Talk:Latvian mythology

Inaccurate information

I think there should be more objective information about sources where from did all these deities came from (for example the cult of Mothers, are all these "mates" reconstructions or do they exist in written sources?). Also there should be more information about scientists who researched ancient Latvian mythology and etc... Welnias, 2007 03 12

I agree, but think it is time to go much further: this article is such a mess it should be deleted. It creates much confusion (not just between Latvian Neopaganism and Folklore, but by borrowing from other mythologies without proper citations, merging some Lithuanian and Latvian deities, possible hoaxes and reconstructionism). It is beyond simple review and needs a suitable authority to rewrite it from scratch. --The Lesser Merlin (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talking about inaccurate information, Velns is definitely not a demon! As it is said, Velns is portrayed as stupid, but never evil... so he is more like a lesser spirit than a demon. A Jods (which is not just an alternative name for Velns, but a spirit of it own) on other hand was portrayed to be evil. Longrim

I believe the accuracy of the entire article is so suspect and the quality of writing so poor, that the best course of action would be to delete this article in its entirty!

Due to the factors mentioned by the author, traditional Latvian culture is lost or distorted. This is true of many cultures with oral traditions. Add to this the propensity for humans to exagerate their knowledge, and their are many commonly held but disprovable stories out there. It seems to me that the author has selected a handful of these stories, without any attempt to verify their veracity, and presented them as fact.

As with other cultures (again) there are people serious about researching the Dainas (folk songs) mentioned to get arive at a better understanding. I would suggest wikipedia approach the Universtiy of Latvia History department. Perhaps this and other articles on Latvian folk culture would be a good project for its students.212.93.100.149 (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

They, the University of Latvia History department and their students, are welcome to edit this article - anyone can. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 09:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is entirely unsourced, but given the large amount of content, I believe that deleting the entire article would be more destructive than helpful. If someone went through the article and embedded numerous {{citation needed}} tags to highlight the inaccuracies, we would have a better idea of how to improve this article than we would if it was deleted. (I have added a {{refimprove}} tag to the article, but I am not knowledgable enough about the topic to add sources myself.) Writing an article like this from scratch is an arduous effort and can't be expected from anyone here. I will try to contact a number of the editors who have raised the issue of this article's inaccuracy and ask them to highlight some of the most flagrant errors so that we can bring more experts in to offer small improvements. I will then appeal to the members of WP:WikiProject Latvia and WP:WikiProject Mythology to offer some expert opinions on the issues which have been highlighted. Does anybody else have any ideas for how to improve the accuracy of this article? Matt (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

At least some of the topics included here are found as separate articles in the recent Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones, which I have found in pretty much every public or academic library I have yet encountered. A list of the separate entries it has related to this general topic can be found at User:John Carter/Religion articles#Baltic religion. Each of those articles is also, so far as I remember, individually referenced. The earlier edition of the encyclopedia edited by Mircea Eliade might contain more articles, I don't know. But if no one here does have access to those books, drop me a note on my user talk page and I can try to go through the articles in the Jones edition probably early next week, and add citations and corrections as I can find them there. And there do seem to be at least some sources on some of this in English, as I found by running a check of Google books on Perkunas here. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, John Carter. That sounds really helpful. I currently don't have access to those books, but I might try and find access to one if I have some spare time soon. Matt (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Accidentally found this talk about the article on Latvian mythology. Could tell a bit about it, if that could be of help. Including shedding some light on the issue of sources.

I am also the guy behind the short articles on pantheon.org, which were written by me an age ago. But I still consider them true in principle.

So. Sources. In short. There are three different types of sources: the historic documents, written by people hardly knwoledgeable of local languages, gradually developing a written tradition that was something in its own right, culminating in J.G.Stender's "Lettische Mythologie" - an appendix to his Grammar (published 1783). Then there are the writings of "dievturi" - Latvian neo-pagan movement established in 1925 (with the Lithuanian "Romuva" being their Lithuanian counterpart, though significantly later). The only possible comment here is brief: you should not mix research and religion. So, be extra-careful finding a hint to anything labelled "dievturi". The last. Folklore texts. Of which the folksongs are considered the most reliable (due to rhythm and structure), why these are so frequently mentioned as the true manifestation of Latvian mythology (though a researcher from the turn of the 20th century might object to folklore being equalised to mythology). Still all what is found must be read critically, as there are misunderstood and misrepresented parts in the texts, along with later introductions.

This is about as much as I can say if I am not allowed to lecture for two days in a row.

One thing that sounded funny to me. "Ausekla zvaigzne". Never heard of it before. It means nothing more that "the star of Auseklis". Being the same Auseklis anyway, in my view. And not met in any text by me (what does not mean, of course, that the phrase is not used at all).Aldis Putelis (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Aldis

I completely rewrote the article last summer. The issue was that sometime along the way somebody had copied snippets of text from other sites into separate articles, which were then merged into this article, resulting in a list that was a rather strange mixture of stuff hard to verify. Feel free to read the current article and add/change anything, just remember you need to reference it with WP:reliable sources ~~Xil (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Latvian mythology or Baltic mythology?

