Talk:Frigg and Freyja common origin hypothesis

Text removal

Text removed: Possibly another name for the Saxon goddess Freya, but I'm not in a position to confirm this. Frige, Freya and Freo are all given as the origin of the word Friday in this encyclopedia, so be careful what you trust!

Yeah - sorry I put that in the article, but I was correcting some broken links and I thought it would highlight a bit of confusion/contradiction I found in some related articles :) HappyDog 04:46, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Love

Just a fly-by to ask about clarifying the difference intended between "real love" and "erotic love" in the article. I won't be participating in any debate, but just thought it worth while bringing the topic up. As an old married woman, it seems very unclear to me!

Thanks K 89.248.128.66 21:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't exactly in line with WP:NPOV and has since been removed. :bloodofox: 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note, Frigg = "real love" and Freya = "erotic love" is just lame. Frigg is connected with "real love"? Where? Which mythological writing suggests that? As I know, Frigg had sexual relationships with her husband's brothers. Real love? Frigg had sex with a slave to steal her husband's gold. Real love? Freya on the other hand is famous for her golden tears for her husband. Erotic love? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.19.44.15 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying to fix this

A very difficult case, because of the etymological uncertainties regarding Verschärfung. At present it appears to me that there was a single goddess, Frijjo, who came to be conflated with a female hyopstasis of Freyr to become a Freyja separate from Frigg in Norse mythology specifically. These are ultimately epithets, one is "Lady", in principle applicable to any goddess, and one is "Love" (as it were personified). The problem is that the two words share the same etymology in Germanic. --dab (𒁳) 12:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, I think I've figured it out, by building up this article and the Fraujaz article alongside it. Some things still need clarification or cross-checking, but I think it is basically right now. --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality: Frigg and Freyja, originating from a single goddess?

Note that Stephan Grundy surveys arguments against the notion of Freyja and Frigg originating from a common goddess in Grundy, Stephan (1998). "Freyja and Frigg" in Billington, Sandra. Green, Miranda (1998). The Concept of the Goddess. Routledge. ISBN 0415197899.

In fact, Grundy (1998:57) states:

The problem of whether Frigg or Freyja may have been a single goddess originally is a difficult one, made more so by the scantiness of pre-Viking Age references to Germanic goddesses, and the diverse quality of the sources. The best that can be done is to survey the arguments for and against their identity, and to see how well each can be supported.

This article does not reflect these arguments but outright takes it for granted that the two goddesses originate from the same figure. There's a lot of theory here presented as fact. This isn't neutral. A better name for this article would probably be something like "Frigg and Freyja origin hypothesis", which would trot out the arguments about whether or not the two deities stem from a single figure. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The article looks pretty well cited in most places. How would you like it to be arranged and what material do you feel belongs in this article? Fixentries (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Do a Google books search above and take a look at the work I mention above. This article is misleading; this is just one side of the coin stated as fact. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I notice another overall problem of the article seeming noisy and confusing. Perhaps we can look at cleaning this up some and address the problem you point out. I'll take a look at some sources tonight or tomorrow and if you would like to offer any specific phrasings please do. What I'm thinking is rewording the introduction to explain this controversy, then having a section (probably the first section) to explain the different arguments for and against them being the same goddess, or the same in origin. Fixentries (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made some major changes to the article. I've made the disagreement about the commonality with Freyja clear in the introduction, added some new material about the mythological references to Frigg, and tried to clean up the linguistic arguments. I'm pretty happy with this and it seems like a major improvement, but there may be more material to add. I used a print book I have on hand for the citations, there may be more from the book you referenced that is important to the article. Does this look good to you so far? Fixentries (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, on further inspection I've made some more changes to this article. I think you're right that this article would be better named Frigg and Freyja origin hypothesis or something. I've tried to make it clear what the topic of the article is and that it is in dispute. I'm not sure how I got linked to this article (I think it was from Friday) but we should be sure that any links to it are appropriate. Fixentries (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(Following pasted from user's talk page)

Sorry - didn't mean to "revert your reversion" like that - you jumped in so quick I thought I had inadvently not registered my edit.

I HAVE read the talk page - and the article, which was extensively modified to make it more neutral during the dispute, which has been "dead" now for over two years.

Plese don't reinsert the tags unless you have issues with the article as it exists (as opposed to the 2009 version), and are prepared to argue the case for further changes. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the talk page. Not only is the article title /itself/ still nonsense (it should simply be something like "Freyja-Frigg hypothesis"), but the text of the article is still jumbled, non-neutral confusion. The tags must remain until the rewrite comes. I make it quite explicit what the numerous problems are on the talk page; read it. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I HAVE read it actually - an apology for calling me a liar so directly might settle the dust before we go into this. I VERY much doubt that your re-reading of the talk page, and the article itself (which I will assume) was followed by much thought or consideration. Tags generally are a bad thing unless they lead to improvement of articles tagged - they put users off, for one thing. These tags have both been there for a good while now - the discussion has been dead all this time - and the article is plainly not the same article which caused the dispute in the first place. Do you want to move and/or rewrite the article yourself? Or would you outline changes that would improve it from your point of view.

My direct interest in Germanic mythology is minimal - to be honest - I came to this from Friday, where its relevance is to explaining why Frigg and Freya both seem to be involved in the name for Friday in different northern languages. I would obviously prefer that we can resolve this dispute (assuming you would persist in the idea that it was not solved in 2009) rather than reinsert these tags onlto an article that does not really seem (to me) to deserve them.

As a starting point - do you think the basic point of the article, which is that at least in some national mythologies Frigg and Frija seem to be confused, is valid one? I tend to take your point about the article's title - how far would that go to making you happy about this one. And finally - hadn't we better move this one to the talk page of the article? I started here because I thought you might have thought me rude for reverting you so quickly - as I explained, this was inadvertent. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Asterisks

The hypothetical words seemed to be indicated with an asterisk preceding them, which I am assuming is a standard practice in linguistics. However it was very noisy in the article and made it difficult to read, so in restructuring the article I removed them and tried to make sure each statement was properly phrased as hypothetical - they had been stated as fact with only the asterisk to indicate conjectural nature. Is this the right way to handle it or have I misunderstood/corrupted something? Fixentries (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at other articles I think these asterisks need to be left in. I will replace them. I wonder if there is a template that explains this to the reader. If not I'll try to make one. Fixentries (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok I didn't see any template or other treatment about the asterisks meaning unattested words, so I'll assume for now that this is generally obvious to people reading linguistics articles (although it seems like it may not be). Here are is a diff[1] of all the changes I have made so far. I apologize for the number of edits, I kept realizing problems, things I had misunderstood, etc. This was a confusing article to work with because it was phrased as if it was all a known fact. Please make sure I didn't make any mistakes as this reflects a lot of significant changes. Fixentries (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC) And now [2] for a total addition of 3133 characters. Fixentries (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Currently at [3], sorry for number of edits. Fixentries (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting to put some order into this train wreck, but unfortunately I don't think the issue can be solved until it's rewritten and moved to Frigg and Freyja origin hypothesis. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. What should be in this article if anything? I'm not clear why the "reconstructed" words even have their own articles. Fixentries (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just move this article to the right name and leave a redirect at the word-that-doesn't-exist? The related articles seem to have the same sort of problem. Fixentries (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I think all the articles with these hypothetical words should be renamed. Fraujaz = Freyja and Freyr etymology hypothesis, Wōdanaz = Odin etymology hypothesis. I like Frigg and Freyja origin hypothesis for this article. All the articles have the same phrasing problems, maybe citation problems. Are there any more like this? Fixentries (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This article should be a redirect to Freyja and Frigg origin hypothesis for sure; there's more than just etymology at work when attempting to figure out the ultimate origin of both of these goddesses and numerous points to cover. The Freyja and Frigg origin hypothesis article must cover all of these elements, including etymology. As for the other articles you mention, they're also badly in need of work and have numerous issues, but their situation is different from what we're looking at here. I'm currently focused elsewhere, so I can't do a rewrite here at the moment, but I plan to in the future. I don't feel comfortable with this redirecting this article in the mean time; the new article would need substance justifying the move in the body. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave it for you to handle. I don't really have any expertise in this, or other sources/material than what I added. Thanks for pointing out the problem. Fixentries (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your efforts. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the article, you would realize that it is not about a common origin of ON Frigg and ON Freyja, but about the undisputed fact that ON Frigg and German Freja / English Frija have the same origin. Moving back. If you want to discuss "common origin hypotheses" of Frijō (Frigg) and Frawjō (Freyja), be my guest, but leave this article alone. --dab (𒁳) 08:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, did you bother to read this mess? From your introduction:

The two Old Norse goddesses Freyja and Frigg appear to be reflected by only a single goddess in West Germanic and likely derive from a single Common Germanic goddess, one of whose epithets was *frijjō "beloved" and *frawjō "lady". Frejya "Lady" is thus considered a hypostasis of the chief "Frigg-Frija" goddess, together with other hypostases like Fulla and Nanna derived from skaldic epithets, similar to [[Odhvalent to the Latin dies veneris which is named for the goddess Venus.

My bold. It is absolutely not undisputed that Frigg and Freyja originate from a single goddess, as I point out above with a study from a modern scholar. The same goes for the hypostasis business. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What "study from a modern scholar"? Lindow (2001), p. 129? Thanks for that reference, I have just looked at it, and it says exactly what I am saying. Lindow adds that the common identification of Freyja and Frigg "cannot be proven", but he does not cite any scholar disputing the assumption. The unilateral move of this article from a discussion of a West Germanic goddess to a comparison of two Norse goddesses was very close to vandalism. Where "very close" is put here for politneness. The purpose of this article is not the discussion of Norse mythology. Norse mythology is relevant here only to the extent it can illuminate the history and character of a barely-attested West Germanic goddess. --dab (𒁳) 18:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. I will again draw your attention to the reference that I am obviously quoting above (that handles exactly this issue):

Grundy, Stephan (1998). "Freyja and Frigg" in Billington, Sandra. Green, Miranda (1998). The Concept of the Goddess. Routledge.

Enough clowning around. You know what you're doing. Perhaps consider getting a blog instead. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

well, I have no interest in clowning around with you. You are the one wikistalking me and pulling down my stuff on a whim. Even your Grundy reference clearly takes the Frigg-Freyja identity as the default position, adding caveats to the effect that the question is "difficult". So it is. If you like propose a rephrasing that makes the point that the question is difficult, but stop vandalizing the entire article over this marginal issue. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalking you? Are you kidding? And here comes the baseless "vandalism" nonsense. Instead of attempting to use Wikipedia as your personal printing press, you may consider making the slightest attempt at following Wikipedia guidelines in your edits. As an added bonus, you won't have to deal with me (and I won't have to deal with you!).

Back to the numerous problems with this sad article. The main problem is that it's, well, a poorly-researched hack job, full of conjecture presented as fact. It has numerous fallacies. I'll give some examples:

1. From your version of the article:

"The two Old Norse goddesses Freyja and Frigg appear to be reflected by only a single goddess in West Germanic and, often taken to derive from a single Common Germanic goddess, one of whose epithets was *frijjō "beloved" and *frawjō "lady". Freyja "Lady" is thus considered a hypostasis of the chief "Frigg-Frija" goddess, together with other hypostases like Fulla and Nanna derived from skaldic epithets, similar to Odhr besides many other aspects in skaldic tradition deriving from Odin."

Numerous issues in this paragraph alone. Look, I brought Fulla up to GA status, and brought Nanna (Norse deity) up to the same standards (yet cannot go any further due to lacking an English translation of Chronicon Lethrense), and it is immediately obvious that stating that they are hypostases is theory—and by no means a dominant one—yet here presented as fact.

Now, I see you've adjusted the paragraph a little bit after finally looking at Lindow and Grundy, where it became evident to you that your usage of "likely" and "appears" is completely inappropriate, but it's not good enough. As Grundy says, both sides need to be acknowledged and explored. This is why Fixentries (talk · contribs)'s version is currently superior to your own, and why I keep reverting to it.

