Talk:Frankish paganism

message: How do we know there were still Frankish Pagans in Toxandria in the 7th century?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Æscing (talk • contribs) 04:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Toxandria

message: I think that further discussions to make this article verifiable, and constitute it with reliable sources are pointless since criticisme is not welcomed.
Since someone else had already proposed deletion of the whole article we best make a last round: We can keep this article, rewrite it, merge it or delete it. Please give your opinion. johanthon 16:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In its structure, the article makes unsubstantiated claims - yet this could be incorporated into an article on Frankish mythology generally if the author were likely to let it be so incorporated. I don't think that's going to happen. An article on Frankish mythology in general seems like a good idea. I vote for either incorporation into an article called Frankish mythology (with this article rewritten to present an alternative view) or for deletion. -Almirena 21:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that is not the case. This discussion is certainly NOT ready for archiving, and scholarly sources have not only been sourced... I've offered to supply you with the ISBNs of the books in question. I have quoted the works of the top Frankish scholars on the subject, but you immediately moved your responses from the article to personal abuse. I'd like to get this discussion to a non-acrimonious state, and focusing on making this a good article. As I said above, I will refer you to an edited version in my sandbox as soon as I have time. I hope that will not be more than a few days - I'm sure you can be patient until then. --Almirena 23:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The procedure for deletion is stopped for there is no consensus. Since the the scholarly dispute has been well sourced, the article remains disputed. Non of the problems that arise from the text are solved. johanthon 09:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Dab, you are invited to be bold. Anything is better than continuing the status quo. johanthon 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Frankish mythology is valid as a subtopic of contintal germanic, but its also Christianized. see Matter of France.  Goldenrowley 07:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: With that said,Keep and Rewrite Goldenrowley 07:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proceding for deletion

message: I cut out all the material tagged for citations. I then incoporated the text from the Franks article under the "Mythological origins" and "Paganism" headings. Then I structured the article and wrote an intro which melded the concepts of mythology and paganism. I tried to provide some extra (better) sources in the secondary sources at bottom and I tossed in a disclaimer or two where one ought to have been. I removed all the tags save the merger tag. Then I moved the article to the current title. If this direction is accepted by the other editors more heavily involved and knowledge about pre-Christian Germanic civilisation, then I suggest the section of the Franks article be slimmed down and the ones here beefed up. Srnec 04:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Srnec, I think this is a worthy improvement. But do we know certain that (the Franks of) Marchomir were pagans? I think not, allthough 'rex crinitus' for his son may imply it. Can we source this? Anybody? Most of his contemporain Franks are actual christian - with exception of Arbogastes. How do we adress this in the article? Especially in the header? johanthon 09:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Dab, your proposal to merge Frankish mythology with something else still lacks a proper introduction on Talk. At least, I can't find the pros and contras in any place. So far I can't see any coherence between the creeds and mythology of the different Germanic tribes and to me, each tribe deserves a separate assessment. A general article could be helpful to keep an overview, nothing more. Such an article would hardly be of any help when it pretends to cover all on continental Germanic mythology. Rokus01 22:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Srnec, why restrict Footnotes only to pagenumbers? The need to source literally is different from the need to give some background information for further reading or to make text verifiable. Sometimes you'l need to link to information that is not specific, in such a case it won't be sufficient to mention a book or article in a booklist. Also, sometimes you'll need to give some background information that would be too tedious to include in the text - here it has not been necessary yet, still this could happen. This current strict way of applying footnotes is not Wikipedia standard, or a standard I know of in any other place. We could make this an issue, however, so far I have the impression this is just a matter of esthetics to you. In that case I propose to comply with the format by mentioning the first page - of course, when the infomation does not concern a special phrase in a book, but reference to a complete topic. Rokus01 08:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rokus, considering the previous discussion on sources and verifiabillity it is only reasonable to be specific and avoid this kind of problems. Srnec is doing well. johanthon 09:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just refer to current Wikipedia politics and propose a solution to restrictions that should not be necessary. Please let not continue in filling this talkpage carelessly and let Srnec answer. Rokus01 09:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rokus, I gave you an argument. Think about it. johanthon 13:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Srnec's answer: lack of page number(s) is never acceptable when citing a specific fact. (If the fact is broad and is discussed over and over throughout an article or book, you could use "passim".) These restrictions should be necessary, for the sake of verifiability, as Johanthon said. I am following a common standard when I keep a list of references separate from the notes. Srnec 20:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue is not the separatin of primary and seconday sources, which is arbitrary and not necessary, but rather the separation of a list of sources cited (a bibliography) and a list of actual citations (incl. page numbers). There is no Wikipedian policy on this that I am aware of, just glance through some recent featured articles to see variations. However, it is common scholarly practice. Srnec 21:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pagenumbers

message: Modern scholars vary widely about their interpretation (about interpretating sources)
This line suggests fringe views and violent disputes among scholars. I included and sourced the dispute concerning the introduction of the christian religion, so I wonder what other interpretations this phrase intend to refer to. Please explain and source, or, if referring to fringe views like Franks being the lost tribe of Israël, the holy grail or worship of Roman gods, dedicate another chapter to this. Personally, I would prefer a different phrasing to leave those warring scholars out, and focus on the different options that could (not should) be extracted from the evidence (sec.). Otherwise, it should rather be left out completely, since the previous sentence already refers to the sources being "not always clear". Rokus01 09:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The view that that Franks worshipped Roman gods is not a "fringe view", but a well accepted historical fact. When the Frank Ambrosius lobbyed to remove the Altar of Victory from the senate he was opposed by the Frank Bauto. The last Roman Emperor who went at war under the dragon standard of Jove was Eugenius, a puppet of the Frank Arbogastes, who instigated a pagan revival and lead people like Symmachus. johanthon 13:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The best known temples on the Isla Batavia in our country are (as far as I know) dedicated to Hercules Magusanus and Mithras. The first is a Belgian god, probably originating in Menapian culture, the other one comes original from Persia. As far as I know there is not much specific "germanic" about the Batavii. Their material culture hardly differed from the local Belgic Menapians. The same can be said of Caninifatii, Sicambri and Tungri. The archeologic uncoverings of the 358-migration of the Salii has not shown settlements of new temples as far as I know. johanthon 20:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Your English isn't clear and I'm not sure what you are asking him to explain. The Franks were Romanised from a very early date. One of my personal favourite reads is Bachrach's Merovingian Military, which proves that by Clovis' time the Romanisation was complete. Srnec 21:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Srnec says Bachrach argues that Clovis Romanisation was (almost) complete. James however has a much different view on this point and evocates their different material culture. Wood is somewhere between them. This is all very basic stuff. johanthon 11:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What constitutes "Germanic character" is so up for debate right now that I don't even know how to respond to that. Is it about what language one spoke? Is it about material culture? Or intellectual culture? Religion? Brand of Christianity? Methods and ways of warfare? Ancestry and bloodlines? Oral traditions? Political organisation? Geography? Or what combination of the aforementioned? Why, for example, correlate "martial character" and "perpetual state of war" with Germanic culture/participation/character rather than Roman? (I did go overboard when I did not specify that Bachrach's "proof" (and I do regard it as as close to historical proof as one gets and I am not aware that it is highly disputed) was about Romanisation of administration and military.) Srnec 00:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not present the "martial character" and "perpetual state of war" as being typical to the "Germanic character." To the contrary, much of this was provoked by Roman politics. There is a marked difference between the attitude of agricultural Germanic tribes like the Franks that mainly lived in harmony with their neighbours (and survived as a political unity), and the migrating tribes that just concentrated on looting and causing mayhem (and did not survive as a political unity). This is reflected in a changed and diverging mythology. Sure, scholars have come up with suggestions that fit the Franks better. However, this does not suggest such suggestions are mutually exclusive or disputed. Some comprehensive knowledge and intellgence is needed for translating this knowledge into a comprehensive article, and it does not help much to prevent this from happening by pointing at "scholarly disputes" that so far remained unsourced and unquoted. Rokus01 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: All we discuss here is: "Modern scholars vary widely about their interpretation. And the variation between Bachrach and James sufficiently demonstrates this line is true indeed. So let's keep it. johanthon 10:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't seem to grasp that "all" we discuss here is the projection of some unworthy POV forwarded by Wikipedian editors concerning Jove and Jesus Christ, to some would-be scholarly dispute about germanic ancient beliefs, still without having produced any specific reference in support of the existence or importance of such a dispute. Come on, where does it say "By some quirk of fate Frankish mythology turned out to be Roman"? Anyway, I am glad the one that claimed that the Salian Franks were actually Arianists already before Arius had invented Arianism seems to have gone now. Rokus01 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your question? This article is reasonably well-cited. What fact do you believe to be in error? That modern scholars are in dispute? The list of sources and this discussion here is enough evidence of that. A citation is not needed for a statement which is a logical characterisation of the sources: i.e., they are in contradiction. Srnec 23:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warring scholars?

message: Most of the pagan gods were associated with local cult centres and their sacred character and power were associated with specific regions, outside of which they were neither worshipped nor feared.Schutz, 153. 
This phrase rather informs about pre-Frankish paganism all over their expanse, than it does about the Franks themselves. What could be local on migrating Franks? Please make this clear in the text. Rokus01 09:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Franks joined Roman culture. And Romans continued local cults. See Hercules Magusanus. See Arduinna. See Succelus. See Rura. See Nechalennia. See Lifes of saints like Hubertus and Willibrordus. Franks settled and society accomadated and integrated. The immigration of proto-Franks like Sicambri dated from the first century. Therefore it is not a supprise that a Frank like Arigius was called 'as Roman as Rome'. So this citation is not out of context. johanthon 13:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Johanthon and cannot see why that statement is problematic, migration or no migration. Also, see my edit summary. Srnec 20:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thankyou for informing me what context is... Srnec 21:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see good faith and wisdom on both your parts. I think this quote is just awkward, it says "[outside] of which they were neither worshipped nor feared", even if written by a scholar I don't think its very eloquent. From what I've read about the paganism they did fear gods outside their region, the Romans included, hence we had gallo-roman pagans everyone sharing gods right and left.  For example you find a Nehellenia votive from the North Sea in Cologne , so she was feared way outside her region? Goldenrowley 22:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with phrasing, but if you have a source which says otherwise, add a sentence (cited) and balance out the existing (cited) sentence. Admittedly, the statement above is a generalisation about most gods, exceptions would be welcome. I think the paganism of the Franks to be very obscure and this is not by any stretch an area of great interest or expertise for me. Srnec 23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I am looking for one. Until then I can "live with it". Goldenrowley 21:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of context

message: Just quick word on my edit tonight. I removed "and most de-value the myth"  because it rings untrue if not biased. I dont know very many scholars who devalue myths. On the contrary a mythologist scholar and English teacher would value myths especially if its a founding myth which is how thepeople see and define themselves. Goldenrowley 03:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I think the word "myth" wa just being used sloppily to refer to a "legend". I don't know how prevalent this "myth" was really among the early Franks and it may not have become commonly held until the time of Charlemagne or later. I do know that the idea of the divine descent of the Merovings has been greatly overplayed and I think it doubtful that very many Franks actually thought their kings were descended from gods. Srnec 04:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh I see that is what you're driving at that it may not be a valid myth, however.... I dont think we need the phrase at all it was something I started and just cancel my idea. Goldenrowley 04:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "it rings untrue if not biased". Of course this is very true and very biased. Actually I don't know a single MAIN scholar that did not de-value the myth: They all do. And yes, of course this is very biased, for scholars interprete and give their opinion. Their opinion has a bias. But giving the bias of scholars is what we do here. If we stop doing that Wikipedia stops being an encyclopedia, and becomes just the personal viewpoint of the last editor. johanthon 09:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you might want to do is identify and quote a scholar that says something like Srnec as his words are very nice:  "I don't know how prevalent this "myth" was really among the early Franks and it may not have become commonly held until the time of Charlemagne or later."   Goldenrowley 20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scholar was quoted right after this, and still is. johanthon 21:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly. Goldenrowley 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I added the 2 points Srnec made into the text. Am happier now. Goldenrowley 23:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks much better. Thanks. johanthon 08:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: be careful with words "most scholars"

message: the Franks may have had one omnipotent god Allfadir, thought to have lived in a sacred grove. Germanic peoples may have gathered where they believed this omnipotent deity to live, and sacrificed a human life to him.[3] They probably also believed in Wuotan (Wodin, Odhinn) the "chief" of blessings,
It's well established that variants of All Father (like Allfadir) refer to Odin. I suspect the Franks, as a Germanic tribe, were not exceptional, and that it's erroneous to imply, as the above does, that All Father was a different deity from Odin. While All Father might have been worshipped by the Franks as a different aspect of Odin, it should be clear that All Father was not a separate god. I'll dig up some sources on this. Divespluto (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always hoped "Allfadir" to link to something discussing him... that would be cool if it was the Germanic name of Odin (pending your digging up source). if so, one could modify the second sentence something like this (suggested): "Their Allfadir was a commen epithet for Wuotan (Wodin, Odhinn) the "chief" of blessings." Goldenrowley (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Father is an epithet of Odin 

message: Latin writers used Roman names of gods for "barbarian" gods. Hercules means Donner, Jupiter means Donner again or Wodan, Mars means Tiw or Wodan again, Mercury means Wodan specifically.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.86.230.114 (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifics about the Franks are all that this article needs, but if you can expand on the brief mention of Gregory of Tours' interpretatio Romana, as this paactice is called, please do. Srnec (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman gods and Franks 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Frankish mythology. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820085221/http://www.jgmf.org/issues/JGMFIssue4.pdf to http://www.jgmf.org/issues/JGMFIssue4.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410084410/http://redes.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2006/d.raemaekers/Raemaekers.pdf to http://redes.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2006/d.raemaekers/Raemaekers.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified