Talk:Old Norse religion/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Recent edits

The recent edits appears like an ode to Christopher Abram. Not encyclopedic. I don't have the time to filter good from bad. RhinoMind (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Abram's is a major English-language source on Old Norse religion; I don't see how it is in any way un-encyclopedic to cite him, to be honest. Of course, we must not rely solely on his publication - perhaos you felt that I was doing that (although I can assure you that I am branching out and using a variety of sources). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I also think that the heavy reliance on Abram is a bit of a problem. Off the top of my head, I recommend that we bring material from Davidson's Gods and Myths of Northern Europe and Turville-Petre's Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia, both of which are still valuable introductions to the topic. The usual trio of handbooks also feature important entires and introductions, including Rudolf Simek's Dictionary of Northern Mythology, John Lindow's Norse Mythology, and Andy Orchard's Dictionary of Norse Myth and Legend. Simek's handbook in particular provides a significant amount of entries applicable to this article's scope (albeit his biases need to be appropriately attributed wherever they're encountered). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I will certainly be bringing in material from these and other sources. I am going through each book one by one to mine them for information; Abram just happened to be the book that I used first. I'm currently working my way through O'Donoghue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Norse religion. This seems to be a more neutral title, and more widely recognized than "Norse paganism", anyway. Aervanath (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


Norse paganism → Ancient Norse religion – NPOV and style reasons. Pagan is historically a pejorative term, and most other articles about specific belief system use the word religion or mythology. For example see Religion in ancient Greece, Hungarian mythology, Religion in ancient Rome, Slavic mythology, Armenian mythology. As there is already a Norse mythology article, I propose moving this to Ancient Norse religion. The discussions above: [1], [2] indicate that there the current name is not ideal. Another option would be to move it to the current redirect Norse religion. relisting see below Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC) aprock (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. The term "paganism" is centred on a Christian worldview that is inappropriate (and often derogatory) in a secular encyclopedia, especially where neutral alternatives are readily available. NoeticaTea? 02:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I see the problem with the existing title, but the problem with the proposed new one is that we are not dealing with the ancient period here, but the early middle ages, maybe stretching into the high middle ages. Comparable articles on other forms of "paganism" redirect to Celtic polytheism, Slavic mythology and Baltic mythology. Maybe we should merge this with Norse mythology? PatGallacher (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see that it covers the period from 9000 B.C to about 1000 A.D. Additionally, Norse religion was offered as an alternative. aprock (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: "Norse religion" could in one sense include Catholicism and Lutheranism.

I think there's a distinction between "religion" and "mythology" that is sometimes subtle and often ignored, e.g. the Last Supper is mythology, the Eucharist is religion. (There is an article Christian mythology separate from Christianity.) The word "mythology" itself tends to the pejorative, because "myths" are often recorded by people who don't follow the religion, and this is certainly true of many of the sources of Norse myths.

I don't see an enormous problem with "paganism" (although modern Asatruar tend to call themselves "heathens", going for the Anglo-Saxon root). Maybe Norse religion of the pre-Christian era?--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we could move Christianity to Western religion of post-Babylonian era too ;) Maybe we should consider Traditional Norse religion? aprock (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Traditional Norse religion works for me.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Relisting. There seems consensus on a move, but not on what the new name should be. Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Rather than relist, I think we can just go ahead and move to Traditional Norse religion. If someone objects, we can reopen the discussion. aprock (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
There are four editors involved; Two of them support this alternative proposal, including yourself as the nominator. The other two have not commented either way since this alternative was suggested, more than half-way through the discussion period. That is a consensus of sorts I agree, but it's hard to imagine a weaker one. On the other hand, if there's no opposition for another few days, that would make it a very reasonable consensus. Or that's my logic for relisting. Andrewa (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge to Norse mythology. Both articles appear to cover the same topic. The Norse mythology article appears to be older than Norse paganism. Although, the original emphasis of the latter article appears to have been on Nordic religious culture, it has since developed into an imitation of the former article. If sufficient divergent content arises (i.e. religion vs mythology, as described Curtis Clark above), then a separate article (Traditional Norse religion) can be reconsidered. In the meantime, though, there is too much overlap (or, to put it another way, the differences between the two articles' content is too unclear) to justify separation. ClaretAsh 01:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This move should have considered what is the common name before a move was made. The whole point of article titles is to aid finding the article. If the name is not descriptive than we do not concern ourselves with whether the name is non NPOV (it is assumed that the name in common use is neutral as far as reliable secondary sources are concerned) if we did then names like the Boston Massacre would have to be moved to something else.

Google books

  • "Norse Paganism" returns about 2,320
  • "Ancient Norse religion" about 552
  • "Norse polytheism" 36

Google scholar:

  • "Norse Paganism" returns about 221
  • "Ancient Norse religion" about 21
  • "Norse polytheism" 7

This clearly shows that "Norse Paganism" is the common name for "Norse polytheism", but further assesment would need to be done on the quality of the books and articles returned. -- PBS (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There are 198,000 hits for "Boston Massacre" in google books, and 6580 in google scholar. Searching for "Odinism" returns 5370/405 hits, making that term google's "preferred" name. This is why google searches are not a source. As noted above, there is a clear consensus to move it away from the POV term paganism. aprock (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reopening comment I have reverted my close to reopen this discussion at the request of PBS. I will not involve myself in the discussion or subsequent close. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    I do not intend to comment further, other than to say that editors should take into consideration the advise in the Article title policy and its guidelines (Naming conventions) when considering an appropriate article title. The links to the books and articles returned by the searches I presented above should be looked at to assess their quality, to make sure that simple Google searchs do not lead to an erroneous conclusion. If Additional relevant information from other sources is presented then it too should be included when making the final decision. -- PBS (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep/Oppose Absent any widespread self label for the practice of worshipping or revering elements of Norse mythology this title makes the most sense. Also, this is quite a distinct topic from Mythology which should properly cover stories and descriptions of the figures of the religion, while this article should cover its practice (primarily ancient but with reference to lingering or revived elements). This should match Anglo-Saxon paganism and Germanic paganism with, to my thinking, Anglo-Saxon mythology (and possibly English folk mythology) and Germanic mythology as subtopics, even if the mythology articles were larger. Also of concern is correspondence with and consitency among the relevant categories. Obotlig (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with keeping it. If there were a self-label, it might be Norse heathenism, but that's only based on apparent modern preferences of individuals following the reconstructed religion.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to suggest that both Anglo-Saxon paganism and Germanic paganism should also be renamed. aprock (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename None of the rationales offered to keep the name as it is address the POV problems with the name. It might be best to just rename it to use the same name as in the Danish article Norse religion. aprock (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this except what name would Germanic paganism get? Or Anglo-Saxon paganism although in that case one might argue that by the time of Christianization it became English religion? To me consistency is the most important aspect of article naming, and the name matching what will directly receive the most searches - this affects google placement of the article if I'm not mistaken. Obotlig (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Consistency isn't much of an issue in this class of articles. See Religion in ancient Greece, Hungarian mythology, Religion in ancient Rome, Slavic mythology, Armenian mythology, etc. aprock (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Norse religion Well argued guys. I can agree with the simple label in this case. Consistency is a hobgoblin of my own mind. ;-) Obotlig (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

