Talk:Germanic paganism/Archive 1

Archive 1

why is this called germanic paganism instead of germanic polythiesm?

Pagan is a derogatory term and abrahamocentric by definition. Wikipedia isnt run by a religious institution and its readers are not all jews christians and muslims and nor is the world, so why are we using this word ? It feels like belittlement and hate speech. 67.234.162.199 (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Origins of Germanic paganism

Quote from the article: "Ultimately deriving from Indo-European religion, Germanic paganism formed during the 1st millennium BC..."

As far as I know, neither assertion has enough evidence to support wording that statement as it is in the article.

The theory of an 'Indo-European' mother tongue for most European languages is still a theory, even if it does have a sizable amount of supporting evidence. The relevance of that linguistic theory to the origins of European paganry, or even the term itself borrowed from linguistics for this related (though different) purpose is useful but not particularly scientific.

I am also very curious about the arbitrary time period of the '1st millenium BC'. Is this an estimate? An educated guess? Most theories I have read vary widely in making that sort of assertion, and they never say it with any kind of authority or finality, since that is not really possible at the present time. P.MacUidhir 05:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

the term "Germanic" itself is coupled to linguistics; the religion of course evolved fluidly over time, and there is no particular event that can be identified as the beginning of "Germanic faith", even if we had all information available. But the origin of "Germanic" paganism need be in Proto-Germanic times. Proto-Germanic cannot be dated exactly, but it certainly falls within the 1st millennium BC. Earlier forms of paganism would qualify as "pre-Germanic". I don't know of any objections to classifying the Nordic Bronze Age as pre-Germanic, but of course there are a lot of unknown factors; Proto-Germanic worship of "Wodinaz" may of course in principle reach back into the 2nd millennium, only that it would then be pre-Proto-Germanic worship of "Watinos". Our terminology an classification will always be arbitrary to some extent. It could be argued that it is not permissible to treat Viking Age paganism, Migration Age paganism, and the religion described by Tacitus under a single title, or to treat West Germanic and North Germanic gods as identical, as is done on Odin etc. It does make sense, still, to bundle them under the (linguistic!) term "Germanic". We can certainly rephrase the statement if it is somehow misleading, but in its essence I think it is unproblematic and well supported. As for "Indo-European is just a theory", I would really like to see a credible linguistic reference disputing that. The genetic relationship of the Indo-European languages is extremely well established; it would indeed be difficult to find another tenet in historical linguistics that is known with similar certainty. The historical details are of course open to dispute, but that is hardly the issue here. dab (ᛏ) 06:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

When will people stop using the lay definition of theory for science usage? Learn to use a dictionary!

When will people cease their b******* about the changeable nature of language, particularly in the absence of a universally recognised authority for the English language? Get a life, anonymous person. 216.69.219.3 (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Heathen redirect

Following the principle of least astonishment, I was pretty confused when heathen redirected here. I was expecting an article discussing the Christian view that heathens and pagans are anyone who don't believe in either Christianity or monotheism. Is there a page about that? If so, I think "heathen" should like there, not here, or at least have a disambig note at the top of this page linking to it. --zandperl 15:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

um, yes, heathen was redirecting to paganism until a few hours ago. I've changed it back. dab (ᛏ) 16:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

ToC

I disagree with the changes to the ToC structure. The Edda is also a "primary source", but it appears in the Viking Age section. The "Tacitus" stage is also a "stage of evolution", we don't need that as a super-section of migration period, viking age and middle ages. We can change the h2 header from "Tacitus" to "Pre-Migration Period" (meaning, say, 100 BC to AD 300), anticipating additions relating to archaeology; at the moment the section is still all about Tacitus. dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on scope of entry

What is the consensus on the scope of this entry? If it is to deal solely with the pre-Christian religion(s) of the Germanics, then we need to agree on a policy for the repeated insertion of links to modern religious movements. Theodism continually keeps reappearing in this entry, yet it is no more relevant than Forn Sed, Ásatrú or Odinism. I think we should just insert a link to Germanic_Neopaganism with the proper context and then not link to *any* specific modern religious movements. Opinions? -- HroptR 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more. :) I think I even reverted a few of those edits you are talking about here, if memory serves me correctly. Distinguishing between older heathenry and modern reconstructionist attempts is, to my POV, quite important. 800-1000 years between the two is a long time, despite arguments for remnants of it lasting in folklore and customs of the various NorthEuro. peoples.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

claims of "paganism" derogatory

says who? This is like Christians going around, claiming that it is derogatory to characterize their religion as "religion" (when it is rather "The Truth"). "Paganism" is the neutral, accurate term to group very heterogeneous traditions for which there would otherwise be no term. "Heathen" is an exact synonym of "Pagan", being a loan translation. Either both are derogatory, or neither. Descriptions like "Sidhr", "Sidu", "ethos" are idiosyncratic, or reconstructions of what the term would have been in the Iron Age. An alternative to "paganism" would arguably be Germanic polytheism, so it that makes people happy, it can be the title (like Celtic polytheism). But "paganism" in general can be either polytheistic or animistic, the distinctions blurring, and "polytheism" focusses too much on the pantheon, which is really only one aspect of the whole thing. dab (ᛏ) 17:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

quote Wiki"Paganism": "Often, the term has pejorative connotations, comparable to infidel and Kafir in Islam."unquote, which goes for "heathen" as well. If I would call anyone in Sweden today, clinging to Asatro or not, a hedning(heathen), she would certainly take offence. I am not a native English speaker, so I cannot argue for the subtle nuances... The best, Kurtan.

Prescriptive versus descriptive use of a term. This is going to be fun... <staying out of it for now, though, am I>

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Amongst the actual modern practitioners, it is thought to be derogatory by my guess by about 50% of the adherents. Since no one is living who can claim lineage to the historical pre-christian Germanic religion, it seems a rather moot point. Like it or not, this is the nomenclature that history has dictated be used by academia. I don't find it pejorative, just inaccurate in many instances. I had the misfortune of listening to a lecture recently were the speaker referred to atheists and adherents of indigenous religions like shinto as neo-pagan. Neo-paganism has come to encompass many "alternate lifestyles" and social & political causes which have nothing to do with religion, so the eschewing of the term is perceived as a reactionary necessity by many. I am intrigued by the compelling reasoning which demands imposing definitions on religious groups on Wikipedia however. It is not just "pagans" who resent well meaning, but terminologically anally fixated editors who come along and re-classify them into what they perceive to be an inaccurate category out of what seems to be sheer maliciousness at times. In the instance of this specific entry, however, I don't see what the issue is. The only thing I think would be more accurate than "Germanic paganism" is "Germanic indigenous folk religion", which is a bit unwieldly.--HroptR 00:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The association with Wicca and other New Age religions is really what lead to the eschewing in the English language by Germanic neopagans. It's in an attempt by Germanic neopagans to differentiate themselves from the Wiccan, new age and often hermetically-influenced "neopagan" crowd.

Due to this, the term is sometimes considered derogatory by practitioners. The reason for the wish for differentiation is due to the distinctly reconstructive nature of the religion, which lead to the advent of the Heathen term over pagan or Odinist -- The latter of which has been all but erased outside of heavily monotheistic-influenced prison and "white power" groups.

So, basically, although you'll find those that refer to themselves as "pagans," I find that, like myself, many English-speaking Germanic neopagans prefer the term "Heathen" officially due to the specific connotations of the term and the lack of association with new age "me-isms." :bloodofox: 03:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Polytheistic reconstructionism, no point in having this discussion in two places. dab (ᛏ) 20:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

tiwaz

the article on Teiwaz needs a load of work, or rapid deletion. GraemeLeggett 15:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunno if I'm putting this in the right spot (new to Wikipedia).

The article needs cleanup - there are a number of bits of awkward grammar in the article. Here's an example:

"lthough perhaps singularly most responsible for the destruction of pagan sites, purported massacres such as the Bloody Trial of Verden and the subsequent dismantling of ancient tribal ruling systems, the Frankish emperor Charlemagne is said to have made a substantial collection of Germanic pre-Christian writings, which was deliberately destroyed after his death."

good catch -- it has been redirected to Tyr. re the syntax, it is a bit clumsz alright, but the content is alright, feel free to fix it! dab (ᛏ) 16:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Germanic Folklore Redirect

Germanic Folklore encompasses a lot more than just the pre-Christian religion. (In fact, unlike the long dead pre-Christian religion, it has been very much alive onto this day.) There should be no redirect as the terms are not interchangeable. I have created a new, albeit snub, entry for such. - ThorHT

Scope

I don't really know what the scholarly feeling is, since Germanic polytheism's not my scene, but it seems to me that a lot of the Gaulish epigraphic and iconographic material from the Roman province of Germania Inferior should be considered to represent Germanic pagan material. At any rate, names like Nehalennia and Aufaniae and Vacallinehae are hardly Gaulish. (By contrast, Germania Superior abounds in Gaulish theonyms.) What is the current feeling in the literature about this kind of evidence from Germania Inferior? QuartierLatin1968 23:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Paganism in the Eastern Alps

