Talk:Julleuchter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Proper sectioning and sourcing

As you may noticed, I've done some heavy modifying of it from your original state. The reason for this is because all claims here need proper sourcing and everything relating to the Third Reich needs to be in the "Third Reich usage" section. We need to be extremely clear about what we know of the ancient origins of the lantern and what was tacked on to it later, which includes modern usage. Please be very careful with your sources and be as detailed as possible with them - a simple website somewhere will not do. Thank you! :bloodofox: (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The butchering of the article

I went back and placed everything relating to the Third Reich in the "Third Reich usage" section. You on the other hand moved the photo “Old Pagan Julleuchters” and placed photo in "Third Reich usage" section that does not have to do with that section. I am being careful with my sources and being as detailed as possible with them. You put the information about the Germanien magazine article half way through the information about the Allach production where it does not belong. I am going to place it at the bottom of the "Third Reich usage" section because you have it cutting the allach info in half, which would confuse readers. Also the whole Germanien magazine article is posted in photos on the web sight that I sourced for it. Anyone can go there and see it. The source I used about the Swedish magazine Runa in 1888 came from the German Wikipedia article. I simply used the same source as that article did. The source I used about the 1933 Germanom F.Virtom translated “Хроник Ура-Линда” was only posted on a Russian web page. Also you deleted information about how the item is used on the various occasions that it is used on. I gathered this information from that same Russian web page and it was also mentioned in the Germanien magazine article because it is the actual pagan information. This is an obscure subject and I included all the information that I have learned about it. You on the other hand decided all on your own that these sources are just “simple web site somewhere” when they are the only sources out there. I am going to work on the article and address the problems that you have with it. A only ask that if you have further problems would you clearly post them in this talk page so I can try to address them, and not just simply delete whole sections of the article. nicholasweed (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policy on sourcing. Please see: Wikipedia:V. The thing is that if it's not properly sourced, policy dictates that it can (and should) be deleted. Since I have little tolerance for the propagation of misinformation that floats so freely in many circles relating to subjects dealing with paganism, you will find that I strictly adhere to this policy and expect others to as well.

It seems that you are new to Wikipedia and have the desire to be constructive. I am definitely willing to work with you here. Let's work together. First of all, you are going to need to be specific and if you can't be specific enough, the information has to go, since lack of a source means it's probably not true. Thus, without the specific museum information, we can't just go along with some random Russian website's claims here and state that you think it's the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities or just point to some unnamed museum in the Netherlands. We need hard references to back it.

Anything relating to the Third Reich-era needs to be in the Third Reich section, which is where I've attempted to move some of the information around to. It's important to note how it was used during the Third Reich and what they've based it on as it's most likely quite different than the information we actually have on the lantern. If you are not already aware, you'd be surprised how much unfounded nonsense gets passed off on a regular basis in these circles, especially when the subject matter has any sort of relation to controversial political moments; hysteria and sensationalism often takes the place of logic and facts are often thrown to the wind. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I went back and worked on the article. I tried to make sources more clear and put information in the proper places. I don’t believe that lack of a “proper source” means all information is probably not true. I think if it is relevant to the subject it should still be included but with an expiation about the controversy. You deleted the section of the article that explained how the lamp was used on the four different holidays (Vernal Equinox, Mid Summer, Autumnal Equinox, and Mid Winter) that I gathered from the Russian web page. I added the information about how it is used during Mid Winter back in but placed it with the information from the 1936 Germanien magazine article because the same information was also in that article. I would like to put the rest of the information about the other holiday use back in with a statement that the Russian source isn’t a 100% conclusive but that the information seems to go along with the information from Germanien magazine. I also am going to attempt to email the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities to confirm the information about them having a Julleuchter. Yet again I ask that if you have any further problems with the article, please post them in the talk section before deleting anything so I can try to solve them.

nicholasweed (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)