Talk:Nehalennia

message: The book Symbol and Image in Celtic Religious Art  by Miranda Green (published 1992) states that "Nehalennia is nearly always
portrayed with a dog"(p. 5). 
Additionally, also by M. Green Animals in Celtic Life and Myth. London, UK: Routledge, 1998. p 200-201:
The tribe of the Morini lived in what is now the Netherlands, bordering the North Sea coast. They venerated a local Celtic goddess, Nehalennia, and set up two temples in her honour. She was a divinity of seafarers, and protected merchants and other travellers who regularly risked their lives and their merchandise in the perilous journey across the sea. Nehalennia’s cult was a successful one: visitors came to worship from as far away as Besançon and Trier. And it was a wealthy cult: the two shrines to the goddess were embellished with numerous altars . . . Nehalennia’s two sanctuaries, at Domburg on the island of Walcheren and at Colijnsplaat on the East Scheldte estuary, are both now submerged beneath the North Sea. However, many of her altars have been recovered, and these display a rich and complex iconography which throws some light on the nature and functions of the goddess. Nehalennia is generally depicted seated, with baskets of fruit as emblems of prosperity and often with marine symbols to signify her presidency over the sea. But most distinctive of all the motifs associated with this North Sea deity is the dog. On nearly every surviving stone — and there are more than a hundred — a large, benign, hound-like animal sits patiently by the goddess’s feet, facing his mistress.
This is from Hilda Roderick Ellis Davidson's Roles of the Northern Goddesses, (pub. 1998): Nehalennia, a Germanic goddess worshipped at the point where travellers crossed the North Sea from the Netherlands, is shown on many carved stones holding loaves and apples like a Mother Goddess, sometimes with a prow of a ship beside her (see p. 112), but also frequently with an attendant dog which sits looking up at her (Plate 5). He was on thirteen of the twenty-one altars recorded by Ada Hondius-Crone (1955: 103), who describes him as a kind of greyhound. . .
L Hamm 02:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miranda Green

message: What date were the earliest coins that depicted her?  I added this source today that mentions several interesting points:
*Grimm's Teutonic Mythology (1888); Online by Northvegr © 2004-2007Chapter 13, page 3. Goldenrowley 03:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the Etymology section was added by User:Rokus01 in one edit. He edits a lot of archaeology articles. Perhaps you could ask for his sources on his talk page? Alohasoy 23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea I've invited him or her to come discuss here. I'd look forward to knowing of the best sources.Goldenrowley 03:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OKay! Well I am really "into her" right now as I was just there in Zeeland. If you don't mind I may just copyedit it a bit, but not take anything away. I'll say its a compiliation or something. Goldenrowley 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deity

message: Hmm someone has put her in the Celtic menu.  Goldenrowley 22:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmm

message: Nehalennia? --Illustrious One (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How does one pronounce ...

message: What's with the recent edits inserting a useless and misleading template followed by the injection of references to ancient Belgian language? We have a policy against this—WP:UNDUE. Far and away the most common notions on this figure is that her name is either Germanic or Celtic. Inserting a reference to a purely hypothesized "ancient Belgian language" without emphasizing the general academic consensus is misleading to the reader and seems to promote what is nearly a fringe idea. What gives? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is simply not true, :bloodofox:. Maurits Gysseling was a very notable linguist and calling him "fringe" is absurd. You deleted everything you found unlikely but I see no consensus against it. I prefer the ideas of experts in a field rather than those who just dump it in with Celtic or Germanic. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Experts in the field" overwhelmingly "dump it into Celtic or Germanic" rather than an entirely hypothesized and entirely unattested group. Emphasizing your personal preference over general academic consensus is not OK and Wikipedia has policies against this sort of emphasis, namely WP:UNDUE. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  So why do you not add some of that? Why do you insist on deleting material that was properly sourced to a respected linguist instead of just adding criticism from others or discussing opposing views? What's notable is that scholars from other countries that are unfamiliar with this are likely to ignore such theories, preferring the simple explanation that has held for ages. But WP:consensus can change, and not only on Wikipedia. There are still plenty of words in West Germanic languages without convincing origin, such as winter. This is tied directly to the Germanic substrate hypothesis, which is not at all "undue". I am perfectly aware of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, but I think I'm not the one with a personal preference here. I have heard no justification for mass removing sourced information other than that you think it's not the truth. Use sources to argue against it, don't say "that linguist is wrong" and delete it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be clear, the issue here is a matter of balance and representation. Per WP:UNDUE, we're supposed to make sure the mainstream academic approach is explicitly clear before attaching before going into comparatively obscure theories within academia, which wasn't the case. Once the article is very clear about mainstream academic consensus, then bring the Nordwest block, etc, stuff in. To be frank, I can barely find time to respond to messages here and on my talk page and nowadays can only do talk page patrolling every now and then, so I can't be charged with bringing that balance into the article at the moment. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it's not obscure, it is scholarship. Point is that you hereby charge me to either not add this or to first find much more info that doesn't have to do with the Nordwestblock, but that also shouldn't be my job. WP:DUE doesn't mean that if one possibly majority view isn't represented, the other view must be deleted. Someone else can come along and do it. Maybe I will do it. But I still don't see how deleting the work of a very respected linguist and an archeologist who discuss a popular albeit non-standard theory will solve anything. I can also not find any consensus that it is either Germanic or Celtic, which makes it all the more reasonable to include this one. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue Emphasis on Obscure Theories 

message: It does not go through Zeeland, it is the Schelde River. KsVer (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rein River