From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
This article is currently undergoing a peer review.
WikiProject Norse history and culture (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Germanic studies articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

etymological relations[edit]

Even though naming all etymological relations I could find at the moment, I've tried to mostly stick to Anglo-Saxon forms, except for yrghi as even Anglo-Saxon earg seems to be closer to ergi even though yrghi is supposed to be the Anglo-Saxon form of ergi. If I'll find the time, I'll try to give English translations within the footnotes themselves for all the sources's names. For now, I'm particularly interested in someone more fluent in English and especially a basic English language grasp particularly at the matter in question to look over all my quotes in the article since I've translated them all myself. Furthermore, don't be surprised about the bottom section (Potential historical context of nith ), there'll be material to appear in there soon, just as the sections Nith in relation to biological sex, Nith, physical ailments, and illness, and especially Nith and witches will further grow. -TlatoSMD 03:09, 15 Mai 2006 (CEST)

I'm concerned about the statement: "It is also retained in the modern German word Niete, meaning "loser", "losing ticket", "also-ran"." Kluge 2011 (656) suggests that this word was borrowed from modern Dutch, actually meaning nichts (nothing) and has no etymological relation to nīþ. The extant modern Dutch cognate of nīþ is nijd. Kavindad1 (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of Niete, as Kluge's reference above disestablishes the link. While the word semantically similar, NHG "t" does not trace back to Germanic "þ" by established sound laws. Instead, Germanic "þ" produced NHG "d," as is the case with the secure cognate "Neid" (envy, grudge). Kavindad1 (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There is also little evidence to qualify the statement "cf. modern English beneath and modern German nieder" upon mentioning nīðing. Even the definition of "one lower than those around him" does not conform to the Oxford English Dictionary's "a coward, a villain; a person who breaks the law or a code of honour; an outlaw" (OED Online). English "beneath" and German "nieder" come from a different root word than Middle English nithe and German Neid. I have found no reliable evidence that German "Neid" and "nieder" share any direct relation. Can anyone find anything? Kavindad1 (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Seid Merge[edit]


Why merge? Kim van der Linde at venus 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On the definition of "chastity"[edit]


By using the English term "chastity", I've tried to translate that traditional Indo-European notion or attitude referred to as Leibfeindlichkeit by Dr. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg in German and that Dr. Hubert Kennedy translated as "hostility of the body" in his English translation of her work The paedophile impulse. --TlatoSMD 04:33, 11 August 2006 (CEST)

Talked to an erudite, germanophone American scholar about Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's specific use of Leibfeindlichkeit now, and it seems like asceticism is a better choice for translation. --TlatoSMD 19:57, 10 March 2007 (CEST)



I am not clear whether people are called niding or some people considered themselves niding? --Error 17:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a clearly negatively connoted label. No person in their right mind would have identified themselves as a nithing because the very concept itself contained a moral obligation of doing away with them in most violent and hostile ways. --Tlatosmd 06:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Moral turpitude[edit]

User:Aleta has removed my link to the main entry moral turpitude from the section Nith, seid, and criminality. Did you find it "not appropriate" because the pertaining article describes moral turpitude as being strictly an American legal term? I had added the term after finding it in Night of the Long Knives on Goebbels's and Hitler's justifications regarding Röhm's homosexuality, and how American is that? Furthermore, don't you see a striking, almost 1:1 resemblance between the misdemeanors and crimes listed under moral turpitude and those associated with nithings here?

Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, my main source for this article, expounds for hundreds of pages on the history of homophobia in the Western world since Kurganization. The nithing is the main concept she operates with because this Norse version of the mythological origins of homophobia is the least rationalized, thus most "purest" or original form available to cultural anthropology in Western history of Indo-European cultures, at least at these earliest stages of Norse culture still researchable. According to Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, these mythological roots of homophobia, as best-recognizable, most basic and typical in proto-historic Norse culture, are themselves the Western core concept of ethnocentric reactions of horror and hatred towards not only all deviant sexuality in general, but also of the idea of moral depravity in general, compare for instance Malakia (effeminacy) (formerly Classical definition of effeminacy) or the closely related Indo-European concept of imbecillitas, English imbecility (note Tacitus's term imbelles in this article on nithings!) on that.

Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg makes her way across Kurganization, Norse culture, monotheisms, Greece and Rome, Byzantine Emperor Justinian I's invention of the Sodom myth (that the Genesis account would have anything to do with carnal sins), Benedictus Levita's forged Charlemagnian capitularies in the Pseudo-Isidore prolonging the existence of the Sodom myth (see Sodomy on the latter two issues), the carnal sin laws from the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina and more recent developments. She thereby finds largely identical cultural notions even though reading most sources in their original languages and most thoroughly and exhaustingly avoiding purely ethnocentric or chronocentric interpretations in the spirit of our own times, and she witnesses increasingly pseudo-scientific rationalizations prolonging the old numinous, ethnocentric prejudices as history progresses. Finally, Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg uses the inherent, typically homophobic patterns in the justifications by Hitler and Goebbels for the Night of the Long Knives as evidence, among many other examples from modern history, on how little this numinous ethnocentric notion of sexual deviance, especially homosexuality, as the primary indicator and association of moral depravity, general unreliability, insidiousness, criminal tendency, weirdness, creepiness, and entire untrustworthiness has actually changed over the centuries from the mythological nithing fiend.

So, with this background and the fact the entry for Night of the Long Knives uses the term, wouldn't you agree that moral turpitude is quite a fitting main entry for that section, especially regarding the basically identical list of crimes and misdemeanors here as well as in the article for moral turpitude? --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of simply removing the link, I should have put it in a "see also" section. Without the connection being more explicit in the articles, no, I don't think it should be listed as a "main article" link though. Aleta (Sing) 02:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Per this discussion, I've just added moral turpitude to the "see also" section. Aleta (Sing) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so fast this time. I agree with your new decision. :) --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. BTW, with regards to the rating (for which I'm formulating my comments), you seem to have the impression that a B rating is negative. On the contrary, it's the highest rating an article can get without having been nominated and going through either the more formal good article or featured article process (which does imply, of course, that improvements could still be made). Aleta (Sing) 02:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed a few more of your "main article" links. Basically, you should use that template when you have a section of your article summarizing a topic that is the subject of its own article - such as the section on ergi here. In the sections for, e.g. shamanism, you are discussing how this Nið and it relate, but not summarizing shamanism in general. So it is absolutely relevant to link, but shouldn't be a "main article" link. Does this make sense? Aleta (Sing) 03:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, the lede needs clarity clean-up. If you had only ten seconds, Níð is what? It sounds like its a mythological concept but I'm not sure. The various other spelling should probably be clumped into parenthesis (so readers more easily understand it's the same word in other languages). I think the second and third sentences should focus on it's implications followed by other forms of the word. That's just my quick feedback, don't be disheartened when folks only read the lede we're a low attention-span society after all. Benjiboi 04:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In ten seconds? Then I'd say "evil", especially evil associated with lecherousness and sexual deviance. For the time span and culture this article particularly deals with, the most evil form of inherently evil sexual deviance were male same-sex activities and desire for them, but according to main source Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg this most prominent place among sexual deviances, as ethnocentrically defined as evil due to what particularly in Norse culture was called nith, has been replaced by certain other paraphilia increasingly since the Age of Enlightenment and especially so post-WWII.
As much as I remember this article once contained the word evil a few times but it was replaced by an editor with "malicious" or "malevolence" (of course malice, as in malevolent intent, was part of being a nithing as well) because they felt that modern science and philosophy would have debunked the very concept of "evil". One might argue of course that this article deals with a pre-scientific culture where people still believed in evil, and one might also argue that this societal and cultural notion has survived the rise of modern science quite well, especially in the case of sexual deviance. Keywords for Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg here are the remaining numinosity of certain irrational prejudices that are inherently mythological in origin, with pseudo-scientifically rationalized transcendental/supernatural connotations. Example: "Evil" and malevolence in homosexuals was re-defined by ideological pseudo-science as mental illness (the keyword being moral insanity) and selfishness. --TlatoSMD (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Lol. I'm way too short-attention span for in-depth articles at the moment but I've fluffed the lede a bit for clarity. I suggest working in "evil associated with lecherousness and sexual deviance" if you have a source that covers it - if you have a quote even better as folks seem to respect quotes a bit more. Benjiboi 16:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Very dubious, rewrite needed[edit]

Currently, this article presents a number of theories as fact and then runs with it, and the end result is an extremely dubious and misleading article. It needs to be rewritten. Most important of all, attestations need to be mapped out, and then the theories needed to be brought into a separate section. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Detailed discussion is obviously taking place only here. -- (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of an article "obviously" takes place on that article's talkpage. It is a complete mystery what purpose a separate "comments" page is supposed to serve.

