the mid to late 1990s, and most only split off from CR in the last two years. The GTs you list got the idea of Reconstructionist religion from CR (some used to belong to CR groups), and only formed their "GT" groups well after CR was established. There are actually two very different streams of "GT" - the older political movement, and the newer, polytheistic group that split off from CR over political differences in recent years. Some have tried to imply an unbroken continuation between the political movement and the CR-spinoff Neo-GTs, but I don't see that as accurate. CR is honest about the founders backgrounds in the Neopagan community; some Polytheistic CRs identify as Pagans while a significant number of other Polytheistic CRs do not. If you think groups that now deny having reconstructed traditions, and who actively put down CR, should be included in a listing on "Reconstructionism", while actual Reconstructionist groups should not, I have to question the premise, content, name and POV of this entry.

If GT groups are listed, they should be listed seperately from CR. Kathryn NicDhàna 23:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • i have to say, if a group is not neopagan, in at least the general, wider sense, then they cannot be either a) polytheist (which is the "pagan" part), or b) reconstructionist (as that would be the "neo" part). for that reason, and because many GT-identified persons reject the "neopagan" label entirely, i think that GT should simply be removed from this entry completely. Whateley23 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree, and feel you are pushing POV semantics here. The GT folks should stay. Many groups do not identify themselves as recons but still use a recon methodology. If I had my way, neo-paganism wouldn't even be detailed in the entry but Dab insisted upon it. Neo-paganism s not the scope of this entry: indigenous folk religions and recon are. Whomever put the CR Essay under the organization heading needs to move it. It's inappropriate there, as it is not a link to an organization. Why not just post the link to your CR essay over at Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism? There is already a link to it HERE -HroptR 05:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • and i disagree with you. you're trying to shoehorn a group of people who actively deny that they are reconstructing anything (thus "Traditionalist") into "Reconstructionists". if they, themselves, claim that they are not reconstructionists, why would anyone want to include them in a category they deny? see, for instance [15], where a prominent self-identified "Gaelic Traditionalist" makes the express claim that Celtic Reconstructionism is not a part of Gaelic Traditionalism, and vice versa. if you want to include GTs, you would probably need to rename this article, as this article is about Reconstructionists. however, as it stands, it seems to me a violation of NPOV to impose labels which are expressly undesirable to the parties in question. Whateley23 02:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is blatantly obvious that you and your buddy seem to have some issue with the Gaelic Traditionalists. That's fine. However, as noted above, many recons take great issue with being termed neo-pagan and yet this entry is still under that umbrella. Recon is a methodology. Many of the groups on this list do not specifically identify as neo-pags or recons, yet by their methodology they fall under that term. I'm assuming a GT wrote the Gaelic_Traditionalism entry. Note the usage of the word reconstructed. Breandán has specifically said they don't classify themselves as CR due to the syncretic and eclectic connotations the term has become bogged in. Then add in the ADF and Keltria and I can't blame him. The group you cited doesn't speak for all of GT. Gaelic Traditionalists use the term recon here[16], here[17], here[18], here[19], etc. A differentiation has been made between GT and CR as per your request. Now you want to drop all reference to them. What next? If you cannot bear the unholy taint of a group you disagree with being mentioned in the same entry as CR, go start a new entry.-HroptR 03:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • hardly. i'm trying to operate from a NPOV, and not label groups with terminology that they have themselves repudiated. if you want to insist on forcing GT into the box of "Reconstructionism", then that is your decision. i simply would like to be sure to register my disagreement with imposing a description on a group which does not want that description. the point here is that GT-identified people have repeatedly stated that they are not reconstructing anything at all, so then it would seem that they are not using a reconstructionist methodology. i'm amused by your several cites of their use of the term, since they have previously been so intransigent about it. Whateley23 08:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your POV is that actual Reconstructionist groups don't belong in this listing, perhaps we should consider re-naming this listing, or splitting it and moving the groups and views you champion to a new Ethnic Religions listing. Kathryn NicDhàna 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • HroptR wrote: "due to the syncretic and eclectic connotations the term has become bogged in." This is not NPOV. "Then add in the ADF and Keltria" - ADF and Keltria are not CR organizations, they are Neo-Druid. Kathryn NicDhàna 07:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on what we're trying to accomplish with the external links section. Is it for more information, or only for groups people could join? I could include a list of CR groups with websites. Most are rather small, but no smaller than the GT groups that have been included in some previous edits. One of the reasons I think including a direct link to the CR Essay is a good idea is it has website links in it - to both groups and individuals - which are not included in either the CR Wiki nor the Imbas site. It is representative of the group who wrote it (who continue to collaborate online and in-person), and of a number of groups and individuals who participated, much in the same way that ACGT is, though with more information on what we actually do. I don't think the comparison to another Wiki entry (Germanic) that is bursting with links is relevant, as we're only talking about two links under the entire CR category. Linking the CR Essay itself would be more concise than listing the handful of websites included at the end of the essay. What are our criteria for who/what should be included in the links? Kathryn NicDhàna 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The organizational links is just for organizations. As I've said, there is already a link to Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism in this entry already. If people want to read about the specific traditions they only have to click a link. That is kind of the idea - to explain the umbrella term recon /indigenous religions / traditionalism and then offer links to groups which are being neglected, over-looked or buried in the main neo-paganism entry, due to doctrinal differences and flat out bias. Why not add your link under [reading] for now? Also, *please* add the information to the CR Wiki entry if it's not there! All I'm saying, is that this has the potential to get out of hand down the road if we start adding specialized links to every POV and sub-group encompassed by the recon methodology due to the sheer numbers and variety. As far as IMBAS goes, I just read relatively recently that the group *is not* active. This was in an LJ thread on one of the recon communities. I'm aware the yahoo list is extant, but the site itself hasn't been updated for two years. A similar thing happened with one of the larger Theod groups, and their link was actually dropped rather than being marked defunct. Why don't you explain what's going on in the Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism entry? As long as the group as active, I have no problem leaving their link here as it seems to be an excellent site... -HroptR 01:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caps Issues

