Talk:Heathenry in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Scope of the Ásatrú entry

The Ásatrú entry has been resurrected and the general consensus is that this entry is specifically confined to people and groups who self-identify themselves as Ásatrú and exclusively follow the Eddaic religion. This entry specifically does not encompass the entire Germanic Heathen milieu or Neonazi groups. When editing or adding to this entry, please also consider that there are separate entries specifically for the following subjects, and whether your edits would be more appropriate there:

• Odinism
• Theodism
• Germanic Neopaganism
• Germanic Paganism
• Norse Paganism
• Norse Mythology
• Paganism

This has been a controversial subject in the past. Please observe the thews of Wikipedia:

• Cite Sources
• Cite Verifiable Sources
• Do Not Use Original Research
• Use Reliable Published Sources
• Maintain a Neutral Point of View

HroptR 05:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

View Wiktionary þēaw if you don't know about thews. Metarhyme 14:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many new links which have been added to the end of this article, which violate the umbrella people and groups who self-identify themselves as Ásatrú and exclusively follow the Eddaic religion that we came to consensus on when this entry branched off from Germanic Neopaganism. The Odinic Rite and several other groups which have been added *do not* identify themselves as Ásatrú. Links for this and other such groups belong at Germanic Neopaganism. Also, the Rune Gild is distinctly *not* a religious group - anyone of any religion or belief can be a member of the RG. - WeniWidiWiki 17:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point but those link are in the "see also" section. Do links there need to be groups that self describe as Asatru? Many OR members use Asatru and Odinism interchangably as do many practitioners of Asatru. I don't really mind either way but I can see the relevance of some of those links in the see also section.

The "See also" section can be anything related to the subject, so I don't see anything that needs to be removed there. The Ásatrú entry - much like the Odinic Rite entry has gotten so big that it needs to be separate from the umbrella Germanic Neopaganism. People's propensity to turn every Heathen and Recon related entry into a link-farm has been a problem in the past, and it's starting to get bad again... I'm not advocating the removal of the links from wikipedia, just for them to be moved to their more relevant respective entries. - WeniWidiWiki 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the Theodish and the followers of Fyrnsidu(basically Anglo-Saxon Heathenism) do not self-identify as Asatru.--AnnaBucci (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging with Germanic neopaganism

As far as I have observed in Germany, and if you look araound in the Internet. The article's definition of Asatru as non-neo-Nazi Eddaic is not widely used in the scene. Wikipedia should stick to the broad use. E.g. the German neo-Nazi Artgemeinschaft has reserved both the domains asatru.de and asatru.eu E.g. four political tolerant groups (German Eldaring, Danish Forn Sidr, Dutch Het Rad and the Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið) have reserved asatru.info

In Academic publications these two terms are used interchangably. I therefore strongly advice to merge these two articles. Everything wouldn't express the way the term Asatru is used. The Merging of the categories must follow as well. --Levthanatos 09:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

what evidence do you have that "In Academic publications these two terms are used interchangably"? I realize the terms are often lumped together, but I advise against merging. It has been discussed, scope and variant uses of the term are properly declared, and the risk of misunderstanding has been minimized. Keep in mind that we need to optimize Wikipedia against well-meaning but little-informed kneejerk additions. I think things work best as they are now, your merger would destabilize what we have put considerable effort into stabilizing: this is my advice based on my experience with the topic here on WP, but I will not bicker about it, so you will meet no actual resistance from me. dab (ᛏ) 19:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Thing is: The term Asatru as part of Germanic neopaganism, for those who are a) eddaic and b) non-neo-Nazi, is as far I have experienced and as one can see from the Organisation's websites as just another name for Germanic neopaganism.

E.g. Michael Lenz in this articles: Is he Asatru or just Germanic neopagan? One cannot really seperate this. There are racist neopagans who call themselves Asatru. There is IMO no wide-accepted definition of Asatru that would differ from that of Germanic neopaganism--Levthanatos 12:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

well, I think I do understand the problem. This is really no different than with other designations. What is a "Christian"? There are two approaches to the question,

a) anybody who self-designates as "Christian"

b) anybody who fulfills certain criteria, such as accepting that Christ has historically lived, was crucified and rose from the dead, and furthermore accepts the gospel as an authority over their own lives, etc.

for most practical purposes, the two approaches will yield almost identical results, in fact, b) is really just an abstraction, an algorithm intended to yield the members enumerated in a). In a given biography, it may be a matter of taste whether the subject's denomination is given as "Christian" or as "Lutheran", with both a possibility. I am not sure "non-Nazi" is a requirement for qualifying as "Asatru" any more than as "Christian", in fact the contradiction seems to be more straightforward in the "Christian" case, yet you will probably not find "non-Nazi" in any definition of "Christianity".

regarding the difference between "Asatru" and "Germanic Neopaganism" in general, it is clear that the former is at least a true subset of the latter, according to some definitions they may coincide. But as you say yourself,

The term Asatru as part of Germanic neopaganism, for those who are a) eddaic (emphasis mine)

"Asatru" proper is equivalent to Eddaic Neopaganism, not 'Germanic' in general. The difference is significant, since there are reconstructionist movements that do not rely no the Edda (notably Anglo-Saxon groups). The tendency I observe at least in Switzerland seems to be to move away from using "Asatru" in a loose sense in favour of "Forn Sed" and related terms: translated into the local idiom, this group of terms adequately expresses what is intended without making implications about things Eddaic. dab (ᛏ) 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

While "non-Nazi" or "non-racist" may not be included in a general definition of Christianity, I do think it's very telling that Christian Identity - a racist branch claiming to be a Christian denomination - is not only given it's own listing, but it is *NOT* (as of this writing) included in the general article on Christianity, nor does it appear on the list of denominations, even under the catch-all header of "other." There is no template identifying it as a part of any series of articles, much less a series on Christianity. There's a note at the top of the page intended to letting people know that "[f]or the general identity of an individual with certain core essential religious doctrines, see Christianity," and the only connection to Christianity listed in the Categories at the bottom of the page is the inclusion of Christian terrorism. The only other categories listed are: Christian Identity | Racism | Religiously motivated violence in the United States" Lastly, not even the "See also" section refers the reader to the "Christianity" page, instead it links to: "Positive Christianity," "Christian Patriot movement," "Project Megiddo," "Pre-Adamites," "Racism," "Khazars" and "August Kreis III". So maybe "non-Nazi" and "non-racist" aren't listed as actual attributes of Christianity, but for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia appears to assume that even though a movement calls itself "Christian," if it is racist in nature it's NOT a part of Christianity, and maintains a complete segregation between the two. Racists and Neo-Nazi's who use Asatru/Heathenry/Odinism/Germanic Neo-Paganism (A/H/O/GNP) as a means of achieving their ends should be viewed no more a part of A/H/O/GNP than Christian Identity is viewed as a part of Christianity. Thorswitch (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Dieter's assertions here. Germanic neopaganism is an 'umbrella' term, a generic description much like 'Christianity' or 'Islam'. 'Heathen' and its multitude of translated variants (heithni, heithinn, et cetera) can serve as equivalents of 'Germanic neopaganism', but Asatru as well as Ásatrú are distinct varieties. I can think of at least half a dozen of such without even trying very hard.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the suggested merge. I was going to make an argument, but I see that all the points I would have made have already been stated, so I'll simply add my agreement.

Steve Lowther 04:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

If a relevant infobox could be added on the right side it would be very helpful. Thanks. -Emiellaiendiay 23:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

changes needed

this entry seems as if it were translated from a foreign language and then simply cut and pasted, there is a great deal of minor errors present. I did my best to clean it up, but it looks like it still needs work... also, there seems to be too much opinion involved in the entry HammerHeadHuman 05:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

new?

Ásatrú (Icelandic "Æsir faith") is a new religious movement which is attempting to revive the Norse paganism of the Viking Age

Ásatrú originated as a second (or third) revival of Germanic paganism in the 1960s and early 1970s

I object to this. it's the same as the original viking faith (or trying to be the same?), and I believed it was called Ásatrú back then as well.

suggestion: Ásatrú is an old religious faith of the viking age, which has recently been revived. Thoes who currently practice it are part of the second (or third) revival of this faith.

How can it be "the same"? Do you have a time-machine? The term Ásatrú is relatively modern. This is covered in the etymology and has been discussed at length. Please cite sources. - WeniWidiWiki 22:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"trying to be the same" is fair enough. But then Lutheranism is also "trying to be the same" as Early Christianity, and we still wouldn't call it identical. it was not "called Ásatrú back then as well" either; if you'd be willing to read this article, you will learn that the term is 19th century coinage. dab

(𒁳) 09:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Asatro" refered to the old belief, and in Scandinavia it still does. See for example Carl Gustaf Leopold, Samlade skrifter. 1-3 (2 uppl.), 4-6. Stockholm 1800-02. 2 uppl. 1814-33. See also the Swedish version of this article, which covers the old believes - the modern revival is only a subsection.

I believe that Asatru is a slightly more mature name for a peaceful combination of two existing religions, Odinism, and Wicca as practiced in Nordic culture? I have seen it's use in referrence to very old incarnations of Odinism, But only the post-vanic wars version. To draw a correlation, Odinism is like the old testament and Asatru is like the new testament, the division being the marriage of Odinism with Wicca.

It is believed that much of the Norse Odinic religion was carried north with tribes who followed an early Indian religion, a proto-hindu if you will. These gods (The Aesir) and the existing gods (The Lord and Lady, or Frey and Freya, named the Vanir and also being the two gods of Wicca) warred and then eventually made peace.

This is an ancient mythology, some of which is recorded in cave paintings and pottery, so such interactions would have been playing out around 1000 B.C. at the latest. It is highly likely that the mythologies were arranged to include such a meeting. That the meeting took place and is recorded in the mythology is certain.

That the religions split off into factions with varying Wiccan or Odinic influence at some point (lost in time, BTW) bears the clash of the two religions witness. I have read of Tribes in the far north of Scandinavia (Pukkha?) that never stopped worshipping "The Old Gods", Never converted to christianity, and who look at asatru as a subset of the Odinic religion. Likewise, There have been historical reports of underground Wicca who fought to hold onto their religion in its original form, and believe they are worshipping the old way.

In this respect, "Asatru" would refer to the mature religion that resulted from natural religio-evolution. Keeping in mind that many of the tribes and regions of Ancient Northern Europe had varying names (And in some cases even portfolios) for the same gods, It can be said that the evolution of both Odinism and Wicca were effected by the juxtaposition of the two systems of belief, irrespective of the outcome, Asatru.

All in all, I believe that the article is written from a biased christian viewpoint. (Ironic, considering that Christianity is really the new kid on the block, so to speak. Everything christian is comparatively Neo. The modern widely practiced version is a cobbled together reconstruction. But nobody makes that point when they talk about it.)

I would point out that a revival and a reconstruction need not mean the same thing. That there has been a revival brewing for the last thirty years is undeniable by anyone that knows this religious community. Reconstructions come about when the religion is rediscovered piecemeal (As happened here in America with nearly all of the old religions). It frankly unnerves me when an ancient religion and/or any of it's offshoots are referred to as Neo-anything. It also raises my hackles when a growing and flourishing religion is referred to as "a mythology", indicating a dead religion. Mythology should be a word used to describe the study of the stories of any religion or culture. In the proper methodology, the study of the bible's stories are mythology, christianity is a religion. Finally, denoting a religion's fascist, nazi, commercialist or any other ideal in as broad a way as this gives the impression that the entire religion is tainted with these backwards and anti-social sentiments. Any religions that do not endorse these sentiments openly should have a referrence and link at most, including christianity. Any other treatment should be considered inapropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.20.29 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced

This has been tagged for a month or so - I pulled it and placed it below until it can be reworked. I also pulled the unsourced section on Finnish Paganism because it seems very tenuous, and there is no mention of the info therein at Finnish Paganism. I've asked for sources or clarification on the talk page there. WeniWidiWiki 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Usage

Groups identifying themselves as having Ásatrú cover a wide political and theological spectrum, ranging among left-wing environmentalist groups, New Agers, universalists, tribalists, reconstructionists, folkish groups and even neo-Nazi (e.g. Artgemeinschaft) movements.

In the Nordic countries there still exists a heathen low mythology, which in common terms is simply called den gamle tro (the old belief), or skik, sæd og brug, which may be translated as simply "custom and use", with the connotation of "the way things are". Since about 1900 the old belief has faded rapidly, but there are still those who grow up with it, and swear to it as theirs.

As the pagan low mythology and high mythology are very different, a mixture seldom works very well, even though some Asetroende try to combine elements of the two.

In mainland Scandinavia, the denotation of Ásatrú/Asatro/Asetro has been narrowed down from relating to all of pre-Christian high mythology, low mythology as passed down in oral form, and modern high mythology neo-heathenism, to meaning only the last of these. Most Asetroende in Scandinavia take a firm stand against right-wing or Nazi appropriations of the term. Genuine similarity with U.S. universalism is normally only found in Norse Wicca.

Members of the Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið are somewhat unhappy with the semantic widening of the Icelandic term Ásatrú, and would prefer its usage to specifically apply only to reconstructed medieval Norse high mythology paganism.

This is not correct: asatro still referes to most pre-Christian mythology in Scandinavia.In fact most people are not even aware some people are trying to revive it.

Relationship to Finnish Paganism

Some Finnish neopagans consider Asatru a part of their faith, while others think it is foreign. Those who make a distinction between Asatru and Finnish neopaganism think Asatru is based too much on beliefs of neighbouring countries and not on their own local traditions. Some even see Asatru as a kind of cultural imperialism. Still the ancient faiths of Finland and its Scandinavian neighbours have many similarities, for example a thunder god who strikes lightning with his hammer, and rides in the clouds with his chariot making thunderstorms. (compare Thor and Ukko). Finnish folklore told about a great wizard Väinämöinen, the first and oldest human being, and maybe originally a god, who is - according to some - close to Odin.

Asatruar

The term is the correct genitive of Asatru. You cannot just count google hits and decide on its usage. "Asatruarmenn" means "men of faith in the Aesir". Hence, it would be correct, if somewhat pedantic, to use "Asatruar men", "Asatruar people", "he's an Asatruar man" in English. You could also say "they are Asatruar", eliding "people", I suppose, much like you could say "he's secret service" or something. This doesn't make "Asatruar" a plural any more than "secret service", it will be equally correct to say "he is an Asatruar [man]" as it is to say "they are Asatruar [people]", and both are either pedantry, or fake learning. If you want to discuss how the Genitive is used in English, you will have to find out notable occurrences, just counting google hits tells us nothing. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well with the current version, technically it makes it appear there are only male adherents. How sexist of you Dab :-D What do you propose to clear this up? I fully realize that the common usage is technically wrong, but that it is used (incorrectly) as a group definer is relatively verifiable on web and in print. I think it's important to mention the term because there is an editor who is stating the plural is "Asatru". "The event is attended by many Asatru". This sounds even worse than Asatruar... - WeniWidiWiki 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

um, "man" is of course to be taken in the wider sense. For the purposes of correct, encyclopedic language, it's "adherents of Asatru". I recognize that "Asatruar" is in use as the term for adherents, but this is for both singular and plural. You would have to show who considers this a plural in English usage. dab (𒁳) 20:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was being facetious :-D Your most recent edits work for me. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it, as I know it's rather trivial in the scheme of things. - WeniWidiWiki 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ostroth

I just found that there is a family name Ostroth in the USA.[1][2][3] If this is an English name, it would correspond exactly to a continuation of the Old English equivalent of Asatru. The problem is, this could also be an unrelated German name, Ost-roth rather than Os-troth. I was unable to find anyone called Ostroth either in the UK or in Germany, so that I am unsure whence this family immigrated to the US. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

possibly from Sweden [4], although I am unable to find anyone called Ostroth in Swedish directories either. It's probably unrelated, more's the pity, it would have been nice to find that the word had existed after all... dab (𒁳) 12:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

They may simply be members of the family Östroth who dropped the two dots over the o when they moved to the States.--Berig 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

sounds reasonable. False alarm, apparently :) dab (𒁳) 17:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation

If you know the corerct Pronounciation for the words defined here, could you please define it, using one of the Wikipedia standards. Thanks. Richard Allen 11:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's pronouced "awe-sa-true", however, I'm not sure how to put this on the article in a way that is considered Wikipedia standards... Is there a template, or something that I would have to use? Considering it's an icelandic word, I believe they put the stress on the first letter, instead of the second. So AWEE-sa-tru is indeed the correct pronouciation.Unconscious 11:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The correct modern Icelandic pronunciation is already given in the article in IPA form. It is not, I think, what you are trying to convey here. Perhaps OW-sah-true would come nearer in this sort of approximate pseudo-phonetic English transcription. Haukur 23:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just inserted the IPA because of this comment here. The problem is, of course, that the Old Icelandic pronunciation would be [aːsatruː], and it is unclear whether this term is supposed to be a modern Icelandic word, or a reconstructed Old Norse one. I also found it very difficult to decide, tagging the terms with {{lang}}, whether to put "is" or "non". dab (𒁳) 10:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think [aːsatruː] might be correct for 13th century Old Norse (though I suspect the development of /á/ into a diphthong was already under way then) but for 10th century ON we would have "ǭsatrú" (the first letter is o ogonek macron/acute) with a nasal ǭ (<*ansuz). Haukur 15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He, he. Then, the 10th century pronounciation would have sounded like a french once à trou. That is very interesting.--Berig 16:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

an excellent observation, Haukur. We should also give the ǭsatrū pronunciation (and why not Ansutrewwjaz :). Are you thinking of once "ounce" or once "snow leopard", Berig? dab (𒁳) 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dieter that the 10th century pronouncation should be added. I was thinking of "snow leopard for holes" ;).--Berig 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, but seriously, this level of detail belongs in the terminology section, not in the intro... dab (𒁳) 17:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Slight modification to a poorly worded sentence in the terminology section

