Talk:Berehynia

Berehynia?

Wouldn't it be more correct to call it Berehynia? On Google this spelling yields about the same number of results. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right about that and we can move the article to Berehynia. --Irpen 20:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is a difference in opinion, reverting pages off hand is a very poor judgement call. Besides, that will never help. --Hillock65 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Find a respectable ref that shows such an old pagan goddess and then come back. --Irpen 16:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And who exactly are you to give orders? You never even bothered to read the text, just reverted it off hand. Is this "sterile edit-warring" ? If you don't like a word or a terminology please, modify, change, add, but reverting pages point blank shows the worst case of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLE--Hillock65 16:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Who talks about owning? The info was referenced to the article in the bottom. The "old pagan" goddess you added is not supported there. Info included in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable to reliable sources. Unreferenced speculations are to be reverted. I am sorry to see that you have nothing better to do but stalking me but well... If you have so much free time for on your hands... --Irpen 16:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Please only use sources whose reliability can be verified. Hillock added two. One was an unsigned page of the anonymous web-site. The other claims to be a dictionary but I cannot find any evidence that such dictionary was published and the even its web-site does not allow to establish its credentials. Please review WP:RS and WP:V. --Irpen 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This pathetic revert warring done in revenge to make a (WP:POINT) for being caught for fraudelently twisting sources here is getting tedious. The first source is an Encyclopaedia of Mythology - here is the list of literature used there: Мифология древнего мира, -М.:Белфакс, 2002 Б.А.Рыбаков «Язычество древних славян», -М.:Русское слово, 1997 В.Калашников «Боги древних славян», -М.:Белый город, 2003 Д.Гаврилов, А.Наговицын «Боги славян. Язычество. Традиция», -М.:Рефл-Бук, 2002. All very respectable publications. Second source is the Ukrainian internet portal Arrata, which publishes articles on all aspects of Ukrainian culture. The reference is taken on pagan goddess from there. There is nothing dubious about both sites. This is WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE at its worst. That is all. Hillock65 01:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't confuse Neo-pagan beliefs with Slavic mythology. There was no such "goddess" in Slavic mythology (actually, there were no goddesses at all). If you continue to insert the link to a website advertising proto-Ukrainian theories about their descent from Aratta and Sumer, I will have to transfer this lame dispute to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Where on Earth did you see proto-Ukrainian theories is beyond me. There is not a single word about Arrata. NOT ONE WORD. Arrata is a name of the journal that published the article. For all I am concerned, it could have been any other name of the journal, it has no bearing on the article. Moreover, there are two sites that support that statement, the other one is an encyclopedia of Slavic mythology. Just like your edit-warring buddy Irpen, you never took the trouble to read the article. All you do is revert pages wholesale without bothering to do any other edits. To satisfy the Russian sterile edit warriors I will add another, third source to support my statement. Please do not continue to entrench your reputation of vicious edit warrior and do some constructive editing, you know, something apart from wholesale page reverts. --Hillock65 10:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, neo-paganist websites are disconnected from anything resembling academia and do not qualify as reliable sources for this project. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What neo-paganist sites? Which one of the three? Please don't be rediculous. I will add the fourth one, I will be waiting for you to lable it neo-paganist as well. --Hillock65 11:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hillock, nationalist and neo-paganist websites are not valid sources of information about Slavic mythology. The most authoritative book on the subject, Rybakov's Mythology of Ancient Slavs, does not mention this "goddess".[1] Please refer me to a medieval source that records this name. To the best of my knowledge, the word was virtually unknown several decades ago, until pseudo-nationalist and neo-pagan crackpots seized upon the word and conflated with this little-known spirit of home hearth with Mokosh (whose existence is disputed as well). As a result, there are piles of utterly confused fringecruft scattered all over neo-paganist websites, and the entry in uk.wiki which went as far as to describe the creature as the "Mother of All Life", etc. (мати всього живого, первісне божество-захисник людини, богиня родючості, природи та добра). As always, I am struck by the lengths nationalists will go to create their own version of history. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What nationalist sites? Which one of the FOUR? Please stop your disruptive behaviour. You are evidently at a loss, what to lable them, first it was proto-Ukrainian — now nationalist. You presented a single Russian language source, which by the way does mention berehynia (дyалистический анемизм (кyльт вампиpов и беpегинь), кyльт божеств плодоpодия). In your edit warring excitement you even failed to read the source you presented, which does support the claim it was a pagan goddess, contrary to what you have written above. Please don't cite your fringe theories, other wiki or Russian natioanalist ranting, present the source that disputes the fact that it was a pagan goddess. At least one, against now FIVE sources that do claim to the contrary. And above all please stop the edit warring. Read WP:BATTLE. --Hillock65 11:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The online Encyclopedia of Ukraine also mentions berehyni in passing, as animist spirits, not as a goddess: "Paganism in Ukraine constantly evolved and changed. The oldest form was animism, which accepted the existence of good (berehyni) and evil (upyry, demony) spirits."[2] —Michael Z. 2007-09-19 13:06 Z

I don't know if you can read Ukrainian, but there is a good article of Halyna Lozko (Галина Лозко) on the subject in Ukrainin in this source. And not in passing but a quite substantial research too. --Hillock65 13:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the full article. [3] Here she clearly states that Berehynia was one of the goddesses worshipped in Rus. (ще за трипільської доби існувала культові святилища з вівтарями й ознаками розвинутого культу Праматері Роду, яка має всі ознаки Богині (теїзм!)? --Hillock65 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and proto-Ukrainians were Trypillians. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Ukrainians, but with the goddess claim. You are obviously running short of lables. The nationalist and neo-paganist lables do not fit this one? --Hillock65 15:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The summary of Rybakov's research about these spirits is available in the article Slavic fairies. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

we are getting somewhere now: Hillock65 wants to claim that there is an academic argument that Berehynia was in fact worshipped as a goddess "in Rus" (i.e. in the early Middle Ages). As a reference for this, he gives us an article by Halyna Lozko published at ridne.com.ua and golosiyiv.kiev.ua. These appear both to be popular websites, but this does not preclude, of course, that Lozko has academic credibility. Has she made the argument in any peer-reviewed publication? It transpires that she is "the Chairwoman of the society (Confession) of the Ukrainian Native Faith Pravoslavya, a scientific member and author of many publications on Ukrainian heathenism."[4] This establishes the "neopaganism" part, I assume. In what way is she a "scientific member"? Is she tenured somewhere? In what field? As far as I can see, she published fanciful treatises on "Ukrainian Native Faith"[5][6] since the mid 1990s, which aligns perfectly with the 1991 independence of the country, and the associated surge in national mysticism. If there is any academic discussion of the topic, feel free to cite it, but all you have given us so far is neopaganism and national mysticism. --dab (𒁳) 09:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange changes

I am surprised taht some sources are discarded off hand and other unsubstianted claims are added to the text, like Ukrainian nationalism and Slavic neopaganism, none of which are supported by sources. Curiously enough the editor, who made the changes added the tag "sources" himself/herself. Why make changes and allegations if they are not supported by sources? --Hillock65 20:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

is Berehynia considered a goddess in Slavic neopaganism, or is she not? If she is not, we'll scrap the "goddess" reference altogether, since there certainly is no evidence she was a goddess in pre-Christian Slavic paganism. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am puzzled at yet another round of strange edits, in particular, which sources claim that she is considered a goddess in Slavic Neo paganism, please be specific? I am also curious where this information was obtained: Halyna Lozko, Chairwoman of Ukrainian Native Faith Pravoslavya ("Ukrainian heathenism") Pravoslavya means Orthodoxy, not paganism. She is a scientist from the Kyiv Mohyla Academy, who decided she was a chairwoman of anything? If you have a source where you took these claims from I am very curious to know. As well, of all the sources presented, none mentiones "Ukrainian romantic nationalism". I am also curious to know where exactly this claim is coming from, please be specific of its location maybe I missed it in all those sources. I will not introduce any changes in hope that thses questions will be ansewered. In conclusion let me quote from WP:SOURCE: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. [...] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Thank you. --Hillock65 11:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It was you who quoted Halyna Lozko in reference of your claim. Googling her, I found she is the chairwoman of some neopagan group. I don't have solid evidence for this. It is your job to establish she has published this in peer-reviewed literature. Do you have such a source, yes or no? Do you argue we should remove all reference to Lozko until academic sources are cited? After all, you have introduced the source, and are sort of shooting down your own contribution here. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

neopaganism

according to our Slavic neopaganism article,

The largest group that currently continues Shaian’s legacy is the Obiednannia Ridnoviriv Ukrayiny (the Native Faith Association of Ukraine), founded in 1998 by Halyna Lozko, a University lecturer in Kiev. This group is a federation of previously existing smaller groups, including Lozko’s own Pravoslavia, founded in 1993. (The name Pravoslavia is a sort of pun which means both “speaks the truth” and Orthodoxy in the Ukrainian language.)

this makes perfect sense so far. Here she is online: [7][8]. Now what is your problem? We have established that the "Berehynia was a goddess" claim originates in 1990s Ukrainian neopaganism, not more and not less. Any further claims you wish to make will need their own references. Now look here. I don't read Ukrainian, and it is tedious for me to find out things based on Ukrainian websites. You, otoh, seem to be perfectly acquainted with the language. It seems unlikely that you were not aware of this context. You rather seem to have assumed that you can bullshit editors at en-wiki into buying stuff by presenting them Ukrainian language weblinks. You'll need to think again. We'll be doubly suspicious of any new claims you come up with, and there will be no way around quoting peer-reviewed academic material if you want to maintain your claims. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed she belonged to anything, least of all to neopagan group. I merely cited her as a reference without making any claims. That is all. Again, going back to WP:SOURCE: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It is you, who added the claim that she is connected to a neopagan group. It is as simple as that — support your claims of paganism and romantic nationalism with published academic sources (Google and Wikipedia articles do not qualify see WP:V) or remove it. None of the sources you supplied above connect her to neopaganism. One is her personal site, the other is the list of her works. Where is the source that links her to neo-pagans? Is there anything unusual about that request?

P.S. And on a personal note, how about a trace of Good Faith? Familiar with that concept? I had no intention of bullshitting anybody, my only intention is that outlandish and unsupported claims are removed from the WP article. So far I have to deal with people who seem to think they can browbeat me into accepting invented and outlandish claims unsupported by any sources whatsoever. And please, discuss the issue, not me. That is all. --Hillock65 14:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

right. Ukrainian neopagans, unlike ancient Slavs, have web-pages that can be used as primary sources. I have now established beyond reasonable doubt that Lozko is an Ukrainian neopagan leader who has defended the "Berehynia Slavic goddess" claim. What about this is unsourced? If you really are trying to nitpick about that, you are hardly the person to lecture me on good faith. Now, since the 2001 monument of Berehynia replacing Lenin wasn't erected by neopagans, it stands to reason that Berehynia "plays a role in Ukrainian nationalism". I don't have any source for romanticism beyond Rubchak's claim that "at some point in the 19th century the nymph evolved into an earth-mother symbol", maybe you could help us out here. Otherwise we'll have to jump from medieval legend straight to 1991 national mysticism. dab (𒁳) 14:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"None of the sources you supplied above connect her to neopaganism" -- give us a break. Her own bleeding webpage says etnologia Ukrainoznavstvo / Ukrainske narodoznavstvo / etnoreligieznavstvo . This woman is a dyed-in-the-wool ethnic nationalist. It took me 10 minutes to figure out the Cyrillic spelling of her group, Об`єднання Рідновірів України. I am sure you could have told me right away, and also who shows up as the Голова of this group. Why are you wasting my time? You know I got it right, and yet you continue in your attempt to create some sort of smoke-screen to hide the fact that the "Slavic goddess" thing is a product of the 1990s. dab (𒁳) 14:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this is getting rediculous, I am sorry. The article's title Yulia Tymoshenko Goddess of the Orange Revolution is taken seriously and connected to Berehynia? What is going on here? Listen I don't want to get into surreal occult discussions with you, I am obviously on the losing side here: All and the only thing I am asking, please show with reliable sources (per WP:SOURCE and WP:V) that both Lozko and Berehynia are connected to neopaganism. That she studies paganism and pre-Christian traditions is beyond doubt. You groundlessly portray her as a leader of neopaganist movement. I also fail to see the connection between Berehynia and neopaganism. Maybe you can help with sources? Please. I don't really care about what you believe and think and what other occult ideas come to your head, support your claims with sources — and I will forget about ever meeting you on WP pages. Just do me this tiny little favour, will you? PLEASE! --Hillock65 15:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry it must be me. Could you supply the link where it states that she is Голова Рідновірів України. I searched her site and still cannot find it. Could you please supply the link and point out where exactly it states so? Thanks. --Hillock65 15:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

take your pick. Hint, her assumed title is Верховна Волхвиня ("Supreme Witch"?) will we have to pursue this point further? dab (𒁳) 15:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lozko

as I said, I don't read Ukrainian, but judging from this

Галина Сергіївна Лозко народилася на Миколаївщині. У 1977 році закінчила філологічний факультет Київського університету ім. Т. Г. Шевченка. Працювала вчителем української мови та літератури, викладала образотворче мистецтво. Згодом почала викладати українознавство в Київському політехнічному інституті, де писала свій курс історії української культури. Галина Лозко є автором ряду статей з народознавства: "Етногенез та антропологія українців", "Мова і генетичний код", "Забуті праці про пеласгів", "Праукраїнський календар", "Символіка обрядового хліба", "Віра українців" та ін. Друкувалася в часописах: "Київ", "Книжник", "Українська мова і література в школі", "Народознавство", "Самостійна Україна". В 1994 p. побачила світ її книга "Українське язичництво", видана Українським Центром Духовної Культури. Нині Галина Лозко викладає народознавство в одному з київських вузів, а також читає лекції для вчителів, творчо працює для просвіти українського народу.

it appears she is not a "scientist" after all, but rather a philologist by education who is/was lecturing at the Kiev polytechnical institute on "history of Ukrainian culture". Again, if she has published her "Berehynia is a goddess" hypothesis in any peer-reviewed journal, we can cite it as a bona fide hypothesis, regardless of whether she is personally a neopagan. Until we have such a citation, we simply have no evidence that the "goddess" hypothesis is taken seriously in scholarship. dab (𒁳) 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the above passage it states that she is indeed a scientist, she was a professor of Ukrainian folklore at the Kyiv Polytechnical institute, published several books on the subject now teaches at one of Ukrainian Universities (the other source states it is Kyiv Mohyla Academy). From what I can gather she is not a fringe maverick but a recognized academician even though she heads the neo-pagan movement. --Hillock65 16:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

right -- this is difficult to judge, since she is quite obviously lost in national mysticism. I don't put it beyond Ukrainian authorities to promote even far out ethnic-national mysticists to university positions if they just make enough noise about the glory of the nation. It will be safer to stick with the hypotheses as forwarded earlier in the 20th century, per discussion below. dab (𒁳) 16:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

origin of "goddess" hypothesis

It begins to transpire that the "goddess hypothesis" was, as I presumed, first forwarded in the early 20th century. here is a google books snippet view of a 1970 author telling us that ...rodzow (first part of name truncated) in the first decades of the 20th century has shown that "Scythian mythology lives on in Russian embroidery", where Bereginya, "incarnation of Earth" is often replaced by a cosmic tree. Depending on whether we can identify this ...rodzow, here in any case is a pre-1980s reference. dab (𒁳) 15:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

...rodzow is Russian archaeologist V. A. Gorodtsov (1860-1845)[9]. I had to guess this, because the name was separated by a linebreak in the 1970 book, but searching for "Go- rodzow" confirms it. dab (𒁳) 16:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is not only a Ukrainian phenomenon — the other source that I had originally is from a Russian Encyclopaedia of Mythology[10]. About Berehynia it states the following:(Some scientists believe that the name "Bereginja" similar to the name of lightning thrower Perun and with the word "Old" pregynya-hill, bush forests.) and (Ancient Slavs thought that Bereginya is a great goddess, that created everything existing. She was escorted throughout by shining riders, crystallizing the sun. She was worshipped particularly when grain matured and is said to belong to the supreme goddess patrons of human race). (Google translation with minor changes) They cite credible published Russian language sources: Мифология древнего мира, -М.:Белфакс, 2002 Б.А.Рыбаков «Язычество древних славян», -М.:Русское слово, 1997 В.Калашников «Боги древних славян», -М.:Белый город, 2003 Д.Гаврилов, А.Наговицын «Боги славян. Язычество. Традиция», -М.:Рефл-Бук, 2002 Have a look. --Hillock65 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

now we are talking. I suppose based on this we can say it was hypothesized from the early 20th century (beginning with Gorodtsov) that the Berehynia water spirits had evolved out of a Scythian earth goddess. dab (𒁳) 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

