Talk:Ēostre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brilliance[edit]

Brilliant! --Yak 13:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Correction about American Gods[edit]

The series is a book adaptation, and Eostre is already in the original book. It should be edited to refer to the book first, otherwise it's a misleading information.Monteparnas (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is fake[edit]

This article as it currently is reads like neopagan propaganda, full of stuff with no actual connection to Eostre (who is known solely from Bede, writing in Latin, so the macrons are fake), based on "sounds like." It's been faked, essentially. Can someone purge all the crap please? The Matronae Austriahennae - a triad of mother goddesses - does not mention Eostre, and obviously one goddess is not three. It's right to report scholarly speculation. It's not right to present it as fact. Demonteddybear100 (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cam you humor me and cite some specific passages you think shouldn't been in the article. Saying the article's been faked is pretty inane--there's multiple citations to reliable sources in most paragraphs. Remsense 00:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Written Old English didn't have macrons -- it had the "apex" (an acute accent looking mark) which could indicate long vowels, but was not too commonly used. However, if a form has [eu] in Proto-Germanic, then by standard linguistic reconstructions it generally had a long "eo" in Old English, which is often transcribed with a macron in modern editions, without being "fake" at all. AnonMoos (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Based on 'sounds like'." -- And here we have a fine example of why school systems should provide at least a brief introduction to historical linguistics. That along with a unit on source literacy would go a long way.
Anyway, this article is extensively sourced. It even contains overviews of some of the most recent (peer-reviewed) discussion available on the topic. The reality is that very few scholars today find reason to argue that Bede invented the goddess. Today discussion (where it occurs at all) instead focuses on questions like whether to take seriously Shaw's 'localized goddess' proposal. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]