sigh, when you googled "Norse religion", you found all instances of "Old Norse religion". Seriously, can anyone really be so naive or google-unsavvy? The most widespread term seems to be "Old Norse religion". Followed by "Norse paganism". "Norse religion", as you will find if you google the term excluding "Old Norse religion" is used more rarely, and mostly in shoddy or dubious literature. In other words, this move was clearly ill-advised, and I presume explicitly motivated by an unstated agenda. The term "Old Norse religion" apparently suggest the Norse paganism of the Old Norse period (i.e. the Viking Age). --dab (𒁳) 17:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? aprock (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thank you for your question.
I was talking about WP:UCS, which is how article names should be decided on Wikipedia.
only, these "discussions" and "talkpage consensuses" mostly seem to be entirely ignorant of the guidelines and just blindly follow random claims and false anologies.
I am saying that I consider it incompetence to google "Norse religion" and then conclude that the term is common while in fact you have found tons of references to the term "Old Norse religion".
there is no such term as "Norse religion" in serious literature. There is the term "Old Norse religion", and this is where the page should have moved, if at all.
Also, I do not know why I am explaining what I was "talking about", as I was perfectly lucid the first time around, so there is little hope you will get the point now if you did not get it before. --dab (𒁳) 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll go with equally lucid. If you want to move the page, go for it. While you missed the original discussion, you're certainly welcome to contribute now. aprock (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Norse religion --> North Germanic religion

Hi. The article and this TalkPage has been moved from Norse Religion to North Germanic Religion a few days ago. Where was the debate about this radical move? Or is it just the idea of a single editor? RhinoMind (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • There was no debate. The action was taken by User:Bloodofox. Personally, I do not think either of the terms are widely used in the WP:Reliable sources, so I think that a decent examination of those sources to determine a better title will be inevitable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Revert of a page move

See previous requested moves Talk:Norse religion#Requested move 2012 Talk:Norse religion/Archive 1#Move? 2013

@user:Bloodofox I reverted your page move from Norse religion to North Germanic religion because moving this article is potentially controversial as the current name was decided in a WP:RM. It many be that the scope of this page needs to be restricted, or it may be that the article title needs to be changed, but either way there should be an informed consensus before any action is taken. -- PBS (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

For example there was a page called Germanic paganism that is currently called Germanic religion (aboriginal). What is the proposed difference in scope between this page, if it is called "North Germanic religion" and the page Germanic religion (aboriginal)? -- PBS (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Scope?

North Germanic paganism is no doubt more accurate. This article focuses on the pre-Christianization religion of the North Germanic peoples. A lot of the material currently employed here focuses flatly on the Viking Age, however. So what is the scope of this article supposed to be? From Proto-Norse to Christianization with some discussion about post-Christianizaton folk belief or are we only focused on the Old Norse period here? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Accurate maybe. But it is not a term that appears to be used in the WP:Reliable Sources. And we have to follow the Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I have previously proposed the title Asatru. It is the most accurate title and was also used in the Sagas (if I remember correctly). The title of Asatru would make it easier to define what the article is supposed to cover. The relation of Asatru to Germanic paganism/religion is of course an important context and subject, but I see no point in splitting Germanic religion into geography-based parts. RhinoMind (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

No, definitely not Asatru. It's a 19th-century invented word. The sagas just talk about "heathens" (which can equally well be translated "pagans", since English has two words). Yngvadottir (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Yngvadottir; Asatru would not be an appropriate term, particularly as that term has strong associations with the modern Pagan religion which we cover in Heathenry (new religious movement). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new first paragraph

[3]. I didn't try to add a source, because this article uses that horrible alternative way of sourcing that I can't get my head around, but it's ISBN 978-07141-23370 pp 164-165.—S Marshall T/C 17:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. We have a big disagreement about what this article should include, so I'm all the more concerned that the lead should be written last, but if I'm still working on it when we reach that point, I'll be sure to look hard at that. (I know some people like that citation format, and it appears to be required for FAs, but I guess it's advancing age: having to decode it slows me down terribly, and I'm already slow. But there's hope: at this point I have the parameters for the citation templates pretty much memorised, so I am able to use those. This article was originally in mixed style so I'm using the system I personally find easiest, and then they can all be converted to whatever machine language in the end.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I certainly think citation style should take a back seat to getting the article academically rigorous. I would suggest that an article called "Norse religion" should start by discussing whether what they believed was, strictly, a religion. Neil Price seems to think it might not have been.—S Marshall T/C 18:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Current Norse Mythology Coverage: Very Poor

I'm seeing a lot of recent additions on the topic of Norse mythology here. A lot of them are extremely bad. Many of these additions are highly confused, charged with opinion, or simply wrong, culled from non-specialists texts. Davidson and Motz, for example, would surely take one look at the current section on Freyja and place their palms to their faces. I'll return to this talk page within the next few days and dig into removing some of this material from the article, but in the mean time editors can keep time-wasting to a minimum by consulting our current coverage at articles like Freyja, Nerthus, and Sessrúmnir before plucking stuff from, say, Abram and placing it here as simple fact.

Better yet, as the article looks like it's dedicated to Abram and O'Donoghue, stop adding to the article until you can draw from broader secondary sources, such as the numerous, field-standard sources I mention above. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Both Abram and O'Donoghue's works are WP:Reliable Sources produced by recognised experts in their field. O'Donoghue is a Professor of Old Norse at the University of Oxford; Abram an Associate Professor of English at the University of Notre-Dame. While I acknowledge that some of their views may be disputed by other scholars, that does not mean that here their works should be treated dismissively. I also think it unfair to say that "the article looks like it's dedicated to Abram and O'Donoghue". This article has been in a very, very poor state for a long time. Ever since it was created, in fact. I am trying to do something about that, and the way that I work is by going through one text at a time, mining it for information, before moving on to the next one. I have produced over 100 GAs and 15 FAs through this method (not to brag, just demonstrating that it is a very effective strategy!). Yes that does mean that at present it relies heavily on Abram and O'Donoghue, but I am diversifying that use of sources as I go (just as I have done over at Anglo-Saxon paganism, or as I did at Heathenry (new religious movement)). I am familiar with almost all of the texts that you mention and I will get around to applying them to this article. If you feel that there are specific areas of inaccuracy in the article, it would be best if you raised the issues here at the Talk Page first before simply removing things from the article, particularly things which are cited to Reliable Sources. You clearly know a great deal about Norse mythology and your input will be greatly appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: while I respect your achievements in GAs and FAs, your rewrite so far does not show much depth of knowledge of this subject. In particular, there's an Anglo-centric bias, and you haven't taken account of Dumézil's tripartite theory. It's also misleading to deal with Heimdallr and Loki at the end of the Vanir section, and then you trail off with a mention of Rán: this is disorganised. And what about Iðunn's being called an elf? I think part of this comes with not treating this article as the broad overview it is: we rightly have a ton of more detailed articles (and I see numerous missing links). But also, if you are going source book by source book, that can't help but create a patchy article. So I'm sorry, however bad you see it as having been before, I'm also inclined to revert your edits and then see what from them can be usefully incorporated. Otherwise, the way to do a total rewrite would be to digest those surveys of the entire Scandinavian religion that do exist, and then write up an overall summary and add in the areas where there have been changes in the dominant view or are current major disagreements. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Further, after looking carefully at the previous version: it was less good than I remembered, and in particular I think the table of the names of the days of the week should go: the parallelism is due to Anglo-Saxon missionary activity on the Continent and thus ultimately these names (except for the Reformation "Midweek", "Washday", and so on—see Cleasby-Vigfússon for those) derive from the Anglo-Saxon names adopted under the papal experiment of being relatively lenient in converting the English: the clerics naming dies Veneris in Old English after Frigg rather than Freyja, for example, is a fascinating data point, but they're learned translations of the Latin names, not original to heathenry, so they cannot tell us who were the major gods in Anglo-Saxon heathenry, let alone what the situation was in the Continental areas to which they were later exported by the English missionaries, or what the "native names" for the days of the week were; there probably weren't any. This should be noted in the articles on Christianisation, but it's a dead end here. As to sources: Turville Petre's book is old (1964), but admirably learned and clear, especially in setting out the import of the Dumézil theory and what we know about regional differences. The best detailed overview, to my knowledge, is still Jan de Vries' Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte (I should improve that article, since someone wrote it up), last revised in 1956–57, but there are later works by, for example, Gro Steinsland that I haven't been able to access and that may well be excellent. (It's also important to note that there are regional divergences in interpretation. Scandinavian scholars are both more focused on fertility/earth religion and more likely to look for evidence of social stratification and the role of religion in maintaining leaders' hegemony.) But. The main function of this article is as an overview—of a vast body of material on which more scholars have beavered away, at greater length and with more differences of opinion, than one might think. This is not the article in which to go into anything in depth. And I wouldn't describe it as "very poor" - more mediocre. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Bloodofox; Yngvadottir, thank you both for your input. I am certainly not holding up the current version of the article as something fantastically wonderful; it is very much a work in progress and certainly looks patchy and a bit messy at present. But it is clearly an improvement on the article as it existed just one month ago ([4]), and it will continue to improve as time goes on. If I do cite material that is out of date then I am more than happy to have one of you step in with a correction, but please do give a reason and specify exactly why something is incorrect, or at least contested. For instance, what is "out of date" about this edit? Has our understanding of Heimdallr and Bragi changed radically since Davidson wrote? This article has been in a very bad state for well over a decade, and from what I can see I am the first editor to actually devote a significant amount of time toward doing something about that problem. As you have both observed, I am not an expert in Norse mythology and am therefore reliant on what I read in the Reliable Sources, but that is not a reason for discouraging me from editing. Together, I am confidant that we can really knock this article into shape. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I really don't want to knock your effort, Midnightblueowl, but I laid out my objections above. As the overall introduction to a large topic, this article needs to cover all the main points, have all the useful links, and orient the reader efficiently; that makes it unsuited to the method you're using, and also, I think, makes it a bad candidate for a non-expert to revamp totally. I've mentioned a couple of major flaws in your version's coverage of the topic. And I also don't think the prior version was terrible. I really don't know whether I have time to do my own rewrite, but until someone who knows the subject very well does have that time, I think Wikipedia would be better served by undoing your rewrite and instead adding some of your references to wghhat was there before (and removing the days of the week section). Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the days of the week section; it was not in any way referenced. As for the mention of Dumezil, I would certainly concur that it is worthy of a mention (although would not go so far as to claim that a lack of mention of Dumezil is a "major flaw", more a slight omission). But as for the idea that we should revert to a point when the article was almost entirely unreferenced and even patchier than it is now... well I'm afraid I cannot support that at all. I appreciate that you have some reservations, but wait and see where I take this article; as I said, I may not be an expert in Norse mythology, but I'm not a complete ignoramus on the subject, and I have an awful lot of experience in synthesising RS sources into articles that meet the GA and FA criteria. I know that I can do the same here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's indicative. Dumézil's tripartite theory upended the prior loose agreement that the Æsir-Vanir War was a recollection of a war between peoples that happened in Northern Europe, and of their varying religions, by positing Indo-European antecedents for both groups of gods and for a divine war. (It also radically changed the dominant view on Odin.) On many things, including these, we have quite good—and well referenced—specific articles. Yes, this general intro could do with some sprucing up. But I suspect it's been left to slumber because it is just the introduction. (See above re: title for another possible reason; there appears to be disagreement about its scope.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I won't really be able to sit down with this for the next few days, but the remarks on Heimdallr contained a sentence—stated as fact, no less—that has shown to be false in light of a runic inscription that was discovered around the same time, which we cover in our Heimdallr article (Heimdallr#Saltfleetby_spindle_whorl_inscription). Abram's (now proven wrong) assertion illustrates the danger of making statements like that. The situation also illustrates the problem of uncritically plucking factoids out of general audience-oriented works and placing them here as one encounters them, regardless of the author. We may well be able to work together to get this article in shape, as we have now and then on a few articles here and there. On the other hand, given how this is going, most of it might just need to be scraped entirely, per Yngvadottir. As Yngvadottir says, the article really is just an overview. Whatever the case, you'd gain a lot from first consulting our well-developed articles on these topics and the handbooks I mention above. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Bloodofox. I appreciate you flagging up the error regarding Heimdallr. As for the removal of RS-sourced information, that should really only happen when the material is factually incorrect, as for instance Abram's comment on Heimdallr was. If there are other instances where an issue is contentious, then additional material can easily be added (providing it is appropriately cited) reflecting that there is debate over an issue. For now, I will avoid adding material on the explicitly mythological side of Old Norse religion until I can grab copies of Simek and Orchard, as you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Midnightblueowl, but I still disagree. It's possible for sourced information to be misleading, out of place in the particular article, outdated, or otherwise unsuitable. I also now see that it was with the start of your rewrite on August 3 that the article started to convert to the "sfn" referencing format, which I find a serious barrier to editing. I am aware that the Featured Article people have a preference for that and other esoteric referencing formats, but there is nonetheless a guideline that referencing format is not to be changed without good reason. I plan to re-rewrite at least parts of the article to make it a better introduction to the topic (and one of my primary reasons for regarding that as necessary is that your mode of work, learning as you go, is unsuited to an introduction article for a large topic). In deference to your record as a rewriter, I was going to attempt to keep as much as possible, but since you made that referencing format change, I will instead substitute sections. Bloodofox knows how to do that sophisticated referencing, so maybe they can later re-convert the article to using that system. They also tagged the article as needing a rewrite in March and have raised concerns above about its scope with regards to time, so it's quite possible they will make changes also when they can get to it. I'm letting you know because I am sure your effort has been well intentioned—and the article was tagged as needing a rewrite—and I will try to include as much of your work as possible, but I do not want silence to appear to be assent, particularly since you can't be expected to know what other commitments are taking my time off-wiki and causing me to focus mostly on small tasks here. (And I don't participate in FA or GA, unlike, for example, Bloodofox, so I am probably not on your radar as a major writer. This is a side effect of our loose organization on Wikipedia and the fact that FA/GA are strictly voluntary sub-projects like everything else.) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
As it existed a month ago, the article had no standardised citation system, rather there was an array of different citation systems going on. I have done what I can to standardise that to a system that is widely used at Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I've begun re-rewriting it, starting with the sections on deities. I have commented out the section on theophoric names, which needs to be integrated with the section on sources insofar as it survives at all; as you will see, I've mentioned placename evidence briefly in the section on deities. Much of your work, Midnightblueowl, is a vast and inappropriate expansion: this article is an introduction and orientation. Some of that comes from paying too much attention to England (and via DuBois to Finnish/Sami), but otherwise I believe you simply got carried away. We cannot and should not mention all the gods and goddesses, or anywhere near all, in this introductory article. And I don't think the article should talk much if at all about the forms of Norse magic. So I've made a start, and that includes reverting the change in citation mode. I am endeavoring to keep as many of your cites as possible, and will add others, as I have with Motz on the words for "goddess". (I'm also using shorter forms of your wording where I can.) But my time is limited, so I'm leaving it for now in a partially transformed state that does indeed have a mix of citation styles. My apologies, but I had not intended to rewrite this article; I did not agree that it badly needed rewriting; and accommodating what I can of your material will slow me down further. However, I do not believe the reader is well served by your approach and its results, because of the nature of this article and the fact you are not a subject expert. (I fully expect others will find things I forget to include, or where my own knowledge is out of date.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your additions of newly sourced material on the deities. However, I think that we disagree on what an introductory article should actually entail. I certainly agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, have attempted to trim back areas that got too long (to that end I have removed some of my own additions), and will continue to trim back several more. However, I think that we need at least a few paragraphs on every area of this topic (i.e. a few paragraphs on seidr, a few on the gods, a few on burial, etc). This is an article about an entire belief system that lasted for centuries; it is not going to be a short one. Look at the article on Heathenry (new religious movement) for an example; that is FA rated and is of the same rough length that we would expect in an article such as this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I was staggered to see that that's an FA—congratulations to those who got it there. But they are not analogous articles within the encyclopedia. This article sets the scene for a plethora of increasingly detailed articles, starting with Norse mythology; that one's task is to talk about the entire history and variety of modern praxis, and all it's really supported by, other than the material on the topic of this article, is a few articles on individual figures and groups. There's a real danger of the reader drowning in minutiæ in this article; also, I would rather they clicked through to learn about individual gods and about blót, to give two examples, and see the evidence laid out there. I also fail to see the relevance of magic: seið is not a form of worship (except to a minority of modern heathens!) However, I have to get to bed now. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I really disagree on seið. It may well not have been part of the 'mainstream' cultic system of Norse society, but it was very much part of the general world-view pertaining to the 'supernatural' and the 'otherworld(s)' in Old Norse society. The fact that they had no concept of 'religion' with which to delineate 'official' from 'unofficial' practices in a way recognisable to us renders things a little more difficult. However, reliable sources devoted to Old Norse religion do discuss it, and so should we. But let's not give it too much space. No more than two—at very most three—paragraphs on it. I totally agree that there is a risk of drowning in minutiae and I am sure that we will have future discussions as to quite what constitutes minutiae in a given circumstance! Anyway, sleep well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