2. You write: "Fulla is named as Frija's sister in the Merseburg charms. in Norse mythology Fulla is one of a train of sixteen goddesses each performing a task representing an aspect of Frigg's, among them also Freyja (Gefjun)." Not only is this inaccurate (read the Gylfaginning chapter in question—most of these 16 goddesses are presented as having no specific relation at all to Frigg), but now we're assuming that Gefjon is a hypostasis of Freyja? This is hardly a given, and is yet another theory presented as fact. I suggest you take a hard look at Gefjon.

3. Later we are treated to more hypostasis fun, where you quote "Jordh, Frigg, Freyja, Nerthus, Fulla, Nanna, and others are essentially the same, personifying life, producing nature." (which I had to add an attribution to, actually). I recommend that you take all of this hypostasis stuff and lump it into a section and clearly mark it as theory.

4. Then there's the incoherent etymology section, where you have inserted stuff like "Grimm: Langobardic Frea accords with the OHG. Frîa, not only identical with Frigg, but the original form of the name; it has less to do with Freyja and the AS. masc. freá." and "Grimm: We gather from all this, that the forms and even the meanings of the two names border closely on one [...]". Uh? Ever considered making a sand box page instead of just slapping this stuff into the mainspace? Passages like these do not help anyone and are basically unreadable.

Yes, this article does need a total rewrite and does have severe neutrality issues. As it stands, the Fixenentries's version does a much better job at keeping the articles apart, but it also needs a total rewrite. Grundy's article is a solid place to start a rewrite from. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

perhaps if you would pause in attacking me out of pure spite or principle, you would see that I am perfectly willing to incorporate valid points, in best wikipedia fashion. What I will not stand for are your angry blanket reverts. It sometimes take a while to transpire what exactly you are ranting against, as you seem to be guided by some kind of pre-conceived ideology while I am as always just trying to present mainstream opinion. You would certainly be in a position to improve the article if you for once decided not to opt for hard-ball revert warring instead. You need to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, even for editors who cannot stand one another like we do. You have never seen me blanket-reverting your contributions, unless your "contribution" was a blanket-revert to begin with.

In this case, you are more than welcome to add material to the effect that Stephan Grundy (1998) presents a challenge to the mainstream view. Instead of doing this, improving the article, your approach is to tear down the entire account of the mainstream view as "biased" on grounds that somebody challenged it.

Now with limitless patience and wikiquette, I invite you once again to contribute rather than blank, and to collaborate rather than OWN. --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

All that quacking to avoid basic Wikipedia policies (see above, again). Every one of my points ignored as the party knows he is guilty. Note that my list of issues above was written back in April and we're now half way through September, and, after multiple reverts, Dbachmann is only now responding, talking about collaborating and complaining about that "it sometimes take a while to transpire what exactly you are ranting against". I thought I put a nice little bow on it for you last spring. Well, typical Dbachmann in action, folks! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Old English or Anglo-Saxon?

Hi just want to bring this [4] up. Most the original linguistics discussion in this article used AS or Anglo-Saxon, as I remember. Just want to ask which is most commonly used in linguistics. I guess English is closer to the self-description and "Anglo-Saxon" comes from other languages. We can't very well use ænglisc in the article, maybe English is better than Anglo-Saxon though. Whatever is used I think all the related articles should be made to agree in case anyone is confused about them referring to the same language. Fixentries (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Old English is preferable to Anglo-Saxon for our purposes. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Albanian Prende

Any connection with the Albanian goddess of love, Prende? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prende

Note that she was associated with Friday, although this may have simply been how she was identified at the time, and may not reflect a deep connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.133.202 (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcomed name change

This is a much better title and the edits to the text are very much in the right direction. I would like to look at how many scholars feel strongly in favor of a connection, strongly against it, or find it an obscure or intractable question. We also want to avoid SYNTH/OR without being to aggressive about removing material. A total rewrite may be in order but continuing to refine this article could work as well.

