This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion
The contents of the Ēosturmōnaþ page were merged into Ēostre on May 21, 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
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. Remsense00:46, 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]
I'm also unsure what they mean. What is the basis for giving different OE spellings based on dialect? They are not marked as a reconstructed terms, but neither do they match the month names assigned to the same dialects. Srnec (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asterisk means a textually-unattested form. The endings which it would have as a free-standing word are not necessarily the same as it would have when part of a compound. In the lead section, maybe better just to say that the forms of the word are reconstructed based on the month-names in several languages and dialects, without giving both sets of forms... AnonMoos (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the asterisk means. The dialectal forms are unmarked, but if the goddess is only directly attested in Bede, where do they come from? If the month names, then they are unattested as such and need asterisks. Further, I understand that one cannot just lop of "-month" to get the goddess's name in the various dialects, but the current lead implies that Northumbrian Ēostur- yields Ēastro while West Saxon Ēaster- yields Ēostre. Is that correct? Srnec (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]