How is the subject of this article substantively different from that of the extant article on Baltic mythology? John Carter (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Latvians just happen to be substantively different from Lithuanians, speak different languages, have different religions and neighbors, you know ~~Xil (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that Latvian mythology is a type of Baltic mythology but due to the differences between Latvian and other Baltic mythologies, they are deserving of individual articles, rather than being all merged into Baltic mythology. I don't think John Carter was trying to be insulting, though, Xil. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess the question is, basically, what are the differences between the mythologies? That I guess is the question, and there is no attempt at impugning anyone by asking it. Mythologies are all basically old religions, and it might be that the differences between the religious beliefs of these groups at the time the beliefs were actively held were not as profound as they are today. In fact, that happens rather a lot with religious variations over time. I think it would be very useful to find out exactly what content belongs primarily in this article, and what content belongs primarily in that article or other articles. John Carter (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I never took it as an insult, it's just that it seems like an ignorant question. Mythology is set of myths, not a religion. Also Baltic mythology could be used to refer to evidence from pre-historical and early historical period (of which we know little) and atempts reconstruct common paganic religion, while here we have information largely based on evidence from later centuries, probably mostly based on actual oral folklore, which was collected after 19th century, and perhaps some information referring back to 17th century. Thus, while there are similarities, there are also differences, for the reasons I mentioned in comment above ~~Xil (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Mythology is a set of myths which were once associated with a system of beliefs, generally, so while they aren't a religion, they are a component of a worldview/religion. And while there are differences, as you said, there are also similarities. I still think it would be useful to determine how much of this material belongs here, and how much belongs in that articles. We try not to reproduce material in multiple articles, and that being the case it is important that we determine which article is the more "central" to given content. The Encyclopedia of Religion I referenced earlier is is English, but the authors and editors were from across the world, and it is counted as one of the two most reliable refernce sources in the field, other than Brill's RGG, and it is generally seen as being probably more "objective" than the latter. No one is saying that Latvian mythology is not notable as such, but it would be important to learn how much of this content is "Latvian", and how much is perhaps more accurately referred to as "Baltic". The external links, which are allegedly "authoritative," are in Latvian. Honestly, I am going to check on Monday, but if those sources call the material "Baltic" rather than specifically "Latvian," then I think it is reasonable to include that material in the Baltic article. This is not saying that the this article should not exist, or that all the content belongs elsewhere, but I think as per the template on the article we probably would greatly benefit from someone looking through the reliable sources to see what they call the material, so that we can determine a bit more clearly what content would be best placed in this article, and what content would be best placed elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that seems unreasonable - just because one source doesn't explicitly mention something, perhaps because it is an overview not an extensive work on mythology in Baltic area, doesn't mean it does not exist. Also the similarity is not a very valid argument - there are, for example, separate articles on Greek and Roman mythology, despite their similarity. If Romans get to call their gods by Roman names why shouldn't Latvians? :D Plus there is also an article on Lithuanian mythology, have you considered bringing this up to with Lithuanians as well? ~~Xil (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me on what basis consulting the best independent reliable sources in the field is unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say anything like that. It is unreasonable to pick one source and say that since there is no Latvian mythology section in it (BTW part of it is available online, so I checked it already, unfortunately the book with Baltic mythology is not available) there shouldn't be article on Latvian mythology. ~~Xil (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You know, if you were to actually read the above posts, I think you would see that at no time did I say that there shouldn't be an article on Latvian mythology. I do find it rather galling when people make responses to statements which were never made in the first place. I do however note that one word was poorly chosen in my earlier comment, and have struck it and replaced it with the correct word. However, even with the original language, I don't think that the conclusion you seem to have drawn is really supported. John Carter (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, but you questioned if there is any difference and then argued that content shoul not be reproduced in several articles, which I take means that you are considering merging similar features into one article and not repeat them in this article, which would for one mean that if they are so similar as you think there should be only one article, but if not - suppose there is (out of top of my mind) 50% match, which means you just remove 50% of this article and move it to the other article, where you merge it with similar Lithuanian deities, which may have properties that Latvian deities are not reported to have and vice versa. And what remains here is deities that actually are different from Lithuanian mythology (though I'm sure national romanticists have done good job at likening deities that are only vaguely similar), but notion of there being other, perhaps very important, deities is lost. See a problem yet? ~~Xil (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The above comment seems to be operating on the assumption that these entities are "perhaps very important" even though that has not yet been verified in independent reliable sources. What I am suggesting is that probably, for our purposes, the best highly regarded independent reliable source be consulted, and, based on my review of the relevant reference works, I tend to think the EoR is that source. If it indicates differences, as it well might, then that could be reflected here, possibly keeping separate content. If it doesn't, but it indicates in its bibliography other sources, which are almost certainly reliable by our standards as well, which indicate differences sufficient enough to have separate content, that would be reflected here as well, possibly keeping separate content. If neither the articles, nor the works in the articles' bibliographies/references, do not indicate that the entities are distinct in any appreciable way, then I think that, whether they are "perhaps very important" enough to be kept as separate content might not meet verifiablity standards. John Carter (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

these entities are "perhaps very important" even though that has not yet been verified in independent reliable sources you are misinterpreting what I said - my point was that the way you seem to look at it, you would take deities crucial to Latvian mythology and Lithuanian mythology and move them to different article, thus hindering reader's understanding of the topic. And I already told you that I confirmed there not being a separate discussion on the topic in your favorite source. If it indicates differences, as it well might, then that could be reflected here, possibly keeping separate content. see this part here sounds very much like suggestion to merge article just because one source doesn't have separate article on topic ~~Xil (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also - in that source there is, for example, article on Saule that doesn't mention Lithuanian traditions at all. Are you therefore going to assume it is exclusively Latvian deity? I scaned over the Baltic overview article it makes troublingly little distinction between anything and offers no citations from actual sources this research could be based on, seems more like author's attempt to reconstruct common religion ~~Xil (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what's been said or interpreted on either side, they do not belong together in any in-depth article to the extent they should be collapsed (from Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian in terms of surviving cultures). Each has its national mythology, deliberately built, e.g., Lāčplēsis as the Latvian national ode. "Baltic" does not mean "homogeneous." A bit of hunting should turn up some backup (or not), weekend's coming up... VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody considers "Lāčplēsis" mythology, even if it is mentioned here as being based on mythology (more like butchers it IMO) ~~Xil (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the point is that each language has its own oral tradition, real or manufactured national epic poem, each has had its own preservers of folklore with differing results. I just think that when folks have some time and energy to put on it, the topic of folklore on the shores of the Baltic is best served by separate articles. It's certainly not that well served by simply documenting the pantheon of pagan deities with a bit of narrative on top like frosting on a cupcake. (And who is to say who is the "pagan," anyway?) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I tend to interpret "Baltic" XYZ culturally as Finns + Estonians + Lithuanians + Latvians, that is, Baltic as a location not ethnic group. For example, Rubulis' "Baltic Literature" covers all four. Following WWI, the Baltic states were all four, etc. So "Baltic folklore" should be all four. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no actual pantheon (except in national romantic wet dreams). The trouble here is that either we got attempts to reconstruct common Baltic religion, which then includes other traditions considered close, or just articles on separate deities. The trouble with that is that as far as Latvian mythology is concerned in many cases I have yet to see an evidence that applying certain "common" aspects to it is more than just the authors own guesswork. While on other hand it misses out on other myths like (out of top of my mind) flying lakes and sinking castles, which my well be borrowed from Finnic or German mythology, thus apparently deserves no mention. Probably need to dig deeper. And your view on what Baltic is won't really be supported by most sources on the topic. ~~Xil (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would be so bold to say that this article should simply redirect to Baltic mythology. And by Baltic, I mean the linguistic group, extending from Proto-Balto-Slavic. This is exactly how we handle other branches of Indo-European mythology (as well as non-Indo-European). For example, do we have a Danish mythology article? Norwegian mythology? Icelandic mythology? Of course not, they're all in Norse mythology (which itself needs a rewrite). Our current situation here not only misleading but smells just a little bit like nationalism. On the flip side, statements like "There is no actual pantheon (except in national romantic wet dreams)" are in themselves dubious; one can find a fair amount of attested Baltic deities and an amount of those are reconstructible in Proto-Balto-Slavic. Enough; as we've done everywhere else, it's time to redirect this article to Baltic mythology and rewrite it with academic sources in hand. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea of there being some sort of god family first appears in 18th century works of German authors (that was mentioned in one of the sources I listed above, I think). The national romanticists, wishing to prove that Latvians are as worthy as other nations, expanded on it. And then ofcourse it was further developed by neo-pagans. How is pointing out nationalist bias nationalistic? Or is there assumption that Latvian discusing Latvian topic must have such agenda? Furthermore none of more recent sources reconstructing such pantheon I've seen thus far don't cite any evidence from either historical sources or folklore. The Slavic mythology is very diverse and common period refers to time at least 4000 years ago, so it is hard to see any relevance of it. And please do expand the Baltic article, but most sources on it attempt to reconstruct pre-historic religion, ignoring any diffrences between later traditions ~~Xil (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Latvian mythology consists of ancient elements adopted from different tribes living in Latvia since prehistoric times, including those speaking Finno-Ugric languages, Proto-Balto-Slavic languages, and North Germanic languages. There are even some remarkable similarities with mythology of the Sami people.--Pirags (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Xil, I am not referring to modern pagans, "18th century ... German authors", or national romantics. I'm talking about modern scholars, primarily Indo-Europeanists. As an Indo-European people, the Baltic peoples had a polytheistic society, and with it a pantheon. This is not a matter in question, nor is it the result of anything but simple academia. This is what we should be reporting on, perhaps starting with, say, Jaan Puhvel's work in this area. We can discuss regional differences in Baltic mythology where possible (as Puhvel does), but it is utterly pointless and misleading to have a Latvian mythology and Lithuanian mythology article; they're simply both facets of Baltic mythology relabeled for modern nationalistic sentiment, whether latent or otherwise.

Pirags, outside influence, such as Germanic and Finno-Ugric influence, would simply be discussed in an appropriately rewritten Baltic mythology article, just as Christianization would be handled. –:bloodofox: (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the article on History of Latvia: Finno-Ugric influence was an in-side influence.--Pirags (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So did I. And Pirags is right - there were plenty of influenced past supposed common religion that constitute more modern mythos. Just because most non-Latvian sources provide only overviews of Baltic religon doesn't mean there are no seperate Latvian or Lithuanian myths ~~Xil (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware, and it's also the case with Norse mythology, where Lappish influence can arguably be found, but nobody in their right mind would argue for an article titled Swedish mythology instead of simply redirecting it to Norse mythology. These things don't exist in a vacuum, but they're clearly distinct enough to discuss as a topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is sea between Baltic states and Scandinavia. Also reportedly over there languges are mutuly inteligable and writing exists from about 2nd century, so supposedly it's based on solid historical evidence not reconstructed after it ceased to exist. And mind you I pointed earlier to a case where exactly opposite is done despite huge similarity ~~Xil (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but I must ask you to refactor your point here. I'm confused as to exactly what you're trying to convey here. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My point is that you can't just aply Norse as best example. I don't know much about Lithuanian mythology - their folklore is very strange and not to my liking. But their deities have different names and there are some that are not present in Latvian, although people into reconstruction mode are keen to find even vague similarities. For example - for Latvians planet Venus is male deity, while Lithuanians have female deity and ofcours each lack a deity corresponding in other ways to each of these deities ~~Xil (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have left a message on the user talk pages of a handful of editors listed on the WP:Wikiproject Mythology participant list to get their input on whether it is appropriate to have a Latvian mythology article. I don't have a position on whether or not this article should be here. I'm only looking to find editors with relevant insight to offer their input to the discussion and give us some more perspectives.
• I also think that one way of deciding whether this article is appropriate is to improve Baltic mythology by including sections on the similarities and differences between the different Baltic mythologies. If we had a section for each of the Baltic mythologies, we should be able to see when a section grew large enough to warrant being split off into a separate article. For example, look at Finnic mythologies. The article is titled Finnic mythologies and highlights that these mythologies are distinct but have common factors as well. Also, most of the sections split off into separate articles. If Baltic mythology is improved to this point, it should become more clear whether or not Latvian mythology deserves its own article. What do you think? Kind regards, Matt (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be my recommended approach, since that's the way Wikipedia works in general: something appears as a section in a broader article, when/if it grows to the point it becomes unwieldy, it can then be spun off into an article of its own. Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 13:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a point in denying the existence of Latvian mythology, just because one editor is focused on one source that doesn't discuss it and another on the example of the mythology he seems to be writing about - there are many other sources that treat it as existing. Plus I don't see need to focus on different article, which would need expansion (and nobody here has claimed any interest in doing it - the proposal was to merge, which would mean moving text elsewhere, not solving problems with it), when the problem is this article, which needs to be reworked by somebody who knows the topic well enough to remove erroneous claims, alternatively a solution could be to find sources, add them and then just delete unsourced facts ~~Xil (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think anybody is going so far to deny the existence of Latvian mythology, but I think that some editors here have suggested that we consider whether the differences between Latvian and other Baltic mythologies warrant individual articles. I think that it's a valid suggestion which deserves investigation. Is this the correct place to have such a discussion? Perhaps Talk:Baltic mythology might be a more appropriate location, but considering the discussion is relevant to Latvian mythology, there isn't anything wrong with having the discussion here. As part of a discussion of how to improve Latvian mythology, it is acceptable to argue on this talk page about whether it's content should be in another article.
• I don't think we should merge Latvian mythology into Baltic mythology. If any content should be merged from Article A to Article B, that content should be properly backed by reliable sources. There is no such reliable content in the Latvian mythology article, so none of it should be merged into Baltic mythology. While I am an inclusionist by nature (for example, I am against deleting the current content in Latvian mythology), I don't believe that introducing more unsourced content to Baltic mythology will improve it.
• As I've said before, I'm more than happy to assist any experts who would like to rewrite Latvian mythology, but until that happens, I think that the most obvious step forward is to identify the areas of the existing article which are most in need of sources and slowly convert the article into a reliably sourced one. I have already started (slowly) mining a relevant source for applicable references (with the help of Xil and wish to encourage others to do the same. Matt (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Folks, this is a pointless conversation. The state of this article has only has one inevitable outcome; it will simply serve as a redirect to Baltic mythology. The reason for this is that scholars do not group "mythologies" by modern national entities; there is therefore no such thing as German mythology or Dutch mythology (the pre-Christian beliefs of the Germanic peoples in these regions are handled under the banner of "Germanic mythology"), or Welsh mythology or Irish mythology (for the same reasons, the pre-Christian Celtic mythology of both fall under the category of Celtic mythology). Groups are categorized by their scientific linguistic classification by scholars; Greco-Roman, Slavic, Italic, Hellenic, etc. See for example Puhvel's Comparative Mythology and any other scholarly work on Indo-European studies or comparative mythology.

+1 Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 13:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, grouping and labeling pre-Christian mythology by modern national entities or modern languages is flatly called nationalism and fortunately has no place in modern academia. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll eventually sit down and totally rewrite the Baltic mythology article solely employing academic sources and with WP:GA requirements in hand. However, right now I'm continuing to work on improving our articles in the Germanic sphere.

+1 Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 13:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In the mean time, like I said, you're wasting your time unless you're working towards a general Baltic mythology article rather than expanding this article beyond a redirect. In addition, per WP:PROVEIT any unsourced material may be removed for any reason. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

But Baltic mythology is reconstruction of situation prior to Northern Crusades, it is an educated guesswork. If you wish to write about it and even make a GA, it's great. But that doesn't mean this topic is not notable - as mentioned, there are sources on it, even if you believe that having any unique cultural traditions past 13th century is nationalism. And for crying out loud even WP:PROVEIT tells you that it is not considered good practice to go and delete statements without first placing inline citation requests and preferably trying to find some sources yourself, not that it grants you reason for deletion. Furthermore you may want to peak into Mythology and educate yourself on it not being synonymous with pagan religion ~~Xil (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Xil, I'm beginning to get the picture that you're not entirely sure what you're talking about here. There's absolutely no such thing as modern "Latvian mythology". Perhaps you're thinking of folklore. When scholars discuss Latvian mythology and mythology in general they're discussing stories about gods, a monotheistic deity, or divine figures, and, to a lesser extent, heroes. In this case specifically about the pre-Christian beliefs of the Baltic peoples. We're not applying the colloquial English use of myth here, which is semantically synonymous with fiction.

Now, there are plenty of scholarly sources (which one could hardly describe as "educated guesswork"!) on the subject out there to build an article from, which must be the bedrock for any further discussion. On top of this, there's no excuse to defend the removal of unsourced material. It only pollutes Wikipedia further, and these quarters—all articles relating to Baltic and Slavic mythology—have remained some of the worst I've seen on Wikipedia for a long time now, riddled with unsourced, mildly incoherent nonsense.

And this article has been tagged since August 2007—did your type "And for crying out loud even WP:PROVEIT tells you that it is not considered good practice to go and delete statements without first placing inline citation requests" with a straight face? And it's no requirement, but a recommendation to avoid time-wasting conflict with lazy or inexperienced editors: the state of this article is such that it should have simply had its unsourced contents deleted right away to make room for sourced material. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Myths are about world view not "gods", check the article, please, also do check various sources that tell you that in English that and "folklore" are nearly synonyms. It seems though that folklore includes dance, music and other traditions not discussed here - this here is entirely about belief system. Latvians kept up pagan traditions up to at least 17th century and by then had nothing to do with other neighboring Baltic peoples.

Reconstructing something with little evidence available is always educated guesswork. You do not suggest somebody has a time-machine at hand do you?

I remember tagging this article for needing experts attention, so apparently also for needing sources. Never did I think I was tagging it for deletion. Nor do I believe that the topic is so unnotable, that it should never have an article. ~~Xil (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Xil, I have checked sources. Your assertion that mythology and folklore are virtually synonymous has some merit, but your later assertion that it includes dance, music and such is completely and utterly unsupportable. In general, those aspects of culture are included in the broad topic of culture. And, in fact, you will see that we have a large number of articles like Culture of Mozambique which deal with that sort of content. So, if your assertion is that this content should be at Culture of Latvia, honestly, I am not sure I would disagree with you. But your synthezing "mythology" and "folklore" and "culture" is a clear violation of SYNTH and also your own original research as per OR, and thus is of no use here. And some of your other comments seem to be attempts to avoid facing the reality that there are no sources. I honestly think you might be well served by checking some of the other articles in wikipedia with titles starting with "Culture of" to see the differences. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The only definition I was able to find that noted any noticeable difference between the two was this Latvian dictionary, it provides for it including music and dance, in English - nothing much. So even if you disagree to it including these topics, it is de facto usage of term in Latvia, with folk music and dance bands referring to themselves as folklore collectives and all. Also I considered renaiming this folklore back in 2007 or so and found that most articles in Wikipedia use "mythology" (seems to be still the case, check list of folklores in folklore - many redirect to mythology). And I never said this is the same as culture, I don't know were you got that from, obviously it would be part of culture, but as far as I remember we got separate article on Latvian culture. We do got sources, I provided them in discussion above and article also lists plenty as external links. My only point is that I don't want this article deleted, just because it is currently crap, because the topic is notable ~~Xil (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the subject of the article (re: culture, mythology, folklore) will be much clearer when there are citations. I think it will also have much less to fear when there are citations. Xil, you seem to have an interest in Latvia slash not having this article deleted. do you know how to add citations? If you can, you don't have to say a word, just start the process and I'll get the message. If not, there are some help pages which can be used. The lead is a good place to start, it's in the beginning. and needs citations, since there are no citations in the body. I'm not big on deleting information wholesale, but I'm not above turning this article into a userpage until an actual referenced article is built. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that adding citations would help. Also, I would only point out that a Latvian definition of the word/concept "mythology" is not necessarily what we are supposed to use. I think our own article mythology, which I suggest editors read, provides a clearer definition of the English word which is used in this article and is thus probably more realistically a determining factor in the content of this article in the English wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not interested in working on article bound to be deleted. And I have worked on it in the past and found you sources now, even though I don't really contribute to English Wikipedia anymore and the user who invited me to take part in this discussion seemed to be aware of that. I concluded last time that it needs attention from somebody who could sort out what is not true from academic standpoint, because, as I explained above, it seems to be content from another online encyclopedia and there were more romantic pseudo-neo-pagan sources available than anything else back than (seems situation has somewhat improved, though). As for whole "mythology"/"folklore" thing - I was talking of Latvian definition of "folklore", not mythology, if you did read the article yourself you'd see that it is about personification of natural phenomena, retelling of historical events, creation myths and other stuff discussed in this article as much as about deities. I see no need to expand the scope of article just because you are not happy with lack of clearly labeled pantheon in Latvian mythos ~~Xil (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Xil, at this point you've made it clear that you've confused mythology for folklore. I don't see why we can't have a Latvian folklore article (although it's likely to be highly redundant next to a Lithuanian folklore article, and so Baltic folklore may yet be more appropriate), but this article simply needs to redirect to Baltic mythology. The sooner the better. For exactly the same reasons, the same goes for Lithuanian mythology and Prussian mythology; they need to redirect to Baltic mythology, which simply needs to be rewritten from the ground up. I'll go ahead and begin this process within the next few days or so. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't, you just refuse to see that it is not the same thing as religion. Plus, if you don't consider it a religion, it can also be considered part of folklore, not a completely different thing. The article was originally titled mythology (not my idea) I consulted other articles and didn't see there anything that would greatly conflict with article's content, calling it folklore does, though. And suggesting that Latvian folklore is same as Baltic is ridiculous - if we could assume that all mythology must be full blown religion that in its fullest could only exist prior to Christianity and needs to be reconstructed to what it was at that point, then folklore exists to this day and you only need to read up some Lithuanian stuff to realize that it completely different deal - their songs are longer, their fairy tales more violent, the heroes different and so on.

P.S. BTW, has any of you even bothered to take a peak into List of Lithuanian gods and compare it with this thing? ~~Xil (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Xil, no one has said religion and mythology are identical. Myths tend to be stories from a religion, but that does not make them identical. And I think if anyone were to be refusing to see something, that person might be you. Neither Bloodfox nor I are necessarily assuming anything. What we are doing is noting that there is little if any reliably sourced material here, and without sources there is no reason to believe the material is reliable. Most of the rest of your comment simply seems to be an attempt to impugn others. Also, I wonder if you have ever seen WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which address your P.S.

From my own perspective, I tend to agree with Bloodfox that, at this point, without reliably sourced material indicating that Latvian mythology is significantly different from Baltic mythology, there is no reason to not merge the related articles as Bloodfox proposes above. This is not to say that in time there may not be separate articles created for Latvian, Lithuanian, and Prussian mythology, or for any number of other articles. But, at present, without reliably sourced material asserting a clear distinction between the various myths, we have no reason to assume that they are different. It does seem to me to make logical sense that the article on Baltic mythology be developed first to a decent level. Then, if we do find significant variations as per reliable sources between the various Latvian/Lithuanian/Prussian traditions, there would clearly be a basis for spinout. But there is no good reason to keep an article without reliable sourcing as a separate article. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Xil was making an argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I think Xil was indicating that there are differences between Latvian and Lithuanian gods, to highlight the differences between Latvian and Lithuanian mythology, and to conclude that the articles are too different to merge under Baltic mythology. The issue I have is that Latvian mythology has no sources to indicate that it has any differences to Lithuanian mythology. If Xil can provide reliable sources that indicates this, I believe that this discussion about whether to merge the articles will end quickly. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

John, your second comment here says "Mythologies are all basically old religions". And there are sources exclusively on Latvian mythology (like I posted this above [1], which suggests several scientists are researching the matter and also one of most notable Latvian folklorists has a book entitled "Latvian mythology"), even though I did post sources on Baltic mythology too that was because Latvian sources are used to reconstruct both mythologies, not because it is the same thing. Bloodofox said that "Nobody in their right mind" would argue for distinct Scandinavian mythologies, so isn't scholarly sources discussing the subject matter separately a proof enough? ~~Xil (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Xil, we can constructively debate all day, but when you twist my words we have a problem; I specifically stated "nobody in their right mind would argue for an article titled Swedish mythology instead of simply redirecting it to Norse mythology", which does not mean "Bloodofox said that "Nobody in their right mind" would argue for distinct Scandinavian mythologies". Please be more careful.

Anyway, regarding the Archaeologia Baltica article you're pointing to, The Latvian Mythological Space in Scholarly Time, Kencis is specifically discussing "mythological space" in Latvian folklore (a useful map of this "mythological space" by Kencis can be found here: [2]); this we would handle on an Latvian folklore article (or maybe an article specifically about the dainas would be appropriate), just as we would a Lithuanian folklore article. The respective Baltic mythology that they both ultimately extend would be handled at Baltic mythology. As a result, we could consider redirecting this article to Latvian folklore and then adding a hatnote to Baltic mythology. However, an article titled Latvian mythology is still inappropriate. Note how rarely the term is employed on Google Books, likely for exactly the reasons that I outline, in comparison to what is handled under the title Baltic mythology. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You completely missed the point - there is plenty of other material on Latvian mythology, I merely brought it forth to point out that I have provided sources already. Meanwhile you go only by your own sentiments and (hate to point this out, but this is getting too long) haven't contributed to either this or Baltic mythology article. Perhaps you can at least get a source suggesting that it is not very useful to consider there being any difference? Arguing that mythology is depicted as part of folklore, when any mythology is considered part of folklore is rather strange argument. The source at hand does discuss Baltic and Indoeuropean mythhologies in similar fashion, so you might as well argue those don't exist. And even though it doesn't go to compare differences it does discuss issues with reconstructing mythology (BTW he also mentions national romanticist pantheon issue, I talked about previously) and mentions one theme unique to Latvian mythology to emphasize that "features like this would go unnoticed when researching older or broader levels of mythological notions like Baltic or Indo-European mythology". And "maybe an article specifically about the dainas would be appropriate" - I don't get your point, not only this article has wider scope, but also we already have such article. ~~Xil (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's unfair to imply that because Bloodofox hasn't made an edit to the article, (s)he doesn't have an interest in participating in this discussion. I specifically invited non-involved editors to join the discussion and they are perfectly entitled to join the discussion without joining the effort to edit the article directly. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hence I said I hate to point it out, really, I don't want to offend anyone, yet a lot of energy is spent on this discussion without anything being done or actual problems with this article being solved. And also there is not much point to discuss it only here as it concerns many articles - input from Lithuanians and whoever might be writing about Prussians would be needed. If they want content on the other article, they still can start working on it, without having this discussion, in fact, if there was a Baltic mythology article with remarkably similar content it would make a better argument. ~~Xil (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Xil, first you misquote me, then you tell me that I'm going "only by [my] own statements" (although I've repeatedly mentioned Puhvel as an important source that we should be building these articles on, for example), and then you complain that I haven't made any edits on the article (the implications obvious enough). You would do well take a different approach. I'll edit the articles when I care (or have time) to do so. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words

First of all, Xil has done an excellent job adding reliably sourced content to this article. I think anybody who has seen the transformation of this article over the last month can agree to it being a substantial improvement.

I noticed a number of unclear sentences like "It was hoped that a grand epic could be constructed using pieces preserved in folklore." Who hoped this?

Could these sentences be rewritten to avoid the use of weasel words and phrases like "it was hoped", "attempts were made" and "some attempted".

I previously tagged some of these sentences with tags like {{who}} to raise the issue, but these edits were reverted. To avoid an edit war, I would rather bring the issues here for discussion.

Should {{who}} tags be placed in the article for the sentences and phrases which include weasel words?

Kind regards, Matt (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is exact reason why I am semi-retired (the other is that I am wikiholic). Instead of focusing on providing useful content, everyone just goes about tagging and looking for rules broken. So as earlier issues got fixed, we now need other tags, because somewhere there is a list of no-no words (which says nothing about using passive as far as I remember). However, the point of avoiding weasel words is to avoid someone advancing POV without any pointers to authorship of some theory, not when it can be sourced. Also there is nothing wrong in explaining bias. Perhaps we could find source pointing to specific authors who supported the view, but I detailed views that seemingly were/are held by society of the time in general, so wouldn't elevating these few authors be POV? ~~Xil (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Xil, Matt is right. I suggest that you respect the Wikipedia guidelines instead of complaining about them. This article still has serious issues that need to be addressed. For example, the prose is currently ungrammatical at various points, and the entire concept of "Latvian mythology" remains dubious; this article should instead be at Latvian folklore. I suggest you also be very careful about what references you employ here, as there is no gray area for what is and is not an acceptable source. That means personal websites need to go. I'll be returning to this article for heavy work when my schedule opens up. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Xil, I'm sorry that my use of tags has offended you. I am only trying to use the tools available to highlight areas of future improvement. I have tried to stay active in the discussion and editing of this article, and have tried to only make constructive edits. Because I am not able to easily make the improvements myself, I consider adding {{who}} tags to be constructive. It can identify to readers that the article content in its current state should be improved to include the proponents of various claims and theories mentioned. It can also alert other editors that there are specific areas of requested improvement. If I tag a statement with {{who}}, the article will be added to Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases. Any editors who specialise in removing weasel words will be able to find Latvian mythology as an article that needs improvement in this area. This is clearly constructive editing. I don't want you to think that because I am tagging Latvian mythology as needing improvement that I am not appreciative of the good work you have put in already. I have tried to be very clear from the beginning that I am here to support you and that this article owes a lot of its current quality to you, Xil.

At this point in time, I am still going to refrain from tagging weasel words for the sake of civility until I can see that Xil is okay with me adding them. On the other hand, any other editors should feel free to be bold and add the tags themselves if they wish. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to have a discussion about whether any statements are NPOV, but I currently think that these phrases need to be rewritten to include the proponents of these beliefs, theories, and attempts. I have nothing against a passive voice being used in articles, as long as it is written clearly and avoids the use of weasel words.

Also, although I try to appeal to existing policies and processes when editing Wikipedia (for example, by using template tags), I can still be wrong. If my appeals to policy or tagging articles with templates gets in the way of actually improving Wikipedia, ignore them. My appeals to existing policies and processes are merely attempts to support other editors and improve the articles. If you think particular tags shouldn't be used, please feel free to remove them (as you did), but it would be good to also start a discussion on the related talk page regarding the issue so that a consensus can be built around the issue and the proper way to move forward and improve the article. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Not only you haven't done ahything, but complain about page name, now you're going to try to discredit me by complaining about grammar and lying about my sources?

This isn't about ignoring rules, but about your interpretation of them. Guidelines say rather clearly that the purpose is not just to avoid certain words, but to avoid giving false impresion of relaible authority, now instead of avoiding bias you'd make some random author used to eximplify ideas of his age in the source more popular than in reality (e.g. there was one guy referenced by everyone for describing mythical world model, but his contribution to field apperently was just few articles in press, this cannot be compared to somebody who has dedicated all life to reasearch of the topic). Plus anyone can check source for themselves if they want to know more - almost all sources are available online. As to your passive unhappieness, I am not sure even how you see that as problem, as far as I remember even the source itself didn't say whose hope it was, although obviously national romanticists, some of which I acctualy have named few sentences later. ~~Xil (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Xil, I'm not going round and round with you. Don't use personal webpages; that's obviously against policy. As you can see from my edit history, I've been away for extended periods, and that will continue for a while yet. However, unless you want every bit of time and effort you've put into this article to simply get washed away by someone who is acknowledging policy and has the time to put in (which at this point is imminent), I suggest you start acknowledging the issues at hand instead of complaining about tags. Like I said before, it's only a matter of time before I come around and just rewrite this from the ground up. I'd like to not have to do that, but things haven't much improved here. Until then... :bloodofox: (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm, "It was hoped that a grand epic could be constructed using pieces preserved in folklore." is completely correct. Ths rise of nationalism across the Baltic states pointed out a void, that of the lack of a national epic poem. (The case of Estonia is similar, i.e., the Kalevipoeg.) Sometimes it's not necessary to have an inventory of organizations, academics, intellectuals, politicians, and common folk. Really, if you're going to nitpick, you need to be able to tell the difference between scholarship and "weasel words." Because something CAN be a "weasel word" doesn't men it IS. Weasel words are for attacks and for detracting. They are not weasel words in a positive context. Learn the difference, folks.

Really, if you're here to say anything other than something positive, and contribute positively, work on something else. I personally find threats of throwing away someone else's diligent and constructive contribution both combative and offensive. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop using the pronoun it and specify who. Evasive pronouns are indeed weasel-ly and need to go, regardless of context. Secondly, it doesn't matter how much work one has put into something, if the material violates policy or can be improved upon, it must go when improvements are devised, and if it violates policy it must go immediately. Contributors need to understand what is the golden rule of Wikipedia before "contributing": The only concern here should be article quality, nothing more and nothing less. If that's not your simple, straight-forward goal, you're on the wrong website. As a long time editor here, I fully expect to see (and even look forward to) improvements upon (or placed over) any of my contributions. If my contributions have issues, I expect to be brought to task on them.

The fact that we're seeing so much trouble here is a red flag that we have a big ball of problems that need to be ironed out. Well, that and most of the references used are specifically discussing Latvian folklore and rarely use the term Latvian mythology for good reason. Finally, edit summaries like this are helping neither you nor me. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Bloodofox, I am not exactly keen on "going round and round with you" either as you have done everything to drown out perfectly good arguments in your own conceptions and now are straightforward lying (No, there is no rule against using learning materials, encyclopedias and scientific journals that are available online). But I am slightly concerned that you might actually find time to unleash yourself on the article (though one can hope that then you'll be forced to do research and you won't be so blind and biased as to keep ignoring what scholarly sources say). Now looking at your userpage it looks like your specialty obviously is Norse mythology, why are you so concerned about use of "folklore" vs. "mythology" and "Latvian" vs. "Baltic" in topic that you probably know little about? What sources would be sufficient to justify the article name to you seeing that 1. use of term "mythology" in names of scholarly sources does not suffice 2. scholarly finding that certain authors use term "Latvian" and "Baltic" interchangeably does not suffice 3. the fact that "folklore" and "mythology" themselves are evidently used interchangeably and if anything then mythology is part of folklore does not suffice 4. evident scholarly criticism towards mixing all Baltic mythologies into one also tells you nothing. And I hope that you will find yourself where it said so instead of asking me to repeat what I have said several times before; reading few of the sources (you might find them being online convenient) certainly will do no harm ~~Xil (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, do not misquote me. I said it is not acceptable to use personal websites; like this one, which is currently employed in the article. I said nothing whatsoever about "encyclopedias and scientific journals that are available online". It's hard to assume good faith when you aren't reading my responses.

Obviously, folklore and mythology are not synonymous, and layers of Baltic mythology need to be approached on their own terms. This is exactly what the scholarly sources do. This is exactly what this article—which will inevitably be Latvian folklore regardless of how much you protest—and the currently poor Baltic mythology article will eventually reflect.