The sentence "The first is Ása-, genitive of Áss, one of the Norse pagan gods." read like 'Áss' is a god. I modified it to properly reflect that the Æsir are a group. 194.144.92.20 15:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I'm not sure its fair to say modern rites and such are a modern invention. There is a LOT of research out there from the sagas and other recorded sources.

Liastnir 07:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I pulled the section because it is unsourced. Although the assertion is probably correct, it appears to be OR. Section follows below:

=== Problems with Asatru theology ===

No systematic unified theology for the Norse gods seems to have ever been written down (and may not have ever existed). Most of what has survived was either stories (such as the Prose Edda, writen by Snorri Sturluson about 200 years after Iceland became Christianized) or accounts by Christian monks who came to Scandinavia. The monks wrote down accounts about the native religion which are unreliable at best. The result is while the Asatru know that the gods were worshiped at one time, they don't know why the gods were worshipped. In the stories that survive, the Aesir do very little that in directly beneficial for humans.

So the modern worship of the Aesir is mostly a matter of modern invention, based on the stories.

-WeniWidiWiki 21:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with the OR. Why do you assume it is? --Hengest 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"OR" on Wikipedia means "Original Research" :o) dab (𒁳) 19:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, my mistake. Thanks for the explanation. --Hengest 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree this paragraph is worthless. It's just a biased meditation on polytheistic reconstructionism. This article should, and does, state up front that Asatru is a new religious movement. To say that this is a "problem" is just somebody's opinion. dab (𒁳) 19:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Input wanted

I would like to get some input at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans regarding Religious discrimination against Asatruers. It would be nice if you could give it a look. Thanks. // Liftarn

Politics and controversies

The section Politics and controversies should be reorgarnize since it is a little bit long a complicated with eventually a reference to Heathens against hate. The first paragraphe doesn't directly concern politics and controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astenorh (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging

You are invited to join the discussion over at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans#Merge suggestion regarding if Religious discrimination against Asatru should be merged and if so where. // Liftarn

Introduction section

In the initial introductory section, there is a sentence stating that Asatru is a reconstructionist movement aimed at recreating the Norse paganism of the Viking Age. I find that to be too specific to accurately reflect the diversity of modern Asatruar, especially the "official" Asatru in Iceland, which is very peaceful and earth-centered. First off, Asatru in practice is not always specifically "Norse", but rather "Scandinavian" or "Northern European"; and secondly, many individuals and organizations do not look specifically to the Viking Age for inspiration but rather to simply the pre-Christian era, which includes the Viking Age but is in no way limited to it. Many Asatruar prefer to avoid the whole "Viking" thing, rather focusing on the traditional earth-centered spirituality of the European pastoral/agricultural society (as opposed to Viking warriors and raiders etc). Could this sentence be changed to reflect a wider understanding of Asatru spirituality? 24.116.151.23 21:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Aelswyth

"Norse" isn't meant to mean "Norwegian" but is used in the sense of "North Germanic". But you are right. The definition in the intro is flawed, and in direct contradiction to the actual definitions by adherents cited under "Beliefs and practice". According to these, Ásatrú is:

• in Scandinavia: pantheist spirituality rooted in Scandinavian folklore[5]. In Scandinavia, the term Asatru has in fact been mostly superseded by "forn sed" and cognates, even by groups that carry Asatro in their name [6]
• in the USA: the notion of a racially determined "native European religion"[7][8]
• in Germany: a loose Naturreligion [9], synonymous with Germanic neopaganism in general.

neither has much to do with polytheistic reconstructionism at all (excepting one German proponent). We'll need to correct this, or tag the article with {{contradict}} for now.

dab (𒁳) 09:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it right to link Vanatru to the Asatru article?

As it is now vanatru links to asatru article, that's wrong isn't it, Vanirs were an older religion replaced with Aesirs. Better then link the vanatru to the Vanir-article, right? Magnus Andersson (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's non-historic conjecture based on the internal religious stories; believing them to be projections of historical occurances. Itself likely a false assertion. But most importantly for Wikipedia attestation; non-historical (not found within history, the written record of the past). However, when all/most Indo-European religions have two tribes of gods overthrowing another, be they Deva & Asura or Olympian's & titans/giants, it makes it likely just part of the religion and not an actual older tribe. 70.59.140.179 (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

While I have no doubt whatsoever that Asatru as a whole is not an inherently racist set of beliefs, I have some major problems with this article from a NPOV perspective. Simply put, the accusations of racism that dog Asatru and the role of Asatru and Asatru imagery in the white supremacist movement is a major part of this article that is being heavily downplayed. The ADL, for instance, identifies the Thor's Hammer symbol as a racist symbol: [10]. That does not, of course, mean that all people who use it are racist. But it does mean that the article on Asatru needs to provide a better and more thorough documentation of these connections - one that acknowledges the reality that Asatru, being a movement rather than an organization, is a movement that has attracted attention and adoption by the white supremacist movement.

