Talk:Radegast (god)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mythology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing [[::Radegast (god)|the article]], and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Original speculation?[edit]

The "Explanation" section of this entry appears to be based, not on original research, but on original speculation. Older sources aren't necessarily more accurate; see the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Moreover, citing possibilities but not supporting them via arguments or evidence is a meaningless exercise. And being able to explain some known circumstance via an original theory does *not* prove that theory is valid. History is full of known circumstances that can be explained via dozens or even hundreds of different explanations. For example, any papal election can be explained via the theory that the College of Cardinals is being telepathically manipulated by intelligent bees from Venus. Coming up with an explanation that's simple, elegant, coherent, and covers all the known data is no guarantee whatsoever that it isn't dead wrong. (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)TNH

"Dear Guest" or "Dear Ghost"?[edit]

I am not pretty sure about the association between "radegast" and "dear guest". My first impression is that "geist" in german means "spirit", which sounds like "ghost".
I have no idea about the word "rade" but in my opinion this sounds like: "dear spirit" --Amurdad (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think, but what reliable sources say. Since the claim in the article doesn't seem to be based on any sources, feel free to replace it if you find any source that backs your version. User<Svick>.Talk(); 13:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Then again, 'gast' is Dutch for 'guest'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It have association in Slavic languages, not german, Rad = he like, gast should be from gost = guest Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


Gast,geist, guest and the slavic gost (гост) have same roots and probably maned one and same thing in ancient times. It is connected with Gospod,( "Господ" from gost-guest + pati- father the exact latin etymology is Hostpis > Host) in all Slavic languages in Latin means "God", but this God is not the Jesus Christ rather an old poor man who appears in houses like a guest in late evenings and asks for bread or coach to sleep or some sort of food and then leaves in the morning leaving some good deeds to his host.( The conection with food or eating is probably conected with the same slavic root for feast, eating, *gostiti гощавка) Some pried for this guest to come and in Bulgaria the hospitality was a must when you can not ever return a stranger on your doorstep. In villages today the tradition to this Good guest is still alive and villagers meet some strangers coming to their village with bread and salt.

Dear God[edit]

Someone please fix the English in this article. pschemp | talk 20:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Alleged etymology[edit]

Ardagast is considered to be mistranslation or fading error or mistyping over the centuries of the words Ragbiga (Ragbina, Ranbona) , Kanbinah, Ragbib, Adzîgher (Adzhigardak?) from the book of genesis for the nations the similarities in all these words are obvious with the person or tribe which is considered to be a Bulgarian/Hunni /Ungar tribe Aldigar/Altsek — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

I consider Chupito's recent restoration of a text removed from the article in 2011 an act of vandalism but instead of reverting, I used the templates so that other may voice their opinions. In any case, the article needs proper references.WikiHannibal (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Here I copy Chupito's point of view form both my and his talk page so that disussion pertaining to this article can be accessible for future editors:

  • Reverting to a more speculative version appears to you as constructive? Basic difference between those two is that in the old one, which I'm promoting, is emphasized very speculative nature of Radegast as a deity. New version is full of pseudo mystical fables. Could we agree on, that the possibility that Adam of Bremen made a mistake is very high? Chupito (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • My edits are constructive. What exactly is wrong with my version? Lack of references? Yes, but when you compare it to the other version, it is not worse. Chupito (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
To sum up the problem, in September 2014 Chupito restored an old version of this article that was removed in 2011. In 2014 his verison was reverted by two other editors, while Chupito kept restoring it (with some changes). Only then I started reverting it bcs of vandalism. Both versions lack references, but Chupito's version includes a lot of (his own?) speculation, ("Depending on a source cited, one may argue", "Following the logic of Ockham's razor, the simplest explanation would be that", "Thus, the conclusion could be that Radegast was", etc.), mistaking a wikipedia article with a short essay, promoting a version to be clearly labeled OR and NPOV, as two other editors agreed - see the history of the article. Chupito has been active on the Czech wiki since 2008 and edited various articles, including the Czech version of Radegast where this problem originated, so he is no newbie and from my point of view he's vandalizing the article.
To Chupito: Please read at least Wikipedia:No original research. In the article, don't "argue", "follow the logic" and "conclude". Argue here if need be, follow sources, and let also other editors conclude what the better version of the article is. There are secondary academical sources about Radegast, please use them if you want to improve the article. In that case, please do not use the old version you want to restore, and choose your sources in a balanced way so that they do not promote only your point of view. Thank you. --WikiHannibal (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

List of sources[edit]

Since there seems to be relatively few sources available, I have decided to list them here. Feel free to edit and add to the list. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  • [1] Attila, king of the Huns. 1838 By William Herbert
Thanks for taking interest in the topic. However, the source below does not seem reliable (early 19th century poem by William Herbert (botanist) who also wrote the historical explanation to it using an indiscriminate arry of sources). I think even Chupito would not want it to be used as a source. (Neither do I.) That saying, I would really welcome you or anyone listing other sources (more contemporary, scientific/scholarly) here, and I will look into all of them (if noone else does). Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
(Sorry, I moved your reply for better formatting) The problem with this article subject is that there are hardly any sources available. If very few sources are available, I would use the ones available while mentioning the background of the author as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • [2] The West of England Journal of Science and Literature, Volume 1.
This one seems a bit better. But still quite old. I am hardly able to find contemporary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, it is a little better, quotes could be used (if quoted correctly - and who knows?), but still... Jaan Puhvel's Comparative Mythology mentions Radegast somewhere but as I said I do not have time to look for it. I've been interested in Slavic mythology some 10 years ago during my studies, and I remember how complicated it was to untangle. Sources are mostly in German, Russian, and other Slavic languages, and authors freqeuntly had other agenda in mind (nationalistic, panslavic etc.) Plus modern "stories" about the gods, etc. , also present in the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
This source, perhaps in with quotations from the previous one, can be used in footnotes to the 2nd paragraph of History, and expand it. Such sourced info can then be summarized in the lead. For this paragraph, there is are sources in Rethra (Schmidt) provided by Volunteer Marek (AGF), and in general this part of the problem is better described and sourced in that article. When I have time, I'll try to do that. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)