Talk:Völva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Shamanism 2 NPOV 3 Reversion 4 'Slandered' 5 Seidman 6 A comment from a passing reader

[edit] Shamanism

It is to notify that the temrinus 'shaman' is originated in the Tchutchen-Siberian language, which means 'wanderer of the worlds'. Even if voelvas have partially similar methods, they cannot legitimally be called 'shamans' - because they are not following the same path.

Well, even though the Völvas did not have exactly the same rituals as their counterparts of the Tchutchen-Siberian language, the term "Shaman" is nowadays used for the archetypal role of healer-priest that has existed in most cultures. Note that "medicine men" are more and more often called "shamans". You could just as well claim that American English is not legitimately "English" as it isn't spoken in England and in exactly the same way.

[edit] NPOV

This article is skewed somewhat against "the competing Roman Catholic Church". The most obviously POV statement is that "they were demonized", meaning that they were represented as evil. This I'll change myself; other points that imply a certain bias and merit a look from others include:

• "Since they maintained the old faith", "competing" and "they and the old faith are targeted"—the implication is that this was merely a contention between religions on the grounds of being different, and that the Catholics "demonized" their opponents. The contending view is that the "old faith" was actively evil to a Catholic perspective.
• "persecuted" (loaded term)

-- Perey 07:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A lot of these articles have this "neo-pagan" bias. even Arianism and similar. It should be enough to just quietly remove it, and add the NPOV notice only if someone reverts you. dab 08:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is that biassed. Burning people alive is a pretty strong way of persecuting them.--Wiglaf 08:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, burning people alive is a pretty strong way of killing them. Persecution is in the why, not the how. And dab, I was hoping to attract editors with a lighter touch for navigating religious POV than I. But I might give it a shot in the end. -- Perey 09:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. But AFAIK, it is uncontroversial that the old faith was demonized. The old gods Thor and Odin were called devils by the priests during the middle ages, and the quote in the text is authentic AFAIK. In fact people risked their lives by being caught red handed worshipping the old gods. Note: I am not an Asatrúar.--Wiglaf 10:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The controversy is in the idea of representation. To the old Norse mind, Christianity was a foreign religion pushing its way in and demonizing the old gods. To the Christian mind, the Norse gods were inherently false—myths, idols or demons. There was no question of demonization, only calling them what they were. -- Perey 11:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, in my mind that statement is even more POV than the article.--Wiglaf 15:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How so? If you mean the statements reflect non-neutral points of view, then yes, that was my intention. I'm trying to describe the two perspectives with respect to which the article must remain neutral. If you mean they show my personal (inaccurate?) POV on those perspectives, by all means, give us yours and we'll see what compromise can be reached. -- Perey 08:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Make a try to make it neutral, then.--Wiglaf 09:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

I'm reverting the edits by 68.198.87.154 (Talk). One is just changing Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church (a redirect to the former; this user is doing this all over the place), and the other changes this sentence:

They were persecuted, slandered and killed in the course of christianization, which also brought a changed role for women in society.

The change is from course to name. Now I'm not happy with that sentence as it stands anyway, but I'll at least let it stand with 'course' in there. That way, it looks something like an NPOV statement of historical events (even if 'persecuted, slandered and killed' can't help but sound harsh), instead of a statement of the reasons for doing so ('in the name of...'). It's a subtle point, but so be it. (Incidentally, I'll capitalise and link 'Christianization' at the same time.) -- Perey 05:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'Slandered'

I'm removing the 'slandered' from that sentence chiefly because it's rather difficult to tell what was slander and what wasn't; there's much less doubt about the persecution and killing. I'm curious about the change in women's position in society; the sentence leaves one wondering how did it change? For better, for worse, or just different? Without some kind of elaboration, the article would be better off not mentioning it. Wesley 04:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It is surprising how people object to stating that Christianity changed the way women were perceived in society. The clergy worked hard throughout history to remove women's rights. See e.g. Blenda, which was a legend created by women in 17th century Sweden to defend their rights, which the Church (of course) wanted to remove. Note that the women referred to deeds done prior to Christianity in order to defend their rights. They were conscious of the fact that their rights belonged to a pre-Christian era.--Wiglaf 07:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seidman

Anyone know why Seidman redirects to here? I see no mention of that term in the body of the article. There are four articles on people with that last name, so it should probably be a disamb page, but I can't even see why this would be listed as a possible meaning. Matchups 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (friend of the non-notable Dan Seidman)

[edit] A comment from a passing reader

I'd point out that the final part, about how this tradition died out, is incoherent. It blames pretty much everyone in the history of Western theology. I'm not clear, for example, how the Reformed Churches could have crushed this style of practice, given that they are a product of the Sixteenth Century, and spent most of their earlier time avoiding being hunted down by the Catholics. I can't see any connection between the witches killed under King James and this tradition at all. The author quotes "canon law under King Edgar", which seems fine until you realise that until the formation of the Church of England, the king of England has very little to do with the formation of canon (that is to say, church) law, and so this is just another attempt to spread about the blame.

I don't mind pagans mentioning the horrors of Christianistion, but perhaps they might also point out that one of the main reasons there were no practitioners of this tradition left was because very large numbers of Germans volunteered to change religions? This idea that medieval peasants were children that were tricked into Christianity by the Church has no foundation.