Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heathenry (new religious movement)/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2017.

Heathenry (new religious movement)

 * Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a new religious movement whose practitioners seek to revive the belief systems of pre-Christian Germanic Europe, including the religions of the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, and Goths. It has been GA rated for some time and was previously at FAC between February and March; it received no opposition but at the same time attracted very little attention at all. Hopefully this time round a larger number of editors will consider reading it and offering their thoughts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Source review from
 * Generally the sources seem of good quality. Normally "Hardman and Harvey Paganism Today" would raise red flags because it's self-published, but it is held by a good number of academic libraries so shouldn't be that much of an issue.
 * Thorsons is an esoteric publisher, although I did not think that it was a self-publishing platform. However, the chapters in this particular book are written by academics or people with academic training and at least one of the two editors is a professional religious studies scholar. For that reason I felt that it was an acceptable source to use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of linking Diana L. Paxson in the sources section.
 * I do find the lack of books such as Our Troth or Essential Asatru in the further reading section to be a bit surprising. Or the lack of them being used to cite practices/beliefs. It does tend to make the article look like it doesn't reflect what the actual groups actually say about themselves. Obviously we want to rely on secondary sources when possible, but totally not citing any of the actual groups for their own practices seems a bit odd. Kind of like not citing any Christian theology texts for an article on Christianity.
 * I really wanted to avoid the use of primary sources in this article. That is why it relies almost exclusively on secondary—and particularly academic—sources. Some of the authors of these academic texts are non-Heathen scholars, but others are scholar-practitioners, so there certainly is some input from 'insider'-based perspectives here. The main reason why I wanted to avoid primary sources was because they typically only present a particular viewpoint or perspective that is often not shared by other religionists. If we were dealing with a small, homogenous, religious group that has set doctrines then primary sources might be acceptable, but for a broader, heterogenous religious movement (whether Heathenry or Christianity) I think that using them causes more problems than it solves. In the case of this article, there was a big problem with an Ohio-based editor (since banned for repeated edit warring, disruptive editing, and sock puppetry) repeatedly rewriting the article using the primary sources that they favoured, thus pushing their own particular angle on what Heathenry was, or at least what it should be. By steering clear of primary sources we avoid the problem of pushing particular doctrinal differences and also do not have to deal with the problem of selecting which primary sources can be used and which can't. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But you don't even list them in the further reading section. Nor do you have any "official links" to websites. And there are some general heathenry sources that cover it for beginners without going into specific groups - at the least some of those could be listed in the further reading. It is very odd to read an article on a living religion and not have any links/books BY those practitioners at least listed in the further reading/external links section. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I've added an "External links" section with the official webpages of a number of the larger Heathen groups, from various countries. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also added some primary sources to a new sub-section of "Further reading". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I will try to review the article in total later - my husband is Asatru/Troth so I happen to have some knowledge. (Note, I am NOT heathen myself, but you do learn a good bit just by being in the same household.) I'll do a spotcheck of sources then - just ordered a couple of the works through ILL.
 * Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Support from
 * Definition:
 * "Some Heathens also adopt ideas from the archaeological evidence of pre-Christian Northern Europe and from recorded folk tales and folklore from later periods in European history. These textual sources nevertheless.." archaeological evidence isn't a textual source, but the second sentence implies that they are. Not sure how to reword this better, but it is jarring.
 * Hmm. Difficult one. Would "The textual sources" be an improvement, in your opinion? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it would. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made the change here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Other practitioners who emphasize a hard reconstructionist approach.." probably best if you define "hard reconstructionist" above in the sentence "The ways in which Heathens use this historical and archaeological material differs; some seek to reconstruct past beliefs and practices as accurately as possible, while others openly experiment with this material and embrace new innovations."
 * I agree that there is some issue here. Given that the term "reconstructionist" has different potential meanings, I felt it best to remove "hard reconstructionist" altogether here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "and sectors of the Heathen movement have perpetuated misconceptions about the past" ... perhaps a couple of examples in a note?
 * Gods and spirits:
 * "Since the 1970s such negative attitudes toward polytheism changed." awkward - suggest "Since the 1970s such negative attitudes towards polytheism have changed." or "Such negative attitudes towards polytheism changed after the 1970."
