Talk:Greek reconstructionism

Recent archival

I have archived the talk page as it appeared to be getting quite lengthy. From a cursory glance, it seems that there is a revert war brewing. If this continues, I will protect the page without notice. If the page is to be protected, the protected version is not an endorsement of the correctness of the page. It is simply one method to encourage more positive dialogue here. I am highly encouraging everyone who actively monitors and particpates with editing this page that they resolve as many of the outstanding issues on this talk page first. Currently, the application of the NPOV tag and its justification has been reposted below.

As far as I could tell, there have been no 3RR violations or whatnot on this page. However, should this occur, I will be inclined to initiate blocks for all parties involved. The intention of this post is to encourage some positive developments here. It is obvious we have a number of editors from different backgrounds who can offer different viewpoints on this subject, and for this reason, it is necessary that everyone endeavours to synthesize all the ideas together so that Wikipedia can have a solid article on this subject. To work towards this goal, please be mindful of your posts and modulate them if necessary so that the feedback received by the editors of this page results in productive, reasoned, and measured dialogue. Should any editor of this page choose not to engage in positive dialogue moving forward, then respectfully and in advance, I would ask that you leave and edit somewhere else.

Finally, should the discussion on this page degenerate into a full blown edit war, I will protect both the article and the talk page without warning for a short period of time - simply to remind contributors to take a brief break from the article, and perhaps return afterwards with better approaches for resolving the outstanding issues here. Thanks for your understanding. --HappyCamper 02:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the NPOV dispute

I have re-applied an NPOV template to the article page; please do not remove it. I think it is pretty obvious from the talk page discussion that whether the article conforms to the NPOV policy is hotly disputed. Let's see if we can't resolve this problem.

First, I would recommend that everyone review the Wikipedia rules - Wikipedia:assume good faith, don't revert good faith edits, don't make personal attacks, and sign your posts on the talk page. Also, you might want to check out the NPOV tutorial for some useful guidance on maintaining a neutral point of view.

Let's work together to make this a great Wikipedia article. I've read through it and here are my comments. I'd be interested in hearing yours. - AdelaMae 18:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

The redirect to this article from Hellenic paganism is absolutely inappropriate, especially considering that Greek reconstructionism currently doesn't explain what Hellenic paganism is. There are many Hellenic Pagans who are not reconstructionists and many reconstructionists who would not call themselves Pagan.
If it is true that this religion is "More commonly called" Hellenic reconstructionism, why isn't that the title of the page?
The article does not explain the difference between Greek reconstructionism and Hellenismos, which should be one of its main purposes.
The article currently offers next to no information about the religious beliefs and practices of Hellenic recons, but focuses on the intergroup politics of various organizations in the Hellenic recon movement. See Hellenismos for an example of an article which does better in this regard.

Other Hellenic Pagan faiths section

Section should be called, "Other Greek/Hellenic Recon faiths." As I argued above, this article is not about Hellenic Paganism in general.
Google returns 3470 results for "Hellenic Wicca." Surely this article could link to one of those pages instead of the internet archive of a page which no longer exists.
It is my understanding that Hellenic Wicca and Christo-Hellenism are not reconstructionist religions. If this page were called "Hellenic Paganism," coverage of these religions would be relevant, but it's not. All the material on non-reconstructionist religions here could be rolled together into one well-written sentence, something along the lines of, "Reconstructionists sometimes come into conflict (link to a page with evidence of conflict) with non-reconstructionist Hellenic polytheists (link to Hellenic polytheism, which would have discussion of all Hellenic polytheist religions), such as Hellenic Wiccans and Christo-Hellenists, because of (list three or four resons here." This would be after a paragraph contrasting reconstructionist with non-reconstructionst Hellenic polytheist religions in a neutral, matter-of-fact tone.

The Hard recon controversy section

It is Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans, not Congregation.
"the more activist Hellenic Wiccans, who have been known to demand admission to the Hellenic observances and groups of their choice, viewing this sort of "radical inclusiveness" as being a matter of basic civil rights" - This claim needs to be backed up by evidence or removed.
"(even though they, themselves, do not generally extend an analogous consideration to those who are not their initiates)" - This claim also needs to be backed up by evidence or removed. There are a lot of solitary Wiccans these days and even many covens are holding public rituals.
"This had already seen criticism during the days before the establishment of Christo-Hellenism as a distinct tradition, by the then Hellenic Reconstructionist Shrine of the Sleeping Gods as being more than slightly impractical, as it left the demoi too vulnerable to disruptive behavior on the part of visitors whose intentions might prove less than honorable. In particular, it would leave a small group, one which dissented ideologically or theologically with the larger, more established groups in its midst, vulnerable to a "flood attack", in which it would be swamped and taken over by the membership of a larger and older group before it ever had a chance to establish itself. This, the argument went, would be anything but an affirmation of religious freedom, in that religious freedom would be limited to whichever faction had organized first." - This material is not necessary or, at most, should be limited to one sentence. To mention a policy and then spend a sizeable paragraph explaining all the things that are wrong with it without presenting an alternate perspective is not NPOV.
" in a manner some have taken issue with" - Sentence ends with a preposition.
"the occasionally troublesome Hellenic Wiccan community" - Makes them sound like little kids in need of being sent to bed without any supper. Let's remove the unnecessary adjectives.
"these so-called "Hard Recons" sought to have everybody excluded, who enaged in any practices not "historically sanctioned"; ie. rooted in historical practice in ancient Greek religion, arguing that those who diluted the purity of Hellenic Pagan tradition were "unworthy" of attendance" - Is this an accurate characterization of Elaion's position? For one thing, if they really "sought to have everybody excluded," they wouldn't be a group. I don't know Elaion well enough to be sure about the rest, but this wording, especially the "historically sanctioned" in quotes, suggests that the author of the article believes Elaion's policies to be excessive. Also, the "purity of the Hellenic Pagan tradition" and "unworthy" comments create a parallel in the mind of the reader between Elaion and racist groups. As far as the accuracy of this statement goes, Elaion's FAQ doesn't seem to confirm what is being said in the article:

"However, our approach to Dodekatheism takes the academic standards of reconstructionism for granted. It moves the focus from ‘what you do’, in terms of ‘accurate’ rituals and practices, to ‘what you believe’." read it here

"This notion has been criticised on a number of bases." - Although it was quite possibly unintentional, this is an instance of what is known on Wikipedia as a weasel term. The source of the criticisms should be cited here.
The criticisms of Elaion should be summarized in a paragraph - better, a well-written sentence - and a source cited. This is an encyclopedia article about the beliefs and practices of Hellenic reconstructionism, not a debate about whether these beliefs/practices are right or wrong.
The paragraph about the beliefs of the founder of Elaion is not verifiable. Even if these comments are available by browsing the archives of the Yahoo Group, they are still not verifiable because the archives are not available to people who do not belong to the Yahoo Group.
"No reconciliation between the factions in question is expected in the forseeable future, by almost anybody in the community." - What is the source of this information? Was a community survey done? Is it posted on the web? If not, how can people verify this statement? Also, does "the community" refer to "the Hellenic polytheist community" or "the reconstructionist community"?
The statements about the geographic distribution of these groups needs to be backed up with a source citation. If the groups' member lists are available that might be one way to do it.

Hellenism outside of the English-speaking world

Is this relevant in an article on Greek reconstructionism, or would it better be placed in an article like Hellenic polytheism? Do any of the groups in Greece self-identify as recontructionist? If so, which ones, and where can we go to verify that?
"criminal penalties which attach to the act of conversion..." Needs a source citation. What criminal penalties?
"What sort of public morals would be prejudiced by the throwing of some barley into a fire is a question which might seem to present itself." - This sentence needs grammatical help and is quite clearly an expression of its author's opinion. Much as I personally agree with that opinion, a Wikipedia article is not the place.
"The law in question, however, upon which the case rested, apparently still remains on the books, in Greece." Too many commas - needs to be reworded. How about just, "The law in question, however, remains on the books in Greece."?

Edits of "Greek Recon Controversy" Section

I have redacted the lengthy "Greek Recon Controversy" to a shorter topic now titled "Orthodoxy Contra Orthopraxy". I feel that there was a total lack of NPOV and most of the content in the section was out of place in an encyclopedic article. I still am displeased with the article in general. I would like to discuss creating a new wiki entry under Christo-Hellenism and perhaps even Hellenic Wicca since (in the current version) both topics seem out of place and do not meet the definition of Greek Reconstructionism.-Cyberdenizen 01:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no replies to my comments. If someone wants to create an entry for Christo-Hellenism and redact the relevant content from this entry that would be great. It's really out of place here. Also, the references to Hellenic Wicca seem to be a moot point, since the link to the group in question is broken and the group apparently no longer exists, although perhaps it could be added to Wicca. If anyone want to comment, now is the time - otherwise I will be editing this article into shape in a week or so.-Cyberdenizen 21:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some poking around and couldn't find any more than a handful of self-identified Hellenic Wiccans. My perception is that "Hellenic Wicca" per se is something that mostly only exists in the minds of Hellenic polytheists who seek to identify what they are not. Many Wiccans draw on Greek mythology, but few would restrict their practices to one pantheon because Wiccan theology gives them no reason to.

Here are my thoughts on the organization of these articles: Hellenismos is currently a pretty good article, but not all Hellenic polytheists would refer to what they do as Hellenismos. It seems to me that Hellenic polytheism is a pretty neutral umbrella term that will include Hellenismos, Greek recon, Hellenic traditionalism, Dodekatheism, or whatever people decide to call themselves next week, because Hellenic and polytheism are both relatively easy and noncontroversial terms to define. (Emphasis on relatively!) I've already suggested on Talk:Hellenismos that that article be subsumed into a larger Hellenic polytheism article, and I think that should be done with Greek reconstructionism as well. The Hellenic polytheism article would have a short blurb on Ancient Greek religion and link to that article, would go over the history and beliefs of the modern movement and would explain the difference in meaning of the various terms (Hellenismos, Hellenic Pagan, Hellenic traditionalist, and so on). Once Hellenic polytheism is up, we can merge and redirect. I also think it might be a good idea to have an article on Reconstructionist Paganism in general, as it seems to be a growing subset of modern paganism... - AdelaMae 08:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AdelaMae - Apparently Hellenic Wicca and Christo-Hellenism are a moot point. Using the term Hellenic Polytheism would solve a lot of the past issues here. However, Hellenic Polytheism is an ancient historically attested religion, whereas reconstructionism is a modern recreation of the religion of the pre-conversion Hellenes. Hellenic Polytheism *is* Ancient Greek Religion, whereas any recon religion is by it's very nature a new religious movement. Also, creating an entry called Hellenic Polytheism could cause confusion, since I don't think any of the modern adherents have an unbroken chain stretching back to genuine Hellenic Polytheism. Also, the common usage of Hellene refers to a still-extant ethnic group currently living in the Peloponnese, the majority of whom do not practice polytheism. I'm not against the idea of compiling these articles, but I think doing it either here or at Hellenismos might be a better idea, although I think Modern Hellenic Polytheism or Traditional Hellenic Religion or something along those lines might be more neutral. -Cyberdenizen 20:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think Modern Hellenic polytheism with Hellenic polytheism as a disambiguation page makes sense. An aside - IMO Hellenic polytheism is, by definition, any polytheistic Hellenic religion... that's just what the words mean. 90% of the first hundred or so pages I found on Google that use the term use it to refer to the modern incarnation of the religion, so I don't think it can be defined as *only* the ancient religion. I don't know if there's a Wikipedia convention on this but I would think that the best course to take would be to use the terms that the members of a religious group use to refer to themselves. Also, some of the folks in Greece do claim to be part of an unbroken line of religious practice stretching back to antiquity, and while I personally find those claims to be seriously dubious, they muddy the water a bit. - AdelaMae 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around on the web, I now agree that Hellenic Polytheism may be a more apt term. However, won't this usage open up the door for the Christo-Hellenist and Hellenic Wiccan wiki-war again? Technically, someone who reveres Christian Saints, Egyptian deities or Sponge Bob Square Pants along with the Dodecatheon is still a polytheist, right? I think if we use such an all encompassing term, we need to come to an agreement on a set definition such as In the context of this entry, Hellenic Polytheism refers to the modern practitioners of the Ancient Greek Religion, exclusively. This will head off a lot of trouble at the pass. If Christo-Hellenists, Hellenic Wiccans, Religio Romano or Kemetic dual-trad whatever appear out of the woodwork, we can create separate entries rather place them into one all-encompassing entry.-Cyberdenizen 03:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

Hm... I agree that Hellenic polytheism would tend to include Christo-Hellenism and so on, but my thought was that the entry would include Christo-Hellenism, Hellenic Wicca, and whatever else, so that readers would be able to see how they compared with the other versions. One of the reasons why I think Greek reconstructionism got so out of hand was because it was sort of a POV fork from Hellenismos, so I was thinking that an article giving a coherent overview of all the permutations of modern polytheistic Hellenic religion would keep things like that from happening in the future. "Modern practitioners of the Ancient Greek Religion" could end up causing more controversy than it prevents, since strict reconstructionist groups could argue that they are the only ones who qualify. - AdelaMae 03:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous definition?

Hi AdelaMae - I think that the root of the problem in the past here, has been attempting to use a very loose and ambiguous definition of terms. From doing a little research and noting online how groups self-identify themselves, I have seen very few who accept the fast and loose "all things to all men" definition of Greek Reconstructionism as you are advocating. Reviewing their websites, the groups in Greece absolutely take issue with this apparent syncretism. The primary bone of contention (and resulting wiki-war) was over this issue, and whether Christo-Hellenists and Hellenic Wiccans should even be classified under this entry. To me it seems rather irrelevant. Christo-Hellenism by it's very self-definition is Christian and Hellenic Wicca by it's very definition is Wiccan. Wicca and Christo-Hellenism are not reconstructionist beliefs but they both already have their own entries. I think that they would probably fit in under Hellenismos, or under their respective entries, but I am now hesitant to merge them all, because I think this will only confuse the issue further and cause more strife.-Cyberdenizen 04:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

