Talk: Woden

AT2Howell seem to prefer edit wars today rather than expressing himself on talk pages.

I added a link because Woden in real-life is noted as a similar figure to Odin but they are separated between two cultures' mythologies -- much like Zeus and Jupiter they have the same history, but exist in two different cycles of mythology as separate characters.

Now, we have to determine what we are describing here -- are we describing the fictional character of myth, or are we describing the character in a Star Trek story. Since the character in Star Trek is both Zeus and Woden, why is this article even separate? -- Captain MKB 17:21, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Combine them. Within the Star Trek universe, they are the same person. Why are you creating links to non-existant articles rather than combining them? – AT2Howell 17:23, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

On the assumption that the articles are describing not the Being encountered in Star Trek, but describing the mythological characters that exist in story, as opposed to the real person Zeus/Woden.

To that end, Zeus is the father god figure of the Greek, Jupiter is the similar figure to the Romans, Woden is a similar Anglo-Saxon myth and Odin is the Norse representation. While similar, they all derive from different sources and are described separately, for example, on Wikipedia. -- Captain MKB 17:34, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

And that works well for wikipedia. This is Star Trek. In Star Trek, they are all the same person, and he exists. What is this wiki about again? – AT2Howell 17:35, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant rhetoric, AT2Howell -- please respond to my comments.

In Star Trek, there is a real Being and there are also the fictional characters Humans created based on him. The fictional characters still exist in the stories of Humans within the Star Trek universe. We even have a category for fictional characters that exist in story within the Star Trek universe. This is well within the scope of the wiki. -- Captain MKB 17:42, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Whether intentional or not, in the star trek universe, when one references woden, he is referencing the Being. How are you not getting this? Normaly you are the one saying "Don't make an obama link, there's no need because we don't know if the obama complex was named for him or some other obama." This one is pretty clear. Star Trek had refeneces to these 'gods'. Star Trek then told us these gods were all really one person and he existed. Case closed, move on, stop making useless links. God, I'm starting to sound like you. – AT2Howell 17:48, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are resorting to rhetoric criticizing and personally attacking my past actions. I'd ask that you discuss the matter at hand rather than dominating the topic with your problems with me personally. Let's grow up, stop being snide and snarky, stop baiting me.

You yourself created this article, and you were not writing about the Being Zeus who was also known as Woden. You wrote the article about a mytho-fictional figure who Zeus claimed to be. These are two different things and I was just trying to continue the articles based on the precedent you set by writing "The Being called Zeus claimed to also be Woden." -- Captain MKB 17:54, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Well I think we should take his word for it. Were you there? Didn' think so. Why is it that every little edit I make sets you off? Have you nothing better to do? It's like you troll around behind me just to get your kicks. Every edit isn't a war. Every once in a while declare peace. – AT2Howell 17:58, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

If we take his word for it we still have two articles -- one for the "real" Woden who was actually Zeus, and another about the mytho-fictional Woden who is storied in the history of the Anglo Saxon culture. Two separate topics, two articles, a variety of links.

And I'm discussing the subject of the articles. You're the one who is dragging up your problems with my link writing, even citing examples of a long-forgotten Obama link -- and avoiding the topic at hand. If you want to discuss an edit to the Obama station, you're on the wrong talk page pal. I was asking about Woden. -- Captain MKB

In this case, the myth is the man. And do you know what do you when the man becomes the legend? You print the legend. So, do up an article on the myth, add this fellow at the bottom, and all the links still will be going to the same guy. Are there multiple Abe Lincoln articles? One for the man, one for the myth, one for the reproduction, and one for the alt universe guy? I think not. – AT2Howell 18:23, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Very poetic, but I think I'm just looking for a clearer resolution to the actual substance of this article than you ar currently able to provide.

Since you seem very much more preoccupied with your fixation on me in your commentaries about my personal actions, maybe we should wait until someone else is willing to actually narrow the discussion down to the article "Woden" before we make changes to the article itself. In light of the personal attacks you've made against me here, I think you'll understand my reasons for wanting help in this. -- Captain MKB 18:29, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Dude, if a constant defense is the same as attacking, okay. If you could write the article and not omit the parts you don't like, go for it. You do good work and lots of it. The problem here is that you think every little edit is a slight against you. You blow up over EVERYTHING. Take a chill pill, let's move on to a better tomorrow. – AT2Howell 18:47, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

If I'm following this correctly we seem to be arguing about two systems of organisation. Both have their merits, so let's compare to other articles:

• Flint has had many different identities over time, his article refers to them all, but also links to them all so that the separate and specific histories of those identities, both taking as fact they were actually Flint, and their wider mythology, can be chronicled.
• Kahless the Unforgettable has his true life story and one mythical tale. So because that's a rather more simple situation we keep it all on one page.