But yeah, as I've said, I'll sit down and rewrite this trainwreck when the time comes. And I'll do it to WP:GA? standards, as I do all articles. In the mean time, you may bask in your nationalist fantasies. That is, unless someone comes around and rewrites it before me. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Lol, you know what - I am going to let you figure out on your own what the difference between learning materials published online and personal websites is. And again you didn't answer my question but just keep going round and round. It is not my nationalist fantasy and you are being uncivil. Besides threatening to destroy article I now have worked hard on, you haven't provided anything to prove you are right. May I also draw your attention to the fact that nobody else so fewerently wants to destroy this article or thinks it's still crap. Yes, folklore and mythology are not synonymous, what I said was that they are used as synonyms, if you don't see difference - folklore is body of traditions, when one refers to certain mythological theme reflected in it, they may say "folklore", not "mythology", thus the later isn't often even used as the former notion includes it anyway. Folklore itself is wider body of traditions, which is why this article should not be called that as it is strictly about pagan worship, world view and related traditions. If it was about folklore the main focus should be forms of folklore, not content and even if it was focused on content it would include other topics as well. And, yes, Baltic mythology could always be improved, however one would hope that all the scholarly criticism of indiscriminately mixing together everything Baltic or referring to traditions of one nation as "Baltic", should make you careful to include later traditions in that article (and do mind "later" - this article is also purely about what happens after 13th century up to modern days when any Baltic unity has ended and there is a Latvian people, if not with a distinct national identity then at very least speaking different language). But apparently it's not the case. I guess I can only once more invite you to educate yourself on the topic before you start doing anything. ~~Xil (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Again?

Bloodofox, do we really need to have this discussion again? Latvian mythology is not a topic invented by me, just as this article was not started by me, even if it was a topic inspired by nationalism back in the day and we would assume it is a construct it has been researched for over century and is something taught at school. Judging from your user page your expertize lies in Scandinavian mythology and as I remember you argued above that nobody would assume there is a Swedish mythology - perhaps it is indeed a thing for some Swedish nationalists to invent a separate mythology and you are reflecting that on this article? Lithuanian and Prussian mythology is different and attempts to reconstruct common Baltic mythology have failed, despite there being some common themes, which is detailed in sources of this article, which you don't seem to have bothered to read. Although Latvia was formed in 20th century Baltic tribes in the territory had merged by the 16th century and Latvians essentially inherited the ethnonym from ancient Latgalian tribe (Lets), which spoke the same language, but over time they absorbed other tribes, therefore are not technically considered the same nation. also dead references are treated by finding web archive version of the site, not by removing them ~~Xil (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I would be returning to this article as time permitted. Xil, please do not treat other users as digital servants; if you can find an archived version of whatever it is you were linking to, then please do so. Until then refrain from restoring dead links. And inappropriate links for that matter. They'll just keep getting removed. As for the numerous other issues that this article has, I will be posting a critique soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As it currently stands you are not returning to do anything productive, but to tag article for things we've already discussed and to wage an edit war. There is a guideline - WP:DEADREF, which says that dead links in references need to be fixed, not removed - you should only remove links 24 months after tagging them and beforehand you should make an attempt to repair them ~~Xil (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if the links weren't dead, they're unreliable sources—find something academic and published. And who is edit warring here, exactly? You're on your final revert before block, whereas I'm not violating 3RR. What have you been using it to revert? Dead links and an NPOV tag. The dispute is ongoing and needs to be solved. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You claiming that I am on my last revert after reverting for the third time yourself suggests you are expecting me to revert again, despite the fact that I tried to initiate discussion here, which suggests again that you are up for an edit war instead of reasonable discussion. And I see no dispute here - you haven't still explained what your problem with article is that hasn't been discussed above, instead you just claim that this is somehow POV and that online sources are unreliable and dead links should be removed, despite Wikipedia guidelines saying otherwise.~~Xil (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Xil, please don't act like you didn't see my comments on this article at ANI. For the convenience of other users, I'll paste those observations here:

This article could really use some more eyes and hands, especially from administrators that have the appropriate background. Attempts I've tried to make in improving the article have met with reversion and system-gaming, apparently motivated by either explicit or latent nationalism. The following is my take on the situation.

Some time ago this article was supposedly rewritten to solve its then-numerous issues. Now that I've had a little time to sit down and take a look at where this article is again, I'm afraid that I don't see any improvement, even after the rewrite and attempt at referencing everything out. For example, I’ve just gone through and removed a bunch of unrelated, deleted, and/or nonacademic links in the external links section. Referenced throughout was a website that has been dead for over a year, a website that shouldn’t have been cited in the first place. Xil (talk · contribs), however, has blanket-reverted these changes, only stopping when he reached his third revert. This user seems rather dead-set on presenting an article with the appearance of being fully referenced, regardless of the quality of the references at hand (in other words, websites like “latvianstuff.com” are being linked to).

On top of this, it’s very poorly constructed. Preferred theories are presented as fact, then slight criticism is applied when necessary. Weasel words are peppered throughout. Neutrality is totally thrown to the wind.

However, the main issue is the topic of the article itself: Reading this article, one would think that there was some definitive text about the beliefs and values of the pre-Christianized descendants of the modern Latvian-speaking peoples, or that some body of text describing it in any depth survives. Unfortunately this isn’t the case; it’s all reconstructed either by way of linguistics, the archaeological record, ancient sources, or by way of more modern folklore. Sources are not treated for what they are or outlined in an objective sense—frequently they’re not even mentioned. Instead we get a narrative stitched together from disparate secondary sources on Latvian folklore, and somehow called Latvian mythology is derived from it. This is misleading: Academia, fortunately, no longer entertains extra-scientific racial ideas of people as ethnic products of modern nation-state borders; this material is handled by, for example, Indo-Europeanists as part of a larger cultural continuum, which also includes modern Lithuanian-speakers and once included the now-extinct Prussian-speakers.

What seems to be going on here is a form of nationalism, latent or not; the idea of a modern nation-state of Latvia is obscuring the broader picture of the pre-Christian beliefs of the Baltic peoples (no matter how many isoglosses we’re talking among them). As a result, this article really needs to be rewritten, logically—as elsewhere—with the result of the following:

• A separate article called Latvian folklore that covers the folklore of modern Latvian speakers
• A section covering what can be reconstructed from Latvian sources regarding an earlier sphere of belief at Baltic mythology

In the mean time, this article only promotes the idea of a ‘’Latvian mythology’’; basically the same idea as promoting a Swedish mythology or Dutch mythology instead having an article presenting the pre-Christian history of the land where these modern nation-states exist as a part of the broader picture of North Germanic mythology and West Germanic mythology, respectively.