This article is in extremely bad shape. If frankly looks like your typical "Indian antiquity" article prior to cleanup. I don't think I have seen anything like it among Germanic topics. A complete rewrite is necessary, but of course the present article contains a lot of valid material that should be preserved. Maybe it would be best to move the present article to a {{workpage}} and start over. --dab (𒁳) 08:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, it transpires that the main problem here is the Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg gender/LGBT study stuff, blown out of proportion to the point of obscuring the article topic. Essentially, we are looking at a {{coatrack}} {{essay-entry}}. Surprisingly, the ergi article, which is the redirect target for Homosexuality in Norse paganism, appears to have remained undisturbed. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite a unique article. I see you're taking a stab at bringing it into line. Good luck! Haukur (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't do this today, but I will try to sort the wheat from the chaff over the next few days... --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
fwiiw, de:Neidingswerk seems to be in good shape and may be useful as a guide. --dab (𒁳) 09:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Dab, you and I have been agreeing so well in defending the article Kurgan hypothesis from Rokus01 and his pseudo-scientific claim that Indo-Europeans would've originated from Holland. Most of what I know also about Indo-European studies is through the same source by Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg as used here, so she can't be that bad a source. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg dug out a century of Indogermanistik research publications prior to Gimbutas to point out that Gimbutas actually never originated the Kurgan hypothesis in the first place, she only thought of using the handle Kurgan, applied it to a propagation model and timeline already existent in Scandinavian and Central-European Indogermanistik research, and popularized the overall idea in the Anglosphere.
The reason the ergi article stayed the way it was is that in 2006, esoteric neo-Pagans didn't want "their" entirely arbitrary, New Age "seid" label as practiced today for recreational purposes to be associated with poisoning and lewdness as for a matter of fact seid is in original and modern sources; their neo-Pagan definition of níð is one of a "curse directed against malevolent people" instead of a spiritual evil or malevolence itself that Germanic people accused those of they considered as wrongdoers. Obviously, they got it mixed up with the scolding ritual that was expected to be used on a suspected nithing.
The German de:Neidingswerk article is based entirely on out-dated sources prior to WWI, with some later uncritical derivates of those, whereas all of which are dedicated mostly to broad overviews over Germanic culture as a whole; two people effectively downgraded the German article to a state prior to WWI, while ignoring all original Germanic sources not in line with their limited understanding of the topic, just as they also did on the talkpage. Their understanding of níð is one of "perjury" or, more generally, "law-breaking", obviously. It was indeed considered a nithing creature's natural behavior according to folklore to break a whole lot of the most sacred and most valued laws, however nith was not the eventual act of breaking any law, in fact it was their overall motivation for doing such that they were labeled with, a kind of malevolent hatred closely related to envy or jealousy due to being essentially inferior to mankind.
I just don't understand how you can blame this on some coatrack forgery by Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg if you look at the ratio of direct references to her compared to that of all those other modern references in the intact version: Out of 85 references (whereas almost every single sentence is tagged with at least one reference or more!), only 9 are to Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg (not counting the one reference relating to the proper English translation of German Leibfeindlichkeit)! Why ignore more than 70 other sources by calling them some "coatrack", "original research", or some "personal essay"?
As I've said before elsewhere, what you call her "out-of-proportion gender issue" is totally in line with Klein 1930 and Grönbech 1954 as other sources with whole chapters dedicated entirely to the nithing myth, where this particular topic is referred to as "obvious" lewdness motifs about it. More modern references for strong associations of lewdness are Weisweiler 1923 and Much 1959 (enlarged edition 1967).
Also, I'd like you to know that the move of the article has broken the above link to its LGBT review. Its original name was Níð. -- (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Note that this seems to be indefinitely banned user Tlatosmd (talk · contribs). :bloodofox: (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Restoring referenced content[edit]

Most of the material in the article was valid and referenced. Some of it was faulty or misleading. I have removed some unattested items, improved some, and restored the referenced material

Now, Bloodofox, . " loaded with so many POV-violations" is not a coherent argument. Stop arguing by edit summary and present a coherent argument on talk why you think the remaining material is flawed. Also feel free to use inline tags. This isn't my text, and I agree it needs to be cleaned up, but it simply will not do for you to just go around and blank material just because you do not like it. You seem to think that whenever you find a bit of information that doesn't suit you, you can get rid of it just by invoking general policy and raising the bar to such arbitrary heights of perfection that essentially you can selectively blank anything you like. This is not acceptable. Either help writing this article or stay away.

I obviously agree the article isn't good at this stage and needs improvement. You will not achieve this by blanking perfectly valid content just because its presentation needs some copyediting.

The original article "full of so man POV-violations" was that of May 2009. The current revision is already a significantly cleaned up version. I don't see why you should keep blanking a work in progress, which has made significant progress, just because its starting point more than a year ago was really bad. --dab (𒁳) 09:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Normally the argument that you've presented here might have some merit, but you have conveniently neglected to mention that what you keep restoring stems from a seriously POV-plagued article by a banned user, and all of the material supposedly culled from said sources needs to be thoroughly checked to see where the sources end and said user's dubious opinions begin. This article needs more than "copyediting"; it needs a straight razor—we're looking at about 60 references with varying potentials for misattribution.
Now, until someone wants rewrite all of this from the ground up—and, given your well-established history of inserting your personal opinion into articles and common disregard for referencing (the latter making the prior inconvenient, of course), I'm certainly not nominating you—all of this needs to be culled due to the obvious problems inherent in the original text. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

nonsense, this is just another one of your OWN ego trips. I am in the process of improving this, see the diff above. You are welcome to help. Otherwise stop disrupting this.

Are you, or are you not going to point out which points you are objecting to? Otherwise your removal of referenced, unproblematic content is simple vandalism. --dab (𒁳) 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to spell this out again? Here, I'll put it in italics for you; every one of nearly 60 references on this article needs to be checked for misattribution. Now, if you want to attempt to rewrite this article using solid references (hard for you, I know), then I'll be here too, and, well, I'll even help you (!). In the mean time, reinstating what is known to be severely problematic material does no one any favors, is, in fact, disruptive, and is further indicative of your henceforth generally dubious and questionable approach to editing articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. The article originating with a banned user has nothing to do with this, as the user wasn't banned when he wrote it, and his ban had nothign to do with this article. If you were finally banned over your constant edit-warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND, would you argue that all articles you contributed in the past would need to be deleted? It doesn't work this way. Your valid contributions will stay, even if you are banned. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the article as it stands. It needs work, it is duly tagged, and I am working on it. If you cannot help at least don't stand in the way. --dab (𒁳) 14:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And here we have another example of Dbachmann's infamous sidestepping. I point out concrete problems (generally involving WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:PROVEIT—frequently of Dbachmann's own doing), and then Dbachmann attempts to distract with vague claims of behavioral policy. Like I've said repeatedly, considering how badly infected this article was with blatant POV issues as written by said, yes, banned user, each one of these references would need to be filtered through. There are nearly 60 of them. And, as I've said, considering how you're largely guilty of exactly these problems (in fact, I think you would well do Wikipedia a favor by hanging it up—but I'm sure your daily systematic violations will catch up to you eventually), you're not exactly the first person I would vote for.
So, out it goes, as the references can't be trusted. If you want to continue making a stink about it, go ahead, but the problem could simply be solved with a well-referenced rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

got to love your use of "concrete" and "generally". Saying "riddled with" or "generally involving" does not meet my definition of "concrete". If you did point out concrete problem, they could actually be addressed. So far you have just said "I want to check all references". Be my guest and do that. Let me know if you find anything concrete.

As long as you cannot point out any concrete problem with the article other than "don't like it, don't trust it" please stop trolling. You could also go easy on the oblique personal attacks, but I wouldn't mind them so much if you would make up for them by doing something useful too. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful with your semantic venturing here—it seems to me that you might want to take a second look at the usage of "generally" above; it's a synonym for "usually", and I was referring to you. The article does, indeed, have concrete problems, both in terms of its foundation and the inherent issue with pulling references wholesale from the problematic previous revision, whether or not you've given it a round of editing. Then there's the current text, with lines like "Also, there exists (or existed) evidence on the Golden horns of Gallehus that male initiates of seid were ritually castrated" stated as fact. Come on, even your additions are usually better than that.
Anyway, anyone who cares about the quality of this article has ample reason to call for a rewrite here. Besides the problems with the text itself, the usage of those 60 references pulled straight from the POV-plagued previous article results in a very big risk of misattribution. You're obviously not too concerned about this referencing business. However, I am, and anyone else who wants a reliable article here should be also.
It should all be cut; nearly all of the sentences in the article need to be rewritten with neutrality in mind (frequently presenting theory as fact), and each one of those references would need to be sorted through. That said, it's pointless to go back and forth with you here. So, until the article gets the needed rewrite, I'm willing to leave it at a rewrite tag for now. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation ?[edit]

Is there a good way to get a clarification on the pronunciation of the word? Are there links to descriptions or audio files that would help? --Alex.rosenheim (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)