Talk:Seiðr

Seidr and Siddhi

It seems plausible to relate 'Seidr' to Sanskrit 'Siddhi', as the meaning of these concepts also are similar; together with the fairly close relationship between Sanskrit and the Norse language. I believe it is fairly uncontested that the Norse faith is perceived as a western branch of the old vedic philosophy.

I hope there are someone who may help me to substantiate this seemingly empirically fit theory of an etymological relation between 'Seidr' and 'Siddhi'. Or at least explain the premises of substantiation in regard of etymological references at wikipedia. I'm curious of what would actually be regarded substantial, cause to give etymological substantiation is pretty dubious in any case. I am very well aware of the rule of thumb that we are not to produce theoretical material first hand here at Wikipedia. But I find it a bit strange that theoretical suggestions of this kind are looked upon as a problem, as long as it is clearly stated that it is a suggestion, a possibility, a theory. I cannot see such suggestions as dangerous. I regard it as spice. It is to my mind a much graver problem that theories are presented as facts, no matter how well cited the statements are.

as the word 'seidr' is no longer in popular use. The only thing that really may substantiate the possible connection between the two concepts is to show the magnitude of links between Sanskrit and the Norse language, and other evident cultural similarities. --Xact (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Seidr and Zijde

Couldn't Seidr be related to the Dutch word zijde which means silk? Silk is often described as an almost-godly substance, and the words are pretty similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.146 (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Note

This article is currently being used by me (in my capacity as a member of the Task Force/Improving Community Health group) as a case study of an article which has declined in quality over time despite having several hundred edits since its highwater mark in or around early 2005. Sjc (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like it was a ho-hum article in 2005 and remains a ho-hum article today. Now it's got a bunch of nag-tags. Like you, I think these are overused. Other than that, what's bothering you about it? Haukur (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well let's start with the intro. It's dumbed down considerably and just wrong; we only discover that seid might possibly have something to do with shamanism in the final paragraph.

Compare and contrast:

Seid (also seiðr, seidhr) was the form of shamanism practised by pre-Christian Norse and other Germanic cultures and continued in modern times by people who practice the reconstructionist beliefs of Ásatrú or heathenry. Practitioners of seid were predominantly women (Volva, or seidhkona, lit seidh-woman), although there were male practitioners (seidhmadhr, lit seidh-man) as well. The gods of Norse mythology were also practititioners of seid. In Anglo-Saxon tribes, practitioners of seid were referred to as wicca (m.) or wicce (f.). The Church opposed such activities and wicce evolved , as did the völvas, into the modern witch.

with

Seid or seiðr is an Old Norse term for a type of sorcery or witchcraft which was practiced by the pre-Christian Norse. Sometimes anglicized as "seidhr," "seidh," "seidr," "seithr," or "Seith," the term is also used to refer to modern Neopagan reconstructions Or Emulations of the practice

In the contemporary version the reader is led immediately into a number of flabby misconceptions: that it was an exclusively Norse practice and has more to do with Harry Potter than with what it primarily was about, at least according to all the supporting evidence that follows, which is divinatory magic, often predicated by trances of varying provenance. It's all downhill from there. It won't take you long to work out which is the contemporary cut. What it gains in concision it immediately loses in its inaccuracy and imprecision.

Seid is always going to be, as you so neatly pin it, a ho-hum sort of article, which is precisely what makes it interesting for my purposes for a very specific reason which is a close examination of things which need documenting but which are open to considerable interpretation and consequently present a fertile playing field for the multiplicity of edit-tinkerers, policy-warriors, and the like. The very nature of seid, being practiced clandestinely by adepts means necessarily that very little is documented and that all corroboration or assertions of corroboration are implicitly suspect. We can make intelligent constructions about what seid was from supportive documentation, mainly secondary or tertiary evidence or evidence which is circumstantial, or illustratively and explicitly fictionally narrative in nature Völuspá, the Saga of Erik the Red, or, in fact, the narration of Odin's direct experience of seid (albeit not usually recognised as such) in Hávamál whilst hanging from the tree for nine days. Sjc (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The quality of this article has been poor from the start. It remains so. It needs a rewrite on par with GA standards Are you saying you are up to doing this? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of touching this or any article, I am definitively retired from WP; I have personally had it up to here with the BS policy and interminable infighting & policy-oriented Nazitubbies which currently characterise WP, and I am working on the Task Force with a clearly defined objective which is to make WP & other wiki projects better and more amenable environments in which to work. What I will say is what I said at the outset, that it is now several hundred edits on and that the article really is no better, and in some/many respects is worse, than it was heretofore. I have set out in fairly mild terms a few of the reasons why I think this to be the case when asked. This is not, let me emphasise, in any sense a witchhunt, I am looking at it in general terms as a case study, and it is fairly representative of a broader trend. If you really want to make it better then imo someone needs to fix the intro so that it is inclusive of Germanic cultures wherein the practice was fairly widespread, and also has other forms and manifestations e.g. as symbel, and make it apparent that it is what it is, shamanic, divinatory and very little to do with waving wands and pulling rabbits from hats. I personally have no particularly strong feelings about the article itself, since I already know what seid is and it isn't what it says in para 1, the first point of interface between the reader and the subject.

Seid was, is and always will be a difficult article, a watershed article on the cusp of directly atributable knowledge, circumstantial evidence and intelligent contemporary interpretation. It could also have been a whole lot worse. It will never be a GA quality article under the current terms of reference, nor could it be as I have already stated above, the degree of evidence and the reliability of the evidence just isn't there to support it. Sjc (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)