Talk:Tuisto

Tuisto has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 17, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Mythology Mid‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tuisco

This article is funny. "Tuisco" is clearly a rendering of the older "Germanic" word for German ... compare Lingua Teudisca of the Oath of Strassburg 8 centuries after Tacitus. Tuisco is just one of thousands examples from around the world of an invented Eponym, compare Romulus, Scota, Francus, Kamber, Locrinus, Albanactus, Brutus, or even the Mannus mentioned in the article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add a source stating this to the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything like that in the literature since the pre-Grimm era. Maybe the Deacon was reading the Reverend... :) —Aryaman (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good articles nomination

Can anyone think of anything else that needs to be added to this article off hand? If not, I think it's ready for a Good Article nomination. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it up for Peer Review on WP:AGS and go from there. —Aryaman (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I've pretty much exhausted my present resources on this, and I don't think anyone is going to find much more worth adding. I'm moving it up to B-Class. —Aryaman (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, I think the article is quite excellent - I think it says basically all there is to say. I would be surprised to find if there were any depictions out there of Tuisto. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks are also due to you for putting it up for collaboration. I would have ignored it otherwise, despite the fact that it fit in nicely with my current private studies. I put a note on the WikiProject Mythology page asking for a reassessment. Now we just need some really good copy-editors to show up...—Aryaman (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reassessed from start to B after you found an image. Good job! Goldenrowley (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some misspelling of Tiwaz by Roman authors,no doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talk • contribs) 10:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuiscon / Tuyscon / Tuisto in Annius' Pseudo-Berossus

This can easily be verified. I would do it now but am on a mobile phone and will add it when I return home, if in the meantime no one else finds one for it. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brahman

It can be only equated to Brahman and not Tvastar. Brahman is the great God and most supreme and divine being. --Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Later influence

I could be being thick or the wording needs improvement. Please consider the following sentence:

Later historians (e.g. Johannes Aventinus) managed to furnish numerous further details, including the assertion by James Anderson that this Tuiscon was in fact none other than the biblical Ashkenaz, son of Gomer.[12]

It seems to me that this is backwards. Johannes Aventinus lived 1477–1534. James Anderson lived 1680–1739. So Johannes certainly could not reference Anderson. Shmuel A. Kam (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]