From Lozko and from Russian sources, it appears that both notions existed among different tribes (there was no single nation) and Berehynia was indeed worshipped by some as a water fairy and by some as supreme goddess equal in status to Perun. The latter notion was picked up by Ukrainian writers in the 19th early 20th century and transformed into mother of the nation, which materialized into a monument in the centre of Kyiv. --Hillock65 16:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

you misunderstand. The water fairy is what is attested in medieval sources. The "supreme goddess" is speculation of early 20th century philologists (this sort of reconstruction of prehistoric mythology was popular at the time). dab (𒁳) 08:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I maybe wrong here again, like with Lozko, but that's what all the sources say: Russian, Ukrainian and even the English one. You seem to have a far better background in this stuff then I and it very well maybe the correct hypothesis, but so far that's what it is - a hypotheses. None of the sources that are here in all the languages support the speculation theory. If I am missing a source, could you direct me to one? So far, the theory that it was developed by 20th century philologists is an unsupported POV, even if it maybe a correct one. --Hillock65 15:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

More (from WP:FTN)

(moved from WP:FTN) My Ukrainian isn't too hot, to put it mildly, but from reading the Lozko page linked to at the bottom of the article, there isn't a lot about Berehynia in the primary sources from the Middle Ages and the name mostly appears there in the plural (Ім'я Берегині у формі множини згадується і в писемних христи­янських джерелах XI—XV ст.). Even Lozko seems to admit there's a difference between what she (or they) originally stood for and what she means today ( відома сьогодні як Богиня на­родної пам'яті - which, I'm guessing, means something like "seen today as a/the goddess of national memory"). So she's clearly been promoted from minor spirit to major goddess in more recent times, whether due to Romanticism, nationalism, neo-paganism or a combination of all three. --Folantin 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(reply - moved from WP:FTN) I presume this is a case of romantic "deity reconstruction" along the lines of Eostre. The difference being that for Eostre, we have a big-time 19th century academic forwarding the hypothesis, while for Berehynia, we have a bunch of online essays. I would be ever so glad if we could come up with some actual scholarship, so we could state that thbe Berehynias "have been hypothesized in 19th century scholarship to continue an earlier single mother goddess" or similar. If Lozko cites no such academic precedents of her hypothesis, however, I don't know where we should get them. dab (𒁳), 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Expanded version of that sentence: відома сьогодні як Богиня на­родної пам'яті, яка зберігає прадавні звичаї. Presumably: "seen today as a/the goddess of national memory, who protects [probably wordplay here: зберігає/Берегиня] traditional customs"? In other words, Berehynia has become something like Halyna Lozko herself, who in her book Kolo Svarozhe [11] tries to reconstruct the calendar of ancient Rus', claiming "A nation, which lost its own calendar, will be lost for millennia in a darkness or slavery". --Folantin 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how credible it will be, since it has been established that she is involved in neo-paganism, but in her article, she states this: У “Слові Іоанна Златоуста” Берегиня згадується один раз і виступає як ім’я власне. У Софійському збірнику 14 століття читаємо, що одні язичники поклонялися Блискавці, Грому, Сонцю і Місяцю, а інші “Перену, Хоурсу, Вилам і Мокоші, Оупирем і Берегиням, їх же нарицають три-дев’ять (27) сестриниць...а ще інші - Огневі і Каменію, і Рікам, і Істочникам, і Берегиням...”. She claims that Berehynia is mentioned as a proper (not a collective) name as early as IVth century, among other things in The Word of John Chrysostom. It appears that she was promoted to the goddess status even in Rus, before Russia or Ukraine ever appeared. That same idea is supported by Russian sources I quoted above from Encyclopaedia of Mythology. --Hillock65 16:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't entirely sure what she meant by the "Word of John Chrysostom" and the "Word of Gregory the Theologian" (i.e. Gregory of Nazianzus, also 4th century). If she's claiming "Berehynia" was mentioned in the original Greek texts, AFAIK that would be incredibly early for any reference to the Slavs. I presumed she was talking about 11th-15th century translations of/works about those theologians in (Old) Church Slavonic (which is why those mentions are preceded by Ім'я Берегині у формі множини згадується і в писемних христи­янських джерелах XI—XV ст.). --Folantin 16:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Berehynia. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ridne.com.ua/content/view/172/33/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720175022/http://www.golosiyiv.kiev.ua/observer.php?id=215 to http://www.golosiyiv.kiev.ua/observer.php?id=215
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051128082740/http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com:80/nn/show/543/49836/ to http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/543/49836/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310140432/http://www.zn.kiev.ua:80/ie/show/543/49836/ to http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/543/49836/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• 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) 07:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)