[edit]

What we seem to have here with the edit I reverted is a conflict between some Wikipedia conventions and the exceptions that need to be made when the words are part of an established name. In contemporary usage, for example, "Pagan" is not the same thing as "pagan". And the general idea of reconstructionism is not the same thing as in, for instance, "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism", as the latter is part of an established tradition name. I went into this a bit more on the CR page. This is an example of a seemingly minor change actually making a major change in meaning. --Kathryn NicDhàna 17:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cap "Reconstructionist" is fine, but I think "Pagan" really is the same thing as "pagan". I'm also alarmed that you reverted changes to the other links, many of which had used different capitalisation from their article names. I assume this was in error and have put them back, but left CRP alone. —Ashley Y 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. In contemporary usage, "pagan" is often synonymous with having no religion at all. Capital P "Pagan" is more often used to denote a variety of specific religions. --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard anyone say "pagan" to include atheists, though I have heard it to mean "some religion other than Abrahamic". If the most common phrase to describe CR(P) is "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism", and also if it is a title (rather than as a description such as "Hellenic polytheism"), then you are right. Of course, if it is a title rather than a description, it logically leaves open the possibility of Celtic reconstructionist paganism that is not Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. —Ashley Y 05:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my responses at Talk:Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic Traditionalism

[edit]

Gaelic Traditionalism redirects to a particular group, so the link should probably be renamed to that. Should it be moved under CRP? —Ashley Y 19:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As there currently is no Wiki article for GT, I would leave the title for GT unlinked, but leave the category so the sites listed can be linked to. CnG could link to the Wiki article, though I'm not sure that other webpage is notable enough to be listed. As has been made clear on both talk pages, no one wants GT put under the CR category. Hell, I'll just do it myself, it's easier than explaining it. --Kathryn NicDhàna 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They apparently claim to be Celtic, and reconstructionist, and pagan. I would say they should either be under CRP (since that's what they seem to be trying to be) or else not be on the page at all. —Ashley Y 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You *really* need to read through the talk pages for both the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism and Clannada na Gadelica articles before trying to make those sorts of changes, as well as better familiarize yourself with the subject matter. This has been talked to death, at times in an incredibly heated manner, at other times with struggles towards compromise and understanding, by many people over many months. Please note the warning at the top of the Clannada na Gadelica talk page, and read through all the archived talk pages before attempting to make changes in how these groups are categorized and named. Putting CnG under CR would go against the self-naming of that group; as other editors on the CnG (formerly GT) article said: "It's not how you or I would describe them, it's how they describe themselves. It's not the place of Wiki editors to re-name them." Seriously, do not attempt to go and change the categories these groups go in without gaining a thorough understanding of the history of both of those pages, and a history of both of these movements. It's not something that can be reduced to simple semantics. --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we put them both under some other neutral "Celtic" heading, or something? Or should this one single group even be here at all?
The thing is, people come here and expect things to make sense in the article pages. If there's any kind of weirdness or confusion, it needs to be explained to the reader here; you shouldn't expect people to have to dig through archived talk pages to understand what's going on. So right now, there are these two apparently "Celtic" entries, and the ordinary reader would expect one (the group) to be put under the other (the generic). If there's some reason why this shouldn't be done, the reader ought to know. —Ashley Y 18:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Casual readers of Wikipedia are not expected to read through the talk pages. Those who want to edit the content and categorization of Wikipedia articles *are* expected to know the subject matter at least that thoroughly. The fact that confusing things exist out there, or that some groups define themselves in confusing ways... there's nothing Wikipedians can do about that but report it honestly. It is not our role to try to "clarify" when that "clarification" would involve misrepresenting the groups we are reporting on. Please read or re-read the pages concerning No Original Research; hopefully that will clarify things for you. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is, we're not doing a good job of reporting it honestly. The reader is left mystified why this one group is listed here separately, and that needs to be explained one way or the other. It is our role to clarify confusing situations, and surely that can be done without misrepresenting anyone.
Do you think CnG should be listed here? If so, can you explain to the casual reader why it should be separated from CRP? —Ashley Y 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "here"? Do you mean you want to remove the CnG Wiki article link from the "See Also" section, or from the organizations list? As the CnG (formerly GT) article is still kind of a mess and, as far as I can tell, not thoroughly converted to being only about CnG, and still has disclaimers on it, linking to that article may not actually be the kindest thing right now. If you are talking about just removing the Wiki link from the "See Also" list, that wouldn't really be a problem, imho, as they are already listed in the Organizations section with a link to their website (which is more representative of the group than the Wiki piece). But again, it's not apt to put them under CR because that is not how *they* define their tradition. It would be like taking two somewhat similar, but seperate, traditions of Wicca and listing one as a subset of the other.
On a related note, have you looked at all the websites listed under Organizations? I think some are duplicates. I believe the "Gaelic Tribalism" section opens with a website that duplicates all or most of the other sites listed there. --Kathryn NicDhàna 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant from the "See also" section. Let's remove it from there. —Ashley Y 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formats

[edit]

Right now this article uses three different styles of citation. We need to standardize to one. Before I go through changing all the refs, I'd like input on which one we want to go with. I added the Bonewits quote using the php.cite, as my understanding is that this is the most recent, preferred method in general on WP. I also prefer it over the individually hand-numbered method that is currently in most of the article as php.cite allows for new cites to be put in without having to go through and re-number every other footnote. Thoughts? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the newer php.cite method you used for Bonewits is best, if it dispenses with having to go back and reorder every time someone cites a source. WeniWidiWiki 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neopagaństvo

[edit]

I just want to ask, why is in this article about Reconstructionism wiki-link on polish wikipedia article about Neopagaństvo, when there is also wiki-link on Rekonstrukcjonizm. For this pell-mell with two links on polish wikipedia one wiki-bot deleted from polish and czech articles about Reconstructionism links on this article.

I don't know why or by whom was here given this second polish article-link, but from the first time I saw it here, I feel it si mistake (paganism is not the same as Reconstructionism) but I also feel that I am not right person to repair it. I feel it is wrong but because I don't know the reasons why is there this double-link, I cannot do nothing with this. Not until someone explain it or repair it.

--Niusereset, czech user, 4.VII. MMVII, 23:15 CEST


Tahnks for solving this problem.
--Niusereset, czech user, 5.VII. MMVII, 23:55 CEST


[edit]

I agree with dab, we've got too many links here. There are also links to sites of low quality (geocities pages with very little info, even a YahooGroup), as well as overlaps in groups covered. The hidden text posted at the top (not sure who posted it) - notability determined by having WP articles, official recognition by gov't, or established over ten years - would mean almost all of these links being cut. I'm not sure that would be bad thing. WP is an encyclopedia, not a networking site. I also know that there are some websites listed that *claim* their groups have been established for over ten years, but that that is not accurate. So, if we're going to have any external links, I propose we agree on some compromise between the suggested standard and the free for all that exists here now. I would be fine on the proposed tougher standard. But I'd like to see some consensus before accepting that standard and proceeding with the slash and burn. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial cleanup

[edit]

This could still be cleaned up further, but I have separated out WP:Notable groups by putting traditions and groups with their own articles in the "See also" section. Per WP:MOS I've put the external links down under external links. I've cut YahooGroups, pages with ads, and duplicate pages (such as a site that just lists sites that are already on the list; the alternative would be to cut that handful of sites and just leave the one that links to them all... actually, that would probably be better). As this is English WP, and we have too many links, I also cut most of the pages that aren't in English. My policy reason for this is WP:NOT#Info - we simply can't link to every site out there, and I'd hope that this article on other language-Wikis can cover those. More of these can probably go, so I've left the linkfarm flag for now, but it's a start. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alright: my point is that the "Specific traditions" section belongs in the article body, listing notable traditions (with their own articles). There can still be an "organizations" section under External links. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Further information: World Congress of Ethnic Religions and Talk:Koenraad_Elst § Vlaams_Blok.2C_again

I think the WCER link is relevant. "Ethnic" and "Reconstructionist" overlap significantly, and for many of us are exactly the same thing. From WCER's Declarations:

Ethnic and/or 'Pagan' religions have suffered great injury and destruction in the past from religions claimmg they possess the only truth. ... We believe that the dawn of a new era of individual and intellectual freedom and global exchange of views and information gives us an apportunity to start again to return to our own native spiritual roots in order to re-claim our religious heritage. ... Let us be proud of our reborn ethnic religions.

There's nothing there that indicates only unbroken traditions are included, and judging by the member groups, they'd have to include reconstructed faiths. In terms of the racial side of it, they add this in the second declaration:

We understand the term "Ethnic" as referring to religions and cultures that are related to a particular people's cosmology as it is expressed in cultural and social terms as well as ancestral. We recognize that many factors makes up people's identity. ... Historically those of other ethnic backgrounds have been adopted into new ones if they took on the beliefs and mores that are a larger part of the identity of that people.

Also their main contact appears to be a member of Romuva, which is "based on preserved Lithuanian pagan customs and archaic pre-Christian folklore. Compare with Celtic and Vedic beliefs." I think this is a relevant link, so I'm inclined to put it back in. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can keep it I suppose. But I've looked into WCER, and they happen to be an heterogenous bunch: besides reconstructionalists from Greece and hyper-traditionalists from the Baltic, they include megalith freaks from Spain, and Neodruids from France, neo-fascists from Belgium, among others. So, yes, some members qualify as "PR", while others clearly don't, so that I don't see how the umbrella organization is relevant to PR. They do not in fact have any members representing genuine "unbroken indigenous" religions, although they have taken pains to shake hands with Native American representants, and they (the Belgian neo-fascists, specifically) invited Vishva Hindu Parishad to their congress, so that unsuspecting fuzzy neopagan participants ended up face-to-face with the burning hatemongery of the sort of S. P. Attri :o) dab (𒁳) 11:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFA

[edit]
Further information: Asatru Folk Assembly

Does the AFA qualify as "reconstructionist"? Their idea seems to center on occultist or mysticist notion of "ethnic essence" ("Metagenetics"), and in spite of the "Asatru" moniker, they do not reconsruct Norse polytheism, but some folkish notion of "Peoples of the North". Their "declaration of purpose"[20] has

  • The preservation of the Peoples of the North (typified by the Scandinavian/Germanic and Celtic peoples), and the furtherance of their continued evolution

I don't know -- if they do reconstructionism they do reconstructionism, peace to them. They also state "Asatru today is a reconstructed version of what our ancestors practiced. We have adapted it to the context of modern life, but the essence remains the same." There is a difference between serious reconstruction followed by conscious adaptation to a modern context, and simply flawed reconstruction. From the gist of the article, "Reconstructionist Paganism" seems to be mainly a polemic directed against flawed "reconstruction" or "tradition" along the lines of Wicca. There appears to be no point directed against those who do not reconstruct because they "know" the true essence of historical religion because it is in their blood / their genes. This lack of distinction between reconstruction and "nativism" makes the whole thing vulnerable to national mysticist subversion: PRs stand united against the muddleheaded Wiccans while the ethnic "blood+bone" ideologists sneak in through the back door. As evidenced by an article by Alain de Benoist cited as "reference" in the "Overview" section. The longer I look into this, the less clear it becomes that "PR" is in fact a movement, as opposed to an effort at debunking Wicca within neopagan discourse. dab (𒁳) 12:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"PRs stand united against the muddleheaded Wiccans while the ethnic "blood+bone" ideologists sneak in through the back door." - Heh, yeah, we've had that problem with the Celtic/Gaelic milieu as well. In 2001 I had someone plagiarise an early website of mine and then twist it to promote a weird, racist ideology. It's definitely a problem, and the reason banner campaigns like Heathens against Hate and CAORANN were started. Asatru is large enough now that there's a ton of variation across groups that identify as such, at least among the ones I've encountered in the US. The Germanic and Celtic groups here have a lot in common, and have worked together on some projects. As both Germanic and Celtic Reconstructionism (and their offshoots) have grown, we've seen people identify as such without sharing the principles of those who founded the movements. I do believe that Polytheistic Reconstructionism is a movement. There were enough "Pagan Reconstructionist" groups in 1979 for Margot Adler to devote a chapter to them in Drawing Down the Moon, and it's grown quite significantly since then. There are general Reconstructionist communities online, where I've seen commonalities among people from different ethnic traditions, but those commonalities only go so far when we are maintaining our distinct traditions rather than being syncretic. The unity comes from the shared principles of authenticity, scholarship and cultural cohesion. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, the fact remains that we have individual entries for specific organizations for all "traditions" except Finnish (Taivaannaula since 2007?) and Celtic. All "organisations" linked at the CRP article appear to be either internet "gateways" or personal homepages, with the exception of IMBAS, which appears to have constituted itself in 1999 in Seattle. If it is correct that IMBAS is the only known CPR group that is institutionalised in any sense, this should perhaps be made clear in the main article. dab (𒁳) 11:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As seen in other Neopagan traditions, and in Wiccan groups, very few bother to incorporate. In the late 1990s and early 2000s there was AACT - Aisling Association of Celtic tribes, but the organisers and members decided to return to focusing on their in-person organising activities and local groups rather than run such an ambitious project. The burnout factor with national and international groups, which are almost always volunteer-run, is rather high. The local groups that belonged to these larger organisations are still out there, but not so high-profile as they were when part of an incorporated group. And as I noted elsewhere, we hear about a lot of these groups when a member of one of them posts on an e-mail list, writes us privately, or puts up a MySpace page or similar (such as when we heard directly from people in twelve countries and twenty US states who were all performing the CR/Págánacht Samhain ritual). But the fact that some members of groups also communicate with the broader community via online technology doesn't somehow mean their groups don't exist IRL (which in some cases it seems like you've been implying). While I do know for a fact that a few of the "groups" that have since been deleted from this article (and whose inclusion I objected to from the beginning) were not in fact "groups" but one person with webcrafting skills, the ones I've been including are ones where I have personal knowledge of there being an actual group behind the web presence, and have had personal communication with multiple members of said group. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the general "individualist" situation in neopaganism, and of course it isn't necessarily a bad thing, I am not trying to belittle the movement for not being neatly organized in churches. Still, in the spirit of WP:V, on Wikipedia we are bound to discuss things that have been documented. You can't have a secretive underground movement and at the same time insist there be a Wikipedia article about it. So the article first and foremost will need to be about those people who do come forward and announce their existence publicly (e.g. in official censuses). Our headcount will have large margin of errors (see my efforts at Neopaganism in the United States), but we'll still have to use what sources we have to sketch the situation. From what is here, I would guess CRP has a few hundred adherents, but it would be nice to have some quotable estimate. Unless we have tangible sources from religious studies or demography, we'll have to address the topic as an internet phenomenon and base discussion on online sources for what they are worth. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to address User:Breandan u c's {{rpa}}'d post, I do think that seeing the general quality of sources at the CRP article, sinnsreachd.org should certainly figure as an "umbrella" website for five or six other websites. Some of the websites linked incredibly even state where they are located (Texas, Kansas) and give us an idea of their group size ("small", "two households"), which by neopagan standards is incredibly down-to-earth (your typical website goes on about the ancient Gaels for page after page without giving you so much as a hint who or where they are). Anyway, this discussion belongs on Talk:Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism. dab (𒁳) 10:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, while I stand by my views that I expressed, I apologize for making it personal earlier. It should have been phrased differently and the personal aspects left out of it. As a personal dispute, it should be hammered out away from here, and to the rest of the editors I apologize. Secondly, I think the sinnsreachd.org site as an umbrella for the Sinnsreachd movement would be fine, and while I am unaware of the current status of the Clannada na Gadelica, if they are still in operation they should be added back in as well due to the large number of people identifying as Gaelic Traditionalists. No need to list each and every website out there, since most of them are linked from umbrella sites.--Breandán 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - dab removed the external links. Cheers. Pigmanwhat?/trail 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes: I believe the best place to link to individual Celtic Reconstructionist websites will be the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article. I have re-introduced the sinnsreachd.org link to that page. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reconstructionism "vs." traditionalism

[edit]

I agree that the two approaches in practice will have a lot of overlap. Nevertheless, there is room for antagonism. Of course the reconstructionists 'embrace' tradition, but the fact is that traditionalism (Folketro) originates as criticism of reconstructionism the same way reconstructionism originates as criticism of eclecticism. So the line is really drawn on the part of the traditionalists in this case, criticising the reconstructionist approach as misguided by the chances of literary transmission (all Germanic reconstructionists end up re-enacting 13th century Iceland simply because Snorri is the most extensive surviving source, and not because they have any special relation to 13th century Iceland in particular). The way I understand it, traditionalism entails the position that there is no "original" or "pure" tradition that can be reconstructed, because it is the nature of folk tradition to change and adapt with each generation, so that it is much more true to the spirit of "folk religion" to simply take up tradition as it stood prior to Industrialisation, say around 1900, than to piece together the tradition of AD 1200 or 800 from random fragments like a vase in a museum -- which is of course precisely what PR is about, and thus traditionalism in this sense should be taken as a direct counter-movement to reconstructionism. In fact, a traditionalist would object to what Kathryn describes as 'a bit of dusting off and "back-engineering"' as a fundamentally flawed approach: to distinguish between layers of "dust" to be discarded, and an original "core" to be recovered is arbitrary, and you can in principle consider a tradition as consisting entirely of layers upon layers of "dust", so that you could keep removing dust until you have nothing left... dab (𒁳) 13:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


avoid linking to Traditionalism, which is a dab page for good reason: Integral Traditionalism ("Perennialism") is also known as "Traditionalism", and although it is ostensibly not intended here, it does have an impact on Neopaganism, viz. as the ideology of Neo-Fascist currents of Asatru. dab (𒁳) 15:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section?

[edit]

I think this article would benefit with a "Criticisms" section. I'm not sure how many authentic sources could be found though. Most criticisms come from non-Religionist Neopagans, and in the form of personal opinion stated in online venues. The only thing I could find was some backhanded comments from Isaac Bonewits' The Pagan Man. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft by Ronald Hutton

[edit]

The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft by Ronald Hutton is listed as a source, but I'm not seeing where it was cited or could have been used in the article. I'm questioning if it was actually used, and should is be removed? --151.201.149.209 (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this has nothing to do with reconstructionism. --dab (𒁳) 07:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hutton has certain theories that would be of interest to reconstructionists, such as that the early Norse, Icelandic and Irish literary sources can tell us nothing about the pre-Christian religions of these places, and that paganism was mostly dead throughout Europe by the 8th century, and entirely dead by the 11th, except in a few very marginal areas. He's really going out on his own limb with a lot of this, taking a position that's at one extreme end of scholarly thinking, and many of his theories rely on a) a rather crafty use of unconventional and poorly explained semantics; and/or b) an ignorance of modern developments in related fields of history. Some of the things he presents as being believed "by most scholars" are actually the opposite of scholarly consensus.
Feel free to remove this reference, and if someone wants they can add it back with an inline citation, and we can then scrutinize whether it's actually a representative statement, or whether we need to provide opposing views! Fuzzypeg★ 05:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That "Hutton has certain theories that would be of interest to reconstructionists" is different from Hutton's book is relevant to the article and used in its creation. The book was listed as a source for this article, and there is nothing in this article that would lead me to believe it was. Also, most recons (from my experience), because on the emphasis of history, do not need to read a book on "Modern Pagan Witchcraft" to know when and how pagan religions died in Europe.
This also begs the question, why are irrelevant and unused "sources" being used to prop-up articles? I only asked about the one, but Dbachmann deleted most of the list. What is the intent of using books on witchcraft and the Neopagan movement, when the dominant opinion seems to be that Polytheistic reconstructionism is distinct from popular Neopagan culture. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, when dealing with topics of online culture, or significanlty influenced by online culture, we need to be extra careful to avoid WP:OR, WP:SYN, and vanity or editorializing presentations by sympathetic editors. This is the article on reconstructionism, and it needs to be based on sources discussing reconstructionism, not cobbling together items related to the general topic from a selection of disparate sources. The edit repeatedly pushed by the anon here is also a typical case in point, viz., the attempt to inflate the topic. Note the suggestive use of "superficial", and the sprinkling of "positive" terms like "values", "ethical", "ancient", "reverence". Pure WP:SOAP. What we need are neutral third-party descriptions of the current, not a "we about us" type of writeup. --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of words like "values", "ethical", "ancient", and "reverence" are definitive terms to describe Reconstructonism. Have you read the article on religion?
A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
In the frame of western religious thought, religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane. Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.
If Polytheistic Reconstructionism is a method of reviving an ancient religion, than these terms are not used to show bias, but in direct relation to what a religion (and specifically an orthopraxy) is, by definition, and these religions' approaches.
A second point, if you believe this article is primarily about "online culture" than you have not done enough research on Polytheistic Reconstructionism. The fact is the "online culture" is a minority opinion which is often at odds with real world groups and organizations. Also, if this articles relied solely on "online culture" then it losses all notability in my opinion. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
look, the main problem is that we do not have any sources for this article, beyond an online self-portrait of PRists. If this is about discussing PR specifically, as opposed to neopaganism in general, we'll need to do it in terms of what is specific to PR. Fuzzy statements about "ways of life" aren't going to help there. For lack of sources, we are also depending on the good will of those involved, which I have been most willing to show, but if you are going to insist we do this the difficult way, this article might just end up deleted or merged, due to complete and utter lack of dedicated independent third party sources (see WP:NOTE). I would think this a pity, but this is where you are pushing things atm. I honestly have the impression that you do not understand the distinction of "ethnic" Neopaganism like Asatru and actual PR. Asatru as practiced in Iceland, the USA or the UK has nothing to do with PR, nor does it claim to. dab (𒁳) 16:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WCER unrelated?

