Talk:Discrimination against Asatruers in United States prisons

Merging

Note the "concerns raised" box: a coherent case needs to be made, based on sources combined with WP policy and guidelines. WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not suffice. dab (𒁳)

Notice the "Proposal". You never made a proposal (being bold is sometimes OK, but that was hardly a proposal and you never tried to test for consensus). Anyway, it was a perfectly viable article, a bit stubby, but with a few more sources it could have been a full article. // Liftarn

David Lane

I cut out the David Lane section since he wasn't an Asatruer so it doesn't relly belong here. // Liftarn

funny how you are all inclusive when it's about equating massacres of 8th century Saxons with modern prison regulation, but all exclusive when it comes to the crucial difference between a "Wotanist" in an US prison and an "Asatruer" in an US prison. dab (𒁳) 08:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia says about Wotanism: "From the beginning, Wotanism has been distinctly different from, and even antagonistic to Germanic neopaganism.". It may belong in the article about Wotanism. // Liftarn

Check out Wotanism again, I added another quote from Gardell. B.t.w, your second quote from Gardell here is incorrect. -Zara1709 09:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still see nothing saying that Wotanism is the same thing as Asatru. Quite the opposite the Wotanism article writes about mutual antagonism. // Liftarn

So you want to say that persecution of Asatru is due to prison authorities confusing Asatruers and Wotanists? -Zara1709 09:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but that would be unsourced (at least I haven't found nothing that suggest that). I would like to see references to Wotanism removed from this articles (but I think that is solved for the time being). // Liftarn

Prisons

This article appears to be entirely about "Germanic neopagans in US prisons". Provide broader coverage to account for the title, or move to a title in accord with the article topic. dab (𒁳) 08:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was those were high profile cases. Apart from that it's difficult to find something substantial. Snears, grafitti, kids getting bullied at school, arson et.c. nothing really solid. // Liftarn

you mean "sneers"? You want to do a Wikipedia article on "religious persecution" based on people sneering at religions they don't like? Hello?? Arson would be more substantial, if there is reliable evidence of an arson campaign against pagans, we could save this article. But sneering, jeering and schoolyard bullying clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY. dab (𒁳) 08:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's why it isn't incluede. // Liftarn

"persecution"

since all three court cases cited actually tend to uphold prisoners' religious rights, where does the "persecution" come in? Any reference? Or is the entire scope of this article the people " in the solitary confinement "Intensive Management Unit" (IMU) at Washington State Penitentiary (WSP) at Walla Walla, Washington being deprived of their religious medallions ("Thor's Hammers")"? I mean, that's it? We have a Wikipedia article dedicated to the Walla Walla authorities prohibiting pendants in their "intensive management unit"? dab (𒁳) 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed eprsecution before the courts ordered the prisions to allow religious freedom. And the issue is that the didn't allow non-Christians pendants. // Liftarn

cool. Cite your source then, and discuss this under "religious rights in US prisons", since this then has nothing to do with Asatru in particular. dab (𒁳) 08:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are in the article (unless you removed them). // Liftarn

Split?

The stuff that is not about Asatru (i.e. Wotanism) should be moved to that article. The rest should be kept. // Liftarn

oh yes? these are the people who allege religious persecution of Germanic neopagans. Which is what you are dying to have an article about. Apart from some white supremacist filibustering, there seems to be no merit to this topic, at all. dab (𒁳) 08:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The courts found that their first ammendment right had been violated, i.e. relisious persecution. Most of the sources say nothing about white supremacy. // Liftarn

