Talk:Svarog

Mightn't svarga and svar come from the same root? A clear sky is also bright, for instance, and the generally accepted view is that the Slavic languages are also Indo-European, and are thus related to Sanskrit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proto-Slavic_language The earliest lexical or semantic borrowings were from the North Iranian languages of the Scythian, Sarmatian, and Alanic tribes. Many of these borrowings had religious connotations, including such terms as bog 'god', div 'demon', gatati 'to divine', raj 'paradise', svet 'holy', as well as the name of the supreme Slavic deity, Svarog. -Iopq 20:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Older myths describe him as a smith god, identified with the generative and sexual powers of fire. In those myths, Svarog fights Zmey, a giant serpent or a multi-headed dragon."

Where exactly do these myths hail from? Judging by the name Zmey, it could be Northern Slavic mythology. Is this true? As far as I know, Slavic mythology is not a uniform block, and differs from area to area, so these kind of statements should also be geographicaly pinpointed. --213.172.246.69 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

"The etymology of the word Svarog is likely to be Slavic svar (bright and clear)."

Slavic svar means quarrel, argument (e.g. Polish modern plural swary = squabbles quarrels), so if Svarog is derived from Svar (what is not sure, becouse the ending -og is not typical ending) than it was rather War-God (like Mars) - the God of quarrel... I dont know what is your source of Slavic meaning 'bright, clear' but its rather meaning of Persian word 'svarga; that looks similar to Slavic Svarog (and thats why some scholars say they are connected)...

Agree, to me it seems Svarog has more of a connection to the "rog" (horn) part. Since it can be considered a Zmaj it probably had horns instead of an Ala which has fins like a fish. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

May I clarify some things here? Swar or more modernly Skwar mean sweltering in Polish (quarrel is secondary metaphor meaning, so irrelevant). Svarog (what in fact may be translated as "heat horn") was a sun and sky deity who also was a god of forgery. It is also worth to mention that sun deity Dažbog also known as Swarożyc was formally considered as son of Svarog, but all those names may also refer to one deity worshiped as separate because of regional influences. And by the way.. Zmaj or Żmij is basically Slav version of dragon, literally translated as Serpent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.21.151 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's not point in trying to 'clarify' original research with your own original research. There's even less of a point in joining in on an original research 'discussion' from 2010. Either the etymology is backed up by reliable sources or it is a speculative hypothetical by amateurs, and has no place in the content of the article. Thanks for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

See

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%97

and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/suHarg%C3%A1s

for some RSes and little OR. Zezen (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've just added a very important source about Svarog (or, rather, Svarogich) - Chronica Slavorum (Kronika Słowian) by Thietmar of Merseburg, a missionary who wrote about this Deity. I hope it fulfills the need for citation. The book itself (a PDF) is located on the religious group website, however it's the original text of the chronicle with a scholarly, academic comment. It was placed there because Rodzima Wiara cares a lot about the attestations of their worship and other practices. Cheers, Critto (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

the symbol was used by a movement which sought to enslave and to eradicate the slavs and there is no chronicle to identify it as a symbol of any particular slavic god. this grave insult must be removed and the responsible self-hating slavs must be identified and moved for zwangsarbeit to germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.79.253 (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is hard to debate with someone who clearly sleep in school and use hatred language, but as that topic show up I need to clarify that Swastika as a symbol was only stolen and desecrated by Hitler, when it is universally used solar symbol on whole world also including some Slavs groups, though I agree that it wasn't symbol of any specific god. Also "self-hating slavs"? Excluding that we write word Slavs with big letter it sound clearly like something from Soviet propaganda, specifically based on idea that Slave mean Russia and all Slavs who hate Russia hate also own roots, what obviously was a lie as Russia isn't even oldest from Slavs countries but definitely most possessive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.21.151 (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Trying to link cultures by shared motifs that don't exist is problematic. The text claims a parallel to Norse myth wherein 'the smith god' forges a weapon for the thunder god, when no such deity exists in Germanic myth. Mjollnir is forged by two dwarves. Hermalausaz (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hermalausaz Eitri and Brokkr are blacksmiths and this is what author meant. I removed god word for now. Sławobóg (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I only skimmed through the article, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere. It might be worth including a section about the sign with a note that it is also mis-used by some nationalistic groups (like this one), so that people would be careful about using it if they happen to run into it.

That's probably what the person in the section "the old slavic hitlar wheel of slavstika" was also trying to convey (though, in a problematic manner, as someone pointed out). Nakonana (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sławobóg and Altenmann: Personally I do not think the 2015 portrait by Andrey Shishkin adds any encyclopaedic value to the article, particularly in the infobox. There are many imaginary depictions, this one is not notable. Mellk (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mellk There was a discussion about that, and I showed that him removing pictures is not only not backed up by any rules, but also is violating actual rules. Altenmann stopped responding after that. WP is not saying that decorative pictures can't be used, and there is only one. Sławobóg (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have looked at the discussion (which seems to be more general) but I do not see why this cannot be discussed on a case-by-case basis. After all, what portrait to use is something that is determined by editors. As one editor said in the discussion you mentioned: such a novel illustration does seem a bit dubious (how did the artist come up with the picture of the god, is it just some fantasy genre painting?), and not very relevant for the encyclopedia. Also, the best way to illustrate the lack of pictorial tradition might be to not include any direct depictions the god. If this was a notable depiction, then perhaps there is an argument there, but why not any other fantasy depiction? Mellk (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We use "a bit dubious" pictures on WP all the time, and there was never a problem, it's a problem in Slavic topics, again. How did artist of painting used in Thor come up with the picture of the god, is it just some fantasy genre painting? Thor in the image has blond hair, which is objectively wrong and can cause confusion, but there is no battle over that. It was said that the author of the paiting is notable, but again, there is no rule about notability, so I find removal of picture unjustified and unfair. Sławobóg (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, regarding Thor, it does seem to be a notable painting, considering it has its own article. The same cannot be said about the painting by Shishkin. Perhaps another editor can chime in, but I guess my point is why would we use this fantasy depiction over another? WP:PORTRAIT maybe has some guidance on this, where it says articles generally should not contain imaginary depictions created in later periods if they cannot be contextualized through sourced critical coverage because they lack independent notability in themselves and that modern fantasy depictions are generally useless in providing any valid encyclopedic information. Perhaps it might have some relevance with articles about deities? Mellk (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

But we don't even have other good looking pictures for Slavic deities. And another advantage of Shishkin paitings' is that they all have the same style/esthetic, so a lot of Slavic mythological articles look consistently. WP:PORTRAIT is said to be about historical persons/events, and we talk about mythology, noone will think "ah, it must be authentic painting from 7th century", common sense works here. I know that the Thor painting is notable by itself, but it's conflicting with guidance on modern fantasy depictions you just mentioned, so if we want to use this painting, it should be moved away from infobox. So basically what we are doing is punishing articles related to topics less popular to Western/popular artists, because we are removing only images that we have and that do not do any harm to the article. Sławobóg (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand your concern, but I think the key issue here is that the painting by Shishkin cannot be contextualized through sourced critical coverage due to it lacking independent notability. Maybe it is worth checking what arguments there were for adding the painting by Mårten Eskil Winge on the Thor article (if there are any). Also, perhaps, it could be included somewhere else in the article as a compromise, but I will let someone else weigh on that. If this discussion goes nowhere (as there are rarely any edits made), then I would suggest something like dispute resolution. Mellk (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

But, from what I understand, WP:PORTRAIT is specifically about actual historical people: Where they exist, authentic portraits, i.e. artistic depictions of a person that purport to provide an individualized, authentic representation of that person's unique looks, based either directly or indirectly on a witness's first-hand experience of their physical appearance - we can never have that for mythology. Here, we have artistic vision of a deity, and literally every art portraiting deity is artisic. The only difference I see is that Shishkin doesn't have WP article, and others do, but I don't think that is good reason to remove only picture we have. If we do that, we don't even have single picture for Perun - the main deity. Sławobóg (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are right, but I think the same principle applies (after all, this is just an essay). There is no independent notability here and no historical significance, so what we end up with is a fantasy depiction that does not really add any encyclopaedic value. I could probably find another modern fantasy depiction and upload this, but since this is an encyclopedia, is there really any value in doing this? Mellk (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It does not have have encyclopedic value, but has decorative value, I think having one good image per article is not too much? Should we go through all WP articles and delete images like that? Also, Shishkin is not some random person from internet, Andrey Shishkin was mentioned by atleast one scholar (in 3 articles) in context of neo-paganism. Is that not enough? Potentially more sources could be found. Sławobóg (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure that decorative value has any purpose here. There are other websites for images. Considering that Andrey Shishkin was deleted not too long ago, I think there needs to be more evidence of notability first, but considering the AfD discussion, I doubt that much has changed since. Mellk (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We are seeing the same sort of poorly considered 'let's present theory as fact' approach here as over at Mokosh. WP:NPOV demands that we do not parrot proposals and make it clear to readers that there is uncertainty. Given how sloppy this sort of editing has been, there's a good chance that the sources employed are not being accurately reported on and need to be double-checked. A reminder: this deity receives mention in a single, highly questionable source, and we need to be transparent and honest with readers about exactly how contemporary proposals about the deity have been deduced, this is not done by simply slapping the article with a "god of fire and blacksmithing". :bloodofox: (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seconded wholeheartedly! Lots of gods were invented or second-guessed by pseudo-mythology and modern paganists. By the way, you ruthlessly killed the article "pseudo-mythology" by redirecting it to "Invented tradition". There was plenty of content discussed in serious sources. For example, the nearly whole Latvian pantheon was invented. I am going to revert the redirect, because the terms "invented tradition" and "pseudo-mythology" are overlapping but rather different phenomena. If you disagree with the existence of the article, please put it to AfD. --Altenmann >talk 18:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That article that you're pushing nonsensical claims like that the reconstruction of *Ostara is "pseudo-mythology"? It soudns like you're in for some surprises regarding contemporary scholarship. In any case, the simple answer is that you simply expect to be reverted in response. You might ask yourself: is that a useful use of your time? If you want to two seperate articles on the same topic, go ahead and make a discussion thread about it, but you'll be expected to stick to reliable sources every step of the way. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any specific arguments or are u gonna just accuse me without evidence? Also as I said before, what scientific consensus is is more important. If most scholars agree that something is real, it it real for us. In case of Svarog, yes, article is far from ideal but it's much better than before my edits. Svarog being "god of fire and blacksmithing" is not controversial at all, it is suggested by the source and supported by scholars; only "sky god" interpretation is controversial. Please, do not pretend you understand Slavistics. The article is going to be better once I translate it from ru.wiki, but that takes time and I'm alone. Sławobóg (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

And it's kinda funny to read suggestions about me pushing something, after I created whole article about pseudodeities. Sławobóg (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you had a formal background in this material, we wouldn't be having this conversation: One thing students of folklore topics like myth learn early on is to separate what the record says from how it is received. It sounds like it is now time for you to learn the difference between the two. That said, considering the incredibly sloppy job you're doing, slapping things like "God of fire and blacksmithing" on these articles, then I'd suggest someone also take a look at that one. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing sloppy in Mokosh or Svarog article. Just saying it doesn't make it true. Sławobóg (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now would be the time to sit down and reflect on why you're receiving criticism rather than support here. The simple answer is that you're presenting theory as fact and that is unacceptable. Learn to seperate the historic record from its reception and you'll have a much easier time in these spaces. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The lead section is to summarize content of the article, not just "facts", when will you learn that? Svarog being god of fire/blacksmithing is evidenced by the source, etymology and language. You are pushing your own rules over WP rules. As I said earlier, article can be better and have more references for that, so I'm not gonna delete the warning, even tho NPOV is wrong one. Sławobóg (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The policy is WP:NPOV and not it is a core pillar of Wikipedia. Do not conflate scholastic reception with the historic record, which remains open to interpretation. These are proposals. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scholars agree with historical record and historical agree with scholars' views... Sławobóg (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like you're quite new to these topics. I suggest you spend less time on Wikipedia and more time with introductory texts to relevant fields, like historical linguistics and folklore studies. A tip: Scholastic reception often goes through periods of change, this is often generational. It can also be heavily influenced by the Zeitgeist or things like political pressure (such as, quite notoriously, under the USSR). This is all fundamental to these topics and shouldn't require explanation at this level. I strongly suggest that you spend less time on Wikipedia and more time studying these topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, Eastern European scholars are stupid and are fringe, Western are not. Now I get it. Please stop lecturing me about Slavic topics, I know Slavic linguistics and folklore better than you and I can see when scholars are pushing their agenda. You don't. Good night. Sławobóg (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please save the nationalistic chest-beating for somewhere else: Without a basic scholastic foundation in these topics, you're going to consistenty run into trouble regarding them. Had you taken the time to gain that footing, we woudln't be having this conversation. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, you wrote almost 2 pages of text and still no real criticism, just repeating that I allegly don't know what I'm doing and you do, or that my sources may be bad but you don't acutally know why. Sławobóg (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply