This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rules for style consistency:
In the article,
italic type is used in the following cases for deities' names: |
I think this list is complete enough to stand as a separate page from Slavic mythology, especially as that article is currently under the proposal of being split into Slavic paganism and Slavic folklore. Being that the merge proposal has stood since November 2007 with no discussion, I will assume that there will be no controversy in my removal of the merger tag. Tea with toast ( talk) 22:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It is taken from slawoslaw.pl website.
Lem wrote: (Reverted good faith edits by Wojsław Brożyna: Sorry, the article you cited has no author hence authority unknown; also it does not support the claim in signature that it is "modern".)
WB wrote: (Reverted good faith edits by Staszek Lem: Authors of site are said in https://www.slawoslaw.pl/redakcja/redaktorzy/. Modernity of this symbol is obviously; there is no historical object with this sign. (TW))
If a deity has a wikipedia article, the description in this list must match the introduction of this article. Otherwise we have various problems coming from WP:CFORKking of the text. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
There needs to be distinction between modern neo-paganism and ancient polytheism. The concept of Rod is entirely modern and there is no historical evidence of it. The kolovrat symbol was created by Stanisław Jakubowski in 1920s. There is no archaeological evidence of this symbol.-- 185.136.199.224 ( talk) 09:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I noted that all the illustrations of the gods made by the artist Marek Hapon have been removed because of their "modernity". However, this article is not necessarily restricted to the ancient interpretation of the deities; modern interpretations and artworks may be included if properly (academically) supported. In the case of Marek Hapon, we have the opportunity to use artworks made by an artist who has been active for decades and who has been treated in academic publications. His artworks were featured in 2b: Polish American Academic Quarterly, 13–14, 1998.-- Eckhardt Etheling ( talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
How is that Marek Hapon notable enough? Until there is no Wikipedia article, I say he is nonnotable, and this is not a whim, but wikipedia rules of WP:UNDUE and WP:RS.
Illustrations in Wikipedia must come from respectable sources. Either they are faithfully depict the subject or they are works of art by famous artists. Marek Hapon is a nobody, and Wikipedia should not promote his visions in numerous articles. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
There is mistake. Chors isn't a other name of Dazhbog; while the Dazhbog is god of sun, Chors is god of moon. -- Wojsław Brożyna ( talk) 18:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
In Summer 2017 I merged many of them into this article, since they were no more than stubs or unsourced messes and even the short descriptions in this article were better. However, I didn't merge the most substantial ones which are those about the major gods, including Triglav (mythology), Belobog, Chernobog, Perun, Svetovid, Veles, Mokosh etc. Yet, almost all of them are still horrible messes. Some of them even contain unsourced false assumptions such as (from "Chernobog") "...whose name means black god, about whom much has been speculated but little can be said definitively." Actually, there are tons of sources out there, especially in German, which explain Slavic religion and each dvine figure in depth.-- Eckhardt Etheling ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Why in the world did you merge "Supernatural beings in Slavic religion" to this page? They ARE NOT deities therefore you're wrong to merge. If it is unsourced then re-write or find sources, don't delete all the hard work. Of course there are conflicting descriptions it's FOLKLORE.