And so was galdr (mentioned in several poems). And some of the saga mentions of seiðr undoubtedly use the term in a medieval sense, as "black magic". There's a useful point to be made about the roles played by the runes, which will be unfamiliar and surprising to the reader new to this culture. And I'm sure there were other forms of magic that we do not know about (especially since you accept the out-on-a-limb view that local groups venerated particular local/tribal deities). But magic as such should be an aside of one or two sentences in this article, unless you have reputable scholarly sources that give it prominence in discussing Norse religion. You're throwing in the kitchen sink. And also footnoting far too meticulously; we absolutely don't need a reference for the religion having been polytheistic, especially not when we immediately make the point that the gods are portrayed as having human characteristics, including marrying and having children ... even using the same page reference for that point. And I now see that you have made more than 50 edits to the article since I last had time to revise a section. I have been endeavoring to incorporate your material, but I must register my continuing objection to making this into a huge, baggy article for mere expansion's sake, or out of some feeling that the reader should have it all in the one article. That won't work: there's too much. It also precludes talking about the varying views on the nature of the religion, such as the view that it was at root a nature religion; the view that it was a particularly martial development of the original common Indo-European religion; the view that our texts are biased toward an upper-class, heroic religion that was in part a reaction against Christianity; and the various debates about regional differences and whether they indicate foreign influences, such as the issue of sacral kingship among the Swedes and the old debate over whether Odin derives from some other people. There is a place for those in this article, but only if the material that we also present in its own articles is kept manageable in size. This is becoming the kind of article that editors say needs to be split. It's wasted effort to do that: we already have almost all the other articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, please, I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't keep changing the referencing system. Your additions of cited information are great, and I applaud you for that, but changing the style of referencing in the Belief sub-section when I have just managed to get it largely standardised across the article is disruptive and unnecessary. I value your input and your views, but that is something that is not helping anyone.
Regarding the general length, I know that you want a really short article, but realistically this article is not too long by Wikipedia standards. We are talking about the entire belief system of much of a continent over a period of around a thousand years. That is always going to entail a longer article; again I would point you towards the FA-rated Heathenry (new religious movement) article. It is true I am working on this article with an eye for GAN and FAC, and I know what will pass at those level; if it is too brief in its length and coverage, it will not pass. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
To be quite frank, I don't care a shred about the requirements for GA and FA. What matters is providing the reader with a useful article; if you or anyone else later want to take it to GA and then FA, that's your privilege, but I won't see it misrepresent or slight the topic just to do well in that kind of writing contest. I find it regrettable that the FA process requires one particular (difficult) citation format, but that's on the conscience of those who participate in that arena, and the citations can all be harmonized after the article is rewritten. I don't do GA/FA, and that would normally mean I would walk away from this article, since that's what you do. Unfortunately, I do radically disagree with your approach to rewriting the article, and that includes disagreeing with your conception of its function within the encyclopedia: see above for explanations of my point of view. I appreciate your bona fides, and the effort you have been putting in, and for that reason am trying to keep what I can of both your phrasing and your choice of citations, making this as much of a collaboration as I can muster. But changing the citation format throughout was not a collaborative step, and frankly, embarrassing though it is for me to admit it, it causes me to be painfully slow in including those citations, because I have to do massive scrolling and carry numbers in my head to see what work you are referring to. (It doesn't help that Ellis-Davidson's 1990 book is a reprint of a 1964 book and has also appeared as Gods and Myths of the Viking Age. We're also citing Turville-Petre in the Greenwood reprint.) My apologies for not getting to the archaeology and placenames section, including the chunk on theophoric names that appears after the sections on gods and that I hid, but I'm almost out of time again today. I do appreciate your spirit in attempting to work with me, but this is an awkward situation since we have different approaches and priorities. Oh, and before I save this - see my previous comment. There is material that should only be in this article. But I want there to be space enough for it! Yngvadottir (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Yngvadottir. I'm happy with a lot of your trimming of prose, although I have restored the citation systems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
And I'm sorry, but I cannot work with the sfn system, it prevents me from properly evaluating your work and helping with it, someone else has also objected to it, and if it really must be imposed as part of your ambition to get this article through Wikipedia's internal reward system, that can wait. You unilaterally changed the citation system; it can remain mixed while we work together. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, I think that we might have to take this to some form of dispute resolution. I've welcomed your additions of properly referenced information, but at the same time you are consciously going through the article and changing the citation style out of personal preference, junking much of my work without good reason, and in places adding duplinks and unreferenced information. When I have tried to explain this, my points have just been ignored. How about a third opinion? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you're ignoring my points. Your methodology in doing this rewrite is weak, and although you're doing a lot of work on it, you're inexpert in the field. You imposed a new citation style on the article; it isn't "established", it makes it hard for me to work on the article, and it can easily be reimposed once the text and citations themselves are fixed. Your insistence on it is your personal preference and is uncollegial. Rather than junking your hard work and starting afresh with a balanced rewrite, I'm working section by section to provide the reader with the best possible article in the meantime and in deference to your work; this enables me to retain as much as possible of your wording and your choices of references. I've explained why I am overlinking: the article is undergoing a rewrite, sections are going to change and probably also move around, and when we quote someone we should be absolutely sure to fully credit them. I'm also linking deity names without checking whether they have already come up, and linking Snorri Sturluson in a picture caption, for the same reasons. Here it is in fuller prose. I've kept some of your additions made today to passages I had previously shortened, but your prose style is less terse than mine, and you have a mindset of "expansion" that I have countered with my reasoning. Expansion for expansion's sake—or with FA in mind for its own sake—will make this article a baggy monster that retreads the same ground as a whole slew of specialised articles we already have. On the other hand, there is material that does properly belong here and pretty much only here—see above on scholarly debates over the nature of the religion and how it changed—and we need space for it. We also need to say more about the archaeological evidence. I know you are working hard. Please consider that I have provided reasons, mostly here. I have already asked at the relevant WikiProject for other eyes on the situation. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A more detailed approach to reforming the prose

Yngvadottir: How about talking through each sentence, one by one, in the Talk Page? That way we can be clear on things without any resulting edit war in the actual article itself; it might be a more constructive route forward. For example, taking the first sentence of "Old Norse textual sources":

Yngvadottir's version: "A few runic inscriptions with religious content survive from pagan Scandinavia, particularly asking Thor to hallow or protect a memorial stone;[30] carving his hammer on the stone also served this function.[31]"
Midnightblueowl's version: "Although they had a runic alphabet, the Old Norse pagans did not leave substantial records discussing their mythologies or cultic practices.[30] Thus, virtually all texts discussing Old Norse religion were written either by foreigners observing Nordic culture or by later Christian Norse looking back on their ancestors' beliefs.[12] The only texts produced by Old Norse religionists themselves are runic inscriptions produced in Scandinavia; most of these inscriptions are utilitarian,[31] although a few reference pre-Christian gods.[32]"

I think that the opening line of my version offers the reader a really important fact: that the Old Norse pagans did not themselves leave any substantial records discussing their myths and beliefs. Now we can always rephrase that, but I do think it something that is of importance as many readers will be familiar with religions whose practitioners regularly record their own practices (Christianity, Islam etc) and might not realise that the Old Norse case is very different. Omitting this fact makes an assumption about what prior information the reader has. My second sentence then provides a succinct overview of what textual sources we do have. It's only a short sentence, but again it is important introductory information. As for your version, why go specifically for a mention of Thor and why mention hammer carvings; the latter aren't texts? Again, I think my wording offers a more succinct summary. What are your thoughts on this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time, but briefly: "religionists" is unnecessary jargon; we do have "Hávamál"; it was once thought that runes were not used in quotidian affairs, but business records in runes have now been found in Bergen (I presume our article on runes covers this issue), and who knows what else will turn up, or has already and I haven't read about it—that matter of an inscription invoking Heimdallr, invalidating statements in many handbooks on Norse religion, should be a warning; what exactly is meant by "discussing their mythologies or cultic practices"? The notion begs questions about the nature of religion, as well as discounting oral tradition (several of the "mythological" Eddic poems contain lists of information; clearly they served in part to transfer this information and assist in remembering it) and assuming we have a representative set of materials preserved in the texts. Hence this is verbiage that raises more issues than it's worth. Better to cut to the chase and say what we do have, including the fact that by the chance of the requirement for skaldic poems to use kennings, we have a mythological primer based on pagan source material. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Terms like "religionists" and "discussing their mythologies or cultic practices" can easily be replaced with plainer wording; I am not necessarily arguing for my specific wording, rather for an introductory sentence which provides the same service for the reader. It is important that they read that Old Norse pagans did not leave behind any extended written discussions of their beliefs and practices. Surely that could be done? And what of my second sentence; what is the reasoning behind removing that? And why mention pictographs of Thor's hammer at this juncture, a section devoted to discussing text? Surely that would be better placed elsewhere in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Based partly on the cited source, which emphasised that example and that point about it. More broadly, this is one instance where we know the verbal force of the non-runic symbol: other motifs in carvings, such as the valknut, we don't. (And again, see my cautionary point that our knowledge can change with just one archaeological discovery. There's been a great change in how we see gullgubber, which are also non-verbal religious symbolic depictions.) And partly because I believe a point and an example makes for a clearer introduction, and avoids the temptation to bog down in pronouncements based on preconceptions about religion. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It would be good to hear from other users on this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph two

Paragraph two of "Old Norse textual sources":

Yngvadottir's version: "However, all the surviving literary sources, the sagas (both historical sagas such as Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla and the Landnámabók, recounting the settlement and early history of Iceland, and the so-called sagas of Icelanders concerning Icelandic individuals and groups and especially the more or less fantastical lygisögur or "lying sagas") and the Eddic and ic poetry, was written down by Christians, the majority in Iceland. Some of this literature, particularly some of the poetry, may have originally been composed by heathens, but we cannot know what changes took place either during its oral transmission or as a result of its being recorded by Christians,[32][33] and we also do not know how representative a sample we have. The sagas of Icelanders, in particular, are now regarded by most scholars as more or less historical novels rather than as detailed historical records.[34]"
Midnightblueowl's version: "Most textual records of Old Norse religion were written by Norse Christians several hundred years after the Christianisation of Scandinavia.[33] These fall into several categories. The first is the sagas, including the Sagas of Icelanders set during the island's pre-Christian past.[34] Most scholars regard these as more or less historical novels rather than accurate historical records.[35] The second category is Old Norse poetry, itself generally divided into the skaldic and the Eddic by scholars.[36] Some of this poetry may have originally been composed by heathens, but we cannot know what changes took place either during its oral transmission or as a result of its being recorded by Christians.[37][38]"

Here, I feel that the first sentence that you have introduced is just too long and a little too complex. It will be easier for the reader if it is cut down into more manageable chunks. That is what I tried to do with my version. (There's also a problem with your version referring to "Skaldic poetry" as "ic poetry", something I corrected a few times but was reverted! ;p). Also, statements like "we also do not know how representative a sample we have" are simply unreferenced. I appreciate that you might not think references as important as factual accuracy, but making unreferenced statements can easily be construed as WP:Original research and is a real barrier to this article meeting the expected Wikipedia standards (as codified through the GA and FA system). Every independent sentence should have a citation, and the information should relay exactly what that citation says; for good or ill, that's the Wikipedia way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not happy with that first sentence, either. And thanks for pointing out the link text problem with "skaldic", which I fixed before finally crashing out. I'm sorry to say that the reason I missed it and the reason I haven't refined that first sentence is that you have kept reinflating passages I have rewritten and changing the citation format at the same time to one that makes me lose track of what's being cited, and the result is I can't read the diffs with enough clarity while trying to keep your preferred cites in the correct places. Some brief details about the differences between my version as I wrote it and your suggested rewrite: It's important to distinguish between histories (Heimskringla statements on obligatory blóts and what was done at blóts, and the Icelandic settler who floated pillars ashore first to see where Thor wished him to settle, for two examples of passages often used relatively uncritically for information on Norse religion); the sagas of Icelanders (the dubious descriptions of temples, but also the sacred field Vitazgjafi and an episode concerning blasphemy that I should maybe class under histories, I need to check what sagait's in); and the lygisögur (much medieval-tinged material on magic). And the earliest poetry was originally composed, or goes back to antecedents that were composed, much earlier than the sagas, and was also in large part written down sooner. So in my mind poetry should get mentioned first. But I'm out of time again now, and I do need to go back over that passage. On refs, again, I can and will add more refs, as I did today on Ása-Thor, but we really really don't need to reference separately that it was a polytheistic religion when we then go on to say the gods appear in the myths with human emotions, spouses and children, and there are a few other places where you want a reference and I really don't think this article is the place. Again, also, I don't care about FA; that's your gig. But yes, there are even things I've commented out because I don't have my ducks in a row enough to state them yet, as well as things I've mentally noted as needing a reference, or a better one. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
If you would rather list the poetry before the sagas that is fine with me; it makes sense. However, I think that rewriting this sentence needs to be the main priority at present before we move on to other parts of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I really can't agree that nothing else can be improved till I have unpacked a sentence. However, I spent this morning's time considerably unpacking it; I was lazy and cited only Turville-Petre. Then it had occurred to me that I hadn't seen mention of the norns, so I put them (back) in. As with everything else, I could have written much, much more. I noticed we have a duplicative discussion of sources at the top of the Beliefs section; leaving that for now, partly because it's past my bedtime. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

S Marshall's thoughts

  • Because I don't know very much about this at all, what I can offer is the persective of someone reading the article for the first time. My immediate feeling is that it's more urgent to amend the large-scale structure of the article than to bikeshed about the prose.
I think the article should begin with a discussion about the extent to which it's actually a religion. As far as I can see we don't discuss its structure ---- am I right in thinking that no priest or religious official is named, anywhere in the article? The whole religion looks very decentralised and unstructured, but surely there must be something we can say about who led it (if no-one, say so!), where it was based, any schisms or divisions, how it evolved over time (is there any truth in the idea that Tyr is an earlier deity, Odin a later one?)
The fact that the Norse "Gods" were mortal and in fact doomed to die in Ragnarok seems germane to this missing introductory section.
We discuss burial customs and sacrifice. I see no mention of marriage. Have I missed that or is it that we don't discuss marriage at all? If not, why not?
Were there birth/naming customs or ceremonies? Feasts and fasts? Food taboos? (If not, then that's interesting by itself, and should be noted.)
I would tend to suggest reaching agreement on what sections the article should contain, and then it should become clearer what needs to go in each section.—S Marshall T/C 22:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I hope that you don't mind, S Marshall, but I have moved your comments into a new sub-section as they seemed to move away from the precise topic being discussed above. When I was expanding and reworking the article over the past month, I tried to give some explanation of the "religion" problem as it pertains to Old Norse religion in the "Terminology" section. In particular I highlighted that the Old Norse did not have a term for "religion"; indeed, most societies did not have a separate category for "religion" (as something distinct from "politics", "economics" etc) prior to the arrival of Christianity (and possible Islam). I also ensured that there was a link to ethnic religion, which might better explain the nature of this belief system. As always, it is important that we explicitly follow what the Reliable Sources say—and cite them appropriately—rather than adding our own thoughts of Original Research into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
While the concept of marriage, and other rites of passage, would (in my view) be germane to the content of this article, I cannot recall such practices ever being discussed under the rubric of "religion" in any of the Reliable Sources. As always, it is important that we follow what those sources say. If they discuss marriage as part of "Old Norse religion", so should we; if they do not, then we should not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Not mentioned in any of the sources on my bookshelves either. Or rather, that's not strictly accurate. It is, to an extent. I can tell you for certain sure that Norse people married each other. What I can't tell you is whether marriage was a civil, secular thing to do or whether religious ministers were involved, spirits appeased, or whatever. (Either possibility is interesting and relevant and would belong in the article.) According to Norse rituals#Marriage it's covered in ISBN 82-530-2607-2 pp 334-37. I wish I spoke Norwegian.—S Marshall T/C 00:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, rites of passage should be covered, and the issue is covered by scholars, and not only de Vries' huge book. I had assumed Midnightblueowl had already put in the goði/priest issue. But I'm deferring to them for the most part on organization: I just did a little reshuffling in the section on deities and other beings, and removed a duplicate section there on place names and also personal names; I think personal names can find a better home later. And the lead should be rewritten again as one of the last steps; I have barely looked at it, but some of the issues of contextual background raised in the paragraph-by-paragraph above should be dealt with in the lead and/or the section on timespan. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggested categories

At present, this article only contains a single category; "Norse paganism". Might I suggest that we add a few additional categories? How about 'Norse mythology' and 'Vikings'? As specified above, every change made should be achieved through consensus so as to avoid ongoing problems, so let's get a discussion going as to which categories we want to include. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Old Norse religion. It's a borderline decision, but Cuchullain's book search has demonstrated that the proposed title is more common in academic sources, which we generally assign more weight, particularly as the topic is an academic subject. Recognizability/precision (favoring "Old Norse") vs. conciseness (favoring "Norse") concerns seem to even out. No such user (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


Norse religion → Old Norse religion – The term "Old Norse religion" is generally favoured by academics specialising in the study of this pre-Christian belief system. The archaeologist Anders Andrén for instance noted in a recent publication on the topic that "Old Norse religion" is "the conventional name" applied to the pre-Christian religions of Scandinavia. There are certainly other terms that Reliable Sources also use—"pre-Christian Norse religion", "Norse religion", "Norse paganism", "Nordic paganism", "Scandinavian paganism", "Scandinavian religion", and "Northern heathenism"—but "Old Norse religion" appears to have the widest usage among RS at present. It is therefore the most appropriate term as per WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:TITLE. In addition, "Old Norse religion" helps makes it clearer that the article is talking about the pre-Christian belief system of Northern Europe, as practiced by speakers of Old Norse, rather than the modern Pagan religion which we deal with at Heathenry (new religious movement) and which might more easily be confused with "Norse religion". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 18:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisting note: last relist

Weak support. I doubt many readers would think of Scandinavian-focused neo-heathenry when they see "Norse religion", but I think some might think the article should include Scandinavian Christianity. "Old Norse" is clearer in that respect, but otherwise I don't have any big preferences between "Old Norse religion", "Norse paganism" (which is a little bit more likely to be confused with neo-paganism) and the existing "Norse religion". I don't really follow the arguments above about out of scope material; this article should include later medieval folk beliefs only insofar as they illuminate paganism, and should not include Tacitus. The evidence for the ancient beliefs of the Norse peoples are overwhelmingly in Old Norse (some of it runic); it's likely I'm missing a point. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Support as nominator (if such a thing is permitted). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
It's unnecessary and discouraged but harmless IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Support. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as over-disambiguation. COMMONAME does not mean "use the most common name in very recent and highly specialized sources". This would also be a PoV problem, since adherents of modern Nordic neo-paganism (under a wide variety of names for the religion and for the particular religious organizations) largely (though not entirely consistently) consider their current beliefs and practices an extension of the original, not a reinvention. While you, I, or the next guy might debate that, it's not our job to presuppose the conclusion of that debate by picking titles that do so. And it would be a WP:CONSISTENCY problem; we'd then be in the position of debating numerous other over-disambiguating moves of other pre- or non-Christian religions to "Old [whatever] religion" titles. In everyday English, "Norse" already universally implies "old"; when we don't mean the ancient Norse, we use "Scandinavian".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that there might be a misunderstanding here. The "Old" in "Old Norse religion" does not designate the age of the belief system in question. Rather, it is a reference to the language of Old Norse, which was spoken by the Nordic societies among which this religion existed. There would be no comparable "Old Roman religion" because a language called "Old Roman" never existed, so nobody is suggesting that the "Old... religion" should be rolled out consistently across other articles. As for the claim that there is a POV problem with "Old Norse religion", well I just don't see that at all. Virtually all academic specialists in the field of religion treat modern Heathenry as a separate subject to the pre-Christian belief systems of Scandinavia (even if they are very interested in how the latter is inspired by the former), so we are hardly imposing a fringe or otherwise problematic viewpoint by acknowledging this distinction in our articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing to disambiguate, so the more concise title is preferred here, with the lead and the existing redirect coping with any confusion. Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It does appear that reliable sources tend to call it "Old Norse religion" rather than just "Norse religion". While "Norse religion" turns up somewhat more hits on Google Books, most of the relevant hits are actually using "Old Norse religion", including these from the first page of hits alone:[5][6][7][8][9][10] It appears most of the higher caliber sources are using "Old Norse religion"/"Old Norse Religion"/"old Norse religion".--Cúchullain t/c 14:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I think we need to clarify several principles here. First and most important, this seems to be saying that a hit for old Norse religion doesn't also count as a hit for Norse religion in deciding the common name. I think it should count for both the long and the short version. Those familiar with the less concise name will recognise the more concise one unless it is ambiguous, and in this case it is not ambiguous.
    • Secondly, it's a slippery slope when we start to rank reliable sources as to how reliable they are. What exactly makes them higher caliber sources and who decides this? A source is reliable (or not) for a particular type of information. So far as common English usage goes, all reliable sources count. If we start to rank them we'll end up with academic usage, rather than common usage, and this would be a major shift of policy. Andrewa (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your first point. A search for "Old Norse religion" would not turn up hits for just "Norse religion" except for false positives. On your second, of course we consider how reliable sources are for the subject at hand. From what I can see, it appears "Old Norse religion" is more common in academic books on the subject, while many hits for "Norse religion" minus "old" are pop works like these:[11][12][13] When the subject of the article appears in the title of an academic book or article, it tends to be under "Old Norse religion".[14][15][16][17] This leads me to believe that Midnightblueowl is correct on this point.--Cúchullain t/c 14:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
You've identified the issue very well.
My point is, these are not false positives at all. Why should they be? Just because the shorter phrase is often, or even most commonly, used as part of the longer phrase, that doesn't mean we need to use the longer phrase as the article title. To justify using the longer phrase as the title, we'd need to show that it is almost always used, and it clearly isn't. Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
We need to show that it's the most WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources, which appears to be the case.--Cúchullain t/c 02:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: Of your three "pop" examples, the first, Lindow, is academic (and published by OUP); its title is Norse Mythology because that's traditionally been used as a proxy for studying the religion. (I'm going to cite that book a few times.) The third is Thomas Carlyle, writing in a long-gone cultural environment (and if I remember rightly a bit of an intellectual snob '-) ). So while you have a point about pop usage, those examples don't support it well. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't intend that first link to the Lindow book - it doesn't seem to use either version of the title. I think the link I meant was this one that has a similar title although at least currently it doesn't have a preview.[18] The Carlyle book is an example of the type of thing that pops up on Google for "Norse religion" minus "old" - a reprint of an out of date work. Whatever you want to call it, it's not useful for establishing "Norse religion" as the common name in current reliable sources. Another pop work using "Norse religion" from a later page is this, plus this one that actually uses "Ancient Norse religion". Others aren't discussing this topic, but rather Norse neopaganism,[19][20] and others are transparently not reliable sources.[21][22] There are also many apparently academic sources that just use "Norse religion" or similar,[23] but if the first several pages of Google Books results are any indication, it's less common than "Old Norse paganism".--Cúchullain t/c 17:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per the case made by Midnightblueowl and the other support comments above. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Counterproposal

Norse religion → Norse paganism – Where there no Norsemen who followed other, non-pagan religions, e.g. Christianity? See Gothic Christianity as an example of Old Germanic Christianity. I will not be surprised if a significant fraction of the Norsemen were also Christians. If so, it will make the current title erroneous which assumes 100% of the Norsemen were pagans. We do not call the article "Gothic Christianity" as "Gothic religion", as that would also be an erroneous title. Therefore, to be neutral as per WP:POVNAMING, I suggest to move this article to "Norse paganism". 1) "Norse paganism" is not only a more WP:PRECISE and neutrally worded title, but also a very common name, that reflects the scope of this article in a better way. 2) The suggested title is also WP:CONSISTENT with other related articles' articles like Anglo-Saxon paganism. Khestwol (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It was moved from that title in 2012; you might want to look at the arguments made there. Personally I think "Old Norse" would serve the same purpose; of course during the process of conversion there came to be Christian Norse. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
"Norse paganism" also seems to be less common than the "(Old) Norse religion" versions.[24] And many hits aren't for historical Norse religion, but Norse neopaganism.[25][26][27]--Cúchullain t/c 17:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Old_Norse_religion/Archive_2&oldid=1079221626"