 * That's a good idea. I've gone with the first suggested option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Heathenry is animistic,[56] with practitioners believing in nonhuman spirit persons commonly known as "wights" (vættir) that inhabit the world,[67] each of whom is believed to have its own personality."... I'm not sure that animism actually is held by all heathenry groups - I'm still getting a trickle of the article's sources in so cannot consult the works used to support this sentence yet.
 * Cosmology and afterlife:
 * Be consistent in italicizing or not italcizing "wyrd"
 * I was trying to go with a system of italicizing the word on its first appearance but then leaving it un-italicised after that, but I can see that this does generate some confusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, we're supposed to always italicize them. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Morality and ethics:
 * The article constantly use the past tense to describe what scholars say, which can occasionally lead to issues. An example: "Sociologist Jennifer Snook noted that as with all religions, Heathenry was "intimately connected" to politics, with practitioners' political and religious beliefs influencing one another." By saying "Heathenry WAS..." you are implying that it is not a living religion. You can avoid these problems by putting the scholars statements into present tense.
 * I can see the concern here, but I also think that adopting present tense wording would cause new problems. Each of these scholars was operating in a particular place and a particular time, and some of their comments, although valid at the time, may no longer be. Where I think that a change to present tense won't cause problems, I have made the change.Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Did this sentence I singled out change? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It has now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Rites and practices:
 * " Prospective members may undergo a probationary period before they are fully accepted and welcomed into the group, while other groups remain closed to all new members.[123] Such groups are largely independent and autonomous, although they typically network with other Heathen groups, particularly in their region." ... does the "such groups" refer to the closed groups or to ALL the groups mentioned in the preceding sentence?
 * It means all groups. I shall make this clearer in the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Blot and sumbel:
 * Be consistent on italicizing "blot".
 * Italics are used when the word is first introduced and again when the text is specifically discussing the etymology of the word "blót". Other examples are left without italics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, we're supposed to always italicize them. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have made sure that all instances are italicised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Likewise for "sumbel"
 * It is italicised on first appearance and left un-italicised after that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, we're supposed to always italicize them. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have italicised every example. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Seidr and galdr:
 * Be consistent on italicizing "seidr"
 * Ditto. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, we're supposed to always italicize them. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have italicised every example. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Same for "Galdr"
 * And ditto again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, we're supposed to always italicize them. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I got lost with this sentence "The contemporary use of runes for divinatory purposes is however found more widely than within Heathenry, with books on the subject being common in New Age bookstores." Do you mean that the use of runes for divination is practiced outside of heathenry? Or does it mean that the use of runes for divination is MORE widely practiced outside of heathenry? And did the use of runes spread from heathenry to other new age practices or did it develop in new age practices independent of heathenry?
 * I've amended this to the following: "Some non-Heathens also use runes for divinatory purposes, with books on the subject being common in New Age bookstores." I don't really know whether the divinatory use of runes within the New Age developed independently of Heathenry or not; the sources does not specify this, unfortunately. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Festivals:
 * "a tradition that they share with many contemporary Pagans." oooooh.... ouch. Wheel of the Year is very much witchcraft/wicca. LOTS of controversy in the overarching pagan community over equating "Pagan" with "Wicca/Witchcraft". Can we reword to state more clearly that other contemporary pagans do NOT share this idea of the wheel of the year.
 * I think that it is utilised be a lot of Druidic and Goddess Spirituality groups too, as well as more generic self-described 'Pagans'. However, I get your general point, so have refashioned this section of the sentence to the following: "a tradition that they share with Wiccans and a number of other contemporary Pagan groups". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Such festivals can be held on the same day each year..." which festivals are we talking about - the wheel of the year or ALL of the festivals mentioned before this?
 * I've amended "Such festivals" to "Heathen festivals". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Racial issues:
 * "religion of the 'Aryan race' that cannot rightly be followed" any reason you used single quotes here around "Aryan race" where you use double quotes everywhere else?
 * I think that the single quotes were used to reflect the problematic nature of the very concept of an Aryan race, but I agree that it looks a little strange so I have removed the quote marks altogether in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I spot checked a few citations to works and all were paraphrased properly and supported the information in the article.