I've noticed that Paganism in the Eastern Alps is in Category:Germanic paganism and listed under Germanic paganism in the list of pagan religions at Paganism, but is not mentioned in this article. If Eastern Alps paganism is a true subtype of Germanic paganism, listing Germanic paganism should cover it; none of the other religions listed have subcategories, so having just that one seems really odd. The problem is that if you follow the link to Germanic paganism, you'll never find out about paganism in the Eastern Alps because it's not linked from here. On the other hand, we could link directly to Paganism in the Eastern Alps from Paganism and just take it out from under Germanic paganism to put it in line with the rest of the list. I have zero expertise in this area, so I hope somebody here can help. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been now linked. The page has been renamed Paganism in the Alpine region and categorized as Southern Germanic.Goldenrowley 20:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Germanic Polytheism

Shouldn't this page be entitled Germanic polytheism, just as many other articles such as Anglo-Saxon polytheism, Hellenic polytheism and Celtic polytheism? It seems more precise to me. :bloodofox: 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I view "Paganism" is a more striking word than the "Polytheism". Tahister 11:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

More striking, sure, but more precise? I've since moved Norse paganism to Norse polytheism. If anyone has any logical objects here, please let it be known. If not, I will soon request to have it moved. :bloodofox: 07:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now moved the article from Germanic paganism to Germanic polytheism. :bloodofox: 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

With all the related page article renames and mergers, the "see also" buttons were not working very well. Anyway, I checked a lot of the "see also links" and pared those that were redirects, not really articles. Goldenrowley 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't object strongly, but I note in passing that labelling these traditional/ethnic religions as "polytheism" betrays a monotheist outlook. For monotheists, obviously God is at the center of the concept of "religion", and a monotheist will duly categorize systems "by number of gods". From the point of view of these "polytheisms", gods are simply an item among others, and their focus will lie on ritualism, non-theistic spirituality and tradition at least as much as on the worship of actual gods. Thus "paganism" is the more inclusive term, while "polytheism" betrays the monotheist's obsession with 'counting gods'. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also all for going back to paganism. If we can't have heathens then surely we can at least have pagans. Haukur 14:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Google Books hit counts:

• 6 on "Norse polytheism".
• 34 on "Norse heathenism"
• 183 on "Norse paganism"

• 4 on "Germanic polytheism"
• 85 on "Germanic heathenism"
• 352 on "Germanic paganism"

Germanic paganism beats out Germanic polytheism by two orders of magnitude. Anyone object to a move back? Haukur 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved. Haukur 21:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak disagree. One should have checked how many of those hits are from Neopagan pages. I'm not sure whether historians would prefer the term Polytheism or Paganism here. -Zara1709 08:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are from books, not web pages. Not that there aren't neo-pagan books, of course. Haukur 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

google scholar yields 74:2 hits in favour of "paganism". You use "paganism" for the entire culture/ethos, while "polytheism" concerns only the relatively marginal aspect of blot. dab (𒁳) 12:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Haukur's move back to the original name. See also Talk:Norse paganism#Norse polytheism or Norse paganism --Philip Baird Shearer 11:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Paganism preponderates in the literature over polytheism. At least, in all the books I have read I have never come across a pre-Christian Germanic or Slavic religion referred to as anything other than paganism. Polytheistic paganism, to be sure, but paganism. Srnec 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Google Book argument

The Google Book argument would give high points to "Norse religion"

2491 "Germanic religion"
 646 "Norse religion"
 471 "Germanic paganism"
 269 "Norse paganism"
  16 "Germanic polytheism"
   9 "Norse polytheism"

It was clear that the term "Germanic religion" included other religions, like Protestantism, Christianity and whatever. The best argument for the term "Norse religion" is that it is unequivocal in its meaning, both in geographic origin and in time. The term "Germanic" is more timeless and could relate to religious beliefs in the 17th century as well as any other epoch. I suggest that one rename this entry "Norse religion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throttleryn (talk • contribs) 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this about one religion or several mostly-related religions?

I reflexively chnged the first line, but we ought to reach consensus one way or another. Jacob Haller 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

that's a rather pointless question. paganism and religion should make clear why. religions are not countable unless they have a clear structure (a church). It is flawed thinking to try and apply notions taken from dogmatic religions to non-docmatic ones. For this reason I would avoid talking about "Germanic religions". Use "Germanic religion" or "Germanic paganism" not as singular but as a collective noun. dab (𒁳) 23:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's partly stylistic.

