Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heathenry (new religious movement)/archive1

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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2017 [1].

Heathenry (new religious movement) edit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a new religious movement, the practitioners of which seek to recreate the ancient 'pagan' pre-Christian religions of Germanic Europe using sources like recorded Norse mythology. The article was awarded GA status in December 2015 and has seen wider copy editing and scrutiny since then; I think that the time is right for an FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lead contains none of the information as to number of followers (pretty tiny) and geographic spread (mostly the Nordic countries) which occur naturally to those, like myself, who had never heard the term. This eventually appears right at the bottom of a very long article. On a skim, it seems good quality, but I don't know if I can face actually reading it to review. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Johnbod. I have added a brief half-sentence to the lede mentioning the demographic size of the Heathen community. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find it a bit odd that several different groups with distinct origins are simply merged into this article, and on top of that, associated with white supremacism, even before individual movements are named? That seems to associate them all with racism by default. It would be less awkward if movements like asatru had more in-depth articles about them each, but they are mere redirects. Yet we have articles about movements within the wider movements, such as Asatru Folk Assembly and Ásatrúarfélagið. This makes little sense to me. Seems the decision was taken here[2], but the arguments don't seem compelling to me, especially since many tiny splinter groups have separate articles. Also, the current title of the article seems confusing, compared to for example Germanic neopaganism. I had no idea what it referred to when I saw it listed, yet I'm familiar with Scandinavian asatru. Also seems most of the sources refer it as paganism, not heathenry. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"several different groups with distinct origins are simply merged into this article" - the same could be said for our articles on Christianity or Buddhism. Many religions contain a great diversity of belief and practice within their ranks; to properly understand Christianity, one has to appreciate that it encompasses both the Ku Klux Klan and liberation theology, and both the Eastern Orthodox Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In this, Heathenry is no different, and it is important that the article reflects that. Forgive me if I misunderstand or exaggerate, but I feel that carving up this article into separate articles out of a belief that different Heathen groups are too dissimilar would be akin to deleting our article on Christianity through the argument that Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Mormonism are far too distinct to be regarded as part of one single movement.
You mention the term "Asatru" as if it were a denomination of Heathenry, but the situation is more complex than that; some who call themselves "Asatruer" are universal Heathens, others are folkish Heathens. Similarly, most "Odinists" are folkish Heathens, but some are universalist Heathens. As a number of academics make clear (and this article mentions), there is no clear cut demarcation between "Asatru" and "Odinism". I'm certainly willing to concede that there may well be space for articles on Universalist Heathenry and Folkish Heathenry, but I don't think that that leads on to the idea that the Heathenry article itself should be disbanded.
The term "Heathenry" is not perfect, but as has been argued at the talk page over the past few years (resulting in a group vote that led to the article gaining its current name), it really is the best option available. As you can see, the article has an entire section on "Terminology" to better reflect the complicated terminological issues at play here. Moreover, with respect, I do not believe that the statement "most of the sources refer it as paganism, not heathenry" is true. The majority of academic sources on Heathenry refer to it as Heathenry, even if they regard it as a form of contemporary Paganism (this is all explained within the article). Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a misunderstanding here, I'm not contesting that all these groups should be dealt with in the same article, it's the fact that they simply redirect here that seems odd. To go by your own example, we don't merge sub-groups of Christianity into the Christianity article either. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies for the misunderstanding, FunkMonk. I think it only right and proper that specific Heathen organisations (Asatru Folk Assembly, Ásatrúarfélagið, Odinic Rite, Heathen Front etc) have their own articles. At the same time I think that it would be difficult to have specific articles on "Asatru" or "Odinism", for example, because these are such contested terms. They do not comfortably designate specific denominations of Heathenry; they aren't as precise as "Roman Catholic" or "Anglican" are. For that reason, I think that the only reasonable option is to leave them as redirects to this article. As stated above however, there is perhaps room for the creation of specific pages on "Universalist Heathenry" and "Folkish Heathenry". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "New" is a relative term. The "new" in the title should be removed22mikpau (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term "new religious movement" is well established within the academic study of religion and we have academic sources cited within the article which specify that Heathenry is categorised as such by scholars. The term is a necessary component within the article title because it serves to distinguish Heathenry (the religious movement stemming from the late nineteenth century) from heathenry as the term is used generally to refer to pre-Christian belief systems or irreligious behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, I just mean it might be better to use a term like "modern"22mikpau (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point here. New Religious Movement is a recognised name for a religion established in modern times. Wikipedia is not the place to change established academic terminology. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid this has stalled somewhat and we have no consensus to promote in close to six weeks. Therefore, I am archiving, and the article can be renominated after the usual two weeks. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.