[edit]

How is the World Congress of Ethnic Religions unrelated to this article when it, and its member groups, are important aspects of this article and its notability? --151.201.149.209 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you obviously haven't looked at the WCER member list. They have nothing whatsoever to do with reconstructionism. If they happen to have a reconstructionist member group, this would be purely by co-incidence. They are just an umbrella group of mainstream neopaganism. Also, dear anonymous, if you would like to pursue this argument, might I ask that you sign up for an account. --dab (𒁳) 16:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

[edit]

We need to cite the claim to be aiming for "reconstruction" for each group mentioned, and discuss whatever it is they mean by that in their own terms. So far, I can see

  • paganachd.com ("CR")
  • templeofsumer.org
  • Pravoslavya / H. Lozko: "The dissertation Ukrainian Heathenism as a Source of Everyday Religious Syncretism proves the possibility of a reconstruction of the ancient Ukrainian religion." [21]
  • Rodzima Wiara: l'idée d'une reconstruction de la religions originelle de la Pologne. [22]

However, compiling such a list still falls under WP:SYN unless we can cite some third party source that discusses the phenomenon in similar terms. --dab (𒁳) 17:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, your argument is that once we reduce this article to organizations who have verifiable 3rd party notability, and only after removing reference to organizations you state are Polytheistic Reconsctuctionism (which includes more than WCER), then this article has a notability issue and needs to be deleted? I think what you are saying if this article cannot support your opinion then it should not exist? --151.201.149.209 (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTE. It isn't "my argument", but Wikipedia core policy, that we can't have an article on groups that aren't covered in any quotable third party sources. This has nothing to do with "my opinion": I don't have any, I am merely interpreting sources, and have come to the conclusion that there are none.