No, I'm not advocating an "all things to all people" definition of Greek reconstructionism, I'm advocating an "all things to all people" definition of Hellenic polytheism. That's a pretty big difference to my mind. The point of the suggestion wasn't specifically to include Christo-Hellenists and Hellenic Wiccans (though I think they should get a mention) so much as to include Hellenic polytheists who don't use a reconstructionist methodology or don't feel that reconstructionism is an accurate description of their religion. I fall into that category myself, so I may be biased; you be the judge. I'm guessing that you aren't as directly involved as I am. But I think that merging Hellenismos, Greek recon, etc into Hellenic polytheism - or even just having a Hellenic polytheism article that discusses them all - would be a good idea because it appears to me that although there is no consensus within the community as to the appropriate nomeclature for various strands of the modern religion, nobody takes issue with the term "Hellenic polytheist" (so long as it was clearly explained that if refers to the modern religion rather than the ancient one).

Really, though, I suppose hashing out a thorough and NPOV treatment of the religious movement is the more urgent task ATM, so this isn't going to be a sticking point for me. Let's just pick the most neutral name we can, and we can move it later if it becomes necessary. I'm off to go visit the relatives for T-day so I'll pick up on this when I get there. - AdelaMae 05:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Ambiguity :)

Cyberdenizen -

The Christohellenists do not self-define as "Christians", contary to what you have written. One need only follow Antistoicus' arguments on Usenet to see what they think of that as a flat assertion. Nor do they self-define as non-christians. They simply ask "what do you mean by Christian", and to date haven't seemed to have found many critics who understood that until one defines one's terms, "are you a Christian" is not a yes or no question. Elaion followers such as yourself seems to be prime offenders in this regard. I invite anybody reading this to take a look at the Hellenic_Recons list at around the time this article was first fleshed out, and note the comments from our supposedly neutral contrarian of an editor, who talks with his friends about a Wikipedia article he just changed to be more to their liking. Ahem.

The Christohellenists are not decidedly not Christian in a mainline sense, viewing the gods as being plural, the supreme being as being less than omniscent, Jesus being somebody other than that supreme being (just one gods among many). In the sense that they claim divinity for Jes, they might be considered Christian, but one might say the same of a number of Hindus, who consider Jesus to be an avatar of Vishnu. Should Hinduism, on that basis, be taken to be a version of Christianity? :)

Thank you for reminding me that the merge to Hellenic polytheism still had not been completed, though all of the information was transferred over long ago. I'll be taking care of that presently. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Over

Decided to be bold. Rewrote original introductory passage for NPOV and to be more concise.

Reconstructionism is distinctly separate from Neo-Paganism, although there is some overlap, the two terms are not mutally exclusive. Reconstructionism is a methodology. Most Greek recons in Greece seem to see the Ancient Hellenic religion as their indigenous religion, rather than as a modern innovation loosely based on Hellenism. Also, YSEE states on their website:

About the term "pagan":In our days it is used to call a non-monotheistic religion as pagan or neo-pagan, but this word in reality is an insult for the native/ethnic polytheistic pre-Christian religions. We prefer not to use this term which was applied from the Christian church in order to insult our ancestors and their religion and way of life.

I Removed "Christo-Hellenism" and "Hellenic wicca" because by their very definition, they are not reconstructionist. This is per the World Congress of Ethnic Religions stance which has specifcally instituted a policy to not "support, accept as member or have relations with newly invented hybrid, non-traditional religious groups...Our purpose is NOT to mix different religions, but to find our common interests and defend them" [1] Greek religion is highly represented in this org. Hellenic Wiccan and Christo-Hellenism is already represented over at Hellenismos. If someone wants to create a Christo-Hellenism, or Hellenic Wicca entry separate from this one, that would be more appropriate I think.

Changed the Americentric section Hellenism outside of the english speaking world to a more NPOV Hellenism outside of the Hellenic world since the bulk of the practitioners are in Greece, not in the English speaking world and because the religion originated in Greece. I am working on a general reconstructionism entry, and have been compiling actual sources to adhere to a higher standard than the previous article did. The article is temporarily in general disarray due to the holidays and finals, but I have not forgotten about it. If anyone wants to discuss this, please do!Cyber Denizen ^talk

I wholeheartedly approve of your boldness! Finals ate my plans for this article. Plus, it seems like the more I read on this topic, the less I know. *sigh*

Have you taken a look at Reconstructionism? I am not sure what to do about the first sentence, which looks like a relic from the time before Polytheistic Reconstructionism was included. It doesn't make any sense with the page the way it is now, and to be honest, I'm not even sure what it's trying to say. Anyway, I'd love to see whatever information you've assembled go up at Polytheistic Reconstructionism. We can work on it from there. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]