I think we need to include one of the existing maps showing Frigg vs.Freyja worship which are quite interesting. I am willing to dedicate some time to this article but in a more incremental manner rather than complete rewrite - although after we look at he sources and discuss what changes need to be made I would be willing to do an encyclopedia grade rewrite with maps, tables etc. because I think this is an example of an important but orphaned articlle. It has been languishing long enough. Obotlig (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is basically already a very interesting little article that has already been "languishing" far too long! A great shame that the original dispute got complicated by personal antipathies and then everyone seems to have dropped it. On the other hand this is really not my field - I just got interested through the Friday article (not really my field either!!!), and I don't feel qualified to go any further in eliminating "bias" than I have already. Would be very happy indeed to take this article off my watchlist if you want to go on bringing it up to standard. I still think those tags are pretty daft. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Absent any other apparent interest I am going to start working on some changes first at User:Obotlig/Frigg_and_Freyja_origin_hypothesis then migrate them to here. First will be organizational and graphic changes. I would really like to remove the templates at the top since nothing has happened on this article in so long and the introduction reflects that the content is contentious, but I will leave them there for the time being. I don't know that I will have the time to bring this up to full quality but hopefully I can make a dent in the problems. Obotlig (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I've been busy with outside work lately. The Grundy article cited here and on the Freyja article and the Näsström article cited in the latter are good places to start for rewrites, and comparative material can be found in a few articles in back issues of The Journal of Indo-European Studies that I ran into a few days ago as well. Before diving into this I'd like to get a rewrite done for our current, abysmal Frigg article. It would make approaching this much easier, but that's unfortunately a ways off. Obotlig, if you want to prepare a rewrite, I can help along the way. I think you'll have a much easier time with it if you just start entirely from scratch rather than attempt to "improve" this mess, however. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Frigg is in pretty bad shape and I had noticed the better paragraphs in Freyja. Here is what I am envisioning for content for this article:

• Lead more or less like current article or from Freyja with brief discussion of etymological theories.
• Introduction to topic (photos of artefacts)
  • Subsection on Freyja as clearly ocumented
  • Subsection on Frigg as clearly documented
  • Subsection with cited similarities and differences between them, and any other relevant myths
• Section on etymology (map of place names and worship sites)
  • Subsection with discussion and charts comparing names of Friday ancient and modern in different languages
  • Subsection with discussion and charts of hypothetical etymologies for each name
  • Subsection on place names and sources claiming one attribution or another, or unknown attribution

So if that sounds good I may blank my sandbox article and start filling it in along those lines and anyone is welcome to contribute there. Obotlig (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a major cleanup barring time for a more thorough rewrite. This is consistent with the version in my sandbox User:Obotlig/Frigg_and_Freyja_origin_hypothesis. I would like some better sources or more careful inspection of the material but the article was so dirty and had been left that way for so long I felt the need to just attack it with the old battle-axe for now. Hope everyone agrees with the changes. I also removed the POV tag but left the cleanup tag. POV issues seem resolved by removal of the stranger etymological material but cleanup or rewrite still in question. Hope this works for now. The references still need more work and migration to cite templates but at least they are in consistent format and most of the mess seems tidied up. Addition of map seems relevant - it looks nice anyway. Would like to add place names if we can get the citations on those. Obotlig (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

For crying out loud, this article was supposed to be about the goddess Frijjō, NOT about Freyja. It is difficult enough to deal with both historical and contemporary confusion without making the article explicitly about such confusion. You want to discuss the origins of Freyja, feel free to edit Freyja#Etymology.