But there are real issues involved. (1) To describe one religion is to assume and assert some kind of uniformity and exclusivity. To describe multiple religions is to recognize that there was not that much uniformity and there was not always exclusivity. (2) For all the problems with using Jordanes, his Getica, in the united Goths part 24, appears to describe one pagan Germanic religion persecuting another, apparently pagan, apparently Germanic religion. Jacob Haller 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

in paganism, religion is inseparable from ethos (sidhr) and from tribal (ethnic) unity. Worship is pretty much organized by household, and in the Germanic case by tribe with the king acting as the "pater familias" of the "tribal household". Your reference of Jordanes I imagine is to the legendary origin of the Huns,

"Filimer, king of the Goths [...] found among his people certain witches, whom he called in his native tongue Haliurunnae. Suspecting these women, he expelled them from the midst of his race and compelled them to wander in solitary exile afar from his army. There the unclean spirits, who beheld them as they wandered through the wilderness, bestowed their embraces upon them and begat this savage race, which dwelt at first in the swamps, a stunted, foul and puny tribe, scarcely human, and having no language save one which bore but slight resemblance to human speech."

(incidentially, via William Morris the literary origin of Tolkien's Orcs) this may be material for Witchhunt#Antiquity, and perhaps for seid. dab (𒁳) 07:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Castum

The reference to Castum should be corrected: I do not think the wood was named Castum, castum is a form of the Latin adjective castas. It means pure or chaste according to Wiktionary. However I hesitate to fix the text w/o finding a Latin expert 1st.Goldenrowley (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Note 4?

Bit of a problem with Note #4--it's supposed to be a reference for the sentence "The main purpose of his [Tacitus'] writing seems to be to hold up examples of virtue and vice for his fellow Romans rather than give a truthful ethnographic or historical account, although modern day scholars are reverting this point of view as unholdable", but the source it links to doesn't really say that. It just says, "In doing so, be warned, he was commenting on the Rome of his own time, as much as on the German themselves." Since I don't know of an alternative reference that could be cited instead, I just left it alone. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 'unholdable' is a word...I think 'untenable' might be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.224.225 (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Trees

Hi, folks. I've been working on the Christmas tree article, trying to raise its level of historical rigor, sorting out fact from speculation as much as possible. Can anyone here point me toward some reliable sources that mention pre-Christian customs involving evergreen trees in northern Europe? 65.213.77.129 (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yggdrasil is probably the most famous. Otherwise, see Category:Trees in Germanic paganism. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

there aren't any (reliable sources regarding pre-Christian customs involving evergreen trees in northern Europe). The Christmas tree origin legends first appear in the 16th century. What you want to look for are records of possible pre-Christian customs involving evergreen branches, i.e. mistletoe and variants. You'll then need to find a reference connecting those with the legends of Saint Boniface. --dab (𒁳) 17:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't exactly correct—we do have some scant connections been Germanic pagan custom and the evergreen. There's been an amount of controversy regarding what Yggdrasil is; is it an ash tree or some sort of evergreen tree? It's plainly called an ash tree (as you can see from my recent rewrite there), yet it's also described as "always green" in stanza of 19 Völuspá (Dronke's translation). Otherwise, information regarding the type of tree is not provided except in the cases of Thor's oak (attested as rubor jovis) and, more importantly, the Sacred tree at Uppsala per Adam of Bremen, which is also described as green year-round and which has therefore been speculated as having been a yew (an evergreen).

As for theories regarding a potential survival of some sort of Germanic yule custom in the area, you can probably find them by digging around a bit, though most of it probably won't be in English. Most of the hits you're going to get are going to be 19th century authors (if all of the Wiccan hits are ignored) and Grimm might have something about this. I'm sure there's some respectable commentary and theories out there by some reliable resources as to how these traditions may relate to the Christmas tree (or Yule tree in Scandinavia), but this isn't area where a lot of modern scholars do much commentary. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll grant you the tree at Uppsala. I was referring to evidence based on folk-custom, not Eddaic mythology. The 19th century authorities tend to be fully aware that there is no continuity from pre-Christian customs behind the Christmas tree, since the custom was ostensibly new-fangled in their own day. An example of this would be the 1832 Chambers Book of Days which makes a very clear distinction between the Christmas tree (no pagan roots) and the Yule log (definitely does have pagan roots). --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is keeping track, Barnstokkr in Völsunga saga is inside a hall and so is the tree in Hrólfs saga kraka. Personally, I fail to see what a Christmas tree has anything to do with Christianity and why anyone would go to the trouble of dragging a tree tree inside of their house if it didn't have some sort of special cultural significance. The earliest attested Christmas trees are from Germanic areas, so I don't see why this would be at all surprising if it were some sort of holdover. There's probably also some connection to the yule log here too. Of course, this is all just my personal commentary, but maybe there's some relevant sources out there making similar arguments to be found. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

the reason why it isn't likely a "holdover" is that the custom first appears in an urban setting, in the 16th century. Pagan folklore survives in rural settings, not in the cities. There is such a thing as "innovation", and sometimes people simply come up with something new. Nobody disputes that "tree" is an archetype and as such important to any culture, including pagan ones. The point is that there is no direct link between Germanic pagan customs, and the modern custom of the Christmas tree. As always, if you have an academic source building an argument against the Christmas tree as an Early Modern innovation, we will obviously include it. --dab (𒁳) 17:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You know

Calling it paganism is POV of the non followers.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Apun further looking ?I see we call the celtic beleif system polytheism, which is what it is: but we call this paganism. Not only is the germanic name POV to the non germanic followers side: it is not going wit hte general follow of the rest of the related articles--Ssteiner209 (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes but calling this paganism is POV more thne not calling it paganism.

I propose a name change--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked up pagan in a dictionary? It means "a follower of a polytheistic religion". Now you try and explain what part of this is "pov". I would argue that "paganism" is more inclusive than "polytheism" because it includes non-theistic aspects like magic, divination or animism, while "polytheism" is a term coined from a monotheistic viewpoint, focussing on the worship of deities exclusively. --dab (𒁳) 15:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

polytheism most likely pre-dates concepts of widespread/organized monotheism.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

of course it does. Your point being? --dab (𒁳) 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. However: Paganism isn't all inclusive, neither is mythology, how about religion? --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I still fail to see what you think is wrong with the present title. Germanic religion is ambiguous, and may refer to Germanic paganism as well as to Germanic Christianity. --dab (𒁳) 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Anglo-Saxon religion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. older ≠ wiser 19:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Anglo-Saxon religion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So, have anything Eastern Germanic-Gothic...

...'survived' into history? I means, did their specific pre-christianism believes faded into total limbo-of-history, or we have some hints, names, to what they believed? Nothing new? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.63.161 (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Germanic paganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061227085107/http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/%7Ekyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm to http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/%7Ekyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Scope

Currently due to inclusion creep the article Norse religion which means it overlaps with this article (see Talk:Norse religion#Norse religion --> North Germanic religion). Please discuss on Talk:Norse religion what the scope of these two articles ought be or if they should be merged. -- PBS (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Germanic religion (aboriginal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060709002006/http://plan9.montclair.edu/latintexts/caesar/gallic/gallic6.html to http://plan9.montclair.edu/latintexts/caesar/gallic/gallic6.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Stubifying the article, removing all references

Please discuss this huge edit here. I do not think creating an unreferenced stub is an improvement. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Please revert this version back to the stub. A tower of misinformation is no substitute for a solid foundation. I’ll rewrite this article in time, but nonsense like what the article currently presents is the opposite of helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I tried to go through it and add sources but nearly every single sentence needed improvement. It probably could be salvaged from its current state but there is so much work involved. The fires that need putting out may discourage the hypothetical, interested editor from attempting a serious improvement. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Heathenry sidebar

Wojsław Brożyna has clearly answered the question why is a new religious movement template atop an ancient religion article?: because this ancient religion is a direct ancestor of this nrm. To make sure (from Heathenry (new religious movement)):

Scholars of religious studies classify Heathenry as a new religious movement, and more specifically as a reconstructionist form of modern Paganism. Heathenry has been defined as "a broad contemporary Pagan new religious movement (NRM) that is consciously inspired by the linguistically, culturally, and (in some definitions) ethnically 'Germanic' societies of Iron Age and early medieval Europe as they existed prior to Christianization", and as a "movement to revive and/or reinterpret for the present day the practices and worldviews of the pre-Christian cultures of northern Europe (or, more particularly, the Germanic speaking cultures)".

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're communicating here, but the template is definitely overkill for this article. We've already got a template about neopaganism at the bottom of the article, and a sidebar dominating this already short article isn't helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. Funny thing is, the template is not being used at Heathenry (new religious movement)... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not used there, because @Midnightblueowl: delete it. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The claim that "this ancient religion is a direct ancestor of this nrm" is debatable. Certainly, I see no reason why we should have the Heathenry sidebar on this article Moreover, side bars don't tend to be very popular at Wikipedia. They have their advocates, but a lot of people also dislike them. Better to stick with bars at the bottom of the page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent rewrite: This article probably needs to be again completely rewritten

Looking over recent changes, I'm thinking this article needs to be simply rewritten from scratch. Consider the following addition:

"Over time these religious discrepancies evolved into a compromise religious faith between the earth goddess known as Vanir and the god of war, Aesir, who—following a mythological conflict between the various gods made a treaty with one another.[10] Vanir may have become the Norse goddess Freyja, given her corresponding sexual promiscuity, and the god of war became Odin, who was made the predominant deity among them.[11][a]"

This demonstrates a deep confusion by the writer. First of all, Old Norse Vanir and Æsir are plural nouns that refer to a group of deities. Additionally, this reflects a fixation with older scholarship, where the Æsir-Vanir war is considered to have reflected an euhemerized historical reality rather than a social charter.

The whole article is a real mess, presenting a vague outline of the reality of the subject combined with a opinions, apparently plucked from whatever was available, to produced a confused and misleading narrative about the history of Germanic paganism. This article is currently a mess and needs to be rewritten with reliable modern sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

So I see that @Bloodofox: has disparaging comments about the current content, much of which came from the Danish page on the subject, which I carefully translated and significantly expanded upon while inserting additional content into this English-language version from legitimate sources. These recent edits by Bloodofox were not in any way constructive, nor was stating that the page was "full of opinion" and a "mess" helpful to the WIKI project. Bloodofox also failed to provide academic substantiation for his/her recent changes, which epitomizes what he/she calls in the previous addition, "opinion." The previously added content does come from reliable modern academic sources accordingly referenced and such statements about an entire rewrite are patently absurd.

At this point Bloodofox should provide academically substantiated evidence to prove his assertions (as described by his edits), as the page was not well-sourced before the recent additions—whereas now, it is far better academically referenced. In his edit, Bloodofox claims that Goths", "Teutons",(by the way, Teutons is not used in this article's content) and the term "German" are no longer commonly used in ancient Germanic studies. This claim needs to be sourced, because I can name the following contemporary scholars (historians) who do employ these terms—at least Goths and Germans (Teuton being a moot point since it does not even come up)—many of whom are considered experts (by the way—these are just the last names of authors ending in B from my library--I haven't even pulled out Peter Heather's work, Walter Pohl, Derek Williams, Edward James, Erik Jensen, Patrick Geary, James O'Donnell, Arnulf Krause, or Herwig Wolfram, all of whom copiously employ the terms he claims are not "used" by scholars of ancient Germania):

Bauer, Susan Wise. The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. (Goths -- found on pp. 766–767, 772. / Germans and their relations with the Romans show up on pp. 684, 686, 701, 707, 717, 719, 732, 736, 753–754)

Bauer, Susan Wise. The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010. (Goths -- found on pp. 37, 43, 56, 58–59, 72, 74, 109, 237–238, 295 / Germans-Germanic tribes on pp. 7, 37, 42, 45–46)

Boatwright, Mary T. Peoples of the Roman World. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. (German-Germanic on pp. 23, 55, 62)

Burns, Thomas. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991. (Goths on pp. 10, 18, 24–25, 31–34, 98–101, 118–119, 164–165, 190, 206, 315, 323 / Germans on 19–22, 112)

Burns, Thomas. Barbarians within the Gates of Rome: A Study of Roman Military Policy and the Barbarians, CA. 375–425 A.D. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994. (Germans, Germanic tribes on pp. 113–147 / Goth on pp. 23–42, 73–91, 110, 139, 157, 172–173, 178 247–279, 366–369)

Burns, Thomas. Rome and the Barbarians, 100 B.C. – A.D. 400. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. (Goths on pp. 278, 288, 301, 325, 328, 336–337, 375, 368–372, 280–284, 341 / Germans on pp. 19, 24, 84, 111–113, 118, 120–123, 133–134, 137, 178, 265)

