Talk:Slavic water spirits

Назва / Article's name

Знов поляки ковдру перетягують. Чому стаття має називатися бог/жинка, коли в більшості мов це навки.--Юе Артеміс (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Damn Polish lobby! Why does this article must be named Boginka, while the most of peoples calls it Nav_ka/ie (Slovenian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian)?--Юе Артеміс (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope about Poles is just a friendly joke. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is one big piece of original research. Nobody in right mind would call rusalka a "little goddess". The article must be "de-merged". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The Navka, Rusalka and Boginka are clearly related, as all of them have similar mythological themes and are classified as spirits of water. So, if "Boginka" is not the most common term, I suggest to rename the article to a generic "Slavic water spirits".--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Slavic water spirits is a good idea. However the separate articles must be kept, because the three are from different cultures and have different features. There is a common blunder that there exists a monolithic "Slavic culture", popularized by Panslavists, BTW another poor article, which fails to discuss efforts of Russia (in all its 3 forms: empire, USSR & republic) to dominate Panslavism, which only resulted in giving the idea bad reputation. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with UeArtemis's point that "Boginka", which is apparently a Polish-Ukranian term, should not be used as the article name for a pan-Slavic water nymph article. Slavic water spirits would solve the neutrality issue. It could be a "general survey" type article that briefly covers various Slavic water nymphs and interrelationships, similar to Slavic dragon I have worked on.--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Having thought about this, I don't think creating a Slavic water spirits is merited. I don't think Eckhardt Etheling really made the case that all of these entities should be characterized as a water spirits. I don't think beings that are in usual instances are thought of more as wood nymphs (samodiva) or ghosts (rusalka) or fairies that leave changelings (boginka) should be categorized as "water spirits". This is POV. So the name that would make sense would be Slavic spirits maybe. But there is already a Deities of Slavic religion where Eckhardt has listed all of these, and he might as well partition more "bona fide" deities vs. "spirits" there, and the content would be the same. So Slavic spirits can be just a redirect to Deities of Slavic religion#spirits --Kiyoweap (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Deities of Slavic religion. Now this article is not about Slavic gods. This article is about the gods of modern Slavic neo-paganism. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal Rusalka → Slavic water spirits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for merger. Rusalka is considered an independent subject. However, the main article about it remains badly written.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

---

I propose that Rusalka be merged into Slavic water spirits. The content of the Rusalka article was already merged here and cleaned up of unsourced elements and parts not supported by the given sources, and the Slavic water spirits article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Rusalka will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

See Rusalia a festival in memory of the dead of the ancient Slavs. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nominator.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. (1) "Rusalka" is an independent subject. Poor state of the article is not a reason for merging; it should be expanded instead. (2) There is no evidence provided that rusalka isd called "boginka"; niether there is evidence that "boginka" is a commonly accepted generic name across cultures. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose merge to Slavic water spirits, since "not all rusalki..linked with death from water". (1) They may be souls of unbaptized children; sometimes visualized as doll-people.(Ivantis)[1]. (2) According to Zelenin, which Ivantis cites "the most essential aspect was.. associtation with the unclean dead", not association with water.--Kiyoweap (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Rusalka is an independent subject. The spirits known by this term represented the souls of girls who had died unnatural tragic or premature deaths, particularly unchristened babies. Not a water spirit. Rusalka is a the harmful spirit that appears in the summer in the grass field, in the forest, near the water. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Rusalki were not always linked with water, plus they are one of the larger and more well-known themes in the otherwise fairly obscure mythology of the polytheistic Slavs. If anything, it would seem more reasonable to include a section in the Rusalka article on similar creatures in the Slavonic mythologies. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal Mavka → Slavic water spirits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus, for various reasons, manly because Mavka is not a water spirit. The article Mavka remains in bad state.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

---

I propose that Mavka be merged into Slavic water spirits. The content of the Mavka article was already merged here and cleaned up of unsourced elements and parts not supported by the given sources, and the Slavic water spirits article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Mavka will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Moreover, Mavka is just a dialectal variation of Navka or Navia, which is already treated in the Boginka article. Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nominator.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. (1) "Mavka" is an independent subject. Poor state of the article is not a reason for merging; it should be expanded instead. (2) There is no evidence provided that mavka is called "boginka"; neither there is evidence that "boginka" is a commonly accepted generic name across cultures. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Staszek Lem--Piznajko (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Piznajko, note that the subject of the article are Slavic water spirits and not the specific name "Boginka". Mavka are a variant of the Slavic water spirits, and a dialectal variation of Nav (which is treated by yet another article).--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Same as above. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: I think about half of Mavka is really about Kostroma (cf. [2]) and should be merged there, and the remaining half is WP:CFORK that should be combined with Nav (Slavic folklore). --Kiyoweap (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal Nav (Slavic folklore) → Slavic water spirits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus. Not a water spirit, but a WP:FORK of Mavka. Personification of the "Nav" world of the dead. Ambiguous title.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

---

I propose that Nav (Slavic folklore) be merged into Slavic water spirits. The content of the Nav article was already merged here and cleaned up of unsourced elements and parts not supported by the given sources, and the Slavic water spirits article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Nav will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Nav (Slavic folklore):

• Drekavac (nav of the southern Slavs)
• Kikimora (harmful domestic female spirit)
• Mavka (evil spirits, rusalkas)
• Rusalka (the harmful spirit that appears in the summer in the grass field, in the forest, near the water)
• Samovila (a female spirit inhabiting the mountains and owning wells and lakes)
• Upyr (vampire) --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nominator.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Absolutely not a water spirit. And the "Nav" article is garbage, to be severely trimmed. AFAIK the term is neopaganic bullshit coming from Book of Veles forgery and popularized since. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nav is a phrase used to denote the souls of the dead in Slavic mythology. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: As stated before, it's not a water spirit, and if you want to improve a barebones article then go ahead but to merge quite irrelevant stuff together is not the way to go. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: Half of Nav (Slavic folklore) is the concept of Nav (Slavic underworld) or Nav (place), the other half, about the spirit or soul is WP:CFORK with Mavka to reiterate from above. --Kiyoweap (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Samodiva (mythology)

Samodiva (mythology) should have remained separate and not merged without adequate discussion to form consensus. This too needs to be "de-merged".

Samodiva is frequently described as "wood nymph", and it indicates that the aquatic nature of it is not always stressed.

I should also point out that samodiva has been described with serpentlike body and is sometimes conflated with the zmei, or "good dragon" in Bulgarian folklore, especially in songs about fairy brides. I also have found an instance of conflation the "evil dragon" lamia (St. George vs. lamia being substituted with the samodiva), althought that is just variant text and perhaps only an anomaly. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Kiyoweap: They are always associated with water but they can live in waters, woods, mountains, steppes or skies. I suggest to read Machal (1916)'s section about Slavic water spirits (the source is listed in the article).--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You would have to make a better the case than "read Machal" to show that they are considered to be always closely associated with water. I dont think this Czech writer Machal is representative. It should be quite obvious you have to come up with sources that are more attuned to Bulgarian studies in order to be convincing. --Kiyoweap (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (Merger proposal Samodiva (mythology) → Slavic water spirits). See sources. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• (Samodiva) Samovila: Slavic goddess of woodlands. Samovila rules the forest and protects the animals that live within woodlands. She causes great harm to anyone who abuses her creatures. A shapeshifter, she can transform herself into any animal, and she teaches the skill to the devoted and faithful. Her knowledge of plants and herb medicine makes Samovila a favorite among kitchen Witches. — The Goddess Guide: Exploring the Attributes and Correspondences of the Divine Feminine

• (Samodiva) Vila. A female being peculiar to Serbian mythology is the Vila, who partakes of the characteristics of both the Fairy and the Elf. These Vilas, represented as Mountain Nymphs, live in the forests on the hills, and love singing and dancing. They are young and beautiful, with long flowing hair, and are usually clad in white. They often mount up into the air, from whence they discharge fatal arrows at men, but they injure none except those who intrude on their revels. — The Forest in Folklore and Mythology, p. 109

• Vila. Variations: Veela, Vilia, Vilya, Vilishkis, Vily, Willi In Serbian folklore, the vilas were the beautiful and young mountain NYMPHS clad in white; their voice was said to resemble the call of the woodpecker and was a warning of some mountain catastrophe, such as an avalanche. Vilas were known to carry off children whose mothers had, in a fit of anger, condemned them to the Devil or Hell. The vilas were said to injure those who interrupt their revelries as they dance beneath ... — Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids in Myth, Legend and Folklore

• Variations: RUSALKA, Samovily, Vily There is a Slavic myth that when a person is cursed by God or a child dies unbaptized, he will return as a type of vampiric fay known as a vila. When it returns, it will look like a beautiful little girl with long HAIR. Living in clouds, meadows, ponds, and trees, the vila, a very capable combatant, will attack lone travelers. — Encyclopedia of Vampire Mythology, p. 145

  --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"Variations: Rusalka"... It seems clear that we are having to do with the same category of nymphs which can be distinguished into various groups under different names. So, what is the meaning to keep completely unsourced and badly written standalone articles like "Rusalka"?--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Dubiouis source about Rusalka

The article cites the article of Mykola Mushynka from "Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine", which is a dubious source. With the rise of nationalism in Ukraine thEre are quite a few "professors" popped up who laborously rewrite the old history of Ukraine, with claims bordering on nonsense. I do not know about this one, but his statement "first mention of Rosalia on Ukrainian territory is in the Primary Chronicle under 1067" is an easily verifiable falsification: there is no mention of Rosalia in Pr Chr under 1067. That said, I do not contest derivation of the term 'rusalka' from Rosalia, but this theory originates in 19th century and there are far better sources for that. I just have no time right now. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Machal 1916 at p. 254 says that the name derives from Rusalye (i.e. Rosalia, p. 311).--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal Boginki → Slavic water spirits

Boginka (multiple face — boginki)

Bojinka — a female demonic character known in the Lesser Poland, South of Mazovia, in the areas of Polish-Ukrainian and Polish-Slovak borderland. The main functions of the goddess-the persecution of mothers and pregnant women, abduction and substitution of children.

• Source. O. Sannikova, V. Usacheva (1995). N. I. Tolstoy (ed.). Slavyanskie drevnosti. Etnolingvisticheskiy slovar Славянские древности: Этнолингвистический словарь [Slavic antiquity. Ethnolinguistic dictionary] (in Russian). Vol. 1. The Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya. pp. 215–217. ISBN 5-7133-0704-2. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Mathieu-Colas 2017 for Bogunki gives: "'petites déesses' qui attirent les imprudents dans les profondeurs des eaux (cf. les roussalki)". Thus they are the same as the Rusalky.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    • No he does not say they are the same. Learn French :-) Also, obviously Mathieu-Colas describes the subject in his dictionary only superficially. There are native sources which known better. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Source:

1. STEJSKAL, Martin. Labyrintem tajemna. Praha: Paseka, 1991. ISBN 80-85192-08-X. S. 31. (in Czech)
2. BOHYNKA (in Slovak)
3. Kempiński A., Encyklopedia mitologii ludów indoeuropejskich, Iskry 2001. ​ISBN 83-207-1629-2​ (in Polish)
4. Podgórscy B. i A., Wielka Księga Demonów Polskich - leksykon i antologia demonologii ludowej, Wydawnictwo KOS, Katowice 2005. ​ISBN 83-89375-40-0​ (in Polish) --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• An example of personification of a product of human subconsciousness was the figure of the boginka, which only women in labour were supposed to see. This kind of vision was surely caused by puerperal fever, milk-fever shock or an illness, which was not associated. It is strange that the hoginka should be seen only by the lying-in woman and not by her husband, present in the same room. Secondly, the boginka allegedly appeared only in the evening or at night, hence at the time when all kinds of illnesses intensified; finally its influence was directed only towards the mother and her child and not to other members of the family. Ascribed to the boginka was also stealing or exchanging a human child for a changeling (odmieniec), or even causing its death from frustrating vengeance. — Ethnologia Polona, p. 96

• With the exception of this means of getting the real child back (which shows that the boginka is still very much a mythological pagan being), the other means are mainly magical and the same as against the devil — the sign of the cross, Christian amulets, exorcisms. The priest can free the woman from the hands of the boginka, but he must wear all his ceremonial clothes turned wrong side out. — THE POLISH PEASANT IN EUROPE AND AMERICA , p. 238

• BOHYNKA (boginka, divá žena), demonic entity of anthropomorphic appearance, forest spirit with attributes of natural demon. In the obsessions of Orava, Spiš, and especially Zamagurí, the goddess was describing himself as an expressive evil, a ugly creature of a tall, poor figure, not overwhelmed by the hair, with large breasts that swoop over his shoulder. She had long, strapped hair stretching out on her heels and various body errors (she was barking, shrieking). She had grown nervous in her clothes, and she was naked. It inhabited rock and forest holes, hillsides and marshlands. The environment in which the goddess lived and the characterization of its appearance corresponded to the characters represented in the imagination of the Slavs by the demons of nature (in Slovakia known Runa, grgalica, poludnica). In relation to humans, the goddess appeared to be a clearly damaging being, threatening especially the six-eyed. They stole and exchanged their healthy children for their unborn goddesses (transform) that did not grow up, did not speak, and were very careful. — Bohinka. Center for Traditional Folk Culture. (in Slovak)

  --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. See sources. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for merging this article with "Supernatural beings in Slavic religion" and changing the general title to "Slavic nature spirits"

« Branched off of #Назва / Article's name »
Kiyoweap, you are right, the article should be renamed "Slavic spirits", since it includes Vila and potentially other non-water nymphs. However, "Slavic spirits" is too generic, so: I propose to merge this article in "Supernatural beings in Slavic religion", so it would improve the quality of the latter and would start the latter's rewriting. The title of the latter should also be changed to "Slavic nature spirits", since "supernaturals" is odd, given that most of these spirits are not over-nature at all, and they are rather are in-nature.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and help improving this and the other articles like you did with "Slavic dragon"? They are all in a disgraceful and confused state.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: Supernatural beings in Slavic religion was originally called "Slavic fairies" created by user:Joy who merged several beings (Polish wila [wilła], Serbian vila, and Russian rusalka, Bulgarian samovila) way back in 2004. Only certain writers lump rusalka together, so I think it should have remained separate, leaving the article to be either renamed something like vila (fairy) , or Samodiva (mythology), with redirects to vila⇔samodiva, which is the situation in other lang wikis (ru:Вила: · sr:Вила (митологија) · bg:Самодива).

The use of the term "fairy" here can be justified by certain sources which say vila and samovila are seen as a parallel to Greek neraides (el:Νεράιδες) or "fairy",[3][4]. However, the article name got changed to Supernatural beings in Slavic folklore, which invited almost anything to be added into the article. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: To clarify, my view is that in-depth content on vila within Supernatural beings in Slavic religion should be merged with Samodiva (mythology). Then the remainder can be and the WP:CFORK that Eckhardt created could be merged in whatever way that everyone thinks appropriate.--Kiyoweap (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)