Talk:Dievturība

Untitled

I've added an external link, it seems to be quite well written. Perchta 2 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)

Rename — ???

"Dievturity" is a neologism. It is not supported in any of the literature. This page was moved without discussion. It will be moved back. —Zalktis (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong.

"The movement was started in 1925 by Ernests Brastiņš with the publication of the book entitled Revival of Latvian Dievturity. After the annexation of Latvia to the Soviet Union the Dievturis were repressed, but the movement continued to operate amongst exiles. Since the 1990s, Dievturi was re-introduced to Latvia and began to grow again; in 2011 there were about 663 official members."

Kortoso (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Raimonds Pauls

Do we really have enough information to list him as Dievturis? In the reference there is a brief quote of him saying that he is not taking part in some Christian event for religous reasons and then goes to say "Es jau vispār esmu no tiem, kas pie ugunskuriem ar mietiem un cirvjiem – no dievturiem!" i.e. "I am of those, who [are] at bonfires with sticks and axes - of Dievturi" For all I've heard of Dievturi, it never has seemed to be about anything along those lines, seems to me he could be just saying that he is not a Christian, but rather something more of a pagan. ~~Xil (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed as there has been no answer for two weeks, this concerns BLP and matter is fairly trivial even if it gives some prominence to the religion ~~Xil (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dievturība. 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/20110722161902/http://www.tm.gov.lv/lv/documents/parskati/2007/RLP_gada_parskats_2007.doc to http://www.tm.gov.lv/lv/documents/parskati/2007/RLP_gada_parskats_2007.doc

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessarily dismissive

In the sentence: "Dievturība is a neopagan movement which claims to be a modern revival of the ethnic religion of the Latvians before Christianization in the 13th century.", the phrase "claims to be" is unnecessarily dismissive. There are no competitors to the claim of being the "modern revival of the ethnic religion of the Latvians...", so I changed the sentence to read: "Dievturība is a neopagan movement which is a modern revival of the ethnic religion of the Latvians before Christianization in the 13th century." ("claims to be" edited to "is"). 72.36.41.73 (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

A phrase "claims to be" would be perfectly fine as long as there are no sources given which elaborate how well-founded our knowledge of pre-Christian faith(s) of Old Latvians (and Livonians?) is. It is not the point whether there are (now, at this given time) other contesting beliefs that claim the same thing, but whether there are in fact concrete indications for the statement that this really is a revival in the sense that it is reviving a real and reasonably well defined (pre-) historical belief system - for that statement I would like to see some (preferably scientific) sources. It is much more likely that Dievturība is part of or a parallel development to the 19th and 20th century cultural European re-imagining of pre-Abrahamitic religion(s), meaning more of a modern construction rather than a re-construction. Why? Mostly because of the lack of written sources. If you don't know what exactly was lost, you can't really revive it - you have to imagine and to (re-) construct it (distorted by your modern cultural and political needs).

Therefore, I undertook a specification of the lemma according to the first given source which says "... claims to have reconstructed" rather than "modern continuation"; also, it talks about "a pre-Christian pagan faith" (maybe among others), not "the" (only) "religion". That brings us to the topic: is "faith" exactly the same thing as "religion"? -- marilyn.hanson (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Dievturi do not claim to be a reconstruction, instead it is just a continuation of Latvian ethnic religion in a systematized way, developed further and ever-evolving according to the contemporary age. The faith is not crucial for Dievturi either, however, the awareness of Dievs is. Ratobiajin (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)