Talk:Heathen holidays

Update needed 2016

Can someone please update the information, using the german article below? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Germanisch-Neuheidnischen_Feiertage

Unjustified revert

On 25 December 2012 at 15:27] 95.244.78.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) began reverting the merger of this article (originally at Heathen holidays, I believe) with Wheel of the Year.

Revert: it has been merged without consensus and actually 90% of the information has been lost in the merging. The "Wheel of the Year" article is not appropriate for heathens since it focuses on Wiccan and Druid traditions adopting their terminology

1. 176.2.229.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) lodged the merge request over a month prior. No

objections were raised. In fact this article had received so little attention, it was practically abandoned.

1. Most of the article's content was removed during the merge due to its Verifiability. Most of the article was unsourced.
2. ...not appropriate for heathens since it focuses on Wiccan and Druid traditions adopting their terminology is not a valid reason to (re)split an article. If an article is too heavy in with one POV or its the terminology is too biased, fix it. Don't create a barely sourced article.

I would have reversed the prior revert on sight for verifiability and notability reasons alone (it's a very good idea to notify involved parties of major reverts), but Dbachmann (talk · contribs) has since moved the page to Ásatrú holidays and attempted to improve it. An article broken from general Paganism focusing on Germanic holidays is fine and the new title passes even the "Google test", but this article is still barely sourced (perhaps even worse than before). That is not acceptable. If people here do not want this article to be challenged again, it must be cleaned up, better sourced, and provide enough information to clearly indicate why it should be separate from the main/general article for contemporary Pagan holidays.
—Sowlos 17:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Holy Days of ASATRU RING MIDGARD

We are a group of like minded people who have come together to live our belief in the Nordic Germanic gods. Frankfurt is the founding place of our group, and lies in the centre of Europe in the midst of Germany. We commited to only 4 Holy Days in the year:

 * Yule (21 of December) to remember that Thor gave us the gift of life.
 * Ostara (21 of March) to pray to Ostara who give us springtime.
 * Midsummer (21 of June) to reflect our life with the Gods.
 * Harvestblot (21 of September) to appreciate our Gods for the harvest.

These dates are chosen to coincide with the beginning of winter, spring, summer and autumn. They have probably no historic roots, but we as Asatruar are living now, not in the past, it is our living faith in the Gods. For more information about our way to celebrate, see www.asatruringmidgard.de (most in German language, a good portion in English, too). May the Gods bless you!

Dr. Volker Walter - Asatruring Midgard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.42.114.240 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something, shouldn't the Asatru Calander be based on cycles of the moon? if we look at the following article I think it's a good starting point to find some research into the actually historic calendars of the ancient Germanic peoples. and to reference other indo-europian calendars of the time would make sense as well. If we want to clean up this article, recognising that there is room for debate on the days would be a good start and adding the various possible days to each row in the table, perhaps a column for Lunar calendar dates and a column for the Georgian calendar datesCitronrobotlord (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Odinic Rite calendar

This is missing and was done before McNallen I believe, although pretty similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Request of Title Change

(12/24/2019) Many individuals find the name "heathen" to be extremely offensive, since it denotes the fact that Christianity is dominant in religious knowledge and history, and that everything comes after it does. However, Paganistic holidays and traditions actually came before they were even a forethought, and these Christian holidays were their takes on these important days to "help those cultures they took over feel more 'welcomed' while they were converted." Because of this, being called "heathen" denotes a sense of being somehow wrong in their way of thinking, and as such comes off as offensive and ethnocentric. This is a request to please change the title of the article to "Paganistic Holidays". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1512:49B3:4956:97A1:966:9FC9 (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Heathen and Pagan are effectively synonyms, so if one is offended by one of them one might as well be offended by both. The only difference is that one is Germanic and the other is Latin.--CoreGoon (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Heathen is self-applied at least once, pre-conversion. It's vernacular now, it's fine. AppropriateName (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Heathen holidays → Modern Heathen holidays – This clarifies the distinction between the page and historic Heathen practices which differ in some parts and are unknown in others. Ingwina (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose since I don't see the need for any disambiguation. Heathenry is a disambiguation page, but there is no other Wikipedia article about non-modern heathen holidays here. As long as the article clearly states its scope in the opening sentence it's fine where it is. Ffranc (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support clarifies the scope of the article, and that one should not add ancient heathen holidays to this article -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The current title is more WP:CONCISE, and more disambiguation in the title is currently unneeded, as there is no other article about heathen holidays. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Holidays has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Neopaganism has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Religion has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please stop "Correcting" Wulð to Wuldor

Wuldor in attested Old English is a neuter noun, not applicable to an anthropomorphized male. The earlier edit was correct, in that the organization in question calls him Wulð on their website, regardless of academic correctness, and in fact... due to academic correctness. In OE, the Common Germanic 'Wulthuz' would be so reconstructed. The nominative 'Z' ending would be deleted, resulting in an uncommon -u stem that would see the 'U' dropped, resulting in a nominative masculine noun, 'Wulð'. Much less probably, 'Wulðu'. The postulated case ending matches and in fact results in a cognate to ON 'Ullr'. It it is accurately called out as a reconstruction on the group's site, and 'Wuldor' as the name of a god is unattested. It is used in epithets of deity only in the genitive, or in compund words, e.g Wuldor-fæder.

The section in dispute is about the calendars of modern organizations, and therefore it is inappropriate @Ingwina to use this as a medium to have doctrinal arguments about Ullr. This organization celebrates this holy period, in this way, involving this divinity, and does cite sources. The entry is correct.

See: https://bosworthtoller.com/36774

AppropriateName (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi AppropriateName, the issues here are two-fold.

Firstly, by my reckoning, the source cited for the list of celebrations by the group doesn't actually mention Wulð. I see Wuldor in the list of beings worshipped at Yule unless I'm missing something. In that case there would be nothing supporting Wulð being used at this point.

Secondly, even if Wulð were to be used as the name of the god here, linking to the page Ullr would be inappropriate if there was no discussion on the Ullr page about him equating to Wulð. It is currently dubious that Wuldor is linking to Ullr without nay explanation on the page (even though I know personally why). We don't need to put more wood on the fire. This is not about doctrinal arguments. Simply that you can't just equate two topics without any discussion or sources about how they relate.

Potentially the sources used by the organisation support this, but in that case these sources should be cited directly (as the website does not address this) and it should be on the Ullr page. This is not the page for describing who the god is - their own page is for that.

I'm confused about the link you have just shared - this is again not for "Wulð", right?

I would appreciate it that you did not change it to "Wulð" again before this discussion is resolved :) Ingwina (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

See: https://ingwine.org/knowledge-base-2/wulth/

From the org’s site. And yes, the link to Bosworth is to the word Wuldor, a neuter noun not used alone as a name. The point I’ve been trying to make. AppropriateName (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Also with respect to the Ullr page, The correlation via etymology, is literally discussed in the first paragraph of the page. I was able to find the information on the organizations website as well as a Clear etymological connection on the Ullr wiki page, so I am forced to conclude you weren’t looking very hard. Wulð is an OE normalization of Proto-West Germanic wulþuz as attested on the Thorberg Chape, whereas ‘wuldor’ is not. If you have a source somewhere that suggests this group worships the God by this name, I feel the burden is actually on you sir or madam, to provide that source. I have provided a link to their website which should render this entire controversy quite moot, merely on the grounds that they do not seem to worship a deity called Wuldor, and as far as I know, no heathen person pre-conversion did either. EDIT: Reviewing this in closer detail, it seems they do appropriately propose the use of ‘Wuldor’ In epithets that use it in the genitive sense or as part of a compound word. This again is acceptable on academic grounds, because it fits with old English grammar.AppropriateName (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi AppropriateName. My problem with this edit is not that I do not believe you about the meaning of Wuldor, but that Wulð is not discussed in the relevant places on Wikipedia and thus should not be equated with Wuldor, as is implied when you link to 'Wuldor' with the presented name 'Wulð', as you are doing. If 'Wulð' is to be used as the name for the god, we need to discuss the meaning of 'Wulð' on a page (such as Ullr), with references that can be checked over by the community, not just assumed. This is a key part of ensuring accuracy on pages. Reconstruction from Proto-Germanic is not assumed knowledge.

Despite you making rather unneeded claims that I am not looking properly, the Ullr page does not discuss the term 'Wulð', let alone as a name for a god. This information is absent. Addressing this issue with good quality sources that establish the use of the term would enable you to use it in the established context, without issues.

It also seems rather strange that the source referenced by the page (as recorded in http://web.archive.org/web/20221021201742/https://ingwine.org/knowledge-base-2/the-holy-calendar/), the reference to 'Wuldor' was changed today to 'Wulð'. I cannot help but question the coincidence.

I reiterate my recommendation to not persist with changing the page, as you have been doing repeatedly, until this discussion is settled. Ingwina (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I will certainly persist in correcting it as often as you see fit to deface it. They may have changed it somewhere in their site because I have been in communication with them about it. Maybe you should stop trying to deface a page in their name without actually accurately reflecting what they seem to think? While seeking clarity, I was given to understand that they have come around to the very viewpoint that I have been trying to articulate. Why do you refuse to accept their own site as a source, unless it says what you want it to say? AppropriateName (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, I question that you are acting out of editorial integrity, you keep changing it back to wuldor, but you do not remove the link to Ullr. This both misrepresents their beliefs, and does not directly address your concern about the association of ‘wuldor’ with Ullr. Earlier edits by you removed vast swaths of content from this page in their entirety, which leads me to believe you were acting from an agenda not related to academic integrity. Please refrain from further graffiti on this organization’s calendar, unless you contact them about it first, and gain some insight into this that would rationalize changing the name of the god that they worship on that date, to a word that is not a god at all, out of an apparent desire to persist in a linguistic mistake that they have already corrected. If you wish to unlink Wulð from Ullr, I suppose I can’t dissuade you, but I have it straight from the horse’s mouth that they equate the two, the rationale is sound, and it is their calendar. It sounds like one of their people added it in the first place, I suppose they know the latest thinking. Do with that information what you wish. AppropriateName (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It is potentially a bold claim that insisting on references for sources is defacing. It is also rather bold to assert that I have an agenda against academic integrity because I am enforcing usage of reliable sources. Sections were removed from this page that did not cite reliable sources and I reworked essentially the entire page to improve its integrity, as I have with many others. I have reworded the debated section and added references from the page (as unfortunately private correspondences with the page authors do not qualify for this) that discuss the equation of figures, and removed the link you added that led nowhere. These sources are suitable for describing that the group itself equates them, but to discuss if scholars equate them will require sources as I have described above, and on the page for Ullr. Can we consider this matter settled? Ingwina (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Article issues being addressed

I have broadly rewritten this article and believe most of the nonsense to be taken out and suitable (if still imperfect) to be present for all claims. Does anyone have any problems with removing the article issues listed from before the fixes were made? I believe they are broadly addressed now, even if the page could still do with some expansion with solid sources. Ingwina (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)