Move

I noticed that you moved the article from Persecution of Asatruers without even bothering to seek consensus first. It may have been bold, but it should have been discussed first. // Liftarn

this article as it stands is clearly bullshit. You can expand the scope to include religious rights in US prison in general, in which case you would actually provide an useful contribution. Keeping the scope deliberately confined to a single bleeding incident in some US prison in 2001, just to make sure the racists don't need to be mentioned is ridiculous. Liftarn, you should learn now that Wikipedia is not susceptible to being your propaganda tool. If you want to write an article, you will have to put it in proper context and put all cards on the table. This is a matter of US prison rights and US white supremacist lobbying, and you will have to treat it as such. Also, stop starting a new h2 section every five minutes. We are debating a single topic, your inability to grasp WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTABILITY. dab (𒁳) 09:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wotanism is one thing and Asatru another. Feel free to write an article about persection of Wotanism, but please don't mix pineapples and oranges. There are several cases mentioned in the article, that they were resolved isn't the same thing as they never happened. // Liftarn

This is strong. Who was obstinately trying to mix internet protocols, spaceships and oranges at persecution of Germanic Pagans? Seriously, what is wrong with you? Or, how old are you? On your userpage, you denounce that "the charge of antisemitism is being misused". That may well be the case in many instances, in today's moral climate, it is very tempting to pose as a victim. But your point sounds very hollow seeing that you are (very inexpertly) attempting the very same thing for neopaganism, "misusing the charge of persecution" in the most irresponsible manner. Wikipedia is not for such stunts. I recommend that you stop wasting people's time and compile your "anti-pagan conspiracy" theories on your own website. Your combined claims that antisemitism is a trumped-up charge, and that grievous persecution of neopagans is going unnoticed (only being able to document various prison inmates chiming in with a chorus of religionists trying to use 'religious rights' to circumvent prison regulations) makes you look very bad indeed. This is not a reasonable debate, and until you provide actual reliable sources, I see no point in further exchange. dab (𒁳) 09:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you refrain from ad hominem attacks and focus on the content of the article instead. // Liftarn

gladly, as soon as you comply with the repeated requests to behave and edit within WP policy. dab (𒁳) 09:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think threats of verbal abuse is within WP policy, but please explain what you think the problem is. // Liftarn

I have not threatened to abuse you verbally. Although you should be grateful if I did, since linking to that would greatly add to your collection of reliable sources for "persecution" ("THIS JUST IN: Wikipedia editor threatens to verbally abuse pagan rights activist!1![diff]"). dab (𒁳) 09:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have no desire to improve the article nor work together with other editors. Perhaps you should take a break and think about your motives for editing Wikipedia. // Liftarn

Request for Comment: Notability

There is a dispute over the notability of this subject.

Comments

No, there is nothing here that justifies an own article. A lot of the material was copied from Wotansvolk anyway. -Zara1709 10:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the stuff about Wotanism should be moved out since this article is about Asatru that is a different religion (if you can call Wotanism a religion). // Liftarn

Yes, but the other part should be merged into Prisons in the United States. -Zara1709 10:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this will leave you with even less material, since even Cutter v. Wilkinson is not about Asatru. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walla, Walla Source

The source that needs verification says:"Asatru is a modern version of a widespread religion practiced for millennia in much of Europe before the coming of Christianity" This is against all historical knowledge. -Zara1709 10:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of it? That it is a modern version or that it existed for millenia? The latter I can understand. // Liftarn

If some neopagans know what people believed in Northern Europe 2000 years B.C. (millennia in much of Europe before the coming of Christianity), they know something that historians don't know. -Zara1709 10:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

go and read our primer at Germanic paganism. Norse paganism (of which Asatru is a revival) is a religion dating to a millennium after the coming of Christianity to Europe. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from your obvious strawman the intention of most Asatruers is to have a religion that both is modern and as closley as possible (given lack of information and modern considerations). It's a common joke that Asatruers would change their beleifs is new archeological evidence was found. // Liftarn

yes? your point being? is this about Asatru, or about reenactment of Neolithic religion now? dab (𒁳) 10:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant anyway. // Liftarn

that's why I put a {{verify credibility}}. Whoever wrote that article obviously don't know their asses from their elbows in this topic. As it is, the article illustrates that US authorities go to ridiculous lengths to protect the 'religious rights' of prison inmates. That's really the opposite of "persecution". This article should be titled "politically correct pampering of US prison inmates" or something. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does show that several prisions try to deny inmates their religious freedom and in some cases get a slap on the wrist for it. // Liftarn

that's great. Why not place a brief note at Prisons in the United States and/or human rights in the United States. Nothing to do with Asatru in particular. dab (𒁳) 10:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the subject of this article. // Liftarn

glad you noticed. You have no material for "this article", since you fail to cite a single source alleging "persecution of Asatru". dab (𒁳) 10:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution, discrimination, whatever... // Liftarn

Title

I think we have established that this article in fact addresses Religious discrimination against Neopagans in US prisons. I am prepared to grant that topic has borderline notability, and will withdraw the "notability" tag upon a move to that title (where similar dodgy "persecution" articles can find a home too).

I think we can establish that is what you want the article to be about that. I want the article to be about the persecution/discrimination of Asatruers. // Liftarn

then show a source discussing this. Stop pestering this talkpage and do some actual work. And accept that there is no way we can have an article on a topic about which no sources can be presented. dab (𒁳) 11:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Merge this to Religious discrimination against Neopagans. Meanwhile I can see if I find a definition of Religious persecution somewhere. Religious discrimination definitely is the more exact term for this.-Zara1709 11:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object I don't think it's a good idea to throw together a random selection of religions in the same article as it becomes unfocused. Then we might as well merge it into the Religious discrimination article. // Liftarn

after all this silly debate, you have not produced a single instance that is not about religious discrimination in US prisons, and the US prison cases are all about "fringe religions" in general and not about Asatru in particular. Consequently, this article is clearly mistitled, since the material does in fact address a "random selection of religions". If you can find something not about US prisons, and about Asatru, we can still recreate it, but you'll have to admit that the burden of showing claims of "persecution" lies entirely with you. dab (𒁳) 11:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with "discrimination" too. // Liftarn

if you can provide a discussion beyond "fringe religions in US prisons", I will agree to keeping this. At present, "fringe religions in US prisons" is what this article discusses, hence it should be merged. Do some research first and edit-war later. dab (𒁳) 11:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just seek consensus first and avoid edit waring? // Liftarn

once again, present a case and we can discuss it. As long as you don't present a case, we cannot discuss it. dab (𒁳) 12:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll let you have your little fun and when the dust settles we can se what we can do with the pices. // Liftarn

next time consider wasting less of my time before listening to reason. dab (𒁳) 12:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not reason. You constatnt moving of articles and content makes my head dizzy. I need to take a break and come back to see what can be done with the remains of your little game. // Liftarn

you, sir, exhibit a quality of density that would do credit to a quasar. dab (𒁳) 14:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA // Liftarn

"Asatruers"

Comment - um, isn't Asatruar the correct term to denote adherents (both singular and plural)? It really doesn't seem like there's enough for a whole article on this. I'd support merging what can be sourced (if it can be sourced) into Religious discrimination against Neopagans or something similar. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes: Liftarn please read Asatru#Terminology. Don't use "Asatruers", use either "adherents of Asatru" or "Asatruar" (or Ásatrúarmenn). dab (𒁳) 12:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O

Third opinion. After reading through the article and comments, it seems like this article has enough different content with cites to warrant it's existance as a seperate article. Specifically, this cite is a great example, as well as this one, and both are two completely different events. If there is further dispute between whether or not to merge, there is always the option of putting it on WP:AFD and suggesting a merge to see what other people think. — Scottjar → Talk 16:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Afd is not for merge discussions -- nobody calls for deletion, this should simply be a redirect. The place to give opinions on whether to merge is right here. dab (𒁳) 09:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge?

see Talk:Religious discrimination against Asatru. dab (𒁳) 09:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already weight in at Talk:Religious discrimination against Asatru about whether the subject of that article is notable enough to warrant being its own article. (I said yes.) If that article is maintained as a separate article, then this article should be merged into it, with specifically prison-related stuff in its own section. If there's a separate article on Religious discrimination in prisons, then a brief (brief!) section there on Asatru can link to the corresponding section of Religious discrimination against Asatru as its "main article". There's my 2 cents. --Yksin 20:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]