Talk:Völva

Shamanism

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

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

Consistency

I have noticed that in one part of the article, the Volvas' wands are compared pretty convincingly with distaff tools, whilst later in the article, it says that this has no foundation and they are actually phallic symbols. Even if there is contradictory evidence, shouldn't we just point both sides out rather than contradicting ourselves? 85.158.139.99 (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It says that "all" wands cannot be associated with distaffs. Many or most can be associated with distaffs, while others cannot, so I can't see any contradition.--Berig (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reversion

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

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

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

'Slandered'

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

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

Seidman

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

The term 'seidman' is an Anglicism of 'seiðman' which is the male form of 'seiðkona', a synonym for Volva.85.158.139.99 (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A comment from a passing reader

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

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

Question

What is rational for using the name Volva as the page namee? Normally page names should be in English. What language is "Volva" (old Norse?) and each of the other varients? This shold be stated and each language with period identified if its multilingual. Thank you. Goldenrowley 00:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Völva is a Norse concept, and shouldn't be translated. By your logic, words like ninja and samurai should also be translated. As for what a "völva" is, it's explained in the article. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks an awful lot like a word for female private parts. 68.36.120.7 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Complete Load

I tried looking up this source for this entry: "In the grave, there were also four seeds from the cannabis plant which probably had been in the pillows that supported the corpses.[13] Moreover, additional cannabis seeds were discovered in a small leather pouch.[13] Since the pouch contained too few seeds to have anything to do with the cultivation of cannabis, they were probably used for something else.[13] If the queen who had been buried in Oseberg had smoked these seeds, she would not only have sensed a feeling of weightlessness and happiness, but she would also have had a distorted experience of time and space.[13]" I don't know where this person got this information but it's completely wrong. Perhaps the seeds were supposed to represent what the plant did. However ingesting or smoking cannabis seeds wouldn't have had any effect. In fact if a person was going to try to smoke seeds, they'd find the seeds would pop or burst, not smoke! If there's a creditable reason for this being here, I'll leave it, if not I'm taking this rubbish out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgivemeanaccount (talk • contribs) 15:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that the information is properly referenced to a scholarly book. Your personal experience and knowledge may be perfectly accurate, but Wikipedia articles only rely on published sources, per WP:RS, and so we have to trust the authors referred to.--Berig (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Equations

It is dubious, possibly New Age fluff, to simply equate oracles, priestesses, shamans and witches. Do we have sources equating Völva, Seiðkona and Spákona as implied by the lead? Even if we do, Old English Wicce is clearly the odd one out still. Looking through the article, it would seem appropriate to {{split}} it into a discussion of Völva (proper), and a more general treatment of "magic and sorcery in early Germanic society". It is a completely flawed notion recurring in poorly informed neopaganism that somehow pagan priestesses "turned into witches" due to Christianization. It's not that simple. There was belief in witches (i.e. people trying to do damage by magical means) all along, throughout the pagan period, and Christianity actually combatted belief in witchcraft as pagan superstition, and a bona fide priestess would probably not have been amused to be equated with a witch. Per WP:REDFLAG, any claim lumping together priesthood, shamanism and witchcraft needs solid academic support in order to avoid WP:SYN --dab (𒁳) 14:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is little risk for WP:SYN here, since most of structure is taken from "Vikingaliv" (2007) written by a prominent historian (Dick Harrison) and an archaeologist (Svensson). It appears that you are trying to divide the subject into a "good priestess" vs "evil witch" which is in stark contrast to what scholarly literature does. Removing sourced RS information like "the Völvas were not considered to be harmless" is not going to get this article closer to mainstream scholarship.--Berig (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe the shoddy scholarship present here was actually undertaken by "prominent" historians, and that if it was, it is certainly being presented with a point of view in mind. This entire article is a real let down and certain sections reads like a Neopagan version of "the burning times" stories Wiccan circles go on about. I think the initial poster is right to ask for sources demonstrating how volva, spaekona, witches, etc. were equivalent. Also, did anyone notice how in several places the article mentions how "very likely" some of its own conclusions were? This should alarm anyone trying to defend its composition... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.159.89 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The summary of the ship burial observed by ibn Fadlan states that the slave girl was raped, whereas the refered text only says that she had went from tent to tent having sex with various men. As she agreed to the rite and her own death and she then voluntarily acted as a Volva, the voluntary nature of sex is credible. The strange sexual rites of distant people may disturb modern readers but that does not make them rape.JDN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.174.236 (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Harrison & Svensson source does not impress me based on the statements cited to it here. This article needs to be rewritten using more of the specialised sources including those which are not so sensationalistic. It will be a big task, but it does need to be done. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of vandalism

I noticed a lack of vandalism of the main article, which surprised me, due to the term's similarity to that for a certain part of the female anatomy and the similarity to a certain car brand's name. I guess the word "volva" isn't that famous. Otherwise, some folks would've been all over it. 198.151.130.51 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)