Topic[edit]

The topic "Continental Germanic mythology" is WAY bigger than the introduction covers. I have trouble seeing a continental mythology being a sub-subset of southern German which is a subset of German mythology. I think a "continental" mythology should cover the entire continent of Europe so I propose you redirect this page to: German polytheism, the current name for German (Teutonic) mythology....now perhaps "contintental" is in a text book somewhere with defined regional boundaries contradicting my understanding of a contintent. I doubt it, but if so please quote the source, this page needs sources to exist. With this message I am downgrading myth importance to "mid" - I thought it was the entire continent when I first graded it high. Goldenrowley 01:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"German mythology" is not the same as "Germanic mythology". Germanic mythology is dominated by Scandinavian sources. "Continental Germanic" covers German and Dutch. If there is going to be a merger, it should be with Dutch mythology. --dab (𒁳) 07:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dutch mythology was re-scoped as Low Country Mythology, its more about that region than about this Germanic culture ^by itself^. Suggest not to merge and concentrate here on the mythology of Germanic peoples. Goldenrowley 23:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this is a question of WP:RS and WP:SYN. What references for "Mythology of the Low Countries"? I find no references to the term. The references cited are to Dutch Fairy Tales For Young Folks, Vita Eligii, A Short History of Dutch Literature in the Netherlands and Belgium, Dutch folklore, Willibrord and Bonifatius and Witte wieven. To synthesize this into a "Mythology of the Low Countries" is highly questionable. The mere existence of a region X does not automatically justify the existence of an article on "Mythology of X". --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont know about that, your taking an extremely conservative stance. I think you havent read or for some reason you want to dimiss Reginheim's 5-10 web pages on Dutch mythology. So someone has already published. I've learned just recently by the way his Dutch articles are each English translations of Dutch sources. I can check whether its books or magazine articles and I can check their credentials out. I guess I have to if you doubt everything. Goldenrowley 01:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Goldenrowley 02:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Most of it came from the articles attributed to "Joris Magasanus", and "Boppo Grimsma" [1] Goldenrowley 02:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You must have been looking for it in English or German. I found and added a bunch of Dutch-language sources.Goldenrowley 03:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

East Germanic q.[edit]

Currently the article says: "East Germanic influence stretched even farther south, west and east, to Italy, Iberia, Sarmatia, Dacia and Illyria, but has left only very fragmentary traces." I wonder, is that what the main source(s) say? check out Slavic mythology is that "east Germanic." The mention of Italy would be to the south and "Alpine" region, no? Goldenrowley 19:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge from Salian Frankish Mythology[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion, and it was proposed it be merged with Continental Germanic mythology--Victor falk 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there is great merit in such a proposal, although my major concerns with the Salian Mythology article are that it's POV, it relies on the published works of no major Frankish scholars, and many points are claimed in the article which need citations in order to verify the extraordinary claims. I am currently in the process of writing something which I'll post in my sandbox, and hopefully it will cover the topic concisely, with citations, and conforming to Wikipedia's verifiability policy.--Almirena 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Let's just clean the article up rather than put it as a footnote in a much broader article. :bloodofox: 03:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose as well. The new Frankish mythology section is beefing up nicely to stand on its own although of course we should mention it on this page (the "b-r-o-a-d" contintent article). Goldenrowley 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question, though, is this: Is Frankish mythology clearly delineated as being so different from other Germanic mythologies that it merits a separate section? This is a truly vexed question, and it is fair to say that any differentiation occurs as a result of Roman influence, probably not as a result of intrinsic geographic or tribal differences. I say probably because there's insufficient evidence to support a firm contention of such differences. If the difference is due mostly if not entirely to Roman influence subsequent to the period of Salian Frankish settlement, there's a very real question of whether it's worth having a separate article, particularly since information on specifically Frankish mythology is very sparse.
The influence of Arianism and Christianity occurred post the height of Roman confluence in Gallic affairs, and is relevant only insofar as it discouraged and replaced Frankish mythology. Whether Arianism and Christianity are relevant in terms of Frankish mythology ITSELF is, I think, moot. Because of this, while I have no objection to a Frankish mythology article, and think it's greatly improved recently, I do wonder what the justification for such a separate article is. This will leave the way for a separate article on Lombardian mythology, Alamanni mythology, and so on... until the need for a Continental Germanic mythology article is whittled away entirely. Would it not be worth considering whether or not it would be admirable to incorporate the material from the Frankish mythology article into this one, which is looking so terribly famine-stricken? --Almirena 14:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont think you have to worry, well you do this page is famished but I wouldn't take from Peter (the Franks) to feed Paul (this page). I think this page is famished because for the longest time German mythology (of any kind) linked and was put on Germanic paganism. If anything the question shyould be do you want to redistribute German paganism between this page (mythlogy) and that page (religion) or should we just merge the two as it did.... however these tribal pages are beefy enough (hundreds of years of history, covering several states or countries apiece) to merit their own. In so saying I have a particularly California view where we've been giving mythology and ethnic articles to each tribe so I am not opposed to taking that approach in Europe It's actually quite productive we can generate more, if we have more pages Goldenrowley 01:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frige/Freo[edit]

