Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review, but it may take a little while. For reasons which will hopefully be clear, I'm going to aim to keep an eye out for potential NPOV concerns.


 * I'm a little worried about the third paragraph of the definition section. You say that "Some adherents are deeply knowledgeable as to the specifics of Northern European society in the Iron Age and Early Medieval periods,[14] but others often express a romanticized view of Nordic culture[.]" This is interesting and relevant, and seems fair. But you then go on to twist the knife a little with two quotes about lack of historical knowledge. Perhaps you could remove those quotes (but the references would still be useful to add to the second half of the above-quoted sentence [or perhaps a slightly expanded version of it]) and maybe expand a little on the "reconstruction"/continuity issue you mention immediately following, if there's anything more to say.
 * I've messed around with these sentences a little. I took out the Doyle White quote altogether and simply paraphrased it, also moving it slightly higher in the paragraph. However I've left the Snook quote and merged it into the sentence about the romanticized view of the past. Do these changes work for you? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there has been an improvement, so I'll strike this for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "which pre-Christian Germanic society they seek to imitate" How about "from which pre-Christian Germanic belief system they draw inspiration"? I take it that Heathens aren't typically interested in emulating whole societies, and "imitate" strikes me as potentially a little disparaging- more appropriate for reenactment than sincere religious practices.
 * Good alternative. I have changed the wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

*"structure of their faith" Ambiguous; I'm not fully clear on the claim.
 * The term "structure" here is taken from Snook's book, although she doesn't elaborate on what she means. We could simply excise this word? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had a hack at that paragraph myself; it looks like an improvement to my eyes, but I haven't looked at the source. Please double-check! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if "nature of the faith" really reflects "structure of the faith", while at the same time I fear that it may be equally ambiguous. I've decided to remove this part of the sentence, which works okay I think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies- I confess I wasn't quite clear on what was meant. I'm happy with how it looks right now. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Academics studying the religion have typically favoured the terms Heathenry and Heathenism to describe it" Is that specifically said in the source, or is that just an example of someone favouring these terms? If the latter, I think the claim would be OR.
 * From Gregorius: "'Heathenism' (or 'Heathenry')... has been typically used in academic studies on the phenomenon". I think that my wording fairly reflects that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair- I've struck the comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Early Medieval word heathen" Early Medieval is not a language?
 * The issue here is that the word heathen, as well as its cognates, emerges in slightly different forms of Germanic language during the Early Middle Ages. I'll rewrite the article wording here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, do you know if there is a way of putting in a link to Wiktionary here? I think that it would be good to send the reader to this entry on heathen there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can add a Wiktionary link by using . There's also Template:Wiktionary. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Josh, I have added that in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

*"those practitioners imitating the belief systems of Northeastern Europe's linguistically Finnic and Slavic societies" Again with "imitating"; also, could we have a link to a Wikipedia article about these movements?
 * I've replaced "imitating" here with "inspired by". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We seem to have articles on Finnish neopaganism and Slavic neopaganism; are these worth linking? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm open to adding the links, but not sure at which point in the text this would be appropriate... After all, we already have links attacked to "Finnic" and "Slavic". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're attached to them, then yes, I agree. I'll strike this comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Although initially a popular term of self-designation, usage of Ásatrú has declined as the religion has aged, particularly in Scandinavia." Could I ask you to double-check the wording of your source here? There are three claims here- Initially popular for self-designation, declined generally as religion has aged and has particularly declined in Scandinavia. (Also, I assume you're aware of the distinction between Scandinavia and the Nordic countries? I got it wrong for years.)
 * We could perhaps make some changes here. The source is talking specifically of Sweden, so my use of Scandinavia may not be ideal (and neither might Nordic countries for that matter). The source, from Gregorius, states "Their sense of being part of an authentic form of Paganism which is more integrated in Swedish culture is illustrated by their rejection of the term Asatru and adoption of the term Ford Sed". A few paragraphs later, Gregorius adds that "'Asatru' was for a long time the most commonly used term by both practitioners and scholars, but fewer and fewer now use it; instead practitioners prefer the term 'Forn Sed'", before adding that 'Ford Sed' has "for obvious reasons gained little use outside Sweden and Scandinavia". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed out the bit about Scandanavia. I think Gregorius is making quite a specific claim which is not easy to summarise; you already note that Forn Sed has some dominance in Scandinavia, so perhaps it's not essential to specify that Ásatrú isn't super popular. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "term their religion Vanatrú, meaning "those who honor the Vanir", or Dísitrú, meaning "those who honor the goddesses"" What language is this?
 * Well, clearly these words are making use of Old Norse terms, but I don't think that "Vanatrú" or "Dísitrú" actually exist in any Old Norse texts, making them modern (English?) words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem; you're right that this is not as simple a question as I made out. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "is Forn Siðr or Forn Sed ("the old way");" Again, what language are we looking at here? Old Norse?
