Talk:Radegast (god)

Original speculation?

The "Explanation" section of this entry appears to be based, not on original research, but on original speculation. Older sources aren't necessarily more accurate; see the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Moreover, citing possibilities but not supporting them via arguments or evidence is a meaningless exercise. And being able to explain some known circumstance via an original theory does *not* prove that theory is valid. History is full of known circumstances that can be explained via dozens or even hundreds of different explanations. For example, any papal election can be explained via the theory that the College of Cardinals is being telepathically manipulated by intelligent bees from Venus. Coming up with an explanation that's simple, elegant, coherent, and covers all the known data is no guarantee whatsoever that it isn't dead wrong. 67.244.76.130 (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)TNH

"Dear Guest" or "Dear Ghost"?

I am not pretty sure about the association between "radegast" and "dear guest". My first impression is that "geist" in german means "spirit", which sounds like "ghost".
I have no idea about the word "rade" but in my opinion this sounds like: "dear spirit" --Amurdad (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think, but what reliable sources say. Since the claim in the article doesn't seem to be based on any sources, feel free to replace it if you find any source that backs your version. User<Svick>.Talk(); 13:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Then again, 'gast' is Dutch for 'guest'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.182.236 (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It have association in Slavic languages, not german, Rad = he like, gast should be from gost = guest Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Radegast

Gast,geist, guest and the slavic gost (гост) have same roots and probably maned one and same thing in ancient times. It is connected with Gospod,( "Господ" from gost-guest + pati- father the exact latin etymology is Hostpis > Host) in all Slavic languages in Latin means "God", but this God is not the Jesus Christ rather an old poor man who appears in houses like a guest in late evenings and asks for bread or coach to sleep or some sort of food and then leaves in the morning leaving some good deeds to his host.( The conection with food or eating is probably conected with the same slavic root for feast, eating, *gostiti гощавка) Some pried for this guest to come and in Bulgaria the hospitality was a must when you can not ever return a stranger on your doorstep. In villages today the tradition to this Good guest is still alive and villagers meet some strangers coming to their village with bread and salt.

Dear God

Someone please fix the English in this article. pschemp | talk 20:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Alleged etymology

Ardagast is considered to be mistranslation or fading error or mistyping over the centuries of the words Ragbiga (Ragbina, Ranbona) , Kanbinah, Ragbib, Adzîgher (Adzhigardak?) from the book of genesis for the nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Togarmah the similarities in all these words are obvious with the person or tribe which is considered to be a Bulgarian/Hunni /Ungar tribe Aldigar/Altsek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.211.25 (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Original research

I consider Chupito's recent restoration of a text removed from the article in 2011 an act of vandalism but instead of reverting, I used the templates so that other may voice their opinions. In any case, the article needs proper references.WikiHannibal (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Here I copy Chupito's point of view form both my and his talk page so that disussion pertaining to this article can be accessible for future editors:

• Reverting to a more speculative version appears to you as constructive? Basic difference between those two is that in the old one, which I'm promoting, is emphasized very speculative nature of Radegast as a deity. New version is full of pseudo mystical fables. Could we agree on, that the possibility that Adam of Bremen made a mistake is very high? Chupito (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• My edits are constructive. What exactly is wrong with my version? Lack of references? Yes, but when you compare it to the other version, it is not worse. Chupito (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

To sum up the problem, in September 2014 Chupito restored an old version of this article that was removed in 2011. In 2014 his verison was reverted by two other editors, while Chupito kept restoring it (with some changes). Only then I started reverting it bcs of vandalism. Both versions lack references, but Chupito's version includes a lot of (his own?) speculation, ("Depending on a source cited, one may argue", "Following the logic of Ockham's razor, the simplest explanation would be that", "Thus, the conclusion could be that Radegast was", etc.), mistaking a wikipedia article with a short essay, promoting a version to be clearly labeled OR and NPOV, as two other editors agreed - see the history of the article. Chupito has been active on the Czech wiki since 2008 and edited various articles, including the Czech version of Radegast where this problem originated, so he is no newbie and from my point of view he's vandalizing the article.

To Chupito: Please read at least Wikipedia:No original research. In the article, don't "argue", "follow the logic" and "conclude". Argue here if need be, follow sources, and let also other editors conclude what the better version of the article is. There are secondary academical sources about Radegast, please use them if you want to improve the article. In that case, please do not use the old version you want to restore, and choose your sources in a balanced way so that they do not promote only your point of view. Thank you. --WikiHannibal (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

List of sources

Since there seems to be relatively few sources available, I have decided to list them here. Feel free to edit and add to the list. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• [1] Attila, king of the Huns. 1838 By William Herbert

Thanks for taking interest in the topic. However, the source below does not seem reliable (early 19th century poem by William Herbert (botanist) who also wrote the historical explanation to it using an indiscriminate arry of sources). I think even Chupito would not want it to be used as a source. (Neither do I.) That saying, I would really welcome you or anyone listing other sources (more contemporary, scientific/scholarly) here, and I will look into all of them (if noone else does). Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(Sorry, I moved your reply for better formatting) The problem with this article subject is that there are hardly any sources available. If very few sources are available, I would use the ones available while mentioning the background of the author as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• [2] The West of England Journal of Science and Literature, Volume 1.

This one seems a bit better. But still quite old. I am hardly able to find contemporary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it is a little better, quotes could be used (if quoted correctly - and who knows?), but still... Jaan Puhvel's Comparative Mythology mentions Radegast somewhere but as I said I do not have time to look for it. I've been interested in Slavic mythology some 10 years ago during my studies, and I remember how complicated it was to untangle. Sources are mostly in German, Russian, and other Slavic languages, and authors freqeuntly had other agenda in mind (nationalistic, panslavic etc.) Plus modern "stories" about the gods, etc. , also present in the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• [3]The Handbook of Religions in Ancient Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chupito (talk • contribs) 06:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This source, perhaps in with quotations from the previous one, can be used in footnotes to the 2nd paragraph of History, and expand it. Such sourced info can then be summarized in the lead. For this paragraph, there is are sources in Rethra (Schmidt) provided by Volunteer Marek (AGF), and in general this part of the problem is better described and sourced in that article. When I have time, I'll try to do that. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent overhaul

Hi, Sławobóg, the subsection of the "Legend of Radhošť" seems quite OK and easy to check using your online sources, nevertheless I have not found, at p. 28-29, the source for your wording "although the tale has been debunked many times by historians, it still appears in some authors and folklore". Especially concerning the (weasel) words in bold. Could you please quote here where we can found that? I suppose the subsection could be added to the article, as a start. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not found, at p. 28-29, the source for your wording "although the tale has been debunked many times by historians, it still appears in some authors and folklore" Last sentence: "Toto vyprávění bylo sice již mnohokrát vyvráceno, nicméně zapříčinilo vznik celého množství projevů jak v lidové slovesnosti, tak autorské tvorbě." Better wording could be good but the sentence is sourced. If the word "historians" bothers you, I may link to the history page where this word is used in the same context. Sławobóg (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we discuss reverting my rework of the article? I still don't know what are the reasons for that. Revirvlkodlaku ignored everything I told him.

1. Massive violation of WP:BALANCE (no modern scholars believe that Radogost is "god of hospitality")
2. Missing references
3. Outdated sources
4. A lot of other nonsense: Bronisław Trentowski's "reconstructed paganism" is not "reconstructed", most deities mentioned by him are pseudodeities, many of them have unknown origin. Szyjewski (religious scholar) describes him as "romantic" (Szyjewski 2003, s. 10, 100). Ivan Hudec is a poet and for this reason is not a reliable source (really a shame you put him here even after people telling you about it). Why is Albert Krantz's opinion here? Radogost as "the god of the Obodrites" is mentioned by Helmold... Krantz's opinion does nothing here, in his time, paganism did not exist anymore, and he himself only cites historical texts. Mike Dixon-Kennedy is pseudoscientific source, no primary sources describe look of Radogost's idol.
5. Copyediting needed

My article fixes all these problems, it uses modern scholar sources, fixes WP:BALANCE (2 independent sources), and removes nonsense. I already has similar discussion with Lada (mythology) author, it ended in Wikipedia:Fringe theories where I got supported by others (where I debunked Dixon-Kennedy's nonsene). This article has similar problems: it uses mostly free (previews), but random sources and contributors have no general idea about Slavic mythology and unaware of the problems. It's funny because factually my article is not much different from the original article, it's just more detailed, exchanges some sources and gives a mainstream point of view. @Bloodofox: can you help me with this again? The only thing I can suggest from myself is to put some ideas in the "other suggestions" section, but all the rest must be replaced. Sławobóg (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I vouch for Sławobóg. Some articles on Slavic mythology, due to the lack of good and available sources in the West, is of questionable quality, at best. I myself edited the previous version of the article "Radegast", but some of the references I added looked alright to me at the time due to my lack of deeper reading into the subject matter. In hindsight, some of the sources I added do fall into the "questionable quality" field.189.122.34.209 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Sławobóg, I am not opposed to adding sourced content. Older ideas (e.g. your example of "god of hospitality") can be put in context, not removed. The missing "historians" are indeed one problem. Another problem is that "still appears" - it looks as if some modern authors (perhaps even scholars?) and present-day folklore (whatever may that be) continue to develop the legend. Which is not what the source says: the source says that before the legend was debunked, it had inspired folklore and authors of fiction (or something like that). What I was suspicios of was the way you use the sources, too much interpretation close to original research, perhaps using only certain sources, etc. - another example is what I mentioned in my edit summary: do you consider Pitro & Vokáč a good enough source to comment on etymology? And what do you mean by "can be understood"? Who does the understanding? They or you? A quote in their original wording is necessary, I think, in case it is your translation into English what ultimately provides the reader with the "meaning" of the word ("Gladly hosted as a guest" or "Glad to host a guest"). So in general, it would be best if you could make smaller changes, describe them in the edit summary or perhaps discuss them here first. BTW I do not know what you mean by "really a shame you put him here even after people telling you about it"; please explain. Did you find in older edits that I added Hudec to the article in the first place? Can you find that diff easily? Because I also do not consider him a good source. Thanks WikiHannibal (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Another problem is that "still appears" - it looks as if some modern authors (perhaps even scholars?) and present-day folklore (whatever may that be) continue to develop the legend. Can you read the paper again? "Velká část (převážně popularizačních) textů o Radhošti tak i dnes začíná právě zmínkou o Radegastově legendě." What author means is that the legend was debunked but it is still is being used in fiction, popular publications and folklore. This is how I understand it - there is no word "before" there. From the context of the entire chapter, it appears that this legend has been debunked by historians ("Její důležitost trefně vystihuje text na webových stránkách Matice Radhošťské, kde se o existenci domnělého Radegastova kultu píše, že „dnes už žádný seriózní historik nebere takováto vyprávění vážně"), because who else? Sławobóg (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The reader should be able to find info you add to the article in the ref you provide, not to interpret the source along your lines. I asked where to find your wording "although the tale has been debunked many times by historians, it still appears in some authors and folklore", and you quoted "Toto vyprávění bylo sice již mnohokrát vyvráceno, nicméně zapříčinilo vznik celého množství projevů jak v lidové slovesnosti, tak autorské tvorbě". When I challenged that (nothing about "many times by historians", nothing about "still appears", you addedd another quote; but again, 1) regarding "historians" - where does your "many times" come from?. (Disregarding the fact that the quote is not directly from the source but a quote within a quote - from your other source to the subsection.) 2) regarding your claim the legend is used in present-day "fiction, popular publications and folklore." Again, in "Velká část (převážně popularizačních) textů o Radhošti tak i dnes začíná..." there is nothing about fiction and folklore. Disregarding the bold claim, by the author, regarding "velká část", the text says the legend is used in present day "popular publications". Elsewhere, the author says that it had inspired folklore and fiction. But that had occurred before it was debunked, or at least, the source does not say it still appears in fiction/folklore even though it was debunked. But you do say that. That is your compilation, your OR.

But I used all of this just as an example. I understand you care about the topic but, in some cases, that may be a disadvantage. It may influence the way you use the sources: you may see in the sources what other do not but you cannot use your interpretation in the article unless it is backed unambiguously by the source. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What I was suspicios of was the way you use the sources, too much interpretation close to original research, perhaps using only certain sources, etc. Excuse me? If you think so, you're just proving that you have no idea about the topic you're getting into. Sławobóg (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not so easily offended, but some people may consider that „you're just proving that you have no idea about the topic” of yours as a personal attack. I suggest you be more careful in the future. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

another example is what I mentioned in my edit summary: do you consider Pitro & Vokáč a good enough source to comment on etymology? I didn't use them for etymology. I used them for meaning of the name that is clear to all Slavic people. If that is so problematic, I can use Smitek's translation. Not a problem for me. However, it's funny that you see a credibility problem here, but you don't see a credibility problem in describing the appearance of a deity by the authors focused on describing the fiction by Tolkien. Sławobóg (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I can assure you, the meaning of the name is not clear to all Slavic people. And especially your translation is not clear to all Slavic people. With such overblown statements, this discussion seems to be getting nowhere. I have already spent too much time here so I let other editors express their views for now. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you find in older edits that I added Hudec to the article in the first place? you reverted removal of this nonsense. If reverted for other reason, why didn't you remove that source yet? Sławobóg (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

All your arguments can be refuted by changing single words and single footnotes, these can be done without reverting whole article, but some good will is needed. Are you going to respond to my objections to the current article or just ignore them? I understand that if I make corrections according to your comments on my article you won't mind? I repeat: the current article is so bad that it must be rewritten from scratch, just like other articles about Slavic gods. For comparison, see the article in Russian. Sławobóg (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I suggest you start changing the subsections step by step, and meanwhile let other editors check your work, if they wish. Rewriting the article from scatch may be seen as controversial, bcs of the sourcs used, for one thing. Cf. what Bloodfox said below. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I wrote that I improved the article according to your comments, and you ignored that and continue to repeat platitudes about slowly improving the article. You also still have not responded to my allegations about the article's non-neutrality, its unreliable sources (Dixon-Kennedy, Dickerson, Evans, Curry, Hudec), and other problems. The things Bloodofox talks about apply to the current article: it has no "attestations" and uses random sources. My article describes primary sources and uses mainstream scholars of Slavic mythology. The implication is that you don't have good intentions (probably due to ignorance of the topic - you don't understand that the article is non-neutral as I proved in my article) and you want to defend the current article to the end even though I point out to you the errors with neutrality and factual errors. So I ask once again: do you have any more substantive comments on my article? If not, I will move this article here later. If you revert it again then I will consider it vandalism and simply report it. PS the translation of terms is not OR (WP:NONENG). Sławobóg (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I updated article in my sandbox. I didn't put Šmitek's etymology from Iranian deity Ardagust because: (1) Iranian etymologies for Slavic gods are debunked, (2) Smitek manipulates by saying that Ardagust has Iranian etymology - that is minor view, (3) I can't confirm existence of deity called Ardagust - no word in Google Books/Scholar. Any other comments? Sławobóg (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

Following up on being pinged here, there's an easy solution to the problems we're seeing on this article: We need to stick to peer-reviewed sources from acacedemics, namely folklorists, philologists, and other specialists. These are the highest possible quality sources we can use, and we need to be seeking these out. Additionally, while it may be annoying, it is in your best interest to find English language material from scholars, which will make it very easy for most readers to verify. This is how we've gotten many of our Norse mythology-related articles to the high quality state that they're currently in. Additionally, many readers will find it very useful to split the article into an "attestations" section followed by a "reception" section, where one can separate what the record actually says over how it has been received by scholarship. This is how specialist tertiary sources generally handle these topics. Right now this article is in a dubious state and needs a lot of work. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Bloodofox: I've taken note of the comments on my article, it is located here - can you take a look? Sławobóg (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

After a quick look, this looks to be a big step in the right direction. Well done. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)