Talk:Donar's Oak

message: The Catti must really be spelled the Chatti. Also, the oak was not a focal point for the veneration of Thor, but of Donar. Thor is the North Germanic name for Donar, which is a West Germanic name. The Donar Oak was deep in West Germanic territory and it would have been dedicated to Donar not Thor.
Yes, the tree was and is called "Donareiche" in German, but Donar is identical with Thor and in the English-speaking world, at  which the English edition of Wikipedia presumably is aimed, Thor is the commonly used name of this Germanic god. 
No English-speaking person will know what to do with "Donar", but they will understand "Thor".  The article should refer to Thor, with a reference to Donar in parentheses.  I shall do this now.Cosal 19:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the original text refers to the tree as "robur Jovis", i.e. Jove's oak. It is only according to the Interpretatio romana that we understand it to have been Thor's or Donar's oak. —Aryaman (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Catti

message: What is the earliest source in which this event is attested? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Earliest source

message: Who butchered this article?  It used to actually contain an explanation of Thor's Oak, what it meant to the German people, and why Boniface cut it down.  Now it's just one big quote with an intro.  God, WP has become just a bunch of crap.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.223.216.169 (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was rewritten from scratch using easily verifiable, academic sources. Content cut was unreferenced speculation and misinformation (see section above). The article can certainly be expanded, but complaining about how the article is no longer in its poor state is not helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  wth? 

message: The Catholic Encyclopedia, while not reliable for general history or information about other religions (as has been thoroughly discussed on the sources noticeboard), is a reliable source when it comes to documenting historical practices and common beliefs within the Catholic tradition. Its use here is to attest that there is a Catholic tradition that identifies Fritzlar and nearby Geismar as the sites associated with Donar's Oak, and I submit that the citation is properly contextualized as a tradition, not a fact. Ibadibam (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've further contextualized the source and added it to a new section that could well be expanded. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a great idea! Ibadibam (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad that we can work together. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Encyclopedia 

message: I removed it because Donar's Oak was not in Saxony. It is obvious to me how an editor of this article would also be interested in those other articles. But "See also" sections should not just be whatever an editor wants to lead readers to. Srnec (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:SEEALSO, any tangential relationship can make a link suitable for inclusion in the "see also" section. That said, the two links there right now are not necessarily the best ones to include, given that the felling of the Oak is a pre-Carolingian event. What about Indiculus superstitionum et paganiarum? At least that has a purported link to Boniface. Ibadibam (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also