A fact from Freedom of religion in Norway appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 May 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that sympathetic accounts of Norway's first Christian kings include descriptions of them committing gruesome torture against pagans, but non-sympathetic accounts do not?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
I've completed the review and made some changes to the article as I've gone through it but a number of points and questions have arisen and I'm placing the article on hold for the time being. Thanks.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
13:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
No Great Shaker, thanks for your prompt feedback. I've gone ahead and implemented all but one of the concrete suggestions and left some comments as well. Let me know if there's anything more that you would like to see in the article. signed, Rosguilltalk17:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Rosguill, thank you for the changes and comments. I'm quite happy with reify and the amendments so I will now promote this to GA. It's a very interesting read. I feel that I've learned something and, where history is concerned, that's always on my wishlist. Well done and all the best. Take good care.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
13:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
reify seems a bit extreme if meant literally – would assert be better?
I think that this is a valid use of reify--the adoption of Christianity by Nordic kingdoms established a new source of political authority and legitimacy that allowed for a greater consolidation of power in the monarchy and the formation of a new (to the region, at least) form of power relations and statecraft. I think that "assert" would be a bit off, as it doesn't necessarily imply a paradigm shift, which is what was happening in Scandinavia at the time. On a more stylistic level, I also like that reify has the morpheme rei-, derived from Latin real and pertaining to law and kings, which is a fun bit of wordplay in context. If you're strongly opposed to "reify", I think that "consolidate" or "legitimize" would be preferable to "assert". signed, Rosguilltalk17:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Demographics
It struck me that the content of this section has been lifted from the given source but, having checked
WP:COPYOTHERS, I'm happy that the source is public domain and that it is in order to include extracts in the narrative.
In the first paragraph here, the various religions and the HEF account for about 90% of the population. According to
Irreligion in Norway, there are a substantial number of non-believers in the country so do these people make up the remaining 10%?
Some more points for consideration:
the Norwegian Humanist Association (Human-Etisk Forbund) is generally known as the HEF
two redlinks – any chance of these turning blue in the near future?
Reviewing the source again, the remaining 10% of the population would comprise people that do not profess any allegiance to a religious or life-stance organization. I don't know that this necessarily means that they are non-believers, just that they don't belong to an organization. I'm not sure it's worth including an abbreviation for the HEF, since it's only mentioned by name one more time in the article, much farther down the page. I don't personally have any plans to develop articles for the redlinks, but based on their treatment in the sources I was using I'm fairly confident that they meet notability guidelines. signed, Rosguilltalk17:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Unification and Christianisation
A couple of points arose here which I've resolved:
three instances of same spelling mistake (Christanization) – all corrected
Haakon the Good was later than said and the sentence flow is improved by inserting his dates in brackets
Medieval Norway
corrected instances of Haakon being mis-spelt Hakan
linked Magnus VI
Protestant Reformation
does citation #38 cover the second sentence as well as the third?
link needed to Christian II
the sentence beginning "When Frederick died and..." needs to be revised (or completed if a clause is missing)
sentence beginning "Christian III triumphed..." would be better if split in two to avoid the "and... and..." construction (suggest full stop after exile)
For the issue with #38, I assume you mean first and second, given that #38 was cited at the end of the second sentence? I double checked it and confirmed that it does not. From looking through the edit history, I was able to find that the first sentence should be cited to the Derry source (then #39, cited at the end of the paragraph). I've added a citation with the correct page numbers for this claim. I've gone ahead and addressed the other three issues identified here. signed, Rosguilltalk17:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
... that sympathetic accounts of Norway's first Christian kings include descriptions of them committing gruesome torture against pagans, but non-sympathetic accounts do not? Snorri’s portrayals of Olaf’s acts of religious violence serve to both praise the king’s piety and his uncompromising Viking spirit. Yet I do believe that the Konungasögur and Íslendingasögur can be considered to preserve something of eleventh-century societal attitudes to punitive mutilation, but only when examined alongside sources outside of the saga tradition. For, while chronicle histories such as those of Adam of Bremen and Saxo Grammaticus do not record any tortures ordered by Olaf, this silence is of note. Both chronicles are hostile to Olaf’s kingship, yet neither chronicler considers acts of mutilation to be deeds that would augment their negative portrayals of the Norwegian king. Indeed, where recorded, Olaf’s deeds of punitive mutilation were designed to assist the spread of Christianity and thus attracted no direct censure.
[1]
Other problems: - The page
Freedom of religion in Norway needs to be linked somewhere in bold in the proposed hook. I don't know where that is supposed to go, or else I would've done it myself.
Epicgenius, whoops, I suppose that's important. Assuming that piping is ok, how about:
ALT0a: ... that sympathetic accounts of Norway's first Christian kings include descriptions of them committing gruesome torture against pagans, but non-sympathetic accounts do not?