To be clear, I think the article should still heavily emphasize that Asatru and racism do not go hand in hand, and that most/many/the vast majority/whatever is accurate and sourceable followers are not white supremacists. But it should not, as it currently does, bury that connection either. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, many white supremacists are protestants too, aren't they? Don't you think that the connection between Ku Klux Klan and Protestantism is being downplayed in the article on Protestantism too? In fact Protestantism does not even appear to mention that many of its adherents are racists! Go ahead and tag it that article as well, please.--Berig (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you would be hard pressed to seriously argue that the adoption of Asatru symbols and Protestant symbols among white supremacists is of equal import to the respective topics. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Protestantism is a movement that brought death and destruction to large swathes of Europe. Its most important founder was as antisemitic a person as they come. None of this is mentioned in the protestantism article. That said, I don't disagree with dab's argument. Haukur (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I draw your attention to the December 18 version of this article, when the "Folkish Asatru, Universalism and racism" section did have a link to Neopaganism and the New Right. This definitely needs to be restored. A agree the topic needs to be addressed up front, but it should not be given undue weight. White supremacism is, after all, a minority position within Asatru. I do take issue with the phrasing "While Ásatrú is generally a tolerant religion, it is sometimes erroneously identified with neo-Nazi and 'white power' organizations which also use the same symbolism." The problem is, of course, with the "erroneously" in Wikipedia's voice. The fact of the matter is that there is in fact a portion of Asatru adherents who at the same time are part of the "white power" subculture. It isn't erroneous to point out this association at all. It would be erroneous, to be sure, to jump to conclusions about Asatru as a whole from there. A link to Metagenetics (a redirect) should also figure somewhere: While "metagenetics" isn't "white supremacism" per se, it certainly qualifies as as a sort of neo-racial mysticism that does play to the white racist crowd. dab (𒁳) 08:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

None of this matters if there's no references. It's worth noting that the ADL has a few disclaimers on their poorly-written database regarding these symbols. The reasons that link no longer exists is probably because "Neopaganism and the New Right" no longer exists and, in its place, an article called Neo-völkisch movements now exists. With this inclusion there's obviously going to be some discussion regarding the relevance of it here. At the time, it was also linked several times on the article. If you want this link in place - either of them - that's going to requiring some proper referencing. Regarding "metagenetics", the fact that it "plays to a white racist crowd" is obviously an opinion and any such comments should be sourced by those who have stated it. I would argue that this topic doesn't need a "main" tag but just a hyperlink. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

nothing to do with the ADL. I really don't care what symbols they list on their website. My reply was directed to Phil. You criticize it as if I had inserted it to article space as it stands. That's beside the point. The article now known as Neo-völkisch movements has a section entitled "racial Nordic paganism" which is precisely the topic we are addressing here. Your revert to the hand-waving "erroneously" is not defensible. Bloodofox, we have discussed this before. Nobody says "Asatru is racist", or even "mostly racist". All we are stating is that there is a racist and/or racialist minority within Asatru. This is a notable and important fact. If Christianity and Islam have their bad guys and murky pasts laid out in detailed article series (Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Persecution by Christians, etc.), we certainly can and should also present the less savoury aspects of minority religions like Asatru in an unexcited und matter-of-fact way. If you are not willing to address this constructively and honestly, I will not waste further time in debate with you, and I put it to the other editors here (Phil, Haukurth) to evaluate the competing versions under dispute here. dab (𒁳) 11:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'm requesting here are sources and not some sort of heavy-handed opinion piece regarding what is and isn't true by the mysterious figurehead of Wikipedia, i.e. some random editor acting as narrator. I'm not requesting that we hide anything - certainly not - what I am requesting are some hard facts and references, as always. What's this business about "constructively" and "honestly"? Is this a comment on my reverting you? I think I have been exactly that here and I see no reason for such comments. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that hard facts and references are needed. But I also think it is vital that, in the article, we attempt a neutral presentation of the current situation, not attempt to present the truth. That is, while it may be the case that the ADL's directory of hate symbols is terribly written, racism is a minor to trivial part of Asatru, and that Protestantism is far more evil and more racist than Asatru, that is, ultimately, immaterial. And I say that as someone who is quite sympathetic to many of those claims. The issue is one of providing a duly weighted and factual presentation of major aspects of the topic. It seems to me undeniable that, in terms of how Asatru is generally mentioned and discussed in mainstream culture, the accusation of racism is a major part of the subject. That means we need to deal with it as a major part of the article. But that does not mean that the lead should read "Also, Asatru is racist." It shouldn't. On the other hand, it should acknowledge the co-opting of Asatru symbols by neo-Nazis, the divisiveness of racial issues within Asatru organizations (it having led to a number of schisms), the lack of distinction between racist and reasonable Asatru made by the FBI in reports, and the particular characteristics of Asatru in prison (Which the SPLC has identified as a largely racist movement).

None of which should detract from the repeated focus on the perfectly sane and reasonable people who make up most of Asatru. But it is a much larger aspect of the religion as a topic in contemporary culture than the few sentences allowed to it in this article, and that is a major NPOV problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that it's not so clear cut. Some people may have had previous association in the past that, for example, that they've denounced. The largest groups have also openly denounced these connections. What is said here now pretty well works as a basic overview, as much of the article is. If anyone else is making some sort of claim regarding it that is notable, we should reference them and so on. However, often times this belongs on the subject's article.

For what it's worth, I don't think this is a fundamentally major part of Asatru and therefore shouldn't be a "major" aspect of the article. As stated, all of the major Asatru groups in the US denounce Neo-Nazism and racism. The section that exists is enough. I'm of the opinion that there exists a number of smaller, fringe groups (The defunct Volksfront, Heathen Front, etc.) and specific figures that don't play a role in the larger Asatru groups that have caused a lot of knee-jerk reactions and have resulted in some extremely poorly researched and sensationalistic reports by "watch dog" groups like the ADL. The sheer fact that they put up those disclaimers only after pressure says quite enough about how dedicated they are to getting their facts straight in this area. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the (rather laconic) present version. If they denounce stuff, it's fair enough to say they denounce it, no problem. Nobody is pushing to make this a "major" part of the article, although I have to note that the question is rather central in Neopaganism in Germany and Austria even if it isn't in the US ({{globalize}}). boo, you are over-reacting. We agree there has been knee-jerk hysterical vigilantism surrounding this question. Nothing of this sort is happening on this talkpage at present. Just because some people react hysterically to a problem doesn't mean the problem isn't real. --dab (𒁳) 15:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, look above and you will see that Phil stated "That means we need to deal with it as a major part of the article" and thus my response. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

ok. Well, that will depend on the sources we can come up with, won't it. In any case, I do not find the approach of "Wotanism isn't Asatru" productive. A lot of white supremacism is lurking under the garb of Nordic paganism, like it or not. The major US groups denounce racism -- fair enough: that's important to note, but hardly the end of the debate. Asatru is notoriously fragmented into tiny kindreds and has no central spokesperson. We need evaluations of external observers to reference this either way. Which essentially means Goodrick-Clarke, since this isn't exactly a hot topic of social studies. dab (𒁳) 16:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The main issue with this NPOV accusation is that some people just want to link Asatru to the Neo-Nazi article. While everyone else is actually reasonable. How about I just submit a giant portion of the article about the MANY white supremacist groups who have violently attacked, protested, and threatened asatruars. And how about I edit the articles on Christians, Jews, and Muslims to correctly show the Christian Identity, Al-Qeada, and Terror against Terror positions? Finally the SPLC has only spun hate about minority religions since the 90's and will only continue to do so. Don't use them as a reference.--141.157.15.80 (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Separation

Among many other things needing to be fixed on this page, I think the section on neo-nazis and folkish Asatruars should be separated, or at least given a more detailed explanation of both. At the moment it seems that the article is throwing both into the same circle of people, which isn't true at all. Yes, some people see the folkish as too strict, but they're not anywhere near as extremist as neo-nazis.JanderVK (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Folkism

Honoring ones ancestors and heritage and being aware of a need for cultural and genetic conservation (or even tribalist values) 

has no relation to neo-nazi beliefs. If that were true then Indigenous Native American traditions, as well as indigenous Asiaitic or African or most of the worlds religions would be nazis.

While it is possible for someone to honor their ancestors and have "racialists" (aware of race nothing more) views and be nazi,
they are not the same thing. A person can be a Christian and a Nazi. The ignorance on this page is astounding.

The term "folkish" or "racialist" is used precisely to denote someone who is racially aware but not a white supremacist

or neo-nazi. While some may argue that it is simply a term used to obscure true intentions, the majority of people who use these terms do so because the term nazi is deeply offensive towards them and really is a form of personal slander as it does not reflect their political or social views at all!

P.S.: sorry I'm not too keen on how these pages work!

edit: I want to hit a few things after reading the other notes. Firstly Asatru is a modern word. Asa and tru are both from Old Norse, but no the Vikings never called themselves Asatru. They simply grew up in a culture and that was what a Norseman did and believed. There was no word for religion either. There was only what we do and believe as a tribe or people and what they do/believe. Secondly, a point of hot debate. Some Asatru say we are following the exact same religion as the Vikings. They are historical heathens or reconstructionists. Others believe Asatru is a living religion. There are many denominations of Asatru and that should be addressed: the extremists racist denomination, the folkish denomination which has racial undertones but seriously different, the universalists (which is the official religion of the state of Iceland and I think Denmark) which does not have any emphasis on race but focuses on honoring the culture and customs of Scandanavian heritage, there are tribalists (who usually are also folkists in some form) who believe in recreating tribal societies, though some of these are reconstructionists. Then there's Norse Wicca which is Wicca but with Norse gods and the symbel and blot. I guess that's about all the major branches of the religion.

Germanic neo-paganism is basicallly Asatru though some may call themselves Vanatru (after the vanagods). Wotanism, Odinism etc. are all basically under the Asatru umbrella, though these people may not call themselves Asatru specifically. The term has sort of transcended its original meaning as "follower of the Asa". Being a more recent word older sources tend to use the now less common terms (Odinism for example). Many racists actually prefer the term "wotanism" as distinct from Asatru.

There should be an introduction which states the broad definition: those people who honor and acknowledge the Nordic gods. how they view those gods doesn't matter. also all Asatru honor the Sagas and Eddas to some degree, and place the havamal as sacred writing (usually these ancient writings are spiritual poetry and not always to be taken literarily). From there have a section on each different branch of Asatru: folkish, racist, universalists etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.218.107.126 (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

on wikipedia, you need references. And our references, such as they are, confirm that folkish is a loan-translation of völkisch (and you may read up on what that entails), and that a significant portion (not all, and not a majority, but if a minority, a significant one) of adherents are involved in far right ideology, racial supremacism etc. "are they racist"/"are they neo-Nazi" is a perpetually relevant question between the various Asatru groups, and the problem certainly won't disappear by ignoring it. The 1986 hostile split in the US was due to this, and most current organizations are aligned wrt this question. Opinions on where to draw which line differ, of course, as they always do in politics. It is the purpose of Wikipedia to document the full scope of relevant and attributable opinions. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

back again on folkism

I don't write Wikipedia articles and am not sure how all this works, but I do use wikipedia to look things up.

I would like to comment about folkism so that a more apt user can then add it to the official article.

Folkism centers around an ideology that human beings operate as social organisms, not as individuals. Thus behavior can only be understood through the group, not the individuals. Behavior and characteristics are also understood through heritage. There is some influence of jungian racial archtypes involved in the theory.

I may not be being too coherent here but I'm just presenting a rough draft for someone to fine tune and write about.

An example would be self sacrifice which is a hallmark and cornerstone of Germanic culture. Looking at it from the perspective of the individual it makes no sense. It would seem to be a genetic trait that would die off. Yet it survives in most species. Why? Because a person who sacrifices himself saves his relatives who carry that similar gene. Survival only exists as a group. Folkism looks at behavior through the eyes of the social organism. It sees individuals as cells. Mostly meaningless and sacraficable in some ways. What is most important is the blood and the culture; the group as a whole. This blood and culture can be eternal, whereas the individual is short lived.

Folkism necessitates a sort of tribalism or racialism. Partially because for example a person who sacrifices himself who has other people in his tribe who are different and don't have a self sacraficing gene is comitting suicide. The traits only prosper in a community of related and mostly homogenous people. Of course all healthy tribes, people etc. have some degree of genetic transfer so as not to be over inbred, but it generally centers around a nucleus of family or "folk" which is an extended family or race.

Folk is not necessarily racial. The saying is "the folk define the folk" people decide on their own who they consider worthy of membership into their groups or who they feel they can bring home to their families or into their tribe. This is different for everyone to some degree or another. It is completely subjective and not racial in the traditional sense. Though groups can set a more specified criteria for membership which usually has more racial undertones.

It is mainly based on a concept of social cohesion. Those people who are too far removed from you or your own group genetically or phenotypically may be excluded. This can even count towards blood relatives. Certain people born into a family or race who may not conform to the community standards.

Most groups, tribes, etc. have an oath of allegiance. Thus is it normal for many to live outside of the inner tribe or circle in "utgard". In the past these would have been the low ranking peasants or thralls (commoners) whereas the vikings and noblemen and uppertribesmen had to meet certain standards of criteria.

Most folkist also place great emphasis on honoring ancestors. It is believed typically by folkist(and there is evidence to back this up though it is debated) that the Gods are actually personified ancestors. That there was a literal Odin who was a Nordic king who thus was a founder of the modern Germanic culture/ race. That there was a primevial Thor etc. later these gods took on other spiritual characteristics as well and became archtypes but the religion in general to a folkist is centered around ancestor honoring (we may call it worship but it isn't worship like a christian would think of it)

Asatru in general only concedes that one must honor the Nordic gods. how one views those gods (as literal or figural, ancestors or archtypes) varies between individuals and groups. Folkist fit this broader definition.

Asatru has many divisions. Some are folkish. Some are tribal. Some are folkish and tribal. Some are universalist. However the folkish aspect of Asatru is probably the least understood among outsiders.

Folkish ideas are ancient. And are found in many non-Nordic cultures in some form or the other (if by other names). The Nazis did embrace "volkish" concepts in the form that it appealed to the popular sentiment of the people of the day. Yet Hitler himself put neo-pagans folkish and non-folkish alike into death camps and condemned them in mein kampf. It seems a bit contradictory where he seems to embrace the religion and folkish concept on one hand and persecute in the other. His goals were political, not spiritual. Thus you can see it is not only offensive to call a folkist a neo-nazi because of the typical insulting nature of it but in a way its like calling a jew a nazi. Its outright absurd given that the nazis killed folkists.

That being said folkishness is very racial oriented and to the outsider it may be hard to tell the difference. Some nazis and hardcore racists due consider themselves folkish. It is a much more extreme and narrow form of folkism but I guess it is not incorrect for them to consider themselves this, though a true folkist would not put his standards onto everyone else as to a folkist the concept of "folk" is more subjective than what is now considered a typically outdated concept of three or four main races being put on earth.

though again all that being said, it is considered a bit absurd for someone without at least some degree (preferably) a large degree of Germanic heritage to follow Asatru among folkists. It simply seems absurd and a bit disrespectful to "commune" with ancestors that aren't your own and wear the colors of a different tribe so to speak. Though folkist aren't going to necessarily be outright hostile to those who practice who aren't nordic they may not accept them among their own circles.

Today there isn't much distinction made between various

"Aryans" and German. A person %100 Irish can be accepted as Germanic heritage. Part of it is the confusing history of Europe. You can be %100 irish and still have a lot of Viking ancestors for instance. the distinctions there are just too difficult to make. Therefore the distinction is often more "aryo-Germanic" than pure Germanicism. Again though each community and tribe are different. Two tribes can have just as much a claim to Germanic ancestry but not feel socially cohesive with each other. This isn't common today because of the small size of the pool of Asatruar but is a possibility.

More or less we allow people to self judge what culture fits them and where they feel comfortable. If the Germanic culture fits you and appeals to your character and you are of "white" descent you can typically be considered Germanic. In fact Germanic culture embraces the two main root races of Europe- the Vanir tribe and the Aesir (Aryan) tribe. It is the only culture to do so. The Aryan culture is reflected in Greece and Roman religion for example and is very war like and patriarchle. The Vanir were tribe honored fertility gods more so and the otherworld. This culture is more manifest among the Celts today for example. In fact many in Germanic sosciety were not warriors and did not really fit into the culture of Asatru. Though all can follow Asatru to be a Viking or noblemen is something earned so many tribes or groups today set certain standards of membership and an oath is taken to join.

Folkishness actually centers around the family more than it does the tribe (if you are tribalist as well), and the tribe more so than the race. Race is considered subjective though each group has its own standards of what is ideal or what defines its folk. Usually blood relation plays a big role though there are always marriages and adoptions into tribes and families. Some are regionalist.

That is folkism in a nutshell. Racialism on the other hand simply means that you acknowledge that there is a difference between races or that race exists in some way. folkism and racialism neither one implies any kind of hate, conflict, disrespect or anything towards other races. It promotes mutual respect. though at times groups may come into conflict or feud it is not part of the philosophy. It neither claims superiority or disclaims it. It just claims that we are a people that is distinct from those other people. Folkism believes that the culture of your ancestors is most suited to you. And the culture of someone elses ancestors is most suited to them. That related people have a special bond. Really nothing profound or complex about it, but something our modern mainstream society has discouraged.

