![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Talk:Polytheistic reconstructionism, no point in having this discussion in two places. dab (ᛏ) 20:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
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."
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
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?
Quartier
Latin1968
23:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
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. - AdelaMa e ( talk - contribs) 17:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Some Google Books hit counts:
Germanic paganism beats out Germanic polytheism by two orders of magnitude. Anyone object to a move back? Haukur 14:27, 20 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)
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)
I reflexively chnged the first line, but we ought to reach consensus one way or another. Jacob Haller 23:05, 25 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,
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Calling it paganism is POV of the non followers.-- Ssteiner209 ( talk) 04:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...'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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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, [1] and more specifically as a reconstructionist form of modern Paganism. [2] 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", [3] 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)". [4]
References
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking over recent changes, I'm thinking this article needs to be simply rewritten from scratch. Consider the following addition:
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Talk:Polytheistic reconstructionism, no point in having this discussion in two places. dab (ᛏ) 20:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
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."
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
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?
Quartier
Latin1968
23:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
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. - AdelaMa e ( talk - contribs) 17:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Some Google Books hit counts:
Germanic paganism beats out Germanic polytheism by two orders of magnitude. Anyone object to a move back? Haukur 14:27, 20 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)
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)
I reflexively chnged the first line, but we ought to reach consensus one way or another. Jacob Haller 23:05, 25 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,
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Calling it paganism is POV of the non followers.-- Ssteiner209 ( talk) 04:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...'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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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, [1] and more specifically as a reconstructionist form of modern Paganism. [2] 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", [3] 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)". [4]
References
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking over recent changes, I'm thinking this article needs to be simply rewritten from scratch. Consider the following addition:
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)
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)