Talk:Verein für germanisches Heidentum

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Germanic neopagan group Verein für germanisches Heidentum dismisses völkisch religiosity by associating it with monotheism and dualism? Source: "The ethnicist German VfgH also sees a 'monotheistic-dualistic configuration' at the basis of völkisch religiosity and thus salvages modern Asatru from the association with both." (Norse Revival, p. 127)
  • ALT1: ... that the Verein für germanisches Heidentum, a Germanic neopagan group in Germany, began as a chapter of Britain's Odinic Rite? Source: "...the Odinic Rite Deutschland (ORD, later renamed as Verein für germanisches Heidentum VfgH, Society for Germanic Paganism). The ORD started out as a chapter of the British Odinic Rite in 1994..." (Norse Revival, p. 75)

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nicholas Horsfall

Created by Ffranc (talk). Self-nominated at 12:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
• Interesting: - I am not sure how ALT1 is interesting.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Interesting new article. Approve ALT0 only (t · c) buidhe 11:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

ALT0 to T:DYK/P7

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Verein für germanisches Heidentum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 10:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A solid article. I only have a few notes, mostly revolving around improving readability for a non-specialist audience:

• Links to Völkisch movement mostly seem like they should be specifically piped to Völkisch movement#Modern usage in Heathenry for clarity. Similarly, a link to something like Heathenry (new religious movement)#Racial issues might be appreciated from 'universalist' in the lead, for readers who aren't necessarily familiar with the dichotomy or why VfGH rejects it.
  • Done
• Probably worth clarifying that blót ceremonies are sacrificial. Also, is 'reinvented' the ideal word compared to more common choices like 'reconstructed'?
  • Explained blót in the lead. "Reinvention" is used in contrast to "reconstruction" in the source ("Man müsse weniger auf die vergebliche Re-Konstruktion setzen, sondern vielmehr auf die ideenreiche Re-Invention der Religion", "You have to rely less on the vain reconstruction, but rather on the conceptive reinvention of religion"). I added a few words to the article body about why they prefer this approach.
• Consider using the {{lang}} template for German text (such as when writing the full titles of organizations). I see it's used a couple times in the article, but not consistently.
  • Added a bunch, maybe missed something.
• "Dualist" is a little more common a phrasing than "dualistic".
  • Changed
• The meeting was exclusively for "inclusive" Germanic neopagans, which led to discussions about what it means to be inclusive Do we have further details on such discussions?
  • Added a little. It's hard to elaborate more without WP:OR, since the source doesn't discuss the VfGH's position in particular.

I may make further comments, but these are the only clear ones at the moment. Vaticidalprophet 10:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! I'll be happy to address any other concerns you have. Ffranc (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks so much for your prompt replies! I've made some minor copyedits for prose quality (feel free to tweak any further) and spotchecked a few cites (checking through the cited chapters of Norse Revival) without issue. I'm happy to pass the article; it's a concise but in-depth look at the subject that doesn't need any more significant work for GA status. Vaticidalprophet 12:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you! Ffranc (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)