Actually I haven't even touched on something else: historical heathens. They are people that want to basically copy a historical religion. They want to learn what some ancient Germanic tribe thought or did and copy it or dress up in medieval robe and so on. Folkists are not historical heathens. They see Asatru as a living religion. Largely based on the anceint ways, but also adapting and growing to some degree within the confines of acceptable tradition. At any rate we do not have complete knowledge of Asatru from the past so all forms of it is reconstructed to some degree. So those who claim to be historical are wrong. Much of what we believe is either modern invention or speculation. Some of it is even from biased and innacurate sources (Romans writing about what they observed among the Germans which is often not correct interpretations or biased as they saw them as barbarians and often made up sensational stories to tell back home).

Tribalism: related to folkism. believe in creating literal tribes. These would be about the size of a small church congregation. Some say 500 or less people, some say 300 or less, thereabouts the size of historical human tribes worldwide. The theory is a society where everyone knows everyone else reinforces altruism and other positive social aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.218.107.126 (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mattias Gardell (Asatru article slanted)

The article is slanted. It does not present any criticism of Asatru. As with every religious movement their are criticism and controversies.

It should be mention: According Mattias Gardell a professor of religious history at the University of Stockholm's Center for Research in International Migration and Ethnic Relations in an article for The Southern Poverty Law Centre title "The New Romantics" in a study indicated 40% and 50% of Odinists and Asatrúers held racist views. [11]

--Ted--

Saturday November 7, 2008

I challenge the language in the article. The "expert" only estimates. Please think before you slander a religion with faulty information.--151.196.42.141 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Old article is seven years old. Not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.181.209 (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"It does not present any criticism of Asatru"? There is a full section entitled "Politics and controversies" with a dedicated "Folkish Asatru, Universalism and racialism". This topic is clearly of central importance to Asatru, and also occupies a major role in discussions within Asartu, and indeed is at the core of most of the group splits. There is also a full article on Nordic racial paganism. I suggest that it is clearly not true that the article currently ignores these points, and thus remove the warning tag. Further addition of material is of course welcome. --dab (𒁳) 10:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Scope

I have long been unhappy with the ill-defined scope of this article wrt Germanic Neopaganism. As it stands, this article addresses three things

• Ásatrú as a full synonym of Germanic Neopaganism (The Troth/Eldaring usage), making it a WP:CFORK
• Ásatrú as in Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið
• Ásatrú as in "folkish Asatru in the USA", i.e Ásatrú according to Stephen McNallen

Ásatrú in the US and Ásatrú in Iceland are as different as any two branches of Germanic Neopaganism can be. For this reason, I do not think there is any justification to have an article dedicated to address "Ásatrú in general" and yet as separate from Germanic Neopaganism. From this I conclude that Ásatrú should properly disambiguate between three usages, i.e. three existing articles:

1. Germanic Neopaganism
2. Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið
3. Ásatrú in the United States (presently a section redirect)

--dab (𒁳) 12:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that incidental usage of the same word to mean rather different things has tended to cause confusion (though I don't think we're in as bad a terminological mess here as at Viking). What I think the article currently doesn't make very clear (and it might be hard to do so without going into original research) is that when it comes to neopaganism in Iceland, Ásatrú is the only game in town. There isn't any Wiccan association or anything else. So Ásatrú in Iceland is very much mainstream neopaganism and tends to attract the sort of people attracted by mainstream neopaganism in other countries (typically somewhat leftist/liberal people). But Ásatrú in the US, as far as I can understand, tends to attract people who found that mainstream neopaganism was not for them - sometimes that means more individualistic people who think Wiccans are fluffy. Sometimes it means other things. Haukur (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

True, there is a difference between Neopaganism in Scandinavia and specifically "Scandinavian Neopaganism" as practiced outside Scandinavia. Ásatrú in Icelandic may pretty much be the translation of Neopaganism. Asatru in Germany may be equivalent to Germanic neopaganism, while Asatru in the US may be synonymous with "Stephen McNallen and grouplets descended from his organization". I.e. there is a scale of increasing specificity attached to the term, including anything from "Neopaganism" to "US 'folkish' ideas of native 'Northern European Folkways' as defined by the AFA". The question is: shold we dedicate this article to pointing out these facts in detail, or should this be treated as a case for disambiguation, with three articles each explaining one of these meanings of the term? --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

A point of clarification, although Americans tend to use the word Ásatrú, British adherents tend to use the word Odinism, as in the Odinic Rite and Odinist Fellowship. English wikipedia should consider the broader world. --Tsmollet (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you should point this out right after I updated the article to this effect. This is the problem: "Asatru" in the US is what is known as "Odinism" in the UK but decidedly not what is known as "Asatru" in Iceland. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistake. I spend so little time at wikipedia--I am an administrator on two other wikis and I find wikipedia too congested by what Kafka called "the slime of bureaucracy--that I got rather sloppy here.

Although your last edit is accurate and precise, is it not too "scholastic"? May we just note that many names are used?

This is how the pagan wikia article addresses the issue:

http://pagan.wikia.com/wiki/Asatru

Asatru is religion dedicated to the gods of the norse pantheon. The religion's name derives from the old Norse words meaning "trust in the gods."

The religion is also Odinism, Heathenism, Germanic Heathenism, the Elder Troth, the Old Way, Asetro, Forn Siðr (which means the Ancient way or tradition), Forn sed (the Old custom), Nordisk sed (Nordic custom), or Hedensk sed (Pagan custom), and Folkish Ásatrú.

--Tsmollet (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

well, please review the section right above this one. The problem is that we already have this article, only it is located at Germanic Neopaganism. One usage of "Asatru" is simply in the sense of "Germanic Neopaganism". This is a possible source of confusion, hence the suggestion to make Ásatrú a disambiguation page between three articles. --dab (𒁳) 16:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand now. On this point, I conclude that Ásatrú should properly disambiguate between three usages, i.e. three existing articles:

  1. Germanic Neopaganism
  2. Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið
  3. Ásatrú in the United States (presently a section redirect)

I agree. --Tsmollet (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, I've implemented the split as discussed. Some cleanup may still be necessary, especially, what to do with the Category:Ásatrú. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. --Tsmollet (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)