It isn't very good manners to rewrite an article so that it is about something completely different, and then rename it so that the title fits the rewritten content. You may as well leave the original article alone and write your own article under your own title. Frankly, I find the question of Freyja as a possible hypostasis of Frigg-Frijjo a question of limited interest. You want to discuss it, either in a section or in a standalone article, that's certainly fine. But pray do not force this marginal discussion on this article by forced renames and rewrites. It is perfectly undisputed that there was a continental goddess Frijjo corresponding to the Viking Age Frigg. This is the article about this goddess. If you have material pertinent to Freyja, you are kindly invited to consider the Freyja article, or possibly the Fraujaz article if the material is etymological. --dab (𒁳) 15:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit, Dab. You initially wrote a terrible article on (and I mean this by both Wikipedia standards and introductory course standards in any remotely academic setting) the relation between Frigg and Freyja here, which you attempted to argue—by way of this poorly sourced, pet-theory pushing, pile of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH article—was by way of a single goddess. The article you're pushing claims the same thing; when was the last time you read it? This article was and remains about the Frigg-Freyja Hypostasis, and moving against consensus does nothing but put further egg on your face. Seriously, I'm consistently surprised by how ill informed you are on both primary and secondary sources handling Germanic mythology, and what will and will not fly on Wikipedia over all this time. Perhaps you should consider if this is really a useful way to spend your time. But before that, take this as a suggestion that you show the slightest bit of respect to your fellow editors and keep the page at the consensus-approved title of Frigg and Freyja origin hypothesis and argue your case like any other editor here on the talk page, or this will become a considerably bigger issue than it currently is. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, that original article was rubbish and took quite some untangling to even make it readable. It was all in broken English, badly cited, didn't make sense, and pushed this common origin theory. If "Frijjō" is the original name of Frigg or some alternate name for her it belongs in the Frigg article under etymology as you suggest. The semi-cleaned up version sat here for years and dab wants to come back and kick up dust about it now? This article should exist and is of some interest. If you want a separate Frijjō article and see anyplace to link it from I guess you can make one - if it doesn't look like the pile of rubbish User:Fixentries halfway cleaned up. I'm not sure where it would be linked from but this is the right article, name and content, for where this is linked from. I wouldn't want someone looking for information on the background or possible etymologies of either goddess or the day of the week and finding that Frijjō article in gobblygook English (makes me understand how annoyed people get when I write articles on the German wikipedia without being careful about grammar). An exhaustive discussion of 150-year-old etymologies for Frigg to try to place her in Germany is, ehem, of rather less interest than this article. Did the article even present any attestation at all whatsoever for this "Frijjō"? Seems like a footnote for the Frigg article.

dab, if you want to try that Frijjō article noch ein mal, this time in English and with some polish befitting the standards of wikipedia, by all means, it sounds like a great pet project. Why not just insert a concise version of it in Frigg? I'm just concerned about where it was linked from. The consensus seems to be that this article has evolved into something separate and better. I don't see it worth fighting over the Frijjō namespace but Friday etc. sure shouldn't link to it if you do remake such an article, dab. Really, 2 years later? This article should exist and continue to be improved in this direction. Obotlig (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this is exactly how I'm seeing this. Note Dab's comment about the article here, where he says this article would be just dandy were it not"efforts to clarify this point were not constantly torn down by people for some inscrutable reason of ideology or personal belief." What to say? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Obotlig, you should know that bloodofox has a history of stalking me and generally making life as difficult for me as possible whenever there is any point of content he dislikes. The "rubbish" revision of the article you have seen was the result of these efforts. I am perfectly capable of writing decent articles as long as I am not subjected to malevolent attacks while doing it. If you want to write a "Frigg and Freyja origin hypothesis" article, be my guest. The point is that nobody ever wanted to write such an article, it was just the outcome of the reductio ad absurdum of the "Frijjo" article on the part of bloodofox.

So, I appreciate that you are talking down to me as if I was a novice contributor writing in broken English, because this is the impression bloodofox has apparently successfully created to the casual observer.

What I actually planned to do was writing an article about the West Germanic goddess Frija. I have no idea why anyone would hate this goddess so much as to resort to disruption techniques in order to make the compilation of her article impossible. The point is that there was such a goddess, but that such evidence as we have is very limited. Any discussion of this evidence will be highly technical, and will need to go into the historical conflation of the unrelated names Frija and Freyja. No, this is not a "footnote to Frigg", it is a serious philological topic dedicated to the reconstruction of pre-Christian continental traditions.

