Talk:Gullveig

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

Potential connections to Freyja[edit]

So, do all these below have anything to do with "Freyja is related to Gullveig" beside that they both practice seið?? Why Frigg's adultery and Aurboda and stuffs are under "Potential connections to Freyja"?? This section is absurd and need to be rewritten. Please. 222.252.231.117 13:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've since clarified this section of the article to be more understandable but it is probably not enough to remove the tag at the moment. I can say, however, that this theory is pretty common. :bloodofox: 11:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty stupid. Freyja is Gullveig because they are Vanir and they practice magic and related to wealth? All Vanir practice magic and related to wealth as far as I know. With this logic: John and I are both English and we both speak English and we both like soccer, then I am John?? Those people who wrote about Paganism tend to make-it-up. They just got a story written somewhere, and they never care about who wrote it, when was it written and they take over other people's ideas and change their ideas into "facts". 123.19.43.193 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC) --- I agree, but sadly it is a trend to over associate mythical figures amongst modern scholars 209.247.21.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]


NPOV[edit]

An anonymous users (probably a single user with a shifting IP) who keep reverting back the page to their edit that attempts to debunk Turville-Petre's notion of Freyja potentially being the same figure as Gullveig at one point in time. There are many connections and Turville-Petre's background makes him quite qualified for such a claim but despite this he is called "Just an American" in one edit summary by IP 222.252.224.167.

The problem here is that select quotes from the Edda are being used to promote an opinion solely based off of the Eddas. The Eddas are nothing more than a collection of riddles. The Germanic deities were never static, they've changed a lot, with some permanent characteristics. The Eddas are only then-contemporary tellings of much older stories with likely very different content, much of it very likely censored by Snorri. See anything in the Eddas about Freyr's erect phallus? Just an example.

As Haukurth and I have said before, this is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and should not be allowed to stand. Please refrain from adding this back in its current form or it will be reverted. If you want to add a challenge to Turville-Petre's theory - and the many that support it - you're going to need to directly quote the challenge and not create it yourself here. :bloodofox: 18:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Eddas are nothing more than a collection of riddles. The Germanic deities were never static, they've changed a lot, with some permanent characteristics. The Eddas are only then-contemporary tellings of much older stories with likely very different content, much of it very likely censored by Snorri. [citation needed]? Now, that's YOUR POV. How do you know Adam of Bremen is correct and Snorri is not? Adam is a Christian bishop. He claimed that he knew it in his book, but that book only has around 10 lines about pagan deities, right?
Freyja burned 3 times and still alive, fair and sound -> she is the most powerful Norse deity. See Odin's death, Freyr's death, Baldur's death, Thor's death, Tyr's wound, Tyr's death, Loki's death, Heimdall's death.
No matter what you say, the Eddas are the primary source of Norse Mythology. See what written in Norse Mythology article: "most knowledge about Norse mythology is from the Eddas". No one can argue that. Edits which are cited and perfectly sourced are not original researches. The Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda are the main sources of Norse Mythology. Turville-Petre just read the Eddas. He lived in 20th century in England. How else did he know about Scandinavian and Germanic mythology. Without him, Norse Mythology is still Norse Mythology. Without Snorri and his Prose Edda, there is no Norse Mythology.
The Edda is just... ?? Just what? Almost everything known about Norse Mythology is from the Eddas. Turville-Petre studied THE EDDAS!!
Edits with perfect Citations and perfectly sourced are NOT original researches. You are the one abusing your powers. When did anyone make 3 reverts in a day? You are abusing your powers to protect your point of view, deleting well-sourced informations, and threatening to ban people who contributed a lot to the Norse Mythology articles. It has nothing to do with me, but please be careful with what you say.
And please correct me if I am wrong, but don't pretend like you care, user Blood of ox, this article was a complete mess, and no one cared until that person 222.252.231.117 came. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.252.231.207 (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Eddas are simply a part of a much larger whole. Norse polytheism is simply a branch of Germanic polytheism. The Eddas are not cohesive, nor were they a standard at any point. They are simply a collection of songs and prose. That is extremely important to understand.
Just as important, while the Eddas are an interesting source of information and one of the most complete to survive (although bearing the mark of the Christian era in terms of heavy censorship - a pretty obvious fact; take the case of Freyr or Odin as some of the most clear examples) there are numerous other means of deducing what exactly existed and what did not prior to the Eddas, though only to a limited extent. Runic inscriptions, etymology, place names, artifacts, surviving fragments of poems and little bits of texts that slipped through the Christian flames over the years, not to mention the writings of Tacticus (Germania (book))and Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum. It would be wise of you to take in the whole picture rather than taking the Eddas as a complete picture, which they are not.
What you don't seem to be grasping here is that Turville-Petre commented on the possibility that Gullveig was simply Freyja under a different name. Why? There are many connections and, of course, deities in Germanic polytheism split into various names and varying personalities throughout the tales - this is even pretty obvious in the Eddas themselves.
But why can't you use Snorri as a battering ram against Turville-Petre? Simply because this would qualify as Original Research. You need to cite a source claiming there is a problem with a theory, you can't just develop your own through Snorri's texts. Until then, you're going to just keep getting reverted by various editors for the very same reason until an administrator steps in. :bloodofox: 12:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saxo, Adam of Bremen wrote nothing about ""Gullveig is Freyja". Their writings are very small parts in Norse Mythology. Don't bring them here. There's no mentioning of Turville-Petre in the edits. No one is using anyone to ram anyone. No one gave a darn about Turville-Petre. People studied [{Snorri]] and the Eddas, no one studied the book of a man who lived England in 20th century like Turville-Petre. Only you are bashing the Eddas and the greatest source of the subject, while around 90% knowledges about Norse Mythology are in the Eddas.
The arguements in the "Turville-Petre's hypothesis" all quoted Snorri's Edda and Snorri's Sagas (with one thing made up by Turville-Petre), why do you bashed Snorri and the Eddas? "Cried golden tears?" In Snorri's Edda. "Have two daughters named treasures"? Snorri's Edda. "Seid, Magic?" Snorri's sagas. Snorri's Edda. ""Different names?" Snorri's Edda. "Gullveig?" In the Eddas. Freyja herself was mentioned just a few lines after the part of Gullveig in the same poem.
About the edits, they are all facts from the Eddas, primary source of Norse Mythology. Gullveig only appeared in the Eddas, and the whole article is quoting the Eddas. They are facts and useful informations that people may want to know. Keep up your repeative Vandalisms and abuse your power if you want. Just don't threaten or accuse people wrongly.
I am contributing knowledges to help Wikipedia. You are the ones who are here for a very long time, but were too busy playing your "moderator" game and never added anything or bothered to clean up this article, although it was a real mess. 222.252.228.191 08:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your attacks on scholars such as Turville-Petre, you don't seem to understand the point. When you make a claim or add information, the claim itself has to be referenced. You cannot just take random quotes from the Eddas and other writers and frame your own opinion or an "alternative" opinion with this - it has to be directly stated by the reference. That is why Turville-Petre's theory is okay but not what you've posted in "response" to it below it. Otherwise, you're simply taking quotes out of context in an attempt to frame your opinion, which is a violating of a few Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.
Again, Snorri's Edda is the source being critiqued by Turville-Petre here. You may disagree, I may disagree, everyone may disagree but you're going to need to find a direct disagreement, not attempting to research why he may be wrong with Eddic quotations. Again, why? Wikipedia does not allow Original Research.
I would also recommend you take a look at WP:Vandalism. Your definition of vandalism seems to mean anyone who reverts your edits or makes a change you dislike, which isn't Wikipedia's definition.
In the mean time, please spare me the jabs and complaints. :bloodofox: 13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. It's not "Turville-Petre's hypothesis" to begin with. The idea came from Müllenhoff's edition of the Poetic Edda. Turville-Petre just adopted the idea. They are facts from the primary sources of Norse Mythology. They are not original research or personal essay.
Again, your definition of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seems to mean anyone who adds information that you dislike, which isn't Wikipedia's definition. You are clearly committing WP:Vandalism and abusing your power.
In the mean time, please spare me the jabs and complaints. 222.252.231.194 10:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is: I am sick with you so-called wiki editors. You, for example, claimed to be an Icelander. Knew that the "goddess is prostitute" is from a later source, but never tried to cite that information. You instead are always ready to accuse people's entries for being personal essay and original research just because you don't like it, although it is super well-sourced.203.210.241.204 12:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cooperative project. If you're ever going to get anywhere here you have to learn to cooperate with other editors. That entails assuming good faith towards them. For example you should assume that if I say I am an Icelander then I am indeed an Icelander. You should also assume that if there is some particular problem which I've never fixed then there aren't any nefarious reasons for that - just ordinary ones. Maybe I never noticed it. Maybe I thought it would be hard to fix. Maybe I just preferred to spend my time on something else for no particular reason. It's a volunteer project - people work on what they want to work on. Haukur 12:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then do not abus your powers to delete and cover up entries you disagree with, discounting objective facts and labeling such users as "vandals": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Abuse_of_power 222.252.229.140 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you said you'd left. You should try to put your criticism into your own words rather than quoting the same Urban Dictionary sentence over and over again. I have never yet called you a vandal. I have not abused any 'powers'. I could have blocked you, blanket-reverted everything you do, protected pages so that you can't edit them etc. but I haven't. If you drop the persecution complex and hyperbolic accusations you'll have much better luck getting some work done around here. Haukur 08:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say I left? Maybe that person left for yesterday =P.
Then do not abus your powers to delete and cover up entries you disagree with, discounting objective facts and labeling such users as "original research" and "personal essay"
^ how 'bout that? 222.254.113.176 11:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What powers? The only 'power' I've used is editing pages, something any person in the world can do. If you are to get anywhere you need to convince people of the merits of your version and be willing to compromise to make mutually acceptable versions. Haukur 11:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Ox threatened to block and ban quite a few times. Reverting many edits at once is a 'power', I guess.

Rydberg's multiple identifications are generally not accepted by later scholars. is original research and personal essay. Why didn't you care about that? 222.252.229.35 11:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I have made no such threats nor do I have the ability to block or ban anyone. You are also making a complete mess out of this talk page. If you want any chance being understood or this text to even be seen, try to keep it in a single place and properly format your responses. :bloodofox: 12:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So how about all of us gather here and give each other a big hug? 222, rally!! 222.252.230.6 08:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up. Please do not engage in personal attacks during disputes over content. This page is about making the article better-- not the authors. I implore everyone that worst case, as the saying goes, "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it at all say it in the most polite way possible while avoiding personal attacks." ... well, at least, it goes something like that. :P Anyway, just try to keep a cool head and be sure to follow the list of policies if at all possible, and chances are we'll reach a favorable consensus along the way. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 03:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing Power[edit]

Some wikipedia editors had been abusing their power and deleting informations which are well-sourced to protect their POV and original researches.

Norse Mythology is a Scandinavian religion, but they used 2nd-rate sources written by american and english authors, who just read the Eddas and added their comments (even altered and invented myths). These editors even bashed Snorri Sturluson's Prose Edda and the Elder Edda as nothing, whereas almost everything known about this subject is from the Eddas. Voluspa is also from the Elder Edda.

This whole article is full of claims from modern scholars who studied the Eddas. But these editors keeep deleting the correct informations and excerpts of the primary sources of the subjects. This is exactly Vandalism.

And they are repeating it too. 222.252.231.194 10:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above, please refrain from fragmenting the discussion. :bloodofox: 12:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
222, you need to do the following: (1) calm down. (2) take in WP:SYN. (3) realize that you are not dealing with "vandals", but among others with one of the most respected editors on Wikipedia on Old Norse topics (I mean Haukurth (talk · contribs), who is, on top of that, himself Icelandic - if that makes you feel better re "just an American"). Calling "vandalism" when you are reverted by veteran Wikipedians just makes you look silly.
A detailed discussion of whatever is in the Eddas on the topic is most welcome, but what you will not be allowed to do is using such a discussion to build a private argument "debunking" other literature. --dab (𒁳) 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only you respected him, Ox, because you so-called wiki editors are all in the same gang, and always protect others. You are the one looking silly for bashing Snorri Sturluson's Edda, whereas everything in your Turville-Petre's hypothesis is quoted from it. For Haukurth, who claimed himself to be a christian Icelandic, but if he agreed with you, Ox, that the Eddas are nothing, then he is nobody as well. 10:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have certainly "claimed" to be Icelandic - not that you have to defer to me because of that - but I don't recall "claiming" to be a Christian. In any case your edits are slowly getting closer to being acceptable. Haukur 10:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are heathen, then. And as I said, I wasted my time here just to add useful informations to help wikipedia. I am certainly a much better person than you so-called wiki editors who never tried to add anything, but are always ready to pop up and accuse facts from the main source of the subject to be personal essay and original research. 203.210.241.204 10:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, virtue is its own reward, isn't it? I guess you'll just have to be content with being a much better person than we so-called editors are. Haukur 10:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you so-called editors will certainly be content with backing each other up in accusing facts from the main source of the subject to be personal essay and original research. 203.210.241.204 10:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to learn to differentiate between sources X and Y and your interpretation of sources X and Y. You also need to learn the generic (bland, dry, noncommittal) Wikipedia writing style. You've made some progress on both fronts. A good next step would be for you to get an account. Haukur 11:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am bad at memorizing IDs and Passwords, and I don't wanna deal with factions, gangs, abusing powers and other problems of wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Abuse_of_power
See? You and your friend Ox are covering up entries you disagree with. "the moderators and owners of the site delete and cover up entries they disagree with, discounting objective facts and labeling such users as "vandals" inside the alleged collaborative structure that is really designed to have the web population do its work for them with no compensation." 203.210.241.204 11:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it amusing that you got that quote from Wikipedia which in turn got it from Urban Dictionary. It's certainly true that almost everyone works for Wikipedia without compensation. It's also certainly true that Wikipedia has many problems and, indeed, that it has factions. It's also true that in a dispute between a newcomer and an old hand other old hands will have some preconceptions about who is probably right. Still, these aren't really your fundamental problems here. You just need to figure out the way Wikipedia articles are normally written. Then you can make sure the views you hold are properly represented. As I said, you've made some progress. Haukur 11:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it amusing that you talked about how a wikipdia article should be written. I am pretty sure it's normally written like this (by your friend Ox). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gullveig&diff=138353536&oldid=138350997
I am pretty sure any little kid would throw up if you show him/her that article and say that "There! That's how a wikipedia article should be normally written!". 203.210.241.204 11:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. That seems like a good edit to me. What specifically do you think would make a little kid throw up? Haukur 11:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*throws up* 203.210.241.204 11:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm honestly trying to engage with you here but if that's all I'm going to get then I can't do anything for you. Haukur 11:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look up. On the top of the talk page. And just between you and me, deer Haukurth, you are Icelandic, right? Turville-Petre wrote so clear in his book that your ancestors worshipped a prostitute. Is he right? The "goddess has a love for jewery so she became a prostitute for four dwarves". I hope I understood it right. I'm just a kid. I also hope you won't get angry with me, because I am not the person who wrote that. The thing here is I thought "WoW! They are the only ones who worshipped a prostitute", and "woW! She is the only goddess of prostitution in mythologies". And "she's the foremost goddess at that". And "how did these people invent a meaningless story to describe their main goddess as a prostitute?"203.210.241.204 11:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have difficulty following you. Why are you so down on prostitutes? Are you referring to Sörla þáttr? That's certainly a late source so it may not be representative of pagan views of Freyja. Haukur 12:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys think I actually care for "a murdered evil witch" is another name for "a divine prostitute" and you guys even formed a faction to delete and cover up entries they disagree with, discounting objective facts and labeling such users as "vandals" inside the alleged collaborative structure that is really designed to have the web population do its work for them with no compensation. Like I care. 203.210.241.204 12:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't accept that other editors are working in good faith to improve the relevant articles then it will be difficult for us to work together. Haukur 12:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AH! The problem is that. You just said it. You knew that it's Sörla þáttr? That's certainly a late source so it may not be representative of pagan views of Freyja. But the fact is: It was written that "Tis goddess is a protitute" in Freyja's article as a fact, without citing any sources, so some people even insulted Snorri Sturluson, thinking that he wrote that. It was written in Sorla Pattr's article that "it borrowed the myth of Freyja's protitution", as if there was a myth like that written somewhere. And the problem is, I see you everywhere in the history of that article. You were here for a very long time, but you never bothered to add any information or citing sources. It was until someone came and rewrote those B-class articles. 203.210.241.204 12:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proofs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freyja&diff=125602257&oldid=125594220#Jewelry By YOU!

You removed someone's vandalism "Definitely not a fertility goddess", right? Why did he wrote that? Because he saw it so clear in the article that "She is a divine prostitute". Not sure if she was in heathen view, but it was written like that in the article. What did you do to correct that? And this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freyja by some one! Oh, from a B-class to a well-sourced and the best article about Freya on the net! 203.210.241.204 12:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't be everywhere at once. I know the Freyja article has been problematic for a long time and while I've occasionally made some efforts to improve it[1] I've spent most of my efforts elsewhere (see e.g. Freyr, Höðr or Ullr). Haukur 12:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YOU were busy supporting a mother****** called luckynumber47 or something in attacking some people. I know. I saw it in the talkpage. 203.210.241.204 12:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On what talk page did I support someone attacking someone? What are you talking about? Haukur 12:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are open and talked to me, Haukurth, I would say that I went through hell and fought the injustice and jerks on this wikipedia just to write the right information on some articles. And why the heck should I do that? That's not my goddess. Why should I care? That's not my ancestors' mythology. Why should I care? I feel disgusted that some Scandinavian people are helping people like that luckynumber guy to keep the "sex" and "prostitution" in the article, uncited, unsourced, even though they knew where it came from (from a frickin' anti-pagan story).203.210.241.204 12:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you "couldn't be everywhere, and couldn't rewrite that problematic article even though you knew it was a mess", but you are so quick in deleting the prefectly-sourced information that someone added in this article.

"the moderators and owners of the site delete and cover up entries they disagree with, discounting objective facts and labeling such users as "vandals" inside the alleged collaborative structure that is really designed to have the web population do its work for them with no compensation."

^EXACTLY RIGHT!!!203.210.241.204 12:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edits because they were not written from a neutral point of view and did not improve the article, not for any nefarious reason and not even because I particularly disagreed with them. I understand that this may be hard to accept. Haukur 12:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a deserve an EDitor's barnSTAR!! or whatever it is, for my contributions in the Freyja article. But instead, I was attacked for deleting stuffs in my own talkpage, because that guy had an admin backing him up. That's what wikipedia is like.

"the moderators and owners of the site delete and cover up entries they disagree with, discounting objective facts and labeling such users as "vandals" inside the alleged collaborative structure that is really designed to have the web population do its work for them with no compensation." <--- that's RIGHT!203.210.241.204 12:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you people. I am here to contribute information, but you people are here to play a game. Just attack some people for vandalism, and you'll be an editor. When you have earned some reputation, you will start to delete and cover up entries you disagree with, discounting objective facts and labeling such users as "vandals". I can't believed I was attacked for trying to add correct informations to the article of Freyja. I thought I was helping this world. Dig up the history of that page. Who tried so hard to revamp it? Someone! Who tried so hard to attack that someone? YOU. 203.210.241.204 12:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think I got money for doing this, huh? You think I got fun trying to add facts to these articles, huh? I got NOTHING but stress and headaches. *leaves*203.210.241.204 13:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gullveig&oldid=1204265262"