173.92.223.131 ( talk) 21:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
After reading the article, I was convinced that it is full of inaccuracies and controversy, for several reasons:
There is reason to think that the article is rather a presentation of a person's belief as Slavic faith appeared, but not as a presentation of real Slavic faith in general. I repeat, for most of the gods there is no evidence that they have their assigned role, as is the case with the Greco-Roman ones. To write large list of all the gods taken from everywhere tells nothing about the original faith of the Slavs, also the lack of sources from modern Slavic Rodnovery communities can not be applied to them as well. If the authors of the article can not prove the informations and sources for modern symbols, they should be removed or replaced. -- Dragovit ( talk) 00:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I have come across the mention of a "Simzerla" in a Russian fairy tale, with a footnote that said she was the "Aurora" of the Slavonians. [1]
The name also appears in a Universal Lexicon entry (1863), claiming she was married to a man (deity?) named Pogoda. [2]
Another 19th century publication says she was "Sclavonian" and worshipped by "galos y germanos" (Gaulish and Germanic peoples). It also reiterates her role as "Queen of the Flowers". [3]
In a Russian-French-German dictionary, her name is written in the Cyrillic alphabet as Зимцерла (Zimtserla). [4]
Is she genuine, or a poetical fabrication? 18:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
https://archive.org/details/symbolikundmyth07monegoog/page/n154/mode/2up?q=simzerla https://archive.org/details/handwrterbuchde00vulpgoog/page/n311/mode/2up?q=simzerla https://archive.org/details/geschichtedeshe01monegoog/page/n165/mode/2up?q=simzerla https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_zeBPLU1jjnMC/page/n263/mode/2up?q=simzerla https://archive.org/details/lamythologieillu00besc/page/94/mode/2up?q=simzerla https://archive.org/details/versucheinersla00kaisgoog/page/n118/mode/2up?q=simzerla
179.218.91.213 ( talk) 19:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
In slavic languages rod means family, and rodzenica, rodjenica means uterus, mother, selebration of birth... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.4.88 ( talk) 09:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
On May 24/2021 user Sławobóg "Replacing this troll article with a new one. Fakelore and romanticism moved to another new article."
Why would they remove years of hard work? They didn't copy over any of the legends or etymologies and turned each of the lower entries into a single line on a new page. If they dispute the legitimacy of one of the gods/spirits listed, then they should add a footnote to the entry of such god/spirit saying they are likely invented or 'fakelore' with a reference to substantiate this claim. Removing 90% of the article in order to replicate it elsewhere in an incomplete form is a disappointing use of a multi-author platform such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F711:B600:699B:FF28:3731:24A4 ( talk) 21:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this edit by user:Sławobóg: the tables have columns for name (singular) and other names. It is completely misleading to readers to construct the nonexistent compound names “ Veles-Volos” and “ Jarovit-Jarilo.” If anything, this could be formed like “ Veles (or Volos),” but that is still confusing because there’s no indication of why only some other names aren’t put under other name. The table structure is intended for clarity, and this subverts it. — Michael Z. 16:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rules for style consistency:
In the article,
italic type is used in the following cases for deities' names: |
I think this list is complete enough to stand as a separate page from Slavic mythology, especially as that article is currently under the proposal of being split into Slavic paganism and Slavic folklore. Being that the merge proposal has stood since November 2007 with no discussion, I will assume that there will be no controversy in my removal of the merger tag. Tea with toast ( talk) 22:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It is taken from slawoslaw.pl website.
Lem wrote: (Reverted good faith edits by Wojsław Brożyna: Sorry, the article you cited has no author hence authority unknown; also it does not support the claim in signature that it is "modern".)
WB wrote: (Reverted good faith edits by Staszek Lem: Authors of site are said in https://www.slawoslaw.pl/redakcja/redaktorzy/. Modernity of this symbol is obviously; there is no historical object with this sign. (TW))
If a deity has a wikipedia article, the description in this list must match the introduction of this article. Otherwise we have various problems coming from WP:CFORKking of the text. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
There needs to be distinction between modern neo-paganism and ancient polytheism. The concept of Rod is entirely modern and there is no historical evidence of it. The kolovrat symbol was created by Stanisław Jakubowski in 1920s. There is no archaeological evidence of this symbol.-- 185.136.199.224 ( talk) 09:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I noted that all the illustrations of the gods made by the artist Marek Hapon have been removed because of their "modernity". However, this article is not necessarily restricted to the ancient interpretation of the deities; modern interpretations and artworks may be included if properly (academically) supported. In the case of Marek Hapon, we have the opportunity to use artworks made by an artist who has been active for decades and who has been treated in academic publications. His artworks were featured in 2b: Polish American Academic Quarterly, 13–14, 1998.-- Eckhardt Etheling ( talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
How is that Marek Hapon notable enough? Until there is no Wikipedia article, I say he is nonnotable, and this is not a whim, but wikipedia rules of WP:UNDUE and WP:RS.
Illustrations in Wikipedia must come from respectable sources. Either they are faithfully depict the subject or they are works of art by famous artists. Marek Hapon is a nobody, and Wikipedia should not promote his visions in numerous articles. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
There is mistake. Chors isn't a other name of Dazhbog; while the Dazhbog is god of sun, Chors is god of moon. -- Wojsław Brożyna ( talk) 18:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
In Summer 2017 I merged many of them into this article, since they were no more than stubs or unsourced messes and even the short descriptions in this article were better. However, I didn't merge the most substantial ones which are those about the major gods, including Triglav (mythology), Belobog, Chernobog, Perun, Svetovid, Veles, Mokosh etc. Yet, almost all of them are still horrible messes. Some of them even contain unsourced false assumptions such as (from "Chernobog") "...whose name means black god, about whom much has been speculated but little can be said definitively." Actually, there are tons of sources out there, especially in German, which explain Slavic religion and each dvine figure in depth.-- Eckhardt Etheling ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Why in the world did you merge "Supernatural beings in Slavic religion" to this page? They ARE NOT deities therefore you're wrong to merge. If it is unsourced then re-write or find sources, don't delete all the hard work. Of course there are conflicting descriptions it's FOLKLORE.
173.92.223.131 ( talk) 21:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
After reading the article, I was convinced that it is full of inaccuracies and controversy, for several reasons:
There is reason to think that the article is rather a presentation of a person's belief as Slavic faith appeared, but not as a presentation of real Slavic faith in general. I repeat, for most of the gods there is no evidence that they have their assigned role, as is the case with the Greco-Roman ones. To write large list of all the gods taken from everywhere tells nothing about the original faith of the Slavs, also the lack of sources from modern Slavic Rodnovery communities can not be applied to them as well. If the authors of the article can not prove the informations and sources for modern symbols, they should be removed or replaced. -- Dragovit ( talk) 00:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I have come across the mention of a "Simzerla" in a Russian fairy tale, with a footnote that said she was the "Aurora" of the Slavonians. [1]
The name also appears in a Universal Lexicon entry (1863), claiming she was married to a man (deity?) named Pogoda. [2]
Another 19th century publication says she was "Sclavonian" and worshipped by "galos y germanos" (Gaulish and Germanic peoples). It also reiterates her role as "Queen of the Flowers". [3]
In a Russian-French-German dictionary, her name is written in the Cyrillic alphabet as Зимцерла (Zimtserla). [4]
Is she genuine, or a poetical fabrication? 18:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
https://archive.org/details/symbolikundmyth07monegoog/page/n154/mode/2up?q=simzerla https://archive.org/details/handwrterbuchde00vulpgoog/page/n311/mode/2up?q=simzerla https://archive.org/details/geschichtedeshe01monegoog/page/n165/mode/2up?q=simzerla https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_zeBPLU1jjnMC/page/n263/mode/2up?q=simzerla https://archive.org/details/lamythologieillu00besc/page/94/mode/2up?q=simzerla https://archive.org/details/versucheinersla00kaisgoog/page/n118/mode/2up?q=simzerla
179.218.91.213 ( talk) 19:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
In slavic languages rod means family, and rodzenica, rodjenica means uterus, mother, selebration of birth... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.4.88 ( talk) 09:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
On May 24/2021 user Sławobóg "Replacing this troll article with a new one. Fakelore and romanticism moved to another new article."
Why would they remove years of hard work? They didn't copy over any of the legends or etymologies and turned each of the lower entries into a single line on a new page. If they dispute the legitimacy of one of the gods/spirits listed, then they should add a footnote to the entry of such god/spirit saying they are likely invented or 'fakelore' with a reference to substantiate this claim. Removing 90% of the article in order to replicate it elsewhere in an incomplete form is a disappointing use of a multi-author platform such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F711:B600:699B:FF28:3731:24A4 ( talk) 21:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this edit by user:Sławobóg: the tables have columns for name (singular) and other names. It is completely misleading to readers to construct the nonexistent compound names “ Veles-Volos” and “ Jarovit-Jarilo.” If anything, this could be formed like “ Veles (or Volos),” but that is still confusing because there’s no indication of why only some other names aren’t put under other name. The table structure is intended for clarity, and this subverts it. — Michael Z. 16:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)