The title "Frigg and Freyja origin hypothesis" fails WP:NAME in basically every respect. I'll leave you to do something constructive under this heading if you want, but I must request that I am left in peace to compile an encylcopedic discussion on the topic of the West Germanic goddess, and I must also request that the disruptive methods of user bloodofox are a matter for administrative intervention, as they are clearly past any kind of bona fide discussion among well-meaning editors. --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I see both of you as somewhat contentious editors and I hope the personality conflict can be resolved so it doesn't adversely affect these articles. As to the name I agree it is a bit awkward. I don't think it fails WP:NAME completely, because this is a topic discussed by reliable sources. However they do not have a clear label for the topic. This is the title that had come up before. Perhaps Frigg and Freyja common origin hypothesis - the use of "and" is unavoidable in this. Frigg and Freyja hypostasis would be a better title, but how many people know what the word means?

I am happy to see an article for Frija as far as there are reliable sources. I see Frijjō is back which I am fine with but it should not be phrased as a historical or linguistic fact. There are still sections (such as on the day of the week) which mention the ON names as if they are not distinct references, or what the names have been considered to mean. I don't hate "Frija" and I cannot speak to bloodofox's intentions, but there are some serious questions about how you want to phrase the article to read as if the conjecture is factual. If we had some significant historical evidence about the goddess or her origins in ancient times I would personally be ecstatic but the evidence does not seem to exist at all. We have some bracteates. Their interpretation is entirely conjectural. Look at the actual Mereseburg manuscript - actual manuscript unretouched and closeup of "frija" section - the alleged mention of "frija" is almost obliterated and looks like rrua. To be generous maybe frua. Maybe it said frija, doesn't look like it though. Whose authority are we taking that this does not read "frua" or "rrua"? Who retouched the copy of the manuscript we have on wikipedia which still shows "rrua"? In fact if you look at either version of the manuscript we do not have an accurate transcription of it on wikipedia. How reliable are 100 year old linguists and anthropologists? We know Frigg existed and that the Anglo-Saxons revered her. Where is Frija coming from? [I am copying this paragraph in some form to the Frijjo talk page and to the Merseburg Incantations page] Obotlig (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Dab, it would do you good to have a little dignity and admit your errors and move on. The article revision you've repeatedly reverted to is there for the world to see; it wasn't the result of "efforts to clarify this point [...] constantly torn down by people for some inscrutable reason of ideology or personal belief" or because people "hate this goddess so much", nor are you being "wikistalked"—that's a new, rather desperate one; you are aware that I have long been the most active and prolific editor on historical Germanic subjects on Wikipedia and numerous Indo-European, Neolithic, and "Old Europe" topics make up my watch list—but rather simply due to evident ignorance on your part on the subject matter. No, no one forced your hand, and a anyone can see the steaming pile of barely coherent WP:SYNTH and WP:OR you attempted to serve up in the history page of this very article.

As for Frijjō, it should and eventually will flatly be redirected to Frigg; it is, after all, just the Proto-Germanic ancestor of Old Norse Frigg and Old English Frige. All discussion on the matter of *Frijjō not about the Freyja-Frigg hypothesis can be handled at the Frigg article, with a link for more information about the Frigg-Freyja to this article. A few paragraphs in the etymology section on the Frigg article and on this article will cover it. Whether you want to collaborate and court that eventual result now or later is up to you; given your handiwork here, I suggest you spend some time in a user page sandbox with another editor. As with so many other once-horrendous articles in these circles, the rewrite of Frigg to WP:GA standards is imminent.

Finally, the current title—"Frigg and Freyja origin hypothesis"—is perfectly acceptable per WP:NAME ("The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic", etc). Care to name where you got the idea of otherwise?

Obotlig, Frigg and Freyja common origin hypothesis also sounds good to me. While this is a topic that comes up in Germanic philology, there's no common term for it as far as I know. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frigg and Freyja origin hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090717033505/http://www.sitecenter.dk/schleu.dk/mand/view_all.nhtml to http://www.sitecenter.dk/schleu.dk/mand/view_all.nhtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)