Talk:Julleuchter

Proper sectioning and sourcing

As you may noticed, I've done some heavy modifying of it from your original state. The reason for this is because all claims here need proper sourcing and everything relating to the Third Reich needs to be in the "Third Reich usage" section. We need to be extremely clear about what we know of the ancient origins of the lantern and what was tacked on to it later, which includes modern usage. Please be very careful with your sources and be as detailed as possible with them - a simple website somewhere will not do. Thank you! :bloodofox: (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The butchering of the article

I went back and placed everything relating to the Third Reich in the "Third Reich usage" section. You on the other hand moved the photo “Old Pagan Julleuchters” and placed photo in "Third Reich usage" section that does not have to do with that section. I am being careful with my sources and being as detailed as possible with them. You put the information about the Germanien magazine article half way through the information about the Allach production where it does not belong. I am going to place it at the bottom of the "Third Reich usage" section because you have it cutting the allach info in half, which would confuse readers. Also the whole Germanien magazine article is posted in photos on the web sight that I sourced for it. Anyone can go there and see it. The source I used about the Swedish magazine Runa in 1888 came from the German Wikipedia article. I simply used the same source as that article did. The source I used about the 1933 Germanom F.Virtom translated “Хроник Ура-Линда” was only posted on a Russian web page. Also you deleted information about how the item is used on the various occasions that it is used on. I gathered this information from that same Russian web page and it was also mentioned in the Germanien magazine article because it is the actual pagan information. This is an obscure subject and I included all the information that I have learned about it. You on the other hand decided all on your own that these sources are just “simple web site somewhere” when they are the only sources out there. I am going to work on the article and address the problems that you have with it. A only ask that if you have further problems would you clearly post them in this talk page so I can try to address them, and not just simply delete whole sections of the article. nicholasweed (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policy on sourcing. Please see: Wikipedia:V. The thing is that if it's not properly sourced, policy dictates that it can (and should) be deleted. Since I have little tolerance for the propagation of misinformation that floats so freely in many circles relating to subjects dealing with paganism, you will find that I strictly adhere to this policy and expect others to as well.

It seems that you are new to Wikipedia and have the desire to be constructive. I am definitely willing to work with you here. Let's work together. First of all, you are going to need to be specific and if you can't be specific enough, the information has to go, since lack of a source means it's probably not true. Thus, without the specific museum information, we can't just go along with some random Russian website's claims here and state that you think it's the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities or just point to some unnamed museum in the Netherlands. We need hard references to back it.

Anything relating to the Third Reich-era needs to be in the Third Reich section, which is where I've attempted to move some of the information around to. It's important to note how it was used during the Third Reich and what they've based it on as it's most likely quite different than the information we actually have on the lantern. If you are not already aware, you'd be surprised how much unfounded nonsense gets passed off on a regular basis in these circles, especially when the subject matter has any sort of relation to controversial political moments; hysteria and sensationalism often takes the place of logic and facts are often thrown to the wind. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I went back and worked on the article. I tried to make sources more clear and put information in the proper places. I don’t believe that lack of a “proper source” means all information is probably not true. I think if it is relevant to the subject it should still be included but with an expiation about the controversy. You deleted the section of the article that explained how the lamp was used on the four different holidays (Vernal Equinox, Mid Summer, Autumnal Equinox, and Mid Winter) that I gathered from the Russian web page. I added the information about how it is used during Mid Winter back in but placed it with the information from the 1936 Germanien magazine article because the same information was also in that article. I would like to put the rest of the information about the other holiday use back in with a statement that the Russian source isn’t a 100% conclusive but that the information seems to go along with the information from Germanien magazine. I also am going to attempt to email the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities to confirm the information about them having a Julleuchter. Yet again I ask that if you have any further problems with the article, please post them in the talk section before deleting anything so I can try to solve them.

nicholasweed (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Julleuchter Photos

Several of the photos on this page are created by myself and have been released to public domain. Many of the other photos have permission for use here in the Julleuchter Article. The photos with permission have it stated in the photo’s info. The rest have arguments of historical importance which meet with the non-free use guidelines.

I am going to work on the issues raised by Fastily to keep the images from being deleted. In the future I ask anyone that tries to edit the photos to please state any issues that they might have here on this talk page and they will be addressed. nicholasweed (talk) 21:53, 07 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is, you have no permission to use these pictures. There are not your work, they're taken from webpages. -- Linksnational (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. You on the other hand do not understand the historical non-free use guidelines. You are a new user that seems to have not worked on anything and are just here to delete as much as you can. You are doing vandelism.--Nicholasweed (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, he is removing images that do not meet the non-free content criteria. If you need to use one non-free image to illustrate something, fine. But having loads of copyrighted images in the article doesn't increase my understanding of the subject in any way. I see the SS soldiers using Julleuchters. I see the SS proof mark. I don't need to see any more of them. I get it. Yes, the guidelines say images of historical significance are an acceptable use of non-free images. But NFCC3a — which is policy and applies to all uses of non-free images — says that multiple non-free images are not to be used when one will suffice. You don't need and should not use more than one non-free image to illustrate a single point. Some of the images don't include any commentary whatsoever, and you can't tell what information they're supposed to convey unless you view the image description page. That's not acceptable. The images should be removed and replaced by free images if any are available. Reach Out to the Truth 02:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This entire article is a complete mess. Even after Linksnational's knife, a quick glance at what remains shows that it needs to be entirely rewritten to meet Wikipedia standards. Nicholasweed, if you are truly interested in the quality of this article, I suggest you start it over from scratch, and rewrite it per standards outlined at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. In the mean time, I can only recommend a bulldozer for this mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs input from a German speaker

I've tagged this article as an imperfect translation from German as it contains a number of confusing bits and the source I clicked was German. For example "So it may a only one scholarly message, but many legends and fairy tale and above all this Turmleuchter in the people use once in the Vorzeit on the towers of our ancestors have burned, of those have only told" doesn't make sense to me. Fairy tales should obviously be fairy tales and I've fixed that, but as for the rest of it, I don't know whether it should say "So there may only be one scholarly source," or something else entirely, and the rest of the sentence is harder for me to read. ϢereSpielChequers 23:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is unsalvageable. Whoever wrote this started out with a botched wiki article and then messed it up beyond recognition. "Khaynrikh Shild, Lamp of Yolya", who comes up with this stuff? If you think this is a "Wikipedia article", please have a long good look at WP:ENC. Please just cut this down to the basic facts found in the German page without adding stuff from dodgy Russian websites made even dodgier by complete failure to understand the Russian text.

The term "Julleuchter" is tied to Nazi-era Germanic occultism. No amount of archaeological evidence for earthenware candleholders is going to change this. The Russian "Хайнрих Шильд Cветильник Йоля" is just a random webzine translating the title "Julleuchter" in an article by one Heinrich Schild in the German magazine Militaria, Der Julleuchter der Porzellan-Manufaktur Allach (2000). Why anyone would consider citing the Russian page as a "reference" is a mystery.

The short summary of the topic is this: There was a 16th-century candleholder which was used as a template for the SS "Julleuchter". The Nazi designers did this sort of thing all the time, they took some random historical artefact and incorporated it into their ritual. This particular candleholder design then became a feature in the SS Julfest which was supposed to replace Christmas. The end. --dab (𒁳) 11:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Turmleuchter

this is much like Zierscheibe: these would be a little-known migration period costume detail if it hadn't been for the SS Wewelsburg mosaic.

Similarly, the Turmleuchter type of candle-holders would be an obscure topic, perhaps to be treated under Early modern earthenware in Southern Sweden or a similar title, if it hadn't been for the SS "Julleuchter" design based on a random example of such a candleholder.

There is the "Julleuchter" thing which attracts attention like all things nazi, and there is early modern ceramics of southern Sweden. Make up your mind what you want to discuss, and then work either on a "Julleuchter" article or on an early modern ceramics article. The suggestion that this is about ancient Germanic pagan Yule etc. is pure fakelore. It is not Wikipedia's fault if there are Neopagans or "Heathens" in the US who base their "religion" on google searches and machine translations of Russian webzines.

The innocent artefact at the core of this nonsense is a candleholder found in Veddinge, Viske, Halland, Sweden, kept in the Nordic Museum in Stockholm (inv. nr. 32.477). The 16th-century date was estimated in the 19th century, the museum now labels it 18th century. There is nothing medieval, let alone pagan, associated with this. It's early modern Swedish earthenware, not necessarily even "folklore". The Swedish Romantic nationalists singled it out, however, as displaying a "hagal" rune (the spoked window below the heart symbol), and of course like all things "runic" this caught the attention of the Germanic mysticists on the continent. Herman Wirth came across the Runa article and incorporated it in his "Ura Linda" publication. From there it entered SS occultism.

Now of course there are still occult Neonazi grouplets around, and I suppose they would replicate these items, and buy up venerated original SS specimens at militaria auctions. But It is beyond me how there can be "neopagan" individuals who are not into Nazism who attach any kind of relevance to any of this. If there are, it would be an instance of near-criminal gullibility and failure to pay attention to one's own chosen "tradition". But of course notability does not equal intelligence, and if there is any kind of Wikipedia notability attached to "Modern Julleuchters" in American Asatru, the people interested in discussing them are charged with presenting independent, third-party references attesting to their notability. There would then be three stages to this,

1. early modern Swedish ceramics
2. SS occultism
3. revivalist internet paganism in the USA

So far, we have not seen any WP:RS confirmation that the third item has any notability. Random google searches and google translation of Russian webzines reporting on German militaria articles do not count as WP:RS. --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julleuchter. 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/20130810101225/http://allach.ru/stati/izobretenie-traditsiy to http://www.allach.ru/stati/izobretenie-traditsiy

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) 18:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)