|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doppelgänger article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2014. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
It appears that this article is trying to suggest (see WP:SYN) a kind of "genuine folklore" about some pagan mythological Doppelgänger creature similar to a shape-shifter or other kind of supernatural entity in German(ic) folklore, associated with creepy and disturbing folktales. However, any religious scholar or philologist would be hard-pressed to find any such myth of that name. That's because the word Doppelgänger was never associated in German with any mythology or folklore, whether today or in earlier times. It simply means a person who looks very much like another, and there's nothing mythological or supernatural about it. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What are the chances that such a person would exist... It doesn't even make sense. It means at least one (if not both) of the parent is a doppelgänger too, but that is like giving birth to a second child that looks exactly like the first.. all of which are preposterous. There is no proven reported case of one seeing a doppelgänger. Also finally... If I had a doppelgänger we would look identical as babies but since we live in different environments and society, these factors would make us look different with age. Especially since we will most likely have different life styles and experience. So if I had a doppelgänger by the time I'm 30 I probably wouldn't recognise him... People might be like "are you brothers? You sorta look alike" But that's it. VictorCreator (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Fork for original research; delete article
This whole article is a content fork for original research by some editor(s) in order to arbitrarily establish random terminology and theories by means of false synthesis. None of the original folkloric English or German sources uses the term doppelgaenger, nor does the German term signify any folkloric, religious, or esoteric phenomena or the likes (the latter fact having been pointed out several times on this talkpage before), although the article once literally claims and indirectly suggests by its very existence as well as throughout its entire content such an "original meaning" in any of the two languages falsely.
What this article really is about is the modern pop culture mem of the evil twin, preposterously trying to give it some ancient folkloric credibility as a cultural phenomenon by giving it a mysteriously-sounding foreign name that actually holds no such suggested established folkloric meaning whatsoever in either language, and pointing to instances in mythology that would be much better suited at the alter ego article. It's also possible that the original author(s) accidentally confused the German term Doppelgänger for the similarly-named, but actually established folkloric or occult concept of a Wiedergänger, which is German for "undead" or "zombie" with no specific lookalike characteristics. That's not to say that no evil twin fiction exists in modern pop culture, or that no alter ego myths would exist in history, but this article is trying to arbitrarily establish false terminology via original research, content forking, and false synthesis, to try and thereby pass it for genuine, which it isn't.
I still remember this article from a few years ago when it only consisted of the Goethe quote and claimed that Doppelgänger would be a genuine evil twin myth allegedly attested by that exact very name in ancient pagan Germanic mythology, similar to trolls, kobolds, or lindworms that really are attested by those names in pagan Germanic and/or Norse mythology (just as Goethe's Erlking, actually). Looks like what has happened in the meantime is that it's been pointed out that no such genuine ancient Germanic doppelgaenger myth ever existed by that name, so its supporters tried to save this article by now falsely claiming that it would be the acquired English meaning while still suggesting some ancient genuineness as the meaning presented in this content fork article being the "original meaning" somehow in either English or German, by pointing to ancient or Medieval alter ego myths instead.
In any case, this article that's deliberately trying to establish false terminology deserves to be entirely scrapped and all its content still considered notable should be dumped at either evil twin or alter ego. Better do it sooner than later, before sources outside of Wikipedia will begin citing this article or be influenced by it, and which then in turn will be used to justify this content fork here on Wikipedia. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, upon further inspection, it seems that a game designer of Swiss (that is, German-speaking) origin has introduced the word as a name for some shape-shifting creatures in the modern table-top game Dungeons & Dragons in the 1970s, but not even that has much to do with what this article is falsely trying to establish, as it's not about shape-shifting. The fact that Doppelganger (Dungeons & Dragons) is a valid article for a modern pop-cultural D&D character does not validify this content fork article here that tries to establish some genuine ancient or Medieval pagan doppelgaenger myth. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe I have seen my 'doppleganger' it was decades ago, it still intrigues me to this day. The 'Mental Illness' explanation does not seem to explain my observation, there needs to be a number of other symptoms for 'halucinations' to be present, if it was a 'practical joke' it must have cost a fortune to stage. Over the years I discovered other people who had seen their doubles, all of us report the same sinario, it is a completely pointless and very brief meetings, no words exchanged and no drama at all. Johnwrd (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I added back "tradition of the Talmud, to meet oneself means to meet God." with fact tag
Dialogue from the movie plus one +1 (film):
- "Maybe we don't have less to worry about then we think"
- "What do you mean"
- "If the universe is really infinite - it means mathematically there must be replicas of our solar system, out there"
- "You've gotta be kidding me."
- "Look just because they exist [doubles of ourselves] doesn't mean they are out to get us"
- "She's right..."
- "Yeah, and how do you figure?"
- "From the book of Talmud, to meet ones self is to meet God."
I did a Google search:
- Talmud, to meet ones self is to meet God
...and found a reference to an old August 2011 quote from an old version of this Wikipedia article:
- " In some myths, the doppelgänger is a version of the Ankou, a personification of death; in a tradition of the Talmud, to meet oneself means to meet God."
I added back "tradition of the Talmud, to meet oneself means to meet God." with fact tag.
As I remember, this was a tradition of the Sabians of Harran, and quoted by al-Ghazali, "he who knows himself knows his Creator": it's a version of the Delphic maxim "know oneself". I don't know of anything like it in the Talmud. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)