Talk:Dís

message: What's this "epithet" nonsense?  Is it supposed to mean "Etymology", "background" or "origin"?  An epithet is a swear word or slur.
The Disir were not all deities, they were female ancestors - demigods at best.  Freyja was known as vanadis, goddess, but that is above the disir.  The Norns (as opposed to norns) are not the same.  There is still debate as to whether there are both Norns and norns.  The valkries are not goddesses, per se, either - they are demigoddesses, IIRC.  They had a pecking order.
Article needs rewrite, if I can figure out what its original substance is, because it's very circular.
Sections:
* Etymology
* Vanadis (Freyja)
* Ancestor Worhip
* In Literature (mention translation and time issues)
* Confusion with fylgia and Norns (Snorri norns vs disir)
* Other reading/related items
-- RavanAsteris (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've started working on it, and made an initial change in the lead paragraph. The next section will probably be simply on Cult or Worship and include the dísarsalr, the alternate names for Freyja Vanadís and Vanaguð, and the dísablót. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  review notes 

message: I hit enter on my last edit prematurely but only the end of the edit note was lost.  The Turville-Petre source is severely out of date compared with many others and at odds with every other source in the article.  Also recent linguistic studies are not reflected (I added a ref to one of the very few recent ones).  It does not seem reasonable to base on one source the strange conclusion that idisi and disir are unrelated or that we should not use this classification for all the similar female supernatural creatures which are classed together by every early and recent analysis I have seen.
There seems to be a prejudice by some in favor of the "authenticity" of the Norse mythoogy versus what most scholars observe as a clear progression from the older sources, most of which are West Germanic or Proto-Germanic, to the later recorded Norse stories.  The commanalities are obvious and widely observed.  Separating them out does not serve the readers of wikipedia who would probably prefer to find the most reliable information based on he consensus of scholars and grouped into sensible categories.  Let us remeber that even Germanic languages did not come from us men of the North (rather they came from the Indo-European, the Aryan) and that logic, reliable sources, scholarly consensus and sensible categorisation should prevail over personal tastes and national identities.
Please do not re-insert a distinction between West Germanic, Proto-Germanic and North Germanic languages or mythology without a careful evaluation of the reliable sources and scholarly consensus.  I currently support combining the idisi article with this one per the year-old proposal template.  Thank you for any comments and I apologise if this was a bit of a rant. Obotlig (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, I take issue with your inappropriate usage of the term aryan and have no idea what you're talking about with this "south to north" business; if you're talking about Proto-Indo-European, I suspect you mean "East". As for Jutland, that's not exactly "south" either. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After rewriting valkyrie from scratch some time ago, one thing that was evident to me is that it is not at all clear how the disir and valkyries are related. There certainly seems to have been some sort of concept overlap, but there is also definitely a substantial gray area here. As a result, objectively it is entirely inappropriate to treat them as one and the same and call it a day. As for your discussion on Indians being "genetically Slavic", that is simply ridiculous. I recommend that you take a closer look at your source and how it defines "Slavic". Proto-Slavic developed long after Sanskrit, and so mybe you mean some pre-Slavic people. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you are saying and have encountered much of the same sorts of overlap and confusion of categories among published sources.  I think many of the authors are in the same situation as us - trying to piece together mythologies which obviously have some commonalities but where concrete and clear records are not always available and the subjective interpretaton of what should be classed with what else is largely based on 'our' own reasoning.  The varying influence of Christianity and morphing of the mythologies over time leave no clear objective answer for what can be considered the authentic beliefs of a given subculture at a given time.  Similarly the linguistic reconstructions are heavy in conjecture and most of them are very dated and laden with each author's inevitable perspectives and objectives.  After looking at your user page I see this is your primary topic of interest and appreciate the work you have put in.  I think we will have trouble bringing a consistency to all these articles when so many scholars have no more to work from than us - the few primary sources and their own senses of reason and categorisation.  It seems to me that consistency is the key here.  Many reliable sources lump the topics mentioned above into one category but perhaps we can choose to have a separate article for each and merely make mention of the similar concepts, or point to a new cover-all page which mentions each variation and points to a main article.  I think very many or all of the Norse mythology articles are lacking a clear system of categorisation and are sorely in need of dedicated attention and some consensus among editors on how to treat the distinctions between cultures and times and the hypothetical connections between them.  The 'genetically slavic' statement was poorly worded - I meant that it is clear which group of humans are associated with PIE and the Aryan invasion of India from genetic testing.  It is a pet peeve of mine that so many continue to apply Aryan to Norsemen or Germans and I should have left it out of the discussion.  Thanks for your patience, input and work on these articles.  Obotlig (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonality with Idise and Standing Article Merger Proposal