Jump to content

Talk:Veneration of the dead

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2020 and 24 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elijah.fisher.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Why is the section on Native American practices written in the past tense? They're not dead. 2600:1700:7F0:C0D0:39AB:552D:B28E:D784 (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find that section. Where is it. I agree with you whole heartedly that these practices are alive and well. But they are not limited to Native Americans as you call them. Those practices are regularly followed by the INdigenous in what is now Canada also. 209.91.118.158 (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Id like to add that there were many practices left out for Native Americans. There are large burial mounds across the continent. There were peoples in the north great lakes regions that would hold ceremonies to clean bones a year after death. I think the first part of the North American Native American part should be removed because it groups many cultures as one and is untrue. The Pueblo piece should stay as it is the only one with a source. 104.129.152.41 (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link on the Hindu practice of Tarpan leads to an extinct horse, and even following the disambiguation from that page does not reveal any information on what Tarpan actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.218.187 (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the pages combined under this title; as mentioned on Talk:Ancestor worship, "worship" is a fairly specific term which "veneration" broadens to other practices which don't fall under that particular lexicon. -- nae'blis 04:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you do have a point, to my mind it seems far better to stick to an old established and widely used term. The problem with that term is already in that article, as it should be. 80.217.62.168 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am anti-merge on this one. Although ancestor worship is part of veneration of the dead, ancestor worship is a big enough specialized topic to merit it's own page. For example, Saint Francis would fall under the general caregory of Saints or Christianity, but because there is enough independent information about ancestor worship, I think it should stay its own page. If I don't see more discussion on this in the coming month, I'm going to remove the merge tags. Avraham 01:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also prefer to keep the two topics separted, as "Ancestor Worship" usually relates to Confusian Chinese habits. In Chinese (and derived) cultures "Ancestor Worship" is already refined and specialized. In my opinion it is a topic on its own, as is also the major content of the article. I would suggest that the parts on "Ancestor Veneration in Poland", "Ancestor Veneration in America" and "Ancestor Veneration in Ireland" are moved to the article on "Veneration of the dead". In that article a reference to the "Ancestor Worship" in the Chinese Confusian sense could be provided.

I oppose merging. Ancestor Worship is, as User:IrishJew says, a topic that merits an article independent from the more general Veneration of the dead. I would ask my Chinese grandmother to contribute to this article, as she regularly worships her deceased parents-in-law on the Lunar New Year, birthdays, the regular New Year, and Christmas (go figure), but she's too old to master even a typewriter. Mang 06:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am against merging, but I do think these categories should be completely rethought. "Veneration of the dead" is too weak and non-specific a term to encompass the various ancestor cults found throughout the world. Generally, the ancestors assume a sacred status and are thought actively to intervene in the affairs of the living--this anthropological phenomenon is broader than both "veneration" and "worship." Likewise, "veneration of the dead" is also not the correct term to describe the medieval "cult of the dead," in which the dead held an ambiguous status, stranded in purgatory; individuals were anxious to ensure that the living would remember to pray for them, while the living wanted to ensure that the dead made it safely through purgatory and did not return to haunt the living. "Worship of the ancestors" is also an outdated term. I think "ancestor cults" would be more appropriate and up-to-date. Thus I would propose "ancestor cults" as the general, global category, with the "cult of the dead" as a specific category for Christian Europe.

Merger proposal with Ancestor worship

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Veneration of the dead. -- Mairi (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested that we merge the two articles. There was a discussion three years ago, but the articles have not moved on since then. My feeling is that if the articles were combined, the resulting article would be better and be easier to contribute to.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Post merger restructuring

[edit]

Right, now that these articles are merged, we need to organise the material better. (For those surprised at a merger, it was basically unopposed through lack of interest on either page, and supported on the WikiProject Religion page.)

There seems to be organisational tension between looking at religious teachings and at geographically based "traditional" teachings. Perhaps a split between the two, with religions being the dominant organising principle, and geographical variations and traditions explaining the messier stuff (such as syncretic practices) etc. which would be easier once a broad account of religious ideas has been set out.

Any opinions out there?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing, many pages that link to here from "ancestor worship" are on mythological subjects like brownies, nisser, etc; with the speculation being that these household micro-deities derived from worshipping the first settler of a given village, the oft-described "old man in the hill" who was buried there. How this change in worship would occur is not elaborated on, and it seems odd that this article doesn't mention that at all, in the European sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.206.153 (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan

[edit]

What about Japan? Why ain't it here? Ancestor worship is still quite popular there, and lets no forget that the samurais historically worshiped their ancestors. 142.169.126.86 (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years later, this question remains. In fact, both Shinto and Japanese Buddhist traditions venerate ancestors. Many homes in Japan have a Shinto Kamidana and a Buddhist Butsudan, both of which are connected with the spirits of ancestors, and where daily offerings are made on their behalf. I will try to flesh-out the section, but would appreciate any input. Bricology (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Israel

[edit]

I think a section should be added concerning ancient Israel, given the emphasis on "fathers" and genealogies in the Bible. The succession of legendary patriarchs such as Noah, Abraham, Jacob (Israel), Judah, etc. suggests a cult of ancestors.86.40.136.121 (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are reliable sources backing up such a suggestion, this would fall within the restrictions on original research and synthesis.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urglaawe Spam Removal and Reinstatement

[edit]

Recently I removed the self-published Urglaawe spam on this page. However, another user reverted me without an explanation. What gives? :bloodofox: (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Veneration of the dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Arabic Cultures

[edit]

I would like this article to have more information about this idea in Islam and Arabic Cultures. I was redirected here from the Wahhabism page. Given the actions and ideas of both Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State in this domain, I think it's particularly relevant. I don't really know what would be good to add or good sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.56.252 (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Veneration which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodoxy & Saturday of the Souls

[edit]

Is there any particular reason why Eastern Orthodoxy and in particular Saturday of the Souls has not been included ? Iconography and veneration of the dead in the Saturday of the Souls leading up to the Eastern Paschal celebration is a distinct cultural practice compared to Roman Catholic traditions. The great schism between the Eastern and Western church was in part due to tradition and religious practice entailing veneration of Saints through "written" icons, the dead in one's family, and Orthodox Christians who died deprived of certain religious rites. 

The addition of a suitably written section to cover these sociocultural practices would greatly improve the scope and quality of the article. Dr.khatmando (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Dr.khatmando (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Veneration of the dead. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morthwyrtha

[edit]

I have a complaint. I was redirected to this page from "morthwyrtha" but that term appears nowhere on this page. What gives? Michaeld42 (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With a bit of searching, I found that "morthwyrtha" is defined in some dictionaries as "ancestor worship." On the other hand, Google Books finds the term used mainly by Edward Bulwar-Lytton in his novel "Harold" as a term for a particular person who worships the dead: "The Morthwyrtha, in her dark dress, stood within the circle of stones. ... In her right hand the Morthwyrtha held her seid staff, her feet were bare, and her loins girt by the Hunnish belt inscribed with mystic letters; from the belt hung a pouch, ..." but also as a term for a type of magical practice: "Hilda, who, despite all law and canon, was still believed to practise the dismal arts of the Wicca and Morthwyrtha (the witch and worshipper of the dead)." Both of these quotes from "Harold" by Bulwer-Lytton. I don't know how much of this is appropriate for this article, but I was keenly disappointed by not seeing any hint of reference to "Morthwyrtha" in this article after being redirected to it. Michaeld42 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be an Old English word for worship of the dead in the pagan Anglo-Saxon religion, but with that spelling there is an ominous absence of references from the last century or more, so it may just be Victorian bullshit, in a subject plagued by that. The redirect could be deleted or sent there. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bias/misrepresentation/graphitti-opportunism in the 2nd line, no less...

[edit]

"In some Afro-diasporic cultures, ancestors are seen as being able to intercede on behalf of the living, often as messengers between humans and God."

NO QUOTE!

? the-divine? the gods? excuse me? Clarify/re-word please.

Truly indigenous (actually- )African, would not even believe IN, the carelessly left-ambiguous-but-flexible "God", that the line does not further-specify between - or at least most of them - the few cultures that've formed since (presumably) Judaism/Islam/Christianity's arrival, that have supposedly un-interfered-with choices to have, either or more than one of the 3 as a critical part of their culture, or, 'naturally' developed with it without any outside influence (practically impossible these days), would be the exception to the rule, but even then, considering that their culture would be only then partially African-originating, although one could say that the culture in Q IS African, it would STILL be mis-leading, to leave the two associated. 120.21.175.101 (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The within-wikipedia link for the "dispora", of Gaelic rites/practices, currently-links to SPECIFICALLY the Irish dispora, when Gaels, are not ONLY, Irish, in modern terms ;

see [1]. Replacing the only-irish one, with that one, might be a simple solution. 120.21.175.101 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veneration_of_the_dead&oldid=1194939505"