And there you have it. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to reread the discussion above, but as I remember it was explained to you several times that this does not concern pre-Christian mythology of Baltic tribes. It concerns paganic beliefs in period after the Northern crusades, which were very much alive at least up to 18th century, which is not the case for many other European cultures. It is clearly stated in the text that the material is reconstructed based on sources from after 13th century when Baltic cultural unity no longer existed. It is not folklore as folklore covers much wider issues, but this article concerns solely spiritual practices. You completely disregard everything that is being said to you on basis that other stuff does not exist ~~Xil (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Also even if we were to assume this is purely nationalism (despite my better judgment telling me otherwise) this does not automatically make the topic unnotable and the content POV - it is not against any rules to write about somebody else's POV, if you do not agree to POV article is about, that does not make content POV i.e. you should tag article for POV and what not if there were exact issues in text not because you believe I am nationalist and invented the topic (that would be OR not POV... and also complete BS) ~~Xil (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I expect the dead links should be alive again soon, the DNS has been renewed as of January 24, I expect there was some book-keeping snafu. As for the rest, as Xil points out, there is no pre-Christian versus post-Christian; the figures of Latvian mythology are active in Latvian culture today, the only question is whether one personally considers it a mythology or the basis of a religious belief system (Dievturi). There is no intersection between Germanic and Baltic (Lituanian+Latvian in this context) mythology. Accusations of nationalism demonstrate an ignorance of the topic. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Bloodofox believes Balts are only capable of having a mere folklore, being too inferior to actually have their own mythology? Seriously, a quick Google book search show there is heaps of material on the topic. --Nug (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless we're talking about a collection ideals and figures in a modern nationalist context, modern nation-states do not have a mythology. Ethnicities and history do not begin and end at borders drawn on maps. Pre-Christian gods live on into folklore and popular culture elsewhere; as I've pointed out prior, this material is handled in a pan-Baltic context in academic material (see Puhvel, Mallory, etc.), not in the context of modern national borders. A small group of vocal pro-Nation-state-defined "mythology" (read nationalists) here doesn't help the article move forward. We need outside voices, preferably some Indo-Europeanists with specialized academic background in this material, involved here. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about mythology of Latvia, but about mythology of Latvian people. There are BTW several articles on "Mythology of X modern country". You say that "Ethnicities and history do not begin and end at borders drawn on maps" yet all your actions are aimed at proving otherwise. There is not a "small group", but in fact no other person in discussions we've had has demonstrated much support to you. And you ignoring any other sources (i.e. besides those that seem to support your views) and Wikipedia guidelines on dealing with sources, unwillingness to educate yourself on the topic to understand what your opponents are trying to tell you and you being willing to lay in wait for a year to push your POV and preference for unexplained tagging and edit warring over discussion really is concerning ~~Xil (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, enough with the complaining that I can't be in front of Wikipedia as much as you can be. Above there are various editors noting issues with this article, which anyone can see. Much like this article distorts reality, you're distorting the record of previous discussion here: the ANI that was held led to nothing but a few concerned editors commenting on issues with sourcing. Despite this, you reverted it back 3 days later. Here's the ANI thread for those that are interested: [3] And where are these "mythology of X modern country" articles so they can be taken care of?:bloodofox: (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The concerns of other users were addressed and the other editors not raising further concerns points to them being satisfied with that. Right now you alone are not happy and apparently one and a half a year has not been enough time for you to come up with better argument than me being nationalist. Try going down a few branches in Category:Mythology by culture, if it is "Mythology of country" you so dislike you seem to be against much of Wikipedia on that :D And anyway - this article is meant to be mythology of an ethnic group, not a country, it mostly concerns time before the country was even established. I noticed last time I reverted you, you have made changes to Baltic mythology, where you claim that after Christianization it continued in folklore, so I gather that you believe that only pre-Christan religion is mythology. But that requires assuming 1. that no religion can co-exist with Christianity 2. That there was unified Baltic culture just prior to Christianity, neither of which is true. There are several difference between Latvian and Lithuanian gods and even more so with Prussian, which make it spectacularly bad idea to mix them together, which is the actual reason I've been objecting to this, had you done any proper research, instead of just trying to dig up sources supporting your theory, you'd probably know ~~Xil (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If you'd have clicked the category links, you'd find that the majority of these links redirect to appropriate articles Mythology of England, for example, goes to Anglo-Saxon mythology. Those few that do not are facing exactly the issue we're facing here and need to be redirected to something other than a nationalist fantasy. Most of these categories shouldn't exist, and they hardly reflect any kind of Wikipedia consensus (re: "against most of Wikipedia on that").

Mythology is notoriously difficult to define (fe. Csapo's Theories of Mythology). However, it's not defined by the boundaries of modern nation-states, and it is generally quite simply defined as a belief system involving narratives about gods and associated beings. Your semantic mileage may vary. Of course, syncretism occurs with Christianization but the previous structure is gone and officially persecuted, leaving residue in folklore record. What we know about Baltic mythology is quite limited; all this evidence comes from either folklore sources or sparsely attested comments, confirmed or rejected by comparative and linguistic data. Of course, you'd never know that from reading this article. This is the reality of the corpus, which this article gives no hint at; it doesn't even mention the words "Indo-European"—Baltic paganism is most famous for being particularly close to Proto-Indo-European religion in some crucial ways. For this article to ignore this important facet is another sign of a potential nationalist agenda.

Just as there is never a truly 'unified' proto-lanaguage and languages are in a constant state of change (indeed, defined primarily by innovation), the same goes for regional differences in religion. However, I'm not here to explain to you the comparative method, nor to hear you deny Indo-European studies. Meanwhile, the article remains in its terrible state. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually there were quite a few articles with such naming or implying in the lead that it is mythology of modern territory, it isn't really relevant, just shows that despite your claims that it would be absolutely inaccurate even such articles are quite common... The main issue here seems to be you being unhappy with something not agreeing with your definition of what mythology is, but it obviously is not the only possible definition, just loook in dictionary [4] and compare it to definition of folklore [5] which includes wider range of subjects and isn't really contrasted with mythology as in your claims. Your other objections seem unfounded given that this is not the article on Baltic mythology and mythology is not a matter of linguistics alone, but also of history and other fields. On one hand you accuse me of claiming the article somehow makes Latvian traditions seem very ancient, but on the other hand you revert me excluding such claim from the article (claiming non-existing spelling error, really?) and complain I do not describe how this is supposed to be extremely close to ancient Indo-European beliefs (goes to show how little you understand about nationalism). Even linguistics don't really support this - West Baltic languages (Prussian) are about as close related to East Baltic languages (Latvian, Lithuanian) as to Slavic languages. Latvian and Lithuanian too started separating centuries before Christians arrived. And finally there are plenty of reports of said religious persecution continuing for centuries and archaeological evidence about rituals being performed at sacred sites well after Christianization (e.g. [6] reports some "paganic cult" sites used as late as 19th century) ~~Xil (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for redirect: Bindus

Hello, user Bloodofox. Sorry to bother you. One thing I noticed is that ancient deity Bindus - an Illyrian deity - redirects to this article about Latvian mythology. Using Ctrl+F yields no result on Latvian, but the deity is mentioned in the article about Illyrian religion. So, to my mind, a better redirect for Bindus would be to Illyrian religion, instead of to this article.189.122.34.209 (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)