 * Yes. The sentence discussing this word already mentions that the term was appropriated from an Old Norse source, but do you think that it needs to be made clearer? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You're inconsistent between Balder and Baldur
 * I've standardised them both to "Baldr", which we use in the article on that particular deity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Heathens view their connection with their deities as not being that of a master and supplicant servant but rather an interdependent relationship akin to that of a family,[54] while for practitioners, these deities serve as both examples and role models whose behavior is to be imitated.[55]" First, "supplicant" is not a term I'd use; is it a standard one in the anthropology of religion? Second, it comes across that you're contrasting "Heathens" and "practitioners", which you surely are not
 * Agreed. I've removed "supplicant" and divided the sentence into two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "with practitioners believing in sentient non-human entities commonly" You don't mean sentient; you mean something more than that. "Intelligent"?
 * Hunt-Anschutz, who is one of the sources used at this juncture, uses the word "sentient", but I agree that you have a good point that this is not perhaps the most appropriate term. I've made the change to "non-human spirit persons", which sounds more like something from the anthropology of religion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Heathenry is animistic,[49] with practitioners believing in sentient non-human entities commonly known as wights that inhabit the world,[60] each of whom is believed to have its own personality." You're very firm about this, despite the apparent wide disparity of beliefs on other matters.
 * That's true. As it is, I'm mostly just following the sources. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if there were Heathens who don't believe in wights yet I haven't the academic sources to support that at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Stopping there for now; a really interesting read so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Some more bits:
 * "Each of these worlds is believed to be inhabited by another type of being; humans live on Midgard, while dwarves live on another realm, elves on another, giants on another, and the divinities live on two further realms" Only a little thing, but I only count 6.
 * I know that the original Old Norse sources dealing with Yggrasil are often quite vague, so it wouldn't surprise me if different Heathen groups approach this cosmological worldview differently. I've altered the prose to "Different types of being are believed to inhabit these different realms". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Some Heathens, such as Brian Bates," Maybe it'd be worth specifying that he's a psychologist?
 * Agreed, and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Freya or Freyja?
 * Both are acceptable spellings but it seems that our article on the goddess uses "Freyja" so I'll standardise it to that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Should "Poetic Edda" be italicised? You're inconsistent.
 * It should be italicised throughout (I'd have thought); I've made the correction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Ring of Troth" is apparently the old name of the organisation
 * The sources cited were written when the organisation was still named the Ring of Troth (I think), but I've made the change throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "with strict screening procedures as to whom they allow to join them" This doesn't quite work grammatically
 * I've changed this to "with strict screening procedures regulating the admittance of new members". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * " In 2014, the Ásaheimur Temple was opened in Efri Ás, Skagafjörður, Iceland,[117] while in 2015 British Odinists opened a temple in converted a 16th-century chapel in Newark, Nottinghamshire." Is this recentism?
 * I'm not sure if it is recentism because I believe that these are fairly pioneering developments in the religion's history. For instance, I believe that the Newark chapel is the first public Heathen temple in the United Kingdom (although I could be wrong about that). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem (struck). Maybe something to think on before FAC- I think that history section could probably be buffed a little? Josh Milburn (talk)
 * Agreed; the History section does need to be improved, although the problem is that no academic has yet to publish a historical study of the modern Heathen movement. Hopefully that will change at some point in the future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Germanic Neopagans have also adopted archaeological sites as places of worship; for instance, British practitioners have assembled for rituals at the Nine Ladies stone circle in Derbyshire,[119] and the Rollright Stones in Warwickshire.[120]" Interesting, but why do you specify that these are "Germanic neopagans" rather than "Heathens"?
 * There's no particular reason here. "Germanic Neopagans" was just a synonym. I'll change it to "Heathens", however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "rites devoted for a specific deity" to, surely?
 * Well spotted. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Ásatrú rituals consciously" Surely the rituals don't consciously do anything?
 * I've gone with "Ásatrú rituals had been deliberately constructed in an attempt to recreate" Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Mjölnir or Mjöllnir?
 * I've standardied to the one-l spelling throughout. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Blót or blót? You also seem to be inconsistent with italicisation?
 * I've rendered it lower-case and non-italicised throughout most of the article; I've kept the upper-case where it is grammatically necessary and left the word italicised when first introducing the word and when discussing the word itself as it was used in the Old Norse language. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Not all Heathens practice seiðr, and many on the movement's right-wing disapprove of it, particularly given its association with the ambiguity of sexuality and gender and the form of Odin or Loki in their inimitable or unreliable, trickster forms." This isn't as smooth as it could be.
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "is largely associated with – and most often performed by" Is this made absolutely explicit in your source? It strikes me as a rather surprising claim.
 * Blain goes with "many practitioners of spae and seiðr today are women, or gay men - marginalised by today's society - and for some few this is sufficient to render the practice... doubtful at best, evil at worst." In her source, Snook goes with "Modern Heathens extrapolate the meanings and methods of seidr from historical accounts and the Icelandic sagas, interpreting it as "women's magic", appropriate only for women or gay men, despite the fact that there are straight male practitioners". Thus, I think that the addition of "most often performed by" should be removed from the article, although the "largely associated with" claim could still stand. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "It is common for Germanic Neopagans to utilize" Again, why use that term in particular?
 * There is no particular reason. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "anti-racist approach believes" Just a little thing, but can an "approach" really "believe" anything?
 * True. I've changed this to "Exponents of the universalist, anti-racist approach believe" Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Is "KveldúlfR Gundarsson" the right name? It doesn't quite match the pen name given in the article on the subject
 * Yes, it is the (rather odd) spelling of the name that appears in both Kaplan and Gardell. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "bowlderised" is apparently a mispelling, but I must confess that it strikes me as too obscure a term to be used.
 * I've rewritten this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "the Ragnarok Circle and Hans S. Jacobsen's Tidsskriftet Ragnarok journal" These haven't been introduced?
 * I've amended the prose so that hopefully it provides a little more information here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What's meant by "English race"?
 * This should actually be "British race", and I have amended it accordingly. I have also put it in quotation marks in the article, to reflect the fact that this was a (rather idiosyncratic) concept of Mills'. Certainly, we don't appear to have any corresponding Wikipedia article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "In the early 1970s, Heathen organisations emerged in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, and in Iceland, largely independently of each other." The suggestion seems to be that there weren't organisations prior to this, but you explain that they were being established in the 1960s in the next paragraph
 * Well, we have one group appearing in the U.S. in 1969, but generally speaking all of the other groups appear to emerge in the 1970s. Again, I'm following the source material here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Hilmar Orn Hilmarsson" should perhaps be "Hilmar Örn Hilmarsson"?
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "published The Odin Brotherhood" Your link is to an article on the supposed brotherhood, not the book
 * Personally I feel that the link is fine as it is, because the supposed brotherhood and the book are closely intertwined. A big part of the problem is that the Brotherhood article was almost completely written by the Holtj/ThorLives sock and very much reflects their personal opinion on the issue. It will need a rewrite at some point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We can pin this on stylistic differences; I'm certainly not going to make a fuss! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit worried about some redirects in the "Modern development" section. Asatru Free Assembly just redirects to Asatru Folk Assembly, so the former link should probably be removed (also- do you need the accents [or whatever they're called] in the latter name?). Similarly, Valgard Murray redirects to Asatru Alliance (which apparently does need the accents) so the former link should probably be removed, and John Yeowell redirects to Odinic Rite. Åsatrufellesskapet Bifrost and Foreningen Forn Sed redirect to Neopaganism in Scandinavia (is this appropriate?) and perhaps most oddly of all, Forn Siðr links to this article.
 * I've removed the superfluous links; I've left those that redirect to Neopaganism in Scandinavia, however. I've also tried to allocate the accents where appropriate, however it seems a little confusing; for instance, looking at the AA's website I can see instances of them using the accents and instances where they haven't... Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "direct revelation through the forms of dreams" strikes me as an odd construction
 * Would "direct revelation through dreams" work? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes- done and struck. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Although practitioners typically live within Christian majority societies, they typically express the view that Christianity has little to offer them." Repetition of "typically".
 * Very good point. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "according to McNallen" Could you specify a date?
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Any further information on Australia? You mention a couple of times that there are Heathen populations in Australia, but never really expand on it.
 * I've not been able to find any academic sources dealing with Heathenry in Australia (aside from that one, brief paper discussing Mills). There doesn't seem to be anything about it in Lynne Hume's Witchcraft and Paganism in Australia, or at least there isn't any mention of it in that book's index. We may just have to wait until academic material on this particular subject is published before incorporating it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed- that there's nothing in Hume's book does seem to indicate that this may be a gap in the literature rather than a gap in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what makes The Norse Mythology Blog a reliable source?
 * I'm not totally convinced that it is, to be honest. It was a source that an editor other than myself had incorporated into the article, and while I was unconvinced that the blog itself was an RS, I thought that the findings of the Heathen Census were probably of value in some form. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A bit of Googling reveals that the blog is run by Karl E. H. Seigfried, who could not unreasonably be described as an academic (though it's a long way from a peer reviewed study). It's mentioned as minimally authoritative here and here, neither of which are awful sources. I think it can be used, but very judiciously. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Your sources all seem great- academic publishers or journals (though some of your journals look very obscure!). I'm not completely done yet... I'll keep picking away... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, please check my edits. Some of them were pretty big. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edits look great Josh, thank you. I particularly like your contributions to the "Further academic reading" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A quick note- does this belong on Template:Paganism? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It could be added, although I'm really not a fan of that template. I actually created it back in 2007, but looking at it now I can see that it is severely flawed in its approach of bringing together Neo-Paganisms with historical pre-Christian religion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Was there anything else Josh? Your comments thus far have been very constructive and the article has certainly been improved because of them, so for that I must offer my thanks! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, super, I'm going to go ahead and promote at this time. This is a very readable, perfectly referenced article which will be a very valuable resource for people wanting to learn about the subject. If you are looking towards FAC, I think my three comments are as follows: First, do what you can to incorporate material from the sources in the further reading section, second, perhaps have another look at the definition section with an eye to NPOV, and, third, have another look at the history section. Anyway- this is a great article, and I commend you for taking it on. A pleasure working with you, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)