Fwiiw, from the various web pages we link, it seems there are two waves of movements sometimes called "reconstructionism". The first loosely uses the term for anything "non-Wicca", i.e. "reconstructionist" in loosely being inspired by history as opposed to Gardner, and the second, late 1980s to 1990s wave, being the "narrow" reconstructionism as described at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, i.e. rejecting the "Asatru" type of ethnic fantasy for actual reconstruction of an actual epoch (as opposed to taking one macro-ethnic group smeared over several millennia). Since we have no sources on any of this, it will still be WP:OR even if we get it right. --dab (𒁳) 17:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. We have the definition of "reconstructionism" pushed by Adler and Bonewits, which may be "scholarly" but is generally still eclectic, wholly Neopagan, and does not report to actually revive cultural pre-Christian religions themselves, and the "reconstructionism" described in "Uncovering the Effects of Cultural Background on the Reconstruction of Ancient Worldviews" by Bil Linzie that was used in the "Overview" section of this article. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why "pushed"? I would rather say "coined". I would be happy to get a solid discussion of groups which actually revive cultural pre-Christian religions themselves, but this appears to be more difficult than expected (do they exist? Who has verified their claims?) --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I said pushed is because while he did coin "a phrase" in the 70s it does not look like it actual came into use until the 90s, and there is no real evidence groups adopted the term from his coining rather then its use by other religious movements. (Christian Reconstructionism, Reconstructionist Judaism) The link is only assumed. Bonewits, as evidenced in his book Pagan Man, wants to take credit, but also likes to state which are taking the right approach (those who are more Eclectic and Neopagan), and those that are not (those who are more historical based and culturally specific). --151.201.149.209 (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, excellent, I must admit I had missed the Linzie (2004) reference. This appears to have been published on Northvegr originally, but I suppose we should use it as a resource at least until we find something more solid. --dab (𒁳) 08:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we can agree to base this largely on the Linzie paper, I can see this article getting somewhere. We'll still need to be cautious to include other views, but at least the basic outline of the topic won't be completely up in the air. Linzie explicitly fixes the beginning of PR in the late 1960s, with the first emergence of Asatru. But he also specifically excludes any movements basing themselves on notions of "pan-European paganism", which will exclude large portions of USian Asatru (especially Stephen McNallen), who see Nordic paganism merely as an expression of the "European Folkways" (by which they mean an inherited religion of white people). "Asatru" in this sense would not qualify as PR according to Linzie, no matter how much Old Norse terminology they throw around. --dab (𒁳) 09:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, groups focused on creating a pan-Indo-European religions (such as the ADF) fall under what Bonewits calls Eclectic Reconstructionist Neopaganism, but this is not the culturally specific reconstructions of many groups that identify as Reconstructionist, such as Hellenismos, Religio Romana, CR, Kemeticism, and others. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page introduction

[edit]

This content in the opening section is disputable: "Reconstructionists tend to view the tendencies of proselytization (missionary activity) and orthodoxy (prescribed doctrines) found in the major world religions as destructive to the cultures and societies subjected to these practices.[2]" I read through the reference and couldn't find any justification for a generalised statement such as this. I've modified it but it should ultimately be restored to the original or a citation for the original text found. NZUlysses (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this has a place in the intro at all. --dab (𒁳) 05:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this section from the introduction:"Many practitioners of folk religions live outside of the original cultures and territories from which those historical religions arose, and reconstructonists consequently face the problem of understanding, and then implementing, the worldview of pre-modern rural societies in a modern, possibly urban environment." I removed it for two reasons- the first is that this statement can apply to non-reconstructionist religions, such as Buddhism and Christianity. The second is that it, intentionally or not, this segment sounds as if it is attempting to de-credit the reconstructionist movements, which violates the non-objectivity rule. Yoggytheoreo (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)yoggytheoreo[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that "polytheistic reconstructionism" is merged into "modern Paganism". The reason is that the article is of a very low quality, lacking substance and poorly sourced, and the term "reconstructionism" seems to be a fringe descriptor or have largely fallen out of favour both within the communities of modern Pagans and within the academia. Religions that some have classified as "reconstructionist" largely employ the terms "traditional", "indigenous" and "native" to present themselves, as it is already described in the main article.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly agree that this is a low quality article in desperate need of work, the idea that reconstructionism has fallen out of favor or that this should be merged into paganism is misguided. I'm curious as to your sources on that. If anything, there is a noticeable trend of a complete separation between Neopaganism and reconstructionist religions, with most reconstructionists preferring to no longer use the term "pagan" or associate with the larger pagan community due to certain connotations of the term "pagan" and the pagan umbrella both from inside and outside of that community. Polythiestic reconstructionism, as a term, has become more of what it was intended: a catch-all term for unconnected religions from varied world cultures that share only some methodology and intent behind their resurrection. They, by and large, wish to not only separate from Neopaganism and its Wiccan roots and influences but also from one another, to be recognized as the independent and unique religions that they are, as can clearly be seen with Asatru. There is some comradery between reconstructionist groups from different source cultures, but most often it is only in as much as an exchange of methodology and a shared status against the background of Wiccan privilege within the general pagan community, for those who choose to continue those associations. Ruyn13 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruyn13:, Thanks for your comments. Could you weigh in over at Talk:Modern Paganism#Proposal for merging "polytheistic reconstructionism" with "modern Paganism"? I think that's the more central discussion. Thanks! - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polytheistic_reconstructionism&oldid=1194764098"