None of this is to say that the page does not still require significant improvement, as to this point, we would all agree. There are plenty of gaps that certainly could use greater elucidation. The approach of attacking the author/editor who adds academically supported content without providing academic rebuttal but making opinionated assertions wastes all of our time. Use that effort to edit the page and improve it instead. --Obenritter (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The expansion has been great and there is no need for a complete rewrite. The problem I can see is that some statements lack clear attribution. They come from scholars, but it's not always clear how they are supported. Almost everything about the Æsir-Vanir war is for example based on a few cryptic stanzas from Völuspá. To expand that into a complete theory or really anything outside of the poem itself is bound to be very speculative. There are different theories that can be mentioned in the article, but we need to provide a proper context of who proposed the theory, where and when it became popular etc. In the case of the Æsir-Vanir war, for example, the euhemerized interpretation comes from Snorri Sturluson, and the idea of a primordial earth-goddess cult comes from Johann Jakob Bachofen and was popularized through feminist scholarship. When we cover this level of literary interpretation, it will often need to read more like a history of the study of religion than an exposition of the religion itself. Ffranc (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Great points here @Ffranc:. Such distant religious discussion is somewhat speculative by nature and what one historian or another thinks is often all we have to go on. It seems you may have a deeper level of knowledge of this particular subject arena, which would be put to good use by helping strengthen/edit the page further. Your most recent edit being a great example. If you mean to state that clear attribution was missing, that's because the historians cited don't always share exactly how they know one thing or another. To the extent feasible, editors can fix those instances when and where it is clearly identified, but at the very least, we now have a better framework from which to begin that process. Before, this page was in terrible shape. My hope is that editors who elect to contribute utilize the citation convention prevailing within the article.--Obenritter (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"the earth goddess known as Vanir and the god of war, Aesir"—Seriously? That's patented nonsense. And, yeah, modern reference works on this material, like the handbooks of Simek, Lindow, and Orchard, dominantly stick to Germanic peoples rather than—incredible that we're having this conversation in 2019—Germans, and anthropologists generally avoid outdated and dubious terms like tribes (we have coverage of this over at Tribe#Usage_controversy). I wouldn't bother attempting to 'correct' this article, as I'll be preparing a rewrite from scratch on this material, and any adjusting of this article is ultimately a waste of your time. If you'd like to help, you're welcome to, but the article is such a mess that it's not an efficient use of one's time to retrofit it. @Yngvadottir:, you might want to take a look at what's going on here. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Bloodofox---Tagging this article as problematic in the manner in which you are doing is unwarranted. Make corrections to improve it but stop pretending that scholars who use terms like "tribe" or who call the Germanic people known as the Goths--Goths are somehow misguided. Your opinion on a few areas needing improvement do not constitute labeling the entire article this way. Your wholesale deletions of sourced material are likewise nonconstructive as is your demonstrative statement in telling other editors that they are wasting their time. Your behavior might actually merit discussion among administrators. Not one single edit that you have made is based on anything academic from scholars. You need to stop acting as though you are the world's leading scholar on ancient peoples.--Obenritter (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Obenritter, you're clearly new to this topic, and I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're going to need to refrain from removing tags from article space until disputes are resolved, and refrain from adding nonsense like "the earth goddess known as Vanir and the god of war, Aesir" to article spaces. If you can't see the problem with this statement, I suggest you go ahead and visit our Vanir and Æsir articles. In short, this is deeply fringe stuff, and the singular for Vanir is vanr, whereas the singular form of Æsir would be áss or ás. Either you've misunderstood the source or the source itself is so poor that it shouldn't be on this article. This is basic stuff for these topics, which gives me no confidence in the material you're adding and restating to this article. Additionally, the Danish article on this topic is even worse than what we have here, even unintentionally spouting Nazi propaganda ("Den knækkede Irminsul fra Externsteine"—yikes! Fortunately, that isn't happening here: Irminsul#Wilhelm_Teudt,_the_Externsteine,_and_symbol). We're going to need to stick to reliable modern English language sources wherever possible in the construction of this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough...I still strongly disagree with tagging this article vice just making corrections. It's not in that bad of shape in terms of neutrality nor does it need an entire rewrite. By the way—before you make assumptions in the future—my PhD is in European history, so I am not "clearly new" to this subject and know how to conduct research in multiple languages. Pagan beliefs are not my area of expertise, I will admit. However, just because you disagree with some content, does not give you the right to outright delete referenced material based on your opinion--even if you are an expert. You need to provide an academically sourced counterpoint vice some wholesale deletion. If the scholar who wrote that is wrong, provide another scholar's source to refute it. After all, you even state in your edit (stated as unequivocal FACT that not much is known). This leads me to the stance that we should let the scholars make their case (no matter how inaccurate that might be—and since not much is known, we cannot be assured that any of them have any certainty). If two or three scholars categorically reject this "misguided" historian's opinion, then we can delete the material. BTW, I concur that the Danish webpage was less than stellar, which is why I only stuck to sourced material from that page, which I cross-referenced. Please remove the tags and let's get to work correcting and/or strengthening the article.--Obenritter (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the addition of fringe gibberish to this article like that I've added above. I'm going to ask you again to not add fringe gibberish to this article space: A basic understanding of core terms and what those terms mean—and whether they're singular or plural—is a basic requirement here. No offense intended, but you'd do yourself a huge favor by putting down wherever it is you're getting this stuff, and turning to the fundamental tertiary sources for this topic today, which would be the handbooks of John Lindow and Rudolf Simek. Please also note where their takes on these topics end and where neutrality begins. As it stands, this article just needs to be rewritten, whether it's section by section or wholesale. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You've once again labeled the opinion of a scholar as gibberish, which is unjustifiably dismissive, as is your attempt to counsel me on the singular and/or plural of an ancient language. Even if the scholar improperly rendered the grammar of an ancient language, this does not categorically negate the content. Nor do a couple of grammar errors or even a disputed name of an ancient deity bring the entire content of the article into question. You are using these labels as though you speak from a superior and authoritative position. Likewise, you are theretofore insinuating that many of the scholarly references used in this article are of poor quality and notably inferior to the two authors you've mentioned. Is this to say that Malcolm Todd, Peter Brown, Thomas Burns, Frederick Artz, Morten Axboe, Mircea Eliade, Patrick Geary, Peter Heather, Edward James, Rosamond McKitterick, and Walter Pohl are not right about the content referenced in this article? That's what you are implying, in as much as you are relying on two scholars alone. You'd do yourself a favor by looking at the credentials of the people being cited in this article before wholesale characterizing the content as requiring a rewrite.--Obenritter (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"the earth goddess known as Vanir and the god of war, Aesir"—really, that's all anyone with a surface familiarity with the topic of North Germanic paganism needs to see to understand that this article is in a very bad place. Our goal here is to produce a solid article built on reliable sources aimed at the general public, not fumble through fringe material, if this is indeed an accurate reflection of what the author wrote. At this point, I suggest that you step away from the article and spend some time getting more of a footing on this topic. I suggest also that you consider self-reverting your recent additions to the article. I, for one, will not be going through your additions reference by references to find what other nonsense may have been inserted into this article space. Instead, I'll bring a rewrite of this article to the top of my rewrite schedule. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If you wholesale delete anything else without justification, and that means academically proving the source wrong or in dispute, this will go before the administrators. Your goal should be the improvement of the article, which incidentally sat for a long time, and not your agenda of trying to undo any and every edit because you somehow seem to think you "own" this topic. One scholar being wrong about something does not merit your actions. You made the change, I've refrained from reinserting it, even the re-crafted version which clearly indicated from whom it came, and you continue to insist that the article requires an entire rewrite. Such behavior is beyond the pale and should be addressed. Making assertions like "what other nonsense may have been inserted into this article space" is further evidence of your belligerence. You won't be going through the edits because you shall not be deleting them like this in the future, lest we take this before a board, specifically concerning your actions and comments in this regard.--Obenritter (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Bloodofox pointed me to this discussion, just because they know I've done professional research related to this topic (though as Obenritter notes, editors haven't paid this article a great deal of attention and I'm a good example of this kind of editor!). I'm not keen to get into an argument, but if Beetz's 2008 piece was being correctly reported then it must be quite peculiar. I can warmly recommend the research of Philip Shaw in this area though:

• Shaw, Philip Andrew (2002) 'Uses of Wodan: The Development of his Cult and of Medieval Literary Responses to it'. PhD thesis, University of Leeds.
• Shaw, Philip (2007), '[The Origins of the Theophoric Week in the Germanic Languages]', Early Medieval Europe, 15.4, 386–401. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0254.2007.00213.x (available via Sci-hub).
• Shaw, Philip A. (2011), Pagan Goddesses in the Early Germanic World: Eostre, Hreda and the Cult of Matrons. London: Bristol Classical Press.

His original arguments might be a bit too new to be presented in this article, but his overview of sources, scholarship, etc. is outstanding and could be cited for those purposes. Alarichall (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

(It would be good to make much more use of D. H. Green, Language and History in the Early Germanic World (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) too, but I see this isn't on Libgen. I'll try and get it from the library and build in references to it. Alarichall (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC))

@Alarichall: Good to see a potential subject matter expert get involved. My research area for my PhD concerned Roman and Germanic conflict and contact, so I am not some random novice on this general subject either. It's still not right for an editor to assume bad faith and demand a rewrite over an error from one specific source or over a grammatical faux pas. If Beetz was obviously wrong according to consensus, which is what I assumed to be the case based on Bloodofox's insistence on deleting it (although he failed to academically support it), then he was correct on that front. However, his behavior about the rest of the content is not acceptable nor was the way he/she handled things in general. Any experienced editor of Wikipedia would recognize this as offensive activity. There is plenty in this article that needs expanded to be sure, but his suggestion of a rewrite in its entirety atop telling me to delete everything else that I may have contributed—which has been academically substantiated—violates Wiki policy about article ownership, let alone general civility within discourse on a subject. By the way, those works sound like they would be eminently useful for this subject, but unfortunately, I possess nothing from Shaw. Perhaps you can beef up this article accordingly. As for me, I am only interested in the recent additions being improved upon vice unjustifiably deleted. Plus, this article needs more on the specific gods, the linguistic and/or cultural remnants that might still abide, and the modern pagan phenomenon. Others better versed on these matters would be needed however. Right now, everything is very general with a little granularity on better known areas. Thanks for ringing in. --Obenritter (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)