From what I can gather from the articles in question here we are dealing with a more Flint-like situation, so should have multiple articles, covering the reality and the mythology (with a certain amount of overlap explaining how one relates to the other). Or did I miss what the argument was about entirely? --8of5 18:48, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Right on the button. On one hand we have three myths. On the other, we have a guy who was all three myths. Apart, there isn't much information. But put them under one banner, and you've got an article. – AT2Howell 18:54, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Well no, what you're missing is the man and the myth are different things. The man was the actual person who took part in history. The myth, based upon that man, has wider cultural significance, and references to it might not always be made in the context of knowing the man is the myth. When one refers to Kahless one is referring only to Kahless. When one is referring to William Shakespeare they might be refering to Flint, or they might be referring the man known to history only as Shakespeare. We all know Baroner is in fact Captain Kirk, but Baroner also has a significance and identity apart from Kirk. --8of5 19:01, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

With Kahless, you have many to choose from. There is the clone, the original, the popular myth, the version in the novel (which I believe they decided 'might' have been accurate), etc. But all these versions speak of the same man. I'm surprised Shakespeare doesn't redirect to Flint. If Trek has decided he was Shakespeare, without knowing it, everyone in Trek is referencing Flint. I give up on this one. If you think it can stand alone as four articles, go for it. I think there is only enough references and story to fill one article. We're combining loads of articles into 'super' articles like 'clothing' and 'language', but breaking this little one into smaller bits. I don't know which trend to follow. – AT2Howell 19:18, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I think the myth is part of the man. Myths that result from a real person's life are part of that person's legacy, no different from any other part. Jesus is similar to Woden: he was a real person around whom myths developed over time. (I think we can all agree to that much, even if some think the myths are fewer and some more.) Jesus Christ discusses both man and myth in one article; the myth is treated appropriately - as the legacy of the man.

I don't think that mythical interpretations of a person are different from other forms of fiction, remembrance, or recreation, unless a recreation creates a new, conscious person - like Kahless, son of Kahless. Separating myth from popular memory is difficult. Did a mythical George Washington fell a cherry tree? Or is a myth about chopping down a cherry tree associated with the real George Washington? Did a mythical Picard and a real Picard coexist until the real Picard was shot by an arrow and proved mortal? The line is hard to draw. Ultimately, I don't think that myths about real people are not categorically different from smaller misconceptions, only quantitatively.

I also don't think that Flint is relevant to this discussion. Requiem for Methuselah only established that he claimed to have been Shakespeare, not that he was. --Archimedean 22:30, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

I've not read the novel this page cited, but the page itself only says that Zeus claims to be Woden, how is that different from Flint??

And my point with Flint is Kahless is Kahless (man or myth), Jesus is Jesus (man or myth), Flint, is dozens of people, many men and myths, and so it seems is Zeus. --8of5 23:14, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

As much as we wax poetic about "men and their myths" there is the difference in these cases of Flint and Zeus where these became persona and aliases to them. Kahless and Jesus didn't change into different people by some transition, they lived their lives and then were recorded in story afterwards. Flint one day changed clothes and became Leonardo, then on another occasion he changed his name to Brahms and then lived out that life. As with Zeus who was encountered by different peoples who had different names for him. -- Captain MKB 03:11, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Woden's claims, like Flint's, are suspect, but Mark McHenry, who I think is a reliable source, also claimed that Woden was the being who the myths of Odin/Woden , Takami-Mubusi, Amun-Re, and Zeus were based on. Both of those gods are thought to have been derived from Dyeus, the chief god of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Zeus developed directly from Dyeus, after the Greeks became separated from the rest of the former Proto-Indo-Europe; and Odin developed when some features of the Proto-Germanic chief god, Tiwaz, later Tyr, became confused with Wodenaz, the Proto-Germanic version of a previously minor figure in Proto-Indo-European myth. I think Takami-Musubi is now thought to be related to the Indo-European gods (through India, then China). And the ancient Greeks were certain that Amun-Re was Zeus.

Unless I misunderstood my religion classes, similar separation has occurred with Jesus. The Talmudic Yeshua, a practitioner of magic conceived via infidelity, is different from the Islamic Isa, a prophet and pious non-divine man immaculately conceived by Allah, who in turn is different from the Christian Jesus, a divine aspect of Yahweh/Jehovah (and of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox and Catholic traditions). But all of them are derived from the historical Jesus. --Archimedean 17:58, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Archimedean on this one. – AT2Howell 14:05, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't see anything in his comments about a direction to take the article(s), so that's not really either of you contributing much to the topic of this page. The discussion is how to treat these links, and even though Archimedean has addressed some rather obscure points of real-life history, i don't see a conclusion on how to treat the links -- but 8of5 and myself have addressed these points and I feel 8of5 has a good grasp of the situation for dictating our wiki's treatment of the matter in accordance with pre-existing parallels like Flint. -- Captain MKB 14:25, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't even care anymore. This is an incredibly minor thing, I had a thought about an edit, you had a different thought. Do whatever you want, dude. While I have you, check out Sonnet from the Vulcan: Omicron Ceti Three. It is another short poem that caped off a collection of short stories. You should do to it what you did to Soliloquy. – AT2Howell 14:33, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reading something that isn't there, but I think Archimedean's argument was that the articles for Woden, Zeus, Takami-Mubusi, and Amun-Re (are those all of Woden's personas?) should be combined. I agree; the Woden situation seems to be to be more akin to the differing interpretations of Jesus than to the many lives of Flint. --Columbia clipper 05:52, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that, he clearly assumed different personae as he encountered different "flocks" -- one embodiment would stop before the next began -- just as Flint would assume his new identities as his lifetimes stretched on, one became the other, distinct from the last. -- Captain MKB 06:03, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

What Mike said. --8of5 11:13, October 13, 2010 (UTC)