So Frige = Frigg and Freo = Freya. Frigg = "marriage love" and Freya = "erotic love"? Frigg is connected with "marriage love"? Where? Which mythological writing suggests that? As I know, Frigg had sexual relationships with her husband's brothers (Poetic Edda, Ynglinga Saga). Protector of marriage love? Frigg had sex with a slave to steal her husband's gold (Gesta Danorum). Marriage love? Freya, on the other hand, is famous for her golden tears for her husband (numerous sources). Erotic love? Prose Edda states that Freya is goddess of love, nothing said about Frigg. Langobard's History states that Frea is goddess of love.

And I don't know who wrote this, but it does NOT make ANY sense: Being a goddess of unbridled passion, it is not surprising that she also takes half the slain of the battlefield, with the other half taken by Woden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.19.44.15 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bavarians[edit]

All information that is given by this article does not refer to the Bavarians, but strangely, most sources that are mentioned are Bavarian, like the Lay of Hildebrand, the Muspilli, the Nibelungenlied and the story of Dietrich of Bern. Hence of that, all disclaimer badges are more than sound. --El bes (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is important to remember that the Bavarians were not as distinct a people at this time as they are now, and it is very hard to say who actually composed these poems. Nihil impossibile arbitror. 16:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ðœð (talk • contribs)

Repeated addition of unsourced material[edit]

I've just reverted another addition of a 'rewrite' that consists of nothing but unsourced material. This material contains numerous inaccuracies and theories presented as fact.

Statements like "Also, a law against sodomy passed by Charlemagne states that this behavior originates from a man named Fricco (Freyr). It clearly points to the phallic god of fertility, who was worshipped in the Temple at Uppsala in Sweden, amongst other temples" and "Perchta, well-known in the southern German and Alpine regions, emerged in the same fashion from an epithet of Frigg. Here, beliefs of the Celtic Noricum played an additional role." deeeefinitely requires direct attribution to a reliable source making this observation, as well as mention of the primary source. In fact, the whole article is a jumble of synthesis and original research.

That said, putting together an article like this isn't difficult to do, and so I'll begin rewriting it with reliable sources. In the mean time, please refrain from bringing over poor, unsourced material from German Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-addition of referenced material

I've re-added the referenced content, on the grounds that the German article, although it doesn't give direct references for individual sentences, does contain an extensive list of literature that was used in its composition. Please feel free to correct any individual inaccuracies, but I see no reason to throw away all of our translated content on the grounds that it contains isolated factual mistakes. Any help with the rewrite would, of course, nevertheless be appreciated. -- HeighHo talk 16:4:I wil3, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll be putting together a rewrite but will be reverting any and all unreferenced material added to this and any other page I encounter. Again, please do not add material without direct attribution to reliable sources. 16:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Bloodofox, I notice that this is part of some sort of University translation project. Perhaps there would be a way to collaboratively correct the translation before it's added? See User:OberMegaTrans/WS2019/mythology. I assume that HeighHoTheHolly's insistence is at least in part out of frustration after having done this for a class assignment.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can take a look, but regardless of the reason behind why it's happening, we of course shouldn't be blindly translating poor material over from German Wikipedia. I'll give it anothr look. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bloodofox, Ermenrich, thanks for your understanding! You're right, part of this was just frustration about our project being reverted. I, for one, would be happy to work with y'all on a full rewrite, if you'd like help. Otherwise sorry for the back and forth, and thanks for your commitment :) -- HeighHo talk 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories