|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I would highly recommend that those editing the Wiki for Romuva please refer to the various websites run by Romuva, and the mailing list that I moderate (firstname.lastname@example.org) through Yahoogroups called "Romuva", which has been going strong since 1998.
Please avoid factual errors. Romuva *does not* require adherents to pray 5 times a day. The only religion that I am aware of that requires that is Islam - not Romuva, a pre-christian faith.
As this Wiki has come to the attention of Romuva itself, I do believe that we will be taking a hand in editing the Wiki.
- Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you will stick around and help us maintain this and other articles. (BTW, you can sign talk page comments like this one with 4 ~ signs, which will be turned into a signature upon submission of the page.) It would be great to have more knowledgeable contributors to this page, as long as they maintain a neutral point of view. Again, good to see you here! DenisMoskowitz 19:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
removed "neopaganism" & "polyreconstructionist"
Romuva is neither. It is the continuation of cultural practices and beliefs. Romuva is "definately" not neopagan nor are we reconstructing anything... we are just continuing. [Marija - Romuva-Canada]
Reconstructionism, as used on Wikipedia, also encompasses indigenous and ethnic religions & traditions. Like many other groups who are reviving their Folkways, they are reconstructing the actual religion as practiced by their ancestors. Unless you have solid evidence that Romuva was never eclipsed by the Soviet bloc or that the state religion was never Christianity, I'm afraid you fall under wikipedia's definition of reconstructionist. I would love to talk with you and other practitioners of Romuva about this. Perhaps we can create a new category called Ethnic religions or Indigenous religions - however, you would have a difficult burden of proof to overcome to show that Romuva has been practiced in an unbroken fashion since prior to Christianization.
Before you rashly go deleting things, please look into the matter. You will find that other editors here are very helpful and are not trying to mis-represent your religion. Please read through the entire entry of Reconstructionism as well as past discussions on the Talk page. If you really care, create an username and edit constructively and participate in the representation of your faith to the outside world. HroptR 06:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Romuva is not completely reconstructionist religion. It's based mostly on live traditions. --Welnias 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Romuva as reconstructionist / neo-pagan
I am also a moderator on the Romuva Yahoo Group, along with Marija. If I may step in here and assist I will.
First off, is there a way to get the following changed when doing a search on Romuva?
Romuva may refer to:
* Romuva (temple), an ancient worship place in Old Prussia * Romuva (church), a neo-pagan movement in modern Lithuania * Romuva, heaven in the philosophical writings of Vydūnas
As several others have stated, Romuva is not neo-pagan. We prefer that it would read:
* Romuva (church), the ancient ethnic religion of Lithuania
or something of that nature.
Unless you have solid evidence that Romuva was never eclipsed by the Soviet bloc or that the state religion was never Christianity, I'm afraid you fall under wikipedia's definition of reconstructionist.
Of course, to say that the state religion was never Christianity would be ludicrous. Well, actually, it is/was Catholicism, not generic Christianity. However, there is solid evidence that the Lithuanian ethnic religion, referred to now as "Romuva", has continued unbroken throughout the Soviet occupation and oppression. While Lithuania itself refuses to recognize Romuva as a "traditional" religion, that is solely due to political pressure by the Roman Catholic church.
What would you require in the way of "evidence?" It was Vydunas, I believe, who documented the active practice well into the 20th century. We have adherents in Lithuania who were raised with the faith. Marija Gimbutas (Aleskaite-Gimbutiene), renowned Lithuanian-American archaeologist, spoke of being raised with the Goddesses.
I appreciate your openness to discussing this matter. I think that having a new category called "Ethnic religions" or "Indigenous religions" would be a great idea. However, IMHO, this category would necessarily include both unbroken and reconstructed traditions.
If you really care, create an username and edit constructively and participate in the representation of your faith to the outside world.
I don't know if Marija did create a username, but I would like to do what needs to be done to get recognized for what we truly are - an indigenous belief system that goes unbroken back to pre-Christian times. After all, in Lithuania, that's only 600 years back!
In fact it is not Lithuanian religion, it is old-Prussian. As Germans stole our name, Poles and Russians and Lithuanians - our land. But it seems Lithuanian stomatch is not full even with that - they even steal our religion. lol. It is old-Prussian, people, old-Prussian, not Lithuanian...
- I'm inclined to agree. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree as well. But I don't know how. :) I also don't have the personal bandwidth to follow through, but I did find the down-facing (i.e., drop-down) arrow right in between the star and the Search box. Clicking it reveals the command, Move.
- Annnnd once more, a lot of time passed between paragraphs. It's embarrassing to have to leave this when I'm so close, but my illness (mainly AOSD) started acting up ^=& I've passed out three times or so. My thanks to whoever follow through on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekdiva (talk • contribs) 12:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I think sources about folklore symbolism and mythology can be found online, for example, within "Šiaurės Atėnai" literary magazine, it's just a matter of time and patience. Rain7 (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have two related English sources here (Dundzila 2007, and Dundzila and Strmiska 2005) which I've just read and have cited in a few spots for the article. These two support a great deal of the claims made in this article, and I shall cite them further once I come back with more time. Dundzila is (Associate?) Professor of Comparative Religion at Harry S. Truman College, Chicago, and Strmiska is an intructor in Global Studies at Orange County Community College. Obviously, though it would be nicer to get a wider range of authorities. There are many sources in Baltic languages with which I can't do anything, but there are few in German and some others in English with which I can, if I can get my hands on them. Hopefully once this is done we can remove those pesky "content issues" message boxes from the article.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
That Bruno was killed is certain and well attested, but that he was killed because he entered a sacred grove and defiled statues is not a claim for which I can find definitive support. I did add one Lithuanian-language source at http://www.lietuvai1000.lt/nuorodos_pdf/Bumblauskas%20Lietuvos%20tukstantmetis.pdf for which there is some indication that it supports this claim, but I don't know because I can't read it. If anyone can help here, thank you very much.Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The reason I am including the citation needed tag for the etymological claim is that although the Starostin source establishes that Lithuanian rōmù-/rṓmu-, ramù- are derived from PIE *(e)remǝ-, there needs to be a source that explicitly connects this to the etymology of "Romuva". For an example of why this is problematic: I can cite the OED to establish that English pain is derived from Latin poena, but this in fact tells me nothing about the etymology of English "paint", despite the coincidence of letters. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)