 * Otherwise everything looks good. As an aside - when are you going to work on my own cultus: Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionism? (no pressure! And yes, with the husband being heathen and myself being neo-Roman, it is occasionally interesting in the house!) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Ealdgyth; I am working my way through them. It would be nice to work on Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionism in future although I'm not sure that there are many academic sources dealing with it. I am currently focusing mostly on New Age, Rastafari, and Satanism, but may turn my attention back to certain modern Pagan groups in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll keep my eye out for sources for any of those articles. Don't worry about the scanty stuff available on RPR, when we go to bookstores, there are usually at least 10 shelving units of "religious" books. Of those units, we're lucky if more than 10 shelves are devoted to non-Christian topics. And usually it's a shelf of "wicca/new age" books. If we're lucky, we may see one book on heathenry on that one shelf. I've yet to find (outside of Amazon) any work on RPR/cultus deorum/religio romana. And of course, all the mythological books are full of Greek myths, which are not the same thing as Roman religious practices. It's like being invisible sometimes.... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

None of the images have alt text. Could you please fix this? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added alt-text to all of the images, 122.108.141.214. Thank you for the suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

, is there another FA which uses the long dash to obscure author's names in the general reference list, when paired with footnotes? Were you advised to do that? I'm thinking that while this is a scholarly practice that I have definitely seen before (somewhere) in print, that it might be a bit obscure/technical for readers of WP and so might not be desirable for an article that is meant to represent Wikipedia's best work. If I'm reading the article, I have to click or tap twice to get to the source from a footnote - once to display the -based material, twice to get to the full citation from "Harvey 2007". Then I am faced with ———  (2007). Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism (second ed.). London: Hurst & Company. ISBN 978-1-85065-272-4. ... It's very elegant, but a person might want to know about Heathenry who isn't au fait with academia, and the column break between Harvey 1995 and Harvey 2007 is unfortunate. I think it would be better if the long-dash was removed on all references, so the full citation is seen no matter which "Author Date" you click/tap on. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. This is definitely something that I've seen in featured articles - at least, in those that I have got to featured status! (Vladimir Lenin and Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas being recent examples where I have adopted the practice). I've never had an editor raise the issue before; not that that dismisses it. Generally I think that the use of dashes does contribute to the aesthetic and organisation of the sources (it is a very common practice in academic literature) and thus would generally rather retain it. Does anyone else have any views on the matter? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the long dash is very common across all academic disciplines at all levels and in journal articles as opposed to books, otherwise I wouldn't have had as much trouble as I did recalling its use. Not all readers of these articles will be academics. Lenin has some interest for history students at high school, for example. Even if it is an aesthetic that you're accustomed to, can you see my point about it adding difficulty for a general audience?   I don't think the use of the long dash is covered in the Wikipedia manual of style, which means that  displaying the authors would help to future proof the article, when in five, ten or fifteen years, there are more sources to be added by other people who aren't as deeply steeped in the discipline as you are. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 122.108.141.214: I can certainly see that there is the potential for some readers to get confused by the dashes. I'll remove them if you really think it important, but personally I'm not convinced that they are a particularly serious problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

 * Some images have both a fixed px size and an upright scale factor - should be the latter only
 * Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * File:Amulet_Thor's_hammer_(copy_of_find_from_Skåne)_2010-07-10.jpg: should include an explicit copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Detail_from_G_181.jpg, File:Nordiska_gudabilder_vid_julgille.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If possible, could you please give me some pointers here Nikkimaria. The artefact depicted in File:Amulet_Thor's_hammer_(copy_of_find_from_Skåne)_2010-07-10.jpg is an exact replica of a Viking Age artefact, while File:Detail_from_G_181.jpg is an actual photograph of such an object. Given the vast age of these items, there can be no copyright restrictions on them under Swedish law. Moreover, I am a little confused about File:Nordiska_gudabilder_vid_julgille.jpg; what is it in this image that requires an additional copyright tag? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the status of the carvings pictured? For ancient objects, any of the copyright-expired tags should apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The carvings are religious objects, and I don't think that they carry any form of copyright. The photograph itself has been released as PD by the individual who took it, User:Achird, so I don't think that there is a problem here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that five of my photos used in the artcle (File:Samfundet Forn Sed Sverige Altare vid Julblot 2010-12-19.jpg, File:Forn Sed Sverige Tingsblot 2011 Rådsgydja o Rådsgode.jpg, File:Vårblot 2010 offergåvor.jpg, File:Nordiska gudabilder vid julgille.jpg, and File:Sveriges Asatrosamfunds höstblot 2009.jpg) depicts more or less the same cult images at different blóts. The little red Thor statue is present in all five photos and the Sunna tablet is present in three of the photos (both belongs to the gyðja to the left in the second of the five photos). The same big Freyr statue is present in three of the photos, and in a fourth photo another big Freyr staute made by the same woodcarver is shown. A Freyja statue, that belongs to Forn Sed Sweden (the proper English name of the Swedish Forn Sed Assembly formerly known as the Swedish Asatru Society or Swedish Asatru Assembly), is present in two of the photos. A bronze ceremonial hammer, that belongs to Forn Sed Sweden, is present in two of the photos. These five photos, plus three other photos used in the article, are all taken by me, and they are all from blóts arranged by Forn Sed Sweden or kindreds belonging to Forn Sed Sweden. / Achird (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added PD-tags and explanations for both File:Amulet_Thor's_hammer_(copy_of_find_from_Skåne)_2010-07-10.jpg and File:Detail_from_G_181.jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I made some minor changes to grammar and wording, but feel free to revert anything. Woebegone (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Review by 3family6

 * "In claiming a sense of indigeneity, many Heathens—particularly in the United States—attempt to frame themselves as the victims of Medieval Christian colonialism and imperialism, ignoring the fact that they are primarily white, and thus members of the same ethnic community which has perpetrated and benefitted from colonial and imperial policies against indigenous communities in the Americas and elsewhere." - While I agree with this statement personally, this appears to be a statement of opinion in Wikipedia voice. I'd feel more comfortable with it if it were attributed to the source.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A very good idea. I have now reformulated this sentence to reflect that it is the view of several academics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Black metal is mentioned, but perhaps also a sentence about pagan metal, folk metal, and Viking metal?
 * I've added a sentence about Viking metal as I was able to find a citation to support the connection between the two. Unfortunately I've not been able to do the same for pagan metal and folk metal, but perhaps said citations will crop up in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For pagan metal, I found these sources that you can reference: Rountree, Crafting Contemporary Pagan Identities in a Catholic Society, pages 46-47 (note that this one is about heavy metal in general, but considers Gothic metal and pagan metal the most important); Weinstein, "Pagan Metal", in Pop Pagans, pages 58-75 (is about pagan metal, also discusses Viking metal, folk metal, black metal, and other genres in the context of paganism); [Granholm, "The Metal Band Therion and the Magic Order Dragon Rouge, in Handbook of New Religions and Cultural Production, pages 553-581] (primarily about the band Therion, but discusses the relationship of paganism to metal, and at one point mentions Viking and folk metal)Dostálová, "Czech Neopagan Movements and Leaders", in Modern Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Central and Eastern Europe, page 168 (explores pagan metal, black metal, and the racist influence of Varg Vikernes); Aitamurto, Paganism, Traditionalism, Nationalism, page 54 (folk metal in the context of black metal and racism in Rodnoverie); Manea, "Primal Roots", in Proceedings of IAC-SSaH 2015, pages 185-193 (paganism and heavy metal).-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 14:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks 3family6 ; I've added some material from Weinstein and Dostálová. I was cautious about some of the other sources because although they discuss Pagan metal as a genre, they do not necessarily tie it in with Heathenry, but rather speak of modern Paganism generally or a different Pagan religion such as Rodnoverie. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I wasn't sure what you would find useful and what not, so I tried to give a variety of sources. What's in the article now looks good.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 17:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't see any other issues in my review.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, 3family6 . Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3family6, if you are happy with my responses to you comments, would you consider giving the article your support as an FA? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Issues are resolved, I now support this article. Back to my wikibreak.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 17:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FreeKnowledgeCreator
Midnightblueowl asked me if I was interested in commenting on this article. Having just read it through in its entirety, I have a few comments. The article is well written, and there are only a few (mostly very minor) quibbles that I could make. I'll note the more important issues. In the paragraph beginning, "Various Heathen groups adopt the Norse apocalyptic myth of Ragnarök", the term "Ragnarök" is spelled both with and without an umlaut. The spelling should be consistent, unless there is some specific rationale (which I'm not seeing) for the inconsistency. The word "the" has sometimes been added before a person's background (such as sociologist or political scientist) and sometimes not. That is another inconsistency that should be dealt with.

One sentence reads, "Many practitioners avoid using the etic term "reconstructionism" to describe their practices, preferring to characterize it as an "indigenous religion" with parallels to the traditional belief systems of the world's indigenous peoples." Now "etic" is of course linked, so readers can find out easily enough what it means by clicking on the link, but the initial reaction of the large majority of readers to that sentence is still going to be a blank stare. Even most reasonably well-read readers aren't likely to have any idea what "etic" means. Technical terminology has its place, but it is still best to use language that most readers are likely to understand, where this is possible. A sentence reads, "Some seiðr-practitioners make use of entheogenic substances as part of this practice, although others explicitly oppose the use of any such mind-altering drugs"; this is better than the sentence including "etic" as it gives the reader an explanation of what the unfamiliar term "entheogenic" means without their having to turn to another article. On the issue of factual accuracy, one sentence states that, "Others adopt concepts from the world's surviving ethnic religions as well as modern polytheistic faiths such as Hinduism". That Hinduism is polytheistic is disputed, and there would be interpretations of Hinduism that do not see it that way. I realize that describing Hinduism is hardly the point of this article, but it is still as well to be aware of this issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your thoughts, FreeKnowledgeCreator. Well spotted on the Ragnarök spelling; I have ensured that that is standardised. I have also ensured that "the" is included in every instance where an academic is introduced in the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With regard to the issue of "etic", I have removed the second appearance of the word and replaced it with "scholarly". I have left the first appearance of the term in situ, but have added "scholarly" after it; does this work in your view? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As a drive-by comment: "Henotheism" might be the best descriptor in this article for Hinduism. It is an over-broad generalization of Hinduism, as that article explains, but I think it works for this article, since we're dealing with a collection of shared faiths that are devoted to particular gods but which, generally, grant that there are, or could be, other gods.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 17:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, you've modified the remaining sentence containing "etic" to read, 'Many practitioners avoid using the etic, scholarly term "reconstructionism" to describe their practices, preferring to characterize it as an "indigenous religion" with parallels to the traditional belief systems of the world's indigenous peoples.' Some explanation of "etic" is definitely desirable, though I would have preferred a slightly different wording, 'scholarly term etic' rather than 'etic, scholarly term.' The grammar of the first wording seems better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that "scholarly term etic" would work; what about "scholarly, etic term"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was only suggesting that the former word order would seem more natural to most readers - though it may actually be incorrect, as you suggest. The point is that the sentence as it stands, 'Many practitioners avoid using the scholarly, etic term "reconstructionism" to describe their practices, preferring to characterize it as an "indigenous religion" with parallels to the traditional belief systems of the world's indigenous peoples', does not explain its unfamiliar terminology. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Would linking to etic be better than linking to WP in this case? I'm thinking of 'apposition' in the FA Mary Wollstonecraft as an example to follow here.  While we have a WP article on etic, to just get the gist of it and then return to reading the article, Wiktionary might be more appropriate.  --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that a Wikilink to the Wiktionary entry is certainly the best course of action here. Otherwise, we end up with a situation where the text might have to be interrupted just to explain the meaning of a word, and I do not see how that could be achieved without causing something of a mess. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad I could provide another feasible option. Could you please address my concerns above about the long dash used in the reference list?  --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I missed that one. Will take a look now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been about five weeks since nomination and the article has three statements of support (and none in opposition). I think that all of the concerns raised have been dealt with, so if there are no further issues (anyone?), might I suggest that the article receive its little gold star? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think this has had a pretty thorough review now and I don't think we need to delay any further. If there are any more issues that the IP or FreeKnowledgeCreator wish to raise, they can do so on the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.