A fact from Freedom of religion in Norway appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 May 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that sympathetic accounts of Norway's first Christian kings include descriptions of them committing gruesome torture against pagans, but non-sympathetic accounts do not?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
I've completed the review and made some changes to the article as I've gone through it but a number of points and questions have arisen and I'm placing the article on hold for the time being. Thanks.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
13:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
No Great Shaker, thanks for your prompt feedback. I've gone ahead and implemented all but one of the concrete suggestions and left some comments as well. Let me know if there's anything more that you would like to see in the article. signed, Rosguilltalk17:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Rosguill, thank you for the changes and comments. I'm quite happy with reify and the amendments so I will now promote this to GA. It's a very interesting read. I feel that I've learned something and, where history is concerned, that's always on my wishlist. Well done and all the best. Take good care.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
13:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
reify seems a bit extreme if meant literally – would assert be better?
I think that this is a valid use of reify--the adoption of Christianity by Nordic kingdoms established a new source of political authority and legitimacy that allowed for a greater consolidation of power in the monarchy and the formation of a new (to the region, at least) form of power relations and statecraft. I think that "assert" would be a bit off, as it doesn't necessarily imply a paradigm shift, which is what was happening in Scandinavia at the time. On a more stylistic level, I also like that reify has the morpheme rei-, derived from Latin real and pertaining to law and kings, which is a fun bit of wordplay in context. If you're strongly opposed to "reify", I think that "consolidate" or "legitimize" would be preferable to "assert". signed, Rosguilltalk17:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Demographics
It struck me that the content of this section has been lifted from the given source but, having checked
WP:COPYOTHERS, I'm happy that the source is public domain and that it is in order to include extracts in the narrative.
In the first paragraph here, the various religions and the HEF account for about 90% of the population. According to
Irreligion in Norway, there are a substantial number of non-believers in the country so do these people make up the remaining 10%?
Some more points for consideration:
the Norwegian Humanist Association (Human-Etisk Forbund) is generally known as the HEF
two redlinks – any chance of these turning blue in the near future?
Reviewing the source again, the remaining 10% of the population would comprise people that do not profess any allegiance to a religious or life-stance organization. I don't know that this necessarily means that they are non-believers, just that they don't belong to an organization. I'm not sure it's worth including an abbreviation for the HEF, since it's only mentioned by name one more time in the article, much farther down the page. I don't personally have any plans to develop articles for the redlinks, but based on their treatment in the sources I was using I'm fairly confident that they meet notability guidelines. signed, Rosguilltalk17:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Unification and Christianisation
A couple of points arose here which I've resolved:
three instances of same spelling mistake (Christanization) – all corrected
Haakon the Good was later than said and the sentence flow is improved by inserting his dates in brackets
Medieval Norway
corrected instances of Haakon being mis-spelt Hakan
linked Magnus VI
Protestant Reformation
does citation #38 cover the second sentence as well as the third?
link needed to Christian II
the sentence beginning "When Frederick died and..." needs to be revised (or completed if a clause is missing)
sentence beginning "Christian III triumphed..." would be better if split in two to avoid the "and... and..." construction (suggest full stop after exile)
For the issue with #38, I assume you mean first and second, given that #38 was cited at the end of the second sentence? I double checked it and confirmed that it does not. From looking through the edit history, I was able to find that the first sentence should be cited to the Derry source (then #39, cited at the end of the paragraph). I've added a citation with the correct page numbers for this claim. I've gone ahead and addressed the other three issues identified here. signed, Rosguilltalk17:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
... that sympathetic accounts of Norway's first Christian kings include descriptions of them committing gruesome torture against pagans, but non-sympathetic accounts do not? Snorri’s portrayals of Olaf’s acts of religious violence serve to both praise the king’s piety and his uncompromising Viking spirit. Yet I do believe that the Konungasögur and Íslendingasögur can be considered to preserve something of eleventh-century societal attitudes to punitive mutilation, but only when examined alongside sources outside of the saga tradition. For, while chronicle histories such as those of Adam of Bremen and Saxo Grammaticus do not record any tortures ordered by Olaf, this silence is of note. Both chronicles are hostile to Olaf’s kingship, yet neither chronicler considers acts of mutilation to be deeds that would augment their negative portrayals of the Norwegian king. Indeed, where recorded, Olaf’s deeds of punitive mutilation were designed to assist the spread of Christianity and thus attracted no direct censure.
[1]
Other problems: - The page
Freedom of religion in Norway needs to be linked somewhere in bold in the proposed hook. I don't know where that is supposed to go, or else I would've done it myself.
Epicgenius, whoops, I suppose that's important. Assuming that piping is ok, how about:
ALT0a: ... that sympathetic accounts of Norway's first Christian kings include descriptions of them committing gruesome torture against pagans, but non-sympathetic accounts do not?