Talk:Lugus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .
This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
Lugus is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess. The project aims for no vandalism and no conflict. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale. | |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. | |
The "wind with words, words with logic,..." passage seems highly contrived to me, as if it was produced by very amateur research. I will be removing it in one week if it has no verification. ~~~~ 09:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Verification
In response to concerns regarding the validity of my assertions as to what concept is embodied by the Pan-Celtic deity Lugus-Lugh-Lleu-Llew, I have cited the prestigious sources of the contemporary Proto-lexica of the universities of Wales and Leiden, the links to whose lexica are gladly inserted in the body of the sub-heading on etymology.
- I have absolutely no issue surrounding such a source.
I humbly pray that you forgive me my previous oversights in this respect, for which oversights i am most contrite. I have also attempted to improve the coherence of the sub-heading. It will become apparent upon reading it that the semantics of the name of this deity are as multifaceted as the deity himself. Yours in good faith, User:GeoffMGleadall08:35, 30th June 2005 [GMT].
- I do, however, object to any original research which has been tacked on top of the etymology. I do not contest the etymology of the Proto-lexica, but I would like verification of the additional information to it, and evidence that it is not original research - i.e. that it is not you who is the source of the additional information.
- However, the current state, at this moment in time, of the article is not disputed. ~~~~ 30 June 2005 07:43 (UTC)
-
- But not the state it is in now ~~~~ 4 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
I'm going to look into the sources cited. I have no doubt that they identify the roots and their semantics, but I strongly suspect that the identification of the roots in question with the name of the god Lugus is original research and should not be here. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sourcing
"Lugus was a deity attested to by inscriptions in Gaul, Germany and Switzerland"
Which inscriptions? I know that a problem concerning *Lugus is the missing of iscriptions with this name from celtic countries (except two inscriptions with the plural form "Lugoves" from Cantabrians). The name itself, *Lugus/*Lugos, has been rebuilt by scholars from the name of city of Lugudunum (Lyon, in France), in relation with Irish god Lúgh too. So, the real name of "Gaul Mercurius" is unknown, and *Lugus is an ethimological hypothesis only. - Holger Danske (contributing as 84.222.135.183 on 31 August 2006)
- I whole-heartedly agree. Although this article reads fairly well as a synthesis and an essay, I think its tone is far too emphatic and self-assured for a serious encyclopedia. We must make clear both what we know and what we don't; concerning *Lugus there is plenty of the latter. (The Gaulish Mercury, however, is very well known by comparison.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Foreign parallels
What of Slavic Triglav? He is a triple god, consisting of (although this varies) Perun (which might be roughly equivalent to Taranis), Svarog (which, if the thesis that he is the grandfather of the Slavs is correct, might be the equivalent of Toutates), and Dazbog. - Zaebangad 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted and restored
Someone has deleted sourced text, which I have returned without further editing. Prtobably the same person deleted some references, including on-line references. I have returned these too. --Wetman (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC):
- You've restored some good stuff, but you've also restored some bad stuff that was deleted with good reason. As the "sourcing" section above says, Lugus is not directly attested, but is inferred from place-names, inscriptions that seem related, and insular medieval parallels, and the importance of Gaulish Mercury. The material you complain was deleted was largely not deleted, but reorganised (the opening paragraph was too detailed about the Iberian inscriptions, and not balanced enough, for an introduction, so an "inscriptions" section was created for that material) and the references were moved into footnotes as per the Wikipedia manual of style. It still needs work, but it doesn't need that opening data dump. --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Also, the claim that his name is attested as "Lugo" is a misreading of the e-Keltoi article. When it says "this god is mentioned in three inscriptions from Sober and Otero del Rey (Lugo)" it is saying that both places are in Lugo in Galicia, not that the inscriptions read "Lugo". --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Proto Indo-European" fraud
This "reconstruction" of supposed etymological roots of names and words is becoming the Achilles heel of Wikipedia. Do not get carried away with speculations that you cannot ascertain or prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These are not reconstructed roots. These are constructed, made up. The languages in question are not close enough to identify satisfactory common roots for most words. Stop perpetuating this fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
